Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

Staff Responses to Submissions

Attachment 1

Draft Annual Plan 2014-15

Staff Responses to Submissions

Table of Contents

Air Quality Management and Heat Smart Scheme..................................................... 7

Submissions 1, 6, 9, 19, 20 & 45

Regional Vector Control Programme for Bovine TB................................................... 8

Submissions 2 & 3

Submission 4 Regional Events Underwriting Fund ..................................................... 9

Economic Development and Tourism........................................................................ 10

Submissions 4, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 & 43

Submission 5 Film Hawke’s Bay Trust funding request............................................. 11

Climate Change.......................................................................................................... 12

Submissions 7, 19 & 45

Community Engagement and Consultation............................................................... 13

Submissions 7. 9, 17, 20 & 47

Coastal Erosion........................................................................................................... 14

Submissions 8 & 46

Council Investments................................................................................................... 15

Submissions 6, 9, 10, 20, 21 & 28

Submission 10 Tim Gilbertson – Various................................................................... 16

Submission 11 Wairoa Young Achievers Trust funding request................................ 17

Submission 12 The Enviroschools Foundation funding request................................ 18

Extension of Coastal Protection at Clifton.................................................................. 19

Submissions 13 & 14

Submission 15 WDC Economic Development Team request for funding................ 20

Submission 16 Upstream Wairoa funding request..................................................... 21

Submission 17 Upstream Wairoa Inc funding request............................................... 23

Submission 18 Pure Hawke’s Bay funding request................................................... 24

Land Management...................................................................................................... 26

Submissions 6, 9, 10, 17, 21 & 47

Oil & Gas Exploration Policy Development............................................................... 28

Submissions 7, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23 & 47

Water Management.................................................................................................... 29

Submissions 6, 9, 17, 19, 20, 21, 35 & 46

Submission 9 Council Shared Services..................................................................... 30

Public Transport.......................................................................................................... 31

Submissions 9, 19, 29, 30, 31, 32 & 45

Submission 19 Strategic Planning.............................................................................. 32

Submission 27 Pakowhai Country Park Planting....................................................... 33

Biosecurity.................................................................................................................. 34

Submissions 28 & 42

Submission 33 Hawke’s Bay Rescue Helicopter Trust funding request.................... 35

Submission 34 Clive Community Group maintenance funding request.................... 36

Rates........................................................................................................................... 37

Submissions 20, 21, 28 & 42

Investment in Napier Gisborne Rail............................................................................ 39

Submissions in support 7, 17, 45-52, 54- 61, 63-75, 77-93, 100 & 102; Opposed 10, 20, 53, 62, 76 & 103;
and Opposed – Propose Alternative 94-99

Submission 18 HB Fruitgrowers Association............................................................. 43

Opoho Flood & Drainage Scheme............................................................................. 44

Submissions 6, 24 & 25

Submission 26 Opoutama Drainage and Stream Control.......................................... 50

Submission 43 Denys Caves..................................................................................... 51

Submitter 47 Pauline Tangiora, PET Southern Star & Associates............................ 52

Submitter 101 Derek Williams.................................................................................... 53

Topic

Air Quality Management and Heat Smart Scheme

Submitters:

#1 EECA

#6 Jeremy Dunningham

#9 June Graham

#19 HB District Health Board

# 20 Katherine Bayliss

#45 Environment, Justice and Peace Network

Submissions on Air Quality Management raise:

1. That generally the local community is very supportive of the work HBRC is doing to monitor and improve air quality.

2. That there is a positive downward trend on exceedences, moving toward meeting the National Environmental Standard (NES) for Air Quality by 2020.

3. The effects of business development outside the airsheds should be monitored and controlled and Outdoor burning should be banned.

Air Quality Management Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. HBRC is pleased with progress made to date, but aware that there is still more to do in order to meet the NES for air quality.

2. Regulation under the Regional Resource Management Plan and the Airplan include the requirement to comply with consent conditions for discharge to air for industrial and horticultural developments, e.g. outdoor burning regulation between May and September (Air Plan Rule 19C and 19E).

3. The measurement of particulate matter to identify the proportion of PM^2.5 included in PM¹⁰ will be investigated in the airsheds.

Submissions on Heat Smart raise

The Heatsmart scheme should be targeted at low income and rental properties and extended to include those properties which currently have no heating and; Solar heating for new homes should be compulsory.

Heat Smart Comments and Proposals by Staff

Working across sectors and including Central Government has proved effective when establishing collaborative initiatives in Hawke’s Bay and HBRC will continue with the development of collaborative ventures to optimise health gains.

HBRC has agreed to support initiatives to promote solar energy when they become financially viable in conjunction with territorial local authorities, however, there are no plans to regulate to the point of making solar heating compulsory for new build housing.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Air Quality Management and Heat Smart, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic

Regional Vector Control Programme for Bovine TB

Submissions #2 Hawke’s Bay TBfree Committee and #3 OSPRI New Zealand:

Acknowledge and appreciate the ongoing support provided by HBRC for the TBfree vector control programme in Hawke’s Bay.

Comments and Proposals by Staff

The TBFree vector control programme of work in HB receives a funding contribution from HBRC of 10% of the cost of the annual programme. The other 90% is funded from other OSPRI funding sources which include central government, and the dairy, deer and beef industries. 70% of HBRC’s contribution is sourced from a targeted rate of approx $0.52c/ha +GST on all productive properties over 4 ha. The remaining 30% is funded from general funds.

Provision is included in the draft annual plan for a $640,000 contribution from HBRC in the 2014/15. The TBfree vector control programme results in low possum numbers over approx 650,000ha. HBRC and TBfree staff work closely to ensure the TBfree vector control work and HBRC’s possum control area programme are coordinated with the objective of maintaining low possum numbers over all productive land in HB.

HBRC staff are aware that a funding review for the National Pest Management Plan for Bovine TB is underway and look forward to the consultation phase of this process. Staff note that the proposed closing date for submissions is 14 July. The timeline proposed will not allow for formal Council consideration of an HBRC submission by an HBRC Committee, however a Pest Management working group meeting is scheduled for early July. Subject to Council agreement, a draft submission could be discussed with this group with final approval of the submission delegated to the Chairman of the Environment and Services Committee of Council.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions from HB TBfree Committee and OSPRI NZ, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

That Council endorses the proposed process for an HBRC submission on the funding methodology for the National Pest Management Plan for Bovine TB.

Topic	*Fund a Regional Events Underwriting Fund*
Submitters:	*#4 Sport Hawke’s Bay*

Submitter #4 Sport Hawke’s Bay requests that the Regional Council contributes to a Regional Events Underwriting Fund:

Regional Events Underwriting Fund Comments and Proposals by Staff

With recent progress in the development of a regional events strategy by Sport Hawke’s Bay and Hawke’s Bay Tourism, and the appointment of events managers by Hastings and Napier Councils, it is proposed that a regional fund be established to underwrite (and therefore attract to Hawke’s Bay) the types of events that can make a significant contribution to our economy.

The establishment of a regional events underwrite fund, in collaboration with other local authorities and local business sector groups within the 2014-15 Annual Plan timeframe would be problematic. Because this initiative would require extensive stakeholder consultation, it would be more suitably progressed via the Long Term Plan development process.

The support of Sport Hawke’s Bay for the work undertaken by Tourism Hawke’s Bay is acknowledged.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Regional Events Underwriting Fund, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic

Economic Development and Tourism

Submitters:

#4 Sport Hawke’s Bay

#36 Neil Barber; #37 Art Deco Trust; #38 Michele Cole

#39 NCC Tourism Services

#40 Napier Tourism Association; #41 Simon Bevan

#42 Federated Farmers; #43 Denys Caves

Submissions on Economic Development and Tourism raise

1. Support for HB Tourism vs Regional Council should not fund Tourism promotion, but leave that up to TLAs

2. Economic development rate in Wairoa

Economic Development and Tourism Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. Hawke’s Bay Tourism has had a 3 year funding agreement with the Council, expiring in June 2014. In the 2014/15 annual plan, Council resolved to roll-over Hawke’s Bay Tourism’s funding for one year at the same level of funding ($850,000). This roll-over allows Council to consider future funding of Hawke’s Bay Tourism via the Long Term Planning process, no doubt taking into account the views expressed by those submitters who feel that funding should increase and those who feel it should be reduced or re-allocated.

2. Wairoa primary sector economic development and Maori Agribusiness (part #42 FFNZ and #43 Caves) have been recognised by Council as areas of targeted focus in 2014-15.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Economic Development and Tourism, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Submitter #5 Film Hawke’s Bay Trust requests funding for:

$10,000 to assist in contributing to the costs of the projected annual $60,000 budget of the Film Hawke’s Bay Trust.

Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. In Project 874 Council provides a budget of $90,000 for strategic alliances (reduced from $120,000 in the last Annual Plan round). As part of its review of strategic partnerships during the 2012-22 Long Term Plan process Council originally allocated this funding to:

a. Operation of a forum of primary production sector associations forum ($10k)

b. Identification and confirmation of shared services arrangements with HB Councils and wider regional sector allies ($20k)

c. Development of projects that enhance alliances between Council and the research sector ($90k)

2. In the 2014/15 Draft Annual Plan the research alliance budget (c) has been reduced to $60,000.

3. Staff believe that where Council projects are specifically related to the activities of community organisations, funding of the organisations to deliver these can be considered on a project by project basis, rather than as an annual grant.

4. If Council chooses to support this funding request the additional $10,000 for 2014-15 would require additional funds through Project 874, which is sourced from general rates.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submission from Film Hawke’s Bay requesting funding, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic

Climate Change

Submitters:

#7 Bernie Bowden

#19 HB District Health Board

#45 Environment, Justice & Peace Network

Submissions on Climate Change raise

1. Local government should lead the way in reducing the region’s carbon emissions and bring pressure on the national government on the way forward in combating climate change.

2. A request to proceed with establishing regional carbon emissions monitoring and reporting as proposed.

Climate Change Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. The work programme set out in the draft annual plan includes a number of projects which are designed to assist the community in increasing their resilience to the impacts of climate change. Examples of these include

a. The monitoring of coastal processes and the interpretation of the results of that monitoring will feed into the region’s understanding of how natural hazards with the potential to impact on the coastal environment will change with climate change. HBRC are seeking to work with the regional territorial local authorities to develop a long term strategy for the coast which when implemented will lead to a more coordinated approach to the management of coastal hazards.

b. The region’s major flood control and drainage schemes are being reviewed with the possible outcome of increasing the level of protection provided including taking into account the potential impact of climate change.

c. Land management programmes including increasing the resilience of the primary productive sector to changes in the region’s climate. A trial block of 140ha of high unique Manuka factor (UMF) manuka has been planted on HBRC owned land adjacent to Lake Tutira. This block is being monitored to determine its viability as an alternative land use for steep erodible hill country that is currently under pasture.

2. In addition HBRC is now closely monitoring its own corporate emissions and seeking ways to reduce its corporate carbon footprint.

3. An assessment of the region’s carbon emissions was undertaken in 2007 and is due to be updated during the 2014/15 financial year.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Climate Change, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic

Community Engagement

Submitters:

#7 Bernie Bowden

#9 June Graham

#17 Paul Bailey

#20 Kathryn Bayliss

#47 Pauline Tangiora

Submissions on Community Engagement raise the following issues:

1. Simplification of regional plans to encourage increased participation

2. Keeping people informed – community involvement

3. Webcast all Council and Committee meetings

4. Slow rural broadband

5. Funded community groups have report-back or KPI requirements

Community Engagement Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. Mr Bowden’s submission expresses concern at the lack of community involvement in district and regional plans and suggests that simplified versions of plans could give a better understanding for people. The Plans themselves are legal documents and must pass through a semi-judicial process before adoption so there is little flexibility in how they finally appear. However HBRC has a series of Environment Topics on its website and in hard copy that take elements of the plan (e.g. air quality, water quality, etc) and present these in a much simpler and ‘everyday’ version for the public.

2. Ms Graham has listed community involvement as one of her areas of concern but has not set out what she seeks and may well address this in her verbal submission.

3. Mr Bailey’s submission seeks the webcasting of all meetings including “sub-committee meetings” and requests that funds are made available to meet his request. HBRC initially approved the installation of equipment to webcast meetings in 2012 and made provisions for $25,000 per annum operating costs to webcast all meetings. This budget was reduced to $15,000 in the 2013-14 Annual Plan and the webcasting of all meetings other than those of full Council ceased as a result. To meet Mr Bailey’s request an additional $10,000 is required in Project 895, which is funded from general rates.

Council began google analytics in October 2013. This shows that there have been 278 users, 1565 page views with an average session duration of 5 minutes and 34 seconds.

4. Ms Bayliss seeks that HBRC keeps in mind that many rural people have slow, expensive internets access and that printed options be kept available. This is standard Council practice, as Council is aware of the limitations of digital access in rural areas.

5. With reference to Mrs Tangiora’s submission on performance of community organisations receiving grants, this has been addressed through development of KPIs through formal agreements.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Community Engagement, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic

Coastal Erosion

Submitters:

#8 WOW Inc

#46 Barrie Crabbe

Submissions on Coastal Erosion raise

1. The provision of some protection to Haumoana, and particularly Cape View Corner

2. The provision of some protection to Westshore

Coastal Erosion Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. HBRC has been working with Hastings District Council (HDC) and WoW to determine the feasibility of coastal protection solution for Haumoana for a number of years. HDC commissioned Mr Dave Serjeant of Merestone consultants to undertake an assessment of the feasibility of a potential hard engineering solution. Mr Serjeant determined that a hard engineering solution had the highest chance of being consented if the applicant was a public body. HDC continues to work with the WoW group and the Haumoana community to determine whether or not a hard engineering solution is affordable to the community. HBRC has been involved in this process and continues to provide information to assist with this decision making process.

The submitter suggests an interim measure to protect Cape View Corner. Staff are unsure what is proposed for this, however would point out that any hard engineering protection in the vicinity of Cape View Corner has the potential to result in a weakened beach crest to the north, thus increasing the risk of inundation from the sea to low lying parts of the Haumoana community.

2. The details of Mr Crabbe’s suggestion regarding protection to Westshore are unclear, however staff point out that the concrete groyne structures are an integral part of the river edge protection designed and constructed following the damage to live tree edge protection from sawfly in the mid 2000s. This design was developed through a detailed design development process including a physical river model. The forces and dynamics of a river are very different from a coastal environment and therefore the design is not transferrable as suggested.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Coastal Erosion, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic

Council Investments

Submitters:

#6 Jeremy Dunningham

#9 June Graham

#10 Tim Gilbertson

#20 Kathryn Bayliss

#21 Gerard Pain

#28 HB Fruitgrowers Association

Submissions on Council Investments raise

1. Defer all new investments until after amalgamation issues resolved

2. Dividend equalisation reserves

3. Ngaruroro Water Storage

4. Whakatu Road-Rail Hub

Council Investments Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. One submitter suggests that the investments currently being considered by HBRC be deferred until after the amalgamation issue is sorted. The investment issues currently being decided by HBRC, specifically the RWSS and the Napier/Gisborne Rail proposal, require focus as soon as possible from an economic development perspective. The gains for the region, if either of these investments proceeds, need to be achieved as soon as practically possible.

2. The purpose of the dividend equalisation reserve is set out in the part 3, page 11 of the Annual Plan. This reserve is used from time to time where the budgeted revenues to be received from HBRC’s investments are higher than the actual returns achieved. This reserve was set up initially to cover any fluctuations in dividends from Napier Port. The important objective here is to mitigate the effects on general rates of fluctuations in investment returns.

3. A few submitters stated that in their opinion HBRC should not invest in the Ngaruroro Water Storage Scheme (NWSS). This Plan proposes to provide funding for a feasibility study covering the NWSS. HBRC will not be committing to the development of this project until it has assessed the conclusions of the feasibility report.

4. One submitter supports the Whakatu Road-Rail Hub investment being continued and part funded by HBRC. As the timing for this development has been deferred by Napier Port, there has been no provision in this Annual Plan for HBRC to contribute to this project. As soon as Napier Port believes the timing is right for the development of this project, then HBRC will once again consider contributing to this initiative.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Council Investments, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Submission #10 Tim Gilbertson raises:

1. Pest management for feral cats

2. Support for CHB Cycle trails

3. Hatuma

Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. Mr Gilbertson may not be aware that HBRC has commenced a wide scale predator control trial over approximately 20,000ha linking Cape Kidnappers Cape Sanctuary with the urban pest control programme across the Heretaunga Plains. This trial will target feral cats and mustelids. The trial will test on a larger scale predator control methodologies developed over the last 3 years in the vicinity of Tutira to reduce and maintain low predator numbers at a cost of approx $2.50 per ha. If successful, a long term objective of native species co-existing with human habitation, food production and recreation may be able to be cost effectively realised.

It should be noted however that this initiative will target only feral cats living in a rural environment. Local government organisations do not have a legal mandate to require the registration of cats.

2. Mr Gilbertson supports Council’s decision on contributing to cycleways in Central Hawke’s Bay.

3. Mr Gilbertson notes Council expenditure on Pekapeka wetland over the past several years and suggests that HBRC use its partnership with Department of Conservation to restore Lake Hatuma.

HBRC is responsible for the Reserve land on which Pekapeka wetland is situated. Prior to commencing this work HBRC commissioned a report to identify the top 10 wetlands in Hawke’s Bay for protection and enhancement. Pekapeka wetland ranked second on that list.

Lake Hatuma, by comparison, is largely privately owned by surrounding land owners with a portion under Department of Conservation control. HBRC has undertaken work on the Lake and held discussions with the owners on a number of occasions over the past 20 years. In about 2005 some willows encroaching on the Lake were sprayed after a lengthy resource consent process including an Environment Court hearing.

Also at that time HBRC offered to subsidise, by 50%, work to enhance major wetlands. No applications were received for work on Lake Hatuma.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submission from Tim Gilbertson and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Submitter #11 Wairoa Young Achievers Trust requests funding of:

$100,000 as a contribution for a ‘Destination Playground’ to be constructed in Wairoa’.

Comments and Proposals by Staff

It is stated in the written submission from the Trust that “it has been previously indicated that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council will also support this initiative”. There is no record of HBRC having previously considered this issue.

The provision of playground facilities is traditionally part of the responsibility of territorial authorities.

HBRC has no budget provision for this activity. The allocation of funding from the Community Facilities Fund for the Wairoa district has been allocated for an upgrade of the Wairoa Community Centre.

Should Council agree to the request from the Wairoa Young Achievers Trust the cost of $100,000 represents a 0.7% increase in the General Rates.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submission from Wairoa Young Achievers Trust, requesting funding, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Submitter #12 The Enviroschools Foundation:

1. Acknowledges support provided by Council

2. Requests increased funding of $2,000 per year

Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. In 2010 the Council agreed to financially support the continuation of the Enviroschools programme through an annual contribution of $14,000, in partnership with the Nina Brathwaite Trust which committed $21,000 per annum for a total of $35,000 p.a. In that time participation in the Enviroschools programme in Hawke’s Bay has grown from 18 to 47 schools. HBRC’s involvement in Enviroschools regionally has allowed the Enviroschools Foundation to leverage several other partners both locally and nationally providing for further growth.

Council is proposing to maintain its support for Enviroschools in 2014/15, with both a direct financial contribution and the continuing role of Council’s Community Engagement Coordinator, Sally Chandler, as the Enviroschools Coordinator.

2. The Enviroschools Foundation is seeking an increase in Council’s contribution in recognition of the increasing costs of running the programme, and of its growth. HBRC currently contributes $18,400 pa and Enviroschools is seeking an increase to $20,000. This would mean an extra $1,600 in Project 895 (general funding- contributions).

Recommendations

That Council considers the submission from The Enviroschools Foundation, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Submitters #13 Clifton Marine Club and #14 Clifton Reserve Society request:

That HBRC work with Hastings District Council to allow the extension of coastal protection to the access road to Clifton camp.

Comments and Proposals by Staff

The Clifton Marine Club and Clifton Reserve Society are seeking either a ‘reduction in compliance hurdles’ or support to extend an existing temporary coastal protection structure (sea wall) to protect the access to the Clifton Number 1 camp and Clifton Boat Club facilities. The sea wall is subject to a discretionary resource consent held by Hastings District Council (HDC) that expires in 2018, prior to which the sea wall is to be removed.

It is possible for HDC to apply for a change of conditions to the current consent to extend the length of the existing sea wall or to apply for a new consent to extend the sea wall. Either process would require appropriate documentation to support the application including such things as predictions of the effect of the sea wall on coastal sediment transport processes and impacts on downstream areas, and an assessment of the effects on natural character and landscape values. There is no opportunity through a resource consent process to ‘reduce hurdles’ or alter the planning framework against which any application would be assessed. If this was desired it would need to be considered as part of a plan change process under the RMA.

The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) in its most recent reports, confirms that as a result of climate change sea levels will continue to rise in the future, with a predicted increase in the order of 1m by 2100. In addition to this, storms are predicted to become more intense. An increased rate of coastal erosion and increased risk of inundation from the sea are inevitable under both of these scenarios.

Protection of property from the sea can generally only be achieved at significant cost. In many cases the protection of a section of the coast using hard engineering structures such as sea walls results in an increase in the risk to adjacent unprotected sections of the coast. HBRC maintains a monitoring programme which is used to assess erosion trends along the coast and to enable calibration of computer modelling that assists with the understanding of coastal processes operating along the coast.

HBRC has recently agreed to work with HDC and NCC on the development of a coastal strategy for the coast between Clifton and Tangoio. This is considered important because erosion mitigation works along a part of the coast can have adverse impacts on other parts of the coast.

HBRC is the agency responsible for processing resource consents for activities in accordance with the Regional Coastal Environment Plan. In assessing resource consent applications, HBRC needs to be satisfied that the applicant has assessed the likely impacts of the activities included in their application and has provided for the mitigation of any adverse effects.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions from Clifton Marine Club and Clifton Reserve Society, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Submitter #15 WDC Economic Development Team requests:

Funds to research the decline of Dairy in the Wairoa area

Comments and Proposals by Staff

HBRC’s Economic Development Manager has been in discussions with both the Mayor and CE of Wairoa District Council, with a meeting in Wairoa with the CE and the Wairoa Economic Development team set for 28 May 2014.

In the annual plan, Council has approved a 0.2% rate increase in part to advance two specific Economic Development initiatives:

a. Wairoa Primary Sector opportunities, and

b. Maori Agribusiness (regionally).

Accordingly, HBRC has already indicated its commitment to understanding the opportunities and challenges of Wairoa’s primary sector. However, the role of dairy farming in the district is likely to form only a part of HBRC’s analysis.

It is further worth noting that both a final determination of the nutrient limits set in Plan Change 6 (PC6) and a better understanding of the precedent value of PC6 will help inform the terms of reference for analysis of Wairoa’s primary sector opportunities.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submission from Wairoa District Council Economic Development Team, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Submitter #16 Upstream Wairoa Inc requests:

Funding for walkway vegetation project

Comments and Proposals by Staff

In considering the request to fund vegetation control outlined in this submission the following adds some context for Council.

1. In 2001 HBRC established the Wairoa Rivers and Streams Scheme to manage unwanted vegetation along rivers and streams within the Wairoa District. This Scheme has been successful in funding the removal of trees from numerous stream channels, thus reducing the risk of flooding.

2. In response to a submission on HBRC’s draft 2013/14 annual plan from the Central Hawke’s Bay Pathways Committee, Council agreed to:

2.1. Support the development of pathways in Central Hawke’s Bay by offering to contribute up to $100,000 to their development from the HBRC Community Infrastructure and Open Spaces borrowing Facility; this support being subject to:

· the HBRC contribution is no more than 50% of the cost of construction of the pathway for pathways on HBRC owned or administered land

· The HBRC contribution is no more than 25% of the cost of construction of the pathway for pathways on other land, provided the land upon which the pathway is constructed is either in public ownership, or is secured for use as a pathway through a legal agreement between the land owner and a public body

· HBRC meeting the ongoing cost of maintenance of any pathways on HBRC owned or administered land through an addition general funded provision to be included in the annual plan following the construction of the pathway

· The ongoing cost of maintenance of any pathways other than those on HBRC land being met by another public organisation.

3. The submission requests funding for vegetation clearance, replanting and barriers for public safety.

4. Staff believe that the vegetation clearance work requested could be funded under the Wairoa Rivers and Streams Scheme. However the budget is fully committed for the 2014-15 year with completion of tree removal work on Cricklewood Road that commenced in the 2013-14 year. The annual budget for physical works is $95,000.

5. Staff would be happy to meet with representatives of Upstream Wairoa and agree a programme of work which could be undertaken over the next 2 to 3 years. Staff may be able to reconsider existing priorities for the Scheme works so that work considered high priority by Upstream Wairoa may be able to be undertaken in the 2014/15 year. The tree removal programme in Wairoa is generally undertaken in late summer. Staff would therefore wish to meet with Upstream Wairoa representatives within the next 6 months.

6. Staff will suggest:

6.1. That the work is undertaken by HBRC works group who are experienced in stream bank tree removal work and have the appropriate health and safety codes of practice and procedures for this type of work.

6.2. That tree removal work should not compromise the scour protection that existing vegetation provides to the river bank. This may require planting of alternative species chosen specifically for their suitability for that environment.

6.3. That an ongoing programme for the management of vegetation along the river bank may be required to minimise the risk of lateral scour of the river.

7. Staff are unsure of any plans in place for the ongoing maintenance of the pathways, and will discuss this with Wairoa District Council.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions from Upstream Wairoa Inc, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Submitter #18 Pure Hawke’s Bay requests:

That Council joint fund a research project into economic benefits of positioning Hawke’s Bay as a GM Free region - at a cost of $12,500 to Council.

Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. Pure Hawke’s Bay’s proposal focuses on investigating the “brand value” impact that GM Free status might have on the Hawke’s Bay regional economy. Accordingly, this research does not seek to address or resolve the science and/or productivity aspect of the GM Free debate, rather the regional marketing and international competitiveness consequences that could flow from a GM Free status.

2. Based on the Council’s focus on ‘Resilient Primary Sector Growth’ under the regional economic development strategy, in the 2014/15 Annual Plan, Council has approved a 0.2% rate increase to advance a number of Economic Development initiatives:

a. Wairoa Primary Sector opportunities - $37,500

b. Maori Agribusiness (regionally) – 31,000

c. Increased funding for ongoing work streams - $13,900, and

d. Increased funding for other sector opportunities - $24,600.

3. If the Council approves PHB’s joint research proposal then it is anticipated that funding will be available within the proposed Economic Development Budget – amalgam of (c) and (d) above.

4. If approved, it is suggested that approval be subject to Council:

a. reviewing the proposed scope of the study and approving the study terms of reference

b. approving the appointment of the study author(s)

c. requiring that the study includes an assessment of the opportunity cost (if any) or risks of positioning Hawke’s Bay as a GM Free region.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions from Pure Hawke’s Bay, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic

Land Management

Submitters:

#6 Jeremy Dunningham

#9 June Graham

#10 Tim Gilbertson

#17 Paul Bailey

#21 Gerard Pain

#47 Pauline Tangiora

Submissions on Land Management raise

1. Support for science informed land management

2. Land use intensification

3. Erosion and soil conservation

4. Plan Change 6 implementation

5. Cadmium monitoring

6. Financial support for landowners re riparian planting, creating wetlands, etc

7. Farm consent monitoring

Land Management Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. Mr Dunningham states that he is in support of science based land management. The HBRC land management team and land scientists all have relevant land management qualifications and keep abreast of relevant research undertaken through other councils, primary productive sector industry groups, universities and crown research institutes. Land management annual operational plans include encouragement to the primary productive sector to find innovative ways to apply the research outcomes.

2. June Graham wishes to comment on the performance target set out on part 2 page 19 of the draft annual plan which states that “a portion of the Regional Landcare Scheme subsidy will be targeted, and the level of subsidy varied, to encourage initiatives that more effectively respond to climate change.” Land management staff are currently preparing their operational plan which guides their work for the 2014/15 financial year. The work proposed to meet this target will form part of that plan. Staff expect this to be considered by the Environment and Services Committee of Council at their meeting on 13 August 2014.

3. Mr Gilbertson suggests that there has been limited uptake by farmers of soil conservation planting. The Regional Landcare Scheme (RLS) was established to encourage farmers to improve soil conservation on their properties and provides a subsidy for soil conservation planting.

Mr Gilbertson suggests that the what he believes is a lack of uptake of subsidised soil conservation planting is an issue for HBRC rather than for the farming community as a whole, and more particularly for those farms that lost substantial areas of land as a result of the April 2011 storm. Mr Gilbertson states that the role of Mr Faulknor who retired from HBRC in July 2010 has been disestablished indicating the low priority HBRC gives to soil conservation on hill country.

Mr Faulknor was the only HBRC staff member based at HBRC’s CHB office. Currently there are two land management staff based at HBRC’s Waipawa office, with one focussed largely on hill country activities. The table below sets out the estimated number of poles for soil conservation planting subsidised through the RLS and purchased by Central Hawke’s Bay farmers for the last 5 years.

Approximately 2/3 of the poles subsidised under the RLS scheme are purchased by CHB landowners. The downturn in sales in the 2013/14 year is a result of both lower yields of poles in NZ nurseries as well as lower demand following a drought. This downturn occurred across the whole region.

Year	Poles sold in CHB
2009/10 (2009 winter)	19,500
2010/11	20,700
2011/12	21,800
2012/13	19,900
2013/14	15,600
Totals	97,500
Equivalent to approx	2,190ha planted (based on 15m x 15m spacing)

4. Mr Bailey seeks evidence of increased funding in the draft annual plan to allow HBRC to deal with the consequences of the Board of Inquiry’s (BoI) decision on Plan Change 6. The BoI decision has yet to be finalised. It is now expected to be released sometime before 28 June 2014. Resources for implementation of Plan Change 6 as submitted to the BoI are included in the draft 2014-15 annual plan. Staff will consider the resource implications of the final decision once that is received and will report to Council at that time regarding the ideal level of resourcing in the 2014/15 financial year. The longer term implications for resourcing to implement Plan change 6 will be considered in detail for the period 2015/25 once the final decision in known.

5. Mr Bailey requests the funding of a cadmium monitoring programme for soil. Within the Land Science programme we already have a soil quality monitoring programme that includes cadmium. This began in 2010 and is programmed to grow to approximately 100 sites within this Annual Plan cycle.

6. Gerard Pain suggests that HBRC should be actively involved in encouraging and financially supporting all landowners to do adequate riparian planting and to create wetlands. Mr Pain may not be aware that HBRC has been involved in encouraging and subsidising farmers as suggested through the Regional Landcare Scheme for the past 15 years.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Land Management, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic

Oil & Gas Exploration Policy Development

Submitters:

#7 Bernie Bowden; #17 Paul Bailey

#20 Kathryn Bayliss; #21 Gerard Pain

#22 Guardians of the Aquifer; #23 Don't Frack the Bay

#47 Pauline Tangiora

Submissions on Oil & Gas Exploration Policy Development raise

1. Prohibition or moratorium on oil and gas exploration in Hawke's Bay.

2. No need for development of oil and gas policy for the region. No ratepayer money should be spent on oil and gas stakeholder initiatives except to decline any resource consent applications.

3. Preparation of a regional oil and gas strategy that engages all stakeholders, not just industry.

4. Oil and gas policy for Hawke's Bay region should be developed that prohibits exploration and development.

5. Development of regional policy on oil and gas exploration and development should be commenced immediately.

6. Await Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s final report on hydraulic fracturing, then if appropriate, honour commitment to prepare any relevant and necessary changes to the Regional Resource Management Plan.

Oil & Gas Exploration Policy Development Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. Councils cannot impose a ‘moratorium’ merely by way of a Council resolution. A ‘moratorium’ requires some sort of statutory instrument to effect the temporary suspension of activity. HBRC could affect a ‘moratorium’ by way of a change to regional plans under the RMA. Alternatively, some sort of legislative change could be introduced by central government. In both cases, those changes are not instant – they are subject to a process involving, at least, an opportunity for submissions to be made by interested parties supporting or opposing any such proposal. In the absence of a statutory (i.e. legislative of regional plan) restriction, HBRC is obliged to receive and process any resource consent applications for oil or mineral exploration it may receive.

2. Submitters have mixed views on the need for a regional oil and gas strategy. Some suggest there is merit in a regional strategy, as long as it prohibits exploration and development (#21) or concludes ‘our aquifers’ are not touched (#22). Another (#20) states no funds should be spent on oil and gas stakeholder initiatives.

3. In late 2013, the Council requested staff to provide advice on options to undertake a multi-stakeholder engagement process for the preparation of a regional strategy on oil and gas exploration and development. In March 2014, the Council considered various options, including broadening the development of a strategy to also encompass renewable energy resources. Some of the options presented could have been accommodated within existing budgets and resources with some re-prioritising of staff time. Other options required more substantial resourcing. Subsequently, the Council agreed to adopt as its preferred approach to Oil and Gas Exploration and Renewable Energy Strategy development for the Region; being “to defer formation of a multi stakeholder group (and its associated tasks) and incorporate a proposal for preparation of a ‘Regional Oil and Gas Exploration and Renewable Energy Strategy’ into the 2015-25 Long Term Plan development process.”

4. It is not necessary for the Annual Plan to specify the details of how, who, when etc such a Strategy/policy development process will be undertaken as those details will be considered in due course by Council nearer the time of project commencement. Nevertheless, earlier draft proposals for a stakeholder group certainly did envisage general public/interest group participation in development of a regional policy for oil, gas and energy – not just focussed on industry/business participants.

5. Staff do not consider any new information has become available to recommend that Council should review its position re oil and gas exploration and undertake a plan change based on risk of potential effects.

6. Council should continue developing capacity and continue liaison with other councils and central government agencies to develop appropriate standards should consent applications for oil exploration wells be lodged in Hawke’s Bay.

7. Council should continue to treat oil exploration through, or near, any significant aquifer with more precaution due to increased risk based on consequence. Council’s regulatory tools are adequate to address this risk should the need arise. The Council’s comments (forwarded to NZ Petroleum and Minerals) in relation to the proposed 2014 Block Offer echoed this sentiment by recommending the 2014 Block Offer Areas should exclude the region’s productive aquifers.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Oil & Gas Exploration Policy Development, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic

Water Management

Submitters:

#6 Jeremy Dunningham; #9 June Graham

#17 Paul Bailey; #19 HB District Health Board

#20 Kathryn Bayliss; #21 Gerard Pain

#35 Vaughan Cooper on behalf of TANK collaborative group

#46 Barrie Crabbe

Submissions on Water Management raise

1. Identification of outstanding fresh water bodies

2. Catchment based planning

3. Plan Change 6 implementation costs

4. Support for TANK process and ongoing science investigations associated

Water Management Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. Much of the Council’s water management-related projects are influenced by the need for regional plans and the RPS to give effect to the 2011 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. In 2012, the Council adopted a programme to progressively implement the NPSFM. That programme involves a series of catchment-based regional plan changes (such as Plan Change 6 for the Tukituki River Catchment, the Mohaka/Taharua catchment, and the TANK project).

2. Scientific investigations and understanding of the catchments’ systems is crucial to informed decision-making in relation to those catchment-based plan changes.

3. Identification of outstanding freshwater bodies in Hawke's Bay is a project identified in the NPSFM Implementation Programme. It is not necessary for the Annual Plan to specify the details of how, who, when etc this project will be undertaken as those details will be considered in due course by the Regional Planning Committee. Identification of outstanding freshwater bodies and protection of their qualities is an important element of the Council’s implementation of the NPSFM through the RPS and regional plans.

4. Implications of the Board of Inquiry’s decisions on Plan Change 6 (‘PC6’) will not be fully known until after the Board issues its final decision. Mr Bailey’s submission for allocation of sufficient funds to explore alternative land uses in the Tukituki Catchment is noted. If adopted as per the BOI’s draft decision, many of the rules and limits in PC6 do not apply immediately, therefore fuller assessment of the funding and resourcing needs to implement PC6 is more appropriately addressed through the 2015-25 Long Term Plan process.

5. The support of Vaughan Cooper on behalf of the TANK collaborative group and the HBDHB for the TANK science programme is appreciated and acknowledged.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Water Management, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic	*Council Shared Services*
Submitters:	*#9 June Graham*

Submissions on Council Shared Services raise the following matters:

Shared services – no specific point raised

Council Shared Services Comments and Proposals by Staff

Ms Graham has listed shared services as one of her areas of concern but has not set out what she seeks and may well address this in her verbal submission

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Council Shared Services, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic

Public Transport

Submitters:

#9 June Graham; #19 HB District Health Board

#29 Joy Rycroft; #30 Graeme Thomas

#31 Christine Briasco, Deborah Richardson, Leonie Selby

#32 Natalie Baker; #45 Environment, Justice & Peace Network

Submissions on Public Transport raise

1. Bus stop locations

2. Regional Cycling Strategy integrated with walking, public transport

3. Reinstate Express bus service

Public Transport Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. Bus stop locations fall under the jurisdiction of the territorial authorities (city/district councils) who are road controlling agencies. However regional council transport staff work very closely with the TAs to identify appropriate and convenient bus stops. The process for the introduction and designation of a new bus stop on a public transport bus route can be quite lengthy as it requires consultation with and permission from people who may be affected by having a bus stop outside or in the vicinity of their home/business. Ideally all Napier/Hastings residents should have access to a bus stop within 400 metres of their home, but the reality is that given the relatively small population and the spread of residential areas, this may not be affordable for the ratepayers of the region at this time. However both the TAs and the regional council endeavour to ensure that bus stops are situated in close proximity to retirement homes and retirement villages.

2. The regional cycling plan is due for completion at latest by August 2014 and contains actions which will further promote walking and cycling in the region for health, tourism and liveability. Ensuring maximum integration between the walking and cycling and public transport networks would help to promote use of both, and it is suggested council staff propose to the plan’s technical and governance groups that such actions be included.

The Council is also commencing the review of its public transport plan, which provides a further opportunity to consider how these can be better linked through, for example, considering the proximity of paths when reviewing bus routes, ensuring that where possible bus stops are located near key path junctions and providing further bike stands at major stops. All Hawke’s Bay buses are already fitted with bike racks and use of these is steadily increasing.

3. Passenger trips on the Route 10 express service fell by 12% in 2013. In 2012 there were 10,970 passenger trips compared to 9,662 in 2013. This equates to an average of just 4.6 passengers per trip. Public transport is jointly funded by fare paying passengers, regional ratepayers and taxpayers through the New Zealand Transport Agency. The low patronage on Route 10 meant that it was a heavily subsidised and therefore expensive service to provide for a very small number of passengers.

By contrast Route 12 services between Napier and Hastings (which carried 395,212 passengers in 2013) saw a significant increase in patronage which resulted in late running and overloading and at peak times some passengers being left behind at bus stops. As Route 12 is the busiest service on the goBay network it was necessary to add more resources (2 buses and drivers) to alleviate the late running and overloading. However as there was no extra funding available for new or improved PT services the decision was made to cancel Route 10 and redirect resources to Route 12. This decision was not taken lightly, but after careful consideration of public transport passenger statistics and service costs, and in order to ensure good value for ratepayers and our funding partner the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).

The bus network is under review during the second half of 2014 as part of the development of the region’s next public transport plan. We appreciate the suggestions made by submitters for services which could replace Route 10, and it is suggested that these should be considered as part of that network review.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Public Transport, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic	*Strategic Planning*
Submitters:	*#19 HB District Health Board (HBDHB)*

Submissions on Strategic Planning raise

1. Inclusion of a cross-reference to ‘a lifetime of good health and wellbeing’ outcome.

2. Monitoring implementation of resource management policy statement and plans.

3. Targeted funding assistance for upgrading community wastewater services.

4. Continued development of database for contaminated sites.

Strategic Planning Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. The 2012-22 LTP identifies the strategic planning activity as having a supporting contribution to the community outcome of ‘a lifetime of good health and wellbeing.’ Council’s plans, policies and strategies provide a framework for decision-making and some specific services (e.g. the database of contaminated sites) can assist in informing decision-making for a healthy community.

2. The RMA requires monitoring and 5-yearly reporting on the effectiveness of regional plans and policies. Recent plan change proposals (e.g. Plan Change 6) include specific provisions for implementation and monitoring. The SOE monitoring programme assists in assessing the effectiveness of regional plans and policy interventions.

3. HBDHB’s support is noted for continued funding assistance of unsewered communities to improve domestic wastewater services. Funding assessment criteria already exist to promote targeting of areas with public health risks and communities challenged by ability to fund improvements.

4. HBDHB’s support is noted for continued development of the contaminated sites database. It should be noted that the role and purpose of the database in relation to changes in land use, needs to be applied in combination with TLAs’ implementation of the Resource Management (National Environmental Standard for Assessing and Managing Contaminants in Soil to Protect Human Health) Regulations 2011.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Considers the submissions relating to Strategic Planning, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

2. Inserts the following under the Strategic Planning activity’s ‘links to Regional Community Objectives’ heading:

“ – A lifetime of good health and wellbeing – by providing a planning framework to promote the sustainable management of the region’s natural and physical resources; and by providing the community with information that enables informed decisions to be made (e.g. the contaminated sites database).”

Submitter #27 Ewan McGregor requests:

A review of tree species planted at Pakowhai Country Park

Comments and Proposals by Staff

Staff are aware that a number of the tree species planted in the area referred to by the submitter are not growing well. The soils at the site are river gravels and not ideal for some of the trees planted. The pine trees referred to will need to be removed sometime during the next 20 years as they become unsafe due to their age. Staff will continue to monitor these trees and remove those that may be unsafe to park users. Staff agree that there is an opportunity to review the planting and design of this part of the park and will consider this when long term plans for the park are reviewed.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions from Ewan McGregor, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic

Biosecurity

Submitters:

#28 HB Fruitgrowers Association Inc

#42 Federated Farmers

Submissions on Biosecurity.

1. HB Fruitgrowers Association is pleased to be working with HBRC and other organisations on biosecurity issues.

2. Federated Farmers is pleased with the success of HBRC’s possum control area programme, but seeks some changes in the way rates that fund HBRC’s biosecurity programmes are levied.

Biosecurity Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. On 9 April 2014 HBRC’s Environment and Services Committee considered a briefing paper on issues associated with biosecurity, and particularly the review of HBRC’s regional pest management plans. The paper noted that the Biosecurity Law Reform Act 2013 resulted in changes to the Biosecurity Act including a requirement for regional councils to take a leadership role on biosecurity issues within their regions. However HBRC is awaiting National Policy Direction required by the changes to the Biosecurity Act from central government to be gazetted in order that there is clarity around the scope and expectations of regional council involvement and leadership. Staff understand that the National Policy Direction is unlikely to be gazetted in 2014. HBRC does however need to progress the review of the regional pest management plans in order that appropriate provisions for funding the implementation of future pest management plans can be included into HBRC’s 2015-25 Long Term Plan. Accordingly a working group of Councillors has been formed and will commence the review process early in the 2014/15 financial year.

2. HBRC’s objective is to work with the primary productive sector and, where appropriate, collaborate on programmes that will minimise the risk that existing pests and new pest incursions pose to the sector’s ongoing viability. Staff look forward to the continuation of liaison and collaboration with the primary productive sector on biosecurity issues.

3. Federated Farmers seek some changes to the way in which biosecurity activities are funded. Consideration of how activities may be funded will be discussed by the working group and any proposed changes will be consulted on through the Long Term Plan and/or review of pest management plans. The inclusion of a flat fee per property under 4 ha suggested by Federated Farmers may be considered if such a levy best reflects the benefit received by those properties.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Biosecurity, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Submitter #33 Hawke’s Bay Rescue Helicopter Trust requests funding for:

$10,000 per annum for three years as a platinum sponsor, to support the Trust’s work for those requiring urgent medical transportation.

Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is a sponsor of the Hawke’s Bay Rescue Helicopter Trust, in part as recognition of the region-wide service provided by the Trust and in part due to the potential for the service to provide assistance to any HBRC staff in the field during a medical emergency or accident.

2. The Council and the Trust have had a 3-year agreement whereby HBRC has been a platinum sponsor at $10,000 +GST per annum. This agreement expires on 30 June 2014 and the HB Rescue Helicopter Trust is seeking a renewed agreement from HBRC for the next 3 years.

3. Provision has already been made in the 2014-15 Draft Annual Plan for $10,000 sponsorship for the HBRHT. If Council is wishing to re-assess its sponsorship and funding activities as part of the next Long Term Plan one option is for Council to agree to a sponsorship agreement for one year, and review an extension of this prior to the 2015-25 Long Term Plan.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submission from Hawke’s Bay Rescue Helicopter Trust, requesting

Submitter #34 Clive Community Group requests:

1. Maintenance of land adjacent to BMX track

2. Maintenance and enhancement of land adjacent to boat ramp

Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. HBRC facilitated the BMX track construction and arranged for plantings noted by the submitter following approaches by the Clive Community Group (CCG). The original agreement was that HBRC would create the track and “break in” the area to be planted and supply the plants. The CCG agreed they would then maintain the plantings / site. It appears that this arrangement is no longer able to be implemented by CCG.

2. If HBRC were to take over the mowing / maintenance of the grass area immediately north of the BMX track, it is expected that this work would need to take place on a monthly basis at an estimated cost of $3,000 per year. This provision would need to be added to project 363 – Public Access to rivers, if Council agrees that HBRC take over this work. This project is funded 70% from Heretaunga Plains Rivers and 30% from general funding sources.

3. The submitter suggests that a boardwalk be constructed. While the idea may have merit there is currently a cycleway and horse trail already across the 20m berm width. The addition of a boardwalk may result in too much activity and infrastructure in a confined space. It is unlikely that the horse trail and other activities are compatible and therefore further community discussion would need to occur before changes to the current facilities are progressed. Cost issues, both capital and ongoing maintenance and depreciation, would also need to be considered.

4. Staff agree that signage across the Waitangi Regional Park needs addressing. The above issues are being further considered in the development of a new plan for the area, which is currently being drafted.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submission from Clive Community Group and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic

Rates – UAGC, Targeted Rates, Rates Remission

Submitters:

#20 Kathryn Bayliss

#21 Gerard Pain

#28 HB Fruitgrowers Association Inc

#42 Federated Farmers

Submissions on Rates

That rates and debt should be kept as low as possible.

1. Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC)/general rate reporting.

2. Targeted Rates.

3. Rates remission policy – sale of future income stream (Napier leasehold) – effect on proposed rate increase.

4. Rating increases re cost of living.

5. That if Council had not sold the future income stream of certain assets there would be reduced pressure on rate increases.

Rates Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. A submitter has referred to the desirability to disclose in the Annual Plan, the extent to which Council complies with section 21 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 which states that UAGC’s and targeted rates set on a uniform basis must not exceed 30% of the total revenue from all rates set by a local authority in that year. The percentage for this Council for the 2014-15 Draft Annual Plan is 23.28%, which is within the 30% threshold described by the Act. Included in this calculation are the UAGC for general rates as well as Uniform Annual Charge for Karamu drainage and enhancement, economic development and emergency management.

It is therefore proposed that part 3, page 37 of the Plan be amended to include the following paragraph:

“That section 21 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 describes that Uniform Annual General Charges and targeted rates set on a uniform basis are not to exceed 30% of the total revenue from all rates sought by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) for the budgeted year. The rates making up this category amount to 23.28% of Council’s total rates and are therefore within the limits prescribed by the Act.”

The submitter also queried the Funding Impact Statement tables on pages 32-36 of part 3 which combine UAGC and general rates together as a single source of funding for activities. The submitter’s attention is drawn to the requirement set out in legislation, specifically schedule 2 of the Local Government Financial Reporting and Prudence Regulation 2014 which prescribes how these Funding Impact Statements are presented.

The submitter has also referred to reporting of what groups of activities are funded by the UAGC and general rate on page 38, part 3 of the Plan. It is acknowledged that this needs to be made clearer and should cover the specific groups of activities funded by each of UAGC and general rate. The final Plan will be revised to better show this relationship.

2. A number of submitters have emphasised the desirability of ensuring that where groups of ratepayers specifically benefit from a Council service, that these services be funded by targeted rate and not general rate. This Council is conscious of the need to charge those ratepayers that specifically benefit from a service and, to this end, 82% of rates charged are targeted rates.

3. A submitter has requested that Council supports the development of a rates remission to ensure that land that is protected for ecological or landscape purposes. Land subject to QEII covenants is already exempt under the Rating Act Schedule 1.

When developing the Long Term Plan, Council covers rates remission policies and their appropriateness to reflect current circumstances. An investigation will be undertaken to determine whether a remission policy should be adopted as part of the LTP to reflect ecological landscapes.

4. A submitter has queried whether the sale of the cash flows for Napier leasehold land has affected the extent to which the rates need to increase in the Annual Plan. The transaction undertaken by Council was for the capitalisation of Napier leasehold cash flows for a 50 year period so that a lump sum could be realised for investment in economic development opportunities for Hawke’s Bay. The monies received from the sale of these cash flows (approximately $37m) will be invested and the returns from these investments will cover the cash flows from Napier leasehold land rentals that were previously available to Council for funding Council operations. Therefore this transaction has a neutral affect on Council operations and, accordingly, does not affect the level of rates rise in this Plan.

5. Set out in the table below is an analysis of the overall rate increases over the first three years of the LTP 2012-22. It shows that the actual rate increases over the first three years of the LTP are consistent with the budgeted movements as consulted on in the LTP. There has, however, been fluctuations between the years when compared to each year budgeted in the LTP.

Council’s costs do not increase with the rate of inflation which is based on a basket of commodities that do not necessarily reflect Council operations. Local body costs, given the specialist requirement in such things as flood and drainage engineering and science, can increase substantially more than the general cost of living. Furthermore, wages and salaries can move at a greater rate than national average wage and salary movements due to the need to attract and recruit highly qualified personnel whose skills are quite often scarce in the market.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Rates, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic

Investment in Napier – Gisborne Rail

Submitters:

In support: #7 Bernie Bowden; #17 Paul Bailey; #45 Environment, Justice and Peace Network; #46 Barrie Crabbe; #47 Pauline Tangiora; #48 David Renouf; #49 Margaret Gwynn; #50 Gisborne Rail Action Group; #51 Hilary Burrows; #52 Robin Gwynn; #54 Jym Clark; #55 Katrina Hughes; #56 Neville Tobin; #57 Democrats for Social Credit; #58 David Pryor; #59 Steam Incorporated; #60 Mike Nicholson; #61 Tony Hurst; #63 Janet Crispin; #64 Reefton Historic Trust Board; #65 Geoff Blackmore; #66 Stuart Dow; #67 Geoff Rossiter; #68 Reid McNaught; #69 Napier Gisborne Railway Shortline Establishment Group; #70 Lindsay Benbrook; #71 John Hill; #72 Peter Paulson; #73 Mainline Steam Heritage Trust; #74 Barry Pulford; #75 Cran Julian; #77 David Rowell; #78 Barry O'Donnell; #79 Noel Maginnity; #80 Elizabeth Tatlor; #81 Matthew Hitchcock; #82 Niall Robertson; #83 Takitimu District Maori Council; #84 Rosa Amini; #85 Pieta Keene; #86 Mary Liza Manuel; #87 Nigel Smith; #88 Hugh Isdale; #89 Federation of Rail Organisations of NZ; #90 Mike Lynch; #91 Taieri Gorge Railway; #92 Sam Somers; #93 The Campaign for Better Transport Inc; #100 Barry Pearson; #102 Randall Prestidge

Opposed: #10 Tim Gilbertson; #20 Kathryn Bayliss; #53 James Phillips ; #62 Tim Tinker; #76 Rex McIntyre; #103 Stuart Morice

Opposed – Propose Alternative: #94 Chris Tremain; #95 Paul McArdle; #96 Wayne Walford; #97 Malcolm Eves; #98 Craig Foss; #99 Brian Fisher

Submissions supporting Council’s investment in Napier Gisborne Rail raise:

1. Reduction of road transportation carbon emissions

2. Desirability of HBRC’s support for Infrastructure ventures

3. Steam train excursion possibilities

4. Increasing employment opportunities in the region

5. Concern over huge increase of truck movements on SH2

Comments and Proposals by Staff

Considerable public support for the proposal has been shown in submissions and in public comment. HBRC has received 50 submissions supporting HBRC’s proposed investment in the operating of the Napier-Gisborne rail link. The submitters state that HBRC’s investment in the continued operation of this rail link would achieve a number of economic, social and environmental outcomes for the East Coast region. Submitters are concerned about the high transportation sources of carbon emissions which in their opinion would become more acute given the increase in logging truck movements which would be needed to transport logs to Gisborne and Napier ports for shipping. Concern has also been expressed on the increasing pressure on road safety if additional truck movements did eventuate.

A number of submissions covered the potential for steam train excursions which would have obvious impacts on increased economic development and increased employment in the East Coast region.

However the situation has changed since the proposal was presented in the 2014/2015 Draft Annual Plan. One of HBRC’s conditions for any investment in the project is that the Government and/or KiwiRail fully fund the return of the rail line and associated infrastructure to a “good fit for purpose” operating condition. The Government has since rejected this condition and said it will not provide funds for this purpose directly or through KiwiRail.

Although Government has said it does not support Government funding restoration of the damaged rail track from Napier to Gisborne, a number of submitters still regard the Government as having responsibility to repair the line and associated infrastructure as the damage was caused by a natural event, exacerbated through deferred maintenance by Kiwi Rail. In this regard, many of the submitters considered that rail is a mode of transport of national significance and therefore should be funded by Central Government.

Napier Gisborne Railway (NGR) Shortline Establishment Group’s submission on the 2014/2015 Annual Plan addressed this issue by suggesting changing the proposal so that “regional interests”, (rather than the Government or KiwiRail), assume responsibility for making the rail line and associated infrastructure into a “good fit for purpose” operating condition. It estimates total investment in the project will rise to $15-$17million (from the previous $11-12million) as a result.

The Establishment Group consequently asks HBRC to consider:

· Changing its position to becoming the lessee of the line (rather than the NGR operating company doing so);

· Increasing its investment in the project from $5.5million to as much as $8.0‑8.5million, (excluding HBRC’s interest holding costs), retaining a 51% interest in the company operating the rail line; and,

· Reallocating $3.5million - $5million of its funding to restoring the line to a “good fit for purpose” condition, providing all of the contingency reserve of $3million and funding establishment of the business. Other investors would fund the purchase of plant and equipment and provide working capital.

Submissions opposed to Council’s investment in Napier Gisborne Rail raise:

1. Considered a non-core HBRC activity

2 Considered that additional truck movements would be limited and therefore the effect on the roading would not be great

3. HBRC could be exposed to additional funding requests as 51% shareholder

4. Concern over the proposed rail line not achieving the required volumes to make it economic

Comments and Proposals by Staff

HBRC has considered this proposal to be an element of its investment strategy as it is Council’s policy to invest in sound regional infrastructural assets that will improve the financial, economic environmental benefits for the whole of the Hawke’s Bay region. Re-establishment of the Napier-Gisborne rail line was considered to have possible financial, economic and environmental benefits to the region as well as providing a viable alternative to the transportation of freight by road.

HBRC, as stated in the Annual Plan, proposes to mitigate the risks of this investment by making such an investment conditional on:

· The return of the rail line and the associated infrastructure to a “good fit for purpose” operating condition by Government/KiwiRail or other party;

· The lease of the line and locomotives from KiwiRail on terms satisfactory to Napier Gisborne rail (NGR);

· Suitable off take agreements being concluded to NGR customers for the freighting of logs and fruit and vegetable produce over the period of up to and beyond 2020 to ensure the long term viability of the service;

· NGR’s business case being tested and accepted as satisfactory, and

· The return to HBRC over the long term is to cover Council’s cost of funding

Therefore HBRC is proceeding with caution and will require the full business case from the Napier Gisborne Rail establishment Group before being in a position to consider approving any investment. This business case, when received, will be subject to a peer review.

Submissions proposing alternatives to Council’s investment in Napier Gisborne Rail raise:

1. Substantial sums are committed to be spent by Central Government on SH35 and SH2.

2. Proposal that a feasibility study be undertaken to determine the benefits of the conversion of the railway line to a cycle way.

Comments and Proposals by Staff

A number of submitters opposed the restoration of the rail line for rail service and have recommended Council consider alternative strategies for the development of this line. The reasoning supporting the views of these submitters is:

· Letters from the office of the Hon Gerry Brownlee, Minister of Transport, state Government’s view that there is not a good case for Government to invest in the short line proposal.

· In April 2014 the Ministers of Transport and Economic Development launched a Report titled “East Coast Regional Economic Potential” which stated:

“Looking at the transport needs of the study area as a whole, the potential role for rail in the study area appears to be limited in the medium term and potentially in the long term. When operational, rail only accounted for 2-3 per cent of freight traffic on the Gisborne-Wairoa-Napier corridor, and, following its closure, there is no clear evidence of significant economic impacts although several businesses have publicly commented they have been detrimentally affected. Currently there may be some untapped potential for increases in traffic over and above those experienced over the last decade, but there is no clear evidence that these would be of a scale to provide for an adequate commercial (or economic) return under the existing model.

In general, while the area is affected by remoteness, the transport network seems able to cope with the demands on it and plans have been developed to help address future challenges, particularly those associated with increased forestry movements. In our view, the key to connectivity is the road network, particularly SH2 which handles almost all the longer distance flows of passengers and freight. As noted, there are some network resilience issues and there is a need to ensure that this route can provide reliable connections to the major centres to the north and south west.SH35, which handles more local movements into Gisborne, also deserves consideration.

The above issues and opportunities form the basis of more in-depth review and modelling in stage 2.”

· Government’s advice (confirmed by KiwiRail) that mothballing of the line included assessing the option of alternative users to mitigate Kiwi Rail’s costs.

· An alternative of raising the tracks and thereby providing a greater range of tourism opportunities be investigated. Some submitters propose that HBRC carries out an economic feasibility study of converting the current Gisborne to Napier rail line into a world class cycle trail. These submitters believe that there would be huge economic impacts for the region in provision of services and creation of employment opportunities in supporting the cycle way. To support their conclusion, they have compared such a proposed development to the Otago Central rail trail and the huge impact that this trail has had on the local community.

Summary

Given the number of submissions, and the diversity of opinions included in those submissions, HBRC will need to determine what way forward is to be included in the final 2014/2015 Annual Plan. The following options could be assessed by HBRC:

Either:

· Retain the principle of investing in restoration of the Napier-Gisborne rail line in the Annual Plan indicating HBRC would consider a revised proposal and business case along the lines contained in the Napier Gisborne Railway Shortline Establishment Group’s submission during 2014/2015. The indicative allocation of funding $5.5million would remain until a revised proposal and business case is evaluated and peer reviewed and investment reconsidered by HBRC. Decisions about the quantum of funding (if any) and other conditions in the future would be made by HBRC at that time;

and/or:

· Support the study already underway evaluating the economic potential of the East Coast Region by the Government and the Gisborne, Wairoa and Hastings District Councils, the Napier City Council and HBRC and encouraging the sponsors of the study to develop a feasibility study on the best use of the rail corridor going forward.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Council’s investment in Napier-Gisborne Rail, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Submitter #28 Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers’ Assocation raises:

1. Resource Management charges

2. Rates (separate Rates response)

3. Biosecurity (separate Biosecurity response)

4. Ngaruroro Water Storage and Road-Rail Hub (separate Council Investments response)

Comments and Proposals by Staff

6. The submitter has provided some analysis of the initial fixed fees associated with processing a transfer of name on a consent and transfer of the consent between sites. This shows a high fixed initial fee to process a transfer between sites and queries if the costs are accurate. It is important to note that the initial fixed fee to transfer between sites is simply a deposit for the work to occur. The additional charge column in table 1 indicates that costs are recovered on an actual and reasonable basis. Experience shows that the transfer between sites can be more complex and incur processing costs, hence the higher initial fee. If the time taken to do this is less then there is a refund of the difference.

The submitter has also correctly observed that staff costs have increased while we have been able, in most cases, to not have to pass those costs on. This reflects an improvement in our processing systems and internal efficiencies not the suggested ‘buffer’ in the cost structure. It is also important to recall that in many cases they are the initial fixed fee and that the actual and reasonable costs are then recovered.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submission from #28 Hawke’s Bay Fruitgrowers’ Assocation, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Topic

Opoho flood and drainage scheme

Submitters:

#6 Jeremy Dunningham

#24 Humphry Bayly

#25 Tim Powdrell

Submissions on Opoho Flood and Drainage Scheme raise

1. Details associated with the establishment of the Opoho Flood and Drainage Scheme

Opoho Flood and Drainage Scheme Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. The Opoho Scheme involves 3 neighbouring farms situated approximately half way between Wairoa and Nuhaka. The Scheme has been operated for many years by HBRC on an informal basis with the costs of the operation invoiced annually to the 3 beneficiaries. Some major improvements to the scheme have been completed recently and staff have encouraged the landowners to agree to a formal scheme being established to enable longer term costs of the scheme such as depreciation to be more effectively managed.

A number of meetings have been held with the individual property owners and one meeting included representatives of all of them. The owners of the properties involved support the establishment of the Scheme with minor amendments.

2. The issue raised by Mr Bayly has been addressed through the excavation of the Opoho Stream undertaken in May 2014, thus lowering the normal water level in the stream. Arrangements will be made for frequent inspections of the pump station and proper operation of the Scheme.

3. Mr Powdrell suggests an adjustment to the rating allocation from that proposed in the annual plan. Details of the rating proposal put to the land owners is set out in the attached letter. Staff have considered Mr Powdrell’s suggested changes and do not believe that Mr Powdrell’s suggestion is a fair reflection of the benefits received.

4. Upstream of the pump station – refer attached map – the stream forms the boundary between the Powdrell and Brownlie properties. The costs of ongoing maintenance of this reach of the stream should therefore be shared by those two properties. Downstream of the pump station all three properties benefit because the channel provides an outlet for water from the pump station which largely benefits the Bayly property.

5. Staff have therefore divided the stream into sections above and below the pump station and set out a rating proposal revised from the letter sent to landowners in January 2014 (attached) in the table below. This results in a small adjustment to the level of rating originally proposed.

6. Staff will discuss the details of the location of the proposed staff gauge directly with the landowners prior to it being installed.

*Area*	*Annual cost*	Bayly	Brownlie	Powdrell
Pumpstation - Fixed	$2,585	100% = $2,585	0%	0%
Pumpstation - Variable	$7,700	64% = $4,928	36% = $2,772	0%
Pumpstation - fees	$614	64% = $393	36% = $221	0%
Opoho & Contour drain	$4,369	100% = $4,369	0%	0%
Opoho Stream - upper	$1,802	0%	50% = $901	50% = $901
Opoho Stream - lower	$3,295	33.33% = $1,098	33.33% = $1,098	33.33% = $1,098
Total	$20,364	$13,373	$4,992	$1,999

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions relating to Opoho Flood and Drainage Scheme, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Submitters #26 Ray and Leslie Thompson raise:

Opoutama drainage and stream control

Comments and Proposals by Staff

HBRC and Wairoa District Council staff held a hui with the submitters and local community at Ruawharo marae on 15^th May 2009 regarding the issues raised by the submitter. A copy of a letter from the Engineering Manager of Wairoa District Council is attached which outlines the agreed protocol for future maintenance of the stream.

HBRC staff are not aware of any change to these arrangements. Staff will be meeting with staff from Wairoa District Council prior to Council hearing submissions on the annual plan and will provide an update at that time if any further information comes to hand as a result of that meeting.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submission from Ray and Leslie Thompson, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Submitter #43 Denys Caves raises:

1. Mahanga and specific issues around Wairoa

2. Economic Development Rate (separate response)

Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. Staff have been working with both Wairoa District Council and the Mahanga Community regarding the conflict between property owners who want their septic tanks to operate as effectively as possible and therefore wish to see groundwater levels as low as possible, and residents who wish to protect the wetland adjacent to the area through holding the water level high within the wetland.

While staff were unable to attend the community meeting arranged by Wairoa District Council on Easter Saturday this year information was provided regarding a programme for water quality testing for discussion at that meeting. Staff have discussed the issue further with Wairoa District Council staff and have agreed that:

· The programme of monitoring water quality in the stream will recommence next summer and testing to identify the source of contaminants will be undertaken. Any results are however unlikely to be available until later in the 2014 calander year.

· An assessment will be done of the wetland to determine its values.

· A newsletter to the community will be prepared and sent out to advise the community of the proposed by the two Councils.

The submitter may not be aware of the significant work programmes undertaken by HBRC in the Wairoa District Council. Staff do not believe that there are significant areas of confusion between HBRC and WDC roles and responsibilities, but acknowledge that from time to time staff do get enquiries from members of the public that have been wrongly advised by the territorial authority that they should contact HBRC. This is not unique to Wairoa. These issues are generally very quickly resolved between staff of the two organisations and the enquirer responded to.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions from #43 Denys Caves, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Submitter #47 Pauline Tangiora, PET Southern Star & Associates raises:

1. Sustainable economy

2. Fracking (separate response)

3. Farmers polluting waterways (separate response)

4. Oil spill response

5. Earthquakes

Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. The submitter queries the use of the word ‘sustainable’ in the strategic outcome for water security “Water supply and demand for sustainable growth are optimised” and asks that it is broadened out how this will be done. The Strategic outcome is about matching water demand with water supply and where there is a shortfall, seeking to fill that gap through storage. The term sustainable growth implies that development needs to take into account environmental impacts as well.

2. Hydraulic fracturing is associated with oil and gas exploration which has a separate staff response. HBRC has only explored the regulatory aspects of hydraulic fracturing and associated discharges of contaminants in terms of its role as a consent authority under the Resource Management Act.

3. The regulation of the discharge of animal effluent to land is through rules 14 and 15 of the Regional Resource Management Plan. Discharges to water is regulated through rule 47 and discharges to land that may enter water through rules 48 and 49. The disturbance of the bed of a river or lake by livestock is through rules 50 and 51. Council staff respond to complaints from members of the public about any pollution incidents and act according to the situation they find. Any consented activity is monitored through our annual compliance programme and checked in accordance with the monitoring conditions of the consent.

4. One of the primary objectives of regional marine oil spill response under the Maritime Transport Act 1994 is to contain and clean up a marine oil spill within the Hawke’s Bay coastal marine area, which includes “the complete coastal area”. But when evaluating any spill incident and developing an action plan, the team needs to be aware of sensitive areas and other coastal information, such as endangered species, so these can be prioritised for protection during the clean up.

5. Earthquake research is commissioned in accordance with the Hawke’s Bay 10-Year Hazards Research Plan, and as earthquakes are rated the number one hazard for Hawke’s Bay in the Civil Defence Emergency Management Plan considerable research has been undertaken in this area. The latest in depth study for Central Hawke’s Bay is the “Active Fault Mapping & Fault Avoidance Zones for Central Hawke’s Bay” by GNS Science - Report 2013/151. All dams, like buildings, are subject to strict building codes in New Zealand.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submissions from Pauline Tangiora, PET Southern Star & Associates, and any comments and proposals made by staff.

Submitter #101 Derek Williams raises:

1. Onsite wastewater systems

2. CHBDC wastewater plants

Comments and Proposals by Staff

1. The first part of Mr Williams submission is concerned with the primary treatment wastewater systems (that is, the basic septic tank and trench system) that still exist in Jervoistown, Bayview and Meeanee and he is asking HBRC to deal with urgency on-site systems that are only primary treatment that are a proven cause of major contagious disease outbreaks.

HBRC has responded in a number of ways to this issue over the years. The Council’s preferred solution to these communities was for reticulation to be provided and we made many submissions on subdivision applications opposing on-site wastewater systems in favour of reticulation. However, in general, these subdivisions were approved with individual or communal secondary treatment systems. In addition, Council provided a financial incentive for landowners and territorial authorities to upgrade communities to reticulation. This has only been taken up once, by Hastings District Council for the Waipatiki community.

The most recent initiative was a plan change which clarified the permitted activity rule for new systems. This means that any new system in these areas either needs to be secondary treatment or requires a resource consent. Napier City Council has also restricted subdivisions in these areas; subdivisions of less than 2500 square metres are prohibited. However, as more properties are serviced with secondary treatment systems, the less likely that reticulation would be supported by those landowners who have already committed significant money into an on-site system. Napier City Council requires 75% of properties to agree to reticulation before they will service an area.

2. The second part of Mr Williams submission is concerned with the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council Waipawa and Waipukurau oxidation pond discharges and he is requesting that HBRC play a facilitation role to address various issues associated with their operation.

This is not specifically a matter for the Annual Plan. CHBDC holds resource consents for the discharge of treated wastewater from these ponds and they are subject to a number of conditions, including upgrading the treatment to meet stricter effluent discharge standards. While HBRC did seek to provide an alternative solution through land based disposal, this was not accepted by CHBDC and they have pursued an alternative treatment.

HBRC’s role is one of a regulator to ensure compliance with conditions of the resource consent and to take enforcement action if necessary.

Recommendations

That Council considers the submission from Derek Williams, and any comments and proposals made by staff.