Minutes of Hearings Committee

1. WELCOME

Chairman Scott welcomed everyone to the hearing today. She introduced the panel members and confirmed that the procedure for conducting the hearing today would comply with sections 83, 87 & 89 of the Local Government Act 2002.

1.1. The Chairman requested the panel agree to hear verbal submissions on the Proposed Kairakau Community Scheme.

K Rose/M Mohi

HC1/12CARRIED

1.2. The Chairman noted that under the terms of the Statement of Proposal the Hearing Panel was unable to hear the late submission received from Mr Terry Coxon.

1.3. The Panel briefly discussed some of the items raised within the submissions received and sought clarification from staff. The Chairman reminded the meeting that only items within the Statement of Proposal were able to be adopted by the Panel today for recommendation to Council.

1.4. It was noted that submission 9 received from Mrs S MacGregor was in support of and on behalf of submission 2 Mr F N White and as such should be regarded as one submission.

Kairakau Community Scheme verbal submissions

The Hearing Panel commenced hearing verbal submissions:

Submission 1. Mr Ted Bibby

Mr Bibby gave an oral presentation in support of the proposed scheme. He noted that he had spoken with several landowners who were also in support of the scheme at a rating level of $100.

Submission 10. Mr Clive Adams (Chairman of Kairakau Development Society)

Mr Adams thanked Mr Adye and Council Engineers for their assistance. He advised that the Kairakau Development Society (KDS) would like to see the levy set at $200 for the first 5 years then reviewed.

It was noted that KDS had been in agreement with HBRC in setting the $100 levy as stated in the Statement of Proposal and since that time had met and as a result of their desire to ensure that they would be in a good financial position when the next event occurred, now believes the new amount of $200 per annum would be more appropriate.

He advised the KDS contributed $1000 annually to the seawall maintenance account.

Submission 12. Mr Lester Gray (Kairakau Marine Club)

Mr Gray supported the KDS in their submission to have the annual levy set at $200 per annum. He advised that the Marine Club and KDS work closely together and have the knowledge to carry out any repairs that are required.

Submission 8. Mr Alan Limmer

Mr Limmer was also in support of the scheme. He provided the panel with some figures on funding levels and noted that if the levy was $200 per annum a more realistic financial buffer would be provided for the scheme to contribute towards repairs and maintenance.

Mr Limmer referred to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and sought clarification on point 3.

Chairman Scott reminded the submitters that this was not within the scope of this hearing however it was noted by Mr Adye that adjustments to the MOU could still be made.

Submission 7. Mr Terry Story

Mr Story spoke in support of the proposal. He advised he had spoken with six locals and five were happy with the $100 levy.

Mr Story raised the following questions – how would the scheme operate with a deficit and what does the $86 targeted rate cover.

The meeting broke for morning tea at 9.50 am and recommenced at 10.15 am.

	Submission 3. Ms Bridget Chrystall Mrs Chrystall was in support of the proposal however as stated in her submission the need to have the terms and conditions of the scheme made clear and to ensure that KDS had a mandate from the community in the role of liaison with HBRC. Mrs Chrystall advised the Panel that she had received copies of other Schemes maintained by HBRC as reference documents. She also requested that the community be given the opportunity to view the Memorandum of Understanding between KDS and HBRC. Submission 11. Mr Bruce Emerson Mr Emerson advised that he was also in support of the scheme. He also agreed for the need for clarity in the MOU so that the community was clear on who was responsible for what. The Chairman thanked all the submitters for attending and presenting their oral submissions.
3.	PRINCIPAL OFFICERS REPORT Mr Mike Adye highlighted key issues raised during the submission process and the development of the MOU and the following was noted: · The River Wall recently reinstated by KDS for $76K sits within land owned by Central Hawke’s Bay District Council. He advised that a design using gabion baskets was prepared by Opus to protect the Reserve area. The estimated cost of this option was over $500,000. The timber wall as proposed by KDS and approved by HBRC engineers. It was considerably cheaper but not as durable as the Opus design. · The level of funding for the scheme needed to be balanced with the risk and affordability in conjunction with community consultation and agreement. · It was agreed a better explanation was required within the MOU on how the Scheme funds operate in relation to deficits and interest. · Drains within the urban areas of Kairakau Beach Community can be included within the Scheme. It was agreed to get input from CHBDC. It was agreed to have a map prepared clearly showing scheme assets and boundaries. · The Scheme levy could not be increased to $200 without further community consultation. However it was noted that this could be included as a submission to Council’s next Annual Plan 2013/14. · Mr Adye believed the best way forward for the Scheme was to establish it now so that it is operational in the 2012/13 year. Any future additions or alterations to the Scheme could be incorporated with the proper community consultation. · Following a question on whether one off grants could be made by HBRC to this Scheme Mr Adye advised this would need to be agreed by Council. · Mr Adye advised that the assets within this proposed Scheme were the Sea wall and River wall. He noted that while most HBRC schemes have a level of insurance, the Kairakau assets are located on CHBDC land and are therefore not strictly owned by HBRC. This should be further discussed with CHBDC. · Mr Adye clarified that should an agreement be reached today a proposal to Council’s Long Term Plan process would proceed and the scheme could be in place by 1 July 2012. Hearing Meeting closed at 11.15 am.
	Chairman Scott provided clarification on the next stage of the hearing process: · Deliberations by the panel would now take place. · The public in attendance were welcome to stay · Focus of deliberations and any recommendations to Council would only be based on the Statement of Proposal. · Any amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding are not part of this Panel’s brief. A meeting recess of 10 minutes was held.
4.	The Panel then considered all the submissions received. Submission number: 1 Submitter: Mr Ted Bibby Mr Bibby is supportive of the proposal for the formation of the Kairakau Community Scheme. Resolution That the panel Accepts in full the submission of Mr Ted Bibby. Reasons: That the establishment of this Scheme and its objectives is the best means of meeting the expectations of the community. Submission number: 2 & 9 Submitter: Mr F N White & Mrs Sheron MacGregor The submitter is in support of the scheme. Resolution That the panel Accepts in part their submission. Reasons: That the establishment of this Scheme and its objectives is the best means of meeting the expectations of the community. Rejects in part their submission - specifically the planting of the cliff and the sewerage system. Reasons: That the submission is outside the scope of this hearing. Submission number: 3 Submitter: Ms Bridget Chrystall Ms Chrystall is in support of the scheme. Resolution That the panel Accepts in part Reasons: That the establishment of this Scheme and its objectives is the best means of meeting the expectations of the community. Rejects in part the submission – specifically the request for a more detailed proposal. Reasons: That the submission is outside the scope of this hearing. However acknowledges the Memorandum of Understanding should be finalised between HBRC and the Kairakau Community as a means to providing clarity. Submission number: 4 Submitter: Geoffrey & Dale Hornblow Mr and Mrs Hornblow support the proposal for the community scheme but would like to see it extended to all properties on the flats in the vicinity of Kairakau. Recommendation That the panel Accepts in part their submission. Reasons: That the establishment of this Scheme and its objectives is the best means of meeting the expectations of the community. Rejects in part the submission - specifically that the scheme be extended to other properties on the flats. Reasons: That the submission is outside the scope of this hearing (as per section 4.2 of Principal Officer’s Report). Submission number: 5 Submitter: Mrs P Duncan, Kairakau Development Society. The Kairakau Development Society supports in principal the proposal however suggests that the amount levied annually should be increased from $100 to $200 per year per ratepayer for a period of five (5) years and the amount then be reviewed. Resolution That the panel Accepts in part their submission. Reasons: That the establishment of this Scheme and its objectives is the best means of meeting the expectations of the community. Rejects in part their submission – specifically that the scheme be levied at a rate of $200 per annum for 5 years and the amount then be reviewed. Reasons: That the submission is outside the scope of this hearing. However acknowledges that this option could be proposed as part of HBRC’s 2013/14 Annual Plan and preferably following community consultation. Submission number: 6 Submitter: Barbara & Graham Riach Mr and Mrs Riach are in support of the proposed scheme but a. Suggest that the Māori Block 2c5b be included as part of the scheme and therefore liable for scheme rates b. That the amount to be levied be $200 per annum. Resolution That the panel Accepts in part their submission Reasons: That the establishment of this Scheme and its objectives is the best means of meeting the expectations of the community. Rejects in part their submission – specifically that the extent of the area to rated and the scheme be levied at a rate of $200 per annum and Reasons: That the submission is outside the scope of this hearing. However acknowledges that this option could be proposed as part of HBRC’s 2013/14 Annual Plan and preferably following community consultation. Submission number: 7 Submitter: CT & TG Story Mr and Mrs Story support the formation of the proposed scheme at an annual fee of $100 per property. Mr and Mrs Story raise some concerns about the possibility of another significant event occurring with a cost substantially exceeding the resources of the scheme. Recommendation That the panel Accepts in part their submission Reasons: That the establishment of this Scheme and its objectives is the best means of meeting the expectations of the community. Rejects in part their submission – specifically, 1. That should the scheme have a significant deficit as the result of another event and 2. That 41 (51%) property owners within the scheme must agree on the proposal and targeted rate. Reasons: That the submission is outside the scope of this hearing. 1. Any increase in the targeted rate as the result of an event would require community consultation, 2. Under section 83, 87 & 89 of Local Government Act there is no requirement for a majority of ratepayers agreeing to an issue to enable a council to make a decision on whether or not to proceed on that issue. Submission number: 8 Submitter: Mr Alan Limmer Mr Limmer is in support of the proposed scheme but believes that the annual levy should be $200 per year for the first five years and $100 thereafter. He also seeks that the funds are controlled to some extent by the Kairakau Development Society. Resolution That the panel Accepts in part their submission Reasons: That the establishment of this Scheme and its objectives is the best means of meeting the expectations of the community and acknowledges the Memorandum of Understanding with the Kairakau Development Society can be dealt with as part of this Panel’s recommendation to Council. Rejects in part their submission – specifically that the scheme be levied at a rate of $200 per annum for 5 years and $100 thereafter. Reasons: That the submission is outside the scope of this hearing. However acknowledges that this option could be proposed as part of HBRC’s 2013/14 Annual Plan and preferably following community consultation. Submission number: 9 (see submission 2 above for combined response) Submitter: Ms Sheron MacGregor on behalf of Mr F N White Submission number: 10 Submitter: Clive & June Adams Mr and Mrs Adams support the proposed Kairakau Community Scheme provided the funds are made available for and accessible to the committee of the Kairakau Development Society. Mr and Mrs Adams support an annual levy of $200 per property provided this proposal is a unanimous decision. Resolution That the panel Accepts in part their submission Reasons: That the establishment of this Scheme and its objectives is the best means of meeting the expectations of the community. Rejects in part their submission – specifically that the scheme be levied at a rate of $200 per annum. Reasons: That the submission is outside the scope of this hearing. However acknowledges that this option could be proposed as part of HBRC’s 2013/14 Annual Plan and preferably following community consultation. Submission number: 11 Submitter: Mr Bruce Emerson Mr Emerson is in principal in favour of the proposed scheme however seeks a response to a number of issues. Resolution That the panel Accepts in part their submission. Reasons: That the establishment of this Scheme and its objectives is the best means of meeting the expectations of the community. Also the Panel acknowledges the need for the boundary of the scheme to be clearly defined. Rejects in part their submission – specifically the collection of fees from freedom campers. Reasons: That the submission in part is outside the scope of this Hearing as per the Principal Officer’s Report. Submission number: 12 Submitter: Kairakau Marine Club (Lester Gray) The Kairakau Marine Club are in support of the proposed scheme however would like to see the annual levy set at $200 per annum for the first 5 years. Resolution That the panel Accepts in part their submission. Reasons: That the establishment of this Scheme and its objectives is the best means of meeting the expectations of the community and acknowledges the Memorandum of Understanding with the Kairakau Development Society can be dealt with as part of this Panel’s recommendation to Council. Rejects in part their submission – specifically that the scheme be levied at a rate of $200 per annum. Reasons: That the submission is outside the scope of this hearing. However acknowledges that this option could be proposed as part of HBRC’s 2013/14 Annual Plan and preferably following community consultation. Submission number: 13 Submitter: Mr John Brasell Resolution That the panel Rejects in part their submission – specifically that the scheme be levied on a land value basis. Reasons: That the submission in part is outside the scope of this Hearing. The Principal Officer’s Report Under its current policy HBRC will continue to subsidise scheme expenditure with a 10% contribution. Submission number: 14 Submitter: Mr Robert Webster Mr Webster believes that the proposed levy of $100 per property is too small and that the amount should be increased to $200 per year. Resolution That the panel Accepts in part their submission. Reasons: That the establishment of this Scheme and its objectives is the best means of meeting the expectations of the community. Rejects in part their submission – specifically that the scheme be levied at a rate of $200 per annum. Reasons: That the submission is outside the scope of this hearing. However acknowledges that this option could be proposed as part of HBRC’s 2013/14 Annual Plan and preferably following community consultation. Submission number: 15 Submitter: Robert & Judie Webster Mr and Mrs Webster support the proposal for the establishment of a Scheme however suggest that the annual levy is increased from the proposed $100 to $200 per year. Resolution That the panel Accepts in part their submission. Reasons: That the establishment of this Scheme and its objectives is the best means of meeting the expectations of the community. Rejects in part their submission – specifically that the scheme be levied at a rate of $200 per annum. Reasons: That the submission is outside the scope of this hearing. However acknowledges that this option could be proposed as part of HBRC’s 2013/14 Annual Plan and preferably following community consultation. Submission number: 16 Submitter: G J & JM Easton Mr and Mrs Easton support the proposal to establish a community scheme with a uniform annual charge of $100 per annum. Resolution That the panel Accepts in full the submission of Mr and Mrs Easton. Reasons: That the establishment of this Scheme and its objectives is the best means of meeting the expectations of the community. LATE SUBMISSION Submission number: 17 Submitter: Terry Coxon (for BJD Hutchison and TR and MJ Coxon) Resolution As stated in 1.2 above this late submission was not accepted.
5.	ADOPTION OF KAIRAKAU COMMUNITY SCHEME Chairman Scott reminded the panel of their purpose, which was to agree to establish or not to establish the Kairakau Community Scheme as outlined in the Statement of Proposal. Reference is given to sections 60, 83, 87 & 89 of the Local Government Act 2002.
HC2/12	Resolution: That the Hearings Panel recommend Council: 1. Agree to establish the scheme as set out in the Statement of Proposal. Mohi/Scott CARRIED
HC3/12	Resolution: 2. Instruct staff to proceed and negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding in conjunction with a Kairakau Community/Liaison Group which could be Kairakau Development Society (KDS). The present MOU to be amended to include: a. A map outlining defined Scheme areas of responsibility e.g. Drainage. b. How a major event is responded to. c. How interest on Scheme balances and or deficits are provided for. d. Staff be given delegated authority to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of HBRC. Rose/Mohi CARRIED
HC4/12	Resolution: 3. That a targeted rate of $100 + GST per annum be levied on all residential ratepayers within the Kairakau Beach Community commencing in the 2012/13 year 4. That the targeted rate set be reviewed as part of Council’s next Annual Plan Process. 5. That Staff will submit this proposal to Council’s Long Term Plan 2012-22. Gilbertson/Rose CARRIED

Closure:

The Chairman declared the meeting closed at 12.45 pm on Tuesday, 29 May 2011.

Signed as a true and correct record.

DATE: ................................................ CHAIRMAN: ...............................................