Minutes of Regional Council Meeting

1. Welcome/Prayer/Apologies/Notices

The Chairman welcomed all those present and then Mr Mike Mohi and Mr Tama Huata offered the prayer.

Councillor Rose advised that he would need to be excused early from the meeting today, and that he would be on leave from the end of today’s meeting up to and including 5 December 2012.

RC16/12 Resolution

1. That the application for leave of absence from Councillor Rose for the period 1 November to 5 December 2012 inclusive be accepted.

von Dadelszen/Wilson

CARRIED

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

Councillors Scott and Wilson declared a non-pecuniary interest, but no conflict, as Councillor representatives on the HBRIC Ltd Board of Directors.

Councillors McGregor and Gilbertson declared their interest as resource consent holders in the Tukituki catchment, which was not considered to be any greater than any other member of the public.

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Council Meetings Held on 19 & 26 September 2012

RC17/12

Resolutions

1. Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on Wednesday, 19 September 2012, a copy having been circulated prior to the meeting, were taken as read and confirmed as a true and accurate record.

Von Dadelszen/Rose

CARRIED

2. Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on Wednesday, 26 September 2012, a copy having been circulated prior to the meeting, were taken as read and confirmed as a true and accurate record.

Scott/von Dadelszen

CARRIED

4. Matters Arising From Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting Held on 19 September 2012

There were no matters arising from the minutes.

Matters Arising From Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting Held on 26 September 2012

In relation to the Actions item, it was queried whether it was the intention that Councillors’ attendance at all stakeholder and Committee meetings would be recorded and clarified that attendance at stakeholder meetings will be recorded however field trips will not be recorded.

Councillor Dick arrived at 9.07am

Action Items from Previous Regional Council Meetings

Mr Newman briefly updated Councillors on the status of the actions.

RC18/12

Resolution

1. That Council receives the report “Action Items from Previous Meetings”.

Rose/Gilbertson

CARRIED

Verbal Report from the Maori Committee Meeting Held 30 October 2012

Mike Mohi, Chairman, provided Councillors with an overview of the topics considered at the Committee meeting held yesterday, which mainly concerned the Tukituki Choices document.

RC19/12

Resolution

1. That the report be received.

Scott/McGregor

CARRIED

Call for General Business Items

Cr Wilson – Wheely Glassy

Cr Wilson – FAWC

Cr Remmerswaal – Business HB Report on Oil & Gas

Cr Remmerswaal – DoC relationship with Council

Cr Dick – East Coast Rail

Cr Gilbertson – Regional Council presence at CHB A&P Show

Affixing of Common Seal

1. The Common Seal of the Council has been affixed to the following documents and signed by the Chairman or Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive or a Group Manager.

		Seal No.	Date
1.1	Leasehold Land Sales 1.1.1 Lot 179 DP 11967 CT D1/78 - Transfer 1.1.2 Lot 7 DP 14227 CT G1/25 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase (discount 17.5% resides at property) - Transfer 1.1.3 Lot 156 DP 12611 CT D4/1095 - Transfer 1.1.4 Lot 108 DP 6598 CT C2/380 - Transfer 1.1.5 Lot 1 DP 13640 CT L2/665 - Transfer - 1.1.6 Lot 18 DP 7201 CT B4/928 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase (discount 17.5% resides at property) - Transfer 1.1.7 Lot 33 DP 14447 CT G2/660 - Transfer 1.1.8 Lot 95 DP 11780 CT M1/1213 - Transfer 1.1.9 Lot 1 DP 7422 CT C4/320 - Transfer 1.1.10 Lot 7 DP 14227 CT G1/25 - Transfer 1.1.11 Lot 61 DP 13897 CT F4/391 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase (discount 10% landlord) - Transfer 1.1.12 Lot 219 DP 10728 CT B4/1264 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase (discount 17.5% resides at property) - Transfer 1.1.13 Lot 2 DP 24417 CT V2/798 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase (discount 10% landlord) 1.1.14 Lot 427 DP 11483 CT C1/806 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase (discount 17.5% resides at property) - Transfer 1.1.15 Lot 18 DP 7872 CT 200/31 - Transfer 1.1.16 Lot 35 DP 921 CT B3/1154 - Agreement for Sale and Purchase (discount 17.5% resides at property) - Transfer	3575 3576 3587 3577 3578 3579 3580 3584 3581 3582 3585 3588 3589 3598 3590 3591 3592 3593 3597 3594 3595 3596	24 September 2012 24 September 2012 11 October 2012 25 September 2012 25 September 2012 26 September 2012 26 September 2012 8 October 2012 26 September 2012 28 September 2012 9 October 2012 11 October 2012 11 October 2012 24 October 2012 12 October 2012 12 October 2012 16 October 2012 16 October 2012 24 October 2012 17 October 2012 17 October 2012 17 October 2012
1.2	Adoption of Plan Change 3 (on Site Waste Water) Change 3 (On-site wastewater) to the Hawkes Bay Regional Resource Management Plan, approved by resolution of the Council on the 29^th August 2012.	3583	28 September 2012
1.3	Deed of Grant of Easement Lot 11 DP 97 CT C4/780 (Clive River)	3586	10 October 2012

RC20/12

Resolutions

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. Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

Gilbertson/Rose

CARRIED

Approval of Regional Coastal Environment Plan and Plan Change 1

Ms Helen Codlin introduced Mr Gavin Ide, who advised that the final consent order had been issued by the Environment Court, meaning that the Regional Coastal Environment Plan (RCEP) is now in its final stage before becoming operative and is now required, under the RMA, to be referred to the Minister of Conservation for her approval.

Mr Ide provided an overview of the process which had begun almost 10 years ago. Already, the RCEP is scheduled to be reviewed in light of the Government’s National Coastal Policy Statement in 2014/15. All up, getting the plan to this stage has cost in the order of $1.3M.

Councillors expressed their congratulations to staff on the comprehensive information provided throughout the Hearing and Appeals processes in bringing the RCEP and Plan Change 1 to this stage.

RC21/12

Resolutions

That Council:

2. Adopts the proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan including Variation 1, Variation 2, and Variation 3, for reference to the Minister of Conservation for her approval of the coastal marine area-related parts of that Plan.

3. Approves Change 1 (Geographic Coverage) to the Regional Resource Management Plan in accordance with Clause 17 Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act.

4. Authorises the Group Manager Strategic Development to specify a date from which:

4.1. the Regional Coastal Environment Plan will become operative after the Minister of Conservation has approved the coastal marine area-related parts of that Plan in accordance with Clause 20 Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act; and

4.2. Change 1 to the Regional Resource Management Plan will become operative in accordance with Clause 20 Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act. The date being the same date as when the Regional Coastal Environment Plan is to become operative.

von Dadelszen/Scott

CARRIED

10.

Tukituki Choices - Responses

Ms Helen Codlin provided Councillors with the rationale for the Tukituki Choices non-statutory ‘comment’ process Council had undertaken to provide the community with additional opportunity to have their say on management options for the Tukituki catchment.

Ms Codlin then provided an overview of the Council’s aspirations for the catchment.

In response to a query related to Nitrogen reductions required for the lower Tukituki catchment, Mr Iain Maxwell explained that periphyton can be managed through both Nitrogen and Phosphorous and that, based on the scientific evidence and modelling, targeted Phosphorous management appeared to be the most environmentally and economically effective way of reducing periphyton in that particular catchment.

In relation to comments received (164 total), Ms Codlin explained that these would continue to be taken into account through development of the draft plan change and the recommendations being considered today already reflected some of that input.

In relation to the District Health Board’s concerns, Mr Iain Maxwell explained that ongoing science investigations into periphyton management would investigate cyanobacteria issues as well.

Key to the plan change, are the limits set by the Science team in order to protect the catchment values. The Plan Change will set the regulatory framework, while additional non-regulatory ‘tools’ will continue to be used to address land use and land management issues.

Ms Codlin clarified that this was part of an iterative process to develop the draft Plan Change which will then go through the formal Resource Management Act statutory process, which will include further public consultation by way of submissions.

Consultation in relation to this Plan Change process has been occurring for several years now, in various forms including public meetings, the Tukituki Stakeholder group (established in 2008 and made recommendations to Council in November 2009) and the Tukituki Choices comments process undertaken over the last 2 months.

In response to a query in relation to guaranteeing work for Maori, Mr Newman explained that local employment could only be considered if the storage project proceeded. It was noted that Mr Mohi had several statements he could make in relation to this issue however chose not to make those statements.

Mr Mohi expressed his view that Maori have varied viewpoints, however believe that the health of the river is the most important issue. The key issue for Maori moving into the future is mana whenua being meaningfully involved throughout all of these processes and in the management of the region’s natural resources.

RC22/12

Resolutions

That Council:

2. Receives the report on Tukituki Choices – Responses.

3. Acknowledges the effort that the 163 organisations and individuals have made in taking the time to read the Tukituki Choices document and supporting reports, attend public meetings and to prepare responses for Council’s consideration.

4. Considers the responses as part of the information to be taken into account for the decisions on the Tukituki Plan Change and the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project.

5. Having considered the responses, endorses the following key approaches for the development of the Tukituki plan change:

5.1. Setting water allocation limits as generally outlined in the Tukituki choices discussion document.

5.2. Setting minimum flow limits based on 90% habitat protection for longfin eel for Waipawa River at SH 2 and Tukituki at Tapairu Rd, transitioning from current over a 3-5 year period.

5.3. Setting minimum flows for Tukituki at Red Bridge based on 90% habitat protection for trout, transitioning from current over a ten year period.

5.4. Allowing applications to be lodged to take water for community irrigation schemes over and above the core allocation limits.

5.5. Recognising phosphorus as the limiting nutrient in the main stem of the river system and setting in stream phosphorus targets as a means of reducing periphyton growth.

5.6. Recognises that managing nitrogen for controlling periphyton would at best deliver marginal additional environmental benefit compared to those resulting from a reduction in phosphorus and would require such a large reduction in existing nitrogen leaching levels and that it would have an attendant unacceptable level of economic impact on the landowners, and the district. The position therefore of both Council staff and external science advisors is that management of nitrogen to levels required to reduce periphyton is not the most environmentally or economically effective way of reducing periphyton growth and the focus should be on controlling phosphorus.

5.7. Managing nitrogen for nitrate toxicity based on a 95% ANZECC protection threshold for zone 1, and the 90% ANZECC protection threshold for zones 2, 3 and 5. The 90% species protection level corresponds to a very low risk of a minor effect on trout and a negligible risk of insignificant effect on native fish and invertebrate species and is thus considered environmentally conservative.

5.8. Managing nitrogen and phosphorus at current in-stream nitrate levels for Zone 4.

5.9. Setting other water quality limits to maintain the life supporting capacity of freshwater bodies and associated ecosystems.

Councillor Kirton moved an amendment, seconded by Councillor Remmerswaal, that being the addition of:

5.10 Review the land management policies and practices and regulatory approaches over riparian margins in the Tukituki catchment.

von Dadelszen/Dick

For: Dick, McGregor, Scott, Gilbertson, Rose, von Dadelszen, Kirton, Wilson

Against: Remmerswaal

CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 11.05am and reconvened at 11.25am

11.

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Feasibility

Mr Andrew Newman introduced the item and:

· Sarah Gardner, Sean Lewis and Faye Holding from the Environmental Protection Agency

· James Palmer and Kevin Steel from the Ministry for Primary Industries.

Mr Newman then provided a brief overview of the history of the water storage project and the Tukituki plan change processes, stretching back to 2006. Mr Newman went on to outline risks to the project should the decision be made to proceed to the next stage – seeking resource consents.

Ms Sarah Gardner (General Manager Applications and Assessment) provided an overview of the process that the EPA may follow (reports to Minister for the Environment; Ministry for the Environment is the monitoring agency) in addition to the make-up of a Board of Inquiry. If the Minister directs to a Board of Inquiry the EPA would: notify the application, process/support and advice; procure services/expertise for the Board; coordinate logistics; be the conduit between the Board and parties. The EPA would also commission, from each Local Authority, a Key Issues report. EPA asks for clear separate of staff roles, i.e. different staff working on submissions and application.

Mr James Palmer, Director of Strategy, Systems & Science Policy for the Ministry for Primary Industries and responsible for Sector Strategy explained his role and the Ministry’s reasons for its interest/involvement in the project. The Ministry is of the view that Council has made steady progress in development of the project and not been reckless. Further, Mr Palmer stated that those at the Ministry believe the development processes have been as good as any nationally and investigations carried out during feasibility studies more extensive than some; and that Council has been prudent in bundling the consent application and plan change together.

In response to a query, Ms Gardner explained that the Minister would appoint the members of the Board of Inquiry based on nominations from the Chief Justice, the Chief Environment Court Judge and others to meet specific statutory and technical requirements particular to the proposal. Final Board appointments are ‘ratified’ by Caucus.

Ten factors for national significance that the proposal will be evaluated against, include but not limited to: widespread public interest or concern; activity occurring in an area of national significance; treaty issues; will help the Crown to meet its obligations; crosses more than one district boundary.

The EPA process is a cost recovery process, paid for by the applicant.

Councillors also traversed the following topics through discussion and debate.

· The extensive and expensive effects of drought on the farming and wider communities and the prospects of climate change resulting in more frequent, longer periods of drought.

· Concerns that the estimated economic benefits and profits being over stated and may not eventuate.

· The environmental benefits of returning the river to natural flows in summer dry periods would not be possible without storage. On farm storage could be very expensive and would serve as a small buffer only, and not a long term solution.

RC23/12

Resolutions

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s (HBRC) adopted policy on significance and that HBRC 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. Approves the Ruataniwha Water Storage project proceeding to the next stage of the project to validate the environmental effects of the project through a resource consent application to the EPA in tandem with the Tukituki Plan Change.

Wilson /Gilbertson

For: Dick, McGregor, Scott, Gilbertson, Rose, von Dadelszen, Kirton, Wilson

Against: Remmerswaal

CARRIED

3. Instructs the Chief Executive to bring a paper back to Council covering lines of accountability between HBRIC Ltd and HBRC, resource allocation, and the future work plan associated with the project; and a separate paper clearly outlining Council’s work plan going forward, with appropriate resources in place.

Wilson /Gilbertson

CARRIED unanimously

4. Transfers the responsibilities for progressing the project to the conclusion of the resource consent application phase to Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company (HBRIC) Ltd, including those responsibilities as the applicant for the required resource consents.

Wilson /Gilbertson

For: Dick, McGregor, Scott, Gilbertson, Rose, von Dadelszen, Wilson

Against: Remmerswaal, Kirton

CARRIED

5. Along with the transfer of responsibility for the next phase of the project from HBRC to HBRIC Ltd:

5.1 transfers the costs of the Ruataniwha Water Storage project covering the first phase, namely the feasibility phase and land purchase of $400,000, to HBRIC Ltd; this transfer being estimated at $3.55m (net of Ministry for Primary Industries funding).

5.2 Makes further advances to HBRIC Ltd to cover the costs of the next phase of the project, which will cover the period up to the end of the consent process estimated to be by 31 December 2013. These advances will cover HBRIC Ltd’s costs relating to the consent application, procurement process and further work on the irrigator take-up and project investment. It is noted the advances required have been estimated to be in the region of $3.2m for 2012/13 and $2.1m in 2013/14 (up to 31 December 2013).

5.3 Notes that the advances to be paid from HBRC to HBRIC Ltd as set out above have been provided for in HBRC’s Long Term Plan 2012-22.

5.4 Notes that interest on the advances set out above will not be required to be paid by HBRIC Ltd until the completion of the consenting process and then will only be paid if a decision is made to proceed with continued investment in the Ruataniwha Water Storage project.

Wilson /Gilbertson

For: McGregor, Scott, Gilbertson, Rose, von Dadelszen, Wilson

Against: Remmerswaal, Kirton

Abstain: Dick

CARRIED

6. Notes that HBRIC Ltd will undertake to report back to HBRC at the end of the consent process with a recommendation on whether or not HBRC should proceed to invest further in the Ruataniwha Water Storage project and, if so, under what terms and conditions further investment will be made. If HBRC decides to continue investing in this project then the decision will be subject to a further special consultative process.

Wilson /Gilbertson

For: McGregor, Scott, Gilbertson, Rose, von Dadelszen, Kirton, Wilson

Against: Remmerswaal

Abstain: Dick

CARRIED

6. Notes that should a decision be made by HBRC not to continue with investment in the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project subsequent to the completion of the consent process, there will be a need for HBRIC Ltd to assess the extent of any costs incurred to date that will need to be written off and claimed as a tax deduction in their books.

Wilson /Gilbertson

For: Dick, McGregor, Scott, Gilbertson, Rose, von Dadelszen, Kirton, Wilson

Against: Remmerswaal

CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 1.45pm and reconvened at 2.15 pm, with Councillor Rose absent.

19.

Port of Napier Limited Board of Directors Appointments

RC24/12

Resolution

1. That Council excludes the public from this section of the meeting, being Agenda Item 19 Port of Napier Limited Board of Directors Appointments (1.00 pm) with the general subject of the item to be considered while the public is excluded; the reasons for passing the resolution and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution being as follows:

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION
Port of Napier Limited Board of Directors Appointments (1.00 pm)	7(2)(a) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons.	The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

2. That Dr Andy Pearce, Chairman of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd Board of Directors, be present for discussion of this item.

Gilbertson/McGregor

CARRIED

The meeting went into public excluded session at 2.15pm and out of public excluded session at 2.50pm

12.

Resource Management Act Delegations

Mr Iain Maxwell explained the key points of the paper.

It was suggested that a process for advising Council when delegations had been exercised be developed.

RC25/12

Resolutions

That Council:

2. Pursuant to section 34A(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council delegates its powers, duties, and functions to the officers’ positions listed following.

Job Title	Powers Conferred on Authorised Person
Acting Chief Executive	Section: 316 Application of an enforcement order 329 Water shortage direction 330-331 Emergency works
Group Manager, Resource Management Group	Section: 316 Application of an enforcement order 329 Water shortage direction 330-331 Emergency works
Group Manager Asset Management Group	Section: 316 Application of an enforcement order 329 Water shortage direction 330-331 Emergency works
Manager, Engineering	Section: 316 Application of an enforcement order 329 Water shortage direction 330-331 Emergency works
Manager, Compliance, Pollution & Harbours	Section: 316 Application of an enforcement order 329 Water shortage direction 330-331 Emergency works
Team Leader Pollution Response & Enforcement	Section: 316 Application of an enforcement order 329 Water shortage direction 330-331 Emergency works

von Dadelszen/Scott

CARRIED

13.

Appointments to the Regional Planning Committee

Ms Liz Lambert provided an overview of the appointments of Treaty Settlement Group representatives to the Regional Planning Committee, one of which is a replacement for a representative of Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum and the other a formal appointment of the He Toa Takitini representative.

There is provision in the Committee’s Standing Orders, for the appointment of a Deputy Chairman upon recommendation by the treaty group representatives on the Committee.

RC26/12

Resolutions

That Council:

2. Appoints the following persons as members of the Regional Planning Committee:

2.1. Dr Roger Maaka, representing He Toa Takitini

2.2. Nigel Baker, representing Ngati Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum, until 6 October 2013.

3. Appoints Toro Waaka as Deputy Chairman of the Regional Planning Committee.

von Dadelszen/Dick

CARRIED

14.

Recommendations from the Environment and Services Committee

The report was taken as read.

RC27/12

Resolutions

The Environment ad Services Committee recommends that Council:

Chilean Needle Grass

2. Agrees to increase the plant pest budget (project 650) by $15,000 per annum to meet the cost of purchase of Taskforce for the control of Chilean needle grass (CNG) on private land.

3. Revises the plant pest incentive scheme operated under project 650 to meet 100% of the purchase cost of the chemical “Taskforce” for CNG control, and support land users who are required to control CNG through subsidising contractor application costs by 50% with a maximum grant of $3,000.

Ohuia Drainage Scheme

4. Agrees to proceed with the replacement of the Ohuia Pump station at an estimated cost of $375,000 subject to the agreement of all ratepayers to the Scheme, subject to staff being satisfied that there is general agreement from Scheme ratepayers.

5. Delegates the Chief Executive to secure loan funding of approximately $180,000 (but not exceeding $200,000) against the Ohuia Drainage Scheme to meet the portion of the cost of the project not funded from other sources.

6. Notes that the following reports were received at the meeting held on 17 October 2012:

6.1. Makara Dam Repairs

6.2. Presentation of Science Work and Findings in the Tukituki Catchment

6.3. Views on Petrochemical Management from Taranaki Region Tour

6.4. Update on Winter Air Quality Results and Heat Smart Update

6.5. Provision of Vector Management Services in Hawke’s Bay

6.6. 2011/12 Flood Control and Drainage Scheme Reports

6.7. 2011/12 Biosecurity Annual Report – Pest Animals and Plants.

McGregor/Scott

CARRIED

15.

2012-13 Annual Plan Progress Report to 30 September 2012

Mr Drury introduced Mr Manton Collings, who had replaced John Peacock as Council’s Corporate Accountant. Ms Lambert advised that the business case from HDC and NCC on the Solar Hot Water Scheme had not been received to date.

RC28/12

Resolution

1. That Council receives the Annual Plan Progress Report for the first three months of 2012/13 financial year.

Gilbertson/Dick

CARRIED

16.

October 2012 Work Plan - Looking Forward

Mr Adye advised, in response to a query, that the review of options for the Upper Makara Scheme has begun. In response to a further query he advised that Council solicitors are pursuing costs of remedial work on the Dalton Street building through the Courts.

Councillors were advised that Mr Christie’s work on the National Environmental Monitoring Standards is being funded by the Ministry for the Environment and so is cost neutral to Council.

Mr Maxwell explained that the 100 point nitrate survey carried out in September (and scheduled to be carried out again next month) was an exercise that involved samples being taken from 100 different points in the Tukituki catchment on the same day, and that the survey provided information in addition to that provided as part of the regular State of Environment monitoring programme.

It was noted that in relation to the DoC/Council shared offices in Wairoa, Councillors preferred to find out in advance of press releases as practice had been thus far.

A question was raised as to whether Councillors had been advised of the Business Hawke’s Bay investigation into the economic benefits of oil and gas in the Region. The answer was that Council’s only input to this project was via $3,700 funding from the economic development budget. MOBI had commissioned the study and was the main funder of the project.

RC29/12

Resolution

1. That Council receives the August 2012 Work Plan Looking Forward report.

Dick/McGregor

CARRIED

17.

Chairman's Monthly Report

The Chairman corrected the report, removing his attendance at the HPUDS meeting and adding his attendance at a meeting with Ngati Tuwharetoa. The Chairman also thanked Councillor von Dadelszen for representing Council at the opening of the Central Hawke’s Bay theatre.

RC30/12

Resolution

1. That the report be received.

Gilbertson/Scott

CARRIED

18.

General Business

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.	Wheely Glassy Event being held to open the Wineries Ride on Sunday afternoon, 4 November 2012.	Cr Wilson
2.	FAWC Food and Wine Classic starts Friday 2 November, and runs over the following 10 days.	Cr Wilson
5.	East Coast Rail Last Friday the RTC resolved to ask the region’s Mayors, the Mayor of Gisborne, and the HBRC Chairman to advocate for retention of the line.	Cr Dick
6.	Regional Council presence at CHB A&P Show HBRC will have a presence at the show, with staff attending in the ‘theme’ of Ruataniwha Water Storage.	Cr Gilbertson

Closure:

There being no further business the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 3.55pm on Wednesday, 31 October 2012.

Signed as a true and correct record.

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