Agenda of HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 11 November 2019

Subject: Election of Chair

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this paper is to facilitate the election of the Chairperson of the Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee.

Decision Making Process

2. The Committee is required to make every 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:

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

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

2.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of the Administrating Authority’s (Hawke’s Bay Regional Council) policy on significance

2.4. No persons are significantly affected by this decision

2.5. To elect a Chairperson is the only viable option available to the Committee

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

2.7. 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, the Committee can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Discussion

3. The Local Government Act 2002 provides direction for the election of a Chairperson. This must be in accordance with the voting requirements contained in Schedule 7, Part 1, Section 25. The relevant matters from this section state:

25. Voting systems for certain appointments

(1) This clause applies to:

(c) The election or appointment of the chairperson and deputy chairperson of a committee; and

(2) If this clause applies, a committee must determine by resolution that a person be elected or appointed by using one of the following systems of voting:

(a) the voting system in sub clause (3) (“system A”):

(b) the voting system in sub clause (4) (“system B”).

(3) System A:

(a) requires that a person is elected or appointed if he or she receives the votes of a majority of the members of the local authority or committee present and voting; and

(b) has the following characteristics:

(i) there is a first round of voting for all candidates; and

(ii) If no candidate is successful in that round there is a second round of voting from which the candidate with the fewest votes in the first round is excluded; and

(iii) if no candidate is successful in the second round there is a third, and if necessary subsequent, round of voting from which, each time, the candidate with the fewest votes in the previous round is excluded; and

(iv) in any round of voting, if 2 or more candidates tie for the lowest number of votes, the person excluded from the next round is resolved by lot.

(4) System B:

(a) requires that a person is elected or appointed if he or she receives more votes than any other candidate; and

(b) has the following characteristics:

(i) there is only 1 round of voting; and

(ii) if 2 or more candidates tie for the most votes, the tie is resolved by lot.

4. This paper recommends that the election of Chairperson of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee is conducted by using System A as provided in Schedule 7, Part 1, Section 25.

5. The Chair of the Hawke’s Bay Coordinating Executives Group (Wayne Jack), will Chair the meeting until the election of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee Chairperson is complete.

6. The recommendations below need to be moved and seconded, discussed and if decided, passed. Nominations for the position of Chairperson can then be called for and the election conducted. A valid nomination will require a nominator and seconder.

7. The Joint Committee also need to consider whether to elect a Member of the Committee to the position of Deputy Chairperson of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee and, if so, to elect that person using the same system used for the election of Chairperson.

Recommendations

1. The HB CDEM Group Joint Committee 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 and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision.

2. The HB CDEM Group Joint Committee receives and notes the “Election of Chair” report.

3. That the HB CDEM Group Joint Committee agrees to use voting System A as provided in Schedule 7, Part 1, Section 25 of the Local Government Act 2002.

Authored and Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 11 November 2019

Subject: Committee Terms of Reference Review and Confirmation

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide to the Committee its current Terms of Reference (TOR) and recommend some changes to it.

2. The TOR are attached to this report.

Financial and Resource Implications

3. There are no financial or resource implications arising from this paper.

Decision Making Process

4. Council is required to make every 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:

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

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

4.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Administrating Authority’s (Hawke’s Bay Regional Council) policy on significance.

4.4. There are no persons identified as being affected by this decision.

4.5. Options that have been considered include making a change to the TOR or doing nothing.

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

4.7. 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, the Committee can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Discussion

5. The current TOR were approved by the Joint Committee in late 2016.

6. The attached document includes some tracked changes recommended to the Committee. The substantive changes are as follows:

6.1. Section 6.1 has been changed to reflect current practice that the Deputy Mayor/Chair attend the meeting when the Mayor/Chair is unavailable.

6.2. Changes in 7.3 reflect the changes made in 6.

7. The remaining recommended changes are minor in nature.

Recommendations

8. It is recommended the Committee adopts the attached TOR with the changes annotated.

Recommendations

1. The HB CDEM Group Joint Committee agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Administrating Authority’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that the Committee 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.

2. The HB CDEM Group Joint Committee receives and notes the “Committee Terms of Reference Review and Confirmation” report.

3. The HB CDEM Group Joint Committee adopts the Terms of Reference attached to this report including the changes annotated.

Authored and Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

⇩1

Draft Hawke's Bay CDEM Group Joint Committee Terms of Reference 2019

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 11 November 2019

Subject: Group Plan review – outline process and key dates

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to consider the review of the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group Plan and the supporting risk assessment.

2. It is recommended that the Committee agree to the outline process recommended in this report.

Background

3. The current operative Group Plan is for the period 2014 – 2019 and a review has therefore commenced.

4. The current plan was a fundamental step change in terms of moving from a largely operational document to a more strategic plan that looked at CDEM activities integrated across the 4Rs (reduction, readiness, response and recovery) instead of dealing with each separately. The 2014 plan also focused on coordination and cooperation, outlining the principles of how the relationships between the Group members and partner agencies should develop and providing some clearer roles and responsibilities.

5. Given the unsatisfactory Capability and Monitoring Report received in 2010, the current Group Plan contains a number of clear objectives to achieve certain pieces of work. As most of these have now been achieved, consideration now needs to be given to new objectives which will continue to develop the Group’s capability.

Decision Making Process

6. The Committee is required to make every 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:

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 decision does not fall within the definition of the Administrating Authority’s (Hawke’s Bay Regional Council) policy on significance.

6.4. No persons are significantly affected by this decision.

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

6.6. 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, the Committee can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Risk Considerations

7. The review of the plan has commenced as required under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002. There are however some matters which are likely to impact on the timing and possibly the direction of this review.

8. The Government commenced the process of Emergency Management Reforms late last year with a report by a Technical Advisory Group. A number of Cabinet decisions have been made and we are awaiting legislative changes that have been signalled as a result. A draft bill was originally due in August 2019. We have now been advised this may not occur until early next year.

9. The National Plan was also due for review this year. While the Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management await the results of the Emergency Management Reforms this review has been placed on hold. Both of these pieces of work could have substantial changes to the structure, roles and responsibilities for CDEM and it is prudent that the Group does not rush into a substantial review of its plan until these matters have more certainty.

10. Finally the Government has strongly signaled that the Act will be modified to allow for a stronger role for tangata whenua in CDEM. It is likely that will include roles in governance at either the Joint Committee and/or Coordinating Executive Group levels.

11. The current plan is still fit for purpose and meets the requirements of the current Act. However a number of the objectives that were driven by past capability assessment reports and inform the Group Work Program are now outdated and could be reviewed.

Group Plan Legislative Requirements

12. The CDEM Group Plan acts as the strategic guiding document outlining the goals set by the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group to give effect to the National CDEM Strategy, and describes the arrangements in place that will build on our CDEM performance.

13. CDEM Group Plans are required in order to address the requirements of section 49 (2) of the CDEM Act 2002. CDEM Group Plans must state and provide for the—

a) local authorities’ membership of the CDEM Group

b) hazards and risks to be managed by the CDEM Group

c) CDEM measures necessary to manage the hazards and risks

d) objectives of the CDEM Group Plan and the relationship to the National CDEM Strategy

e) the cost and resource sharing arrangements among member councils for the CDEM Group and its activities

f) arrangements for declaring states of emergency and giving notice of a local transition period.

g) arrangements for cooperation and coordination between CDEM Groups, and

h) the period for which the CDEM Group Plan remains in force, and

i) outline the monitoring and evaluation arrangements.

14. The first part of reviewing the Group Plan is to complete an updated risk assessment for Hawke’s Bay. This risk analysis then informs the next part of the plan review process. However it is possible that some work with the Joint Committee and the Coordinating Executives Group regarding the strategic vision and goals, could be completed concurrently.

Hazard Risk Review

15. In order to assess the hazards and risks to be managed by the CDEM Group, the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management recommends Groups undertake risk profiling to understand which elements are contributing to creating risk and determine what risks should be managed as a matter of priority. These elements include:

15.1. The hazard

15.2. The exposure of people

15.3. The exposure of the built environment

15.4. The vulnerabilities

16. The process of understanding risk builds on local research and knowledge; and any events that have occurred over the life of the current Plan. The risk review should also address the changing hazard environment including any changes to local communities (e.g. new or changed land use). Risk is not static. Hazard risks and the communities’ awareness of and tolerance for them may vary over time and location.

17. The Ministry is currently reviewing the “Director’s Risk Assessment Guidance for CDEM Group Planning”, and would like Hawke’s Bay to trial this.

18. The draft guidance recommends a series of steps, and the following process and key dates are proposed:

18.1. November- December 2019
Step 1: Set Context/Identify Risks

Hawke’s Bay has a very good understanding of its hazards and risks and continues to develop this under its 10-year Hazard Research Plan. Nevertheless we propose to establish a risk register as an authoritive source for the plan, incorporating any learnings in the past five years, and linking to the Hawke’s Bay Hazard Portal.

18.2. December – February 2020
Step 2: Analyse Risks

Commencing with existing risk assessments, considering recent research and events over the life of the current Group plan, we plan to refine and analyse risk management measures by detailing three scenarios. An extreme event (Hikurangi earthquake/tsunami) and maximum credible event (volcanic ash) and a mid-range event (flood).

18.3. February – April 2020
Step 3: Evaluate and Treat Risk

This is where we want to focus efforts for our risk review with stakeholder engagement/workshops. Do they accept or tolerate the risks as they are, or should additional measures be adopted to manage it? If so what should they be? Identify how could risks increase or change over time, and consider the current CDEM risk management measures priorities and activities. Then identify gaps in the current management of risks. We want to seek stakeholder feedback on CDEM Group Plan priorities for action and identify realistic timeframes for implementation.

18.4. May 2020

As there has been several large pieces of Hawke’s Bay CDEM work requiring the participation of our stakeholders this year, we are propose to combine workshops in Step 3 with the “Pathway to Resilience Indicators” program. We will also run other appropriate stakeholder engagement/workshops including with the CEG & CDEM Group, to complete the work on the risk review.

19. The Committee may wish to consider where they would like to have input into the above process. In the past this has occurred towards the end and after the final risk analysis output has had the input of a number of experts and external organisations. However given the shift in thinking that the community’s appetite for risk is essentially a political process it may be appropriate for the Committee to be involved in Step 3 of the process.

Group Plan Review Outline

20. The Hawke’s Bay risk analysis is treated as a separate work stream within the overall plan review and signals that this review has commenced.

21. As mentioned above there are some external factors which may impact on the timing and content of the wider plan review. Therefore the following discussion only outlines some broad recommended courses of action and timings.

22. The following are the key milestones with some indicative thoughts on the timing of the process.

Table 1

Milestone	Description	Potential Timing
Strategic Direction Workshop (Joint Committee)	Review existing plan structure, direction and priorities. Focus on high level goals 4Rs.	Mar 2020
Develop Strategic Content	Develop strategic content to inform activities (enablers).	Mar - May 20
Develop Activity Objectives and Content	Work with stakeholders to develop more detailed objectives within specific activity areas.	May - Aug 20
Consultation Draft Released	Governance and stakeholder’s final input into draft.	Aug –Sep 20
Final Draft Publically Notified	Special Consultative process under LGA commences.	Sep 20

23. The above table assumes some substantial changes to the Group Plan. It is possible that after the Committee decides on the strategic direction of the review that these timeframes can be reduced.

24. Conversely the impact of the Government’s Emergency Management Reforms may require a substantial re-write of the existing plan which could increase timeframes.

25. The Committee will need to be included in providing guidance as the process develops. It would appear logical that this would best occur as a workshop prior to Committee meetings (dates yet to be confirmed).

Consultation and Considerations of Tangata Whenua

26. The process of developing the plan hopefully be under an amended Act which should clarify how tangata whenua should be included in CDEM planning and response.

27. In any event under the requirements of the Local Government Act and in light of work already being done by the Group office in including Māori perspectives in emergency management, consultation with and consideration of tangata whenua will be part of the plan review process.

Financial and Resource Implications

28. The plan review is accommodated for as part of the Group budget and this will be a focus for 2020. No additional expenditure is envisaged.

29. The review will become a focus for Group office staff and this will have some impact on the ability of staff to further other large projects. This can be managed through the Group work programme and by reviewing priorities.

Recommendations

That the HB CDEM Group Joint Committee:

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

2. Agrees to the process for the Hawke’s Bay risk review as outlined in this report.

3. Agrees in principle to the outline Group Plan review process in Table 1 of this report subject to changes possible under the Government’s Emergency Management Reforms.

Authored and Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 11 November 2019

Subject: Exercise Ruaumoko Exercise Report

Reason for Report

1. To provide the Joint Committee with an overview of Exercise Ruaumoko, held from 17 – 21 October 2019.

Background

2. Exercise Ruaumoko was held from 17 – 21 October 2019 to assess the Hawke’s Bay Region’s capability to respond to major events. The exercise included establishing and running an operation from the new Group Emergency Coordination Centre, operating local authority Incident Management Teams, volunteer activities and post event recovery discussions.

3. The exercise was based around a magnitude 7 earthquake occurring within the Tutira area. The scenario used included severe damage to the CBD of Napier, damage to core infrastructure across Hastings, Napier and Wairoa and isolating rural communities across the region. The key outcomes and objectives of the exercise were:

Outcomes	Objectives
1. We have increased confidence that the response and recovery are effective for our communities	1.a) Ensure that the safety and wellbeing of people is at the heart of the emergency management system
2. Relationships between people and organisations involved in the official response are developed	2.a) Inclusion and participation is encouraged for all CDEM Stakeholders
3. People are more confident to participate in the next real event	3.a) People feel the exercise was a valuable experience
4. We understand how we can improve our policies, plans, and procedures to improve future responses	4.a) The exercise is a true reflection of the current state of operational readiness in the region
5. We better understand how we can work in our response facilities to improve future response	5.a) Command, Control, Communication, and Coordination between facilities is understood 5.b) Facility operation and capabilities are evaluated for effectiveness

4. During the planning phase of the exercise, input was sought from all areas of the CDEM sector, including the emergency services, welfare organisations and lifeline utility providers. As part of the exercise development several partner agencies took on the development of specific aspects of the exercise, which ensured a degree of realism in the injects that were used to help direct the exercise.

5. The main phase of the exercise began following the national earthquake exercise Shakeout on Thursday 17 October at 1.30pm. On the Thursday afternoon the new Group Emergency Coordination Centre (GECC) was activated and systems for the activation of staff tested. By 2pm the centre was coordinating an initial response to the earthquake, staffed by employees from HBRC, HDC and NCC. At the same time the five local authorities within the region had also activated their Incident Management Teams (IMT’s) to coordinated the response for their organisation, including the establishment of alternate facilities for Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, Wairoa District Council and Napier City Council.

6. By the end of exercise play on the first day all authorities and the Group ECC had established a response and begun to develop initial action plans for the dealing with the impacts of the earthquake.

7. On Friday 18 October the Group ECC continued to respond to the impacts of the earthquake, again staffed by employees of HDC, HBRC and NCC. Central HB District Council employees also assisted with roles within the GECC on the Friday, as the impacts of the scenario enabled them to play a supporting role in the response.

8. The GECC exercise was also attended by a number of partner agencies, including Fire and Emergency NZ, NZ Police and the HB DHB. In addition, the Welfare Coordination Group was activated with representatives present from all key welfare providers. HBRC, HDC and WDC all continued to exercise their IMT’s on the Friday and test their arrangements to respond to impacts upon key infrastructure and services.

9. Over the weekend of 19 – 20 October a number of tactical activities were held in partnership with key agencies. These included rapid impact assessment lead by Fire and Emergency New Zealand and utilizing CDEM volunteers for data collection, the establishment of a Civil Defence Centre at the Pettigrew Green Arena involving CDEM volunteers and the Red Cross, and a cliff rescue exercise involving the Coastguard, NZ Police, NZ Landsar and the CDEM Rapid Response Team. All exercises ran well and enhanced our existing understanding of capability across responding agencies within the region.

10. On Monday the 21 October the GECC activated again to respond to the scenario at day 4 of the event, where the majority of initial response activities had been completed and the focus had changed to longer-term response and recovery activities.

11. In addition to the above, there have been two post-response recovery discussions held, with attendance by all local recovery managers, to look at how the region would plan and run the recovery to an event of this magnitude.

12. The exercise was well attended by staff from across all the local authorities and our partner agencies and has provided evidence to help determine where the Hawke’s Bay CDEM Group should focus efforts to improve our operational capability.

13. The full evaluation of the exercise is currently being conducted and a post-exercise report will be produced and delivered at the next Coordinating Executives Group (CEG) meeting in December outlining how well we met the outcomes and objectives of the exercise, the current state of our response capability and the areas for improvement.

14. Once the CEG have adopted the post exercise report, this will be included on the agenda of this Committee.

The Group Emergency Coordination Centre in operation, Friday, 18 October

Response planning meeting, Friday, 18 October

Decision Making Process

15. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the HB CDEM Joint Committee receives the “Exercise Ruaumoko Exercise Report”.

Authored by: Approved by:

Jim Tetlow

Team Leader Operational Readiness

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HB CDEM Group Joint Committee

Monday 11 November 2019

Subject: Earthquake-prone buildings Policy Implementation Update

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Committee an overview of how the Group’s members are implementing the provisions of the Building Act 2004 in relation to earthquake prone buildings.

2. The following diagram illustrates the factors that are considered as part of this system of managing earthquake prone buildings. As the CDEM Group, under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 this Committee is partially responsible for matters around life safety risk and the emergency response. For this reason the Committee requested an update report from each of the council members of the Group.

3. This report also summarises relevant information on council’s responsibilities under the Act. However the report should not be considered as a definitive guide to these provisions.

Background

4. In 2017 the Government introduced new provisions in relation to managing earthquake-prone buildings. The new system is consistent across the country and focuses on the most vulnerable buildings in terms of people's safety.

5. An earthquake prone building is defined as a building that has the potential to collapse in a moderate earthquake in such a way that is likely to cause injury or death to people in or near the building or on any other property, or damage to any other property. This definition applies to non-residential buildings. Most residential buildings would not be considered for assessment under this definition unless they are at least two stories high and contain more than two household units.

6. Priority buildings are defined as earthquake prone buildings that are considered to present a higher risk because of their construction, type, use or location. They may be buildings that are considered to pose a higher risk to life safety or buildings that are critical to the response and recovery in an emergency.

Discussion

7. Territorial Authorities are responsible for deciding if a building is earthquake prone. In the case of Hawke’s Bay, the region is located in a high seismic risk area and as such TAs are required to identify potentially earthquake prone buildings as follows:

7.1. Priority buildings by 1 January 2020.

7.2. Other earthquake prone buildings by 1 July 2022.

8. Once a council has identified a building as potentially earthquake prone, the owner is required to complete an engineering assessment which may then require a detailed earthquake assessment. This must be done within 12 months of the territorial authority advising the building owner their building as potentially earthquake prone and be supplied to the council.

9. The council then decides if the building is earthquake prone or not. Owners are required to display notices on their building and carry out remedial work.

10. Owners of priority earthquake-prone buildings must carry out seismic work within 7.5 year of confirmation from the council it is earthquake prone. For all other earthquake prone buildings this work must be completed within 15 years.

11. Attached to this report are summaries of where each council in the Group is in this process.

Decision Making Process

12. Staff have assessed the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in relation to this item and have concluded that, as this report is for information only, the decision making provisions do not apply.

Recommendation

That the HB CDEM Group Joint Committee receives the “Earthquake-prone buildings Policy implementation update” report.

Authored and Approved by:

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller

Attachment/s

⇩1	EQ Prone Buildings identification progress
⇩2	Earthquake-prone buildings on vehicle and pedestrian routes - Statement of Proposal, April 2019
⇩3	Napier City Council potentially earthquake-prone building identification overview
⇩4	Napier City Council Regulatory Committee - 30 April 2019 Open Minutes

Item	Topic	Raised by
1.
2.
3.

Item	Topic	Member/Staff
1.
2.
3.