Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council

 

 

Date:                 Wednesday 27 February 2013

Time:                9.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

 

Agenda

 

Item       Subject                                                                                                                  Page

 

1.         Welcome/Prayer/Apologies/Notices 

2.         Conflict of Interest Declarations  

3.         Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on 20 February 2013

4.         Matters Arising from Minutes of the  Regional Council Meeting held on 20 February 2013

5.         Action Items from Previous Regional Council Meetings

6.         Call for General Business Items

Decision Items

7.         Affixing of Common Seal

8.         Draft Tukituki Plan Change for Adoption and Notification

9.         Friend of Dairy Accord

10.       Recommendations on Submissions to Change 4: Managing the Built Environment

11.       HBLASS Draft Statement of Intent 2012/13

12.       Recommendation from the Regional Planning Committee

13.       Recommendations from the Regional Transport Committee

14.       Recommendations from the Environment and Services Committee

15.       Recommendations from the Corporate and Strategic Committee

Information or Performance Monitoring

16.       Hawke's Bay Tourism Quarterly Report (11am)

17.       Annual Plan Progress Report for the First Seven Months of the 2012/13 Financial Year

18.       Work Plan Looking Forward through March 2013

19.       Chairman's Monthly Report (to be tabled)

20.       General Business

Decision Items (Public Excluded)

21.       Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd - Resolutions and Proxy for First Annual General Meeting

22.       Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Draft 2013-14 Statement of Intent (1.00pm)

23.       Confirmation of the Public Excluded Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on 20 February 2013

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Action Items from Previous Regional Council Meetings

 

Reason for Report

1.      Attachment 1 lists items raised at previous meetings that require actions or follow-ups. All action items indicate who is responsible for each action, when it is expected to be completed and a brief status comment. Once the items have been completed and reported to Council they will be removed from the list.

 

Decision Making Process

2.      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 that as this report is for information only and no decision is required in terms of the Local Government Act’s provisions, the decision making procedures set out in the Act do not apply.

 

Recommendation

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

 

 

 

 

Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)

 

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

 

Attachment/s

1View

Actions from Previous Council Meetings

 

 

  


Actions from Previous Council Meetings

Attachment 1

 

Actions from Regional Council Meetings

 

 

Meeting Held 12 December 2012

 

Agenda Item

Action

Person Responsible

Due Date

Status Comment

1

Matters Arising

HB Oil & Gas Exploration economic report to be circulated to Councillors once released by the Minister

LL

 

The report has been delayed out of central government due to a change in Minister and is now expected to be released in March.

2

Matters Arising

Extract from the Air Quality Monitoring Strategy providing rationale for the rotation of air quality monitoring equipment to Waipawa to be provided to Cr Gilbertson

IM

 

Information was provided to Cr Gilbertson via email on 9 January 2013.

3

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project

Sale & Purchase agreement document between HBRC to include agreement of ownership & use of IP developed through Stage 2

AN

 

Completed in December 2012 and included agreement of ownership and use of IP.

 

Meeting Held 28 November 2012

 

Agenda Item

Action

Person Responsible

Due Date

Status Comment

1

General Business

Request for stats on Stock Effluent facility usage

CG

 

Emailed to Councillors 21/12/12

 

 

Meeting Held 31 October 2012

 

Agenda Item

Action

Person Responsible

Due Date

Status Comment

1

RMA Delegations

A process for advising Council when delegations have been exercised to be developed

IM

 

Discussions underway with other councils to review useful and cost effective ways of doing this

 

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Affixing of 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

Leasehold Land Sales

1.1.1     Lot 2

          DP 12533

          CT  D4/445

-     Transfer

     

1.1.2     Lot 3

          DP 7596

          CT  E2/341

-     Transfer

     

1.1.3     Lot 2

          DP 7417

          CT  B4/445

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 17.5% resides at property)

          -     Transfer

 

1.1.4     Lot 11

          DP 12517

          CT  D4/968

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

-     Transfer

     

1.1.5     Lot 221

          DP 11194

          CT B3/83    

-     Transfer

     

1.1.6     Lot 42

          DP 14447

          CT  G2/664

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 17.5% resides at property)

               

1.1.7     Lot 42

          DP 14447

          CT  G2/664

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (discount 17.5% resides at property)

     

1.1.8     Lot 2

          DP 24417

          CT  V2/798

-     Transfer

     

1.1.9     Lot 40

          DP 13691

          CT  F2/1256

-     Transfer

 

1.1.10  Lot 167

          DP 12548

          CT  D4/1519

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 10% landlord)

          -     Transfer

     

1.1.11  Lot 35

          DP 12517

          CT  D4/977

-     Transfer

     

1.1.12  Lot 480

          DP 2451

          CT  56/136

-     Transfer     

     

1.1.13  Lot 35

          DP 7201

          CT  B4/938

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 17.5% resides at property)

          -     Transfer

     

1.1.14  Lot 1

          DP 14665

          CT  G3/319

-     Transfer

 

1.1.15  Lot 178

          DP 6598

          CT  C2/365

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

          -     (no discount valuation fee paid after 30 June 2012)

     

1.1.16  Lot 141

          DP 10912

          CT  D4/9255

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (no discount valuation fee paid after 30 June 2012)

          -     Transfer

        

1.1.17  Lot 3 Part Lot 2

          DP 7118

          CT  F2/982

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (no discount valuation fee paid after 30 June 2012)

     

1.1.18  Lot 1

          DP 216

          CT  C2/335

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

                (discount 17.5% resides at property)

 

1.1.19  Lot 85

          DP 13096

          CT  E3/524

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (no discount valuation fee paid after       30 June 2012)

     

1.1.20  Lot 55

          DP 13096

          CT  E3/510

-     Agreement for Sale and Purchase

      (no discount valuation fee paid after       30 June 2012)

 

 

 

 

 

3633

 

 

 

 

3634

 

 

 

 

3635

 

3650

 

 

 

 

3636

 

3653

 

 

 

 

3637

 

 

 

 

3640

 

 

 

 

 

3641

 

 

 

 

 

3642

 

 

 

 

3644

 

 

 

 

3645

 

3646

 

 

 

 

3647

 

 

 

 

3648

 

 

 

 

3649

 

3654

 

 

 

 

3655

 

 

 

 

3656

 

 

 

 

 

 

3657

 

 

3658

 

 

 

 

3659

 

 

 

 

 

 

3661

 

 

 

 

 

3664

 

 

 

 

 

 

3665

 

 

 

 

10 December 2012

 

 

 

 

11 December 2012

 

 

 

 

11 December 2012

 

11 January 2013

 

 

 

 

11 December 2012

 

23 January 2013

 

 

 

 

11 December 2012

 

 

 

 

13 December 2012

 

 

 

 

 

18 December 2012

 

 

 

 

 

18 December 2012

 

 

 

 

3 January 2013

 

 

 

 

7 January 2013

 

7 January 2013

 

 

 

 

8 January 2013

 

 

 

 

10 January 2013

 

 

 

 

11 January 2013

 

25 January 2013

 

 

 

 

25 January 2013

 

 

 

 

29 January 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

29 January 2013

 

 

29 January 2013

 

 

 

 

30 January 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 February 2013

 

 

 

 

 

1 February 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 February 2013

 

 

 

1.2

Heads of Agreement

Lot 2 DP 8634

(Acquiring a strip of land adjacent to the Makaretu River)

 

 

3638

 

12 December 2012

1.3

Deed of Grant of Easement

Lot 3 DP 25317 CT V4/89

(water supply to Tutira Camping Ground)

 

 

3639

 

13 December 2012

1.4

Deed of Grant of Easement

Lot 1 DP 16537 CT J2/24

(undertake drainage works – Elwood Rd)

 

 

 

3643

 

 

20 December 2012

1.5                                                                                         

Staff Warrants

1.5.1   E. Tregidga

          S. Fraser

          (Delegations under Resource Management Act 1991; Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Land Drainage Act 1908 and Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91) and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174)

 

 

3651

3652

 

16 January 2013

16 January 2013

1.6                                                                          Subventuon

Subvention Agreement

Port of Napier Limited and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

 

 

3660

 

4 February 2013

1.7                                                                                     Deed

Subdivision and freeholding

1.7.1. Deed of Grant of Easement (to allow freeholding – property being subdivided)

1.7.1  Deed of Lease (for other party)

 

3661

 

3662

 

4 February 2013

 

4 February 2013

 

 

Decision Making Process

2.       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:

2.1   Sections 97 and 88 of the Act do not apply;

2.2   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;

2.3   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 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.

 

 

 

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

Liz Lambert 

 

Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Draft Tukituki Plan Change for Adoption and Notification

 

Reason for Report

1.      This paper presents a final draft of Plan Change 6 (‘Change 6’) to the Regional Resource Management Plan (‘RRMP’) (Attachment 1), together with the associated section 32 evaluation summary report (‘S32 Report’) (Attachment 3) for the Council to consider for adoption and public notification as a ‘proposed’ Change.  The paper also sets out a number of process matters that the Council ought to consider in relation to the discretion Council may exercise when adopting and publicly notifying a proposed change to its regional plans.

2.      This paper also presents the Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan (‘TCIP’) (Attachment 4), which is an important complementary document to Change 6 and outlines the programmes that will support the implementation of non-regulatory approaches referred to in Change 6 relating to the use of production land.

3.      Change 6 inserts new Chapters (Ch 5.9 and 6.9) relating to the Tukituki River Catchment into the RRMP.  Change 6 also makes a number of ‘consequential’ amendments to other parts of the RRMP to make them no longer applicable to the Tukituki Catchment. Change 6 does not propose amendments to the Regional Policy Statement parts (Chapters 2 and 3) of the RRMP.

Background

4.      Section 2 of the S32 Report outlines the background and the strategic context for Change 6.  It also summarises the community engagement process including Tukituki Choices.

5.      Change 6 sits alongside the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS) as the key mechanisms for delivering the Tukituki Water Strategy to improve summer flows, water quality, water security for users and sustainable economic development.

6.      They jointly comprise the ‘Tukituki Catchment Proposal’ which is the working title for the proposal to be lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority requesting that the RWSS applications be heard by a Board of Inquiry and that Change 6 be called-in by the Minister for the Environment on the basis that together, the Tukituki Catchment Proposal is a matter of national significance.

Key Features of Change 6

7.      Change 6 would insert five objectives into the RRMP specifically for the Tukituki Catchment.  To achieve those objectives, Change 6 also includes a number of policies and methods (including rules).  Key features of Change 6 include:

7.1.   An integrated suite of five freshwater management objectives specifically for the Tukituki Catchment, the first three covering water quality, the fourth covering water allocation and the fifth enabling community irrigation schemes. These are explained in section 7 of the S32 Report.

7.2.   Setting surface and groundwater quality limits.  These are detailed in Policies TT1 to TT3, with TT4 – TT6 addressing the implementation of nitrogen limits and phosphorus targets.

7.3.   Setting surface water and groundwater allocation limits and minimum flows.  These are detailed in Policies TT7 to TT10.

7.4.   A number of implementation type policies (Policies TT11-TT15) associated with water quantity including managing stream depletion effects, transfers, enabling community irrigation schemes, consent durations and water measuring and reporting requirements.

7.5.   Change 6 contains two rules for the use of production land (Rule TT1 permitted activity, Rule TT2, restricted discretionary activity).

7.6.   It also includes a new rule for the filling of agrichemical spray tanks from existing take points (Rule TT3).  This addresses an existing issue associated with these takes and formalises them as a permitted activity.

7.7.   Change 6 has two new rules for surface and groundwater takes in the Tukituki Catchment. Rule TT4 is a discretionary activity for takes within the allocation limits and Rule TT5 is a non-complying activity for takes seeking water outside an allocation limit.  Taking for Community Irrigation Schemes is provided for under an amendment to existing Rule 55 as a discretionary activity.

8.      Appendix 7 of the S32 Report provides an explanation of each objective, policy and rule while Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 evaluate the development of the policies and rules and the options considered.

9.      The final draft of Change 6 is consistent with the approach endorsed by the Council at the 31 October 2012 meeting.  However, there have been some changes to the draft Plan Change document that Council endorsed in December.

10.    Those changes largely relate to the implementation of nitrogen and phosphorus limits and targets (Policies TT4 and TT5, and Rule TT1).

11.    Additional requirements have been included with respect to phosphorus management plans in the sub-catchments that are significantly exceeding DRP targets, and review dates have been included to indicate that Council will review the need for increased regulation should water quality trends indicate that DRP targets may not be met by 2030 or if indicators developed for the non-regulatory methods are not being met.  This better reflects the over-allocated status of the Tukituki Catchment with respect to phosphorus.

12.    Conversely, nutrient budget requirements for nitrogen leaching have been better targeted to the properties leaching more than 15 kgN/ha/year. This enables better use of resources and also allows time for the nutrient budget providers to build capacity in this area.

Implications of Change 6 for farmers

13.    Change 6 is the first time that a regional plan for Hawke’s Bay will contain a rule relating to the use of production land.  While the use of production land is a permitted activity rule, there are a number of conditions that are required to be met in order to be a permitted activity.

14.    The Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan outlines a number of programmes designed to assist farmers in understanding and meeting the conditions. Such programmes include:

14.1.   Stock exclusion – all stock to be excluded on land adjoining water bodies that is less than 15 degrees while stock at densities greater than 18SU (except sheep) on land steeper than 15 degrees adjoining water bodies is also to be excluded.  These requirements are to be complied with by 2017 for permanent water bodies and by 2022 for intermittently flowing streams.

14.2.   Bridging of stock crossings – these are required by mid-2017 where a formed stock race crosses a river.

14.3.   Phosphorus management plans – these are to be done on all properties in the sub-catchments currently exceeding DRP target concentrations over a period of time. These will identify critical source areas for phosphorus losses and mitigation strategies.  This information will be important for the development of catchment management plans and will enable a more targeted mitigation programme.

14.4.   Retaining records for nutrient budget purposes – this is an immediate requirement of all properties over 4 ha and is an important aspect for nitrogen management.  It will enable nutrient budgets to be prepared if and when required in the future

14.5.   Preparation of nutrient budgets – for farms leaching less than 15 kgN/ha/year, farmers can rely on sector specific defaults if they met the criteria associated with that default value.  If there is doubt, the records will be available for a nutrient budget to be prepared.  For farms leaching more than 15 kgN/ha/year, whole of farm nutrient budgets will be required, at least one to be prepared by 2018 and then at three yearly intervals.  This information is important for accounting for Nitrogen loads in the catchment to ensure instream concentration limits are not exceeded.

14.6.   Farm environmental management plans – these are more extensive plans covering irrigation, effluent, fertiliser, cropping and stock management and will be required when the use of production land which is increasing its N leaching requires a resource consent.

14.7.   Land use intensification – from the date of notification, any increase in land use intensification (an increase in nitrogen leaching of 10% or more, or more than 5kg/ha/year than is currently occurring on-farm) will require a land use resource consent (subject to the transitional provisions in section 20A of the RMA which mean that the farmer who has intensified will have to seek consent within 6 months of Rule TT1 becoming operative).

15.    Estimated costs of these requirements are detailed in Section 4 of the TCIP. Average per-farm costs could be $4,500-6,400 for stock exclusion, $1,000-$3000 for nutrient budgets, about $300 for updating a nutrient budget and about $200 for nutrient management plans.  These are only indicative costs and could be more or less for some farms.  Mitigation measures required to reduce nutrient and sediment losses such as riparian planting, soil conservation measures, and constructed wetlands will be an additional cost.  The catchment management plans will enable those measures to be effectively targeted.

Legal Effect of Change 6 (s86B, RMA)

16.    Change 6 proposes amendments to the RRMP and includes the introduction of new rules. Consequently, s86B of RMA is relevant, so the Council ought to specifically consider when those rules will have legal effect.

17.    For the avoidance of doubt, from the time Change 6 is notified, objectives and policies in Change 6 will be something that decision-makers on resource consent applications may take into account.  There is no delay in objectives and policies having immediate legal effect. However, any consideration would need to be mindful that Change 6 still needs to run its course through the submissions > hearing > decisions > appeal process in Schedule 1 of the RMA.

18.    Under section 86B(3) of the RMA any rules relating to water or soil have immediate legal effect (i.e. from the date a proposed plan is publicly notified).  In this particular instance, staff have assessed the basis and purpose of each of the new rules proposed and existing rules amended in Change 6 (see Table 1 following).


Table 1: When Change 6 rules have immediate legal effect – staff assessment

Rule

Activity

Protects or relates to water or soil? [s86B(3)(a)]

Other notes

TT1

Use of Production Land

P

Land use intensification requires consent under Rule TT2.

Other conditions have built-in transition periods for certain requirements:

 

Preparation of nutrient budgets by 1 July 2018

 

By 31 Dec 2017, livestock exclusion shall occur for lakes, wetlands and permanently flowing rivers;

 

By 31 Dec 2022, livestock exclusion shall occur for intermittently flowing rivers.

 

By 30 June 2017, rivers that are permanently or intermittently flowing that are crossed by formed stock races shall be bridged or culverted.

 

By 1 July 2020, compliance with industry good practice nitrogen leaching rates

TT2

Use of Production Land not complying with conditions of Rule TT1

P

 

TT3

The take and use of surface water or groundwater for filling agrichemical spray tanks

P

Only applies to existing takes

TT4

The take and use of surface water within allocation zones and groundwater takes within and outside allocation zones

P

 

TT5

The take and use of surface water or groundwater that does not comply with Rule TT4, other than takes for Community Irrigation Schemes under Rule 55.

P

 

Rule 47

The discharge of contaminants into surface water

P

Cross references DRP limits in Change 6

Rule 50

The disturbance of the bed of any permanently flowing river and any lake arising from the entry of livestock

P

To align with Rule TT1

Rule 54

The take and use of surface water

P

To exclude new permitted activity takes in Tukituki catchment

Rule 55

The take and use of surface water or groundwater including takes and uses associated with or ancillary to Community Irrigation Schemes

P

To include requirement to have regard to Policy TT12

Rule 61

Transfer of consent to take and use surface water

P

To include requirement to have regard to Policy TT12

Rule 62

Transfer of consent to take and use groundwater

P

 

 

19.    Staff consider new Rules TT1 to TT5 and amended rules 47, 50, 54, 55, 61 and 62 either protect and/or relate to water and/or soil conservation.  Based on this, each of those rules in Change 6 would come into force immediately from the date when Change 6 is publicly notified.

20.    Notwithstanding this, s20A of the RMA sets out circumstances relating to certain existing uses which may continue even if they do not comply with proposed regional rules.  Basically, if an existing land use activity requires a resource consent because of a breach of Rule TT1(a) (land use intensification), then that land use activity can continue to occur up until the rule becomes operative.  Within 6 months of Rule TT1 becoming operative, then a resource consent application must be made for the activity, and until that application is decided upon, the activity can continue.

Options considered and Section 32 of RMA

21.    In preparing a plan change, local authorities have a duty under s32 of the RMA[1] to evaluate a number of matters:

(3) An evaluation must examine —

- the extent to which each objective is the most appropriate way to achieve the purpose of this Act; and

- whether, having regard to their efficiency and effectiveness, the policies, rules, or other methods are the most appropriate for achieving the objectives.

(3A) This subsection applies to a rule that imposes a greater prohibition or restriction on an activity to which a national environmental standard applies than any prohibition or restriction in the standard. The evaluation of such a rule must examine whether the prohibition or restriction it imposes is justified in the circumstances of the region or district.

(4) For the purposes of the examinations referred to in subsections (3) and (3A), an evaluation must take into account —

- the benefits and costs of policies, rules, or other methods; and

- the risk of acting or not acting if there is uncertain or insufficient information about the subject matter of the policies, rules, or other methods.

22.    The RMA also requires that a report be prepared that summarises the evaluation and gives reasons for that evaluation. That report must be made available for public inspection at the same time as the change is publicly notified (under s32(6) RMA).  The RMA does not prescribe the style, layout and content of s32 summary reports.

23.    Staff have prepared a comprehensive S32 evaluation summary report.  It provides the strategic context for both Change 6 and the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme applications in anticipation of the Ministry for the Environment deciding to call-in Change 6 to be considered alongside the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme applications. The report summarises the evaluation of the proposed plan provisions, particularly in relation to the water quality limits and water allocation limits and minimum flows, as well as a discussion on the associated policies.  It also contains a set of explanations for the Objectives, policies and rules in Appendix 7 for easy reference.

24.    The S32 Report is not part of the plan change itself, but a ‘companion’ document.

25.    The S32 Report needs to be formally adopted by the Council as part of adopting Change 6.

Adoption and Notification

26.    Typically, HBRC has publicly notified a plan change within a matter of days after adopting that Change at a formal council meeting.  There are two reasons why it is recommended not to be the case for Change 6:

26.1.   Need to align with EPA process.  Notification of Change 6 must align with the timing of lodging of the Ruataniwha Water Storage applications with the EPA and with the lodging of a letter requesting that the Minister for the Environment call-in the Proposed Plan Change. This is because the Minister for the Environment only has a five working day window following the close of submissions within which to call-in the Proposed Plan Change.

26.2.   Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme applications.  These applications and the associated assessment of environmental effects need to be prepared in the context of Change 6.  In order to finalise the application documents, Change 6 needs to be finalised ready for notification.  The delay in notification provides time to ensure all application documentation accurately references relevant objective, policy and rule provisions.

27.    Based on the current timetable, notification of Change 6 is scheduled to occur on Saturday 4 May 2013 with the RWSS applications and the letter of request being lodged with the EPA on Monday 6 May 2013.  This alignment provides the Minister with the maximum possible time to consider any recommendations from the EPA in respect of the requests for a Board of Inquiry to consider and determine both Change 6 and the RWSS applications.

28.    If the lodging date changes, the notification date will also need to change because of that ‘five day’ window to call-in the Proposed Plan Change.

29.    Adoption of Change 6 at the February Council meeting will bring Change 6 into public view in advance of the official public notification and call for submissions in May.  This provides a ‘de facto’ extension of time for interested parties to view Change 6 as adopted by Council and the associated documentation.

30.    The Table 2 below sets out indicative dates of the EPA process.  Note that this process provides the public with two opportunities to make a submission on Change 6.

Table 2 – Indicative dates for Change 6’s notification and subsequent process

HBRC adopts Change 6

27 February 2013

HBRC notifies Change 6 (submission period 20 working days)

4 May 2013

Minister calls-in Change 6 (no later than 5 working days after close of submissions.)

4 -10 June 2013

EPA Public Notice (submission period 20 working days.)

1 June 2013

EPA (end of 9 month period)

March 2014

 

Notification Matters

31.    The Council must publicly notify a proposed plan change and subsequently invite submissions.  The submission period must be at least 20 working days.  The RMA requires that the Council give notice of regional plan changes to “any person who, in the regional council’s opinion, is likely to be directly affected by the proposed [plan change].”  Staff have assessed the contents of Change 6 and consider that the following persons should be sent a copy of the public notice and other relevant information about Change 6:

31.1.   Statutory agencies (i.e. constituent territorial authorities, neighbouring regional councils, Minsters for the Environment and Conservation, Regional Conservator, Fish and Game NZ, and Ngati Kahungunu Iwi incorporated

31.2.   Owners and occupiers of land within and adjacent to the Tukituki Catchment (according to rating databases)

31.3.   Resource consent holders for consents within the Tukituki Catchment (but only water permits and permits to discharge contaminants to land or water)

31.4.   Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company

31.5.   Groups and individuals who made written comments on ‘Tukituki Choices’ discussion document

31.6.   Groups and individuals who have been members of the various stakeholder groups (i.e.: Ruataniwha Leadership Group; Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group; and Tukituki Stakeholder Group, Tukituki Liaison Group, Pan Sector Group)

31.7.   Groups and individuals who have lodged submissions and/or further submissions on RPS Change 5 (Land and Freshwater Management).

32.    The notification criteria for a matter of national significance are slightly different.  EPA must notify ‘each owner and occupier (other than the applicant) of any land to which the matter relates; and each owner and occupier of any land adjoining the land to which the matter relates’.  This means the whole of the Tukituki catchment plus the adjoining properties over the catchment boundary (including in the Manawatu-Wanganui Region).  EPA is exploring their interpretation of this with regard to the Tukituki Catchment Proposal.

33.    To avoid confusion resulting from Council taking a different approach to the EPA, the notification list for Council’s notification of Change 6 will be consistent with the EPA criteria (and therefore more extensive in some respects than would normally be the case).  The method of Council’s notification will be by post in order to ensure owners and occupiers are served a copy of the public notice, as well as regional and community papers and the Council’s ‘Our Place’.

Rural Stakeholder Communication

34.    Given the significance of Change 6 on the rural community, it is appropriate that in addition to the statutory requirements, a specific communication programme will be developed to inform farmers about Change 6 and its implications.  This will include elements of the Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan programmes.

35.    This communication programme can get underway as soon as Council adopts the Plan Change and does not need to wait for the formal notification.

Decision Making Process

36.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Subpart 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

37.    The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

38.    The use of the special consultative procedure is prescribed by the Resource Management Act 1991.

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

40.    The persons affected by this decision are all persons and organisations who made comments on Tukituki Choices, all residents and ratepayers within the Tukituki River Catchment and all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA.

41.    Options that have been considered are documented in the section 32 evaluation summary report for Change 6.

42.    The decision to adopt Change 6 is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan notwithstanding that the content of Change 6 adds to and changes provisions of the Regional Resource Management Plan.

43.    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 because the Resource Management Act allows people to have an opportunity to submit on Change 6 following a decision by Council to publicly notify it.

 

Recommendations

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 because the Resource Management Act allows people to have an opportunity to submit on the proposed Change following a decision by Council to publicly notify them.

2.    Adopts the “Section 32 Evaluation Summary Report which will then be made available for public inspection at the same time Change 6 is publicly notified.

3.     Adopts Change 6 to the Regional Resource Management Plan for public notification subject to minor editorial changes.

4.     Agrees that Rules TT1 to TT5 and amended Rules 47, 50, 54, 55, 61 and 62 in Change 6 protect or relate to water or soil and so come into immediate effect from the date of public notification of Change 6.

5.     Endorses the draft Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan as a complementary non-statutory document.

6.     Instructs staff to prepare other communication material to help stakeholders understand the provisions of Change 6.

7.     Agrees that the following parties are considered to be directly affected by Change 6 and so will be given direct notice of Change 6:

7.1       Owners and occupiers of land within the Tukituki catchment

7.2       Persons holding resource consents (i.e. only water permits and permits to discharge contaminants to land or water) within the Tukituki catchment

7.3     Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Limited.

8.     Agrees that direct notice of Change 6 also be given to at least the following interested parties:

8.1       Groups and individuals who made written comments on ‘Tukituki Choices’ discussion document

8.2     Groups and individuals who were members of the various stakeholder groups (i.e. Ruataniwha Leadership Group, Ruataniwha Stakeholder Group, Tukituki Stakeholder Group, Tukituki Liaison Group, Pan Sector Group)

8.3     Groups and individuals who have lodged submissions and/or further submissions on RPS Change 5 (Land and Freshwater Management)

8.4     Owners and occupiers of land adjacent to the Tukituki catchment.

9.     Agrees that notification of Change 6 should align with the lodging of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal request to the Environmental Protection Authority.

 

 

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 

 

Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)

 

Attachment/s

1

Tukituki Catchment Plan Change 6 - Part A

 

Under Separate Cover

2

Tukituki Catchment Plan Change 6 - Part B Maps

 

Under Separate Cover

3

Tukituki Catchment Plan Change 6 - Section 32 Report

 

Under Separate Cover

4

Tukituki Catchment Implementation Plan

 

Under Separate Cover

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Friend of Dairy Accord

 

Reason for Report

1.      The Dairy Environment Leadership Group (DELG), comprising representatives from the dairy sector, central government, regional councils, iwi and the New Zealand Fish and Game Council, has developed an Accord to build on and succeed the 2003 Dairying and Clean Stream Accord (DCSA).

2.      They are looking for support from Regional Councils through their commitment to become a “Friend of the Accord”. This Council paper and the attachments provide the background and detail to the Accord.

3.      The Regional Sector Group (RSG) discussed the draft Accord at their meeting on 7 December 2012 and decided that as a whole, RSG would support the Accord and it was important to signal support in principle, but that each Council needed to make their own decision on whether to sign up.

Financial and Resource Implications

4.      There are no resourcing or financial implications from this report or its decisions

Background

5.      The Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord – a commitment to NZ by the dairying sector builds on and succeeds the DCSA that ran from 2003 to 2012. It is an expression of the dairy sector’s commitment to industry self-improvement and recognises that the dairy sector’s actions and expectations do not exist in isolation of other parties.

6.      This Council was a signatory to the 2003 DCSA.

7.      Success in achieving the delivery of better water quality depends upon a range of parties working with a common understanding of the issues and challenges, pursuing a shared vision, and aligned actions.

8.      The new Accord was developed under the oversight of the DELG comprising representatives from the dairy sector, central government, regional councils, iwi and the New Zealand Fish and Game Council.

9.      The purpose as stated in the Accord is to enhance the overall performance of dairy farming as it affects freshwater by:

9.1.   Committing to good management practices expected of all dairy farmers in NZ

9.2.   Recording pledges by the dairy sector, with the support of others, to assist and encourage dairy farmers to adopt those good management practices and to monitor and report progress

9.3.   In so doing ensure the dairy sector contributes responsibly to realising the vision for New Zealand waterways.

10.    Regional councils have been able to provide feedback and comment on the development of the Accord through a working sub-group of the Resource Managers Group (RMG) working with the Accord writers and the involvement of two Chief Executives (Bill Bayfield and Bob Laing) on DELG.

11.    Their involvement has strongly influenced the purpose and intent of the Accord and removed specific commitments and accountabilities of regional councils in the Accord but to agree to work with the dairy sector on development and implementation of regional plans of action at a regional level.

12.    Regional councils are being asked to sign as a “Friend of the Accord” (defined below) and not be an accountable or supporting partner.

13.    This Accord has three levels of commitment.

13.1.   Accountable Partners – the dairy companies in New Zealand and Dairy NZ have specific responsibilities and are accountable for delivering the commitments, monitoring, and reporting as specified. They undertake to carry out those responsibilities in good faith and to the best of their abilities.

13.2.   Supporting Partners – supporting organisations that make commitments to the outcomes this Accord promotes in support of the accountable parties.

13.3.   Friends of the Accord – iwi, environmental NGOs, Regional Councils and LGNZ and government agencies who are supportive of the purpose of this Accord and commit to contribute to its success in the spirit of collaboration. The key commitment for regional councils is to “engage with the dairy sector in the development and implementation of regional programmes of action to identify specific opportunities for co-ordinated and mutually beneficial action targeted at shared goals.”

14.    The Accord was finalised in January 2013 and released on 20 February 2013.  Regional Councils are asked to confirm their position by late February when farmer communication will commence with a view to the Accord going live at the start of the 2013/14 dairy season.

Decision Making Process

15.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

15.1.   The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

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

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

15.4.   The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources.

15.5.   Options that have been considered include to not become a friend of the accord.

15.6.   The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

15.7.   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 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.      Agrees to support, in principle, the Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord and agrees to become a “Friend of the Accord”.

 

 

 

 

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

 

 

Attachment/s

1View

Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord

 

 

  


Sustainable Dairying: Water Accord

Attachment 1

 















HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Recommendations on Submissions to Change 4: Managing the Built Environment

 

Reason for Report

1.      Hearings were held in December 2012 to hear submissions and further submissions received on Change 4 to the Regional Resource Management Plan (RRMP).

2.      Change 4 was publicly notified on 7 December 2011. A panel of 5 commissioners, which included 1 Maori representative (the Panel) was delegated the task of hearing those submissions and making recommendations to Council.

3.      This paper provides an overview of the number of submissions heard and presents the Panel's recommendations on submissions to Council for discussion and adoption as decisions.

Comment

4.      A total of 45 submissions, and 6 further submissions, were lodged from a range of groups and individuals on Change 4. Over 750 individual submission points were raised in submissions.

5.      At the hearing on Friday 7 December 2012, the Panel heard seven presentations. A further four were tabled during the hearing for the Panel’s consideration. A record of the Hearing is set out in Attachment 1.

6.      The Panel's final recommendations cover submissions and amendments across the entire range of topics. The Panel’s recommendations are set out in Attachment 2 to this report. Attachment 3 is Change 4 as amended by the Panel’s recommendations.

7.      Council has the following options available:

7.1.      Adopt the Panel's recommendations as set out in Attachment 2.

7.2.      Not adopt the Panel's recommendations either in full or in part. If Council chooses this option for any submission (other than for minor corrections), then the whole Council must arrange to re-hear those matters in accordance with the law.

8.      A note from Brookers’ Annotated Resource Management Act 1991 explains the situation regarding the law and the principles of natural justice which apply:

              “S34.04 Natural Justice

Where a Council has delegated to a Committee, Community Board, Commissioner, or Officer power to hear a matter but must itself make the decision, care needs to be taken if the Council is not minded to adopt the recommendations of the delegate which heard the application. The Council should then itself hear the application and any objections, either by viva voce rehearing or, where an adequate report of the hearing by the delegate is available, by members of the Council examining that report. It would infringe natural justice for members of a Council to participate in a decision on an application which differs from that recommended by the delegate which heard the matter unless they have themselves ‘heard’ the application and any objection. See Jeffs v NZ Dairy Board [1967] NZRL 1057 (PC).”

9.      If Council chooses to not adopt the Panel's recommendations in their entirety, then arrangements will need to be made for the Council to re-hear those matters and issue decisions by 7 December 2013[2].

10.    If Council resolves to adopt the Panel's recommendations in their entirety, staff intend that Decisions could be issued to submitters in mid March (having allowed time for formatting, printing and distribution of decision documents).

Financial and Resource Implications

11.    Preparation of Change 4 and progressing it through the submission > hearing > decisions phases is provided for in Project 192. No additional external expenditure budget is needed at this time. Internal staff time is also already catered for within existing budgets.

Summary

12.    It is recommended that Council adopts the Panel's recommendations and reasons. This will then enable officers to issue those recommendations as decisions of Council to the relevant submitters.

Decision Making Process

13.    Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA2002). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the LGA2002 in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

13.1.    The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

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

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

13.4.    The persons particularly affected are submitters and further submitters on Change 4 relating to the built environment. The people of the Hawke's Bay region may also be affected but there has already been an opportunity (in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991) for any person to make a submission or further submission on Change 4.

13.5.    Options that have been considered include adopting the Panel’s recommendations; not adopting the Panel’s recommendations; and modifying some of the Panel’s recommendations which might constitute an amendment of substance rather than simply amendments to correct an error.

13.6.    The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

13.7.    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. Submitters affected by the adoption of the Panel's recommendations will have a right of appeal to the Environment Court. Other interested parties have an opportunity under the Resource Management Act 1991 to join any subsequent proceedings.

 

Recommendations

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 submissions 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. Further, the decisions to be made are part of a public submission process required under the Resource Management Act 1991.

2.      Adopts the recommendations (and reasons stated) of the Panel as set out in Attachment 2.

3.      Authorises Council officers to undertake the administrative work necessary to issue the decisions of Council to submitters.

4.      Authorises Council officers to update the Regional Resource Management Plan in accordance with Change 4: Managing the Built Environment and the adopted decisions of Council.

 

 

 

Belinda Riley

Senior Planner

 

Gavin Ide

Team Leader Policy

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 

 

Attachment/s

1

Change 4 Hearing Minutes

 

Under Separate Cover

2

Change 4 Hearing Panel Recommendations

 

Under Separate Cover

3

Change 4 as Amended by Hearing Panel Recommendations

 

Under Separate Cover

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: HBLASS Draft Statement of Intent 2012/13

 

Reason for Report

1.      HB LASS Limited (Hawke’s Bay Local Authority Shared Services) was formed in December by the five Hawke’s Bay Councils.

2.      To comply with Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act 2002 the Board of any Council Controlled Organisation must prepare and submit a draft Statement of Intent to its shareholders for adoption.

Discussion

3.      At its meeting on 12 December 2012 Council agreed to proceed to participate as a shareholder in Hawke’s Bay LASS limited, a Council Controlled organisation. HB LASS Ltd was formed in December 2012 by the five Hawke’s Bay Councils and was incorporated on 21 December 2012.

4.      In accordance with the requirements of Schedule 8 of the Local Government Act each Council must consider the draft Statement of Intent. The attached draft Statement of Intent, for which approval is being sought, covers the period for the balance of the 2012/13 financial year, i.e. the next 4 months until 30 June 2013 only.

5.      The Draft Statement of Intent for HB LASS for 2013/14 will be brought forward to the Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting of Council on 6 March 2013.

Decision Making Process

6.      Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act).  Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

6.1.      The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

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

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

6.4.      The persons affected by this decision are ratepayers in the region. 

6.5.      The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

6.6.      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 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.      Considers the draft Statement of Intent of HB LASS for 2012/13 and:

2.1.      Makes comments and recommendations for change; or

2.2.      Adopts the HB LASS Draft Statement of Intent for 2012/13.

 

 

 

 

Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)

 

 

Attachment/s

1View

Draft Statement of Corporate Intent 2012/13

 

 

  


Draft Statement of Corporate Intent 2012/13

Attachment 1

 










HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Recommendation from the Regional Planning Committee

 

Reason for Report

1.      The following matter was considered by the Regional Planning Committee on 13 February 2013 and is now presented to Council for consideration and approval.

Decision Making Process

2.      This item has been specifically considered at the Committee level.

 

 

Recommendation

The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

RPS Change 5 – Appointment of Hearing Commissioners

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.     Appoints the following persons as Commissioners to hear and decide on submissions relating to the Regional Policy Statement Land Use and Freshwater Change (RPS Change 5):

2.1.      Commissioner ‘A’:  C Scott (Chair)

2.2.      Commissioner ‘B’:  E von Dadelszen

2.3.      Commissioner ‘C:  Professor R Maaka

2.4       Commissioner ‘D’:  M Mohi.

3      In the event of one or more of the above Commissioners being unavailable, then the Council’s Chairman may approve a suitably qualified substitute person in the role of a Panel Commissioner to hear and decide on submissions relating to RPS Change 5.

 

 

 

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 

 

Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Recommendations from the Regional Transport Committee

 

Reason for Report

1.      The following matters were considered by the Regional Transport Committee on 15 February 2013 and are now presented to Council for consideration and approval.

Decision Making Process

2.      These items have been specifically considered at Committee level.

 

Recommendations

The Regional Transport Committee recommends 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.

Napier to Gisborne Rail Line Update

2.      Requests the Ministry of Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency to address the roading issues on SH2 between Napier and Gisborne, in particular the establishment of SH2 as a HPMV route and look at future funding requirements on SH2 to ensure the security and safety of this route.

The Year Ahead for the Regional Transport Committee

3.      Requests that staff develop a Management Plan for Hawke’s Bay Cycle Trails embracing management, maintenance, promotion and development on an ongoing basis and that staff engage with stakeholders in the process. Further, that:

3.1       The Management Plan be considered as a subset of the Regional Cycling Plan;

3.2       The draft Management Plan be reported to both Council and the Regional Transport Committee.

 

 

 

Carol Gilbertson

Transport Manager

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Recommendations from the Environment and Services Committee

 

Reason for Report

1.      The following matters were considered by the Environment and Services Committee on Wednesday 20 February 2013 and are now presented to Council for consideration and approval.

Decision Making Process

2.      These items have all been specifically considered at the Committee level.

 

Recommendations

The Environment and Services Committee recommends 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.

RMA Reform Bill Submission

2.      Agrees to lodge the submission on the Resource Management Amendment Bill 2012 after including any amendments suggested by the Committee.

Makara Dam Statement of Proposal

3.      Endorses the Statement of Proposal and summary of the Statement of Proposal for remedial work on the Upper Makara Scheme, after inclusion of any changes arising from comments and amendments suggested by the Committee.

4.      Approves the contribution to the remedial works from the Regional Disaster Reserve of approximately $565,000 with the final amount to be calculated in accordance with the formula set out in this briefing paper once the final costs of the remedial work are known.

5.      Notes that submissions on the Statement of Proposal will be heard by a Hearing Panel made up of Councillor Scott (Chairman) and Councillors Wilson and Rose.

Making the Regional Pest Management Strategies

6.      Agrees to make the Regional Pest Management Strategy 2011 and the Regional Phytosanitary Pest Management Strategy 2011 in accordance with Section 77 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 by affixing the Council’s seal to those plans.

Local Government Mandatory Performance Measures for Flood Protection and Control Work

7.      Endorses, subject to any comment or amendments made by the Committee, the submission on Local Government Mandatory Performance Measures for Flood Protection and Control Works.

Ngati Hori Freshwater Resources Management Plan

8.      Notes that the Ngati Hori Freshwater Resources Management Plan will be considered as an iwi/hapu management plan for purposes of decision-making under the Resource Management Act.

 

9.      Notes that the following reports were received at the meeting held on 20 February 2013

9.1       Low Flow Notification and Strategy Update

9.2       Update on Water Measurement and Reporting Regulation Uptake

9.3       Napier Inner Harbour Science Report

9.4     Environmental Assessment of Intertidal Reefs at Kairakau

9.5     Puhokio Stream Science Report

9.6       Soft Sediment Ecological Monitoring

9.7       Longfin eel - Update on Progress to Date

9.8       Undaria

9.9       Blue Flag Update

9.10     Biodiversity Strategic Update

9.11     Verbal Update on Fonterra by Philippa Barriball.

 

 

 

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

 

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

 

 

Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)

 

Attachment/s

1View

Makara Scheme Statement of Proposal

 

 

  


Makara Scheme Statement of Proposal

Attachment 1

 

 

Statement of

Proposal

For the Establishment of Upper Makara Scheme

February 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submissions on this

Statement of Proposal

close at 4.00pm on Tuesday 2 April 2013

 

 

 

 


Makara Scheme Statement of Proposal

Attachment 1

 

Contents

1.      Executive Summary and Summary of Statement of Proposal 1

2.      Introduction. 1

3.      Submissions – Timeline. 1

4.      Construction timing. 1

5.      Scheme Background. 1

6.      Original Scheme Objectives. 1

7.      Scheme Finances. 1

8.      Damage to the Makara No 1 dam.. 1

9.      Options for reinstatement of the level of flood protection provided by the Makara No 1 dam   1

10.        Evaluation of Options. 1

11.        Impact on rates. 1

 


Makara Scheme Statement of Proposal

Attachment 1

 

1.         Executive Summary and Summary of Statement of Proposal

Investigations have been underway to ensure the continued protection of the Makara Valley and Elsthorpe community from the risk of flooding, after a sinkhole was found in the face of the No. 1 Dam, Kokatewai Road, off Kairakau Road in May 2012.

Several options have been investigated, including reinstatement of the dam and decommissioning the dam and improving stopbanks. A Statement of Proposal has been prepared outlining all the options.

1.1.  The Preferred Option

HBRC has held a number of community meetings in Elsthorpe.  At those meetings a strong desire by the community to have the dam rebuilt has been expressed.  Modelling work done by HBRC shows that the stopbank options will provide properties with at least a similar level of flood protection to that provided by the dam.

Whatever option is chosen there will be an ongoing need to maintain the Scheme, including from time to time, major items of repair or maintenance – particularly following significant flood events.

The option preferred by the community is to reconstruct the dam, with a new concrete discharge pipe in accordance with modern design codes.  This option will have a significant impact on the targeted rates paid by properties benefiting from the Makara Flood control Scheme.

HBRC will send a letter to each property advising them of the rating impact of the options presented in the Statement of Proposal.

The estimated project cost of the preferred option is $1,204,000.

It is important to note that the dam is designed to reduce the peak flows in the Makara Stream during smaller more frequent flood events (those estimated to occur on average once every five years).  The dam’s effectiveness reduces for larger events when the dam storage capacity is exceeded and spillway operates. In an event expected to occur on average once every 20 years, the dam has a negligible impact on the peak flows in the Makara Stream. Therefore in the April 2011 storm event, the dam would have had negligible impact on the flood levels that were experienced in the Makara Stream downstream of the dam, including Elsthorpe.

 

Some minor stopbanking improvements could reduce the frequency of flooding to some of the productive farmland downstream of the dam. This work has an estimated cost of $65,000.

The dam is also losing its effectiveness as a result of ongoing build-up of silt in its ponding area and has high annual costs because of depreciation and future desilting requirements to maintain the current level of service. The cost of desilting just to maintain the current level of service provided by the dam is estimated to be in the order of $25,000 annually.

1.2.      The Cost

While HBRC has sought expert advice; the construction cost of the dam of $1,204,030 is based on the concept design. A more accurate assessment of the cost can only be done once final designs have been completed, the building consent granted and the contract for the physical works has been let.

Project Estimate

Costs to date

Estimated additional costs

2011/12

2012/13

Initial assessment by Damwatch

24,866

LiDAR surveying

19,830

490

Temporary spillway construction

23,375

Additional soil testing

6,385

Ground survey

7,388

Damwatch options assessment and preferred option development

127356

HBRC engineering modelling etc

9,722

38200

20000

Review of alternative options

14,189

12000

Miscellaneous

113

116

Damwatch detailed design

60000

Consents

20000

Construction

800000

Construction supervision

20000

61,919

210,111

932,000

Total Project Cost

1,204,030

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Owing to the high initial cost estimates for repair of the dam, alternative options were investigated to provide landowners on the Makara Valley floodplain with alternative options that will, as far as practicable, provide at least the same level of protection as that currently provided to the Makeara Stream by the Makara No.1 Dam.

1.3.      Who will pay

The Statement of Proposal sets out how it proposes the preferred option would be funded and the relative benefit provided by the Scheme to individual properties.  A significant part of the cost of the project will be met from HBRC regional disaster reserve fund, however there will be a need for a significant increase in the targeted rates paid by Scheme ratepayers.  Each ratepayer will receive a letter advising of the estimated rating impact on their property.

An amendment to the HBRC’s 2012-22 Long Term Plan will be required to reflect the changes in targeted rates required to fund the work.  This Statement of Proposal has been prepared in accordance with Sections 83 and 84 of the Local Government Act 2002.

1.4.      Consultation

As part of the special consultative process a hearing will be held to consider all submissions.

The time frame is outlined below:

Fri 1 March 2013

·      Letters sent to all Upper Makara ratepayers, including summary of Statement of Proposal

 

Sat 2 March 2013

·      Public notice on Statement of Proposal

 

Early march

·      Site visit for Council to the scheme, specifically the Makara No. 1 dam

 

March

·      Public meeting in Elsthorpe Hall to explain content of Statement of Proposal

 

Tue 2 April 2013

·      Submissions close

 

Fri 12 April 2013

·      Hearings to be held in Elsthorpe Hall (subject to availability)

 

Wed 24 April 2013

·      HBRC to consider Hearings Panel report and recommendations

 

1.5.      Timing of Construction

Once the preferred option has been agreed there will be a need to complete design work, obtain the necessary consents, and let a contract for the construction work.  The construction work is expected to take 12 to 14 weeks and there will be a 5 to 8 week lead in time for delivery of the pipes.  Construction work is most cost effectively done in the summer months when the ground is drier and there is less risk of flood events.  Therefore construction work is now expected to be undertaken in the 2013/14 summer.

A full statement of proposal is available for viewing in the following locations

·    HBRC offices at 159 Dalton St Napier

·    HBRC website

·    An Email or hard copy of the text of the Statement of Proposal will be provided on request to Sally Chandler  chandler@hbrc.govt.nz

 

2.        
Introduction

On 31 May 2012 a sinkhole was identified in the Makara No 1 Dam high on its upstream face directly above the low level discharge pipe.  This discovery compromises the structural integrity of the dam, has resulted in the HBRC:

·          reducing the flood detention capacity of the dam by excavating a temporary spillway at a lower level than the permanent spillway, following advice from Consulting Engineers experienced in dam construction and rehabilitation;

·          investigating the cost of reinstatement of the dam;

·          investigating alternative options for the provision of a similar level of flood protection to downstream properties to that provided by the dam; and

·          assessing the relative benefit that the Scheme and each of the alternative options provides to each property within the Scheme.

The Makara No 1 dam is the largest of 5 flood detention dams which provide flood protection to the Elsthorpe Valley, and which are assets of the Makara Scheme administered by HBRC.

This Statement of Proposal sets out a range of options for the provision of a similar level of flood protection to that provided by the dam, and demonstrates how it proposes the work associated with each of the options can be funded.  A preferred option is proposed.

This Statement of Proposal also considers the relative benefit provided by the Scheme to individual properties and suggests some changes to the way rates are attributed to each property to provide a fair apportionment of the cost of the scheme commitments.

An amendment to the HBRC’s 2012-22 Long Term Plan will be required to reflect the changes in targeted rates required to fund the work. 

This Statement of Proposal has been prepared in accordance with Sections 83 and 84 of the Local Government Act 2002.

3.    Submissions – Timeline

Submissions on this Statement of Proposal

close at 4.00pm on Tuesday 2 April 2013.

Submissions should be sent to Sally Chandler, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Private Bag 6006 Napier 4142; email chandler@hbrc.govt.nz

It is proposed that a public hearing be held in Elsthorpe Hall (subject to its availability) on Friday 12 April 2013.  All verbal submissions on the proposal will be heard on that day.  The Hearings panel will also consider written submissions on that day if time permits.


 

4.    Construction timing

The consulting engineering organisation undertaking the dam design has advised that they could complete the detailed design and contract documentation ready for consent application in approximately 5 weeks after being instructed to resume their work. 

They expect the consent process to take between 1 and 2 months.

The construction contract will require 12 to 14 weeks to complete and have a lead time of between 5 and 8 weeks between ordering and delivery of the pipes.

If the works are to be tendered, the tender process will take approximately 5 weeks, including at least 3 weeks for interested contractors to prepare their tenders.

This means that the works are unable to be completed prior to the 2013 winter.  The work is now being planned during the 2013/14 summer.

5.    Scheme Background

The Upper Makara Catchment Control Scheme is located approximately 30 km due south of Hastings, and 20 km due east of Waipawa.  The catchment (approximately 7645 ha) spans the steep hill country above Elsthorpe, the flat valley floors as well as the flat area around the village of Elsthorpe.  The main streams in the catchment are the Makara Stream, the Wharemate Stream, and the Silver Range Stream.  The Wharemate and the Silver Range Streams drain into the Makara Stream, which flows through the Elsthorpe Valley to the Tukituki River. 

The need for the Catchment Control Scheme was initiated in August 1971 following a period of severe storms which caused significant erosion on properties in the catchment and flooding through Elsthorpe.  A further flood in October that year and widespread flooding in 1974 resulted in further damage and problems for the local community.

The Scheme was designed to improve stability and productivity of 800 hectares of flats and 2225 hectares of hill country.

The Makara and Silver Range Streams with their catchments in the very steep severely eroding hill country were subject to flash floods from combinations of high intensity rain storms and very low capacity alluvial channels.

The Wharamate Stream has a large catchment with moderately steep land and also had a low capacity drainage channel.

The Scheme design incorporated a combination of detention dams, some stopbanking, and significant channel improvements along with soil conservation works on the steep hill country using retirement planting.

Discussions between landowners and the former Hawke’s Bay Catchment Board regarding flood and erosion control in the catchment commenced in 1971 and the final Makara Scheme was agreed to in 1975.

During the late 1970’s and early 1980’s a series of 5 detention dams were constructed in the Makara Stream and Wharemate Stream catchments to reduce the flood peaks and provide a more controlled flow in the streams.  The reduced flood peaks, significantly improved channels and reduced siltation arising from the soil conservation works in the steep hill country has enabled further development of the fertile flats in the valley floors.

During the 1980’s significant channel excavations were carried out on the Makara, Wharemate, and the Silver Range Streams, in order to improve the alignment and capacity of these channels.  Soil conservation planting was also carried out throughout the catchment to control hill country erosion.

The Scheme’s capital works programme was completed in January 1984 at a cost of $1,239,763 with a government grant of $896,250.  (Source – History of the Hawke’s Bay Catchment Board and Regional Water Board).  The local share of $343,513 was met from capital works rates levied on the community from 1977/78 until 1983/84.

      

Figure 1:  Location of dam and outline of Scheme area


Makara Scheme Statement of Proposal

Attachment 1

 

6.    Original Scheme Objectives

The objectives of the Upper Makara Catchment Control Scheme when it was established were;

·          to provide 5 year flood protection to approximately 720 ha of farmland in the Elsthorpe Valley by way of flood detention dams;

·          to reduce erosion and improve production potential over much of the 2400 ha of moderately to severely eroded catchment by way of catchment planting;

·          to reduce siltation of the Makara Stream;

·          to improve drainage outlets along the Wharemate Stream; and

·          to maintain channel capacity in the Silver Range Stream.

The current maintenance programme for the Scheme is designed to meet these objectives to a level which is acceptable to the scheme ratepayers, taking into account the cost of any works to be done.

The Scheme levels of service objectives are:

6.1.  Streams and Channels

         The design flow capacity (5 year return period) shall be contained within the stream or drainage channel. The channel shall be maintained with a short dense sward of vegetation to minimise resistance to flood flows and minimise channel sedimentation. Where specific design information is available the channels will be maintained in accordance with this design criteria. Streams and drains shall convey their design flow, for extended periods, without overflow on to adjacent land, and with an acceptable low risk of damage to the channel.

6.2.  Detention Dams

         The capacity of each detention dam was designed to manage the design storm event calculated using available hydrological records.

         The spillway on each dam is designed to allow safe overflow when a storm event exceeds the design capacity of the dam.

         It is recognised that in any event where a detention dam storage capacity is exceeded flooding will occur downstream of the dam.

         All detention dams shall control water in a design storm event by releasing the maximum flow through the outlet culvert and retaining the remainder as ponded water behind the dam wall up to spillway level.

         The spillway shall convey any water in excess of the design capacity via a spillway into the outlet channel without undue scouring of the spillway, or erosion of the banks of the downstream channel.

7.   
Scheme Finances

7.1.  Scheme Rating

Targeted rates levied since 1983/84 have funded ongoing maintenance of the Scheme.  Key areas of expenditure have included the:

·          maintenance of dam discharge pipe inlet structures free of debris, and repairs to localised scouring where necessary, including regular and post flood checks;

·          annual surveys of the dam structures, with regular survey to monitor possible changes;

·          maintenance of the Scheme waterways, including regrowth spraying;

·          removal of windfall trees;

·          periodic channel cleaning; and

·          maintenance of the soil conservation plantings.

 

Since completion of the capital works programme in 1983/84, a total of $534,057 of targeted rates has been levied from the community. The total annual rate take is set out in the graph below.  Targeted rates of $30,261 have been set for the 2012/13 financial year.  The Local Government Act 2002 required local authorities to fund depreciation of infrastructure assets.  Accordingly a depreciation reserve was set up for the scheme in 2002 resulting in the increase in Scheme targeted rates since that time.

 

7.2. 
The existing rating system

The existing rating system was established in 1977 under the rating provisions of the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941.

The Act specified that in developing a rating system, the degrees of direct benefit to land and improvements arising from the proposed scheme shall be assessed by reference to the frequency, depth, severity and likelihood of flooding and erosion, improvements to drainage, and the improvements and advantages derived from any soil conservation works included in the Scheme.

The Act also required indirect benefit to be assessed by reference to the establishment or preservation of economic units of land and the protection derived by services and amenities such as water supply systems, electrical services roads and the benefit derived by other amenities which may derive benefit from the Scheme.

The Scheme was subsequently classified into seven rating classes being A to G where A class land derives the largest degree of benefit and G class receives no benefit. Classes C and D were further divided to recognise the different benefits derived on the Makara Stream, Wharemate and Silver Range Stream floodplains.

A full description of the existing rating categories is set out in

To determine the relative degrees of benefit for the various rating categories the classifiers assessed the current losses arising from flooding, siltation, direct stock losses, and the cost of stock replacement that would be prevented by the scheme, and the potential increases in both the stock carrying capacity and cropping ability of the land as a result of the Scheme.

The results of this analysis were as follows:

 

Rating Class

Relative Benefit

A

100

B

80

C

(Makara)

65

C

(Wharemate)

65

D

(Makara)

35

D

(Silver Range)

35

E

5

F

2

G

0

 

Figure 2 is a map showing the existing rating system.  Larger scale maps are available at HBRC office 159 Dalton St.  These will assist any land owners who wish to determine the boundaries of Scheme classification areas with regard to their properties.

The LiDAR surveying of the Makara valley and computer based flood models has enabled a much more accurate assessment of the potential risk of flooding and therefore benefit received by individual properties by the Scheme.  The Scheme classification has been reviewed to better reflect actual benefit received and a proposed new classification form part of this proposal (ref section 11).

This review has highlighted a number of anomalies in Council’s rating database which will be corrected.  In some cases this means properties which are within the Scheme but are not currently rated, will in the future have Scheme rates added to their rating assessments.

7.3.  Scheme Funding

The money necessary to maintain the Scheme and fund scheme commitments such as rate collection and depreciation is sourced through targeted rates (90%) and HBRC general funding sources (10%).

Targeted rates are levied on individual properties on the basis of the benefit they are assessed to receive from the Scheme.  As set out in 7.2 above these benefits were assessed at the time of establishing the Scheme. 

HBRC recognises that the Scheme also provides benefits to local infrastructure, roads, power and telecommunications networks, which provide benefits outside the Scheme area.  It also recognises that the increased flood protection to land as a result of the Scheme has benefits to the regional economy.  These indirect benefits are recognised through HBRC 10% contribution to the Scheme (excluding rate collection costs) from general funding sources.

7.4.  Scheme Accounts

HBRC manages the Scheme finances through 3 separate accounts. As at 30 June 2012, the account balances for each of these accounts was as set out below.

Account

Balance

Scheme operating account

-$39,050

Scheme disaster reserve

$40,538

Scheme depreciation reserve

$173,535

 

8.    Damage to the Makara No 1 dam

On 30 May 2012 a sinkhole was discovered in the Makara No 1 dam.  The sinkhole is approximately 3m in diameter and has resulted from the soil within the earth embankment of the dam caving in as a result of a cavity that formed below the surface.  The sinkhole is on the upstream face and close to the crest of the dam, immediately above the low level discharge pipe.  The April 2011 flood event tested the Scheme assets.  It is believed that this initiated the formation of the cavity.

8.1.  April 2011 flood event

The rainfall event that occurred in 2011 filled the Makara No 1 Dam, spilling large flows over its spillway.

No specific information is available for that event to determine its return period within the Makara Valley.  However it is likely that the return period was an event that would be expected to occur on average once every 100 years or more. This is demonstrated in the tables below which show return periods verses rainfall depth and actual measured rainfall depths at the nearest HBRC rainfall recording site.

 


Table 1: Rainfall depths - NIWA  HIRDS database

Table 2:  Rainfall data recorded at the HBRC Waipoapoa site, the nearest rainfall gauge to the site to the Makara Catchment

Duration

Rainfall Depth

24 hours

431mm

36 hours

543mm

72 hours

625mm

 

Anecdotal evidence indicates that over 700mm of rain fell in 36 hours in the Pouhokio and Mangakuri catchments.

It can be seen from these figures that the heavy rainfall event in April 2011 had an estimated return period of at least 100 years and could have been considerably larger.  The designed 5 year return period for the Scheme was therefore exceeded by a substantial amount, and the extent of flooding in the Makara Valley would have reflected the extreme event.

In major storms the dam fills up and excess water is spilled over its spillway.  In bigger events the dam has very little impact on the peak flow in the Makara Stream downstream of the dam.  This is illustrated in the flow hydrographs below.

 

An event with a total peak outflow of 45m3/s (with the dam in place) is expected to occur on average once every 5 to 10 years.

The blue line shows the flow without the dam and the red line with the dam. 

The dam reduces the peak flow downstream of the dam from 60m3/sec to 45m3/sec.

 

 

An event with a peak flow of approximately 90m3/sec has a probability of occurrence of on average once every 20 to 30 years.

Whether or not the dam is in place makes very little difference to the peak flow downstream of the dam for this size of flood.

The effectiveness of the dam reduces even further for event larger events, such as the April 2011 event.

 

8.2.  Design of the dam

The dam was originally constructed in 1980, with the design meeting the requirements of design codes and utilising construction techniques relevant at that time.  As with the design codes for buildings, the design codes and construction techniques used today for large dam construction are different than those used in 1980.  The concept design for the replacement dam therefore includes features that are not included in the existing dam, and the estimated cost of replacement is considerably more that the cost of reinstating the dam using the 1980 design.

8.3.  Is it Insured?

HBRC has insurance cover for its infrastructure assets. Commercial insurance covers assets other than live tree edge protection which suffer damage from a natural hazard event.  This insurance is for 60% of the cost of repair of the assets up to a maximum of $20,000,000 above a deductible of $3,500,000. This means that the cost of repair of the damage must exceed $3,500,000 before any claim will be considered.

HBRC is also a member of the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP) which is a mutual insurance scheme set up by local government specifically to cover local authority infrastructural assets. LAPP will meet 40% of the cost of repair of infrastructure assets above a deductible of $1,128,000 (1% of the infrastructure asset value insured).

Staff have sought advice from LAPP on the possible success of a claim.  LAPP have advised that they will not accept a claim because the event that is most likely to have caused the failure occurred on or around 25 April 2011. On 13 April 2011, HBRC received a letter from LAPP advising that as a result of the Christchurch earthquake they were unable to provide any insurance for flood protection assets until at least 30 June 2011 or until suitable reinsurance cover and/or Government support is in place.

8.4.  Dam siltation

Siltation in the catchment was a well-recognised problem when the scheme was developed and its impact on farm production as well as flooding were the main reasons for the Scheme being established.

Because of this problem, and especially with regard to the catchment of the Makara No. 1 Dam, it is generally understood that an allowance was made for some siltation of the dam’s storage area at the time the Scheme was designed.

The original volume in the reservoir was determined at the time of construction of the dam (in 1980) through traditional ground survey methods to be 835,000m3.  Siltation has been occurring in the ponding area and has been monitored since 1980 through cross section surveys. Using the most recent siltation survey, it is estimated that 160,500m3 of silt has built up in the ponding area.

The ponding volume as at 2012 has been calculated to be 490,000m3 using the most recent LiDAR survey data and not the 674,500m3 (835,000m3 - 160,500m3) calculated using the original survey and siltation survey data.  The source of this error is not known but could result from inaccuracies in the original calculations of storage volume arising from the methods of surveying available at that time.

An accumulation of 160,000m3 of silt equates to 19% of 835,000 m3; or 25% of 650,500m3 (490,000m3 + 160,500m3) (The possible original storage volume). This equates to siltation of approximately 5,000m3 per year since the dam was constructed.

Siltation of approximately 4,000 m3 has occurred in Dam 4 since its construction (No. 4 dam has a catchment of similar geology to that of the No1 dam.)  The other 3 dams which are in the catchment of the Wharemate Stream and its tributaries, have relatively little siltation.

The performance of both dams has reduced since their construction.   Desilting is estimated to cost approximately $6.00/m3 if a suitable dump site is able to be identified with only a short haul distance ideally downstream of a dam.  Desilting the Makara No.1 Dam would therefore cost approximately $1,000,000.

If a programme of work was put in place to remove new siltation from the Scheme dams on a regular basis, provision should be made in scheme budgets for between $20,000 and $30,000 annually.  This would allow improvement in the storage capacity of the dam between major flood events, however would on average only maintain the current detention storage capacity of the dam.  A programme of desilting in excess of 5,000m3/year would be required to improve that capacity over time.

8.5.  Scheme maintenance and management

Works have been undertaken to maintain the Scheme in line with the Scheme Management Plan prepared in March 1998.

The works involve the:

·        the maintenance of the stream channels to control weeds and unwanted tree growth;

·        the removal of blockages, obstructions and other impediments to the flow;

·        the maintenance of grade control structures;

·        the inspection at least annually of all aspects of the Scheme dams, including the embankments themselves, intake screens, outlet culverts, spillways and ponding areas;

·        the maintenance as required of all aspects of the dams;

·        flood damage inspections following flood events; and

·        soil conservation works.

Stream channels maintained as part of the Scheme are maintained such that they are able to convey flood water without hindrance from excess vegetation.  It should be noted however, that willows have been left in some areas because they provide protection against river bank scour, and/or river bed degradation.  Ongoing work is necessary to maintain sections of the channel.


 

8.6.  Annual expenditure and income

Annual expenditure and income for the Scheme is approximately as follows.

Expenditure

 

Engineering and other staff time

$1,600

Operations including physical works

$15,000

Rate collection costs

$350

Depreciation

$17,900

Surveying

$1,000

Soil conservation planting inspection and replacement

$2,000

Insurance

$3,300

Total expenditure

$40,150

Income

 

Targeted rates

$30,250

Council general funding

$4,370

Interest on Scheme reserves

$1,600

Scheme reserve draw down

$3,930

Total income

$40,150

 

8.7.  Distribution of scheme expenditure

A breakdown of average annual Scheme expenditure has identified that on average the expenditure on the four main components of the Scheme are in the proportions set out in the table below. The expenditure items included in this analysis are channel maintenance, dam inspections and maintenance, dam depreciation, soil conservation works and general Scheme management.

Scheme Component

Proportion of average annual expenditure

Average annual expenditure

Makara Stream channel and dams

65%

$26,100

Wharemata Stream channel and dams

25%

$10,050

Silver Range Stream

5%

$2,000

Soil conservation

5%

$2,000

 

9.    Options for reinstatement of the level of flood protection provided by the Makara No 1 dam

A range of options have been considered to reinstate the level of flood protection provided to properties downstream of the dam.  These broadly include reinstatement of the dam, and channel improvements and stopbanking to increase the capacity of the Stream channel in conjunction with decommissioning of the dam.

 

These options are discussed below.

9.1.  Reinstatement of the Makara No. 1 Dam

The following table set out the details of the Makara No. 1 Dam

Makara No 1 Dam Specifications

Year of construction

1980

Catchment area

1330 hectares

Design return period

5-years

Ponding area

15.36 hectares

Volume of earthworks

38,000 m3

Dam height

12 m above discharge pipe

Discharge pipe diameter

2 m

Discharge pipe length

70.8 m

 

Options and estimates for the repair or replacement of the discharge pipe have been developed.  Options considered include:

·    the repair of the existing discharge pipe, and

·    complete replacement of the pipe.

The most cost effective option, and option that will provide the longest life to the dam structure once repaired involves the removal of a section of the existing dam, the replacement of the culvert, and the reinstatement of the dam to its original performance specifications, but in accordance with modern design codes.  The construction works for this option are estimated to cost approximately $800,000.

Initial estimates for this work have been higher than this figure.  The revised figure is on a more detailed assessment of the cost of the work HBRC’s operations group in conjunction with a local contractor.


If this option is chosen the estimated total project cost will be as set out in the table below.

 

Project Estimate

Costs to date

Estimated additional costs

2011/12

2012/13

Initial assessment by Damwatch

24,866

LiDAR surveying

19,830

490

Temporary spillway construction

23,375

Additional soil testing

6,385

Ground survey

7,388

Damwatch options assessment and preferred option development

127356

HBRC engineering modelling etc

9,722

38200

20000

Review of alternative options

14,189

12000

Miscellaneous

113

116

Damwatch detailed design

60000

Consents

20000

Construction

800000

Construction supervision

20000

61,919

210,111

932,000

Total Project Cost

1,204,030

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It should be noted that while HBRC has sought advice from people with expertise and experience in this sort of construction works, the estimate for the construction cost of the dam is based on the concept design.  A more accurate assessment of the cost can only be done once final designs have been completed, the building consent has been granted and the contract for the physical works has been let.

Initial estimates for the reconstruction of the dam were higher than the estimate used in the project estimate set out above.  In a briefing paper to Council’s Environment and Services Committee on 5 December 2012, an estimate of $1,210,000 was used. 

Owing to the high initial estimates for the cost of repairing the dam, alternative options were investigated to provide landowners on the Makara valley floodplain alternative options that will, as far as is practicable, provide at least the same level of protection as that currently provided to the Makara Stream by the Makara No.1 Dam. 

9.2.  Flood Control Alternatives

Alternative flood control options that have been considered have focused on increasing the flood carrying capacity of the channel. Whilst in theory this could be increased by increasing the size of the channel and by improving its alignment, there is very little scope for this on the Makara Stream as it was already enlarged when the Scheme was developed and with only a few exceptions, its alignment is relatively good. This therefore only leaves stopbanking and stopbank raising as the available option.

There are 7.4 km of stopbanking along the channel largely located along only one side of the channel at any one location with the natural high ground limiting the extent of flooding on the other side. Of this only approximately 2 km would need to be raised to achieve the 5-year protection standard if the dam was decommissioned. The results of this work are set out in the John Philpott report – Ref Appendix 1 to this Statement of Proposal.

Key findings in the report are set out below:

9.2.1.   Minor improvement works

An on ground inspection was undertaken to identify these locations and in all cases, in the areas protected with stopbanking, water would spill from the channel where the stopbanks were clearly low or hadn’t been extended sufficiently to tie into the high ground.

In reaches of the stream where there are no stopbanks, both the extent and depth of flooding was slightly increased with the depth increases generally no more than 100mm.

It was clear from these inspections that relatively minor works could be undertaken to reduce the impacts of this flooding in flood events when the channel was generally full to capacity. The estimated cost of raising these low sections of stopbank and extending banks where required to optimise the flood carrying capacity of the existing channel is $65,000 and would be worth doing as finances permitted even if the dam was repaired.

Specific areas suggested for this work are:

9.2.2.   The top end of Paeroa Station - join the upper end of the stopbank to the high ground to the west

9.2.3.   The second half of the Scheeles 1 area – figure 6 at the end of the Philpott report

9.2.4.   A small gap at the upper end of Scheeles 2 - Figure 7

9.2.5.   A small gap at the upstream end of Thomas 1 - Figure 8

 

This work has not been included in the preferred option but it will be considered should funding be available in the future.

9.3.  Flood protection through stopbanking

There are a range of possible options for the protection of properties from flooding if the dam is decommissioned.  These all include improvement of the current stopbanks on the Makara Stream,

The level of protection provided can be improved by increasing the height of the stopbanks.  A summary of two stopbank options is set out below.  Note cost estimates are for the construction cost of the option only.  Total project costs will include costs already expended and committed, detailed design costs and construction supervision costs.

 

In preparing these tables, the following allowances have been made:

·        the stopbank top width will be increased to at least 3m to aid construction and compaction. (It is assumed that the existing bank top width is only 2m on average);

·        a freeboard allowance of 300 mm has been added to the design water level;

·        a contingency of 20% has been allowed for in the estimated cost of stopbank raising bringing total raising cost at $18/m3.  This includes sufficient allowance for fencing on some reaches.

·        no allowance has been made for setting the stopbank back when upgraded to move it away from eroding riverbank if required;

·        an allowance of $200,000 for the raising of the 4 farm bridges; and

·        an allowance of $50,000 for additional stopbanks to protect small areas affected by the raising that are not currently protected.

 

The allowance for bridge raising assumes that the bridges will be able to be raised by raising the abutments.

When there is a stopbank along one side of the stream only, raising this stopbank will increase the flood level on the other side of the stream. In most cases there is only a very narrow strip of land along the unprotected side of the stream and where this is not the case, stopbanks could be constructed to protect the area.

 

10. 
Evaluation of Options

10.1.     Option 1 – Reinstatement of the dam

This option with an estimated project cost of $1,204,000 would reinstate the dam with a new concrete discharge pipe and to similar dimensions to the current dam.  This would effectively reduce the level of flood flows in the Makara Stream for the smaller more frequent flood events (estimated to be those events that occur on average once every 5 years);

It is important to note that its effectiveness reduces for larger events when the dam storage capacity is exceeded and the spillway operates.  In an event expected to occur on average once every 20 years, the dam has a negligible impact on the peak flows in the Makara Stream.  Therefore in the April 2011 storm event, the dam would have had negligible impact on flood levels that were experienced in the Makara Stream downstream of the dam including within Elsthorpe.

Some minor stopbanking improvements set out in 8.2.1 above could reduce the frequency of flooding to some of the productive farmland downstream of the dam.  This work has an estimated cost of $65,000.  It is not included in the preferred option as it is not considered critical for the effective operation of the scheme.

The dam is also losing its effectiveness as a result of ongoing buildup of silt in its ponding area and has high annual costs because of depreciation and future desilting requirements to maintain the current level of service.  The cost of desilting just to maintain the current level of service provided by the dam is estimated to be in the order of $25,000 - $30,000 annually.  A figure of $25,000 has been used in financial models to assess the impact on rates.

Two options are presented for community comment.

Option 1a) - Includes the reinstatement of the dam, but does not include any provision to meet the cost of a desilting programme.

Option 1b) – Includes reinstatement of the dam and a provision of $25,000 annually for a desilting programme commencing in the 2014/15 year.  This is the preferred option.

10.2.     Option 2 – Decommission the dam and improve stopbanks to provide 5 year flood protection.

This option with an estimated project cost of approximately $1,000,000 will provide substantially the same level of flood protection as that provided by the Scheme when it was designed in 1975.

The option will require approximately 1.07 hectares of additional land being required for the stopbank footprint.  Because of the nature of the channel the land affected by the stopbank upgrade is located on farms that derive the most benefit from the Scheme no provision has been made in the cost estimate for land purchase.

A provision is included in the estimates for all stopbank improvement options to raise the level of 4 farm bridges.  The estimate included is based on experience on raising of farm bridges on other Schemes.  However in some instances, other improvement works unrelated to the raising may be required, in which case there would be negotiation with the individual farmer to agree on a cost sharing arrangement.

Landowners with properties downstream of the dam advise that the dam does provide benefit by reducing peak flows in the stream channel and provides them with more time to move stock.  This is of particular benefit in high intensity rainfall events.

If the dam is decommissioned and stopbanks are constructed to provide a similar level of flood protection to that provided by the dam, it is anticipated that there will be an increase in channel maintenance required downstream of the dam to protect areas where channel erosion threatens to undermine the stopbanks.  Provision for this additional work has been included in financial models used to assess the impact on Scheme targeted rates.

10.3.     Option 4 – Decommission dam and improve stopbanks to provide 10 year flood protection.

This option with an estimated Scheme cost of $1,200,000 will provide an increased level of service to that provided by the dam plus an additional margin to cover modeling and flow uncertainties.

The option will require approximately 1.9 hectare of additional land being required for the stopbank footprint.

Farm bridge raising would also occur as in Option 1.

10.4.     Preferred Option

The preferred option put forward for community comment is the reinstatement of the dam and an ongoing $25,000 per year programme of desilting.

Whatever option is chosen there will be an ongoing need to maintain the Scheme, including from time to time, major items of repair or maintenance – particularly following significant flood events.

Pros

Cons

Dam option

 

·   Significant reduction in flood peaks up to a 5 year return period event, but reducing in effectiveness for larger floods.

·   Delay in flood peak downstream of dam (other than small events).

·   Impact known to the community.

·   Reduced peak in flows in Makara Stream downstream of dam for most events, arguably resulting in reduction in erosion of Makara Stream banks.

·   High cost infrastructure resulting in high depreciation charges and significant commitment to monitoring and maintenance.

·   Significant cost associated with management of silt in ponding area.

·   Limited level of flood protection (nominally a 5 year event).


 

Pros

Cons

Stopbank option

 

·   Potentially lower capital cost than dam reconstruction, with range of options available.

·   Potential for higher level of protection than provided by dam.

·   Flood peaks will be higher for short duration high intensity rainfall events.

·   More rapid rise in stream water levels will occur in events that would have been moderated by the dam.

·   Slightly higher levels of flooding for properties downstream of Elsthorpe village.

·   Potential for more siltation on floodable properties as a result of no ponding, and therefore silt deposition in dam.

·   Increased potential for erosion of stream banks downstream of dam and therefore increased maintenance requirements and associated costs.

 

Stopbanking options will result in reduced depreciation costs as a result of the decommissioning of the dam.  However reduced depreciation charges will be offset by increased maintenance costs because of the increased potential for erosion of stream banks downstream of the dam.

Community feedback to Council over the past several months is that there is a strong desire to have the dam rebuilt.  While this may not be the cheapest option, the community believes that it will provide a level of protection that would not be possible to provide with the stopbank options proposed.

HBRC advise that there are advantages and disadvantages for each of the options, and present a number of pros and cons for each of the options in the table above.

11.  Impact on rates

The attached table Appendix 2 shows how each of the options presented above would be funded and the impact the total amount of Scheme targeted rates collected from the community. 

The current allocation of rates is determined through the Scheme classification which is described in Section 6.2 of this report.

A review of the areas classified under the various classification categories has been made possible as a result of the LiDAR survey work undertaken as part of this project.  This review has also highlighted a number of anomalies in Council’s rating database which will be corrected.  In some cases this means properties which are within the Scheme but are not currently rated, will in the future have Scheme rates added to their rating assessments.

The outcome review is set out in the report “Makara Scheme – Report on the development of the new rating system, attached as Appendix 3.

Letters will be sent to each property contributing to the Scheme to advise of the impact of their rates of the various options and their estimated costs set out in this Statement of Proposal.

11.1.     Rating System

Description of Rating Classes

 

Class A

Areas of very severe and frequent flooding and siltation situated on the Makara Stream Flats which receive 5 year flood protection.

 

Class B

Areas of the Makara Stream flats where although the flooding is less frequent than in Class A, the soil is slightly more fertile and due to size and accessibility has greater potential for very intensive cropping with some emphasis on higher risk crops.

 

Class C (Makara)

Areas of the Makara Stream flats where only medium frequency flooding and siltation occurs and where utilisation is more limited than in Class B due to accessibility and the width of the flats. The area in this class has a 5-year return period level of protection.

 

Class C (Wharemate)

Areas of very severe and frequent flooding and ponding with resultant poor drainage. Situated in the Wharemate area, this area will have greater than 5 year protection due to the dams being built for 20 year return period protection.

 

Class D (Makara)

Areas of low frequency flooding and siltation in the lower Makara and Silver Range Stream areas where protection from 5-year return period floods from the upstream dams will provide 20 year return period protection with the large channel that exists making the land suitable for high risk cropping.

 

Class D (Silver Range)

is being provided at only a 1-2 year protection

Areas of high frequency flooding and siltation on the Silver Range Stream flats where  the stopbank protection is being provided at only a 1-2 year protection standard. This area, due to the narrow stream bed and the level of protection will still be subject to risk and will be suitable only for grazing.

 

Class E

Areas with moderate to very sever soil erosion in the northern section of moderate to very steep hill country requiring intensive conservation measures to prevent loss and damage to land and improvements and to stabilise stream beds.

 

Class F

Areas of land but not in other classes receiving indirect benefit from the Scheme works and contains the balance of the catchment not included in classes A to E.

 

Class G

Areas of land receiving no benefit from the Scheme neither direct nor indirect and generally is the balance of properties whose boundaries extend beyond the catchment. This area also includes the area directly affected by the detention dams.

 

 


Makara Scheme Statement of Proposal

Attachment 1

 

11.2.     Makara Scheme – Impact on total targeted rates

HBRC has prepared a financial model for the Scheme.  If the preferred option is chosen there will need to be a significant increase in Targeted Scheme rates as set out in the table below.  The allocation of these rates will however charge on individual properties under the reviewed rating classification.

The financial model shows that the Scheme operating account will be in deficit until 2024/25 year based on the estimated project cost.  Rates are projected to increase at 1% above the level of inflation

Scheme depreciation reserve

Scheme disaster reserve

HBRC regional disaster reserve

Total project capital cost

Portion to be funded from additional Scheme funding

Proposed loan

Current budgeted targeted rates (2013/14)

Required additional rates

total new rates

Option 1

Reinstatement of dam

$220,000

$41,200

$565,700

$1,204,034

$377,134

$360,000

$31,321

$44,000

$75,321

Option 1a

Reinstatement of dam plus desilting ($25,000/year)

$1,204,034

$376,886

$360,000

$31,321

$60,000

$91,321

Option 2

Stopbanking 5 year protection

$220,000

$41,200

$467,900

$1,041,034

$311,934

$310,000

$31,321

$45,000

$76,321

Option 3

Stopbanking 10 year protection

$220,000

$41,200

$577,700

$1,224,034

$385,134

$340,000

$31,321

$50,000

$81,321

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Recommendations from the Corporate and Strategic Committee

 

 

Reason for Report

1.      The following matter was considered by the Corporate and Strategic Committee on 30 January 2013 and is now presented to Council for consideration and approval.

2.      At the meeting on 30 January, the committee resolved the following.

“Accepts the template for the regular report of HBRIC Ltd financial activities to the Corporate and Strategic Committee, and requests that a fully developed template for HBRIC Ltd transactions, work streams, timelines and execution risks is provided to the 27 February Regional Council meeting.”

3.      Attached is the fully developed template requested.

Decision Making Process

4.      These items have all been specifically considered at the Committee level.

 

Recommendations

The Committee recommends 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.

HBRIC Ltd Reporting Template

2.      Accepts the template for the regular report of HBRIC Ltd activities to the Corporate and Strategic Committee, as updated to include transactions, work streams, timelines and execution risks.

 

 

 

 

Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)

 

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

 

Attachment

1View

HBRIC Ltd Reporting Template

 

 

  


HBRIC Ltd Reporting Template

Attachment 1

 

 

HAWKES BAY REGIONAL INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD (HBRIC Ltd)

Report to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

27 February 2013

This is the report of HBRIC Ltd for the period December 2012 – February 2013 in relation to the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project.

Summary

This report covers developments over the December/February period for the following:

·    HBRIC Ltd

·    RWS Scheme Execution

HBRIC Ltd

 

Work has focused on the following issues:

 

·    HBRIC Ltd executed the Sale and Purchase Agreement with HBRC for the transfer of project assets and IP to HBRIC Ltd.

 

·    Staff secondment agreements between HBRIC Ltd, HBRC and individual staff have been signed.

 

·    To strengthen the governance of the RWS project in the period until a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) is formed to implement the project, the Board decided on 21 December to commence a search for two additional subject matter experts, one in commercial law and one in engineering/project management in large civil works projects, to be appointed to a RWS Project Committee of the Board.

 

·    Further development of the Board Work Plan, covering all reporting and decision issues has occurred following the Board’s planning day on 22 January.

 

·    Work on remodelling the HBRC financial model relating funding streams and treatment for the RWS and other projects was undertaken for consideration at the 22 January planning session.

 

·    The draft Statement of Intent has been reviewed both by Management and the Audit and Risk Committee prior to submitting to HBRIC Ltd for approval on 18 February and subsequent submission to Council at its 27 February Meeting.

 

·    Two Board Advisors, Danelle Dinsdale (Commercial/legal) and David Faulkner (Large civil works engineering) were appointed on 18 February 2013 to the Board’s RWS Project Committee, on the recommendation of the Governance Remuneration and Appointments Committee.  The company’s recruitment advisers, Sheffield, had provided a research list or 20-25 possible candidates for each role, which was refined to 8 for each role by the committee for initial interview by Sheffield.  From those interviews a short list of 3 for each role was formed, to be interviewed by the Committee.

 


HBRIC Ltd Reporting Template

Attachment 1

 

 

RWS Scheme Execution

General

In early January the HBRIC Ltd Board confirmed the appointment of Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) of Australia as the Technical Adviser to the company on the design and construction aspects of the project.

Critical Deadlines

·   Consent application lodgement to Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) completeness check – 15 March 2013

·   Design and Construction shortlist decision – 27 March 2013

·   Water uptake contract team in place by end of February 2013

·   Final Design and Construction provider subject to fixed price/fixed time by 2 September 2013

·   Final water contract terms and conditions determined concurrent with the Design and Construction decision in September

Design and Construction

·   Appointment of Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation (SMEC) as Technical Advisor for HBRIC Ltd and any future subsidiary or SPV.

·   Expression of Interest document for Design and Construction confirmed on 18 February.

Risks

Risk

Rating

Mitigation

Construction price  driving above 22-25c per m3

Medium-high

D& C process – minimising interface risk – cost and price

Optimisation – costs and revenue

Extra site and geotech issues identify fatal flaw

Medium – trending lower

GNS final seismic work underway

$4M provision in capex build budget for foundation assessment

Landowner objections

Medium, if not proactively managed

Sales and purchase options agreements work strand

 

Investors

·    Investor discussions are making good progress with an iwi consortium, the Crown and a number of private sector parties. The Government’s recent announcement and recent Cabinet decisions augur well for negotiating a suitable level and terms of Crown investment via the Crown agency currently being formed. Private sector interest continues to be high.

Risks

Risk

Rating

Mitigation

Failure to secure adequate public investment

Medium – low

Leveraged deal HBRIC/Crown

Meeting the Crown’s investment criteria

Failure to secure adequate private investment

Low-medium

Risk increases with less uptake

Iwi and farmer equity and intergenerational equity

Financial model and uptake

 

Control - reflected in tension of environmental parameters, water price

Low

 

 

Uptake

·    Meetings with approximately 150 farm advisors and famers were held on the 18th and 19th December 2012 to begin the dialogue on uptake following the 31 October decision by HBRC to proceed.

·    A series of meeting with farmers is programmed over the coming weeks to market test the proposed water pricing

·    An Arable Field Day was held on 15 February to provide landowners with a further opportunity to learn about the Scheme. Over 70 people attended.

Risks

Risk

Rating

Mitigation

Rate of uptake varies from base case

Medium

Education

Incentives

Sales team

Price escalation

Low

Price tagged to CPI or similar indice adjustment in deed

Water user agreement – take or pay – volumetric charge versus capex charge disincentivises uptake

Medium

Contractual form needs careful pitch towards the end of a sale process

Intergenerational equity and option to invest

Distribution and commissioning

Medium

Optimisation with D&C process

User groups

 

Consents

·    Draft resource consent conditions are in a penultimate form and have included input by various collaborative parties including DoC, Iwi, Pan Sector Group and the RWS Stakeholder sub-group.

·    Note that within the RWS Stakeholder Group 2 work strands are underway – draft consent conditions for the infrastructure impact mitigation and offsets, and an on-farm work stream

·    Pre-application work is underway with the EPA. The EPA has appointed its technical experts who will provide the future Board of Inquiry with independent technical advice. They include:

Mark St Clair                          Hill Young Cooper  EPA Technical Adviser

Graeme Profitt        PDP                              EPA Technical Adviser

Kyle Christiansen    PDP                              EPA Technical Adviser

Nerena Rhodes       PDP                              EPA Technical Adviser

Shirley Hayward      PDP                              EPA Technical Adviser

·    The Tukituki Plan Change is being tabled with HBRC for adoption on 27 February with a full s.32 analysis.

Risks

Risk

Mitigation

Not obtaining required resource consents

Draft consent conditions and strategic partner support – Iwi, DoC, Pan sector

Nutrient management regime and limits made more stringent through BoI/EPA

Leading science on:

Nitrate toxicity and Tukituki in-stream management model

Provision of periphyton freshes – flow optimisation            

Dam design envelop constrained removing innovation and optimisation

 

Consent granted is less than 35 years, or other constraints imposed e.g. smaller dam

 

 

Communications

In this period:

 

Key Messages Newsletter

CHB Mail, Napier/Hastings Mail/Wairoa Star

Dec 2012

RWS progress to date

Opinion piece HB Today

Dec 2012

Media Release

Staff secondment to HBRIC Ltd

Dec 2012

Radio Live Farming Programme

Economics, Richard Lowe, Andy McFarlane

Dec 2012

Media Release

Draft Tukituki Plan Change

Dec 2012

HB Today Wednesday Write-in

Stock Exclusion Rules in Draft Plan Change

January 2013

Radio NZ Manu Korehe News

Roger Maaka/Mike Mohi – Māori and social impact

January 2013

Arable Field Day

Tikokino – 70 farmers in attendance

15 February 2013

            

Financials

Table 1 sets out the January 2013 Financial Report for HBRIC Ltd.

The report sets out the actual costs incurred for both the month and the year to date against the full budget to 20 Jun 2013.

Also provided for completeness is the full project budget for the next phase of the RWS Scheme to financial close (February 2014).

A summary of the key elements outlined in the report for the month of January is as follows:

Operating Income and Expenditure

·    There was very minimal operating expenditure in the month of January with the only invoices received relating to Board Fees, Management Services provided by HBRC, and the costs associated with the Board Meeting and Planning Days.

Capital Expenditure

·    The $36,097 of HBRC internal staff time and $77,877 of costs for Project Team Consultants covers a number of work streams including:

-   A variety of optimisation and further refinement works in both the engineering and environmental work programme areas as identified in the final feasibility report. These include, among other work programmes, additional phosphorous modelling and flow optimisation modelling

-   Significant EPA preparation work

-   Ongoing project management

·    The $30,557 of T&T costs relates to specific optimisation work identified as:

-   Zone M intake and outlet designs

-   Additional sedimentation works

·    The $38,655 of Other Consultants costs covers off a number of small pieces of work undertaken by consultants, including flow optimisation and Ruataniwha aquatic ecology uptakes provided by Cawthron Institute

·    $20,570 of costs incurred by Bell Gully for December 2012 and January 2013.

·    The total year to date capital expenditure costs of $855,.021 have been funded by way of advances from HBRC to HBRIC Ltd. Once the funding agreement has been signed by MPI a claim will be submitted to recover 50% of all costs incurred to 31 January 2013.

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Hawke's Bay Tourism Quarterly Report

 

Reason for Report

1.      The purpose of this paper is to provide Council with Hawke’s Bay Tourism Limited (HBTL) results for the six months to 31 December 2012.

Background

2.      At its meeting on 25 May 2011 Council resolved to approve the funding agreement between the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and HBTL. Section 11 of this funding agreement provided for a quarterly and annual report to be presented to Council to enable Council to monitor the outputs/outcomes being achieved and the financial progress against budget given the commitment by Council to fund HBTL, through a payment of $850,000 each year for three years commencing 2011/12.

3.      A report from HBTL setting out achievements, progress towards the key performance indicators as set out in the funding agreement, together with the Company’s financials, are attached to this paper.

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 that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

 

Recommendation

1.      That Council receives the report.

 

 

 

Annie Dundas

General Manager

Hawke's Bay Tourism

 

Paul Drury

Group Manager

Corporate Services

 

Attachment/s

1View

Hawke's Bay Tourism Quarter 2 2012-13 Report

 

 

2View

Hawke's Bay Tourism Financial Results 1 July to 31 December 2012

 

 

  


Hawke's Bay Tourism Quarter 2 2012-13 Report

Attachment 1

 

logo

Hawke’s Bay Tourism Ltd – 2nd Quarter Report October - December 2012

Prepared by Annie Dundas, GM Hawke’s Bay Tourism

 

Overall

Hawke’s Bay Tourism Limited has now been operating for 18 months. Membership numbers have reached 204 which we are exceptionally pleased with. Major initiatives completed this quarter include the staging of F.A.W.C! – Food and Wine Classic Hawke’s Bay, continued advertising and campaign work aimed at the family market and summer travel, the development of a new map-lead visitor guide for the region, and promotional plans around the Hawke’s Bay Trails. Please see the details within the KPI report.

 

Visitor Statistics

 

Overall results for Hawke’s Bay year end December 2012 combining Commercial Accommodation and Private Household figures show a negative result with 15,584 (-0.4%) fewer guest nights compared to the previous year. The tourism industry is still coming through the economic down-turn and compounded with strong arrivals around Rugby World Cup 2011, a negative result was expected year end 2012.

On the positive side the Commercial Accommodation Monitor for the month of December 2012 shows Hawke’s Bay guest nights up +3.1% compared to the same period in December 2011. In December this equated to 3,116 more visitor nights in the region. Hawke’s Bay compared to other regions performed strongly in December, with many competing regions in decline. (see attached numbers). Hawke’s Bay performed strongest in domestic tourism numbers with an increase of 6.0%. International visitor nights were down 1,059 nights in December compared with the previous December.

The Private Household Monitor estimated 92,014 visitors to the Hawke's Bay Region stayed 415,455 nights in private accommodation during December 2012. The number of actual visitors declined (-6,726) but those who did stay, stayed more nights (+5,420). Note this excludes those who stayed in holiday homes and baches, but includes children aged 15 or under. The major reasons for visiting Hawke's Bay were visiting friends and family (90% of total nights stayed), and general holiday or leisure (8%) of total nights stayed. Visitors to the region stayed an average of 4.5 nights in private accommodation.

International visitor arrivals into New Zealand are again being propped up by increased arrivals from China (+12.3% for December and +35.4% year end December). Australia while still the most dominant visitor market to New Zealand recorded a decline in December (-1.3%). The UK market continues to be of major concern with year end results showing 40,000 less British travelers visiting New Zealand in 2012.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hawke’s Bay Tourism, 19 Waghorne Street, Ahuriri, Napier. PO Box 12009, Ahuriri, Napier 4144, New Zealand­

WEB: www.hawkesbaynz.com TWITTER: www.twitter.com/visitorHB

FACEBOOK: www.facebook.com/hawkesbaynz


logo


International Visitors to NZ

December 2012

Year end December 2012

Total

363,959

-0.1%

2,564,618

-1.4%      (-36,826)

Australia

159,376

 -1.3%

1,155,792

-0.1%         (-634)

UK

32,800

- 5.0%

189,648

-17.7%    (-40,688)

USA

24,496

-0.7%

177,680

-3.8%      (-7,034)

China

20,688

 +12.3%

197,024

+35.4%   (+51,500)



Commercial Accommodation

December 2012

Year end December2012

Hawke’s Bay

 

 

 

 

Total visitors

44,434

-6.5%  (-3,127)

443,246

-8.2% (-39,714)

Total guest nights

104,421

+3.1%

930,817

- 6.4%

International guest nights

31,105

-3.3%

236,358

-13.5%

Domestic guest nights

73,316

+6.0%

694,459

-3.8%

Average length of stay

2.35 nights

Up (2.13 nights)

2.10 nights

Up (2.06 nights)

Overall occupancy rate

37.3%

Down (37.6%)

31.1%

32.9%

Occupancy excl Holiday Parks

48.7%

 

44.2%

 

Hotels

12,616

-23.4%

144,549

-4.9%

Motels/Apartments

46,785

+7.3%

472,753

-1.7%

Backpackers

15,017

+2.2%

117,965

-9.4%

Holiday Parks

30,003

+13.8%

195,550

-15.6%

Other Regions Total Guest Nights

Dec  2012

 

Year end December 2012

Coromandel

98,269

-6.5%

686,150

-5.2%

Bay of Plenty

108,866

-6.5%

988,591

-14.4%

Rotorua

168,235

-1.1%

1,739,629

+1.7%

Taupo

94,341

-0.9%

961,743

-0.9%

Gisborne

38,551

-6.8%

324,495

-3.1%

Hawke’s Bay

104,421

+3.1%

930,817

-6.4%

Wellington

209,162

+13.5%

2,283,399

-6.2%

Nelson

150,707

-0.8%

1,198,673

-5.6%

Wanaka

86,673

+1.3%

651,789

-5.2%

Queenstown

264,049

+9.6%

2,527,221

+5.1%

Dunedin

69,570

-9.3%

812,030

-6.9%

Private Household Monitor

December 2012

Year end December 2012

Total Visitors

92,014 (-6,726)

-7.3%

618,646 (+12,031)

+1.9%

Total Visitor nights

415,455 (5,420)

+1.3%

2,550,439 (+49,497)

+1.9%

logo

Key Performance Indicators for Hawke’s Bay Tourism

The organisation has been working towards the goals and objectives set out in the Strategic Plan signed off by HBRC in May 2011.

In the second quarter of our second year of operation the following KPI’s have been met;

1.   Hawke’s Bay Tourism - the Regional Tourism Organisation is well established and working closely with industry within Hawke’s Bay and the wider tourism community across New Zealand.  The organisation continues to gain traction with sector groups within Hawke’s Bay.

 

2.   Brand - Establishment of a “Hawke’s Bay” brand and communication tagline. The brand “Hawke’s Bay” and tagline “Get me to Hawke’s Bay” continue to be used in all communication. Extensions to the campaign include a focus on the family and boomer age markets.

 

3.   Consumer Marketing - The focus over the key summer months has been on the family market. A series of online banner ads targeting the family market have run on key sites for November and December. Themes have been around experiences in the region for families ie Splash Planet, SkateZone, Par 2, the gannets, penguins and family style accommodation.

Australian activity - the TNZ/Wellington regional partnership campaign kicked off November 2nd with outdoor advertising for 4 weeks in Sydney and Melbourne, print advertising in both cities for 2 weeks alongside Air New Zealand, online performance media ran for four weeks across News, Fairfax and Telstra with Flight Centre as fulfillment partner and packages covering the Classic NZ Wine Trail. PR and media were also undertaken during this period. Editorial featured in the Sydney Morning Herald. Creative messaging - “You haven’t discovered the true magic of a Hawke’s Bay Syrah until you’ve discovered Hawke’s Bay” and “Hawke’s Bay – where food and wine are made for each other”. www.newzealand.com was the call to action.

 

Public relations

             Hawke’s Bay Tourism hosted 17 media outlets this last quarter,

·    NZ Herald-Bite

·    NZ Herald-Weekend

·    Herald on Sunday-Living

·    Dom Post-Life

·    Cuisine Magazine

·    Canadian Living

·    Madisons Magazine-Australia

·    Huffington Post-UK

·    The Daily Meal-USA

·    Rhein Presse-Germany

·    Jasons Travel Media

·    Escape Magazine-Australia

·    Jane Skilton MW –Wine contributor

·    Emma Jenkins MW-Wine contributor

·    NZ Wine Magazine

·    Cameron Douglas Master Sommelier-Wine Contributor

·    Food Writers Guide/kai.co.nz

 

logo

Local Media

·    Hawke’s Bay Today

·    The Dom Post

·    Newstalk ZB

·    MORE FM

 

Media Results

·    Launceston Examiner - Australia 84,000 readers

·    Courier Mail-Australia – 192,000 per day  readers

·    Sun Herald-Australia -  1.1 million readers

·    Canadianliving.com  - 750 000 per month

·    COTE Magazine - France

·    Golf Digest-China - 350 000 per month

·    Wanderlust-UK - 100 000 PER MONTH

·    Conde Nast Brides UK -  11 000 per month

·    Mercedes Benz Magazine-Germany - 80 000 subscribers

·    Suddeutsche Zeitung-Germany - 445,637 per month

 

Digital Strategy

             For the 12 months to year end December hawkesbaynz.com has delivered the following:

www.hawkesbaynz.com over 12 months

Dec 31 2010 – Dec 31, 2011

Dec 31 2011 – Dec 31, 2012

+/-

Visits to site

190,224

224,436

+18%

Unique Users

53,535

158,220

+195%

Page views

932,733

899,475

-3.5%

Average pages per visit

4.90

4.01

-

Average time on site

3.42

3.18

-

 

The new website is performing exceptionally well and unique visits have increased over 195% year on year.  Search activity in the first quarter is generating solid traffic to the website per month. Search is fundamental and provides a strong base of traffic to the Hawke’s Bay website.

Research – the quarterly visitor performance monitor has been established to accurately report on all aspects of tourism for Hawke’s Bay, this is communicated to industry quarterly. A research dashboard is also being developed as a monthly tourism snapshot for all stakeholders.


logo

4.    Trade Marketing

     Cruise

Cruise activity is tracking well, with passenger feedback highly favourable of the region. Napier is performing strongly as a preferred arrival port according to passenger feedback. New products for cruise passengers include The Hawke’s Bay Express and shopping tours to Havelock North. It is estimated 96,010 passengers will visit Hawke’s Bay which is an increase of 2.9% on the previous year.

Product & Industry development ­

The quarterly regional Industry Update and Networking function was held on December 13 with around 80 people in attendance.  This included a “speed-dating segment”, which proved very popular and was a great way for operators to meet and/or update each other on what’s happening in their business coming into the busy summer season.

 

5.    Events

F.A.W.C! - Final numbers

·    58 events in 10 Days (12 events were cancelled so started with 70)

·    35 featured chefs & winemakers

·    2,770 ticket holders attended events (excludes free events i.e. Wheely Glassy and Kai in the Bay)

·    19,321 F.A.W.C! website visits

·    74,445 page views

·    600 posters and 9000 DLE’s distributed

·    2000 fridge magnets at Food-shows/ Hot Red/City Market in Wellington

·    2000 DLE’s on Air New Zealand

·    2000 Book of F.A.W.C! programmes

·    600 free Hawke’s Bay apples given away

 

Based on a survey of visitors who came to FAWC!, indications are that  - 

·    38% of FAWC!ers went to 1 event,  32% went to 2 events and 19% went to 3 events.

 

As to economic value – HBT estimates that approximately 1,385 people attended FAWC! and between 30-40% were from out of town  so that equates to approximately 484 visitors (if you take 35% as the average). Tourists generally spend about $120 a day – our 484 visitors spent $58,080 per day. In 10 days, that’s over half a million dollars that was spent in and around the region.  Further analysis will be done by an independent authority.

 

HBT has been involved in the bids to host FIFA in 2015 as well as The World Cricket Cup in 2015.

 

A new cycling event, highlighting the Hawke’s Bay Trails is planned for Easter 2013. The objective is to raise the profile of the Hawke’s Bay Trails as easy, accessible and more about the stops enroute. We intend for this to be an annual event and will be jointly funded by both Napier and Hastings Councils.

 

Hawke’s Bay Tourism – Financial Statement

Hawke’s Bay Tourism Ltd is tracking favourably in the second quarter of the financial year.

logo

 

Appendix A

 

 

Summary of Visitor Arrivals Year end December 2009-12

(Commercial Accommodation Monitor and Private Household Visitor Nights)

 

 


Hawke's Bay Tourism Financial Results 1 July to 31 December 2012

Attachment 2

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Annual Plan Progress Report for the First Seven Months of the 2012/13 Financial Year

 

Reason for Report

1.      This Annual Plan Progress Report is an abridged report and covers the first seven months of the 2012/13 financial year. The report consists of commentary on financial results to 31 January 2013 and various financial reports.

Summary of Financial Position to 31 January 2013

2.      The actual result covering the Council’s general funded operations for the first seven months of 2012/13 is a deficit of $274,838. This compares with the Annual Plan budget deficit of $704,490 for the full year.

Pending Reforecasting Exercise

3.      It is proposed that the reforecasting exercise will be completed for the nine months ending 31 March 2013 and will be presented to Council at the meeting on 24 April 2013.

4.      This reforecasting exercise will cover the shortfall in yield on advances to Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited (HBRIC Ltd) for the Ruataniwha Water Scheme (RWS) project, and the impact of the delay in the sale of the residual cash flows in the Napier leasehold portfolio.  Furthermore, the favourable effect on the operating account which arises through additional staff time being charged to the RWS capital project will also be outlined.

Comment on Financial Results for Seven Months to 31 January 2013

Groups of Activities

5.      This report establishes that the net expenditure on groups of activities for the first seven months is 56% of the budgeted net funding requirement, as against an equal monthly pro-rata comparative of 58%. The comparative figure for the seven months to 31 January 2012 was 54%.

6.      Strategic Planning shows a net expenditure of 63% of budget which is slightly ahead of the expected pro-rata percentage.  This is due to the increased costs for the Tukituki Plan Change.

7.      Land Drainage & River Control shows a net expenditure of 51% of budget which is slightly behind the expected pro-rata percentage.  A number of projects are still to be completed over the summer and autumn months which will see the net expenditure increase. 

8.      Regional Resources shows a net expenditure of 54% of budget which is running slightly behind the expected pro-rata percentage.  This is mainly due to the timing of projects with increased costs expected as the projects progress especially in regards to consultancy and lab testing. Science project leaders advise that a large portion of time has been spent on the Tukituki choices project during the first quarter of the financial year but it is anticipated that the other science projects included in the budget will accelerate during the reminder of the year and should be completed by year end.

9.      Regulation shows a net expenditure of 78% of budget. Expenditure on regulation is close to budget at 55%, however billing for the compliance project is below budget as the majority are billed at the end of the year.

10.    Biosecurity shows a net expenditure of 56% which is very close to the pro-rata percentage. Due to the timing of Biosecurity projects costs should increase in the summer and autumn months and then drop off again before year end.

11.    Emergency Management shows a net expenditure of 19% of budget.  Expenditure is only 43% as against a pro-rata of 58%. There are some large exercises still to be run such as fault line mapping, tsunami inundation mapping and CDEM group exercises.  These projects will progress substantially later in the year.

12.    Transport shows a net expenditure of 28% of budget as against a pro-rata of 58%.  This is due to lower than budgeted expenditure on the Regional Land Transport project which has a high component of general funding.  The decrease in expenditure relates to reduced consultancy spent on the one network plan and stock effluent investigations.  It is envisaged that these consultancies will not be required during the 2012/13 year, but may be required to be carried forward into the 2013/14 year if these studies are required by New Zealand Transport Authority.

13.    Governance & Community Representation shows a net expenditure of 48% of budget.  This is down on the pro-rata budget due to the Interest Group Liaison project receiving a grant of $72k to cover the expenses and honoraria of Maori representation on the Regional Planning Committee. It would appear that between $40k - $45k of this grant will not be spent during 2012/13 but will be carried forward into the 2013/14 year.

Operations Group

14.    Operations Group reports a profit of $191,875 for the seven months to 31 January 2013.  $122,000 of the surplus relates to Council activities that will be credited to the river control and flood protection schemes at the end of the financial year.

15.    If these activities were excluded, the Operations Group result would be $70,097 which is 67% of the budgeted surplus.

Regional Income

16.    Total regional income receipts represent 56% of forecast for the first seven months of the financial year, as against a pro-rata of 58%.  The main issues in regional income are:

Investment Company

16.1.    The returns budgeted to be received from investments in the Ruataniwha and Ngaruroro water investments will not be achieved for the 2012/13 year.  The LTP budgeted for a minimum return of 6% on the advances to Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited (HBRIC Ltd) for investment in the Ruataniwha and Ngaruroro projects. At its meeting on 31 October 2012 HBRC resolved that no interest would be paid on the advances required for phases 1 & 2 of the RWS project.

Other Investments

16.2.    Napier leasehold land rental revenue has been budgeted at $935,000 for the six months ending 31 December 2012. It was assumed in the LTP that HBRC would have sold the Napier leasehold cash flows by 1 January 2013.  As negotiations are still underway for the sale of these cash flows the rental income from leasehold property will continue beyond the first six months of the 2013/14 financial year. Accordingly, it can be seen that the leasehold revenues on the operating statement are above the LTP budget.

16.3.    Interest on investment term deposits is tracking at 33% instead of a pro-rata of 58%. The main reason for this is the LTP interest budget assumed that cash available for investment would increase by between $45m-$50m from 31 December 2012 as a result of the sell down on Napier leasehold land cash flows. Because the sell down has not taken place at this stage of the financial year, the balances available for investment are less than set out in the LTP.

Other Activities

16.4.    The Disaster reserve interest and dividends shows a large negative for the seven months. This is due to the increasing cost of commercial insurance cover for disaster damage being paid within the first three months of the financial year but being funded from dividend and interest from the Regional Disaster Damage reserve over the 12 months period.

General Funding for Capital Projects

17.    The general funding requirement for capital projects is $157,447 or 48% of budget due to Targeted rates exceeding expenditure.

Healthy Homes – Summary Activity Report

18.    The increased demand for insulation loans has been driven by supplier marketing.

19.    Loan to grant ratios were originally estimated at 50/50, with access to rants now being open to the public the ratio is now 65/35 and will influence re-forecasting in April.

20.    Planned cash flow for the project currently does not reflect the higher level of grants compared to loans and will be revised.

21.    February to April historically have lower demands which may moderate the higher planned activity to date.

       Volumes

 

Loan Type

7 Months to 31 January 2013

LTP Budget Volumes

Pro Rata Target Volumes

Actual Volumes

Actual Over Budget Target (58%)

Insulation Loans

600

350

528

88%

Clean Heat Loans

450

263

254

56%

Clean Heat Grants

300

175

494

165%

Totals

1,350

788

1,276

95%

       Expenditure (excluding GST)

 

Loan Type

7 Months to 31 January 2013

LTP Budget $000

Pro Rata Target $000

Actual $000

Actual Over Budget Target (58%)

Insulation Loans

1,140

665

916

80%

Clean Heat Loans

1,255

732

660

53%

Clean Heat Grants

183

107

312

171%

Totals

2,578

1,504

1,888

73%

 

Non-recoverable Costs of Consent Appeals and Direct Referrals to the Environment Court

22.    For the year to date costs for appeals and referrals to the Environment Court have amounted to $65,003. This includes staff time and external costs.

23.    Three appeals have been finalised. The AFFCO consent order has been signed off by the Environment Court. The Twyford appeals have been withdrawn. The NCC waste water discharge has been settled.

24.    Drafting of evidence has proceeded on the Mexted et al appeals. There was some possibility of a revised proposal being submitted which may have helped resolve the appeals.  However these have not been advanced to date. A separate appeal was lodged with the High Court over the extent of the evidence provided by the appellants (going beyond the scope of their submissions and grounds for appeal). This was decided in favour of the appellants.

25.    The appeal against the Napier City Council waste water outfall is now settled. The Environment Court sat on 6th December to reconsider the validity of the appeal (as directed by the High Court). The entire matter was settled on the day. The case was settled by amending the conditions relating to timing of flushing the BTF system. NCC and HBRC agreed to meet Mr Church’s costs in order to achieve this settlement. ($1,772.61 + GST each).

26.    The following table summarises costs for appeals that were still ongoing at the start of this financial year. Costs for the 2012/13 year to date are shown in the shaded column. Costs for previous years are also shown and these are summed to provide a running total for each appeal.

Appeal Summary as at end of January 2013

Appeal Name

Date of Council Approval to Defend Appeal

Estimated Cost of the Appeal as Advised to Council

Actual Costs of Appeal (Appropriate Years)

Comments

2010/11

2011/12  

2012/13

to date

Total to date

Twyford / Raupare

(402109)

Wed 25 May 2011

Noted $150,000.00 on similar appeal

$416 ext

 

$22,506

$25,050 ext*

$49,450

$3,182 ext

$5,201

$77,157

Appeal withdrawn. Council working with Twyford groups to explore water management options. A consent was granted (7/2/13) enabling augmentation of Raupare stream trial this year.

AFFCO

(402046)

Wed 23 Sept 2009

Not estimated

$64,095

$81,321

$39,783 ext

$46,307

$4143 ext

$4,820

$132,448

Appeal has now been settled.

Mexted, Williams and Malherbe

(402051)

Thurs 10 June 2010

Not estimated

$6,431 ext

$8,366

$38,513 ext

$49,956

$22,389 ext

$24,256

$82,578

Appeal ongoing - Environment Court scheduled & deferred. High Court appeal lodged & heard, with finding against Mexted et al. Revised approach possible but no plans provided to date.

NCC BTF Waste water outfall

(402113)

 

 

 

$24,320 ext

$28,043

$25,345 ext

$30,726

 $58,769

High Court referred matter back to Environment Court to reconsider whether lodgement was within time. Mr Church agreed to a settlement.

*External costs 

$70,942

$127,666

$55,059

$253,667

Sum to date for external legal and consulting advice

Total costs

$112,193

$173,756

$65,003

$350,952

Total incl internal staff time & external costs for the life of these appeals.

 

Balance Sheet

27.    Public Equity, which reflects the net value of all the Council’s assets and liabilities, has decreased by 669,000 or 0.1% since the beginning of the year. The loss on sale of leasehold land of $2.1m has been offset by $2.9m received from Napier Port for the interim dividend.

28.    Non-current property, plant and equipment, intangible assets and infrastructure assets have increased by $6,863,000 or 4.2% since the beginning of the year reflecting the purchase of fixed assets and construction of infrastructure assets in the period offset by depreciation and amortisation charges.  Substantial payments for infrastructure were made to capital projects for Healthy Homes ($1.6m), Cycleways ($0.4m) and Ruataniwha Water Scheme ($1.4m).

29.    Investment property has decreased by $13,506,000 or 20% since the beginning of the year reflecting the disposal of endowment leasehold land properties.

30.    Accounts receivables have increased from the beginning of the year by $5,096,000 but are down on this time last year.  The main component of this is rates receivable which is $2.6m down on last year.

31.    Borrowings have decreased by $987,600 due to scheduled repayment of loans.  No loan draw downs have occurred this year.

32.    Trade and Other Payables have decreased since the beginning of the year by $2,283,000 as year end invoices have been paid and accruals have been reversed.

33.    Income in advance shows significant movement of $5,876,000 due to the accrual of rate revenue in advance prior to the issue of rates invoices for the year in October.

34.    Total cash, cash equivalents and financial assets (summarised on the Financial Summary page) show an increase of $3,884,000 since the beginning of the year.  This is due to strengthening operational cash flows from receipt in January 2013 of the Napier Port half year dividend and strengthening rates receipts as the due date for rates was 31 January 2013.

Cash Reserve Investments

35.    The average rate of interest being earned on liquid investments is currently 4.19%. This rate is slightly higher than the rate assumed in the 2012/13 year of the LTP 4.15% for both short and long-term bank investments.

36.    The pie chart in the attachment entitled “Allocation by Institution” shows the percentage of Council investments placed with various institutions. Council policy requires that no more than 25% of investments be placed with any non government–guaranteed institution of groups of associated institutions.

Decision Making Process

37.    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 that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

 

Recommendation

1.      That Council receives the Annual Plan Progress Report for the First Seven Months of the 2012/13 Financial Year.

 

 

 

 

Manton Collings

Corporate Accountant

 

 

Paul Drury

Group Manager

Corporate Services

 

Attachment/s

1View

Financials for the Seven Months Ending 31 January 2013

 

 

  


Financials for the Seven Months Ending 31 January 2013

Attachment 1

 









HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT:  Work Plan Looking Forward through March 2013

 

Reason for Report

1.      This report is provided in order to update Councillors about significant work activities under way over the next month in each area of Council.

 

Group

Area of Activity

Activity Status Update

Asset Management

Biosecurity

Review of Regional Pest Management Strategies in accordance with the Biosecurity Amendment Act 2012 has begun.  Initial work includes working with stakeholders to develop a collaborative approach to the review.  A discussion document is planned to seek the views of the wider public early in the 2014 calendar year.

 

Land Management

Implementation plan for the Tukituki Plan Change has been developed. Land Management team has been restructured to enable effective delivery of the Plan Change, and engagement with the farmer community and industry has commenced. Operational plan for 2013/14 will be presented to Council by June setting out a proposal for the RLS scheme to support the initiative.

 

Infrastructure disaster insurance

On 20 February Council agreed to rescind its notice to withdraw from LAPP, and to review its self insurance arrangements to provide the most cost effective cover for all HBRC infrastructure assets. This review will be undertaken over the next several months.

 

Tutira Properties

Negotiations continuing with LINZ, Office of Treaty Settlements and Maungaharuru Tangitu Inc however the potential to transfer ownership of the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve land and commercial tree crop is now unlikely to proceed.  Once the wording of a draft Treaty settlement Bill is known staff will work with the necessary groups to agree details of an ongoing relationship.

 

Regional Forestry project

Council has decided to postpone the implementation of this project. Staff will review carbon price forecasts and if considered favourable will seek further direction from Council.  An update will be provided to the C & S Committee 6 March.

 

Regional open spaces review

December 2012, the E&S Committee endorsed a framework for the management of the region’s parks.  This is progressing to the next stage.

 

Upper Makara Scheme

Consultation on a Makara Scheme Statement of Proposal will occur during March with a hearing early April 2013.

 

Ohuia Scheme

Council has approved construction of a replacement pump station for the Ohuia Scheme, subject to general agreement from all Scheme ratepayers. Work is progressing towards completing the reconstruction prior to Winter 2013.

Asset Management

Collaboration with Department of Conservation, Greater Wellington & Horizons

A person has been appointed to indentify and facilitate opportunities for collaboration between the participating organisations. He commenced work in January and is now familiarising himself with potential opportunities.

 

159 Dalton Street

Remedial work is expected to commence in late March.  Legal proceedings ongoing.

Resource Management

 

Appeals / Declarations

 

Mexted & Williams

Environment Court hearing still pending. There has been discussion between parties with suggested changes being made to the proposed development. Full details have not been provided.

High Court appeal has been heard and found in favour of the appellant E tu Mahanga, allowing evidence on coastal hazards to be heard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

NCC Whakarire Avenue Coastal Protection Structure

Awaiting an Environment Court determination on the activity status of the proposed Whakariri Avenue coastal protection before proceeding with the application.

 

Large Consent processes/applications

Poukawa

Discussions ongoing with applicants and stakeholders re notification decision. Limited notification pending.

 

 

Tukituki and Karamu surface water takes

Common expiry date for these catchments of 31 May 2013. Advice of the need to apply for new consents has been sent out. S 124 applies if these are lodged before 1 December 2012.

Ruataniwha storage SCHEME.

HBRC Consents staff are providing completeness checks pre lodgement and upon lodging – as per agreement with EPA.

 

Science Activities

Multi-team activities

Staff met with scientists from NIWA and GNS Science to align CRI research with Council investigations for the “TANK” plan change.

Planning for Heretaunga catchment (Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri catchments) investigations.

Support for Tukituki plan change and Ruataniwha water storage project.

Groundwater

Groundwater modelling for Ruataniwha water storage project and Tukituki plan change.

 

Resource Management

 

 

Surface Water

Quantity

Ongoing low flow monitoring continues to demand significant staff resources.

Sites on the Tukituki River have been upgraded (new instrumentation). This infrastructure will help provide the information required once the Tukituki Plan Change is implemented.

Communications at Mount Misery, a critical site used to relay radio telemetry from Northern sites to the Napier base, has been upgraded.

Dissolved Oxygen monitoring equipment deployed across the Heretaunga Plains continues to collect data to inform the TANK plan change process.

National Qualification for Hydrology Technicians is nearly complete, with the first round of testing underway.

 

 

Surface Water Quality and Ecology

“Water quality limits” reporting to support Tukituki plan change and RWS project.

Investigating monitoring requirements for Lake Tutira for theMPI/BNZ Hydrilla eradication programme, and a comprehensive lake model. 

 

 

Air & Climate

Screening monitoring of PM10 in Waipawa is continuing.

An HBRC sponsored Envirolink application for a project on PM10 offset modelling has been approved and is underway.  

Ongoing support (climate information) is being provided for plan changes and the RWS project as well as for drought assessment in the current dry conditions.

 

 

Land Science

Ongoing regional soil mapping (S Map). Currently mapping south eastern coastal strip. First stage of field work completed.

Ongoing Taharua catchment investigation.

Awaiting report on loss of ecosystem services investigation arising from April 2011 storm. May provide insight into the value of ‘Trees on Farms’.

Characterisation of wetlands in the Heretaunga catchments has begun. Aerial investigation complete.

Regional soil quality monitoring continuing as part of Land SOE requirement. Field work investigating approximately 20 sites to be completed. This year intensive pasture is the focus of attention.

Ongoing characterisation of biodiversity in the Ngaruroro catchment.

Resource Management

 

 

Ongoing assistance with RWS, Tukituki and Taharua-Mohaka plan changes.

Planning for upcoming work in the Heretaunga catchment (Ngaruroro and Tutaekuri catchments).

Providing assistance with Envirolink tool ($200,000) to link Smap with land models e.g. overseer.

Discussions taking place regarding setting up catchment investigations around Tutira (P sources and land use) and Wairoa (sediment monitoring).

 

Biodiversity Strategy

Landcare Research facilitated workshop to develop high level outcomes.

Initial analysis completed to identify the key areas for alignment with other national or regional biodiversity related initiatives.

Collated stakeholder GIS data to present an initial snapshot for first Steering Group meeting.

Draft Core Working Group and Steering Group terms of reference discussion held at the first Steering Group meeting held in early February.

 

Quality Management System (QMS)

Science section achieved ISO9001:2008 certification in December after completing the second stage audit in November with external auditors Telarc.  Next external audit will be in June, focusing on resource management and document control.

Workflow module within Promapp implemented in January and training on this and the new version 4 of Promapp will be provided for staff in early March.

Ongoing internal audits, management team review meetings and process improvements to ensure we maintain ISO9001:2008 certification.

Strategic Development

Land and Water Management Strategy

Strategy implementation to be ongoing, including via 2012-22 LTP.

 

RPS Change to incorporate elements of Land and Water Management Strategy (Change 5)

Schedule 1 RMA process.  Change 5 publicly notified on 2 October.  29 submissions received and 9 further submissions subsequently received.  Hearing Panel commissioners yet to be appointed, pending recommendations from Regional Planning Committee on Panel make-up.

 

Plan Change for freshwater management in Tukituki River catchment

Agenda item to be presented at 27 February Council meeting

 

Plan Change for freshwater management in Greater Heretaunga / Ahuriri catchment

Ongoing.  3 collaborative stakeholder meetings (i.e. the TANK Group’) held in 2012.  Further meetings to be held early 2013.

 

RPS Change to incorporate HPUDS and wider infrastructure matters  (RPS Change 4)

Schedule 1 RMA process.

45 submissions and 6 further submissions received.  Panel recommendations to be considered by Council on 27 February 2013.

Strategic Development

Taharua Strategy and Mohaka plan change.

Immediate next steps involve further negotiations between major landowners about N mitigation options and responsibilities.  For wider Mohaka catchment, stakeholder engagement has commenced, but supporting science is progressing slowly due to science teams other commitments (esp. Tukituki-related projects), delays likely.

 

Proposed Regional Coastal Environment Plan plus Change 1 to RRMP

Council adopted RCEP on 31 October.  Coastal marine area-related content has been referred to Minister of Conservation for her approval.  Following that approval, a date will be nominated by Strategic Development Group Manager and RCEP, plus its Variations 1-3 will become operative (likely early 2013).

 

Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS)

Ongoing implementation as it relates to other actions where HBRC is a lead agency or a partner agency via HPUDS Working Group.

 

Resource Management Act amendments

RM Amendment Bill released late 2012 and submissions due 28 February. Draft submission considered by Environment and Services Committee on 20 February. Further RM Amendment Bill likely in 2013.

 

Regional Land Transport Programme

Work has recommenced on the Regional Cycling Strategy. A meeting of the project team will be held in early 2013.

 

Bus Services

The draft Transport Procurement Strategy, which enables the procurement of bus services, infrastructure and total mobility services, will be presented to Council for adoption in February 2013. Tender documents for the urban bus contract will be available in March 2013.

 

Tech NZ R&D funding as part of the Regional Business Partner partnership with HB Chamber of Commerce

From 1 July to 31 December 2012, MSI Regional Partner has brought in $2,211,504.64 grant funding into Hawke’s Bay working with 36 businesses.

 

Strategic Farming Initiative

R&D projects continue to be scoped under Land Management function. The Pan Sector group meeting held on 23 January with a focus on updating the strategic action framework and  participants agreeing to share more information about their R&D projects.

 

Massey Strategic Relationship

The Massey Business Development Manager, John Bell, started on 4 February. His focus over the next 2 months will be to further develop the plan for his role.

Corporate Services

Local Government Commission to undertake Constituency Review.

Hearing scheduled 28 February 2013

 

Draft Annual Plan 2013/14

For adoption at 20 March 2013 Regional Council meeting

 

Proposal for sale of cash flows covering Napier leasehold land

24 April 2013

External Relations

Statutory advocacy and liaison

HB LASS has been established and the first assessments for potential shared services will be presented to the Board in March.

External Relations

Liaison with Treaty claimant representatives on Regional Planning Committee

Staff and Treaty representatives are liaising with OTS on the draft legislation for the permanent establishment of the Committee. 

 

Community engagement / environmental education

Next edition of Our Place due for circulation in week beginning 2 April.

Planning underway for Draft Annual Plan consultation in April-May.

Operations/

Water Group

Ruataniwha Water storage

Updates available through monthly reports from HBRIC Ltd to HBRC.

 

·     Ngaruroro Water Storage

The on-farm economic analysis section of work is now to be cpm[leted as a discrete section of work prior to the end of this financial year.

 

Ÿ    Hawke’s Bay Trails

The final sections of the Landscapes Ride and Taipo stopbank cycleway completed.

CE’s Office

Represent Regional Sector on Land and Water Forum “Small Group”

LAWF has submitted its final report to Government covering water quality and water allocation and we await the Government’s response to this. The report reinforces the key role that regional councils play in freshwater management.

 

HBRIC Ltd

Ongoing, detailed in separate monthly reports from HBRIC Ltd to HBRC

 

Ruataniwha Water Storage

Ongoing

 

Hill Country Afforestation Proposal

Will be brought back as a revised proposal focussing on the environmental benefits for consideration as part of the 2013-14 annual plan.

 

Continue involvement with Ministry for Primary Industries Peak Group for Implementation of the ETS

Ongoing

 

Advisory Committee on Official Statistics

Ongoing

Decision Making Process

2.      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 that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

 

Recommendation

1.      That Council receives the Work Plan Looking Forward – December 2012 and January 2013 report.

 

 

 

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

 

 

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

 

Paul Drury

Group Manager

Corporate Services

 

 

Graeme Hansen

Group Manager

Water Initiatives

 

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

 

 

Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)

 

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: General Business

 

Reason for Report

This document has been prepared to assist Councillors note the General Business to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda Item 6.

Item

Topic

Councillor / Staff

1.   

 

 

2.   

 

 

3.   

 

 

4.   

 

 

5.   

 

 

 

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd - Resolutions and Proxy for First Annual General Meeting

That Council excludes the public from this section of the meeting, being Agenda Item 21 Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd - Resolutions and Proxy for First Annual General Meeting 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

Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd - Resolutions and Proxy for First Annual General Meeting

7(2)(b)(ii) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of that information is necessary to protect information which otherwise would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

 

 

 

 

Paul Drury

Group Manager

Corporate Services

 

 

Andrew Newman

Chief Executive

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 27 February 2013

SUBJECT: Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Draft 2013-14 Statement of Intent

That Council excludes the public from this section of the meeting, being Agenda Item 22 Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Draft 2013-14 Statement of Intent (1.00pm) 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

Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Draft 2013-14 Statement of Intent (1.00pm)

7(2)(i) 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 enable the local authority holding the information to carry out, 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.

 

 

 

Andrew Newman

managing director

hbric ltd

Andy Pearce

Chairman

HBRIC LTD

    



[1] The Resource Management Amendment Bill 2012 proposes amendments to section 32 of the RMA.  Until that Bill passes into legislation, it does not have any bearing on the Council’s current obligations to consider alternatives, benefits and costs of a proposed plan change.

[2] The Resource Management Act 1991 requires Council to issue decisions on submissions within 2 years of the notification date.