Minutes of Environment and Services Committee

1. WELCOME/APOLOGIES/NOTICES

Chairman Graham welcomed everyone to the meeting and advised that some agenda items would be discussed out of order.

Mr Brian Gregory gave a Karakia.

Councillor Wilson advised he would leave the meeting at 2.30pm to attend a meeting at Tutira.

ESC7/14 That the apologies from Councillor Rick Barker, Mrs L Lambert and Mrs Maihi-Carroll be received.

Beaven/Wilson

CARRIED

2. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

There were no conflict of interest declarations.

3. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF the Environment and Services Committee held on 12 February 2014

ESC8/14

Minutes of the Environment and Services Committee held on Wednesday, 12 February 2014, a copy having been circulated prior to the meeting, were taken as read and confirmed following amendment.

Hewitt/Wilson

CARRIED

4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Environment and Services Committee held on Wednesday 12 February 2014

There were no matters arising from the minutes.

Call for any Minor Items Not on the Agenda

ESC9/14

Resolution:

That the Environment and Services Committee accepts the following minor items not on the agenda, for discussion as item 15:

1.Tutira Meeting

2.United Emirates visit

3. Upper Tukituki Scheme Liaison Committee meeting

4. Napier/Gisborne rail line

5. Irrigation NZ Conference

Graham/Wilson

CARRIED

Follow-ups from Previous Committee Meetings

Mr Adye updated the Committee on the follow up items from previous meeting.

Mr Adye reiterated his request for any feedback via email or in person in regard to his request for various field trip destinations.

The Committee noted a large area of enhancement planting completed in the Lower Tukituki some time ago had not been successful. A request was made that this project be incorporated into the Open Spaces Management Plan.

In response to a question about Council’s use of prisoners, Mr Adye confirmed that work had been undertaken by prisoners in the past however it was project specific work which had been undertaken to a satisfactory standard.

The Committee also discussed the significant issues around gravel in the Maraketu , noted that the solutions to extract this gravel were not simple, it was time for real solutions to be found and although Council had had ongoing discussions with various groups for more extraction to be undertaken, to date a solution had not been found. A report would be completed this year with ongoing gravel issues in the region highlighted.

Mr Adye confirmed that the floating wetland which was an experiment were still in the original location however had not been successful in drawing sufficient nutrients out of the water as the velocity of the water in the area was quite high. It was hoped that the wetlands would be relocated. However, in their current location they are not expected to create any issues during a flood event.

ESC10/14

Resolution:

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Follow-ups from Previous Committee Meetings” report.

Wilson/Scott

CARRIED

Infrastructure Asset Insurance

Mr Adye presented the agenda item which set out Council’s financial risk management provisions for its infrastructure assets following a disaster. Mr Adye also outlined recommended changes to the current arrangements, a proposed policy and summarised the recommendations for the Committee’s consideration..

Mr Adye noted that currently Council is still a member of LAPP. This was a decision of Council in January 2013. LAPP provide the best cover as they insure live tree edge protection. LAPP reinsurance also provided cover for two disaster events in one financial year but there was currently a potential liability of $2 to 3m if there were two events in the one year. This liability will reduce over time as LAPP rebuilt their fund.

The Committee discussed the implications of the financial risks associated with an event, the reasons why other insurance companies had not been considered at this point, the current membership of LAPP and the requirement for clarification between estimated replacement costs and optimised replacement costs in an event.

Responding to questions in relation to the Wairoa Flood Reserve, Mr Adye advised The Flood Reserve was a discretionary fund to assist Wairoa in an event, a range of flood protection options for Wairoa had been looked at in the past but were unaffordable. In lieu of this HBRC have implemented an early flood warning system for the Wairoa community.

Mr Adye also confirmed that the Wairoa community were aware of the flood risks and the challenges of living next to the river.

The Committee also discussed the small schemes disaster reserve, the level of funding attached to the reserve and the fairness of the scheme particularly for ratepayers who contribute and have not received any advantage. Mr Adye confirmed that if a Scheme Reserve built up to a level that was deemed sufficient to cover a major event any surplus would not be returned to the general rate bucket.

ESC11/14

Resolutions:

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.

2. Adopts the following HBRC Disaster Damage Risk Management Policy, including any amendments agreed at the Committee meeting.

HBRC Disaster Damage Risk Management Policy

1. Background

This policy supersedes HBRC’s Disaster Damage Risk Management Policy adopted by Council in 2007, and subsequent decisions regarding this issue.

This review (March 2014) has confirmed that HBRC continues to face considerable ongoing financial risk from a natural disaster event.

This policy deals specifically with disaster damage risks to HBRC owned or administered infrastructure assets, and the requirement for HBRC to respond to an event that causes major disruption to the community.

In addition to its role as the manager of flood control and drainage schemes throughout the region, HBRC will play a significant role in any response as a result of its civil defence responsibilities including resourcing to the civil defence emergency coordination centre, and the provision of reconnaissance and hazard information to input to the response planning and decision making. There may also be a significant cost in securing information and data arising from the event, especially a flood event. Significant flood events provide a valuable source of data to enable verification of models and assumptions made as part of HBRC staff flood hazard assessment and flood control and drainage activities.

HBRC may qualify for Central Government assistance for the reinstatement of HBRC infrastructure assets in the event of a disaster however such assistance is more likely to be forthcoming following a significant disaster affecting the Heretaunga Plains. Central government assistance is less likely to be available for a disaster event impacting a small portion of the region.

While HBRC should meet the expectations of central government by implementing this policy, HBRC acknowledge that central government and LAPP funding may not be available to cover the costs of every disaster. This policy also makes some provision to cover that risk.

2. Financial Risk Management Initiatives

HBRC will mitigate its financial risk associated with a disaster event. The following will make up HBRC risk mitigation approach.

2.1 Disaster damage to Council-owned fixed assets

· Insurance policies will be held with appropriate indemnity or replacement value cover; and

· Assets will continue to be effectively maintained.

2.2 Disaster damage leading to Third Party liability

· The employment of suitably qualified and experienced staff and robust decision making processes.

· Appropriate and relevant HBRC policy and sound technical practices for maintaining HBRC assets thereby minimising any exposure through negligence.

· An insurance policy will be held to cover this risk.

2.3 Disaster impact on Council’s Business Continuance Capability

· A Business Continuance Plan will be maintained and regularly updated which contains specific actions and ongoing requirements to help check systems to enable HBRC to continue to operate after a disaster.

2.4 Sound maintenance of infrastructure assets

· Infrastructure assets will be maintained in accordance with asset management plans. This will include an annual programme of maintenance and a regular assessment of asset condition.

· Where feasible and economic this may include improvements to increase asset resilience to damage from a natural disaster.

2.5 Use of surplus operating funds and reprioritisation of maintenance and capital works

· Following any disaster event the first call to fund the reinstatement costs of infrastructure assets will be any surplus operating funds held by the Scheme under which the assets are administered.

· The second call will be through the reprioritisation of the maintenance or capital expenditure programme for that Scheme.

· Scheme depreciation reserves will only be utilised where a depreciable asset requires replacement, in which case the difference between the depreciated value of that asset and its replacement cost can be sourced from the relevant depreciation reserve. Note that if the new asset results in an increase in the level of service provided by the Scheme, the difference between the cost of the new asset and the replacement cost of the current asset will be a cost on the Scheme.

· Only after these options have been fully assessed and funding from these sources committed, will Council agreement to funds from other financial reserves being drawn on be sought.

2.6 HBRC held financial reserves

· Financial reserves will be held to mitigate HBRC’s financial exposure to natural hazards. The following reserves will be held by HBRC

o The Wairoa District Flood Reserve

o The small schemes disaster reserve

o The Heretaunga Plains Schemes disaster reserve

o The Regional Disaster Reserve

2.7 Membership of LAPP

· HBRC will maintain its membership of the Local Authority Protection Programme (LAPP) and meet the requirements of LAPP.

2.8 Maintain proper planning for risk management

· In order to comply with the criteria set out in the National Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan, HBRC will maintain proper planning for risk management. Implementation of this policy will demonstrate this.

3. Criteria for Contributions and Withdrawals From Reserves

Criteria for contributions and withdrawals from these reserves are:

3.1 The Wairoa Flood Reserve

The reserve will be managed such that the capital purchasing power of the reserve sum, less any capital authorised to be withdrawn from the reserve by HBRC, shall be maintained by increasing the reserve each year by 2.5% from interest earned by the reserve.

The balance of interest earned by the reserve shall be used to subsidise work undertaken through the Wairoa Rivers and Streams Scheme to manage and reduce flood risk to public and/or community infrastructure within the Wairoa District.

Council may authorise capital sums to be drawn from the reserve to undertake specific major flood mitigation or erosion protection projects within the Wairoa District or for flood recovery works in the same area.

3.2 The Small Schemes Disaster Reserve

The small schemes disaster reserve shall provide for the following flood control and drainage schemes:

· Upper Tukituki Flood control scheme

· Upper Makara flood control scheme

· Paeroa Scheme

· Porangahau flood control Scheme

· Poukawa Drainage Scheme

· Ohuia – Whakaki Drainage Scheme

· Esk River flood control Scheme

· Whirinaki Flood Control Scheme

· Maraetotara River Control Scheme

· Kopuawhara Flood Scheme

· Te Ngarue River Control Scheme

· Opoho Scheme

· Kairakau Community Scheme

The following assets within the Wairoa Rivers and Streams Scheme:

o Tawhara Flood detention dam and outlet channel

o Tuhara Drain

o Nuhaka Railway Drain

The reserve shall be made up of all of the current Scheme disaster reserves held by each of the above Schemes. As at 30 June 2013 the combined balance was $680,768.

Each Scheme will contribute annually to the reserve in proportion to the value of Scheme assets, the vulnerability of the scheme assets (vulnerability factor) and the vulnerability of the Scheme (scheme factor). Annual contributions will be calculated as follows.

(Value of asset class) x (vulnerability factor) x (scheme factor)/1000

All Schemes with no assets, e.g. Te Ngarue and Porangahau shall contribute a fixed amount of $20 per km, x a scheme vulnerability factor, of river channel under the Scheme.

Annual contributions shall be made to the reserve as set out in Table 6 each year that the reserve balance is below the LAPP excess (i.e. currently $1,259,000). Interest earned by the reserve shall be credited to the reserve. Annual contributions may increase each year in accordance with inflation.

When the reserve balance is above the LAPP excess the Group Manager Asset Management and Group Manager Corporate Services may agree to a discount on the annual contribution from each scheme. No annual contributions from schemes will be made if the reserve balance is in excess of 2 times the LAPP excess. If the reserve is over 2.5 times the LAPP excess the Group Managers may agree to return money from reserve income to the Schemes.

At Council discretion individual schemes will be eligible to draw up to 100 times their annual contribution from the reserve, provided the reserve holds adequate funds.

The following costs may be eligible for payment from this Reserve.

· The cost of reinstatement of assets identified on the LAPP asset schedule, or their replacement with alternative assets that will reinstate a similar level of service provided by the original assets, less any provision held within the Scheme depreciation fund for reinstatement of that asset, up to a maximum of the LAPP excess or central government threshold, whichever is the greater.

· The cost of repair works within a scheme area (excluding district wide schemes). Eligible repair works may include channel works which improve flood flow capacity, bank protection works where this work will assist in protecting a residential dwelling (however this could be subject to a contribution from the building’s owner to recognise any private good, and may be subject to the owner providing details of other insurance claims made or received), or any other works subject to Council approval. The Reserve will not be used for the purchase of land. Where land upon which an asset has been sited is lost, the asset should be relocated.

3.3 The Heretaunga Plains Scheme Disaster Reserve

The Heretaunga Plains Schemes disaster reserve shall provide for the following flood control and drainage schemes.

· The Heretaunga Plains Scheme – Rivers

· Napier Meeanee Drainage area

· Brookfields Awatoto Drainage area

· Pakowhai Drainage area

· Muddy Creek Drainage area

· Haumoana Drainage area

· Karamu and Tributaries Drainage area

· Raupare Twyford drainage area

· Tutaekuri-Waimate Drainage area

· Puninga Drainage area

The reserve shall be made up of all of the current Scheme disaster reserves held by each of the above Schemes. As at 30 June 2013 the combined balance was $1,799,022.

Value of asset class x vulnerability factor x scheme factor/1000.

Annual contributions shall be made to the reserve as set out in Table 7 at any time that the reserve balance is below the LAPP excess. (i.e. currently $1,259,000). Annual contributions may increase each year in accordance with inflation.

When the reserve balance is above the LAPP excess the Group Manager Asset Management and Group Manager Corporate Services may agree to a lesser amount being contributed from each scheme or a contribution from this reserve being made to the regional disaster reserve. No Scheme contributions will be made if the reserve balance is in excess of 1.5 times the LAPP excess. If the reserve is over 2.0 times the LAPP excess the Group Managers may agree to return money from the reserve income to the Schemes.

At Council discretion individual schemes will be eligible to draw from the reserve up to 100 times their annual contribution from the reserve, provided the reserve holds adequate funds.

Withdrawal from the reserve will only be considered after consideration of deferment of routine annual maintenance and programmed capital works. Any payments from the reserve shall be at the discretion of Council.

The following costs may be eligible for payment from this Reserve.

· The cost of repair works within a scheme area. Eligible repair works may include channel works which improve flood flow capacity and bank protection works, however where this work will assist in protecting a residential or commercial building this may be subject to the owner providing details of other insurance claims made or received and agreeing to an appropriate contribution, or any other works subject to Council approval.

3.4 The Regional Disaster Reserve

This reserve is to be managed such that the value of its investments (including any cash) remains within the range of $2.75m - $3.75m and that its investments exceed $3.75m in value and some investments may be sold and the proceeds credited to Council’s general funding operating account.

A return of 2.5% on average balance held by the reserve during the year will accrue as an increase in the value of the reserve, when the Reserve has a value in excess of $3M. The earnings in excess of the 2.5% per annum will be credited to Council’s general funding operating account.

The regional disaster reserve may, at Council discretion, provide for the following.

a. The cost of responding to and managing an event. This could include:

· Unbudgeted staff time

· Plant and equipment hire including helicopters

· Employment of unbudgeted external resource to support staff in the response.

b. The cost of reinstatement of any uninsured assets. This includes recreational assets that are not part of a flood protection and drainage Scheme, i.e. pathways and associated assets that are not constructed on a stopbank, and assets within open space areas.

c. Any difference between the deductable (excess) on any insurance or LAPP policy and the threshold for eligibility for central government assistance, which is unable to be funded through Scheme disaster Reserve or other funds.

d. Any unfunded reinstatement costs above the excess of any insurance policy and the threshold for eligibility for central government assistance because central government determines that HBRC is not eligible for central government assistance because the disaster does not trigger the criteria set out in the Guide to the National Civil Defence Plan, and/or LAPP is unable to provide cover for whatever reason.

e. The possibility of the cost of reinstating the level of service provided by the assets costs considerably more than their estimated replacement or optimised replacement value, and central government and/or HBRC’s insurers refuse to cover a portion of that cost.

f. The cost of any works that are considered betterment but are necessary to reinstate community protection, or because the community demands a higher level of protection.

g. Liability as a member of LAPP in the event that the LAPP fund is exhausted.

4. Criteria for the Build Up, Use and Maintenance of Disaster Damage Insurance Excess Reserves

· Reserves will always be a funding call of last resort e.g. if priorities can be re-established to cover the expenditure, or if unbudgeted income is received these sources of funds will be used.

· All efforts will be made to maximise any disaster recovery contributions from Central Government or any other sources.

5. Provision to Meet Disaster Damage Insurance Excesses and Commitments

5.1 Regional Disaster Reserve

The required reserve will be managed in accordance with HBRC’s investment policies.

5.2 Flood and Drainage Schemes

The Group Manager, Asset Management and Group Manager Corporate Services have delegated authority to manage the Small Scheme disaster reserve and the Heretaunga Plains Scheme Disaster reserve in accordance with HBRC’s investment policy.

6. Frequency of Disaster Damage Risk Management Reviews

Reviews will be carried out at least once every six years.

Scott/Belford

CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 10.15am and reconvened at 10.30am

10.

Nimmo-Bell Alternative Investments Report

Chairman Graham introduced Mr Tom Skerman, HBRC Economic Development Manager and Mr Brian Bell of Nimmo Bell.

Mr Bell outlined members of the team who were involved in producing the Ruataniwha Plains Water Storage Scheme report to look at investment alternatives to the RWSS. Mr Bell also outlined the approach taken to gain a clear overview of the regional economy and to ensure that a good understanding of the key issues was had. New information which had become available recently was also utilised.

Mr Bell then gave a powerpoint presentation which highlighted external risk factors associated with the economy of the region, the decline that was prevalent in the region which was attributable to several factors and noted several other concerns.

Mr Bell analysed the Council’s existing investment portfolio which was considered to be relatively narrow and the valuation, diversification and investments included in this portfolio. Alternative investments were also profiled and assessed however none of the projects met the qualifying criteria set out in Council’s brief for short listing and detailed analysis to enable Nimmo Bell to advise any of these projects were a viable alternative to the storage project.

The Committee discussed the conclusions reached in the Report which had been carried out to satisfy Section 87 of the Local Government Act.. Concern was expressed that Nimmo Bell were not able to compare other forms of investment as there were no other developed business cases able to be evaluated as a comparison. Responding to questions from the Committee, Mr Bell explained the factors involved in the cost benefit analysis which included discounted cashflows and disaggregated results (net present value) and how the discounting process was assessed and the impact it had on today’s value. The additional financial benefits to HBRC were also outlined.

Mr Bell clarified that farmers would be classed as one group of investors but those investors investing in the infrastructure of the dam and the maintenance of the water supply off farm would make up the rest of the investor group.

Mr Bell also confirmed that the Butcher report was based on 2007 data whereas the Nimmo Bell report was based on 2013 data. However, the changes did not result in any changes to the Butcher report – the same technique was used with better information.

Mr Bell concluded that the RWSS remained the most economic alternative and a viable investment for the region considering the importance of the primary industries and the mitigation to the biggest risk to the region’s economy – water shortage for agricultural production.

The Committee agreed that Nimmo Bell had fulfilled their brief, flawed as it may be, the results of the report were no surprise, investment opportunities had been sought in the past to no avail however there were opportunities in the region which should remain open for discussion both from the social and economic aspects particularly in the light that it was ratepayers money being spent.

In moving the recommendation Councillor Wilson said he was happy to receive the report, the brief was concise, the lack of exposure of other opportunities was a concern to Hawke’s Bay, and it was not Council’s role to drive every single opportunity. Councillor Wilson noted that Council’s challenge as a regional entity was to make sure that this conversation was continued heading towards a final decision. Currently, Council did not have enough information to make a final call however there will be other opportunities and may be Council does need to influence more than what it has done in the past.

In seconding the motion, Councillor Scott emphasised the concern of lack of urgency around economic development and it was important that in order to get added value out of this report Council needed to work closely with individual stakeholders through Business Hawke’s Bay.

ESC12/14

Resolution:

That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Nimmo-Bell Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Investments” report.

Wilson/Scott

CARRIED 6/2

For: Wilson, Scott, Beaven, Pipe, Hewitt, Dick

Against: Graham, Belford

Coastal Strategy

Mr Adye advised the Committee of projections by climate scientists for sea level rise by 2100 and the impact it could have on the Hawke’s Bay coast line in particular the coastline between Clifton and Tangoio.

Mr Adye reported that following a meeting in November 2013 where a proposal for a multi agency strategy to manage the coastline was suggested, it is now proposed that a Joint Committee similar to the HPUDs governance group be convened to oversee the development of the strategy.

The Committee discussed the Governance group’s role and agreed it was important to get a range of views on options and opportunities before any decisions were made. Concern was expressed that the plan was to work over 3 years and asked if there were any opportunities to address problems immediately. The Committee suggested that a solution could be the transport to the coast of the large amount of gravel in the Upper Tuki Tuki .

Mr Adye confirmed that a Terms of Reference would be developed for consideration by the Governance Group. It was also considered important that all Councils viewed the TORs prior to final agreement.

Councillor Wilson confirmed that the difficulties faced along the region’s coastline were discussed on an ongoing basis with Councils’ CEs.

In response to a question Mr Adye outlined the renourishment programme undertaken annually at Westshore Beach but noted that this arrangement could cease at any time. Mr Adye also confirmed that staff were having ongoing discussions with Winstones in relation to future sources of sediment for their business.

Mr Adye also clarified that abrasion of gravel occurred along the beach. It was a factor of wave activity along the coast. If groynes were constructed he did not expect significant impact on the quantity of material lost to abrasion.

ESC13/14

Resolutions:

That the Environment and Services Committee:

1. Receives the report “Global Climate and Barrier Beach Responses” authored by Emeritus Professor Paul D Komar and Erica Harris.

2. Receives the proposal entitled Hawke’s Bay Coastal Strategy prepared by Tonkin and Taylor and notes that staff are proposing that this paper be considered by the Joint Committee as part of their formulation of the scope of the project.

3. Nominates Councillor Beaven and Councillor Scott as the HBRC representatives on the Joint Committee

The Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

4. 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.

5. Agrees to work with in collaboration with Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and Treaty of Waitangi settlement groups with mana whenua mandate over the portion of coast being considered, on the development of a strategy for the management of the coast between Clifton and Tangoio.

6. Agrees that the project will be governed by a Joint Committee made up of 2 elected members from each of Napier City, Hastings District and Hawke’s Bay Regional Councils and up to three Iwi representatives.

7. Agrees to continue discussions with He Toa Takitini, Mana Ahuriri Inc, and Maungaharuru Tangitū Trust, seeking their agreement to participate in the Strategy development process and nominate one representative from each organisation to sit on the Joint Committee to oversee the project

8. Agrees that the Joint Committee will be delegated the authority to determine its terms of Reference, the Terms of Reference for a Technical Advisory Group, and the scope and timeline for the project, taking into account the size of the project and the resource available to it.

9. Notes that resourcing requirements for HBRC’s involvement in the development of the Strategy will be included in the draft LTP 2015-25.

10. Appoints Councillor Beaven and Councillor Scott as the HBRC representatives on the Joint Committee.

Wilson/Dick

CARRIED

The meeting adjourned at 12.35pm and reconvened at 1.05pm

12.

QEII National Trust - Presentation from Troy Duncan, HB Representative and Meg Gaddam

Mr Adye introduced Mr Troy Duncan, and Ms Meg Gaddam QEII Representatives for Hawke’s Bay.’

Mr Duncan gave a powerpoint presentation which outlined the structure, purpose and work undertaken by the QEII National Trust.

The Committee noted that QEII has a beneficial relationship with Council contributing funds towards a proposed QEII project once approved by QEII. This working relationship has continued for a number of years and has assisted many of the region’s farmers to achieve a QEII covenant to protect native habitats and form natural corridors for biodiversity.

Responding to questions from the Committee, Mr Duncan outlined the reasons why convenant applications could be rejected and described the various convenants which could applied for. Mr Duncan also confirmed that public access to convenanted areas is at the landowner’s discretion.

Mr Duncan said looking forward QEII had updated monitoring processes, developed a new database in order to support their convenantors better than in the past and hoped to strengthen communication with new convenant holders as well as local government groups and organisations.

ESC14/14

Resolution:

1. That the report be received.

Wilson/Pipe

CARRIED

Review of Regional Pest Management Plans

Mr Leckie presented the agenda item which outlined the implications of the Biosecurity Law Reform Act 2012 and the potential changes to the current HBRC pest management programme that could result from the Act.

Mr Leckie updated the Committee on work already undertaken in anticipation of the gazetting of the National Policy Direction which is required by the Act and due to be published later this year. This will require that HBRC’s current strategies are reviewed.

Mr Leckie also outlined the formation of a Councillor working group to consider possible changes in the current HBRC biosecurity programme resulting from the Act and National Policy direction and the programme and scope for the review of the HBRC Pest Management Plans.

The Committee discussed the impact the change in legislation would have on Council regional pest programmes, the work currently underway in anticipation of a review and the establishment of a working group to review the regional pest management plans.

Responding to a question, Mr Leckie confirmed Argentine ants were an issue in the region and outlined HBRC’s role in assisting the community deal with the impacts of this species. Mr Leckie also described an example of marine pests and the damage that could be done in estuaries if not identified and confirmed that the Port of Napier would be involved in any future decision making process around marine pests.

The Committee agreed that a small working party should be established and Committee members were selected.

ESC15/14

Resolutions:

That the Environment and Services Committee:

1. Receives this report.

2. Nominates the following Councillors to form a working group to assist staff in:

2.1. Establishing a timeline and scope for reviewing the regional pest management plans, and

2.2. Completing the review process.

Councillors Scott, Graham, Pipe, Wilson and Barker (on his agreement)

That the Environment and Services Committee recommends that Council:

3. 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.

4. Establishes a working group of 3-5 Councillors to assist staff in:

4.1. Establishing a timeline and scope for reviewing the regional pest management plans, and

4.2. Completing the review process.

5. Appoints the following Councillors to the working group

Councillor Scott

Councillor Graham

Councillor Pipe

Councillor Wilson

Councillor Barker (on his agreement)

Beaven/Belford

CARRIED

11.

National Horticultural Field Days

Mr Adye presented this agenda item and outlined Council’s ongoing commitment to the National Horticultural Field Day which will be held on Thursday, 5 June 2014.

ESC16/14

Resolution:

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives the National Horticultural Field Days report.

Wilson/Scott

CARRIED

13.

Science Reports April 2014 Update

Mr Adye introduced Dr Stephen Swabey to the Committee. Dr Swabey has recently joined Council and fills the role of Manager Science.

Dr Swabey gave the Committee a brief outline of his past work experience.

Dr Wilding gave a powerpoint presentation which outlined the topics and findings covered in the Karamu Characterisation Report. Dr Wilding noted that Council knowledge about the Karamu catchment was an important precursor to the ongoing investigations that are now under way for the greater Heretaunga Plan Change.

The Committee noted that although there is only a small amount of stock in the catchment, it appears to have a detrimental effect on the stream conditions. Cropping and pastoral farming were also contributing factors.

Committee members also requested that consideration be given to include the Karamu catchment as part of one of the proposed field trips for Councillors in order to gain a better understanding of the flows into the Karamu.

Following a request staff would prepare an updated report on groundwater quality for the next Environment and Services Committee.

Dr Wilding and Mrs Haidekker then answered questions from the Committee and advised that an investigation of fish passage on the Karamu would commence in the near future.

Councillor Wilson left the meeting at 2.30pm

ESC17/14

Resolution:

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives the “Karamu Characterisation” Report.

Beaven/Scott

CARRIED

14.

Statutory Advocacy Update

The Committee took this paper as read but noted that Council had submitted on Plan Change 10 to the Operative City of Napier District Plan and the Proposed Hastings District Plan.

ESC18/14

Resolution:

1. That the Environment and Services Committee receives the Statutory Advocacy Update report.

Scott/Beaven

CARRIED

15.

Minor Items Not on the Agenda

Item	Topic	Councillor / Staff
1.	Tutira Meeting Councillor Scott updated the Committee on a recent meeting she had attended with Mr Adye to discuss a report prepared by GNS featuring historical links to the Tutira area. Relevant material contained in the report may be helpful for managing climate control in the future.	Councillor Scott
2.	United Emirates Delegation Visit Councillor Scott reported on the recent visit from members of the United Emirates EPA. The focus of the visit was to understand the regulation around water metering in the region as there may be a requirement for them to recycle wastewater to alleviate their ongoing issues with lack of water.	Councillor Scott
3.	Upper Tukituki Scheme Liaison Committee meeting Concern had been expressed by farmers in the area at the amount of gravel in the Upper Tukituki and what the solutions were to alleviate this problem.	Councillor Hewitt
4.	Irrigation NZ Conference Due to the absence of Councillor Wilson, an update would be presented at the Corporate & Strategic meeting.	Councillor Wilson
5.	Smoke Police - Noted that a press release would be prepared to clarify the recent publicity around “helicopters in the sky”.	Councillor Scott

Closure:

There being no further business the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 3.00pm on Wednesday, 9 April 2014..

Signed as a true and correct record.

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