Meeting of the Corporate and Strategic Committee

 

 

Date:                 Wednesday 10 June 2020

Time:                9.00am

Venue:

Council Chamber

Hawke's Bay Regional Council

159 Dalton Street

NAPIER

 

Agenda

 

Item     Title                                                                                           Page

 

1.         Welcome/Notices/Apologies

2.         Conflict of Interest Declarations

3.         Confirmation of Minutes of the Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting held on 11 March 2020

4.         Follow-up Items from Previous Meetings                                         3

5.         Call for Minor Items Not on the Agenda                                           7

Decision Items

6.         Remit to Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting                                                                                             9

7.         Risk Maturity Roadmap                                                                  11

8.         Health and Safety Governance Charter                                         35

Information or Performance Monitoring

9.         Quarterly Treasury Report for period to 31 March 2020                39

10.       Water Security Governance Model                                                59

11.       Discussion of Minor Items Not on the Agenda                               73

Public Excluded Decision Items

12.       Heretaunga Water Security Scoping Report                                  75

13.       HBRIC Ltd 2019-20 Statement of Intent                                        77

14.       Napier Port Verbal Update                                                             79

15.       Request for Remission of Leasehold Rent –  Wellington Property                                                                                                         81

16.       Confirmation of 11 March 2020 Public Excluded Minutes             83

 

 


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 10 June 2020

Subject: Follow-up Items from Previous Meetings

 

Reason for Report

1.    On the list attached are items raised at previous Corporate & Strategic Committee meetings that staff have followed up on. All items indicate who is responsible for follow up, and a brief status comment. Once the items have been reported to the Committee they will be removed from the list.

Decision Making Process

2.    Staff have assess 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 Corporate and Strategic Committee receives and notes the “Follow-up Items from Previous Meetings” staff report.

 

 

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Governance Lead

 

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive

 

 

Attachment/s

1

Followups for June 2020 CorpStrat meeting

 

 

  


Followups for June 2020 CorpStrat meeting

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 10 June 2020

Subject: Call for Minor Items Not on the Agenda

 

Reason for Report

1.      This item provides the means for committee members to raise minor matters they wish to bring to the attention of the meeting.

2.      Hawke’s Bay Regional Council standing order 9.13 states:

2.1.   A meeting may discuss an item that is not on the agenda only if it is a minor matter relating to the general business of the meeting and the Chairperson explains at the beginning of the public part of the meeting that the item will be discussed. However, the meeting may not make a resolution, decision or recommendation about the item, except to refer it to a subsequent meeting for further discussion.

Recommendations

3.      That the Corporate and Strategic Committee accepts the following “Minor Items Not on the Agenda” for discussion as Item 11.

Topic

Raised by

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leeanne Hooper

GOVERNANCE LEAD

James Palmer

CHIEF EXECUTIVE

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 10 June 2020

Subject: Remit to Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting

 

Reason for Report

1.      This report seeks the agreement of the Committee to support the Climate Change Coastal Hazard remit proposed to be submitted to Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) by Hauraki District Council.

Background

2.      Hauraki District Council intend on raising a Climate Change Coastal Hazard remit at the LGNZ AGM and, as part of the process Hauraki District Council needs the support of at least five other councils; proposing to ask for the support of:

2.1.      Hawkes Bay Regional Council

2.2.      Waikato Regional Council

2.3.      Waikato District Council

2.4.      Napier City Council

2.5.      Hastings District Council, and

2.6.      Northland Regional Council.

3.      As part of the Remit process Hauraki District Council requires feedback on whether HBRC will support the Remit by 10 June; sufficiently provided by an email response from the Chair to Hauraki District Council at this stage.

Remit

4.      As part of the LGNZ annual conference and AGM, all Councils are invited to submit proposed remits. Proposed remits should only relate to the internal governance and constitution of Local Government New Zealand, and relate to “issues of the moment”. Remits must have formal support from at least one sector group meeting, or five councils, prior to being submitted for consideration by LGNZ.

5.      The remit in question proposes:

5.1.      That Central Government undertakes a comprehensive review of the current law relating to natural hazards and climate change adaptation along New Zealand’s coastlines and coordinates the development of a coastline strategy for the whole of New Zealand which would cover the roles and responsibilities of territorial and regional councils, greater direction on an integrated approach, and develop principles for “who pays”.

6.      Staff recommend that the Committee supports the remit based on the following assessment.

Key Reasons

7.      That the remit reflects some of the challenges experienced during the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy 2120.

8.      Specifically the remit reflects the same issues raise through the MfE/ HBRC case study “Challenges with Implementing the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120” being:

8.1.      Core responsibilities for adaptation are ambiguous

8.2.      Tools and mechanisms to manage current and future hazards are limited or inefficient

8.3.      There is a lack of agreed approach and principles for sharing costs of works.

Decision Making Process

9.      Council and its committees are 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:

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

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

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

9.4.      Given the nature and significance of the issues to be considered and decided, Council can exercise its discretion and make these without consulting directly with the community.

 

Recommendations

That the Corporate and Strategic Committee:

1.      Receives and considers the “Remit to Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting” staff report.

2.      Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant, and that the Committee can exercise its discretion and make decisions on this issue without conferring with the community.

3.      Confirms support for the proposed Hauraki District Council Climate Change Coastal Hazard remit, to be supplied by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Chairman via email.

 

Authored and Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

 

 

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 10 June 2020

Subject: Risk Maturity Roadmap

 

Reason for Report

1.      This item outlines a proposed long-term pathway towards a culture of consistent and transparent risk intelligent decision making across every Council function and summarises the current state of Council’s Enterprise Risk Management programme; seeking Council’s support to initiate the risk maturity work programme in accordance with the proposed roadmap.

Officers’ Recommendations

2.      Council officers recommend that the Corporate and Strategic Committee endorses Phases I and II of the proposed risk maturity roadmap with key decisions items to be finalised by the Executive Leadership Team and the Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee (FARS) and formal adoption by the Council during the 2020-21 financial year.

3.      Council officers further recommend that the Committee endorses Phases III and IV of the risk maturity journey on a longer-term horizon, recognising the need to create a fundamental cultural shift towards risk intelligent decision making across all functions of the Council.

Executive Summary

4.      The ultimate purpose of a robust Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) programme is to provide assurance to the Council and oversight to the Executive Leadership Team that risks are managed, and risk opportunities are seized.  Risk intelligent, or risk informed decision making ensures the ongoing efficient and effective achievement of HBRC’s operational and strategic objectives.

5.      To that end, this item seeks the Committee’s endorsement of certain foundational elements of the proposed ERM work programme with defined deliverables to enable achievement of the longer-term goal of implementing a robust ERM framework to define, develop, deploy, measure, monitor, and report upon a culture of risk intelligent decision making in support of Council’s vision, mission, and strategic objectives.

6.      The item’s recommendations are supported by:

6.1.      An initial risk maturity assessment from external auditors driven by Council’s 2019-2020 Audit work programme

6.2.      An external independent cursory risk maturity assessment, and

6.3.      Staff’s commitment to seek and adopt industry best practices to create a more resilient, risk-intelligent organisation better positioned to deliver outcomes consistent with Council’s mission, vision, and values.

Background

7.      Initially established as part of the Finance team within the Corporate Services umbrella, Council’s risk management functions included identifying, reporting and quantifying Council’s key enterprise risks across functions.

8.      With a dotted line reporting to the Office of CE and Chair (OCEC), Council’s Group Accountant shared a variety of risk management responsibilities including risk workshops, risk training, and risk reporting in addition to the role’s primary Finance functions.

9.      As the risk management program matured organically within the Council coupled with turnover within the Finance team, staff realigned the risk management function entirely under OCEC’s portfolio of responsibilities in May 2019. This resulted in a complementary OCEC portfolio which included adjacent enterprise functions such as governance and audit.

10.    Acknowledging Council’s diverse nature of services in an increasingly dynamic environment, staff established a full-time, permanent Risk and Assurance lead role to further develop Council’s Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) capabilities.

11.    Council’s function-specific risk management activities are currently being undertaken across the organisation. Council’s current risk management programme includes centralised risk reporting on a six-monthly basis in the form of a risk register outlining Council’s enterprise risks. HBRC’s risk register was last presented to the FARS at the meeting held on 12 February 2020. As part of the risk maturity transition plan staff propose that the risk register ordinarily scheduled to be presented to FARS at the 12 August 2020 meeting will include the revised enterprise risks.

12.    Worthy of note, since the 12 February 2020 risk report Hawke’s Bay has been impacted by two significant events, being the Covid19 response and a declared regional drought. 

13.    New Zealand’s response to Covid19 took effect at velocity. As a result, HBRC’s operating model was disrupted.  During this time of business interruption, the ongoing risk focus has been ensuring enterprise risks directly and materially impacted by the Covid19 response continued to be well managed.  These risks included:

13.1.    Health and Safety

13.2.    People and Culture (including wellbeing)

13.3.    Community Sustainability (welfare and resilience - CDEM), and

13.4.    Financial. 

14.    The impact of the declared regional drought has also meant additional scrutiny applied to similar risks including:

14.1.    Community Sustainability (welfare of farmers and closer oversight of water related resources), and

14.2.    People and Culture (our staff capacity particularly given additional Covid19 restrictions and CDEM’s involvement in Covid19 regional coordination).

15.    As Council’s risk reporting functions have evolved, it is considered good practice to further develop Council’s culture of risk by formalising a risk maturity roadmap.  An integrated and embedded risk management system ensures effective execution of objectives by identifying and addressing risks and uncertainties, therefore supporting operational excellence. A key value of Council being excellence, the timing is considered optimal to consciously advance the Council’s current risk practices via an accelerated path to risk maturity.

16.    It is imperative to note that this accelerated path to risk maturity is a journey requiring a long-term commitment to risk management to create a fundamental cultural shift. As with any programme that seeks an enduring cultural transformation, a steadfast commitment from the Council and the Executive Leadership Team is a crucial component for success in the long term.

17.    With the appointment of an in-house permanent Risk and Assurance Lead position effective 18 May 2020, Council aims to formalise the role of risk management as an enabler of strategic and operational objectives.

A Primer on Enterprise Risk Management frameworks

18.    All Council managers, employees, and stakeholders currently manage risk on a daily basis. Proposed ERM efforts are designed to link risks and risk opportunities to objectives. This enables cross functional aggregation of what may appear to be disparate risks.  This also provides the ability to embed risk management into everyday decision making for all staff.

19.    A mature and dynamic approach of ERM is tailored to the organisation’s size, scale, and mandate, as well as integrated and standardised across all levels of the organisation. This tailored approach to ERM enables the Executive Leadership Team and the governing body to:

19.1.    Effectively prioritise resource allocation for management of risks that most significantly impact the Council’s overall strategic plan and mission

19.2.    Stress-test Council’s strategic and operational objectives against the interests of key stakeholders

19.3.    Define, develop, and cultivate a culture of operational excellence that is effective in identifying all risks, which enables the streamlining of processes and controls across the organisation.

20.    Council’s risk maturity can be benchmarked against a number of well-recognised risk management models.  Staff have undertaken an evaluation of these models.  This evaluation considered Council’s size, scale, mandate, and operational practices for benchmark suitability.

21.    After careful consideration, staff have agreed to utilise the principles of the International Standard for Risk Management (ISO 31000:2018), while also adding certain prescribed elements outlined in the All-of-Government’ (AoG) enterprise risk maturity assessment framework propagated by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ).

22.    ISO 31000:2018 provides the ability to tailor risk processes, so they are right sized for Council.  In addition, the ISO model allows for better alignment to Council’s other structured management systems such as Quality Management Systems (ISO 90001) and therefore provides the ability for future management system integration.

Current Risk Management Efforts – Assessed by Shash Davè, External Consultant

23.    At the request of Staff and Council to provide a “quick risk maturity assessment against best-in-class programmes,” Council retained an independent external consultant to:

23.1.    Swiftly undertake a subjective risk maturity assessment, and

23.2.    Interview the Executive Leadership Team to collect, collate, prioritise, and report top Council risks on a standardised 1-page dashboard (heatmap). A brief summary of each of these efforts is provided following.

24.    Preliminary risk maturity assessment: Key highlights from an independent preliminary risk maturity assessment are outlined below in detail and graphically summarised in the attachment as Exhibit A – HBRC Risk Maturity Cursory Assessment below (and attached to this report).

25.    Key highlights from this preliminary risk assessments are outlined following.

25.1.    Risk as a value driver – Council and the Executive Leadership Team recognise the value of utilising risk management as an enabler of strategic objectives well beyond the traditional model of risk aversion.

25.2.    Tone at the top – Council and the Executive Leadership Team have established a clear “tone at the top” with high levels of engagement to drive a long-term cultural shift towards perception of risk.  Council and the Executive Leadership Team desire a focussed approach to empowering Staff in making smart, risk-informed choices within a yet-to-be-defined tolerance framework (i.e. risk appetite).

25.3.    Current state – Operational risk management efforts are routinely undertaken by business units in an ad-hoc and episodic manner with risk prioritisation occurring via traditional channels of managerial escalation.  Routine Executive Leadership Team meetings are an informal forum where mitigation plans are discussed and resource-allocation is prioritised.  The output of this exercise is communicated in the form of a risk register to the Finance Audit and Risk Sub-committee.

25.4.    Risk tolerance dissonance – Functional units have a varying perception of acceptable risks and risk tolerance resulting in differing degrees of resource-allocation for identified risks.  Formalised, analytically sound risk appetite statements aligned with strategic objectives is necessary to empower Staff in making risk-informed decisions.

25.5.    Audience-appropriate, clear risk reporting – With a proposed standardised reporting relying on a predefined framework, Council’s risk identification and reporting methodology requires refinement in order to tailor audience-specific portfolio view of key risks (e.g. risk heatmap with top 5 / 10 / 15 risks).

25.6.    A need for standardisation – An enterprise-consistent and standardised identification, reporting, and escalation framework is required in order to effectively deploy resources.  Council’s current format of enterprise consistent risk-based resourcing is largely subjective.  Standardised scales of Impact (Severity) and Likelihood (Frequency) were recently proposed as a draft for further refinement by Staff.

25.7.    Incongruous adoption and roll-out – Council’s risk management practices are incongruously adopted across the enterprise with limited focus on risk interoperability and limited alignment with strategy.

25.8.    Resiliency – Risk resiliency evaluations are primarily driven by audit-based, siloed stress-testing, although, recent appointment of a dedicated in-house resource serves as a foundational platform for embedding risk management deeper within the Council.

25.9.    Integrated response management – Function specific crisis response processes are well defined. However, routine cross-functional crisis simulations tied to emerging risks can further bolster development of a rapid reaction task force.

25.10.  Scenario planning and political volatility – Long-term scenario planning exercises can be undertaken to refine and clarify top strategic priorities, driven by a standardised strategic risk framework, insulating Council’s strategic objectives from triennium-driven political volatility.

26.    While it is premature to provide detailed written risk maturity on this matter, Council’s current state of subjective risk maturity is included above (attached as Exhibit A – HBRC Risk Maturity Cursory Assessment). Council’s current risk maturity is roughly approximated between “ad-hoc” and “defined” on an evolutionary path towards risk intelligence.

Executive Leadership Team Risk Interviews

27.    At the direction of staff and members of the Finance, Audit and Risk Subcommittee and Corporate and Strategic Committee, an independent, executive-focussed risk assessment has been commissioned to identify key enterprise risks across each Group of Activity to be assessed on a standardised scale of Impact (Severity) and Likelihood (Frequency).  A proposed draft copy of standardised scales is attached to this report as Exhibit D – HBRC Likelihood and Impact Assessment Matrix for Operational Risks.  Staff continue to evaluate these standardised scales which are subject to revision prior to review and eventual adoption by the Council.

28.    Outputs from the executive risk assessment interviews are currently being evaluated for presentation to Council in the form of a one-page, portfolio risk heatmap for top enterprise risks before 30 June 2020.  This output is designed to act as a springboard for formalised risk heatmap reporting.  This exercise will inform staff’s current risk management efforts in formalising the Council’s ERM framework and key enterprise risk for reporting and determining risk appetite parameters and risk tolerances.

29.    Executive risk assessment interviews conducted to date indicate broad consensus among the Executive Leadership Team of key Enterprise Risks.  This consensus for creating a robust and standardised risk management framework to drive operational excellence points to a culture of humility and is consistent with Council’s values of collaboration, transparency, accountability, and excellence. As an example, the following emerging risk in the current operating environment is outlined below for reference. All reported risks will be subject to Executive Leadership Team harmonisation prior to final dashboard (heatmap) reporting to the Finance, Audit, and Risk Subcommittee (FARS) by 12 August 2020:

29.1.    An increasingly volatile economic environment precipitated by COVID-19 has manifested in several financial risks adversely impacting Council’s funding strategy, operating income from rates revenue, and sources of non-rates revenue (e.g. interim dividend suspension by Napier Port to its shareholders). With FY 2019-20 financial impacts anticipated to be well above the $2.5 million scale for severity (impact scale 5) and a likelihood of near certainty (likelihood scale 4 / 5), these risks will appear on Council’s overall ERM risk dashboard / heatmap as one of the top enterprise risks with associated downstream impact to Council’s ability to execute on its core functions and undertake its statutory obligations.

29.2.    Similarly, each member of the Executive Leadership Team has highlighted their top 2-3 function-specific risks across the standardised likelihood and impact scale to be prioritised by staff to arrive at a clear, enterprise-consistent dashboard (heatmap) reporting to the Finance, Audit, and Risk Subcommittee (FARS) by 12 August 2020.


Proposed Risk Maturity Roadmap

30.    As a result of risk maturity discussions with input from staff, members of the Executive Leadership Team, and some members of the Finance Audit and Risk Sub-committee, and the external risk consultant, staff propose the attached risk maturity roadmap; with the first phase scheduled for completion on or before 30 June 2020. Exhibit B below and attached outlines Council’s risk maturity roadmap in a phased approach.

Exhibit B – HBRC Risk Maturity Roadmap (Proposed)

31.    Phase I of this roadmap to risk maturity aims to standardise Council’s risk management framework. This tailored risk management framework will be customised to suit Council’s, size, scale, and mandate (strategic, operational, and financial objectives).  Staff aim to complete the following three deliverables proposed in Phase 1 of the roadmap for presentation at 12 August 2020 FARS meeting.  These four deliverables include:

31.1.    Council endorsement for the high-level roadmap to risk maturity (this item)

31.1.1.    A detailed graphical representation of six components that comprise Phase I of this roadmap are attached to this report as Exhibit C – Key Artefacts and Decisions for Phase I of Risk Maturity Roadmap.

31.2.    Finalised purpose-built risk management framework consistent with International Standards (i.e. ISO 31000:2018) for Council adoption.

31.3.    Standardised scales for Impact and Likelihood (Severity and Frequency) allowing for risks to be identified and ranked on a consistent scale for Council adoption

31.3.1.    Proposed draft copy of standardised scales is attached to this report as Exhibit D – HBRC Likelihood and Impact Assessment Matrix for Operational Risks draft copies of these scales are included as an Appendix to this report.

31.4.    Revised enterprise risks.

32.    Phase II of the roadmap proposes a review of the draft risk appetite statements aligned to Council’s strategic, financial, and operational objectives. Additionally, HBRC’s enterprise risks will be ratified using the Council approved risk management framework.  Ratified enterprise risk context and risk controls will be determined by applying ‘bowtie’ risk methodologies. Within this phase, routine risk reporting to the governance committees will also be formalised

33.    Phase III of the roadmap intends for the Executive Leadership Team to ratify Council’s risk appetite statements across strategic, operational, and financial objectives and proposes adoption by the Council. Staff also intend to present a draft version of Council’s risk management policy, framework, and reporting standards for Council review, feedback, and eventual adoption

34.    Phase IV of the roadmap is designed to operationalise risk appetite statements deeper within the organisation further refining the quality of risk reporting pipeline. Efforts include creating qualitative and quantitative processes for risk aggregation with the eventual goal of developing Key Risk Indicators (KRIs) and Key Control Indicators (KCIs).  KRIs and KCIs when used in conjunction with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) should drive proactive and forward-looking risk-intelligent decision making across the Council.  This phase is a longer-term deliverable.

35.    Staff intend to provide detailed updates for each phase of this proposed roadmap as the Council continues this journey of evolution towards risk intelligence.  Providing the continued commitment to risk maturity and risk maturity resourcing, Staff expects to seek formal adoption of key governance and risk oversight processes and policies within Phases I, II, and III before the end of FY 2020-2021.

36.    Phase IV requires significant commitment and buy-in across all functions and levels of the organisation.  Numerous aspects of Phase IV are designed to further embed and operationalise a culture of risk intelligent decision making across the Council and its varied stakeholders.

37.    Driving a fundamental cultural shift of this scope is a voyage requiring steadfast commitment to risk management as an enabler of strategic objectives rather than an assurance-focussed tick-the-box exercise.  As a result, it is premature to editorialise on a time-constrained approach for an evolution beyond Phase III.

38.    Effective 18 May 2020, Helen Marsden has been appointed as a dedicated in-house Risk and Assurance lead with overall responsibility of managing and leading Council’s risk and assurance activities across the four proposed phases. Helen brings over 15 years of risk management experience that is supported by an MBA from Massey University.  As an in-house employee, Helen led risk management maturity across a diverse range of organisations, including large banks, finance companies, and critical infrastructure. In addition, as an employee of PwC, Helen provided external risk management consulting services to a range of other organisations and has worked as a trusted risk advisor to a variety of Executive Leadership teams and governing bodies.

39.    Recognising that reducing risk to zero would prohibit any form of Council activity, Phase I to III of the risk maturity roadmap is designed to provide the Executive Leadership Team and the governing body a foundation for robust discussion surrounding Council’s risk framework, risk appetite, and tolerances.  Therefore, a number of risk artefacts and decisions will be required to finalise HBRC’s risk framework.  Draft copy of key artefacts and decisions within the first phase of this journey are attached to this report as Exhibit C – Key Artefacts and Decisions for Phase I of Risk Maturity Roadmap.

External audit efforts on Council’s current risk maturity assessment

40.    As outlined in Council’s current 2019-2020 Audit Programme, Crowe has been retained as an external auditor to evaluate Council’s risk maturity in context of the All of Government (AoG) risk maturity model promoted by Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ).

41.    An initial assessment by the auditors indicates that Council’s current risk management practices are lacking a foundational framework with inconsistent and ad-hoc risk management functions being performed in silos.  It is expected that the final audit report will likely outline areas of improvement to further drive risk maturity within the organisation.  This proposed pathway to risk maturity intends to address not only the matters anticipated in the audit report but to also create a lasting culture of risk-intelligent decision making.

42.    Staff intend to respond to the audit findings with this proposed risk maturity roadmap while addressing non-conformance and findings from the auditors with regards to risk maturity.

43.    It should be noted that staff intend to create distinct and separate frameworks for the risk management function and for the assurance function.  The LGNZ All of Government (AoG) risk maturity model recognises assurance as a function of risk maturity.  However, to enable a phased approach to risk maturity, it is recommended that Council maintain a distinction between risk management and assurance maturity programmes.

44.    Risk management maturity intends to drive and foster a cultural change in risk intelligent decision making by all staff while an assurance framework provides confidence that consistent systems are effectively applied across the organisation.  Enterprise-wide development and application of one overarching risk framework enables consistency in the application of risk intelligent decisions which in turn provides a higher level of assurance to the Executive Leadership Team and the Council.

Options Assessment

Option 1 – Do Nothing

45.    In an increasingly dynamic environment, opting to maintain the status quo with Council’s current state of risk maturity may adversely impact operational excellence and effectiveness in the short term, and may adversely impact Council’s ability to achieve its strategic objectives in the long term.

46.    Current practice of functional, ad-hoc, and siloed identification, management, and mitigation of risks will make risk aggregation challenging resulting in suboptimal outcomes.

47.    Council’s incongruous adoption of risk practices across the organisation may limit Council’s resiliency due to lack of portfolio risk visibility and prioritisation.

Option 2 – Endorse the proposed risk maturity framework

48.    With broad Staff consensus for creating a robust and standardised risk management framework to foster a culture of risk intelligence across all functions of the Council, Staff recommend that the Committee endorse Option 2 empowering Staff to commence Phases I and II of the proposed risk maturity framework. Endorsing the proposed risk maturity framework will help achieve Council’s strategic and operational goals by:

48.1.    Prioritising resource allocation for management of risks that most significantly impact the Council’s overall strategic plan and mission

48.2.    Stress-testing Council’s strategic and operational objectives against the interests of key stakeholders

48.3.    Defining, developing, and cultivating a culture of operational excellence and risk intelligent decision making across all functions.

Option 3 – Explore alternatives to the proposed risk maturity framework

49.    The Committee may opt to explore alternatives to the proposed risk maturity framework. Staff do not recommend this option because the proposed risk maturity framework integrates principles of numerous well-recognised international and New Zealand standards for risk management framework providing the ability to tailor risk processes that are right sized for the Council.  In addition, the proposed risk maturity model allows for better alignment to Council’s other structured management systems therefore providing the ability for future management system integration driving operational efficiencies.

50.    Alternative options are also likely to be inapplicable to Council’s size, scope, and mandate resulting in inappropriate resource utilisation.


Financial and Resource implications

51.    Staff confirm that the foundational elements of the proposed work programme are accommodated within existing budgets as set by the 2018-28 Long Term Plan, however if the Committee wishes to commission additional work, budget allocations may require reconsideration.

Strategic Fit

52.    A mature and dynamic ERM programme that is tailored to the Council’s size, scale, and mandate, as well as integrated and standardised across all levels of the Council enables the Executive Leadership Team and the Council effectively prioritise resource allocation for management of risks that most significantly impact each of the Council’s four strategic priority areas of:

52.1.    Water Quality, Safety and Certainty

52.2.    Smart, Sustainable Land Use

52.3.    Healthy and Functioning Biodiversity, and

52.4.    Sustainable Services and Infrastructure.

53.    Council’s proposed ERM maturity framework utilises risk management as an enabler of strategic objectives well beyond the traditional model of risk avoidance by providing a standardised, enterprise-consistent, and all-encompassing portfolio view of Council’s risks and risk opportunities.

Conclusions

54.    Staff will provide timely and meaningful updates to all relevant Committees along each Phase the risk management programme maturity.

55.    The proposed evolutionary risk maturity roadmap outlines a path towards risk intelligent decision making. It is important, however, to note that creating, fostering, operationalising, and propagating a culture of risk across all functions of the Council is a process of continuous improvement. As such, “best-in-class” achievements are mythical. Consequently, Council’s risk maturity roadmaps must also remain dynamic and subject to routine evolutionary reviews.

Decision Making Process

56.    Council and its committees are 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:

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

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

56.3.    The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy

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

56.5.    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

1.      That the Corporate and Strategic Committee receives and considers the “Proposed Risk Maturity Roadmap” staff report.

2.      The Corporate and Strategic Committee recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

2.1.      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 or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

2.2.      Endorses the approach proposed by staff to formally launch the proposed Risk Management Maturity roadmap with the goal of embedding consistency in risk-intelligent decision making across all levels and functions of the Council.

 

Authored by:

Shash Davé

Independent Consultant

Helen Marsden

Risk & Assurance Lead

Approved by:

Joanne Lawrence

Group Manager Office of the Chief Executive and Chair

 

 

Attachment/s

1

Path to Risk Maturity Exhibits

 

 

2

Risk Maturity 10 June 2020 Presentation

 

 

  


Path to Risk Maturity Exhibits

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Risk Maturity 10 June 2020 Presentation

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 10 June 2020

Subject: Health and Safety Governance Charter

 

Reason for Report

1.      This item seeks the Committee’s agreement to the Council’s Health and Safety Governance Charter.

Officers’ Recommendation

2.      Council officers recommend that the Committee considers the sufficiency of the background and discussion information provided following to satisfy themselves that a detailed review and revision of the Charter is not required at this time and approve the actions required to formalise adoption of the 2020 version.

Background /Discussion

3.      An internal audit of the health and safety practices and processes in Council was included in the Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee (FARS) internal audit work programme for 2018-19 and the scope of the audit agreed on 6 June 2018.

4.      The audit resulted in a number of recommendations for implementation across Council, reported to the 21 November 2018 FARS meeting, including advice that Council should adopt a Health and Safety Governance Charter.  The Charter proposed today is the result of the iterative development process that began with the audit report presentation and discussion on 21 November 2018 at the FARS meeting; and finishing with adoption of the Charter by the Regional Council on 27 March 2019.

5.      The Charter was due for its annual review during the recent Covid19 lockdown period when staff were focused on our operational response to that event and committee meetings suspended, hence its arrival on the agenda for consideration today.

6.      Staff do not propose any changes to the Charter at this time as they consider it is still fit for purpose, and as such now seek the Committee’s agreement to formalise the 2020 Charter with the signatures of the Chairs of the FARS and the Council.

7.      It is also worth noting that a follow-up review of the original Health and Safety internal audit was conducted in May/June 2020 which has identified that considerable progress toward implementing the 2018 report’s recommendations had been achieved. The full review report will be presented to the FARS meeting on 12 August 2020 along with an updated work programme which takes account of the few residual audit findings and recommendations and additional activity.

Decision Making Process

8.      Council and its committees are 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:

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

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

8.3.      The decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy

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

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

 

Recommendations

1.      That the Corporate and Strategic Committee receives and considers the “Health and Safety Governance Charter” staff report.

2.      The Corporate and Strategic Committee recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

2.1.      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 or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.

2.2.      Adopts the Health and Safety Governance Charter as proposed, for the signatures of the Regional Council and Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee Chairs.

 

 

Authored by:

Kirsty McInnes

Senior Advisor Health and Safety

 

Approved by:

Joanne Lawrence

Group Manager Office of the Chief Executive and Chair

 

 

Attachment/s

1

June 2020 HBRC Health and Safety Governance Charter

 

 

  


June 2020 HBRC Health and Safety Governance Charter

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

   


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 10 June 2020

Subject: Quarterly Treasury Report for period to 31 March 2020

 

Reason for Report

1.      This item provides an update of compliance monitoring of treasury activity and reports the performance of Council’s diversified investment portfolios.

2.      The March ending Quarterly Treasury report is being delivered late to Council due the scheduled Financial Audit and Risk Subcommittee being deferred as a result of COVID-19. For relevancy purposes, Office has provided updates of each Fund to the end of May 2020.

3.      Brian Kearney, a representative from Mercer, will be joining the Corporate and Strategic Subcommittee on 17 June 2020; providing an opportunity to discuss the Funds being managed by Mercer and to provide a market update.

Executive Summary

Description

Total Capital Contributed

Value

31 Dec 19

Value

31 Mar 20

Value

30 Apr

Value

31 May

$

$

$

$

$

LTIF – HBRC

46,620,291

50,650,850

46,305,061

48,586,877

49,481,663

HBRIC (port Proceeds)

59,013,403

60,013,359

58,452,264

60,891,800

61,910,152

HBRC (Port Proceeds)

43,967,485

44,703,199

41,711,847

43,421,705

43,773,089

Total

149,601,179

155,367,408

146,469,172

152,900,382

155,164,903

 

4.      The first half of 2020 saw the rapid international spread of, COVID-19. This led to large parts of the world economy halting in a bid to minimise the collapse of healthcare systems. Initially, markets where slow to respond to the risk, however, once caught up, in late February/March, we witnessed the fastest-falling equity market of the last century.

5.      In the last 2 months, markets have recovered a significant amount of the loss. The speed of decline is notable here. Traditionally, shares are priced to an estimated earnings stream over a significant amount of time, not just the next quarter. The volatility seen in late February/March, would usually only seen in Balances Sheets which are not be able to access additional debt. As such, this ‘rebound’ indicates optimism that the vast monetary and fiscal support offered across the world will be enough to stave off serious negative long-term economic consequences.

6.      Equity markets across the global have been aided with the declining interest rates, resulting in investors repositioning money into the equity markets. Large institutions and Overseas Pensions Funds have led this flow, where they have predicated mandates that they must meet. This competition pushes up the price of equities.

7.      Locally the NZX50 is up almost 30% from its lows in March, with healthcare stocks leading the way with abnormally large returns. However, long term, Tourism will still be very tough, and the housing market, which is traditionally a key driver of the New Zealand economy, is still one of the largest areas of uncertainty, and downside risks are possible. A real key to the recovery, will be the maintenance of both consumer and business confidence.


Background

8.      HBRC has procured Treasury Advice and services from PwC since 2018.

9.      Internally, HBRC’s CFO is developing capability-building programmes to transfer skills from consultants to staff to build internal capabilities to continuously improve and provide an adequate, mature treasury function.

10.    Staff have worked with PwC over the past two years during which we have joined the LGFA providing access to borrowing at reduced rates, developed and adopted the current SIPO and run an RFP process for the appointment of investment fund managers.

11.    Since March 2020, HBRC has had a dedicated resource in the form of a Treasury and Funding Accountant. This allows HBRC to develop a more mature cash-flow function, as borrowing needs increase and enhance reporting to Council.

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 Corporate and Strategic Committee receives and notes the “Quarterly Treasury Report for period to 31 March 2020”.

 

Authored by:

Geoff Howes

Treasury & Funding Accountant

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

 

 

Attachment/s

1

HBRC Treasury Report for Period to 31 March 2020

 

 

  


HBRC Treasury Report for Period to 31 March 2020

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


HBRC Treasury Report for Period to 31 March 2020

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


HBRC Treasury Report for Period to 31 March 2020

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 10 June 2020

Subject: Water Security Governance Model

 

Reason for Report

1.      This item provides an update on the Committee’s direction to staff on 11 March 2020 to further investigate alternative governance models for the Tukituki Water Security Scheme and the Heretaunga Water Security Scheme that that will identify and assess a short list of programme governance models for recommendation to Council for adoption.

Executive Summary

2.      As part of its Water Security funding agreements with the Provincial Growth Fund, HBRC undertook to investigate and propose a model for the ownership, structure and governance of the Heretaunga and CHB Water Security Projects (being the pre-construction phase of any scheme), that is appropriate for Hawke's Bay and consistent with the priority of and interests in water. Subject to Council’s final determination and the approval of the responsible Ministry, the Crown and HBRC would, if required, transfer their funding agreements and all other interests to an entity established under such a model.

3.      Staff have written to regional leaders and iwi authorities inviting their feedback on a short list of governance options. At the time of writing we are yet to receive feedback from Hastings District Council and Ngati Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated.

Background /Discussion

4.      Of the four projects within the Regional Water Security Programme The 3D Aquifer Mapping project and the Regional Water Assessment sit as HBRC work streams with dedicated project management structures and operate according to normal internal accountability and governance structures.

5.      However, for the substantially larger CHB and Heretaunga projects, the Provincial Development Unit’s funding agreement directed HBRC to investigate a broader governance model that is consistent and aligned with the regional leadership’s support of the application.  Specifically, each agreement proposes that:

5.1.      [HBRC] undertakes to comply with the following additional undertakings:

5.2.      In recognition of the representations made by Hawke's Bay's regional leaders that water security was the agreed priority they wished the Ministry to consider and support for Provincial Growth Fund funding, [HBRC] undertakes that it will use reasonable endeavours, within 6 months from the date of this agreement to:

5.2.1.      investigate and propose a model for the ownership, structure and governance of the Project, being the pre-construction phase of the Scheme, that is appropriate for Hawke's Bay and consistent with the priority of and interests in water; and

5.2.2.      if required, transfer this Agreement and all other interests to an entity established under such a model;

5.3.      subject to the Ministry's approval.

6.      It is important to emphasise that the governance arrangements are restricted to the development and pre-construction phases of the projects and does not in any way pre-empt or fetter what will ultimately need to be appropriate ownership and/or operational models of any successful project that meet the feasibility thresholds necessary to achieve financial close and construction.

7.      HBRC engaged Bell Gully to develop a shortlist of governance options that could potentially satisfy this request (Attachment 1) and canvassed the following alternatives:

7.1.      Status Quo i.e. HBRC.

7.2.      Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company.

7.3.      Charitable Trust.

7.4.      Joint CCO.

7.5.      Committees of HBRC/Joint committees.

8.      On May 5 staff then wrote to the following organisations seeking their feedback on these options (copy of that letter is Attachment 2). These organisations were selected based either on their initial support for Water Security being the region’s number one priority for the PGF’s evaluation of applications submitted in early 2019, or at the recommendation of the Group Manager Maori Partnerships.

8.1.      Chair & CE, Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga

8.2.      Chair & CE, Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea

8.3.      Chair & CE, Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust

8.4.      Mayor & CE, Hastings District Council

8.5.      Mayor & CE, Napier City Council

8.6.      Mayor & CE, Central Hawke’s Bay District Council

8.7.      Chair & CE, Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated.

9.      Notwithstanding reminders sent out on 26 May, at the time for writing feedback had been received from all parties except Hastings District Council and Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated.

Summary of Feedback

10.    Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea favoured a Charitable Trust option that was specific and dedicated to Central Hawke’s Bay water security. Local leadership was considered to be integral to the success of the project. It is worth noting that Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea engaged with both CHBDC and the Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust on this matter. No suggestions were made as to their expectations as to the proportion of representation on a Trust.

11.    Central Hawke’s Bay District Council supported a dedicated CHB project Charitable Trust option and indicated its support for equal iwi representation on that entity.

12.    Napier City Council indicated a preference for a Joint Regional Committee under HBRC as a simple structure for the short term in the early phases of the respective projects. No comment was made in respect of a need to establish separate governance for each project.

13.    Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust prefers the Charitable Trust model believes that Treaty Partnership would be best reflected in 50-50 membership.  The Chief Executive noted the importance of representation on behalf of both Heretaunga and Tamatea hapū over and above representation by the Trust itself, and that the structure may require separate groups for each project. The Trust invites further discussions on the matter.

14.    Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga responded in relatively strident and wide-ranging terms and advocated for no governance model on the rationale that the projects should not proceed.  Staff are somewhat confused by some of the feedback which focusses on “TANK Governance” and re-states that organisations previously stated opposition to aspects of the TANK Plan change, TANK consent renewals and HBRC’s role in resource management generally.


15.    While feedback has yet to be received from both Hasting’s District Council and Ngāti Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated it is worth noting that the latter has previously expressed strong objections to the Water Security Programme and has on two occasions proactively made representations to the responsible Minister expressing its  dissatisfaction with HBRC and processes related to the Water Security programme.

16.    In summary, while the feedback is leaning towards a preference for a Charitable Trust option (three of the five responses), with further feedback to come and the totality of Te Taiwhenua o Heretaunga’s rejection of the projects, staff are not in a position to make concrete recommendations to Council at this point.

17.    It is perhaps worthwhile recording that staff are somewhat vexed by the notion of any governance structure that affords one group an effective veto over these projects, particularly given the significant public funding and resources committed to the project as well as the criticality of water security to the foreseeable needs of current and future generations in Hawke’s Bay.  While not stated explicitly, part of the PGF’s rationale for suggesting the exploration of a broader governance model was to protect the project(s) from a risk of being captured by one or another set of interests. This issue will be addressed as a part of any final set of recommendations.

18.    Furthermore, recall that any recommendations made by Council are subject to the ultimate approval of the Crown as a co-funder of the projects.

Next Steps

19.    Staff propose that an updated report be provided either to Council on the 24th June or EICC on 1 July, depending when feedback is received.

20.    In the interim staff propose to follow up with all parties with and update as a courtesy and to seek clarification and feedback on the preference by some to have the projects governed and managed separately. The cost in terms of time and resource of an even further devolved governance model will need to be understood by the funding agencies (HBRC and Crown).  

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

21.    This report relates directly to tangata whenua’s involvement in critical resource management issues, long term community wellbeing and climate change adaptation.   

22.    Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust in particular expressed an appreciation for being consulted at an early stage, acknowledging:

22.1.    its legislative mandate in relation to the hapū of Heretaunga Tamatea, whose influence extends the entire length of Heretaunga and Tamatea-Central Hawke’s Bay (our tribal rohe)

22.2.    its paramount rights and interests in both water and water security under our enacting settlement legislation, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act 2015 and, of course, the Resource Management Act 1991; and

22.3.    both the Heretaunga and Ruataniwha aquifers are within our tribal rohe.

Decision Making Process

23.    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.

 

Recommendations

That the Corporate and Strategic Committee receives and considers the “Water Security Pre-feasibility Options and Governance Models” staff report.

 


Authored and Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager
Strategic Planning

 

 

Attachment/s

1

Potential Water Security Governance Models

 

 

2

4 May 2020 Letter to Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst - HDC re Heretaunga and CHB Water Security Projects

 

 

  


Potential Water Security Governance Models

Attachment 1

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


4 May 2020 Letter to Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst - HDC re Heretaunga and CHB Water Security Projects

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


4 May 2020 Letter to Mayor Sandra Hazlehurst - HDC re Heretaunga and CHB Water Security Projects

Attachment 2

 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 10 June 2020

Subject: Discussion of Minor Matters Not on the Agenda

 

Reason for Report

1.     This document has been prepared to assist Committee members note the Minor Items Not on the Agenda to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda Item 5.

 

Item

Topic

Raised by

1.     

 

 

2.     

 

 

3.     

 

 

 

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 10 June 2020

Subject: Heretaunga Water Security Scoping Report

That Council excludes the public from this section of the meeting, being Agenda Item 12 Heretaunga Water Security Scoping Report with the general subject of the item to be considered while the public is excluded; the reasons for passing the resolution and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution being:

 

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED

REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION

GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION

Heretaunga Water Security Scoping Report

s7(2)(i) 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 enable the local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

s7(2)(j) 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 prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage.

The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

 

 

Authored and Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Group Manager
Strategic Planning

 

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 10 June 2020

Subject: HBRIC Ltd 2019-20 Statement of Intent

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council excludes the public from this section of the meeting, being Agenda Item 13 HBRIC Ltd 2019-20 Statement of Intent with the general subject of the item to be considered while the public is excluded; the reasons for passing the resolution and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution being:

 

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED

REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION

GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION

HBRIC Ltd 2019-20 Statement of Intent

s7(2)(b)(ii) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of that information is necessary to protect information which otherwise would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

 

 

Authored by:

Kishan Premadasa

Management Accountant

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager
Corporate Services

 

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 10 June 2020

Subject: Napier Port Verbal Update

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council excludes the public from this section of the meeting, being Agenda Item 14 Napier Port Verbal Update with the general subject of the item to be considered while the public is excluded; the reasons for passing the resolution and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution being:

 

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED

REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION

GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION

Napier Port Verbal Update

s7(2)(b)(ii) That the public conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of information where the withholding of that information is necessary to protect information which otherwise would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information.

The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

 

 

Authored & Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

 

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 10 June 2020

SUBJECT:  REQUEST FOR REMISSION OF LEASEHOLD RENT –  WELLINGTON PROPERTY

That the Council excludes the public from this section of the meeting being Request for Remission of Leasehold Rent –  Wellington Property, Agenda Item 15 with the general subject of the item to be considered while the public is excluded; the reasons for passing the resolution and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution being:

 

 

 

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED

REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION

GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION

Request for Remission of Leasehold Rent – Wellington Property

s7(2)(i) 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 enable the local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

 

 

 

Authored by:

Bronda Smith

Governance Lead

 

Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager
Corporate Services

 

 

   

  


HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 10 June 2020

SUBJECT:  CONFIRMATION OF 11 MARCH 2020 PUBLIC EXCLUDED MINUTES

That the Council excludes the public from this section of the meeting being Confirmation of 11 March 2020 Public Excluded Minutes, Agenda Item 16 with the general subject of the item to be considered while the public is excluded; the reasons for passing the resolution and the specific grounds under Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution being:

 

 

 

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED

REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION

GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION

Confirmation of 11 March 2020 Public Excluded Minutes

s7(2)(i) 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 enable the local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.

 

 

 

Authored by:

Leeanne Hooper

Governance Lead

 

Approved by:

James Palmer

Chief Executive