Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

Meeting of the Hawke's Bay Regional Council

Date: Wednesday 16 December 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 25 November 2015

4. Matters Arising from Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on 25 November 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 Environment and Services Committee Meeting Held 9 December 2015 13

9. Consents Delegations Manual Update 15

10. Review of Section 36 Charges 37

11. Scope for Deloitte RWSS Business Case Peer Review 43

12. Update on the Greater Heretaunga (TANK) Stakeholder Group 47

13. Waipukurau Forest Lease Agreement 79

14. CPM Asphalt Ltd Appeal Delegations 93

Information or Performance Monitoring

15. HB Tourism Quarterly Report (9.10am) 95

16. HBRIC Ltd December 2015 Update 111

17. Report from the 8 December 2015 Maori Committee Meeting

18. Annual Plan 2016-17 Requirements of the Local Government Act, Proposed Approach and Timelines 117

19. Update on Napier-Gisborne Rail Line 121

20. Members' Register of Interests for Confirmation 125

21. Chairman's Report for November-December 2015 129

22. Minor Items not on the Agenda 137

Decision Items (Public Excluded)

23. Confirmation of Public Excluded Minutes of the Regional Council Meeting held on 25 November 2015 139

24. Interim Chief Executive Remuneration Review 141

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 16 December 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 71

DP 13096

CT E3/516

- Transfer

1.1.2 Lot 66

DP 10912

CT D4/921

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.3 Lot 2

DP 14960

CT G4/476

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

1.1.4 Lot 68

DP 14450

CT G2/725

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.5 Lot 41

DP 14224

CT F4/1488

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

3865

3866

3869

3867

3874

3868

3870

23 November 2015

1 December 2015

26 November 2015

8 December 2015

1 December 2015

1.2

Staff Warrants

1.2.1 P Hodgkinson

E Smith

(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)

3871

3872

1 December 2015

1.3

Earthworks Contract

Taipo Stream at Park Island Realignment and Enhancement

Contract No: 13-08-4747c

3873

1 December 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 in relation to this item and have concluded:

2.1 Sections 97 and 88 of the Act do not apply

2.2 Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 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 Significance and Engagement Policy, and that Council can exercise its discretion 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.

2. Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 16 December 2015

Subject: Consents Delegations Manual Update

Reason for Report

1. Changes to the RMA via the Resource Management Amendment Act 2013 (RMAA 2013) have introduced some further areas of discretion that should be incorporated into the consents delegations manual. This will ensure officers can exercise the necessary day to day functions required under the RMA.

2. This report identifies the changes that are proposed.

Legislative Changes

3. RMAA 2013 introduced changes in three stages. The last of these became effective on 3 March 2013. A key a focus of the latest changes was to establish a six-month time frame for processing notified consent applications.

4. One key amendment has been to the extent of time that an applicant can place their consent application on hold (suspend). Prior to 3 March a consent application could sit on hold indefinitely at the request of the applicant. Now s 91A to 91C sets out the process for suspension of applications at the applicant’s request and this includes a time limit. This time should not exceed 130 working days. At the end of this period the Council has to make a decision either to return the application (which means it must be resubmitted from the start) or to continue to process the application.

5. This may arise where an applicant has asked for a suspension while they obtain more information that has been identified as necessary to support their case in the lead up to a hearing. If this information is not provided by the time the application process has been suspended for 130 working days the Council must decide whether to continue with or to return the application. Staff are seeking delegation to be able to exercise this discretion.

6. An addition is proposed to delegations under s99(1) to (3) for prehearing meetings. Council has had some success with this process. It has resolved the Hastings Coastal waste water discharge and the Thames Tyne stormwater discharge via the pre hearing process. This addition to the delegations manual is to clarify that when arranging a prehearing meeting officers through these delegations may require that people attend. This option has some power as if people who are required to attend fail to attend Council may decline to consider their application or submission. Delegation already sits with officers to do this.

Delegation manual changes

7. The delegations manual is attached and amendments are shown with additions underlined and deletions crossed out.

8. Changes are proposed to the following Sections.

Table 1

Section	Change	Reason
88(3) and 88(3A)	To reflect a minor wording amendment to the Act.	Consistency with the RMA
91C(2)	To enable the decision to return an application or continue processing after suspension of 130 days.	The RMA limits the time that an application can be on hold at the applicant’s request. A decision on how it is to be processed has to be made at this point.
97(4)	To adopt an earlier closing date for submissions when all possible submissions have been received.	Allows an application to be proceeded with sooner than might otherwise occur.
99(1) to (3)	To clarify that when arranging a prehearing meeting, officers may exercise discretion to require people to attend.	This ensures that a pre-hearing meeting is not arranged and then parties fail to attend. There is discretion to decline to process a consent or to consider a submission if people do not attend a prehearing meeting when they have been required to do so. Delegation to exercise this discretion already exists under s99(8).
357C(1)	To allow a longer time to make an objection against costs if appropriate.	This provision was introduced in 2009 but was overlooked as a matter which could be delegated.

9. There are also some minor changes to notes for staff.

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 in relation to this item and have concluded:

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 the amendments to the Consents Delegation manual as detailed in Table 1.

Charlotte Drury

Principal Consents Officer

Malcolm Miller

Manager Consents

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

Consents Delegations Manual

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 16 December 2015

Subject: Review of Section 36 Charges

Reason for Report

1. This report updates Council on progress following a request to investigate stakeholder views regarding the current charging methodology for recovering Section 36 Science charges.

2. As part of the LTP consultation, Council sought opinion on consent holder preference for regional or zone based charges for Section 36 science cost recovery. The limited number of responses received did not provide a clear indication of a preferred charging model, or a desire to change the existing model.

3. Staff have subsequently sought additional feedback from consent holders

4. This report summarises the views of consent holders who responded to a survey, and who attended a series of public meetings held in October 2015.

Background

5. Section 36 charges are levied against the holders of Resource Consents. In 2010 HBRC consulted widely on a charging methodology that was equitable, transparent and reflected a move to charges being aligned to area of activity and proportionate to consent conditions.

6. Following billing in 2014 and 2015, concerns were expressed by a range of consent holders that it was difficult to budget based on unknown and fluctuating annual charges. HBRC was asked to consider a fixed annual regional charge and second, to provide greater transparency and reporting on the science work that was being charged for. Following the billing round in July HBRC received 109 telephone calls between 19 July and 2 September. The majority of calls were regarding new metering charges for 10-20 l/s takes who were getting a bill for the first time and required clarification and explanation of the charges.

7. As part of the LTP process this year submissions were sought on an option to introduce regional rather than zone based charges. The feedback from the LTP consultation did not give a clear indication of the need for change. Only ten submissions were received and of those 40% respondents favoured a regional charge, 40% were against and 20% had no view. The low number of submissions could suggest a low level of engagement, or concern on the topic. However, every consent holder paying S36 charges was subsequently invited to comment via a follow-up survey, (see Fig.1) and through a series of public meetings conducted throughout the region in October.

8. In summary, the additional surveying and face to face meetings have not given a clear indication of a preference for either a regional or zone based charge. Both options are described in this report and should Council wish to make a change (to a regional charge) then this would be introduced and consulted on as part of the 2016-17 Annual Planning process.

9. As part of the consultation it was identified that there are improvements to the annual S36 process that can be made to address concerns around fairness and transparency.

9.1. where low numbers of consent holders disproportionately attract higher charges

9.2. where the pollution index weighting overloads charging proportionate to possible environmental impact

9.3. the annual plan should include estimated S36 charges based on budgeted activity for the year ahead, to give an indication of the likely retrospective charge.

Figure 1. October survey

10. 1719 surveys were sent to consent holders liable for S36 charges either by post or email, 195 responded. The 11% survey response indicates a low level of engagement with the issue. Of those responding to the survey, 50.8% were in favour of a regional charge. Primary Industry representatives (HB Fruit Growers) however favoured retaining the zone based charge.

11. 85% were in favour of an annual retrospective charge (status quo) and 38.5% considered fairness as a priority followed by 27% considering transparency as most important.

Thirty five attended public meetings in Central Hawke’s Bay and Hastings

12. At the meetings Copies of Trends (the monthly SOE report) and the recently published five yearly SOE report were circulated. Explanation was given for science ‘business as usual’ programme and variation on this in the zones for science work by year. The financial impact of changing from zone to regional charging was demonstrated as follows for the consent types that attract S36 charges.

Note Type of consent, $ value, and number of consents per zone. The red line is the average, or regional charge. Small numbers of consents attract higher charges.

13. Primary Industry groups were also consulted for comments, the largest group being via the Horticultural Sector liaison group. An example of feedback is: “The HBFA Executive have indicated a preference to continue with the status quo for section 36 charges being applied to individual zones and that the parties tasked with funding the studies (science work) are engaged in the development of joint research plan prior to studies being conducted, and that clear information of costs is provided to the funders for budgeting purposes.”

Movement in charges by type of consent

Consent type	Zones with reduced charges	Zones with increased charges
Take GW	Wairoa, Mohaka, Esk	Heretaunga, Tukituki, Porangahau, Southern Coast
Discharge to Land	Wairoa, Mohaka, Esk, Tukituki, Porangahau	Heretaunga, Southern Coast
Take SW	Wairoa, Esk, Tukituki, Porangahau	Mohaka, Heretaunga, Southern Coast
Discharge to Water	Mohaka	Wairoa, Esk, Heretaunga, Tukituki, Porangahau, Southern Coast
Take Hydro	Southern Coastal	Wairoa, Esk, Heretaunga

High level comparison of costs by zone 2013 - 2014 - 2015

Zone	2013 $000	2014 $000	2015 $000
1 Wairoa	65,448	146,356	98,144
2 Mohaka	28,664	92,957	89,609
3 Esk	29,709	115,739	47,556
4 Heretaunga	604,705	594,148	763,833
5 Tukituki	447,801	333,411	351,053
6 Porangahau	2,603	10,702	12,397
7 Southern Coast	16,008	27,092	34,867
Total (rounded)	1.2m	1.3m	1.4m

Conclusions from the consultation

14. When consent holders have a greater understanding of the S36 charging methodology they are more comfortable with the current charging model.

15. Those who want change to a regional charge are likely to want to reduce their charge.

16. Charging that isn't the same for everyone is perceived as unfair, but any charging that doesn’t support a graduated user pay principle reflecting personal gain, is also unfair.

17. There is certainly a need to 'talk more - listen more' to stakeholders but not necessarily change what we do. The 'customer' wants empathy with recognition that their view is important.

Decision Making Process

18. 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 in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

18.3. The decision has been considered in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and consulted on directly with Resource Consent holders who pay section 36 charges, as well as the wider community through the Long Term Plan 2015-25 consultation process.

18.4. The persons affected by this decision are consent holders.

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

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

Recommendations

That Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted 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. That staff are encouraged to continue a productive dialogue with stakeholders and make any minor changes to S36 charging that will improve perception, performance and prompt payment of S36 charges.

3. Instructs staff (if any change to S36 charging methodology is required) to include a proposal as part of the annual planning process for 2016-17 that sets out the preferred S36 charging model.

Mark Heaney

Client Services Manager

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager
Resource Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 16 December 2015

Subject: Update on the Greater Heretaunga (TANK) Stakeholder Group

Reason for Report

1. In the 2009-2019 and 2012-2022 Long Term Plans, Council committed to preparing a Heretaunga Plan Change to review minimum flows and water allocation, and to set water quality limits.

2. The Hawke’s Bay Land and Water Management Strategy (LWMS) (2011) identified the Heretaunga Plains/Ngaruroro catchment as a priority catchment for Council’s immediate work programmes.

3. The resulting plan change aims to provide an integrated approach to managing the Tutaekuri, Ahuriri, Ngaruroro and Karamu catchments by addressing:

3.1. Managing sustainable river levels and determining acceptable low flows

3.2. Establishing catchment limits (water allocation, water quality)

3.3. Considering opportunities for economic development and improved water security associated with possible water storage.

4. Technical evidence required to inform the Plan Change includes:

4.1. Surface water and groundwater hydrology – development of naturalised flows and hydrological statistics

4.2. Instream habitat requirements

4.3. Catchment nutrient modelling – current state and impacts of land use on water quality

4.4. Cultural values and uses

4.5. Instream and economic values assessment and identification of management objectives

4.6. Setting minimum flows based on management objectives and implications for users and environmental values

4.7. Setting of water allocation limits and implications for existing users and environmental values

4.8. Setting of water quality limits and implications for catchment loading and land management practices.

TANK Plan Change Stakeholder Engagement Process

5. The TANK Plan Change process requires a considerable amount of community engagement. One of the fundamentals of this consultation is the TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group (the TANK Group).

6. The TANK Group was formed in 2012 and Terms of Reference (ToR) were adopted for the operation of the group. The ToR were reviewed in October 2014 and adopted by Council. They are based on a new form of decision making that has been proposed by the Land and Water Forum for the development and review of policies and rules on freshwater management.

7. While retaining its responsibility as the decision-maker under the RMA, in keeping with best-practice in collaborative processes, Council (through the Regional Planning Committee) has given a good faith undertaking, in advance, to implement a consensus outcome, as long as it is consistent with the RMA, LWMS, RPS and LTP.

8. An independent facilitator is engaged to help design and run an effective process; this has enabled Council to actively participate in the process while avoiding perceptions that it is controlling the meetings to deliver a predetermined outcome. HBRC’s “hands off” approach to the process was also partly in response to past criticism of overly dominating processes and outcomes.

9. Now with the experience of several years of operating a number of drawbacks to the extensive collaborative process have been unveiled. One of these is around the role of the Council and a desire to now see HBRC take a stronger lead in the TANK Group.

10. A number of other issues have also been identified through feedback and the purpose of this paper is to take stock of the TANK Group progress to date and discuss the way forward for the stakeholder engagement process.

TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group’s Terms of Reference

11. A copy of the “Greater Heretaunga/Ahuriri Plan Change Process: An Engagement Plan” (February 2015) is attached for reference. It includes the Terms of Reference for the TANK Group as Appendix B.

Key issues arising

12. There are lots of ‘moving parts’ in the TANK plan change project. Some of the key issues arising in recent times include the following:

12.1. TANK Group leadership

12.2. Regional Council roles in TANK plan change and TANK Group

12.3. HBRC Science work programme for TANK catchments

12.4. Resource Management Act reforms

12.5. Stakeholder and hapu/iwi engagement

12.6. Imminent prospect of an application being lodged with Environment Minister for a water conservation order (‘WCO’) applying to the Ngaruroro River catchment.

13. Each of these key issues are discussed in the following sections.

Key Issue – TANK Group leadership

14. During the past few TANK Group meetings, the issue of Group leadership has arisen. Some TANK Group members remain apprehensive of the style, form and style of leadership currently employed within the TANK Group. The 2‐3 monthly TANK Group meeting frequencies are proving less than satisfactory for some TANK Group members and HBRC staff supporting the project. Discussions and the choices to be made in a forum of over 30 members is also not straightforward.

15. The Group’s discussions regarding ‘leadership’ over the past two meetings have traversed the need for a Chair, the merits of an independent Chair versus a Chair selected from the Group’s existing members, or something else.

16. Looking at arrangements of other regions’ collaborative groups discussing freshwater planning, there is no clear pattern or practice regarding the role and personnel involved in facilitating and/or chairing group meetings. Certainly the TANK Group has the largest membership (currently 31 members) of those collaborative groups active in other regions. Most other groups have between 10 and 15 members.

17. At Meeting #18 (the last meeting held for 2015), the Group again discussed a proposal for a Chairperson to the appointed for the Group. The proposal for Peter Beaven to take on the role of Group Chairman was not accepted by the Group members (for a variety of reasons). However, those members present at Meeting #18 did recommend that Peter Beaven take on a role of “interim co-ordinator” of the TANK Group for the next meeting. No date has yet been set for the next meeting but it will be sometime in the first half of 2016.

18. Some TANK Group members did express a word of caution that a Chairperson should not have a conflict of interest. A concern was expressed that Peter Beaven might have a conflict, or be perceived to have a bias – to what exactly was not explicitly described. The ‘Making Good Decisions’ guidebook (2013 revised edition) sets out good practice guidance and natural justice principles for would-be RMA hearings panel members. However, the guidebook does not offer any guidance on ‘conflicts’ relating to those pre-notification phases of preparing a RMA plan (or plan change).

19. The ‘Making Good Decisions’ guidebook does note that “the conflict of interest requirements in regard to natural justice are far broader and more extensive than those covered by the Local Authorities (Members Interests) Act… Good practice therefore requires a higher standard of personal scrutiny for councillors sitting as RMA decision-makers” – although for clarity, the role of ‘interim TANK Group co-ordinator’ would not be akin to Cr Peter Beaven “sitting as a RMA decision-maker.”

20. Another matter partly related ‘Group leadership’ is irregular participation of some members. David Carlton from Department of Conservation’s Napier Branch has advised the TANK project leader that DOC is re-assessing the degree of their participation in the TANK Group. Mr Carlton advises he is likely to reach a conclusion in the New Year. Management staffing changes at the Hawke's Bay Branch of Fish and Game has continued HBF&G’s intermittent involvement in the TANK Group (a Rotorua-based F&G officer is an interim member for now).

21. Meanwhile, Councillors are probably already aware that Fish and Game (NZ) and the Royal Forest and Bird Society of New Zealand have withdrawn from the Land and Water Forum – citing that process being “more superficial than substantial” and had “essentially compelled [them] to resign.” It is unclear at present what sort of signal this might give to F&G’s and Forest and Bird’s involvement in the TANK Group and other regions’ collaborative groups discussing land and freshwater management issues.

Key Issue – Regional council roles in TANK plan change and TANK Group

22. The TANK Group’s Terms of Reference outline the Regional Council’s role, the roles of HBRC staff, plus the role of the three elected regional councillors who are members of the TANK Group.

23. Researchers studying national and international examples of collaborative-style group discussions have reported four roles that a local authority typically assumes. In relation to regional plans (or plan changes in this case), a regional council typically finds itself with the following common roles and responsibilities:

24. These are:

24.1. ‘sponsor’ – a.k.a. principal funder and supplier of resources for the plan change project/process;

24.2. ‘leader’ – to lead, coordinate and champion the group’s activities/project. This is more than just a Chair and/or facilitator chairing/facilitating group meetings;

24.3. ‘stakeholder’ – for example, because it owns or administers assets with will be affected by the matters being debated and drafted into a plan change; and because it will be the council which is largely responsible for administering, monitoring and implementing the plan once it is through the plan change preparation phases; and

24.4. ‘information provider’ – particularly specialist technical advice from HBRC’s staff in terms of policy planning, science, land management, and environmental regulation etc.

25. Each of these roles are valid and relevant. It is questionable if the Council has taken a sufficient ‘leader’ role in discussions to date.

Key Issue – HBRC science work programme for TANK catchments

26. The 2015-25 Long Term Plan provides for an extensive programme of science investigations, reporting, model development and modelling for the TANK catchments (alongside science work covering other catchments in the region). A significant achievement has been publication of the 5-year State of the Environment ‘Trends’ report. This will be supported by a series of more detailed technical publications, each containing information specific to one or more of the TANK catchments.

27. In recent months, staff have provided Councillors with an overview of the ‘TANK Technical Advisory Group’ (TAG) and the TANK ‘Technical Advisory Panel’ (TAP). This paper doesn’t intend to repeat the description of those TAG and TAP roles.

28. TANK Group members have previously expressed a preference to “wait for the science” to be available. HBRC’s science team is continuing its extensive work programme to inform preparation of the TANK plan change, but some key elements of that work programme have been delayed by the unavailability of key technical staff. The work programme schedule is being assessed as part of a broader assessment of the plan change project. One output of this broader assessment is intended to be a ‘masterplan’ of key issues, key activities and key milestones so that a draft plan change is ready in December 2017 for public notification (the start of the formal submission, hearing and decision-making process). The ‘masterplan’ will feature key points for the TANK Group’s involvement in preparing that plan change.

Key Issue – Resource management reforms

29. On 26 November 2015, Dr Nick Smith announced the next steps for Resource Management Act reform. The Bill has been referred to the Local Government and Environment Select Committee for consideration. The deadline for submissions is 14 March 2016.

30. Around 40 individual proposals are in the Bill. One of those proposals is to introduce two new processes for preparation of regional plans (and plan changes). A new streamlined process requiring Ministerial approval is proposed. The second new process relates to collaborative plan-making. It is this collaborative process that has particular relevance to the TANK Group and preparation of the TANK plan change.

31. The reforms also seek to place an obligation on councils to engage with iwi through iwi participation arrangements during the early stages of the plan-making processes.

32. Staff’s preliminary review of the Bill (clause 25 in particular) reveals:

32.1. current membership/representation of the TANK Collaborative Stakeholder Group would not meet all specifications for the Council’s appointment of members.

32.2. transitional arrangements lasting twelve months are proposed so the collaborative process could apply retrospectively to the TANK Group/process if criteria and process in new Clause 14 of Schedule 12 is followed. The Environment Minister has final call on whether or not existing groups can follow the Bill’s new collaborative plan-making process.

32.3. if a council decides to adopt a collaborative process, generally it could not withdraw from that process at any stage and revert to another process (there are a few exceptions to this rule).

33. It is intended that Council staff will present a report to the Regional Planning Committee and/or Council early in 2016 examining the Bill’s proposals, along with a possible draft submission for Council’s consideration.

Key Issue – Stakeholder and hapu/iwi engagement plans

34. The Council has previously adopted a ‘Stakeholder Engagement Plan’ (dated February 2015) for the TANK plan change project. It was intended that a separate, yet complementary hapu/iwi engagement plan would be prepared. Earlier this year, Council planning staff had assembled a basic plan framework for staff at Te Tai Whenua o Heretaunga’s Te Manaaki Taiao unit to enhance into a fuller draft hapu/iwi engagement plan. Te Manaaki Taiao staff are still working on the draft plan in liaison with the ‘TANK Mana Whenua Group’ – a sub-group of TANK Group members who identify themselves as mana whenua.

35. It is anticipated that the draft hapu/iwi engagement plan would be presented to the Regional Planning Committee for its consideration, just as done for the TANK Stakeholder Engagement Plan. The Resource Management Act Reform’s proposal for new iwi participation arrangements in plan-making is likely to have some implications for the validity and suitability of the TANK hapu/iwi engagement plan (and any similar engagement plans for other plan changes in the future).

36. Beyond the TANK Group membership and immediate member networks, awareness and knowledge of the TANK Group and its activities is not widespread. There is room to enhance the wider public profile of the TANK plan change project and the TANK Group’s activities. The TANK Project Team is mindful of this issue.

Key Issue – Application for Ngaruroro River catchment Water Conservation Order

37. Councillors will recall a presentation by Mr Greg Carlyon and Mr Bryce Johnson given to the Regional Planning Committee at its meeting on 4 November 2015. The presentation outlined a proposal to lodge an application for a WCO covering the Ngaruroro River catchment. Some members of the Regional Planning Committee expressed concerns at that meeting about the potential for the WCO application to “cut-across” the TANK Group’s discussions. Similar concerns were expressed by several TANK Group members at the latest TANK Group meeting (Meeting #18 on 10 November 2015).

Summary of Issues

38. There is clearly a level of frustration being experienced with the new style collaborative process in various fora throughout the country, including TANK. As we learn more about how best to operate in this new environment the process should improve providing all the key participants are engaged.

39. At this stage in the TANK Group process a number of matters have converged that would benefit from a re-calibration of the process and its timelines - e.g TANK Group leadership, completion of the science programme; and a potential extension of science programme though deep well drilling and input into the groundwater model.

40. A number of uncertainties/unknowns also need to be resolved - for example the ongoing participation by groups whose national bodies have withdrawn from collaborative processes, the resolution of iwi rights and interests in freshwater, RMA reforms and the timing of the lodgement of the Ngaruroro Water Conservation Order.

41. Commentary expressed by stakeholders that the ongoing uncertainty over water is leading to investment decisions being deferred or opportunities lost is valid. The “upfront” collaborative process is significantly more time-consuming for stakeholders than the RMA First Schedule process, with no guarantees that the outcome derived from the consensus decision making process will not be challenged and ultimately overturned through appeals.

Next steps

42. The TANK Group is at a crossroads. The request for greater leadership from Council overlaps with a number of other issues that impact on the role and effectiveness of the TANK Group.

43. Any decisions on the future operation of TANK need to be made in conjunction with the Regional Planning Committee who have committed to implementing the consensus recommendations from the Group and have a significant stake in the outcome of this process.

44. In January 2016 the new Group Manager Strategic Development, James Palmer, takes up his role with Council. James has had extensive experience in collaborative processes at a central government level and, as the Executive member responsible for the TANK Group process and ultimately the plan change, should be given the opportunity to review and recommend changes to the TANK group ToR including the leadership options. Input from the Regional Planning Committee in February 2016 would also inform the future operation of the TANK Group.

45. The TANK project team is not anticipating that the TANK group will need to meet again until April-May 2016 at the earliest. Council’s decisions on its role within, and associated changes to, the TANK Group process will be determined ahead of the next meeting and will not impinge on the ongoing science work programme being carried out separately to the stakeholder engagement process.

Decision Making Process

46. 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 in relation to this item and have concluded:

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

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

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

46.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in management of land and freshwater resources under the RMA in the ‘TANK Catchments.’

46.5. Options that have been considered include retaining the current meeting schedule for the TANK Group and the current Terms of Reference and role of Council.

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

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

Recommendations

That Council:

2. Receives and notes the “Update on the Greater Heretaunga (TANK) Stakeholder Group” report

3. Instructs the Group Manager Strategic Development to review the TANK Group process and provide a paper outlining his recommendations on the future operation of the TANK Stakeholder Group to the Regional Planning Committee.

Gavin Ide

Manager, Strategy and Policy

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

TANK Engagement Plan

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 16 December 2015

Subject: Waipukurau Forest Lease Agreement

Reason for Report

1. At the 30 September 2015 meeting, the Regional Council resolved that Council:

1.1. Agrees that HBRC enters into an Agreement with a community group for the establishment of a mountain bike park within the Waipukurau Forest for public recreation and enjoyment for the period of the current CHBDC wastewater consent (expiring 2030), and delegates authority to the Interim Chief Executive to determine the terms and conditions of such an Agreement, with the terms of the final agreement to be brought to Council for ratification.

2. The proposed Agreement negotiated between HBRC and the Rotary Rivers Pathway Trust is attached. This paper seeks Council ratification of the proposed Agreement prior to final signing by both parties.

Discussion

3. Staff have worked through the details of the proposed Agreement with members of the Rotary Rivers Pathway Trust. As outlined in the briefing paper to the Corporate and Strategic Meeting on 23 September 2015, the Trust expect to invest between $200,000 and $300,000 in designing and establishing the mountain bike park and they wish the Agreement with HBRC to ensure that their investment is secure.

4. The Agreement therefore provides that HBRC reimburse the Trust the full cost of developing the track infrastructure if HBRC requires the land for another purpose within 10 years of signing the Agreement, with the amount required to be reimbursed reducing from that date, until the expiry of the Agreement on 30 September 2030; set as the expiry date for the Agreement as that is the date on which the resource consent for treatment of Waipukurau municipal wastewater expires.

Decision Making Process

5. 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:

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

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

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

5.4. The persons affected by this decision are principally the public of Central Hawke’s Bay who are most likely to utilise the facility and could be impacted if a change is proposed to the current approach to wastewater treatment.

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

Recommendations

That Council:

2. Ratifies the attached Agreement for the lease of the Waipukurau forest block owned by HBRC to the Rotary Rivers Pathway Trust, and authorises the Interim Chief Executive to enter into an Agreement with the Trust in accordance with that Agreement.

Mike Adye

Group Manager Asset Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

Proposed Lease Agreement

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 16 December 2015

Subject: HB Tourism Quarterly Report

Reason for Report

1. HB Tourism reports to Council quarterly, against the KPIs (following) as resolved by Council on 30 September 2015.

2. A report from HB Tourism setting out achievements, progress towards the key performance indicators and the Company’s financials for the first two quarters of the 2015-16 financial year, is attached to this paper.

KPIs

	Activity	HBRC KPIs
Consumer Marketing	Deliver an annual consumer marketing plan to ensure Hawke's Bay maximises all media opportunities both paid and unpaid.
Brand	Manage and protect the Hawke's Bay brand to ensure the brands integrity in all use by all parties	Manage and protect the Hawke's Bay brand to ensure the brands integrity
Campaign	The development and delivery of an annual media plan that is based around a Seasonal Campaign Strategy	Campaign activity will deliver Increased website traffic to www.hawkesbaynz.com by 50% annually
		Increase social channel footprint within Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Each by 50% per annum
PR/Media	The delivery of the Hawke's Bay Tourism International and Domestic Media Programme	Host a minimum of 30 international and domestic media per annum
		Deliver stories and Hawke’s Bay content to over 100m people per annum
		Coverage received will have the equivalent EAV of $10m per annum
Digital	The delivery of a strong digital platform to share Hawke's Bay content and information for visitors.	The development of one visitor website for Hawke's Bay. To be completed by June 2016.
		Increased website traffic to www.hawkesbaynz.com by 50% annually
		Increase social channel footprint within Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. Each by 50% per annum
		Deliver 60,000 leads directly to member websites in year one. Grow by 50% per annum.
Collateral & Promotional Material	Deliver a series of promotional material both digital and printed to serve the needs of visitors and in line with the overall brand positioning for Hawke's Bay	Produce and deliver the annual Hawke's Bay Visitor Guide. Produce the Hawke's Bay Trails Map as well as other regional collateral as required.
Content	Deliver a consumer content strategy for all channels used by HBT	Pull together a content calendar for year round seasonal content for all cities and districts
Research	Deliver an annual research programme to monitor and measure the regions visitor performance	Provide the industry with up to date data pertaining to the visitor industry in Hawke's Bay. This will be distributed via the industry website.
Events	Deliver the Regional Events Strategy	Implement the Regional Events Strategy via joint collaboration with all Councils, Sport Hawke's Bay and other relevant agencies. Key outcomes - a regional events calendar updated, a well balanced portfolio of events year round, off-season events developed
	FAWC! Food and Wine Classic Hawke’s Bay	Deliver both Summer and Winter F.A.W.C! FAWC! to deliver at least 40-50% of participants from out of town each year. Continue to grow the event in terms of numbers -10,000 tickets available by 2018.
	The Big Easy	Deliver The Big Easy at Easter to ensure the event captures at least 40-50% of participants from out of town each year. Continue to grow the event to 2000 participants by 2017.
	Hawke’s International Bay Marathon	Deliver a world class event alongside organisers Lagadere for three years. This will involve a starting base of 2500 competitors in year one to grow to 4,000 by 2018.
Trade Marketing	Deliver the annual trade marketing plan to ensure Hawke's Bay is well represented within the distribution channel both offshore and in New Zealand.
International Marketing Alliances	Maintain membership of both Explore Central North Island Alliance which promotes the Pacific Coast Highway and Thermal Explorer Highway. (8 North Island regions) and Classic New Zealand Wine trail Alliance (4 regions) to ensure international presence for Hawke’s Bay.	Deliver international trade initiatives alongside other regional partners. Attend a minimum of 3 international trade shows (see below) and participate in growing the touring routes Hawke’s Bay is part of. Full international focus of activity and all directed at the travel agent community.
Trade Famils	Deliver an international trade famil programme to educate the travel industry about Hawke's Bay with the aim to sell more of the region via the Distribution Channel	Host a minimum of 50 travel agents, product managers and inbound tour operators in the region annually
Digital	Deliver and maintain a Tourism Industry Website for operators within Hawke's Bay. www.hawkesbaytourism.nz	Keep updated the industry website with relevant press releases, research, presentations and industry news.
Workshops	Conduct a Workshop Series to educate local operators	6 - 10 workshops to be held annually. Topics to include new markets, market segments, and social channels
Trade Shows	Represent Hawke's Bay and its tourisms sector at a range of leisure/FIT (free and independent travellers) trade shows throughout the year in New Zealand and overseas	HBT to attend the following trade shows annually; TRENZ and Explore. HBT to represent Pacific Coast Highway (Explore Central North Island Alliance) at Kiwi Link events in China, USA, UK.
Business Tourism Events	Represent Hawke's Bay and the Conference and Meetings sector at a range of business trade shows throughout the year in New Zealand	HBT to attend the following business trade shows annually; Meetings and Convene
Tourism Awards	Deliver the annual Hawke's Bay Tourism Industry Awards	Generate at least 20 entries per annum into the Hawke's Bay Tourism Awards (September each year)
Tourism Development	Identify key tourism development projects to encourage economic growth to the region	Begin scoping of tourism opportunities in Wairoa/Waikaremoana. Work with local iwi to understand Maori tourism product - the gaps and opportunities
Markets	Develop a clear plan for China tourism to Hawke's Bay	Develop and maintain Hawke's Bay content for the China market - to be distributed via Weibo. Build a China Marketing Group to develop join marketing opportunities
Membership	Manage and grow the annual membership programme of the Hawke’s Bay Tourism Industry Association
	Deliver an annual membership programme in order to generate additional funds for the organisation and develop a strong well educated and coordinated industry.	Generate a minimum of $100,000 in revenue from the annual membership programme.
Stakeholder Management	Deliver quarterly reports to the Hawke's Bay Regional Council	4 x Quarterly reports delivered as well as Financials
Financial Management	Manage all budgets and deliver monthly and quarterly financial reports to both the HBT, HBTIA Boards and to HBRC	Manage all budgets and deliver monthly and quarterly financial reports to both the HBT, HBTIA Boards and to HBRC
Staff Management	Manage all staff and conduct annual reviews	Annual reviews it be conducted for all staff. Training needs worked through and planned to improve staff skills

Decision Making Process

3. 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 notes the “Hawke’s Bay Tourism Quarterly” report.

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

HB Tourism Q1 & 2 2015-16 Report

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 16 December 2015

Subject: Annual Plan 2016-17 Requirements of the Local Government Act, Proposed Approach and Timelines

Reason for Report

1. This report clarifies the new provisions in the Local Government Act that cover the Annual Plan preparation and consultation. Further, this report sets out the proposed approach and timelines for the compilation of the Annual Plan 2016-17 and also includes the major issues that may need to be addressed through this Annual Plan.

Comment

The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) Covering Annual Plans

2. Section 95(1) of the LGA states that the local authority must prepare and adopt an Annual Plan for each financial year.

3. The purpose of an Annual Plan is set out in section 95(5) as:

3.1. Contains the proposed annual budget and funding impact statement for the year to which the Annual Plan relates; and

3.2. Identifies any variation from the financial statements and funding impact statement included in the local authority’s Long Term Plan (LTP) in respect of the year; and

3.3. Provides integrated decision making and coordination of the resources of the local authority; and

3.4. Contributes to the accountability of the local authority to the community.

4. In regard to the need to consult on the Annual Plan, this is covered in LGA section 95 (2)(A) which sets out that consultation need only be undertaken if the proposed Annual Plan includes significant or material differences from the content of the LTP for the financial year in which the proposed Annual Plan relates.

5. This paper sets out a number of issues that need to be addressed as part of the Annual Plan 2016-17, a number of which will require changes to the financials as incorporated in the LTP and hence will trigger a “materiality” for the purposes of consultation.

Local Government Act Consultation Requirements

6. The LGA establishes that where there are material changes in the Plan from the same year as included in the LTP 2015-2025, then to comply with section 82(a)(3) of the LGA the local authority must prepare and adopt a consultation document.

7. This consultation document needs to:

7.1. Identify significant or material differences between the proposed Annual Plan and the content of the LTP for the financial year to which the Annual Plan relates; and

7.2. Explain the matters in paragraph 7.1 that can be readily understood by interested or affected people; and

7.3. Inform discussions between the local authority and its communities about the matters in paragraph 7.1.

8. The LGA states that the content of a consultation document must be concise and presented in a simple manner.

9. Accordingly the same approach as was taken with the development of the LTP 2015‑2025 will be undertaken for this Annual Plan which will mean that supporting accountability documents which will include financial statements, funding impact statements (rating) and detailed explanations of variances from the LTP will be compiled and presented to Council for adoption prior to the adoption of the Annual Plan consultation document.

Local Government Act Audit Requirements for Annual Plan

10. There is no requirement in the LGA for an audit to be carried out on the Annual Plan. The only exception in this regard is if there is an amendment to the LTP which affects that Annual Plan year and the variations/amendments have been included in the Annual Plan. Amendments to the Annual Plan which require special consultation can be triggered by section 97 of the LGA which includes significant changes to the intended level of service or a decision to transfer ownership or control of a strategic asset from the local authority. It is not envisaged that this Annual Plan will trigger either of these provisions under section 97 of the LGA.

11. An amendment to an LTP can also be triggered where there is a significant change to revenue and financing/funding impact statements. The issues set out below in this paper cover work currently being undertaken on the Tukituki flood and drainage scheme in regard to fair and equitable distribution of the rates covering this scheme. Depending on the results of these discussions a change, if any, could trigger an amendment to the LTP and accordingly require an audit report on this amendment included in the Annual Plan and the consultation document.

Principles Supporting the Compilation of the Annual Plan 2016-17

12. Significant work has been undertaken during the LTP 2015-2025 to include strategies and projects, including both financial and performance management information, therefore it is proposed to use the second year of the LTP (ie, 2016-17) as the basis for the development of the Annual Plan 2016-17. The LTP included a financial strategy that was consulted on and accepted. At the proposed Annual Plan workshop to be held in February 2016 it is intended to clarify the financial strategy, investment objectives and rationale.

13. The LTP showed a surplus position of $32,000 for the year 2016-17. The objective of the revised Annual Plan is to maintain the LTP position as far as possible. This operating result was achieved on the back of a cost efficiency exercise undertaken by Council, specifically $1M in cost reductions achieved during 2013-14 and a further $300,000 was achieved in 2015-16. The implementation of these cost efficiencies have resulted in very tight cost structures in Council budgets going into the 2016-17 year. Further reductions would impact on the LTP service delivery levels and require reductions in staff numbers.

Issues to be Addressed in the Annual Plan Development

14. As part of the Annual Plan 2016-17 development, there are a number of issues that may require consideration by Council and these issues will either be the subject of separate papers to Council over the next few months, or be part of the Council workshop on the Annual Plan which is proposed to be held on the afternoon of 17 February 2016 following the Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting. Some of the more important issues that are known at this time are:

14.1. Rates Increase: The LTP for the year 2016-17 was based on a rates increase of 5.69%. This rates increase included a further $300,000 being made available to Hawke’s Bay Tourism. The financial strategy in the LTP set down the policy for the setting of rates which was based on the local government cost index plus increases in levels of services. As part of the Annual Plan preparation there needs to be consideration of any current movements in the local government cost index or in the increases in level of service that Council wishes to provide.

14.2. Level of Costs: The level of costs used in the development of the LTP were based on forecasts of price level change adjusters as provided to local government by BERL. Revised price level adjusters have been provided by BERL in September 2015. The impact of these changes are currently being worked through the budgets and will be reported to the Annual Plan workshop.

14.3. Interest Rates: Interest rates on term deposits have been subject to a number of fluctuations during the current financial year and the background on this was reported to Council in October 2015. The LTP for 2016-17 assumed interest rates of 5% on average for bank term deposits, however due to revisions in the Official Cash Rate (OCR) Council is currently receiving 3.5% on term deposits.

14.4. Sale of Land Investment Reserves: At the commencement of the Annual Plan year (1 July 2016) Council will have approximately $32M in the sale of land investment reserves, therefore the interest rate used for projection purposes will have a major influence on the Plan.

14.5. Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme: It is anticipated that by the time of the February 2016 Annual Plan workshop there may be a better indication of the draw down of cash required by HBRIC Ltd to fund the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS). The following two financial effects of the RWSS on Council need to be modelled and will be presented to Annual Plan Workshops:

14.5.1. Timing of cash required for investment in the RWSS to ensure that the funds are available to HBRIC Ltd when required. This needs to be balanced with achieving maximum interest on term deposits from trading banks for the funds remaining with Council.

14.5.2. Dividends to be received by Council from HBRIC Ltd will need to include a return on funds provided to HBRIC Ltd.

14.6. Revenue and Financing Policy: An assessment will need to be made whether there is a need to review the revenue and financing policy and funding impact statement as included in the LTP for 2016-17. Discussions are currently being undertaken with the ratepayers of the Tukituki flood and drainage scheme to determine what changes to the rating system, if any, are required to ensure the equitable distribution of these rates.

14.7. Section 36 Science Charges: As part of the LTP consultation, the issue of whether section 36 science charges should be based on a regional basis or as currently on a zone basis.

14.8. Regional Rate Collection: Work is currently being undertaken covering the desirability of a move to a regional rate collection to cover such services as support to Business Hawke’s Bay. The level of assistance that this Council provides to Business Hawke’s Bay also needs to be covered as part of the Annual Plan discussion.

14.9. LTP Capital Budgets: LTP capital budgets for 2016-17 need to be reviewed and amended if necessary. Included in this evaluation of additional capital requirements will be the drilling of additional deep exploration wells in the Heretaunga Plains to assist in the informing of the TANK process investigations etc.

14.10. Wellington Leasehold Land: Included in the LTP was a proposal to sell Council’s investment in the Wellington leasehold land. As this investment is currently yielding 6.8% plus capital appreciation, Council needs to evaluate whether it is preferable to delay the sale of this investment property and borrow short term at considerably less than 6.8% return on this property. Coupled with this evaluation is the need for estimating the future cash requirements of Council’s proposed investments.

Proposed Timelines

Task	Timing
Annual Plan compilation/scrutiny by Executive	December 2015/January 2016
Workshop papers to be distributed to Council	Wednesday 9 February 2016
Summary of Annual Plan proposals and strategy to be presented to Council workshop	Wednesday 17 February 2015
Further Council workshops to consider any Annual Plan issues, the draft Consultation Document (CD) and supporting accountability documents	Wednesday 2 March 2016 and/or Wednesday 16 March 2016.
Adoption of final Annual Plan CD and supporting accountability documents	Wednesday 30 March 2016 (papers out Tuesday 22 March 2016)
Special consultative period of five weeks’ duration	Monday 11 April 2016 – 13 May 2016
Staff responses and submissions to be sent to Council	Wednesday 1 June 2016
Council hears submissions	Wednesday 8 June 2016
Council adoption of final Annual Plan	Wednesday 29 June 2016 (papers out Tuesday 22 June 2016)

Decision Making Process

15. 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 provision of the Local Government Act 2002 do not apply.

Recommendations

1. That Council receives the “Annual Plan 2016-17 Requirements of the Local Government Act, Proposed Approach and Timelines” report and notes the relevant Council meeting dates for the Annual Plan 2016-17.

Paul Drury

Group Manager
Corporate Services

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 16 December 2015

SUBJECT: Members' Register of Interests for Confirmation

Reason for Report

1. Following are the Interests registered by each elected representative and the Chief Executive of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, and last confirmed as correct 27 August 2014.

2. This ‘Register’ is provided as a means for Councillors and the Chief Executive to advise Council of any changes to their interests, and to ensure that the Council record is current at all times.

Councillor Richard Barker	Property Ownership in Hawke’s Bay
	409 Burnett Street, Hastings
	409A Burnett Street, Hastings
	18 Thorn Place, Onekawa
	Pepper Street, Hastings
	Puriri Street, Hastings
	St Aubyn Street West, Hastings
	Shareholding/Partnerships/Trusts or Trading Interests
	Barker Family Trust
	Fifteen Two Limited
	Directorships or Trusteeships
	Barker Family Trust China Pacific Ltd, Director
	Other Interests
	None declared
	Directorships or Businesses of partners/spouses
	None declared
Councillor Peter Beaven	Property Ownership in Hawke’s Bay
	None declared
	Shareholding/Partnerships/Trusts or Trading Interests
	None declared
	Directorships or Trusteeships
	Lagoon Family Trust
	Pipfruit NZ
	100% Pure NZ Ltd
	Zeu NZ Ltd
	Other Interests
	None declared
	Directorships or Businesses of partners/spouses
	None declared
Councillor Thomas Belford	Property Ownership in Hawke’s Bay
	40 Raratu Road, RD 14, Havelock North
	Shareholding/Partnerships/Trusts or Trading Interests
	Belford Partnership – interest 50%
	BayBuzz Ltd – interest 100%
	Directorships or Trusteeships
	None declared
	Other Interests
	None declared
	Directorships or Businesses of partners/spouses
	None declared

Councillor Alan Dick	Property Ownership in Hawke’s Bay
	3 Newbury Place, Taradale, Napier
	229 Taradale Road, Greenmeadows, Napier
	Shareholding/Partnerships/Trusts or Trading Interests
	Aliz Investments Ltd (not trading)
	Directorships or Trusteeships
	Aliz Investments Ltd (not trading)
	Napier Academy Trust Inc (Trustee)
	HB Democratic Action Association (Member and Treasurer)
	ME/CFS Support HB (Committee member and Treasurer)
	Other Interests
	None declared
	Directorships or Businesses of partners/spouses
	Elizabeth Dick, Director of Aliz Investments Ltd and employed as part-time coordinator for ME/CFS Support HB, also part-time field officer (Napier) for the Stroke Foundation
Councillor Rex Graham	Property Ownership in Hawke’s Bay
	Eastella, 232 St Georges Road, Hastings
	Shareholding/Partnerships/Trusts or Trading Interests
	Graham Greene Ltd
	RGA Holdings Ltd
	Fresh New Zealand Ltd
	NZ Fruit Tree Company Ltd
	Zeesweet Ltd
	John Morton Ltd
	Shennong Variety Management Ltd
	Graham Family Trust
	Eastella Trust
	Pakowhai Nominees
	Directorships or Trusteeships
	Gladeye Ltd (Chairman)
	Te Aranga Ltd (Director
	Te Aranga-O-Heretaunga Marae Charitable Trust (Trustee)
	HB Regional Sports Park Trust (Trustee)
	Te Matau a Mau Voyaging Trust (Trustee)
	U-Turn Charitable Trust (Chairman)
	China Pacific Ltd, Director
	Other Interests
	None declared
	Directorships or Businesses of partners/spouses
	None declared

Councillor Deborah Hewitt	Property Ownership in Hawke’s Bay
	227 Porangahau Road, Waipukurau
	238 Pourerere Beach Road, Aramoana
	Shareholding/Partnerships/Trusts or Trading Interests
	Hewitt Livestock Ltd
	Directorships or Trusteeships
	Hewitt Agribusiness Ltd
	Hewitt Family Trust
	Other Interests
	None declared
	Directorships or Businesses of partners/spouses
	Hewitt Livestock Ltd
	Hewitt Agribusiness Ltd
	Hewitt Family Trust
Councillor David Pipe	Property Ownership in Hawke’s Bay
	25 Vigor Brown Street, Napier
	Shareholding/Partnerships/Trusts or Trading Interests
	Napier Community House Trust – Chair (Charitable Trust)
	Directorships or Trusteeships
	Hawke’s Bay Tourism
	Other Interests
	None declared
	Directorships or Businesses of partners/spouses
	None declared
Councillor Christine Scott	Property Ownership in Hawke’s Bay
	43 Napier Terrace, Napier
	Shareholding/Partnerships/Trusts or Trading Interests
	RM & CH Family Trust
	Directorships or Trusteeships
	ACW Ltd
	WASSTB
	Other Interests
	None declared
	Directorships or Businesses of partners/spouses
	None declared
Chairman Fenton Wilson	Property Ownership in Hawke’s Bay
	141 Maromauku Road, Wairoa
	80 Maromauku Road, Wairoa
	Shareholding/Partnerships/Trusts or Trading Interests
	Oruru Land Company Ltd (5%>)
	Directorships or Trusteeships
	Wairoa Community Development Trust
	St Vedas Trust/AH Gordon Trust/Gary Wilson Family Trust
	OSPRI
	Other Interests
	Smedley Advisory
	National Council member of LGNZ
	Directorships or Businesses of partners/spouses
	None declared

Elizabeth Lambert (CE)	Property Ownership in Hawke’s Bay
	1 Eton Street, Taradale, Napier
	34A Kensington Drive, Napier
	2/7 Ashridge Road, Napier
	Shareholding/Partnerships/Trusts or Trading Interests
	None declared
	Directorships or Trusteeships
	HB Local Authority Shared Services Ltd (Director)
	Other Interests
	None declared
	Directorships or Businesses of partners/spouses
	None declared

Decision Making Process

3. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements 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 ‘Members’ Register of Interests’ report and advises staff of any amendments required.

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 16 December 2015

Subject: Chairman's Report for November-December 2015

Reason for Report

1. This report presents the month’s activities, meetings etc. attended by the Chairman, along with discussion points and the thoughts/perceptions in relation to issues facing the Council and/or the Region.

Chaired Meetings

25/11/15 Regional Council

30/11/15 HB Local Government Leaders Forum

30/11/15 HB All Council meeting

2/12/15 HB Primary Producers round table

Key Dates

26/11/15 NZ River Awards

27/11/15 Regional Sector meeting

1/12/15 Hosted delegation from Xuzhou

2/12/15 HB Primary Producers Round Table

3/12/15 Attended a Canterbury Mayoral Forum, Canterbury Regional Economic Development Strategy reference group at invitation of Dame Margaret Bazley

4/12/15 Attended LGNZ National Council meeting

8/12/15 Iwi Leaders Forum

Discussion Points

NZ River Awards

2. The Morgan foundation hosts the NZ river awards each year and for the second year in a row HBRC has won an award for improved river outcomes. This year it was Nitrogen and the Waipawa had a 4.2% improvement. The blurb from their webpage is below.

3. “Waipawa River, Hawke’s Bay (4.2%). This is an upland tributary of the Tukituki River. Dairy NZ, Deer Industry New Zealand and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council have been working hard with their respective farmers to introduce practices that benefit the river. The farmers have been planted shelter belts, fencing and revegetating steep gullies, bridging streams to allow cows to cross. Planting winter cover crops and building catchment dams. The combination of these, and other, small changes is leading to big results for the Waipawa River.”

Regional Sector Meeting

4. Normal quarterly meeting of the Regional sector. Key discussion was around the Gold card issue. To put it in perspective the implications for Auckland, as an example, is another 17 million per annum cost to their ratepayers. We had assurance on the day that there was no desire to impose costs on ratepayers from this action. The group has asked for a letter from the minister confirming this. I will advise if such letter materializes.

Delegation from Xuzhou

5. It was a pleasure hosting the delegation from our sister city in China. The formal relationship between HBRC and Xuzhou will have endured 10 years in 2016. There was a firm invitation from the group for HBRC to visit their province next year to mark this occasion. We talked about the opportunities for tourism exploration at that time as being a key opportunity for discussion if there was a return delegation. Mr Adye is looking into this and will have a paper to consider at our first 2016 committee meeting.

HB Primary Producers Round Table

6. This is an initiative hosted by Hastings DC and supported by HBRC. The key message from this meeting was the success story that is pip fruit in HB. The expansion plans have seen land values go through the roof with irrigated bare land on the plains approaching $100,000 per Ha. There was also concern expressed by some members at the pending water conservation order proposed by Fish and Game on the lower reaches of the Ngaruroro.

Canterbury Mayoral Forum

7. Dame Margaret Bazley kindly invited me to attend a Canterbury Mayoral forum to observe the progress they have made in advancing opportunities in their region. The process they have followed is very simple. They worked up a plan to identify the constraints to the region and then assigned portfolios to individual mayors to facilitate discussion and an action plan to enhance the opportunity.

8. This has become the Canterbury version of an economic development strategy. It is not a 'study' or a 'report' but rather an action plan focused on what the Region’s Mayors and Chair can achieve by leadership, facilitation and advocacy. The agreed actions are reviewed (based on achievement) at each quarterly meeting of the forum. The agreed actions are listed below, in no particular order.

8.1. Integrated regional transport planning

8.2. Digital connectivity

8.3. Freshwater management and irrigation infrastructure

8.4. Value added production

8.5. Education and training for a skilled workforce

8.6. Newcomer and migrant settlement

8.7. Regional visitor strategy

9. I attach a couple of examples of these outcomes (attachment 1) and an example of the desire for big business to partner with the region’s leaders – you can’t buy advertising like this! (attachment 2)

10. In HB we are doing some of this but frankly the delivery mechanisms are not coordinated and clearly understood. Going forward I believe we need to be more organised as a region and far bolder in our desire to create a better place. At the very least we need to be positioned to leverage new opportunities from the RWSS assuming it goes ahead. The pending regional economic development strategy will be a catalyst for furthering this discussion and I am convinced we need to be bold to deliver its recommendations.

Iwi Leaders Forum on Freshwater

11. The Interim Chief Executive and myself were invited to a meeting convened by the Iwi leaders to discuss freshwater. The group was reminded of the history of the discussion that has been active between the Iwi chairs and Government ministers from 2007 until now. It is not new.

12. Sir Mark Solomon delivered the main speech and focused on the realities of Kaitiakitanga o te Wai. It was not about ownership but rather partnership.

13. He talked of sharing the burden of cost of water quality aspirations and subsequently the equity in success. The reality that Maori business interests in New Zealand are extremely diverse and include property, private hospitals, horticulture, agriculture, forestry, to name but a very few. Ownership of 33% of NZ fisheries and 34% of NZ forestry is a reality.

14. He described the Maori economy as being worth $43 billion and a prediction of further growth of $12 billion and 150,000 new jobs in the next 40 years. To achieve the potential he described we need the efficient and sustainable use of freshwater. The balance or tension between economy and environment was highlighted and the desire for strong working relationships and a long term approach was explained.

15. He also touched on the current kiwi versus Iwi campaign in relation to water ownership as utter nonsense. I agree with his sentiment here.

16. For the record, HBRC has not had any discussions with Iwi or Government departments in relation to water ownership. We maintain our Regional Planning Committee which is where we deal with Resource Management issues and the ownership of water is not one of them.

17. The Iwi/Kiwi advertising is scaremongering and a hangover from the foreshore and seabed campaign of the mid 2000s. It is not particularly helpful with the discussion on freshwater management going forward. Maori may have a different approach and language but we share the same desires and outcomes for freshwater.

Decision Making Process

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

Recommendation

1. That Council receives the November-December 2015 Chairman’s report.

Fenton Wilson

Chairman

Attachment/s

1	Independent Work Programmes
2	Advertisement

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION
Interim Chief Executive Remuneration Review	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.