Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Date: Wednesday 25 November 2015

Time: 9.00 am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council, 159 Dalton Street, NAPIER

Agenda

Item Subject Page

1. Welcome/Prayer/Apologies/Notices

2. Conflict of Interest Declarations

3. Confirmation of Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on 28 October 2015

4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on 28 October 2015

5. Follow-up Items from Previous Regional Council Meetings 3

6. Call for any Minor Items not on the Agenda 9

Decision Items

7. Affixing of Common Seal 11

8. Report and Recommendations from the Regional Planning Committee 15

9. Report and Recommendations from the Corporate and Strategic Committee 25

10. Panpac Appeal Delegations 27

11. Heretaunga Plains Groundwater Management and Investigations 29

12. RWSS Design and Construction Contract Condition Precedent 35

13. RWSS Financing Request of the Regional Council 39

Information or Performance Monitoring

14. HBRIC Ltd November 2015 Update 45

15. Napier Port Verbal Presentation (10.45am)

16. Guidance Notes for Hearing Panel Members for Time Cost Recovery 53

17. Enviroschools Hawke's Bay 61

18. Monthly Work Plan Looking Forward Through December 2015 63

19. Minor Items not on the Agenda 69

20. Chairman's Monthly Report for October-November 71

Decision Items (Public Excluded)

21. Confirmation of Public Excluded Meeting held on 28 October 2015 73

22. Appointment of Napier Port Directors 75

	Agenda Item	Action	Person Responsible	Status Comment
1	Follow-ups from previous meetings	Provide update on Biodiversity Strategy implementation	I Maxwell	Information paper for E&S Committee 9 December
2	Follow-ups from previous meetings	Advise Otane wastewater consent renewal issues	I Maxwell	Application on hold until January 2016 pending further shallow groundwater sampling by CHBDC.
3	Proposed 2016 Schedule of Meetings	Confirm as per feedback from meeting and distribute to all Councillors and committee members	L Hooper	Confirmed and distributed week of 2 November 2015
4	2016 Petroleum Block Offer	Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment – invitation to visit HB to be re-extended	L Lambert	An invitation has been sent requesting a visit from Dr Wright in early 2016. Her staff are assessing availability in relation to her work programme.
5	Annual Plan Progress report	Review of Council’s management of investments over the longer term	P Drury
5	Air Quality Update	Is there a targeted Clean Heat programme for Havelock North	M Heaney	There is no targeted programme for Havelock North. As this area falls within the Hastings Air Shed where air quality issues remain it falls within an area of interest.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 25 November 2015

Subject: Affixing of Common Seal

Reason for Report

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

Seal No.

Date

1.1

Leasehold Land Sales

1.1.1 Lot 1

DP 464306

CT C2/363

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.2 Lot 2

DP 13208

CT E4/1024

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.3 Lot 71

DP 13096

CT E3/516

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.4 Lot 71

DP 14225

CT G1/8

- Transfer

1.1.5 Lot 156

DP 10775

CT B2/1137

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.6 Lot 18

DP 13066

CT E3/399

- Transfer

3712

3713

3714

3715

3716

3717

3719

3718

27 October 2015

28 October 2015

29 October 2015

30 October 2015

4 November 2015

5 November 2015

4 November 2015

1.2

Staff Warrants

1.2.1 C Tyler

S Lambert

J Raihania

P Train

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

1.2.2 C Tyler

P Train

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

1.2.3 P Rakete-Stones

(Delegations under Biosecurity Act 1993; Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91)and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174))

3720

3722

3723

3724

3720

3724

3721

18 November 2015

1.3

Agreement for Sale and Purchase

(carpark – map attached)

1A Bedford Road, Napier

Lot 12 DP 8979

CT E2/327

3725

18 November 2015

Decision Making Process

2. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the provisions of Sections 77, 78, 80, 81 and 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within these sections of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

2.1 Sections 97 and 88 of the Act do not apply

2.2 Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided

2.3 That the decision to apply the Common Seal reflects previous policy or other decisions of Council which (where applicable) will have been subject to the Act’s required decision making process.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2. Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

Map of 1A Bedford Road Carpark

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 25 November 2015

Subject: Report and Recommendations from the Regional Planning Committee

Reason for Report

1. The following matters were considered by the Regional Planning Committee on 4 November 2015 and are now presented for consideration and approval.

2. In relation to the NPS for Freshwater Management Progressive Implementation Programme revision, staff have made a number of amendments to accommodate suggestions made by Committee members at the RPC meeting, and the updated version of the Programme is attached.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendations

The Regional Planning Committee recommends that Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy 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.

NPS for Freshwater Management Progressive Implementation Programme Revision

2. Adopts the updated 2015 Progressive Implementation Programme for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management as attached.

Mohaka Water Quality and Ecology

3. Adopts the “Mohaka River Catchment State and Trends of River Water Quality and Ecology” report for publication.

4. Adopts the “Influence of the Taharua River on the Upper Mohaka River Food Base for Adult Trout” report for publication.

Reports Received

5. Notes that the following reports were provided to the Regional Planning Committee meeting:

5.1. Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order Proposal

5.2. September-October 2015 Statutory Advocacy Update

5.3. November 2015 Resource Management Planning Project Update

5.4. Petroleum Exploration Proposed Block Offer 2016

Shane Lambert

Senior Planner

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

2015 NPSFM Progressive Implementation Programme

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 25 November 2015

Subject: Panpac Appeal Delegations

Reason for Report

1. This report is to inform Council that an appeal has been lodged against the recent Pan Pac decision and to seek authority for staff to negotiate a settlement if that is possible.

2. The appeal is against Council’s decision to issue resource consents CD960330Wf CL120058Oa, CL140317C and CL140330D to Pan Pac. There may be opportunity to resolve this appeal ahead of any Environment Court hearing via Consent Order or mediation. Council is requested to delegate authority to the Group Manager Resource Management to negotiate and approve any settlement.

3. These consents were granted allowing Pan Pac Forests Limited to extend their outfall structure into Hawke Bay and discharge effluent at about 2km from the Whirinaki shoreline. The appeal has been made by Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust who seek that these applications be declined.

4. A meeting was held on 28 October with representatives of Pan Pac, Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust and the Regional Council in attendance. This was initiated by Pan Pac to discuss the concerns and options. Nothing was resolved at that meeting but Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust representatives agreed to take what was discussed back to their Governors. The meeting did indicate the urgency of Pan Pac and that there may be an alternative to the full Environment Court hearing process. It will be important for the Regional Council to be in a position to give prompt responses on any agreements that can be negotiated between the parties.

Financial and Resource Implications

5. Council is obliged to represent and defend the decision. There will be a cost associated with this appeal, and more so if it proceeds to a full Environment Court hearing. There is a small contingency for legal and technical support expenses. If costs increase to exceed this amount Council will be kept informed.

Decision Making Process

6. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act), Part 6 Sub Part 1 and RMA s34A. Staff have assessed the legislative requirements and concluded:

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

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

6.3. The matter is to be considered in accordance with RMA process.

6.4. The persons affected by this decision are Pan Pac and submitters to the resource consents.

6.5. Options that have been considered include do nothing, however this could cause unnecessary delay if staff need to obtain Council agreement on any settlement.

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

6.7. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, 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.

2. Council delegates full authority to the Group Manager Resource Management to negotiate a Consent Order or mediated agreement to resolve the appeal against Pan Pac resource consent decisions CD960330Wf CL120058Oa, CL140317C and CL140330D.

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 25 November 2015

Subject: Heretaunga Plains Groundwater Management and Investigations

Reason for Report

1. At the Regional Council Meeting on 26 August 2015, Council resolved that “to better inform any further water modelling related to the Heretaunga aquifer and the TANK programme, staff are requested to report on the potential need to commission the drilling of deep bores to establish the full extent and capacity of the aquifer and its sub-aquifers, and their relationships to surface water.”

2. This report discusses whether development and implementation of a deep drilling programme would provide useful information to inform current model development.

3. Council also requested a further report from the Group Manager Resource Management on the matters raised in the Simpson Grierson legal opinion. Mr Maxwell provide a verbal update on progress with this matter as part of this item.

Background

Groundwater Hydrology Fundamentals

4. Groundwater and surface water are strongly linked and are usually managed as a single resource. Management of groundwater and surface water must occur together to ensure the sustainability of both.

5. Groundwater systems consist of a mass of water flowing slowly (and sometimes extremely slowly) through pores or cracks in the ground. Water enters groundwater by infiltration from rainfall, rivers and streams and is released from the system either as natural discharge to streams, rivers or springs, or by artificial removal from the aquifer. In the long term, the amount of water entering, being stored and leaving the system is in balance - i.e., the volume that enters the system also leaves the system, or a change in storage occurs (Winter et al., 1999).

6. Any water taken artificially from an aquifer reduces storage and/or changes the volume of discharge flows (and sometimes recharge flows), and/or the rate of groundwater flows. These adjustments in the aquifer occur over varying timescales, depending on what path is followed by water flowing in various parts of the aquifer. Typically the flow paths within the deeper aquifer are long and flow takes decades to travel distances of kilometres. In the shallow aquifer flows take days to years to travel distances of kilometres.

7. Decision making around groundwater resources must account for the adjustments that occur when water is removed from the aquifer. The present work programme for the Heretaunga Plains aquifer is expected to provide the understanding necessary to inform decision making.

Existing Scientific Understanding of the Heretaunga Plains Aquifer System

8. The Heretaunga Plains are about 300,000 hectares in area. The Heretaunga Plains aquifer consists of layers of unconsolidated sediment, which are mostly clays, silts and gravels deposited by the rivers that cross the Plains, and by the sea during periods of marine incursion over the last 250,000 years.

9. Groundwater is obtained most readily from gravel formations that are sometimes separated by less permeable sands, silts and clays. The gravel formations are not always continuous, because of variations in the way river sediments were deposited. The Heretaunga Plains sediments are 300 m to 900 m thick, and they are underlain by hard mudstone, limestone and sandstone rock.

10. Throughout the last 250,000 years Heretaunga aquifer sediments came from erosion of the upland parts of the Tutaekuri and Ngaruroro catchments. In the last 20,000 years gravels have also come from the Tukituki catchment, and pumice sand has been sourced from volcanic eruptions from the Taupo Volcanic Zone. Marine silts and clays were deposited during past sea-level fluctuations approximately +2 m and -130 m relative to today’s sea level.

11. The most significant marine transgression occurred from 9,000 to 6,500 years ago. At 9,000 years ago global sea-level was about 130 m lower and the coast was about 60 km further offshore than today. By 6,500 years ago rising sea-levels had deposited a thick layer of marine clay over the river gravels. Today groundwater is artesian in the gravel aquifer underneath this confining clay, rising up to 7 m to 10 m above sea level (at the coast) when drilled. This artesian head declines from the coast towards the west of the Heretaunga Plains, until the aquifer becomes unconfined west of Flaxmere.

12. Exploration of the Heretaunga Plains artesian aquifer began in the mid-nineteenth century, with drilling for water supply. Since then, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and its predecessor have undertaken substantial investigations, and collation of privately-collected drill log data. The most significant piece of previous research was the Heretaunga Plains study (1997), completed jointly by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and what is now GNS Science.

13. As part of current investigations being undertaken for the proposed TANK plan change, Council commissioned a geological model of the Heretaunga Plains from GNS Science. The geological model underpins the coupled surface water-groundwater flow and nutrient model that will be used to test scenarios for potential impacts of land-use, land-use changes and other activities in the TANK area.

14. Information on Heretaunga Plains geology comes from a range of sources, including over 9,000 bores drilled for monitoring and production since 1867, and from geophysical surveys. Most of these bores are constructed in the upper 50 m of the aquifer system, to keep drilling costs and pumping costs down. These bores are used mostly for irrigation, and municipal supply for Napier, Hastings, Flaxmere and Havelock North. By contrast, little exploration of the deep aquifer has taken place.

15. Three deep test bores were drilled in 1995 as part of the Heretaunga Plains study. The test bores were drilled at locations to help identify regional geological structures. The three test bores are located on:

15.1. The upper plains in the unconfined-confined aquifer transition zone near Flaxmere – drilled to a depth of 137 m

15.2. The central plains in the confined aquifer on the southern boundary of Hastings at Tollemache Orchard – drilled to 256 m

15.3. The lower plains near the coast in the confined aquifer near Awatoto – drilled to 254 m.

16. In November 2014, a test bore was drilled to 126.5 m in the unconfined area of the aquifer on Hill Road in the Twyford area.

17. The locations of the test investigation bores drilled on the Heretaunga Plains are shown in Figure 1. These bores have subsequently been converted to monitoring bores and are part of Council’s monitoring network.

Figure 1. Location Map of Heretaunga Plains deep investigation test bores.

18. As part of its consideration of this question, on 23 September 2015 Council’s Environmental Science team convened a meeting of groundwater scientists with expertise in the Heretaunga Plains, including staff from NIWA, GNS Science, several consultancies and the two major drilling companies working in the TANK area. Two councillors were present at the meeting.

19. The meeting considered what additional information would be useful to obtain from a series of deep bores, the costs and benefits of obtaining that information, and some of the caveats of deep drilling for investigation and resource development purposes.

Discussion

20. Deep drilling investigations to date have confirmed the previously-developed conceptual model that the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system is a multi-layered, hydraulically interconnected alluvial aquifer. Since most groundwater is produced from bores less than 50 m deep, the available information has sufficed to understand the parts of the aquifer that are used most.

21. Obtaining any additional information for modelling may provide further detail, but this may not necessarily improve the functioning of the model, nor the quality of analysis that results from the model.

22. The benefits of further detail on the deeper aquifer system include:

22.1. Adding further detail to the conceptual model of the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system. This additional information might include (a) the extent (including depth) of the aquifer system; (b) the potential for deeper aquifer units to produce groundwater; (c) any impact of deep groundwater extraction on streamflow depletion and (d) the water quality at depth.

22.2. Providing more specific information on deep groundwater resources that could be exploited, by the methods of pumping and drawdown tests.

23. There are, however, some caveats to obtaining and using this additional information, including:

23.1. Use of additional geophysical methods would provide more extensive information about the deeper parts of the aquifer system at a lower cost than several deep bores. Deep bores are likely to cost at least $150,000 each to develop and monitor. Project managing this work would also add substantial cost to the TANK work programme, and delay the completion of that work.

23.2. Additional specific information on the deep aquifer is unlikely substantially to change overall management of the TANK aquifer system, because the deeper parts of the aquifer system are likely to be connected to the shallower aquifer units. In the long-term, extracting deep water will deplete groundwater resources in the shallow aquifer. In the event that a productive deep aquifer was found, isolated from other TANK aquifer units, it is likely to be composed of old, low-quality groundwater that would rapidly be depleted by exploitation.

23.3. Drilling bores can be a little ‘hit and miss’, since a bore a few centimetres in diameter may intercept a unit of poor quality water, and miss a neighbouring high quality unit of water. For this reason, a considerable number of bores would be advantageous in the long run.

24. The following issues negate undertaking additional deep drilling for the purposes of finding new groundwater resources:

24.1. Deeper parts of the aquifer system have long residence times because of the nature of the aquifer materials at depth, and would consequently have lower water quality

24.2. Deep aquifers are typically hydrologically ‘tight’. This means that gravels at depth are compressed by the weight of overlying deposits, which means they may not conduct water effectively. As a consequence, any deep bores may not reveal much useful information, and may be relatively unproductive.

24.3. Any water abstraction from deeper zones would require significant capital investment. This is because drilling at greater depths takes longer and is more technically challenging, as was found during previous deep drilling attempts.

25. In addition, it is unnecessary to have full geological details of an aquifer system in order to build a scientifically robust hydrogeological model.

26. In light of these considerations, Council’s hydrogeologists consider it is not necessary to undertake further deep drilling in the Heretaunga aquifer. This is particularly because the surface water-groundwater model being developed is intended to inform policy to manage the current use of the aquifer.

27. This approach was supported by hydrogeologist members of the Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) convened to advise Council on appropriate approaches to the technical elements of the TANK work programme at the meeting in September 2015. They note, however, that if the deeper aquifer is targeted for groundwater use in future, then deep drilling and pumping test will be needed at the time to help establish the sustainability of such use. This information, when gathered, could be added to the TANK surface water-groundwater model when required.

Conclusions

28. Deep drilling investigations to date at various locations across the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system have confirmed that, conceptually, the Heretaunga Plains aquifer system is multi-layered hydraulically interconnected alluvial aquifer.

29. Although drilling additional deep exploration bores may provide additional information for groundwater modelling, the cost of such bores is high and staff, together with Council’s TANK groundwater expert Technical Advisory Panel, consider that is not necessary to further explore deeper parts of the aquifer at present, particularly as existing use of the aquifer is focused on the upper units of the system.

30. In future, if groundwater development targets deeper parts of the aquifer, then it likely deep drilling and pumping tests will be required to improve the accuracy of model predictions.

Financial and Resource Implications

31. No further financial or resource requirements are needed at this stage.

Decision Making Process

32. 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:

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

That Council:

2. Receives the verbal update on progress with implementing the matters raised in the Simpson Grierson advice.

3. Receives and takes note of the “Heretaunga Aquifer Investigations” report.

4. Notes that the objectives of the Heretaunga surface-water and groundwater investigations do not currently require an understanding of the deeper parts of the aquifer system. The existing model domain is adequately able to represent the main groundwater exploitation zone in the upper part of the aquifer system, particularly where there is significant interaction with surface water. In future this model may be used to identify where further drilling investigations may assist in filling key gaps needed to inform resource management decision making.

Dougall Gordon

Principal Scientist,
Groundwater

Dr Stephen Swabey

Manager, Science

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 25 November 2015

Subject: RWSS Design and Construction Contract Condition Precedent

Reason for Report

1. HBRIC Ltd has advised that they wish to present to Council the Board’s recommendation relating to the meeting of Condition Precedent 4, as resolved by Council, this being:

“That Council:

8. Resolves to invest up to $80 million in RWSS subject to Council being satisfied with:

…

8.3. advice from HBRIC Ltd that all Conditions Precedent to Financial Close of the investment by all investing parties in the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme Limited Partnership (RWLP) have been either satisfied or waived by agreement of the parties. These Conditions Precedent are:

…

8.3.4. Obtaining a bankable construction contract which adequately addresses construction risk allocation through a fixed-time, fixed-cost arrangement;”

2. At Council’s meeting of 25 June 2014 the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) resolved to conditionally invest in the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS) subject to satisfying the following conditions precedent.

2.1. Notes the following Conditions Precedent that must be either satisfied or waived by agreement before Financial Close:

2.1.1. Granting of resource consent for RWSS, which in turn is recommended as being workable by all investors;

2.1.2. Subscription of a minimum of 40 million cubic metres (m3) of water contracts (Water User Agreements);

2.1.3. Securing the private and public funding required to build Scheme infrastructure;

2.1.4. A bankable construction contract with construction risk allocation adequately addressed through a fixed-time, fixed-cost arrangement;

3. As one of the key HBRC conditions precedent being the development and negotiation of a fixed time fixed price design and construction contract the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd (HBRIC Ltd) team and its advisors being the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, BNZ/Piperhouse Advisory and Bell Gully have undertaken extensive work with the construction consortium Obrascón, Huarte Lain S.A. Hawkins Ltd (OHL-Hawkins) to arrive at a bankable construction contract with risk adequately addressed.

4. HBRIC Ltd’s advisors, BNZ/Piperhouse Advisory, have advised us that they are satisfied that the contract is now in a form which meets the condition precedent.

5. Salient points are:

5.1. The contract comprises Fixed time fixed price terms for the following separable portions:

5.1.1. Separable portion 1 Dam

5.1.2. Separable Portion 2 Hydro generation

5.1.3. Separable Portion 3 Primary Distribution network and 50% of the secondary distribution network

5.1.4. Separable Portion 4 Balance of the secondary network priced on a measure and value basis on agreed rates. This is 10% of the total contract.

5.2. Contract terms mimic current Australasian PPP contract standards including detailed commission testing, liquidated damages, performance bonds, joint and several guarantees, defect periods and termination rights.

5.3. HBRIC Ltd notes that the price revalidation process has been underway and is now at a point whereby it is largely complete. We further note that the service offering and price are in line with our expectations.

6. HBRIC Ltd therefore advises HBRC:

6.1. That its financial advisors BNZ/Piperhouse have confirmed the Construction contract is now bankable; and

6.2. That the condition precedent for a bankable construction contract with construction risk allocation adequately addressed through a fixed-time, fixed-cost arrangement has been met.

6.3. That Condition Precedent 4 has been met.

7. HBRIC Ltd Board directors and staff will be present at the meeting to speak to the Board recommendations, and to other items relating to HBRIC Ltd.

Decision Making Process

8. 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:

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

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

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

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

8.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are in accordance with the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, 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 having conferring directly with the community through the 2014 Special Consultative Process.

2. Accepts the HBRIC Ltd recommendation that condition precedent 4 (following) has been met.

“…

8.3. advice from HBRIC Ltd that all Conditions Precedent to Financial Close of the investment by all investing parties in the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme Limited Partnership (RWLP) have been either satisfied or waived by agreement of the parties. These Conditions Precedent are:

…

8.3.4. Obtaining a bankable construction contract which adequately addresses construction risk allocation through a fixed-time, fixed-cost arrangement.”

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 25 November 2015

Subject: RWSS Financing Request of the Regional Council

Reason for Report

1. The annexed paper (Attachment 1) has been received from HBRIC Ltd. It seeks shareholder approval for an extension to the current approved borrowing level to finance RWSS activities incurred as a result of delays in Financial Close.

Discussion

2. In March 2015 Council approved HBRIC Ltd being able to borrow up to $2.0m for ongoing operational expenses for the RWSS up to Financial Close, which at the time was determined as four months after receipt of consents that are no longer subject to legal challenge.

3. As a result of a delay caused by the High Court judicial review process Financial Close is now expected to occur in the first quarter of 2016. The impact of the delay has meant that HBRIC Ltd requires further funding of $1,354k to meet additional costs through to Financial Close being costs associated with the DoC Fisheries and Land Exchange processes, additional operating expense for staff time and contracting support costs, and the requirement to undertake additional geotechnical investigations.

4. HBRIC Ltd has submitted a draft application for $922k of funding from MPI’s Irrigation Acceleration Fund and is hopeful that a decision on this funding request will be made in the near term.

5. After utilising available funds remaining in the current budget approved by Council in March 2015, and taking into consideration the funds being sought from MPI, additional funding of $432k is required by HBRIC Ltd to reach Financial Close.

6. HBRIC Ltd is requesting that Council approve an increase in the current approved borrowing level from $2.0m to $2.5m. $2.5m represents 1.06% of the balance sheet equity of HBRIC Ltd.

7. Any borrowing under this scenario would be required to be reported on by HBRIC Ltd during its regular update reporting to Council.

8. It is noted that any additional financing of the RWSS approved by Council will form part of HBRIC Ltd’s share of equity in the Ruataniwha Water Limited Partnership.

9. The HBRIC Ltd Chairman and Chief Executive will be attending the meeting to speak to this item.

Decision Making Process

10. 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:

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations

That Council:

2. Approves an increase in the RWSS budget by $1,354,000, of which $922,000 is being sought from the MPI Irrigation Acceleration Fund.

3. Approves HBRIC Ltd being able to increase its approved borrowing level from $2.0m to $2.5m.

4. Notes that, if the proposed borrowing is approved by Council, HBRIC Ltd will report on the extent of drawdown of debt finance and the purpose for which it has been used as part of its regular reporting to Council.

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

RWSS Financing Request

HBRIC Ltd November 2015 Update

Attachment 1

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED (HBRIC Ltd)

Report to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

25 November 2015

Summary

The focus of this report is the RWSS

RWSS development

Introduction

The focus of this report is on progress and actions towards meeting the conditions precedent for the RWSS.

Material progress is being made on consolidating and solving the key commercial work-streams that will enable the scheme to progress.

Given the initiation of the Forest & Bird judicial review of the Department of Conservation Land exchange and despite urgency there remains some uncertainty as to when this will be heard.

Finalising conditions precedent will slip into the first quarter of 2016. This eventuality has been signalled in previous reporting.

Water uptake progress

The 11 November 2015 date was set by the HBRIC Ltd Board as the date after which it would decide whether there was sufficient progress towards the water contracts Condition Precedent (CP) to justify continuation on the work streams for the other two remaining CPs (D&C contract and Investors).

We have consistently advised Council that the water uptake CP will be the last CP to be satisfied. That remains the case because meeting that CP requires that all the volume in the contracts can be supplied, which will not be known until after the D&C contract is agreed and the secondary distribution network has been specified in sufficient detail to be able to confirm supply to each contracting party.

The table below shows the volumes contracted at various dates in millions of cubic metres, from local land users and for CHB water supply.

For clarity, the CHB DC volume is in stage 5 as the CHB water take is still subject to consultation.

Contract stage	28/10	12/11	19/11 (date of report)	25/11 (to be advised at meeting)
6 (complete)	24.0	28.1	29.0
5 (c/party to sign)	11.8	8.4	9.3
6 + 5	35.8	36.5	38.3
4+3 (volume confirmed)	2.1	4.0	2.2
3 to 6 total	37.9	40.5	40.5
2+ 1 (in pipeline)	17.9	12.0	14.0

On 12 November we had 28.1 million cubic metres in signed contracts and 8.4 million awaiting only the counterparty signature, making up 36.5 million cubic metres which are certain or essentially so.

It is clear that steady progress has been made in increasing the volume in signed contracts (stage 6 increased by 4 million 28/10 to 12/11), and that the flow of contracts in the pipeline is being maintained from stages 1 & 2 through to stages 3 to 5, maintaining >14 million in those stages even though 4 million has moved from 5 to 6.

Of the 4.0 million cubic metres in stages 3 and 4, 2.9 million are in contracts where the counterparty only reached that stage on 9, 10 or 11 November, and for which they have orally indicated that they will confirm promptly. Adding that 2.9 million cubic metres to stages 5 and 6, on 12 November we had 39.4 million cubic metres (of the 40.5 in stages 3 to 6) for which we can be highly confident of completion. And, at 12 November we had 12 million cubic metres still in the pipeline to increase the total contracted volume from local land users.

We will provide a further update of the position as at 24 November during the meeting.

Based on the data at 12 and 19 November, we are confident that the formal CP of 40 million cubic metres will be met from local user demand, and that in the view of the Board it is clearly worthwhile continuing work on the other work-streams towards financial close.

We also consider that it is possible to increase the demand from local users who have committed to date by another 3-4 million cubic metres, if necessary, to meet the likely required volume in the order of 45 million cubic metres required for the financial target of being cash positive when water is supplied.

Further, in addition to demand from current local users, a number of external parties are well advanced in negotiations for significant volumes of water. In particular these external parties are focused on potential transactions with property owners in the “not progressing” category. We are also well-progressed on negotiations with some commercial parties to potentially underwrite water sales during the construction period if this proves to be of value. Such under-writes will be committed sales prior to Financial Close. From these two categories of contracts we are projecting volumes in the order of 5 million cubic metres, and it could be significantly more than that.

Based on the contracts which have been received up to 12 and 19 November; our expectations of volumes yet to be contracted to external parties and volumes to be under-written pre Financial Close; and the prospect that additional water sales to local users can be made; we are confident that we will achieve sufficient volume of contracted water, in the order of 45 million cubic metres, to achieve Financial Close with other investors.

Accordingly, we have decided that it is appropriate and prudent to continue work on achieving both the Design & Construction Contract CP and the Investor CP. We note again that, for the reason set out in paragraph 2, the water uptake CP will be the last to be confirmed.

Judicial review of DoC decision on Land Exchange

Justice Collins is managing the proceeding. Statements of defence were filed by both respondents on Friday, 13 November. HBRIC Ltd’s legal advisers are working closely with Crown Law. A teleconference with plaintiff and respondents has been set by Justice Collins for 8 December. As yet there is no definite information on a hearing date but that will likely be fixed on 8 December. Based on our legal advice and discussions with Crown Law we remain confident that the process for the exchange recommended and followed by the Department of Conservation in effecting the exchange is robust and defensible. We further note that the judicial review initiated by Forest & Bird is focused on process issues and technicalities and that the decision of the Director General that conservation values are enhanced by the exchange is not being challenged.

Design and Construction contract

A separate paper recommends to Council that it agree that the Condition Precedent of “Obtaining a bankable design and construction contract which adequately addresses construction risk allocation through a fixed-time, fixed-cost arrangement” (Council resolution of 26 June 2014) has been met.

Financing and Investors

Very good progress continues with three potential Investors and based on progress to date we believe that reaching a position of preferred investor(s) is possible prior to the end of the calendar year.

RWSS budget

A separate paper addresses the budget consequences of cost overruns in the DoC Fisheries and Land Exchange processes (which are beyond HBRIC Ltd’s control), and the consequences of delay, additional legal costs and additional staff and contractor time costs caused by the Judicial Review sought by Forest and Bird.

HBRIC LTD FINANCIAL REPORT

Table 1 sets out the October 2015 Financial Report for HBRIC Ltd.

The report sets out the actual costs incurred for both the month and the year to date against the full year budget to 30 June 2016 (operating) and project budget to 31 December 2015 (RWSS phase 2 development expenditure). Also provided for completeness is the rolling project reforecast which anticipates a Financial Close date in the first quarter of 2016.

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

OPERATING INCOME & EXPENDITURE

There was a total of $37,173 of operating expenditure in the month of October with a breakdown of these costs set out as follows:

- $14,500 for Board Fees for the Chairman and four non-executive Directors.

- $14,139 for Management Services provided by HBRC staff.

- $2,000 for Consultancy Fees which includes fees for the independent RWS Board Committee member for the month of October, and professional fees for the preparation of the HBRIC Ltd 2015 Income Tax Return.

- $6,534 for other expenditure which includes meeting expenses, travel and expenditure for Directors and the independent RWS Board Committee member, and accruals for audit fees and insurance.

RWSS PHASE 2 DEVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE

The total RWSS Phase 2 Development Expenditure budget to 31 December 2015 reflects the most recent funding request approved by Council on 25 March 2015.

Details of the expenditure for the month of October are set out below:

RWSS Phase 2 Costs ($254,070)

The $50,894 of HBRC internal staff time for October covers a number of work streams including:

- Input into DOC land exchange and fish dispensation applications and processes.

- Ongoing investor negotiations.

- Work associated with environmental compliance.

- Work associated with identifying and quantifying downstream user opportunities.

- Input into various due diligence studies.

- Input into landowner negotiations.

- Ongoing project management.

$14,898 for Commercial Legal & Tax Advisory services for the month of October mainly relating to the review of documents for the D&C procurement and contracting work stream and advice on the investor structure and related documentation.

$21,177 of costs for work associated with due diligence studies which will be in part relied on by other investors.

$8,290 of costs for landowner negotiations which relates to various landowner meetings and negotiations.

$42,758 of external consultant and direct costs from DoC for work associated with the approvals for land exchange and fisheries dispensation which have been lodged with the DoC.

$5,990 of costs for environmental compliance mainly relating to costs associated with further analysis of channel efficiencies in the Tukituki and Waipawa Rivers as a means of conveying irrigation water to irrigation zones and other potential downstream users.

$29,113 of technical engineering support costs which includes general D&C support, management of the technical due diligence study, various correspondences with the JV regarding the D&C price revalidation, and oversight of the O&M review.

$54,388 of Water Contract & Sales Advisory costs which includes work undertaken by the sales team in progressing the water uptake work stream.

$26,562 of Other Consultants & Miscellaneous costs.

PROJECT REFORECAST

The RWSS Project Reforecast to Q1 2016, as set out in Table 1, reflects the most recent budget reforecast undertaken by HBRIC Ltd in November 2015.

The increase in total development expenditure in this reforecast is $1,552k, noting this is different to the $1,354k outlined in the RWSS Financing Request paper due to $198k of the Board of Inquiry Referral costs being funded by Council which were the share of costs specifically relating to the Tukituki Plan Change.

Further detail on the background to this reforecast is set out in Agenda Item 12 – RWSS Financing Request of the Regional Council.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 25 November 2015

Subject: Guidance Notes for Hearing Panel Members for Time Cost Recovery

Reason for Report

1. To clarify, for Councillors, what expenses they are able to claim for when acting as a Hearing Panel commissioner.

Background

2. Councillors and Maori Committee members serving on resource consent hearing panels are entitled to payment for their time and travel expenses in accordance with the Local Government Act and the Remuneration Authority Act. The Remuneration Authority have issued a determination which came into force on 1 July 2015 advising on eligibility and entitlements.

Eligibility and Guidance Notes

3. All Councillors and Maori Committee members are eligible for payment of fees for participating as commissioners at a resource consent hearing. The exception is that the Chairman of the Regional Council is not entitled to payment, unless application is made to the Remuneration Authority in exceptional circumstances. Exceptional circumstances may include a newly elected council largely comprises inexperienced councillors, or if there is a significant hearing of lengthy duration.

4. Staff have prepared guidance notes on entitlements. These are attached to this report and will be included in the material provided to councillors and Maori Committee members on resource consent hearing panels upon appointment for each Hearing Panel, at the beginning of each Hearing process.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

1. That Council receives the “Guidance Notes for Hearing Panel Members for Time and Cost Recovery” report.

Louise McPhail

Hearings Coordinator

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

1	Hearing Panel Member Guidance Notes for Making Claims
2	Hearing Panel Member Timekeeping Form
3	Hearing Panel Member Claim Form

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 25 November 2015

Subject: Enviroschools Hawke's Bay

Reason for Report

1. To provide Council with an update on Enviroschools Hawke’s Bay including highlights from the nationwide census.

2. To introduce our Central Hawke’s Bay Enviroschools facilitator, Haana Wilcox to Council.

Background

3. The kaupapa of Enviroschools is to create a healthy, peaceful, sustainable world through people teaching and learning together.

4. Five Guiding Principles run throughout the Enviroschools programme: Empowered Students, Sustainable Communities, Learning for Sustainability, Māori Perspectives and Respect for the Diversity of People and Culture.

5. Students are encouraged to be involved in all of school life, taking action and changing the physical place, practices and ways of interacting in their school.

6. Hastings Central School were the first school to join Hawke’s Bay’s programme in 2003. They are still an active enviroschool. We now have 50 schools and kindergartens as part of our Hawke’s Bay whanau from Te Mahia School in the north, to Flemington School in the south of our region.

7. Funding for the programme comes from two main contributors Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Nina Brathwaite Trust who have both committed $21,000 per annum through to 2018. This allows for 3 part-time facilitators to provide support to students and teachers across our network.

8. Some funding is also received from the Toimata Foundation’s (previously Enviroschools Foundation) Regional Capacity Building fund. This additional funding supports teacher workshops, student events and some professional development.

Census Highlights (copy available on request)

9. At the end of 2014 Toimata Foundation commissioned Kinnect Group to undertake an independent survey. To date this was the largest Education for Sustainability survey undertaken in New Zealand Schools.

9.1. The return rate of 73% exceeded expectations.

9.2. At the time of the survey there were 980 Enviroschools in New Zealand – that’s 31% of all schools (Dec 2014).

9.3. 256,000 children and young people attend an Enviroschool.

9.4. 40% of students are reported to be actively involved – approx. 100,000.

9.5. Around 30% of that group are in planning and decision-making roles – approx. 30,000.

9.6. Collaborations with the community are linked to deeper levels of practice

9.7. Enviroschools works for all deciles

9.8. The level of support for Enviroschools in a school or ECE centre links to the degree of increased outcomes.

“What has been the most valuable change as a result of your involvement in Enviroschools”?

9.8.1. ”Empowered students identifying and leading change in schools & family practices”

9.8.2. “Awareness and pride in our place”

9.8.3. “Has brought wider community into the school for activities.”

9.8.4. “Embraces school vision statement”.

9.8.5. “Understanding international issues and global concerns.”

The Enviroschools Programme – Evaluation report (August 2015) (copy available on request)

9.9. This report presents a range of findings on the value of the Enviroschools Programme, in particular addressing the question: How well does the Enviroschools Programme enable effective Education for Sustainability in Aotearoa New Zealand?

9.10. The evaluation findings indicate that Enviroschools is a high-performing programme. The Enviroschools Programme has substantial reach and coverage in New Zealand schools and ECE centres. The programme is student-centred and focuses on developing students’ passion and commitment to sustainability. Further, through the Enviroschools Programme, school/ centres and communities are also motivated to make and maintain sustainable action and change.

Conclusion

10. The Enviroschools programme is in good health in our region. We continue to work with schools to embed practices.

11. Their journeys are reflected on and celebrated as they reach stated milestones.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

1. That Council receives and takes note of the Enviroschools presentation and report.

Sally Chandler

Community Engagement Coordinator

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 25 November 2015

SUBJECT: Monthly Work Plan Looking Forward Through December 2015

Reason for Report

1. The table below is provided for Councillors’ information, to provide them with an indication of issues and activities coming up over the next month in each area of Council.

Group	Area of Activity	Activity Status Update
CE’s Office		1. RSG meeting and Strategy session 2. HB Local Government Leaders Forum 3. Preparation of agendas for Maori committee and Council.
External Relations		4. MarComms will coordinate HBRC Christmas messages 5. East Coast LAB – launch of project website 1 December
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Coastal	6. Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Strategy technical work progressing. Next Joint Committee scheduled 27 Nov. Feedback from stakeholders at a series of meetings with at the end of October, and Draft Strategy, together with a timeline for the completion of Stage 1 of the Strategy development, will be considered. Some technical issues with inundation data will delay the release of this information.
	Biosecurity	7. Cape to City 2nd tranche of wireless trap trials will be delivered in the field. Toxo sampling on C2C properties completed with 30% toxo levels in feral cats and mice. 2015-16 research programme with Landcare research (14 separate research initiatives) has been finalised and contracted. 8. Council participating in high performance manuka primary growth partnership through shareholding in Manuka Research Partnership Limited (MRPL). Commercialisation of MRPL continues. 9. Remaining biosecurity contracts for baitstation set up in TBFree areas transitioning to PCAs will be contracted in November / December.
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Land Management	10. Community meeting 2 December at Otane seeking public feedback on the draft Papanui sub-catchment strategy - the culmination of 2 years of significant work for LM staff, iwi and local landholders. 11. Balance Farm Environment award judging is being carried out by staff throughout the region. 12. Meeting with Mohaka catchment stakeholders is being held to consider the Mohaka catchment science report and provide an update the catchment planning process. 13. 2 day workshop scheduled early December, looking at building capacity of HBRC staff & FEMP providers to provide guidance to landholders on the management of waterways & phosphorus for ecological health & mauri benefits. 14. Staff actively visiting land owners in the priority Porangahau stream & Maharakeke sub-catchments of the Tukituki to promote early uptake of FEMPs and build understanding of the issues & social networks for future development of the Porangahau stream/Maharakeke sub-catchment strategy. 15. Follow up workshops and meetings as a result of the East Coast Hill Country conference to be held in Wairoa, Gisborne, Masterton and Napier, with a range of different stakeholders, to capitalise on the momentum from the event.
	Engineering	16. Westshore renourishment work commenced at the beginning of October and was completed at the beginning of November. 17. Tenders for Taipo realignment project were closed on 22 October and considered by the Council tenders Committee on 4^th November. Scope for the contractor to determine the most suitable start date has been included. Contractor to start on 18^th January 2016 with completion on 19^th February 2016. 18. Major river stopbank upgrade works on Waipaoa River, Gisborne (GDC) due to start this year with project management structure formalised at workshop held in October. This work is ongoing. 19. Hawea Park negotiations with hapu continuing. Recent Maori Land Land court decision has enabled reserve status to be lifted off critical titles to enable land purchase arrangements to be made. Offers on land accepted by current owners and land purchase underway. 20. A meeting has been held with gravel extractors in the region to update them of progress on the gravel study and issues arising. Gravel report for the Upper Tukituki scheme complete for discussion with scheme ratepayers. 21. The Upper Tukituki Scheme rating options are being reviewed to take back to the scheme ratepayers
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Open Spaces	22. Pakowhai Regional Park toilet to be constructed December / January. 23. HBRC Regional Park Network Plan nominated for the New Zealand Recreation Association “Outstanding Plan award”. Staff will not be attending awards evening. Outcome unknown at time of writing. 24. Waitangi Estuary Enhancement detailed planning in progress and E&SC to be updated 9 December. 25. Tutira Maungaharuru Forum meeting 17 December at Blue McMillan’s Woolshed, 10am – 12pm. 26. Maungaharuru-Tangitu Trust Te Mana o Te Wai fund application progressed to Stage 2. Final decision in February 2016. Staff assisting in Stage 2 application. 27. Owners of lands at the northern end of Lake Tutira are highly likely to terminate public and local authority access early in 2016 after the current F&G lease expires.
Resource Management	Compliance	28. Te Mata Mushrooms Ltd prosecution continues, with the company pleading not guilty to 6 charges of discharging offensive & objectionable odour beyond the boundary. Additional 4 charges have been laid for offenses since the first prosecution was initiated. All charges will be heard at the Not Guilty Hearing in Hastings District Court on 18 April 2016. Complaints continue to be made about the odours from the property & are expected to continue until the matter is resolved in the Court.
	Science	29. Coastal: An RfP has been published to develop a marine science gaps analysis and strategy looking at RC-based functions that may impact on fisheries habitat and abundance. 30. Investigations into the upper Ahuriri Estuary habitat decline are underway. 31. Ahuriri catchment water quality investigations is currently underway. 32. Biosecurity survey of Inner Harbour fanworm is planned. 33. Recreational Water Quality Monitoring Programme was started early November. 34. Land Science: Soil Quality Monitoring programme 2015/16 scheduled to commence in November investigating Commercial forestry and native bush soils. 35. New ‘in-house’ S-map data layer available on HBRC internal GIS system. 36. Hydrology: New modelling environment for upper surface water catchments in TANK area being developed. 37. Groundwater: Continued development of the Heretaunga Plains surface and groundwater model.
Resource Management	Consents	38. CD960330Wf Pan Pac Application to extend their coastal outfall and relocate the point of discharge. Appeal lodged opposing the decision 13 October 2015. Delegation sought to negotiate settlement. 39. DP150070A C.P.M. Asphalt Limited to discharge to air from an asphalt plant at Omahu Road. Decision issued 13 November. 40. Ngaruroro group of applicants. To replace expiring resource consents to take water from the Ngaruroro River and adjacent groundwater. First prehearing held on 2 September & 2nd proposed December 41. WP140331T Twyford irrigation group proposal to take emergency water via the global consent. Prehearing held 15 October 2015. Further pre-hearing proposed December.
Strategic Development	Resource Management Planning	42. TANK Stakeholder Group meeting #18 held 10 November. Short-term future of full TANK Group meetings was key discussion topic. Fuller update on TANK Group and wider TANK plan change project to be presented to Council in December. 43. Revised programme to progressively implement the NPS for Freshwater Management was presented to the RPC 4 November meeting, and revised programme to be published before 31 December 2015. 44. In October, Hastings DC issued decisions on proposed district plan submissions. HBRC staff assessed decisions and concluded no appeal necessary on HBRC’s submission points. Meanwhile, over 40 appeals have been lodged by other submitters. In 11 of those appeals, there are matters of interest to HBRC’s roles and responsibilities so HBRC has applied to the Environment Court to join those 11 appeal proceedings. 45. Napier CC has issued its decisions on District Plan Change 10. No appeal lodged by HBRC, but HBRC has joined as interested party to an appeal by Surveying the Bay Ltd. NCC is working with the appellant & another party on direct negotiations in the short-term. 46. Review of Heretaunga Plains Urban Development Strategy (HPUDS) is underway. Consultant to project manage review has been engaged. A Review work programme will be circulated to Implementation Working Group members early December in lieu of actual Working Group meeting.
Strategic Development	Transport	47. Investigations are underway into a number of potential bus service improvements which were requested through the development of the Regional Public Transport Plan. 48. The Transport Advisory Group, which advises the Regional Transport Committee, has commenced a series of meetings to start developing the strategic direction for the next regional transport plan. 49. Staff have been involved in a national working group to identify options for the distribution of SuperGold card funding from 2016-17. Future funding has been set at the 2015-16 level with CPI adjustments only, meaning there is no allowance for growth in the number of users of the scheme. 50. Investigations are underway into the potential re-direction of an NZTA funding allocation into addressing driver licensing issues in Hawke’s Bay. This allocation was approved in the National Land Transport Programme 2015-18 for a range of road safety education projects, but was unable to be used because of limited local share funds. If 25% local funding can be raised, the allocation could be put towards driver licensing programmes. The high number of unlicensed or partially licensed drivers and the difficulty in obtaining a licence has been a topic of concern in the region.
Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management Group	Developing Capability	51. The major focus for the CDEM Group for the last quarter of the year is to complete the exercise process for Te Matau a Maui, a regional earthquake exercise ran over 11/12 Nov. This involves a recovery exercise based on the results of the response and the cold de-brief for the exercise itself. The exercise report will be produced by January and the corrective actions raised will be feed into the Group work program. 52. The other area of focus is the ongoing recruitment of new staff. The recruitment process will be completed over the next couple of weeks with new staff expected to commence in January.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

1. That Council receives the Monthly Work Plan Looking Forward Through December 2015 report.

Mike Adye

Group Manager
Asset Management

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller Hawke's Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 25 November 2015

Subject: Chairman's Monthly Report for October-November

Reason for Report

1. The report presented by the chairman at the monthly Council meeting has traditionally been an account of the month’s activities, meetings etc. of the Chairman presented on the day. Following feedback from Regional Councillors at recent meetings I believe there is more relevance in presenting a report that provides a forum for discussion on issues that are current at that time. I am keen to update this to a report which looks forward to issues of importance for HBRC.

2. The new focus of the Chairman’s report is to bring matters of a higher level to the Council table for discussion and to seek input from Councillors on those matters. A very helpful discussion at last week’s Corporate and Strategic Committee ahead of the combined gathering of the five Hawke’s Bay councils is a good example of where I would like to position the Chairman’s report.

3. This report may change or grow over time, but in this instance I believe it is a ‘starter for 10’ and useful to get in front of the council this month for feedback and comment.

Discussion

4. One of the roles the Chairman of Council performs is the interface between this council and the many and varied stakeholders we interact with on a daily basis. A current example is the post amalgamation discussion around where to from here following the result of the binding poll. It is no secret that even though our people didn’t want to amalgamate all the councils they expect us to work collaboratively and regionally on more issues than we currently do.

5. The joint meeting of Councils on the 30 November is the starting point for rebuilding the image of HB. We have an amazing opportunity to leverage off the fantastic growth and fortune currently being experienced by our primary industries.

6. The Mayors and I have agreed that Councils should consider a significant strengthening of regional collaboration and shared services initiatives and the meeting next week (30 November) will consider how these should be prioritised. I am sure all the councils will bring to the meeting examples of work areas they believe should be included in the priorities and this will be worked out during the meeting.

7. Where I believe our discussions at the Corporate and Strategic Committee took us was to identifying that how we work together going forward is as important as what we work on.

8. The Triennial Agreement provides a good basis for how we should be working together. The following principles have been agreed to by the signatories.

8.1. Acknowledge that the communities within the Region are diverse and encompass a range of desired outcomes and objectives.

8.2. Support the establishment of processes for communication and collaboration at both governance and management levels in ways that will enhance the overall performance and reputation of local government in the region.

8.3. Recognise that collaboration and co-operation between local authorities of the Region can bring efficiencies in terms of planning, administration costs and decision-making and consultation. It also has the potential to increase available resources and promote co-operative approaches in making strategic choices.

8.4. Will investigate further opportunities for collaboration, co-operation and shared services between local authorities of the Region in addition to those prescribed by statute or already being undertaken.

8.5. Agree that collaborative or shared services opportunities may occur between two or more parties to this Agreement, but not in every case between all parties to this Agreement. Although collaboration and co-operation are outcomes that should be strived for, each local authority has the legislative mandate to govern their own area as appropriate.

8.6. Will make every effort to accommodate, acknowledge, or at least fairly represent the dissenting view where some parties to this Agreement have a significant disagreement with the position of other parties to the Agreement.

8.7. Will show leadership to ensure the implementation of this Agreement makes a positive difference for Hawke’s Bay.

9. Our opportunity going forward is to reinforce these principles with actions. Examples of this could be things such as (but not limited to):

9.1. Plan advocacy and alignment

9.2. Regional funding of agreed regional activities

9.3. Coherent regional information services

9.4. Alignment of tourism efforts in the Bay

9.5. Better understanding of the big ticket items we grapple with as individual councils, i.e. the three waters.

10. I also say with certainty, the councils of Hawke’s Bay need to maintain their own identity and answer the needs of their individual communities. That is reinforced by the outcome of the amalgamation poll. However if we don’t put our efforts together around regional issues and opportunities we are squandering opportunities that other regions will grasp with glee. The future is in our hands.

Decision Making Process

11. As there are no decisions to be made, the decision making process does not apply.

Recommendation

1. That the Chairman’s report for October-November 2015 be received.

There are no attachments for this report.

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