Agenda of Corporate and Strategic Committee

	Agenda Item	Follow-up / Request	Person Responsible	Status Comment
1	Follow-ups from previous meetings	Operations Group – present 2014-15 Work Plan to future Council or Committee meeting and provide regular operational/financial reporting to Council	G Hansen	Verbal presentation to 12 November C&S meeting, with ongoing update reporting to be scheduled through 2015
2	Top 10 Corporate Risks Assessment	Organise a workshop for Councillors – with someone like IoD – on functions and the role of Audit & Risk committees	L Lambert	First workshop held 30 October
3	Regional Cycle Plan	Provide a table of which councillors represent Council on various outside bodies	L Hooper	Table on following page
4	Minor items not on the agenda	Review of existing Ruataniwha aquifer consents - What is the basis of the review and what is the basis for the volumes of water proposed? What volume does the current consented allocation sit at? Do we know how much of current allocation is being used? What consultation is proposed?	I Maxwell	Answers provided via email, copied following

Follow-ups from Previous Corporate & Strategic Committee Meetings

Attachment 1

Reference follow-up 3.

Councillor Appointments to Outside Bodies

Councillor	Group	Meeting Attendance Nov13-Oct14
Rick Barker	HB Sports Council	0 out of 4
Peter Beaven	Greater Heretaunga Plan Change (TANK) Coastal Strategy Development Group	1 out of 3 1 out of 1
Tom Belford	Biodiversity Strategy Steering Group Greater Heretaunga Plan Change (TANK) HPUDS Implementation working group	3 out of 3 3 out of 3 Not Currently Active
Alan Dick	HPUDS Implementation working group	Not Currently Active
Rex Graham	TBfree HB Committee	Meeting scheduled in October
Debbie Hewitt	Upper Tukituki Facilitation Group	Not Currently Active
Dave Pipe	Biodiversity Strategy Steering Group HB Tourism Board	3 out of 3 5 out of 5
Christine Scott (Deputy Chairman)	Cycling Plan Governance Group Greater Heretaunga Plan Change (TANK) Coastal Strategy Development Group	1 out of 1 3 out of 3 1 out of 1
Fenton Wilson (Chairman)	HB Drought Committee	Not Currently Active

Reference follow-up 4.

From: Iain Maxwell
To: 'Peter Beaven'
Cc: Alan Dick; Christine Scott; Dave Pipe (davepipe2012@gmail.com); Debbie Hewitt; Fenton Wilson; Rex Graham; Rick Barker; Tom Belford; Liz Lambert
Subject: Response to Peter Beaven’s questions

On 18/09/2014, at 3:55 pm, Iain Maxwell <iain@hbrc.govt.nz> wrote:

Hi all

Following the questions that Peter raised in the meeting on the 10^th I have prepared responses to those. I suspect that this will resolve the matter and so negate the need for a specific paper on this, but am happy to be guided on that. I would note that there was a comprehensive letter that went to consent holders on 24 August with a note that we would meet with them at some stage in September to traverse these matters. This meeting will now be early October and we will be adding a discussion of PC6 to the meetings.

What was the basis for the review of consents?

· The consent haven’t been reviewed yet. We have written to consent holders whose consents are expiring to remind them that they need to have lodged replacement consent information with us by November this year. In this letter it pointed out the options we were looking to follow in regards allocations and stream depletion assessments. We would review these (where they weren’t already expiring) in May or June next year. PolicyTT9 of Plan Change 6 states that all consents not expiring will be reviewed to impose seasonal volumes and that Ruataniwha Basin groundwater take consents will be reviewed for this purpose in 2015.

· The letters Rex and I saw were in relation to consents that were not due to expire until 2025. From the farmers’ perspective, it is a review that proposes to reduce their current volumes. Worse - they say that members of the Water Users Group are being offered greater volumes while they, who are not WUG members, are being reduced. Not sure why they would be getting a letter from us already if the review is not proposed until May or June next year. It might be helpful to go back to the affected parties (i.e. the ones whose volumes are being reviewed as opposed to renewed) and advise what the process will consist of. (maybe you have already done this)

What was the basis for the allocations?

· The seasonal volume estimates that were sent out were those volumes calculated by Aqualinc Ltd in their evidence for the Board of Inquiry (amendments for several consents were made where I found some errors in the spreadsheet). Aqualinc were acting for the Ruataniwha Water Users Group. They calculated annual volumes based on the methodology set out in Schedule 18 of Plan Change 6. This method requires that a daily time step crop water model is used (such as Aqualinc’s IrriCalc model) and that crop water requirements are calculated for a 1 in 10 year drought, based on the crop type and area consented as of August 2013. The method also requires that the irrigation flow rate (consented L/s per ha) is taken into account.

· The volumes sent out were for discussion purposes – they are only provisional estimates and are not necessarily the allocation that each consent holder will receive. They will have the opportunity to have more detailed crop modelled undertaken for their consent using the Schedule 18 methodology. The allocation won’t be formally set until their consents are replaced or the review of their conditions is complete.

· Once the annual volume estimate for each consent have been finalised, there may the need for a pro rata reduction for all irrigation consent sin an allocation zone if the sum of the individual allocations exceed the allocation limit for the allocation zone.

· Who is Aqualink? Why are we not doing this ourselves? Is Aqualink an independent organisation capable of objectively analysing each consent whether or not they are in the WUG? Is there a process for updating the current land use and therefore the appropriate allocation? Should the farmers be talking to Aqualink or us? Are they aware that the allocations are in future being based on modelling in accordance with land use? (sorry I can’t recall the detail from the letters - they were several pages.

Do we know what proportion of the current allocation is consented?

· This will be clarified through the exercise to confirm the allocations noted above. If allocation is spare following this then that will be made available. If the sum of the calculated annual volumes exceeds the allocation limit for each zone there will be a pro rata reduction in the volumes allocated to irrigation takes to the degree necessary to ensure that the allocation limit is met. At this preliminary stage it appears likely that the basin allocation zones will be fully or over-allocated.

· Sorry this does not answer my question. What is the total current allocation? Is it the full 28.5m cubes? Clearly this will change either up or down once the review is complete, but I am trying to find out if the 28.5m is fully or over or under allocated.

Do we know how much of the current allocation is being used?

· At the moment this question is difficult to answer. The requirement for telemetry and metering of smaller takes is only just rolling into this catchment. This picture we have of water use against allocation is therefore incomplete. The initial view from manual return (monthly or annual) of water meter data from larger takes is that the consent allocation is not fully utilized. However the data we have is incomplete and of low quality so I am reluctant to try and pin a number on the proportion of allocation used. For example we might say that the annual volume is not used, but a more accurate picture is that the weekly or monthly volumes for the critical months are, but the shoulder months are less than allocation. The other point here is that we have not had good quality water use data from this catchment during a season where irrigation was critical (ie the 12/13 drought).

· I have to assume from your analysis that we have incredibly bad information on current usage. From memory, you describe this aquifer as a bathtub. That being the case, it would not really matter when the water is used - whenever it happens the bathtub is slightly lowered. Is there any evidence of a lowering of the aquifer or the aquifer not recharging after the 12/13 drought, or do we not have test bores that can tell us? Does the review and renewal require telemetry to be installed?

Hopefully this answers the questions. Please let me know if you need any further detail.

Cheers

Iain

Iain Maxwell│Group Manager Resource Management

HAWKE'S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

From: Peter Beaven
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 8:46 PM
To: Iain Maxwell
Cc: Alan Dick; Christine Scott; Dave Pipe; Debbie Hewitt; Fenton Wilson; Rex Graham; Rick Barker; Tom Belford; Liz Lambert
Subject: Re: Response to Peter Beaven’s questions

Hi Iain

Thanks for this. I have made some follow up questions under each of your headings. Don’t worry about a paper to the meeting. Hopefully we will get sufficient clarity from your next replies.

Regards

Peter

On 22/09/2014, at 9:09 am, Iain Maxwell <iain@hbrc.govt.nz> wrote:

Hi Peter

I have copied in your further questions below and added more detail;

What was the basis for the review of consents?

The letters Rex and I saw were in relation to consents that were not due to expire until 2025. From the farmers’ perspective, it is a review that proposes to reduce their current volumes. Worse - they say that members of the Water Users Group are being offered greater volumes while they, who are not WUG members, are being reduced. Not sure why they would be getting a letter from us already if the review is not proposed until May or June next year. It might be helpful to go back to the affected parties (i.e. the ones whose volumes are being reviewed as opposed to renewed) and advise what the process will consist of. (maybe you have already done this)

· The review is not about reducing allocation, we are indicating that the allocations must be reviewed under Pol TT9 (aa) that says we must review all consents not otherwise expiring to impose seasonal and annual volumes. It also notes that all Ruataniwha Basin consents will be reviewed in 2015. We are proposing to them that we want to ensure that the crop calculations have been done correctly (we have so far been using figures proposed during the hearing) and that this may see some go up and some come down. This exercise will then set the seasonal and annual volumes for each consent. We then have to fit all these individual allocations within the 28.5 million cubic meter allocation.

· To be clear we are not treating the Water User Group any differently to any other consent holder, all the allocations are being reviewed, WUG or not. It is then simply about what their crop calculation says is required for their crop type and land area.

· We are staging several meetings down in the basin with these consent holders and think this will be helpful in dispelling the incorrect information that is clearly out there.

What was the basis for the allocations?

Who is Aqualink? Why are we not doing this ourselves? Is Aqualink an independent organisation capable of objectively analysing each consent whether or not they are in the WUG? Is there a process for updating the current land use and therefore the appropriate allocation? Should the farmers be talking to Aqualink or us? Are they aware that the allocations are in future being based on modelling in accordance with land use? (sorry I can’t recall the detail from the letters - they were several pages.

· Aqualinc are an independent provider of research and consultancy services (http://www.aqualinc.com/) who have developed a crop calculator that has the support of agencies like Irrigation NZ called Irricalc. Irricalc is a tool that the regional sector are co-investing in with them to further develop for use nationally. Irricalc will assess the land area and crop type (along with other factors) to derive a water demand, from there a seasonal and annual allocation for each consent holder can be derived. We are proposing to coordinate Aqualinc to review the crop water demand if there is sufficient interest from irrigators (we could do it more efficiently and cheaper than individuals). Again they will not be treating WUG consent holders any differently to others. Otherwise we will run with the provisional calculations obtained during the hearing.

· Part of the review is to ensure that land areas and crop types have been adequately dealt with. It is a large part of the reason we are suggesting a review is needed as we are aware of many that may not be completely correct. In the end we will have a picture of what the demand is compared to the allocations and we can either reduce everyone (most likely on a pro-rata basis) or allocate the spare. The early indications are that all consent holders will need to have their allocations reduced to fit within the allocation limit.

Do we know what proportion of the current allocation is consented?

What is the total current allocation? Is it the full 28.5m cubes? Clearly this will change either up or down once the review is complete, but I am trying to find out if the 28.5m is fully or over or under allocated.

· The groundwater allocation is 28.5 million cubic meters of Tranche 1 and 15 million cubic meters of Tranche 2. There are several surface water allocations based on an instantaneous rate (l/s) that are in table 5.9.4 of the Tuki policy. We will not know if it is over or under allocated until we complete the steps above, although as indicated the current figures suggest it is over allocated and allocations will need to be reduced.

Do we know how much of the current allocation is being used?

I have to assume from your analysis that we have incredibly bad information on current usage. From memory, you describe this aquifer as a bathtub. That being the case, it would not really matter when the water is used - whenever it happens the bathtub is slightly lowered. Is there any evidence of a lowering of the aquifer or the aquifer not recharging after the 12/13 drought, or do we not have test bores that can tell us? Does the review and renewal require telemetry to be installed?

· You are correct we have poor information on actual use. That is why we have sought to have telemetry made mandatory in this catchment and will roll that out quickly.

· You are correct in the bath tub analogy. We know that the current allocation of groundwater has a sustained and chronic effect on surface water flows (based on 24 million cubic meters of groundwater allocation the maximum modelled effect is a 917 l/s reduction in flow at Red Bridge). The Tranche 2 allocation will be additive to this.

· Groundwater monitoring is showing that levels are declining over time. The current levels fluctuate between 0.39 and 31.21 meters annually across the basin, but on average 2.5 meters. Some wells are showing a decline of 1-1.5 meters every decade. We have not reported the period yet that covers the 12-13 drought.

· Yes the review will require telemetry.

From: Peter Beaven
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 11:30 AM
To: Iain Maxwell
Cc: Alan Dick; Christine Scott; Dave Pipe; Debbie Hewitt; Fenton Wilson; Rex Graham; Rick Barker; Tom Belford; Liz Lambert
Subject: Re: Response to Peter Beaven’s questions

Thanks Iain

That’s helpful information on our processes and the reasons for them.

The only outstanding issue is whether the Irricalc model is a reliable calculation for all farming types it will be used for.

I hope we will also be introducing a requirement for irrigators to demonstrate that they are using the resource efficiently or are suitable qualified by having attended courses or by adopting industry best practice. This, in my view, will needs to be part of the TANK process also.

Regards

Peter

From: Iain Maxwell
Sent: Monday, 22 September 2014 1:37 p.m.
To: 'Peter Beaven'
Cc: Alan Dick; Christine Scott; Dave Pipe (davepipe2012@gmail.com); Debbie Hewitt; Fenton Wilson; Rex Graham; Rick Barker; Tom Belford; Liz Lambert
Subject: RE: Response to Peter Beaven’s questions

No problem.

· Irricalc is a crop calculator that is as good as any we have at the moment. We are co-investing in the further development of it as we acknowledge that these things can always be improved. That it has the support of a large irrigation advocacy group like Irrigation NZ is helpful and that they are at the table working up the scope for the work to develop it is also important. Ultimately we are trying to all invest in developing a single tool that we can all accept the answers from, Irricalc is the tool of choice at the moment.

· Yes we write into the consents that efficiency is a requirement. We have not taken the step to require qualifications in that, but that could be part of policy development.

Cheers

Iain

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 12 November 2014

SUBJECT: Significance and Engagement Policy

Reason for Report

1. This report provides a summary of public comments received in response to HBRC’s draft Significance and Engagement Policy, which was open for consultation from 29 September to 24 October 2014.

2. Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy is to be adopted by 1 December 2014, as per Section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Engagement Process

3. The community was informed of the opportunity to give comments on the draft Significance and Engagement Policy using:

3.1. an advisory email sent to Council’s email distribution list with a link to the Policy and to additional information on HBRC’s website

3.2. two adverts in local newspapers, and a media release

3.3. four entries on social media (facebook, twitter and LinkedIn).

4. Two submissions were received, from Transparent Hawke’s Bay and Hawke’s Bay Environmental Water Group.

5. While little feedback was received on this Policy, staff consider the process to have been successful. Staff note, it is important that the community can see how the Council has considered these comments and Council’s response in relation to them.

Summary of Comments

6. The attachments contain both submissions.

7. Both submissions welcome open and ongoing engagement with Council, as a means of building and maintaining trust and confidence. They speak to Council’s intent and commitment to seek genuine community engagement and the community’s ability to identify the degree of significance attached to decisions.

8. The submissions seek more collaboration between Council and its communities, with further clarification sought on matters of ‘commercial sensitivity’ and statutory RMA notification and hearing processes.

9. Submissions also suggest that HBRC ‘instigates adequate measures’ of engagement where ‘people or groups have shown more interest than the general public’, and staff expect that this will be a direct result of implementing the Policy.

10. There was a request for guidance on HBRC’s time to respond to correspondence. This element is addressed under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, which is now included in the Policy for adoption, marked up in the attachment.

Decision Making Process

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

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

11.2. The special consultative procedure was used.

11.3. The decision falls within the definition of Council’s current policy on significance.

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

11.5. No other options have been considered as Council is required, by the Local Government Act, to adopt a Significance and Engagement Policy by 1 December 2014.

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

11.7. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without further consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

1. That the Corporate and Strategic Committee receives the “Significance and Engagement Policy Feedback” report and considers the comments raised, along with current amendments in the Policy.

2. The Corporate and Strategic Committee recommends that Council adopts, subject to final amendments, the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Drew Broadley

Community Engagement and Communications Manager

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1	Transparent Hawke's Bay Submission
2	Hawke's Bay Environmental Water Group Submission
3	HBRC Significance & Engagement Policy

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 12 November 2014

Subject: Hawke's Bay Regional Council Forest Assets

Reason for Report

1. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Forest Estate includes six distinct enterprises located between Mahia and Central Hawke’s Bay. The forests have been established for a range of reasons, including: soil conservation, wastewater treatment, carbon sequestration, timber production, public use, amenity, and honey production.

2. This report sets out estate detail for the information of Council and outlines proposed actions for management of these forests for the period 2015-16 through 2024-25.

Background

Figure 1 - HBRC Forest locations

Note – Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve forest is not included in this report. Management and control of that Reserve is vested in HBRC under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941, however the land, forests and financial reserves associated with the Reserve remain the property of the Crown.

Forest management considerations

3. Forest tree species each have particular properties and varying prospects for log sales. Radiata pine is the dominant species in NZ for sawmilling, fibre processing and export. Some other species can be exported or sawn by arrangement, or can substitute for radiata in processing in limited quantities.

4. Some minor species can be sold to portable or small scale sawmills, but in the main radiata pine is the most certain bet for log sales demand and volume of traded logs in the current environment. Other species are more difficult to market and traded volume demand tends to be low. This is the case because the forest industry in New Zealand has planted radiata in preference to any other species since the 1920s. This has led to sawmilling, kiln drying and domestic and export lumber sales and pulpwood processing and manufactured wood products all favouring this species. Export marketing is similarly weighted heavily towards radiata pine.

5. Locally, Pan Pac forest Products operates the largest single site sawmill in New Zealand. In national terms this is a very short cart for logs from the core of the HBRC estate at Tutira. This mill uses solely radiata pine.

6. A range of species as well as pinus radiata have been planted in Waihapua Forest Park following consultation with local residents and the NZ Farm Forestry Association.

7. Eucalypt species (regnans and fastigata) have been planted in Mahia, Waihapua, and the Central Hawke’s Bay blocks because they are fast growing and sequester carbon quickly. The opportunities for marketing timber from these species include: export sales, local small scale sawmilling, pulp manufacturing and firewood for local consumption.

8. Council received advice for Hardwood Management Ltd to determine species for planting to establish the forestry blocks and manuka forest. HBRC retain the services of PF Olsen for operational advice and ongoing management of the timber production forests.

Forests

9. Planted areas are set out in the table below.

	Mahia Forest	Tutira Reg. Park	Waihapua	Waipawa	Waipukurau	Grand Total (hectares)
Cypress			17.2			17.2
Eucalyptus fastigata	18.2		60		30.2	108.4
Eucalyptus regnans			23.5	40.8	45.1	109.4
Other Eucalypt			16.1	3.1	9.7	28.9
Manuka		130	2.8			132.8
Natives		16.8	7.6	1.2	1.1	26.7
Other Softwoods			10.9			10.9
Radiata pine	17.8	114.4	60	25.3	18.9	236.4
Redwood			28.4			28.4
Grand Total	36	261.2	226.5	70.4	105	699.1

Mahia Forest

10. Mahia - The forest was established 2011 for waste water treatment, carbon sequestration and timber production.

11. The wastewater scheme for Mahia Beach Settlement takes water to settlement/ treatment ponds from which it is irrigated onto the forest. Wastewater application infrastructure is currently under construction by Wairoa District Council with wastewater ponds commissioned and dripper pipes now laid in the forest. Application of wastewater is programmed to start late 2014 to an area of approximately 7ha of the forest.

12. With wastewater as the principle reason for this forest being planted, continued liaison with WDC and engineering agents is critical.

13. Grazing is not permitted within the effluent field due to excess additional nutrients resulting from grazing where wastewater is applied. In the area outside the effluent field, grazing will be maintained where practical, to control weeds and reduce fire risk to the forest and irrigation infrastructure. Grazing will be poor quality owing to weed populations and tree cover, so will not provide meaningful revenue.

14. Weed control options are limited because the eucalypts are vulnerable to the chemicals available to treat gorse which is the principle weed in the forest. Canopy cover will eventually result in gorse succumbing to competition from trees.

15. Formed roads reach almost to the forest boundary and will facilitate future harvest with additional roading required to link pond roading to the forest itself. Harvest of the effluent field (7 hectares) will be required in time. This will require staging of harvest of adjacent forest if an alternative area for wastewater treatment is to be retained at this time.

Proposed ongoing management

16. Key issues for management of this forest are:

16.1. pest weed and animal control

16.2. sustaining forest health and vigour for effective uptake of wastewater nutrients

16.3. thinning operations.

17. Some pruning is planned for the radiata portion of this forest. Forest canopy closure will suppress weed growth in time. This forest will benefit from the Combined Management Area for goats at Mahia.

Tutira Regional Park Forest

18. 114 Hectares of radiata pine was established 1991-1998 for timber production and soil conservation. The forest was purchased by HBRC as part of the purchase of the land that is now Tutira Regional Park during the late 1990’s. The first rotation harvest is due between 2018 and 2025 with projected net harvest revenues of $2.7 million. The harvest period will require close management of the interface between harvest, harvest transport activity, and Park use.

19. It is proposed that a harvest plan is developed within the next 2 years well in advance of construction of harvest roading. A final decision on the timing for the construction of the necessary roading will depend on the state of the log market, but current planning is for harvest of the older forest area to commence in 2018 or 2019. There are a number of options for routing the roading network. The final decision will take into account cost sharing with neighbours, overall harvest and roading cost, park and campground interface, cultural sites and best treatment of sensitive erodible terrain in the Lake catchment.

20. This effort requires specialist skills and thorough engagement with HBRC staff, neighbours and iwi, which is ongoing.

Proposed ongoing management

21. Forest tending is complete for this rotation.

22. Ongoing pest operations will be maintained.

23. Harvest planning and engineering.

Tutira Regional Park Manuka Forest

24. 130 hectares of high performance manuka was established 2011-2013 for manuka honey production, carbon sequestration, soil conservation, forest restoration, research, vista enhancement and amenity.

25. The area was chosen because the long term plan for the Regional Park is for this area to regenerate into native species over time. The manuka will act as a nurse crop and allow for natural regeneration to occur. A number of different varieties of gene stock of high UMF manuka have been planted on the block, which varies from low altitude and sheltered to higher altitude and exposed, to test their suitability for the range of conditions. The different stock also have slightly different flowering times so that the forage time for bees can be maximised.

26. The Tutira Manuka forest has been planted over 3 years. Survival is at about 80% to date, which is considered successful. As part of the research driver for this property HBRC is a member of the Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) for high performance manuka plantations. This PGP aims to increase manuka honey export volume and improved honey quality. Manuka honey harvest will phase in over the next ten years.

Proposed ongoing management

27. Control of feral goats is proving a significant challenge due to high local populations and the attraction of long grass within the manuka forest. A Combined Management Area for goats is being developed for the area

28. A number of trials are being undertaken to determine the most cost effective spraying regime for optimising the growth of the manuka. Recent hand release spraying was abandoned because it was not cost effective and had particular health and safety issues given steep slopes and long grass making footing treacherous. A more cost effective helicopter release spray has recently been undertaken.

29. Ongoing monitoring will occur, including production quantities of high UMF manuka honey from the block.

Primary Growth Partnership (PGP) for High Performance Manuka Plantations

30. The manuka forest provides potential proof of concept for high performance manuka forests as an alternative to production forestry in NZ hill country. The PGP for High Performance Manuka is based on co-funding from industry partners and MPI, over an 8 year period. The PGP will develop successful plantation techniques for manuka for honey production and aims to significantly boost manuka honey quality and export revenues.

31. The participating members of the PGP are: Comvita, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Landcorp, Don Tweedale, the Maori Trustee, Te Tumu Paeroa and private landowners Neil Walker and Dan Riddiford. Intellectual property arising from the PGP is to be commercialised and this will be done under an umbrella company called MRPL.

32. As a participant, HBRC has agreed to provide access to its plantation for research and monitoring purposes. At this stage this will be done internally with support of Massey University as the current research provider to the PGP. HBRC has also agreed to provide in kind contributions of labour and technical support and some financial contributions.

Waihapua Forest Park

33. 226 hectares of this 316ha property has been planted in a range of exotic and native species. It was established to demonstrate the potential for amenity, carbon sequestration, recreation and timber production in erodible hill country. The balance of the area is in riparian protection, utility areas, vista enhancement, unproductive areas and existing reserves. This land has suffered severe erosion under its previous pastoral farming use. The forest cover provides increased stability to the land and improved water quality in the Arapaonui stream.

34. The land also has the potential to provide a recreational link between Lake Tutira, Guthrie Smith Arboretum, other private land and Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve.

35. Members of the Hawke’s Bay branch of the Farm Forestry Association were involved to advise on the selection and siting of different species to maximise the chance of their survival and success.

36. The forest is variable in its tree growing performance with the principle limiting factor being shallow soils on eroded slopes. The Eucalypt species are largely planted on the most challenged land, with some areas of each species planted on better sites. Their growth performance and tree form varies accordingly.

Proposed ongoing management

37. It is planned that the best fastest growing areas (approx. 80ha in total) of each of E. regnans, E. fastigata, P. Radiata, redwoods, cedars and cypresses are managed intensively with future timber production in mind (two prunings, two thinnings).

38. The poorer sites will be managed to optimise tree health and volume growth (no pruning, two thinnings only)

NZ Dryland Forests Initiative

39. In September 2014 a trial was established at Waihapua as part of the NZ Dryland Forests Initiative. The intent of this project is summarised below in an extract from the NZDFI website. www.nzdfi.org.nz

“Much of eastern New Zealand has low rainfall (600–1000 mm per year): rainfall which is likely to become less predictable as the impacts of climate change manifest themselves. Landowners in these regions need sustainable, economically viable land-use alternatives to complement traditional rural enterprises.

Our select eucalypt species are renowned for their adaptability to drought, are very fast-growing, and produce strong, naturally durable hardwood timber. This timber remains sound in outdoor conditions for many decades without chemical treatment.

The NZDFI is researching the genetic potential of selected eucalypts so as to breed high-quality planting stock suitable for New Zealand's dryland regions. The NZDFI will also develop forest management systems for growers, and enable access to national and international timber markets.”

40. The Waihapua NZDFI trial covers 1.5 hectares. An additional 3.5 hectares surrounding the trial area has been planted in a selection of the trial species to provide for the possibility of a viable harvest at the conclusion of the trial. This project is seen to have particular relevance as both a hill country afforestation option and for future provision of untreated vineyard poles and special purpose timbers.

SCION Eucalyptus fastigata breeding trial

41. This trial of 3.6ha was established in 2012 at Waihapua as part of a programme to establish second generation breeding populations for Eucalytus fastigata. This breeding work is aimed at developing this species for wider use in NZ.

Waipawa and Waipukurau Forests

42. These forests were planted in 2010 to provide a carbon sink and to treat municipal wastewater from Waipawa and Waipukurau townships.

43. CHBDC has subsequently constructed an alternative means to treat this wastewater. The forests are therefore no longer required for their initial principal purpose.

44. Waipawa - 69 hectares of Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus regnans, fastigata and maidenii for carbon sequestration and timber production.

45. Waipukurau - 130 hectares of Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus regnans, fastigata and maidenii for carbon sequestration and timber production. Council has recently approved in principal the development of a mountainbike park within this block by the Rotary Rivers Pathway Trust.

Proposed ongoing management

46. It is proposed that the radiata portion of these forests are managed to enable optimal timber production. This involves pruning of the better radiata stands, starting at age 5 and thinning to 300 stems per ha at age 8.

47. The eucalyptus stands will be managed to optimise carbon sequestration, forest health and log production, this will require two thinnings.

Animal Pests

48. Goats are an ongoing problem in the forests at Mahia and Tutira. Intensive goat control operations will be maintained in the vicinity of new plantings until they are about age 5. In older forests, less intensive control continues for land stewardship and good neighbour relations. It is probable that a Coordinated Management Area will be established for goats at Tutira and council forests will benefit significantly from this.

49. Possum control is maintained under possum control area commitments, and in line with HBRC need to lead by example, with bait stations serviced as required.

50. Rabbits, hares and wandering stock are managed in a targeted fashion around new plantings.

Grazing

51. Grazing policy is to maintain control over forest fuel loadings and reduce fire risk, mitigate weed issues while ensuring damage to tree crops is minimised. Graziers are selected who are aligned to these aims, with a high level of stockmanship to enable clean musters, and healthy livestock on HBRC land.

52. Grazing at Waihapua is undertaken by neighbouring property owners. Returns are modest and declining for the forest grazing because the quality and quantity of pasture is deteriorating as trees grow and shade pasture and leaf and litter fall is reducing the palatability of grass.

53. In Waipawa and Waipukurau sheep grazing occurs in areas where they can be excluded from native plantings which will not yet tolerate grazing. The grazing arrangement will be reviewed in 2014, given public access for mountain biking and deteriorating pasture.

54. In the Tutira manuka forest, grazing is being carefully trialled in 2011 and 2012 plantings. This is being done in short supervised bursts. The intent is to build an understanding of the potential for grazing of young manuka plantations so that landowners who are considering planting manuka can be informed about successful strategies to graze amongst manuka honey forests. In Tutira Regional Park there is also potential for extreme fire danger in a dry summer and so keeping grass shorter is important for reducing this risk.

Weed control

55. Weed control is aimed at maintaining vigorously growing forest, meeting leglislative requirements and sound land stewardship.

56. Gorse, blackberry, pampas, wilding trees, Japanese honeysuckle, broom and Old Man’s Beard are the most commonly targeted weed species.

Fire prevention

57. In Hawke’s Bay elevated fire risk can occur in spring and summer. Forests become especially vulnerable to fire at these times. Reducing the risk of fires starting, likely fire intensity and preparedness for control of fire are important.

58. Grazing assists with fire risk mitigation by reducing likely fire intensity by reducing the volumes of fine fuels.

59. Water supplies provide for firefighting and require some maintenance.

60. Relevant Rural Fire authorities are Bay Forests Rural Fire Authority, Hastings District Council, Wairoa District Council and Central Hawke’s Bay District Council.

Health and Safety

61. Workplace health and safety is of particular concern in forest areas because of the hazards associated with forest operations and the incidence of serious accidents which have continued for the industry.

62. New health and safety leglislation is aimed at ensuring that “PCBUs” (defined under the Act as “persons conducting business undertakings”) take full responsibility for workplace health and safety. Health and safety considerations for the management of the HBRC forest estate needs to include tenants, graziers, recreational activities and public access.

Professional operational advice

63. Forest operations are subject to particular hazards and require access to operational expertise and a suitably qualified and systemised contract workforce. PF Olsen has been contracted to provide this following the consideration of proposals from 3 companies specialising in this work.

64. This arrangement will be reviewed in 2015.

Neighbour relations

65. Forest neighbours are a risk in terms of stock incursions and pest problems when trees are smaller. They also have expectations of HBRC in terms of pest and weed control, security and boundary fencing. These issues require ongoing management.

Alignment of Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Forest Estate to Trees on Farms Project

66. The HBRC forest estate includes activities aligned to the philosophy of promoting trees for timber, carbon, honey, biodiversity and restoration of native forest cover, as a preferred landuse option for HB eroding hill country. The NZ Dryland Forest Initiative and PGP for manuka are the primary examples of this.

Public Use Synergies

67. Each forest has its own potential for recreational use. Trail networks for walking and cycling are a particular opportunity in Central Hawke’s Bay, Waihapua and Tutira, because of their proximity to population centres and road access. HBRC staff are actively working with DOC and Overseas Investment Office regarding the possibility of walking access between Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve, Waihapua and Lake Tutira.

68. Examples of recent and planned visits and recreational events in the forest estate include:

68.1. HB branch of NZ Farm Forestry Association visits to Tutira Regional Park and manuka forest 2013 and 2014

68.2. MPI forestry visit to Tutira Regional Park 2014

68.3. DOC partnerships staff visit to Tutira Manuka Forest 2014

68.4. Ramblers walking group at Waihapua May 2014

68.5. Taupo Farm Forestry Association visit to Tutira Regional park and manuka forest in 2014

68.6. Mountain bike trail currently being negotiated at Waipukurau

68.7. Two Mountainbike events at Tutira Regional Park in 2014

68.8. NZ Farm Forestry Association field day planned for January 2015 at Waihapua.

Financial and Resource Implications

69. The ongoing costs of managing the forest estate are set out on the attached table.

Decision Making Process

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

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

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

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

70.4. There are no persons directly affected by this decision.

70.5. Options were considered at the time of purchasing the land upon which the forests are established.

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

70.7. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

1. That the Corporate and Strategic Committee receives the “Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Forest Assets report.

The Corporate and Strategic Committee recommends that Council:

2. 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.

3. Endorses the proposed ongoing maintenance regime for the HBRC forest estate.

James Powrie

Land Services Advisor

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

Attachment/s

HBRC Forest Estate management costs and income

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 12 November 2014

SUBJECT: The Big Six Community Engagement Feedback

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the comments received in response to The Big Six pre-LTP discussion document and the public meeting opportunities.

Engagement Process

2. The community was informed of The Big Six engagement process through a range of mechanisms:

2.1. 45 letters with a copy of the document were sent to statutory organisations and key regional and national organisations

2.2. An electronic copy of the document and a link to the website was sent to an email distribution list containing some 640 email addresses

2.3. 22 posts were made on facebook and other social media, including councillor video clips

2.4. 3 media releases

2.5. 3 adverts were placed in local papers.

3. Approximately 20 members of the public attended each of the first two afternoon teas (24 September and 8 October) and about 12 attended the after work event on 20 October.

4. A summary of the comments made at each meeting was put on the website.

4.1. Comments have been received from 16 individuals and organisations and these are also available on the website.

5. It is expected that further comments will be received by Hawke’s Bay District Health Board but these could not be completed in time to be included in the attached summary or copies of submissions.

6. There was general appreciation by the public for the opportunity to have a discussion early about the strategic priorities for the region. There was good dialogue between participants at the meetings as various topics were raised and discussed.

7. Some comments mentioned that holding a meeting on a marae might have enabled more engagement with Maori.

8. The Chairman and the Group Manager Strategic Development met with Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga to discuss the Big Six, and the Deputy Chairman met with the Napier mayor. Staff met with Genesis Energy staff and also highlighted the Big Six and the Long Term Plan process to the Pan Primary Sector group. The CE also met with managers of the Ministry of Social Development. The mayor of Hastings District Council attended one of the afternoon teas and the Mayor of Wairoa District Council sent his apologies.

9. Overall, staff consider that the Big Six process has been worthwhile. However, it is important that the community can see how the Council has considered these comments and what Council’s response is in relation to them. Council’s response will be determined through the November and December Long Term Plan workshops so that by the end of January, the Council will be in a position to give an early indication of that response ahead of the draft Long Term Plan being adopted.

10. It is proposed that another afternoon tea or after work event is held so that Council can provide feedback on how they have responded to the comments.

Summary of comments

11. Attachment 1 provides the summary notes from each meeting and a summary report of the 16 comments received is provided in Attachment 2, and Attachment 3 provides a copy of each set of comments.

12. Three comments were received on Facebook all relating to the cycleways, supporting the expansion of them but needing safe passage over bridges.

13. While the Big Six process has given Council a great opportunity to seek feedback on new priorities, ongoing activity in existing priorities sits alongside these. Staff’s analysis has highlighted the following key challenges and /or areas of agreement.

Water

14. Water management was emphasized by a number of people as being very important to the region and they expect it to be key part of future documents. It is fair to say that Council agrees that water management is important and will form a key part of the Long Term Plan.

Relationships with Maori

15. HBRC’s relationship with Maori is of high importance, particularly given the current Treaty Settlement environment. Maori organisations will change and evolve over the next five years as settlements are reached. It is clear that Council will need to ensure that the level of engagement that it undertakes is appropriate for the issue, whether it should be the iwi organisation, a Taiwhenua organisation or a mandated Treaty Settlement Group or Post Settlement Governance Entity or with marae/ hapū.

16. Some suggested having Māori seats on Council would be an opportunity to engage Māori at a governance level. In the past, Council’s own Māori Committee have not supported this but it could be something that is reconsidered in the future.

Economic Development (including Tourism)

17. While some did not think HBRC should have a role in Economic Development, the general flavor of the discussion was that more leadership and a more coordinated approach was still needed in this area. While the efforts of Business Hawke’s Bay were acknowledged, it still appears to many that there is significant duplication of effort and resources across the local councils.

18. It was also noted that the spend on tourism is significantly higher than on other economic development activities and there were questions as to whether this was an appropriate allocation of resources.

19. The Napier Port was noted as a strategic asset.

Energy

20. While energy independence does not appear to be the driver for an energy strategy, there appears to be support for a multi-stakeholder energy strategy focusing on new energy and making the most of Hawke’s Bay’s solar and wind energy by demonstrating the leading edge technology.

21. It is not clear what role HBRC might have in the implementation of such a strategy but Council should consider keeping the existing budget provision in place for the Solar Scheme pending new technology improving the business case for retrofitting solar energy technology.

22. Concerns were expressed around the potential for oil and gas development, from ensuring that we understood the regulatory environment that it operates in to seeking exclusion of oil and gas activities in the Heretaunga Plains. While Council has committed $200,000 to start public engagement on a plan change, and has visited Taranaki to view how it is managed in that region, we are awaiting a visit from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to talk through her report.

Wise Land Use

23. The importance of increasing the organic content of soil was emphasized as playing a role in water management and climate change as well as maintaining and enhancing soil health. Retiring and planting land and coaching farmers in innovative farming practices was seen as solutions.

24. These are not new initiatives for HBRC. HBRC has a long history of encouraging fencing and planting through the Regional Landcare Scheme. Through the Tukituki Plan Change, this activity is being focused on the areas that need it for specific environmental outcomes. Similar requirements to prepare and implement farm plans are likely to roll out across the region over the next 10 – 20 years.

25. The northern part of Hawke’s Bay has major soil conservation challenges and Council does need to review how it should be addressing those issues, whether more resources are required and how it would be funded.

Climate change

26. There was an appreciation that climate change was identified as a strategic priority in its own right and people seemed encouraged that councils were working together to look at solutions for the coast (only Clifton to Tangoio at this stage).

27. A couple of people thought the region should contribute to slowing climate change by reducing carbon while others thought we should be focused on adaptation.

28. Council should clearly articulate the activities that contribute to climate change adaptation and slowing climate change. Council will need to determine whether it pursues initiatives beyond adaption.

Connecting our Region

29. There was considerable support for Council’s continued support to re-establish the Napier – Gisborne rail link. The cycleways were also seen as a success and there was a suggestion to continue connecting the commuter routes to the cycleways so that cycling becomes a normal way of travelling, not just a recreational activity.

30. There was little public comment on telecommunications connectivity but one person thought that there may be value in HBRC having an overview role in assessing connectivity and lobbying for improvements but that HBRC should not have a role beyond that.

31. Discussions with Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga around access to broadband highlighted that many families do not have landlines. Access to the internet is potentially a significant barrier for parts of our community.

32. The importance of data and information management (data capture and transfer) was highlighted as an essential element in the transformation of rural economies, including faster internet speeds.

Conclusions

33. The Big Six pre engagement process for the Long Term Plan has been a worthwhile exercise, particularly the afternoon tea sessions where there was dialogue among the participants. This allowed different ideas to flow and be teased out.

34. The comments raised on the Big Six need to be considered as part of the Council workshops and it is proposed that Council also reports back to the community at another afternoon tea some time in January.

Decision Making Process

35. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That the Corporate and Strategic Committee receives the “The Big Six Community Engagement Feedback” report and considers the issues raised as part of the Long Term Plan development process.

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1	Meeting Notes
2	Summary of Comments
3	Big Six Comments

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 12 November 2014

SUBJECT: Callaghan Research and Development Fund and Update on Wairoa Primary Sector Opportunities

Reason for Report

1. The main purpose of this report is to provide information on the delivery and use of the Callaghan Research and Development Fund in Hawke’s Bay.

2. There is also a short report included on progress to date with exploring Wairoa primary sector economic development initiatives.

Background

3. In May 2010, the Ministry of Science and Innovation (later to become Callaghan Innovation) and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise (NZTE) issued a joint request for proposals to establish a network of 14 Regional Business Partners throughout New Zealand to represent them by facilitating grants and providing support services to assist business growth. Importantly this provided representation for these organisations outside of Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.

4. The Regional Partner Network enables businesses to access (1) Research and Development (R&D) funding and (2) Funding Vouchers to upskill management capability in general business skills in areas such as marketing strategies, business planning, leadership and finance.

5. Venture Hawke’s Bay and Hawke’s Bay Chamber of Commerce submitted a joint proposal and secured the contract for Hawke’s Bay. The rationale behind this was for Venture Hawke’s Bay to provide the R&D services given they had a track record representing the Ministry of Science and Innovation and the Chamber of Commerce was closely linked to small business and sought to expand their services beyond their membership. At the time, this was the first step toward collaboration in a fragmented Hawke’s Bay economic development environment.

6. Given the dis-establishment of Venture Hawke’s Bay in July 2011, the remaining economic development functions including the Regional Business Partner (1FTE) representing Ministry of Science were incorporated into HBRC given that it was the primary funder.

7. The contract was initially for 2 years, however this was rolled over whilst central government was restructuring and forming the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE). Following a review in June 2014, the new end date for the contract is 31 December 2015. The contract between Callaghan Innovation and HBRC is for NZ$125,000 (excluding GST) per annum to fund 1FTE to perform the Regional Business Partner function. The Annual Fixed Fee is paid monthly in arrears upon receipt of invoice from the Regional Partner. This funding covers all costs associated with the delivery of the contract, including salary, promotion and HBRC overhead.

8. The main KPI within the contract is that the Regional Partner must actively manage 80-100 businesses per FTE per annum for Callaghan Innovation. Active management means there is a focus on assessing businesses, identifying needs, providing solutions and following up with the businesses on next steps for growth.

9. By promoting innovation in our region, this contract delivery is closely aligned with the Business Growth pillar of the Regional Economic Development Strategy, which is “To retain, grow, diversify and attract highly productive, rapidly growing businesses and talented people.”

What Does Callaghan Innovation Do?

10. Callaghan Innovation was launched in February 2013, merging the grant funding capability of the Ministry of Science with the science and technical resources of the CRI Industrial Research Limited with a mission to commercialise innovation.

11. Callaghan Innovation provides (1) grant funding, (2) advice on innovation, and (3) access to the specialist research and technical services specialising in engineering, physics, chemistry and mathematics.

12. Focusing on grant funding, Callaghan Innovation has over $140m per year that businesses can tap into to undertake commercial R&D activities to enable innovation. There are 3 grant funding programmes.

12.1. R&D Growth Grants are designed to increase R&D investment in businesses that already have a strong track record for undertaking and spending in R&D. The grant is 20% grant toward all R&D spend for 3 years. There is a rule based eligibility criteria with R&D spend >$300,000 per annum equating to >1.5% revenue per annum.

12.2. R&D Project Grants are designed to support businesses with less established R&D programmes. Funding is variable at between 30% and 50% funding and applications are assessed on their own merit. Funding can be used to undertake an R&D project or to engage experts.

12.3. R&D Student Grants are designed to support undergraduate and post-graduate students working in a commercial R&D environment to build business capability. The project must be Science/Technology/Engineering/Design based.

13. Callaghan Innovation works with businesses at all stages of maturity; from early stage start-ups with an idea through to large scale R&D savvy businesses. Callaghan works across all industry sectors, in Hawke’s Bay engaging predominantly with horticulture, agriculture, food and beverage, engineering, general manufacturing, textile and software businesses.

14. Callaghan Innovation supports businesses that look to grow through innovation. Revenue growth must be the objective, with ambitions to export, and the business must have more than a germ of an idea; there must be plan behind the business outlining the pathway to market to commercialise the project outcome.

15. From a Callaghan perspective, innovation and R&D can be the development of new products, process, or service, or making significant improvements to existing products, processes or services. Examples could be a businesses looking to innovation to build in-house capability by adopting technology from a different sector, or to manufacture faster, or with less waste, or producing a better quality product. Broadly, R&D activities could be undertaking an R&D project working with external experts, development of a prototype, or undertaking factory trials, laboratory trials or customer trials.

16. The impact of Callaghan grant funding is to encourage businesses to invest in ongoing R&D activities and for the grant to make a difference in project scale (undertake a bigger project), to make the project better quality (working with more experienced expertise or going through a more rigorous exercise) or to undertake the project sooner (and ultimately get the product to market faster to enable them to capitalise on their market opportunity).

What Does the Regional Business Partner Do?

17. The Regional Partner is the primary contact for Callaghan Innovation business assistance in the region. The role largely focuses on assisting businesses to access grant funding and performs a referral role for the other Callaghan services and programmes.

18. The Regional Partner assesses eligibility for R&D funding and guides the business through the application process. If a business is ineligible for funding, the Partner advises how to increase their chance of success of their business venture and, where appropriate, introduces them to other options or other suitable business support resources such as the NZTE Capability Voucher, Business Hawke’s Bay, Business Mentors, Export NZ, Lean programmes, IP lawyers, Trade Bodies, training organisations, banks, investors, etc.

19. Regional Partners have a delegated authority to approve investments in companies up to $5,000 (excl GST) for total costs of $12,500 +GST, equating to 40% grant funding. For projects up to $500,000 (excl GST) total costs, the Regional Partner works with the company to strengthen their application and represents them at the Callaghan Innovation weekly/monthly approval panels. For projects over $500,000, the Regional Partner works with the company to strengthen the application and acts as a liaison with the Wellington Investment Managers who process the applications.

20. Given that the information divulged to the Regional Partner is of a commercially sensitive nature it is clearly strictly confidential, however certain businesses are comfortable to provide high level details that can be used as case studies. Below are examples of projects which give a flavour of the diversity of business R&D activities in Hawke’s Bay that Callaghan have or are currently funding.

21. Tow and Blow Limited – Callaghan supported the development of their portable frost fan. Although targeted at the fruit and vegetable cropping industry, this product is being utilised in livestock cooling in feedlots and also being trialled by airlines to de-ice aircraft. Two years ago this was a business start-up which now employs 4FTE and has a revenue of $2.5 million, 80% exported to markets including USA, Canada, Chile and Mainland Europe.

22. Havelock North Fruit Company – Callaghan is funding a multi-year research project exploring various growth parameters for the Rockit apple tree to optimise production, with the outcomes to be incorporated into their franchise manual for growers on and offshore. This is currently an ongoing project.

23. Nanobrewing Limited – Callaghan supported the development of the Williams Warn Personal Brewing Appliance (think of a user-friendly, top-of-the range household appliance, in much the same way as the high-end stainless steel coffee machines - this is not home brew, think high quality clear beer within 7 days). Started with 2FTE, the business now employs 9FTE. With sales of $2m and set to double over the next 12 months, 30% is exported to markets including Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, USA, Canada, UK, Israel, and Brazil.

24. New Zealand Wool Testing Authority – Callaghan is funding the development of a Length After Carding prediction model to improve the accuracy and prevent over specifying of wool. This collaborative project could have significant benefits throughout the wool supply chain, impacting on farmers, brokers, exporters and ultimately processors. This is currently an ongoing project.

25. Pan Pac Forest Product Limited – Callaghan predecessor FRST supported the initial research into the Thermal Modification of Radiata Pine, proving the process and consistency of the product. As a result of this research and the market opportunity of an added value product in a new market sector, Pan Pac has invested in a commercial scale kiln, which is currently being commissioned.

26. In 2013-14, Hawke’s Bay businesses secured $1.14m in Callaghan grant funding distributed across 25 companies. Of this, a number of these grants were around $2-5,000 enabling businesses to undertake initial feasibility work to decide if it’s worth taking to the next level, or to solve a small technical problem. Four of these grants were between $100-250,000 enabling businesses to undertake more in-depth, longer term R&D activities.

27. In 2012-13, $2.9m grant funding was secured, distributed across 49 companies. Six of these grants were between $100-250,000. One other company secured over $850,000 to undertake a complex hi-tech multi-year development.

28. In 2011-12, $2.7m grant funding was secured, distributed across 46 companies. Six grants were over $250,000 and 3 of these were high value engineering projects for products that are now being exported.

29. Please note, since changing from the Ministry of Science to Callaghan Innovation in 2013, the level of funding and the types of programmes available have changed, hence the reduction in the grant funding secured in comparison to previous years.

Wairoa Primary Sector Update

30. Council approved a new Economic Development initiative – Wairoa Primary Sector Opportunities. This initiative is aligned with HBRC’s broader goal of promoting Primary Sector Resilience under the Regional Economic Development Strategy, as well as demonstrating direct support for growth in the Wairoa District.

31. Discussions with Te Matarae o Te Wairoa Trust and Wairoa District Council’s Economic Development unit have culminated in a request for funding of a high-value dairy product market validation study. At this stage we have indicated support for stage one of this study which will cost $2,500 + GST. We are currently waiting a formal request from the Trust and/or Wairoa District Council.

32. Also of relevance to the Wairoa Primary Sector is the work we are doing with Business Hawke’s Bay to develop the business case for establishing a non-bovine dairy industry in the region, in particular Goat milking systems (cut and carry).

33. Finally, we are in early discussions with Te Tumu Paeroa, which operates the mixed-contour Hereheretau Station, about using the Station as a platform for demonstrating wise land use.

Decision Making Process

34. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That the Corporate and Strategic Committee receives the “Callaghan Research and Development Fund and Update on Wairoa Primary Sector Opportunities” report.

Jenny Brown

Callaghan Innovation

Regional Partner

Tom Skerman

Economic Development Manager

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 12 November 2014

SUBJECT: November 2014 Public Transport Update

Reason for Report

1. This agenda item provides the Committee with an update on Council’s public transport operations.

General Information

2. The overall performance of the bus service continues to be positive; however there were fewer passenger trips in the first quarter of the 2014-15 year than the same period last year, with the most marked drop being 5770 trips in August, a 7% decline on the same month the previous year. Bad weather and heavy rain during this period is believed to have been a contributing factor to this, with people choosing to limit non-essential travel.

3. Timetable changes and fare increases implemented on 1 September have been readily accepted by passengers, with very little comment or feedback. Go Bus have advised that the timetable changes and removal of The Park Hastings from the Route 12 Napier-Hastings trip, has resulted in improved journey times, less late running, happier passengers and less stressed bus drivers.

Passenger Trips

4. The following graph shows total passenger trips during quarter one of 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15

Diagram 1 – Passenger Trips – July to September – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15

5. Annual passenger trips have trended steadily upwards since the new contract was introduced in 2009, as follows. However, if there is no further significant investment in the bus service, it is likely that this trend will flatten out with time.

Diagram 2 Annual Passenger Trips since 2009-10

Year	Total Annual Trips	Monthly Average
2009-10	480,244	40,020
2010-11	554,647	46,220
2011-12	681,566	56,797
2012-13	761,392	63,449
2013-14	799,845	66,653

SuperGold Card Trips

6. SuperGold cardholders, who travel free of charge between 9am and 3pm on weekdays and anytime during weekends/public holidays, continue to make very good use of this scheme. The graph below shows the number of SuperGold cardholder trips made during quarter one of 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15

Diagram 3 – SuperGold Card Trips – July to September – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15

Bus Stops

7. Regional Council staff are keen to work with Napier City Council staff to implement a staged programme of formalising Napier bus stops, however there has been no progress to date.

Bikes on Buses

8. Bike racks on buses continue to prove popular, with 890 bikes carried during quarter one of 2014-15, compared to 768 during the same period last year.

Bus Service Costs

9. The following table shows the net cost (after fares and excluding GST) of operating the goBay bus service during quarter one of 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The quarterly costs include base contract costs plus one quarter’s cost indexation, which accounts for the significant price fluctuations

Diagram 4 – Net Cost of Bus Service – July to September – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15

Year	July	August	September	Total
2012-13	$224,406	$206,395	$217,298	$648.099
2013-14	$186,170	$278,969	$182,220	$647,359
2014-15	$168,720	$157,262	$264,227	$590,209

It should be noted that 50% of this cost is met by NZTA (New Zealand Transport Agency).

Total Mobility

10. The Total Mobility Scheme, which is funded by regional council, local councils and the NZTA, provides subsidised taxi transport for people who have a permanent illness or disability which prevents them from using public transport.

11. The following tables show the number of Total Mobility trips made during quarter one of 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and the corresponding cost (excl GST).

Diagram 5 – Total Mobility Trips – July to September – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15

Year	July	August	September	Total
2012-13	6753	6839	6471	20,063
2013-14	7401	6804	6611	20,816
2014-15	8320	7950	7677	23,947

Diagram 6 – Total Mobility cost (excl GST ) – July to September – 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15

Year	July	August	September	Total
2012-13	$35,731	$35,758	$35,785	$107,274
2013-14	$36,048	$36,075	$36,102	$108,225
2014-15	$36,366	$36,393	$36,420	$109,179

It should be noted that 60% of this cost is met by NZTA (New Zealand Transport Agency).

Financial Assistance Rates Review

12. The New Zealand Transport Agency has released provisional results of its Financial Assistance Rate review. For 2015-16, HBRC will receive a 53% subsidy on most activities. This is a significant decrease in subsidy rate for some activities (such as road safety education, transport planning, service marketing and promotion) but the bus service operational subsidy will increase from 50% to 53%.

13. Total Mobility has been excluded from any change pending a review of the scheme, and so will continue to receive a 60% subsidy in 2015-16.

14. The full implications of these changes will be considered by Council during the development of the Long Term Plan.

Regional Public Transport Plan

15. Work on the Draft Regional Public Transport Plan is progressing well. The Plan will be presented to the Regional Transport Committee and Council in November, with public consultation commencing in early December through until 23 January 2015.

Decision Making Process

16. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only and no decision is to be made, the decision making provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That the Corporate and Strategic Committee receives the November 2014 Public Transport Update report.

Megan Welsby

Sustainable Transport Coordinator

Anne Redgrave

Transport Manager

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.


3	Regional Resources	$85 (U)	310	Regional Groundwater Research $68,000 (U) External expenditure for this project was on budget. A significant overrun on staff time is present due to incorrect allocation of Science and Resource time to support PC6 and RWSS.
			311	Regional Surface Water Research and Investigation $26,000 (F) Internal expenditure for this project was on budget. External expenditure for this project was under budget due to availability of outside resources.
			315	Regional Surface Water Quality $82,000 (U) External expenditure for this project was on budget. A significant overrun on staff time is present due to incorrect allocation of Science and Resource Technician time continuing to sit within the 192 Policy project.
			325	Ground Water Quality $42,000 (F) External expenditure for this project was on budget. A significant surplus on staff time is present due to reallocation of Science and Resource time to support PC6 and RWSS.
			330	Ground Water Quantity $101,000 (F) External expenditure for this project was on budget. A significant surplus on staff time is present due to reallocation of Science and Resource time to support PC6 and RWSS.
			331	Coastal Water Quality $88,000 (U) Due to increased staff time and programme external spend to support TANK and Mohaka Plan changes (estuarine water quality monitoring, Ahuriri Contact Recreation and Food Gathering Review, additional nearshore water quality monitoring).