Agenda of Corporate and Strategic Committee

	Agenda Item	Follow-up / Request	Responsible	Status Comment
4	Strategic Bi-lateral Arrangements	Chairman and Chief Executive to put forward a proposal to the HB Local Government Leaders Forum to establish regular bilateral meetings with each of the four territorial authorities in the region	J Palmer/	Scheduling has been delayed due to the Covid19 response but will be developed for the 2020-21 financial year.
5	HBRC Agrichemical Collection Service Funding	Staff to investigate options to continue Agrichemical collection on a user pays basis for commercial users, and contributing to HazMobile collection events held annually by the district and city councils which target residential users.	J Blunden / L Lambert	Staff are engaging with District and City Councils around possible contributions or joint operation of hazmobile collection events. It is anticipated that a new process will be put forward for implementation in 2021-22.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 02 September 2020

Subject: Report and Recommendations from the 12 August 2020 Finance Audit and Risk Sub-committee

Reason for Report

1. The following matters were considered by the Finance Audit and Risk Sub-committee (FARS) meeting on 12 August 2020 and are now presented for the Committee’s consideration alongside any additional commentary the Sub-committee Chair wishes to offer.

2. The purpose of the Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee, in accordance with its Terms of Reference, is to report to the Corporate and Strategic Committee to fulfil its responsibilities for:

2.1. The provision of appropriate controls to safeguard the Council’s financial and non-financial assets, the integrity of internal and external reporting and accountability arrangements

2.2. The review of Council’s revenue and expenditure policies and the effectiveness of those policies.

2.3. The independence and adequacy of internal and external audit functions

2.4. The robustness of risk management systems, processes and practices

2.5. Compliance with applicable laws, regulations, standards and best practice guidelines.

Procurement Policy Amendments to Support the HB Economic Recovery

3. This item provided an update on progress implementing the management actions in response to recommendations from the 2018 Internal Audit, the amended HBRC Procurement Policy and Manual, and provided a 2019-20 year-end report of procurement metrics requested by the sub-committee.

4. In relation to amendments made to the Procurement Policy and Manual to strengthen HBRC’s ability to support the region’s economic recovery, these included adding evaluation weighting to local purchasing, amending the Principles to add and emphasise Climate Smart Recovery and best practice procurement advised by OAG for achieving Broader Outcomes. In addition, the Policy was amended to raise the CE’s delegation from $50k to $100k for capital expenditure if funded from the asset replacement reserve.

5. Following discussions, the meeting resolved to recommend the Policy and Manual for adoption by the Corporate and Strategic Committee as proposed to FARS.

Risk Assessment and Management

6. In the area of Risk Assessment and Management, the Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee, as per its Terms of Reference, has responsibility and authority to:

6.1. review whether Council management has a current and comprehensive risk management framework and associated procedures for effective identification and management of the council’s significant risks in place, and

6.2. undertake periodic monitoring of corporate risk assessment, and the internal controls instituted in response to such risks.

7. The Risk Maturity item introduced the draft Risk Management policy and framework in accordance with the Risk Maturity Roadmap approved by the 10 June C&S and confirmed by Council resolution on 24 June, as well as outputs of risk maturity activities completed as outlined in the roadmap. In addition, the agenda item also provided Crowe’s finalised report on its assessment of HBRC’s enterprise risk management maturity and reconciled the approved phases in the risk maturity roadmap recommendations identified in Crowe’s internal audit report.

7.1. Through discussions at the meeting it was agreed that the approved risk maturity roadmap addresses the recommendations from the Crowe Audit report with one exception being that an internal audit on the assurance framework will now have to be added to phase three of the roadmap.

7.2. The Sub-commmittee resolved “confirms it is comfortable that management actions undertaken or planned for the future adequately respond to the findings and recommendations of the Crowe Internal Audit – Risk Management Maturity Assessment report”.

8. The Six-Monthly Enterprise Risk Management Report provided the six-monthly update of Council’s enterprise risk profile in a new format. Elements of the new format risk report included a residual risk rating for each enterprise risk, control corrective actions and supporting risk information such as known emerging issues or uncertainties that may impact Council’s risk profile.

8.1. Through the meeting discussions it was agreed that the new format risk report reflects risk maturity activities undertaken as outlined in the approved risk maturity roadmap. It was also noted that the new format risk report will continue to improve and evolve as the phases in the risk maturity roadmap are delivered, and as the recently drafted risk management framework is embedded into the business.

8.2. The sub-committee resolved to receive the report and “confirm its confidence that Council management has undertaken an effective risk identification and risk management process for Council’s significant risks, and that actions taken to date to mature HBRC’s risk management system are in line with Council’s expectations as provided to the 10 June 2020 Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting in the Risk Maturity Roadmap.”

Internal Audit

9. The Sub-committee was provided with four items relating to Internal Audit. The Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee has responsibility and authority, in accordance with its Terms of Reference, to:

9.1. confirm the terms of appointment and engagement of external auditors, including the nature and scope of the audit, timetable, and fees

9.2. receive the internal and external audit report(s) and review actions to be taken by management on significant issues and recommendations raised within the report(s), and

9.3. ensure that recommendations in audit management reports are considered and, if appropriate, actioned by management.

10. The Annual 2020-21 Internal Audit Work Plan presented the proposed work plan for the financial year along with an overview of similar review/audit activities underway across the organisation, highlighting:

10.1. Internal audits to be undertaken in the 2020-21 financial year are a People, Recruitment, Retention and Wellbeing review, and Data Analytics, and 40 hours will be retained in order to address any specific new risk area that may arise during the financial year

10.2. two Section 17a reviews are in progress, Works Group and Biosecurity, and will be finalised and reported during 2020-21

10.3. through discussions, the sub-committee agreed to the Internal Audit programme for the 2020-21 financial year as proposed.

11. The Cyber Security Internal Audit Follow-up item provided the sub-committee with an update on the status of recommendations arising from the Crowe Cyber Security internal audit report and management actions were taken to address the risks identified which have been side-tracked by the Covid-19 response. Also comfortable that IT is addressing the telephone and finance system risks through implementation of the new systems.

11.1. IT will work with Risk and Assurance Lead to address IT risks and prioritise IT projects using a risk based approach

11.2. A resource was requested through the Annual plan to develop and implement an ICT disaster recovery plan

11.3. Will be presenting an IT strategy through the long term plan.

12. Following discussions, the sub-committee resolved “confirms it is comfortable that management actions undertaken or planned for the future adequately respond to the findings and recommendations of the Crowe Internal Audit – IT Security report.”

13. The Data Analytics Internal Audit Report did not note any significant issues or concerns.

14. The Internal Audits Review and Action Plan item updated the sub-committee on the status of the Crowe recommendations arising from previous Water Management, Health & Safety, Procurement and Contracts Management internal audits, highlighting:

14.1. Of the 18 Health & Safety management actions identified in the September 2018 Health and Safety internal audit, seven were partially implemented, and two were yet to be action. The Health, Safety and Well being work programme for 2019-21 was updated to address the open actions.

14.2. Management actions in response to recommendations made in the Water Management internal audit and subsequent follow-up audit had been closed.

14.3. Two management actions from the Crowe Procurement and Contract Management internal audits were still in progress. The contract evaluation performance template is on track to be implemented n October 2020. While the internal audit monitoring process to ensure procurement and contract compliance now aligns to the rollout of an internal assurance framework as part of risk maturity.

2019-20 Annual Report Audit Plan

15. This item provided an update on the 2019-20 Annual Report process that Audit NZ is undertaking, highlighting:

15.1. Despite Central Government extending the timeframes within which councils must adopt their 2019-20 annual reports, this Council is working toward adoption within the normal requirement, being on 28 October 2020

15.2. This year the following key risks and issues will be a main focus of the audit:

15.2.1. Valuation of investments in HBRIC

15.2.2. COVID-19 impact on public sector accounting standards

15.2.3. Revaluation of Infrastructure Assets

15.2.4. Fair Value of other revalued assets

15.2.5. Changes in the Group capital structure

15.2.6. Managed Funds Investments

15.2.7. Consolidation process

15.2.8. Adjustments to ensure HBRIC and NPHL results are correctly incorporated into HBRC's group results

15.2.9. Valuation of investment properties.

Treasury Report to 30 June 2020

16. This item provided an update of compliance monitoring of treasury activity and the performance of Council’s diversified investment portfolios, which highlighted:

16.1. As at June 30, HBRC had one $2.5m Term Deposit and held $3.6m in its Cheque Accounts. There is a currently a $5m facility available if required

16.2. In July 2020, HBRC raised $6.3m in loans with the LGFA as part of normal procedure under the Revenue & Financing Policy.

16.3. The total capital invested in Managed Funds at 30 June 2020 was $156.6m, this represents a true return of $2.6m (1.68%) return on the original investment after adjusting for inflation & fees, which is available to be returned to the Council

16.4. The Annual Treasury Reporting requirements will be delivered as part of Annual Report, due to timing of the year end process and the revaluations of the other investment assets. This is schedule to be presented in October 2020.

16.5. Further enhancements will continue to be developed as part of the FARS work programme.

Decision Making Process

17. These items were specifically considered by the Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee on 12 August 2020 and are now the subject of the following recommendations to the Corporate and Strategic Committee.

Recommendations

The Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee recommends that the Corporate and Strategic Committee:

1. Receives and considers the “Report and Recommendations from the 12 August 2020 Finance, Audit and Risk Sub-committee Meeting”

2. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted Significance and Engagement Policy, and that the Committee can exercise its discretion and make decisions on these items without conferring directly with the community or persons likely to have an interest in them.

Procurement Policy Amendments to Support the HB Economic Recovery

3. Adopts the Procurement Policy and Manual with amendments as proposed.

Risk Maturity

4. Approves both the Risk Management Policy and the Risk Management Framework as proposed, and as being appropriate and sufficiently robust to manage Council’s significant risks.

Reports Received

5. Notes that the following reports were provided to the Finance Audit and Risk Sub-committee.

5.1. Six Monthly Enterprise Risk Management Report (resolved: confirms its confidence that Council management has undertaken an effective risk identification and risk management process for Council’s significant risks, and that actions taken to date to mature HBRC’s risk management system are in line with Council’s expectations as provided to the 10 June 2020 Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting in the Risk Maturity Roadmap)

5.2. Annual 2020-21 Internal Audit Work Plan (resolved: adopts the 2020-21 Internal Audit Work Plan as proposed)

5.3. Cyber Security Internal Audit Follow-up (resolved: confirms it is comfortable that management actions undertaken or planned for the future adequately respond to the findings and recommendations of the Crowe Internal Audit – IT Security report)

5.4. Data Analytics Internal Audit Report (resolved: receives and notes the Data Analytics Internal Audit Report)

5.5. Internal Audits Review and Action Plan (resolved: confirms it is comfortable that management actions undertaken or planned for the future adequately respond to the findings and recommendations of the Crowe Internal Audit Follow-up Audit report).

5.6. 2019-20 Annual Report Audit Plan (resolved: receives and notes the “2019-20 Annual Report Audit Plan” staff report and agrees the Audit Plan as proposed)

5.7. Treasury Report to 30 June 2020 (resolved: receives and notes the “Treasury Report to 30 June 2020).

5.8. Sub-committee work programme August 2020 update (resolved: To receive and notes the “Sub-committee Work Programme August 2020 Update” staff report).

Authored by:

Tim Chaplin

Senior Group Accountant

Mark Heaney

Manager Client Services

Leeanne Hooper

Team Leader Governance

Geoff Howes

Treasury & Funding Accountant

Helen Marsden

Risk and Assurance Lead

Annelie Roets

Governance Administration Assistant

Andrew Siddles

Chief Information Officer

Bronda Smith

Chief Financial Officer

Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

Attachment/s

⇨1	Procurement Policy - Revised Aug 2020	Under Separate Cover
⇨2	Procurement Manual - Revised August 2020	Under Separate Cover
⇩3	August 2020 Risk Management Policy
⇩4	August 2020 HBRC Risk Management Framework

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 02 September 2020

Subject: Regional Water Security Programme – CHB Project

Reason for Report

1. This item reports on the outcome of a targeted engagement with the Tukituki Leaders’ Forum (TTLF) on water storage options in Central Hawke’s Bay, and presents ‘next-steps’ recommendations for the CHB Water Storage project, as a subset of the HBRC Regional Water Security Programme, based on technical analysis while taking into account the outputs of the TTLF and the views of staff.

Officers’ Recommendation(s)

2. Council officers recommend that the Committee agrees to:

2.1. temporarily suspend any further investigations or assessment of above-ground water storage sites (as shortlisted by T&T) pending the earlier of either further analysis of the costs and benefits of smaller scale storage or the outcome of the Managed Aquifer Recharge Pilot Study

2.2. urgently progress the Managed Aquifer Recharge Pilot, and

2.3. requests that staff undertake further engagement with the CHB community to develop broader non-storage policy solutions and interventions for achieving water security in that District.

Executive Summary

3. At the request and recommendation of the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council (CHBDC) project staff initiated an independently-facilitated process with the Tukituki Leaders’ Forum. The purpose of this engagement was to help inform investigations into potential above-ground water storage options for the Ruataniwha plains area. CHBDC felt this approach was the most appropriate way to re-visit water storage solutions in a post-Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme (RWSS) operative Plan Change Six environment.

4. On 31 July, after five workshops (including two conducted online through the national lockdown period), an independent facilitator conducted an options evaluation conference. Valuable insights were gained through the process and the final outputs provide staff with confidence to recommend that this project does not progress any of the shortlisted small to medium scale storage sites to prefeasibility at this time.

5. The technical assessment has highlighted just how challenging above-ground water storage is in CHB. With a clear preference from the TTLF in creating a higher volume of water through storage, the smaller sites as a multi-storage option, even if technically viable, are unlikely to be economic.

6. The original RWSS site, either at the 90M m3 or as a low dam option at 19M m3 (which is below the level that inundates the DoC land), is subject to challenges and constraints beyond the influence of staff. Without both a change of policy and political will at national level further investigations of this site are outside the scope of the project by virtue of funding arrangements with the Provincial Growth Fund.

7. Accordingly, staff believe, in the absence of a specific change of policy or direction from central government, that the Managed Aquifer Recharge Pilot which has continued to be advanced since being presented to Council proceed with urgency so that its technical viability and social license can be tested.

Water Security Programme - Recap

8. At a strategic level, the ambition of the Regional Water Security Programme is to deliver freshwater supply and demand solutions/interventions to ensure the sustainable management of this most critical resource. The objective of the programme has been defined as “Hawke’s Bay has long-term, climate resilient and secure supplies of freshwater, for all.”

9. The core of the programme is the HBRC’s Regional Water Assessment. This project combines detailed data analysis from across the region and analyses a range of water security options to create a decision-making tool and report that in turn will inform a community engagement process. The broader Hawke’s Bay community will be engaged on this report and its recommendations. We intend to hold an informed community conversation to understand community preferences for interventions on both the demand and supply side of the water balance equation.

10. In parallel with the development of the Regional Water Assessment, the project team is investigating and validating a range of viable water storage options that could, if and when appropriate, be advanced through to feasibility and construction alongside the community’s preferred non-storage solutions. Based on hydrological studies and the absence of a range of potential above ground storage sites, in the case of CHB we are also exploring the viability of below-ground water storage through a Managed Aquifer Recharge Pilot.

11. The structure and approach of the Regional Water Security Programme can best be illustrated as follows.

A close up of a map

Description automatically generated

12. Staff have engaged Wallbridge Gilbert Aztec, who specialise in groundwater replenishment hydrology and engineering projects, to support an ambitious work programme to establish a full MAR site as a field pilot within the next 12 months.

13. Establishment of a MAR site is technically, politically, and culturally complex and involves much of the same activity to establish any other storage site including technical identification and verification of site, environmental assessment and consent processes. A key focus of the field trial is to not only test the technical viability and effectiveness of MAR to replenish the aquifer and “add more water to the system” but also to confirm social license to operate.

14. The project has been progressing technical investigations to identify promising areas to establish a potential MAR site. Staff are commencing engagement with selected groups and iwi to gauge their support and concerns. This represents the critical path, as whilst it has been used more extensively overseas, it is relatively new to New Zealand and requires community support and acceptance if it is to be a potentially viable option.

Discussion

Tukituki Leaders’ Forum

15. The Tukituki Leaders’ Forum (TTLF) was established as a joint initiative between CHBDC and HBRC. The forum operates under Terms of Reference which describes its purpose as follows.

15.1. “The Forum has been convened to provide community views, perspectives and insights on the options and impacts of Hawke’s Bay Regional and Central Hawke’s Bay District councils’ (The Councils) policies, plans and practices with regard to water, land and infrastructure management in the Tukituki catchment.

15.2. The Forum was formed by invitation from the Chair of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Mayor of the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council.

15.3. The Forum is an invited group of community leaders who are being asked to think to the future and to provide feedback that influences the Councils’ activities relevant to the group’s mission statement:

15.3.1. To create a unified approach to enhancing the mauri of the river by improving water quality and security through proactive land and water management in the Tukituki catchment.

15.4. The Forum is not a decision making group and are not able to direct Council resources nor write or change Council policy. Instead, the group will meet regularly and form an important reference and feedback panel for Council activities with respect to water, land and infrastructure management in the Tukituki catchment.

15.5. The Forum will consider and discuss issues to ensure that local iwi/hapu, community and primary sector groups are involved and have the opportunity for input and to provide comment on the work of the group.”

16. The group comprises 17 ‘voting’ members with considerable resourcing, attendance and support being provided by both Councils. The ToR records the following position statement in relation to membership:

16.1. “As a community leaders’ Forum, members are expected to convey ideas and perspectives from their wider community networks. However, the views expressed by members will be assumed to be their own and not attributed to any group. As the Forum is not a decision making body no attribution of views is required.”

17. In anticipation of the formal execution of the CHB Water Security Project funding agreements with the PGF, on 13 February HBRC presented an outline of the project to a CHBDC councillor workshop. It was CHBDC’s firm view that the CHB project be initially worked up with the TTLF and that a preferred independent facilitator be engaged to direct this work. As a result of that workshop, members of the water security project attended a meeting of the TTLF on 18 February where an overview of the Water Security Programme was provided and the forum’s consent to incorporate water security into its own work was sought and granted.

18. An independent facilitator, Catalyze APAC Ltd, was engaged on the basis of its expertise in an approach to structured decision making known as ‘Multi Criteria Decision Analysis’ and guided the TTLF through the following steps.

18.1. agree a problem statement

18.2. develop evaluation criteria for water storage options

18.3. review a recommended set of desktop water storage options provided by Tonkin and Taylor.

18.4. evaluate the options using Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and Decision Conferencing.

19. The first independently-facilitated session took place online on 28 April with four attended sessions on 12, 19, 26 May and 16 June. A final Options Evaluation Conference took place on 31 July, the results of which will be summarised shortly and are attached.

Tonkin and Taylor CHB Water Storage Assessment

20. Immediately prior to the March Covid-19 lockdown, Tonkin and Taylor (T&T) were engaged to complete an engineering assessment of potential community storage sites for the Ruataniwha Plains. The storage sizes considered were to reflect the required storage volume(s) to maintain current water availability and reliability, and the opportunity to supply additional water (‘new’ water) where a site appeared to support that.

21. This study considered and built on previous water storage work in the area by HBRC and, specifically, the Ruataniwha Plains prefeasibility studies undertaken by T+T in 2008, 2009 and 2011. While those prefeasibility studies were focused on larger scale community storage schemes to service increased water demand and development on the Ruataniwha Plains, a number of previously considered sites were deemed potentially suitable for smaller community scale storage. These smaller schemes were reassessed against the 2020 Regional Water Security Programme project’s objectives and criteria.

22. Specifically, T&T’s brief was to identify and provide a high level assessment of potential water storage sites to release water into the Tukituki River and its main tributaries across the Ruataniwha Plains (i.e. Mangaonuku Stream, and the Waipawa, Tukipo and Makaretu rivers) to meet the following objectives.

22.1. Provide current consent holders with a more secure and reliable water supply that reduces the likelihood and severity of minimum flow restrictions (as set by the operative Plan Change 6).

22.2. Support stream flows sufficient to protect water dependent ecosystems and improve the overall health of the Tukituki catchment’s waterways.

22.3. Identify and deliver a means of providing ‘new’ water to the catchment sufficient to:

22.3.1. Promote community and iwi well-being through improved access to a new allocation of water available at times of high and medium flow.

22.3.2. Support the region’s economic growth and resilience to changing climatic/economic environments.

23. It is important to note that T&T’s approach was to assess and rank potential sites on typical technical engineering considerations for water storage projects. Non-engineering criteria were to be developed and assessed by the TTLF. In addition to a TTLF workshop presentation in June, the final report was provided to forum members prior to the 31 July Evaluation conference. The report was provided in-confidence on the basis that potentially affected landowners had not been advised of the report’s initial findings.

24. However, based on staff’s recommendation that no site is investigated further at this stage the full report is attached for reference.

Options Evaluation Conference 31 July 2020

25. Guided by T&T’s engineering-focussed desktop analysis, the evaluation conference ‘bench-tested’ decision criteria for CHB water storage developed and agreed by the TTLF and reproduced here (see section 4.4. of Appendix A in the T&T report).

Criterion	Description
Environmental impact	The extent to which the option creates negative impacts on the environment within the catchment area, because of the facilities created and areas downstream from the storage facility(ies). This criteria excludes any consideration of land use impacts from the use of the stored water.
Environmental benefits	The extent to which the option creates positive impacts to the environment within the catchment area. Considerations include (amongst others) benefits to surface and groundwater, the creation of habitat, the extent to which the option fosters biodiversity, and the extent to which the options benefits the mauri of the river(s).
Social Benefits	The extent to which the option provides social benefits such as access to healthy drinking water and other community benefits, including those specifically applicable to Maori (Tikanga and mahinga kai)^{^[1]}
Supply Certainty Benefits	The certainty that the storage will be filled. This includes consideration of the probability of recharge both now and in the face of climate change.
Economic Benefits	The extent to which the option provides economic benefits. This includes both consideration of the amount of economic benefit created and the diversity of the economic benefits.
Future Proofing	The extent to which the option is adaptable, will be sustainable and resilient to environmental catastrophes such as earthquakes and other natural events that could impact its continued operation.
Establishment Risks	The extent to which the option is exposed to risks in its establishment
Ongoing Risks	The extent to which the option is exposed to risks in its on-going operation. This excludes risks associated with natural events which are considered under future proofing.

26. Considerable thought was given as to the inclusion or exclusion of the original RWSS Makaroro site (A7) for the purpose of the exercise. This site presented a theoretically viable option denoted A7 (19) – namely a 19m m3 “low dam” option that did not impinge on the DoC land that the Supreme Court effectively excised from the RWSS project.

27. In addition, the TTLF facilitator was of the view that the time and effort invested in conducting an Evaluation Conference is relatively significant compared to the incremental time in evaluating an additional option. It was felt the advantage of comparing A7(90Mm3) as a hypothetical option against other options is it enabled Forum members and other stakeholders to understand how A7(90Mm3) would compare if it were possible to construct and fill it. Noting that several of the shortlisted sites were only theoretically viable but needed to survive technical, environmental, economic and social thresholds before becoming “real” options, the decision was taken by the Forum to include the original 90m m3 site – A7 (90) – in the interests of thoroughly testing the evaluation criteria.

28. The appended report provides a full account of the process and outcomes. Importantly, the facilitator concluded that the criteria held up well to the exercise and that the results indicated that the criteria were consistently applied and provided stable results. The report has this to say (pg 27).

1.1.1 Overall Preferences

The overall preferences, all criteria being considered, show us the following results.

The criteria in the list below drive the overall results because of the differences in how options perform against these criteria and the Forum’s preferences for those differences (the order is from highest weight to lowest weight):

Environmental Benefits

(reducing) Environmental Impacts

Future Proofing

Economic Benefits.

The Forum weighed the benefits and risk (minimisation) significantly greater than the costs.

Overall, the Forum preferred options with more stored water than those with less – the one exception being the Ongaonga site (where sites with lower volumes were still preferred over Ongaonga). There is also a definite preference for certain sites based on location. We see this through a significant difference in preferences between sites which both have the same volume of water.

29. Ultimately, the conference identified the A7 (90) RWSS Makaroro site or a combination of two other sites, M5 and C2 (with a combined storage total of 21m m3) as the sites that performed best against the group’s evaluation criteria.

30. As a part of T&T’s brief, a separate assessment of the indicative costs of building the shortlisted sites was prepared before the conference but was not shared with the group members for the purposes of the conference. The reason this information was not tabled was to avoid the overwhelming tendency of cost considerations to anchor or crowd out the consideration and assessment of the qualitative criteria developed by the group and thereby distract from the main purpose of the exercise. The Evaluation Conference was designed to elicit the preferences of the TTLF for many different dimensions of value (benefits) that the different options might offer as expressed through the criteria.

Options Assessment

31. Through HBRC’s Managed Aquifer Recharge Pilot study and the Regional Water Assessment staff are continuing to progress initiatives that, collectively with this project, aims to provide the community and decision makers with a broad range of interventions and solutions that can underwrite water security for the CHB community.

32. Any assessment of above ground water storage options in CHB was likely to cover ground already traversed extensively through the RWSS project. While this project sought to identify other smaller scale sites that could operate to provide either environmental objectives by enhancing or maintaining summer flows and/or modest growth and resilience opportunities for extractive use, T&T’s analysis ultimately confirmed earlier conclusions around the technical and financial constraints of attempting to build medium-scale storage sites on the Ruataniwha plains area.

33. This process has highlighted the unique and significant challenges for establishing water storage in a catchment with combined elements of a low ratepayer and a narrow extractive water user base. These pre-conditions make it challenging to spread or recover the lifetime cost of an expensive, small to medium scale storage facility that provides predominantly environmental flows (with perhaps modest growth water). By contrast, the RWSS adopted the following logic: the most favourable water storage site from an engineering perspective was also the most efficient site from a volume perspective, which in turn provided the opportunity to create additional growth water via a visible commercial model that ultimately funded the site. With this as context, while HBRC is not revisiting the original RWSS, both because of previous Court rulings and PGF funding conditions, HBRC also understands that the many in CHB community see value in exploring what options may exist to progress the Makaroro site (as opposed to original scheme in its entirety), within a framework that provides sufficient benefit to all stakeholders.

34. Staff are tasked with providing Committee members with recommendations as to sites suitable for further assessment by way of a business case for a pre-feasibility study. Ultimately, based on current information, we are unable to make any such recommendation. The table below identifies the major constraints associated with each option that sat outside of the TTLF assessment criteria.

Site	Conference Ranking	Constraint(s)
M4 Addis Rd (2Mm3)	6	Build and distribution cost
M4 Addis Rd (8Mm3)	7	Build and distribution cost
M5 Mangamate Stream (8Mm3)	5	Build and distribution cost
B2 Ongaonga (13Mm3)	8	Build and distribution cost
C2 Sherwood (13Mm3)	4	Build and distribution cost
A7(19Mm3) Makaroro	3	Build and distribution cost PGF funding prohibition on material reinstatement of RWSS
A7(90Mm3) Makaroro	1	Legal prohibition on access to DoC Land PGF funding prohibition on storage above 20m m3 in one site. PGF funding prohibition on material reinstatement of RWSS
Mixed site:M5+C2 (21Mm3)	2	Build cost

35. Based on the information we have at this time staff cannot therefore make a recommendation to commit any site(s) to a business case for prefeasibility. Based on T&T’s high level costs assessments, even if they were technically viable, the smaller sites on their own are extremely unlikely to meet current cost-benefit criteria based on factors such as the cost to build, the cost to distribute water to the place of need, or both. Staff do believe that further work needs to be done on the cost-benefit analysis of sub-medium scale storage in the Ruataniwha catchment. There are other examples nationally (the proposed Waimea Dam in the Tasman district, for example) that might offer insights and information that could be relevant to the fresh water sources and use profile of the Ruataniwha catchment.

36. The A7 site is subject to challenges and constraints that are beyond the influence of staff and that can only be overcome by a change of policy and political will at a national level. In the meantime, staff continue to operate in the framework set down by the PGF under its funding agreements, i.e. that the project “must not involve the reinstatement of any material aspect of the Ruataniwha water storage and reticulation project.”

37. Nonetheless, in the face of climate change and demand pressures, CHB water security remains of critical importance to the district and the region and it is premature to rule out water storage as forming a part of a suite of future-proofing solutions. Accordingly, staff do recommend the following actions.

37.1. Temporarily suspend any further investigations or assessment of above-ground water storage sites (as shortlisted by T&T) pending the earlier of:

37.1.1. further analysis of the costs and benefits of smaller scale storage, and

37.1.2. the outcome of the Managed Aquifer Recharge Pilot Study.

37.2. Urgently progress the Managed Aquifer Recharge Pilot, including comprehensive engagement with iwi, landowners and the wider community on all aspects of the proposed pilot.

37.3. Further engage with the CHB community through the Regional Water Assessment project to develop broader non-storage policy solutions and interventions for achieving water security in that District.

Strategic Fit

38. Climate change will impact our freshwater systems in many ways and a transition to more extreme drought-flooding hydrological patterns could have profound consequences for freshwater ecosystems, and severe social and economic impacts. The effects of higher temperatures, declining precipitation and more frequent extremes will have implications not only for land and water management, but also community resilience and well-being

39. That HBRC carries the highest level of responsibility for meeting this challenge in this region is reflected in the significance of its resourcing dedicated to improving freshwater quality and quantity, which is in turn driven by its statutory obligations under legislation, national direction and regulation. A qualitative analysis of the Strategic Plan demonstrates that over 50% of the organisations 23 Strategic Goals are directly linked to freshwater objectives. A similar exercise for the Long Term Plan identifies approximately 35% of HBRC’s 48 core function Level of Service Measures as contributing to and resourcing improved freshwater outcomes.

Climate Change Considerations

40. MfE’s National Climate Change Risk Assessment for New Zealand (NCCRA), (https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate-change/national-climate-change-risk-assessment-new-zealand-main-report) published in August of this year, identifies the risk to freshwater water supplies as being central to the most extreme risk – “Risk to potable water supplies (availability and quality) due to changes in rainfall, temperature, drought, extreme weather events and ongoing sea-level rise”. Specific reference is made that “[r]ural water supplies are also sensitive to climate change hazards, particularly where reticulated systems are limited or absent.”

41. The NCCRA categorised the following as priority risks for the Natural Environment domain.

41.1. N3 - Risks to riverine ecosystems and species from alterations in the volume and variability of water flow, increased water temperatures, and more dynamic morphology (erosion and deposition), due to changes in rainfall and temperature;

41.2. N4 - Risks to wetland ecosystems and species, particularly in eastern and northern parts of New Zealand from reduced moisture status, due to reduced rainfall;

41.3. N7 - Risks to terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems, due to increased extreme weather events, drought and fire weather.

42. The NCCRA records, among others, the following Human Domain risks.

42.1. H2 - Risks of exacerbating existing inequities and creating new and additional inequities, due to differential distribution of climate change impacts;

42.2. H3 - Risks to physical health from exposure to storm events, heatwaves, vector-borne and zoonotic diseases, water availability and resource quality and accessibility, due to changes in temperature, rainfall and extreme weather events;

42.3. H4 - Risks of conflict, disruption and loss of trust in government from changing patterns in the value of assets and competition for access to scarce resources, primarily due to extreme weather events and ongoing sea-level r

42.4. H6 - Risks to Māori social, cultural, spiritual and economic wellbeing from loss of species and biodiversity, due to greater climate variability and ongoing sea-level rise;

43. The NCCRA records, among others, the following Economy Domain risks.

43.1. E3 - Risks to land-based primary sector productivity and output due to changing precipitation and water availability, temperature, seasonality, climate extremes and the distribution of invasive species.

44. Climate change will impact our freshwater systems in many ways and a transition to more extreme drought-flooding hydrological patters could have profound consequences for freshwater ecosystems, and severe social and economic impacts. The effects of higher temperatures, declining precipitation and more frequent extremes will have implications not only for land and water management, but also community resilience and well-being.

45. It is safe to say that we expect more extremes, which includes becoming more drought prone and more severe rainfall events leading to flooding, and this impacts the reliability and quality of the region’s water resources. We expect temperatures to increase in our lakes, rivers and streams which will affect the freshwater ecology.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

46. The Provincial Development Unit’s position paper “Water Storage and the Provincial Growth Fund” includes the following statement under the heading “PGF Investment Principles”

46.1. Māori land development: Projects will be prioritised that support Māori to achieve higher returns from their land by addressing access to water. There are catchments where Māori have undeveloped land but low levels of access to water, which creates a barrier to Māori land development. A comparison of Kerikeri and Kaikohe illustrates the issues, where differences in levels of water storage and Māori ownership of land drive very different land prices and economic returns between the two towns. In parts of Northland and East Coast, Māori communities lack water as a key enabler of development.

47. HBRC’s applications to the PGF specifically references the opportunities for these projects to contribute to Māori.

48. It is well understood that higher temperatures and declining rainfall may reduce water availability, while demand for water is likely to increase. Freshwater resources also have significant cultural significance for Māori. Shading along riverbanks, stream flow and water quality have effects on aquatic habitats which support mahinga kai – food gathering – which is highly valued.

Financial and Resource Implications

49. The recommendations are aligned with existing LTP and PGF funded commitments and do not require a departure or variation to programmed workstreams.

Decision Making Process

50. 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:

50.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

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

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

50.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s management of natural and physical resources under the RMA.

50.5. 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 “Regional Water Security Programme – CHB Project” 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. temporarily suspends any further investigations or assessment of above-ground water storage sites (as shortlisted by T&T) pending the earlier of:

2.2.1.1. further analysis of the costs and benefits of smaller scale storage, and

2.2.1.2. the outcome of the Managed Aquifer Recharge Pilot Study.

2.3. urgently progresses the Managed Aquifer Recharge Pilot, including comprehensive engagement with iwi, landowners and the wider community on all aspects of the proposed pilot.

2.4. further engages with the CHB community through the Regional Water Assessment project to develop broader non-storage policy solutions and interventions for achieving water security in that District.

Authored by:

Tom Skerman

Acting Manager Regional Water Security

Approved by:

Tom Skerman

Acting Manager Regional Water Security

Attachment/s

⇩1	Catalyze August 2020 CHB Water Storage Options Evaluation Report
⇩2	August 2020 Tonkin + Taylor CHB Water Security Project - Stage 1 Water Storage Options Assessment

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 02 September 2020

Subject: Cycleway Co-funding

Reason for Report

1. This report seeks support from the Council regarding the portion of funding required for three priority Hawke’s Bay trail projects where this ensures that the balance of funding already approved by MBIE can be accessed from Central Government. These three projects were not considered in the LTP 2018-2028 but were subsequently outlined due to new government funding opportunities that led to the Hawke’s Bay Trials Great Ride Business Case 2018-2023 approved by Council and the National Cycle Trail Network ‘Great Rides’ body.

Officers’ Recommendations

2. Officers recommend that the Council support the loan funding of $418,500 for the three capital priority projects. This investment leads to the rest of the required funding to be received.

Executive Summary

3. The Hawke’s Bay Trails are the sum of three concept rides: The Water Ride, The Wineries Ride and The Landscape Ride. Open all year round, nearly 200kms of mostly off-road trail crisscross the plains and main rivers, linking many of the sights in Napier, Ahuriri, Bay View, Taradale, Clive, Haumoana, Te Awanga, Clifton, Havelock North, and Hastings. The trails also form part of a public cycleway network that links the cities of the region, connecting with the urban ‘I Way’ shared pathways of Hastings and Napier and joining with the coastal and country settlements.

4. The trail network, operates over multiple parcels of land owned by various entities, including the Napier and Hastings Councils, DOC, Kiwirail, LandCorp and NZTA with the HBRC owner of almost 84km of the network.

5. The Hawke’s Bay Trails Great Ride Business Case 2018-2023 to Ministry Business, Innovation and Employment outlined five new projects for the region to improve safety, enhance and extend the trails over the next five years. This was accompanied by Cost Benefit Analysis carried out by the independent business management consultancy firm, Martin Jenkins. These projects were approved by MBIE and 50% funding approved.

5.1. Safety Priority Project Waimarama Road Improvements

5.2. Safety Priority Project Ahuriri Underpass Improvements

5.3. Bay View to Whirinaki Extension

5.4. Ngaruroro Explorer

5.5. Karamū Stream Extension.

Background/Discussion

6. The success of the Hawke’s Bay Cycle Trails has been integrated with the ongoing partnership between the key parties including HBRC, NCC and HDC and their ability to work together and partner with Central Government to fund the development of these trails as part of the NZ Great Rides network of trails.

7. After securing central government funding for key extensions to the network, the objective of this proposal is to ensure HBRC deliver on their responsibilities to fund the supporting infrastructure required to bring the trails up to the level of the other trails and ensure a consistent experience.

8. The extensions will create greater connectivity between the trails and make it easier and safer for riders to explore the Hawke’s Bay Region and continue to cement Hawke’s Bay’s reputation as a cycling friendly region.

9. The Hawke's Bay Trails officially opened in 2012 and consists of nearly 200km of off-road cycle trails. There were more than 600,000 trips recorded across the network last year, with research indicating 60 per cent of trail use is by locals and 40 per cent by visitors to the region.

10. The maintenance of the trails is shared between other local authority partners. This will also require contributions from district councils to trail surface renewal in the future and their allowance for this in their respective LTPs.

11. Priority Project: Waimarama Road Safety Improvements: Status – ready to build in conjunction with Hastings District Council.

Sub-total Estimated Budget: $717,000 2019/2020 HBRC contribution required $93,500

Total cost:		$717,000.00	HDC to project manage/construct
Funding:	MBIE	$358,500.00
	HDC	$230,000.00 (approved)
	HBRC	$93,500.00
	ECCT	$35,000.00
	TOTAL	$717,000.00

12. Priority Project: Ahuriri Underpass Improvements: Status – NZTA getting final consent and ready to build seawall southern end, on existing trail.

Sub-total Estimated Budget: $350,000 2019/2020 HBRC contribution required $125,000

Total cost:		$350,000.00	OPUS to project manage/construct
Funding:	MBIE	$125,000.00
	HBRC	$125,000.00
	NZTA	$100,000.00 (NZTA consumed the design cost on top of the contribution)
	TOTAL	$350,000.00

13. Priority Project: Bayview Whirinaki trail: Status – Work underway this financial year.

Sub-total Estimated Budget: $1,054,000 2020/2021 HBRC contribution required $200,000

Total cost:		$1,054,000.00	NCC to project manage/construct
Funding:	MBIE	$504,000.00
	NCC	$250,000.00 (annual plan -approved)
	HDC	$100,000.00 (annual plan- approved)
	HBRC	$200,000.00
	TOTAL	$1,054,000.00

14. Total Estimated HBRC Budget 2020-21 and sum sought in this recommendation: $418,500

Options Assessment

15. The alternative option is to not proceed with the providing partner funding to the projects and thus put in jeopardy both the $848,500 of specific project funding for these three trail projects for the Hawke’s Bay Region and potentially the overall $1.3M of Central Government Funding:

15.1. Option 1 – HBRC does not fund the share which may lead to the project not proceeding.

15.2. Option 2 – Raise a loan for the required $418,500 during the 2020-21 financial year and repay this over 10 years. The long-term benefits of improving the various cycleways triggers an intergenerational component, therefore a 10-year loan would be appropriate. Repayments assume a 3% Interest Rate over the life of the loan.

Increase in General Rate requirement	$48,596
Total Repayment over 10 years	$485,964

Strategic Fit

16. These projects align with councils’ priorities of: Smart, sustainable land use, healthy and functioning biodiversity and sustainable services and infrastructure.

17. Specifically, the Cycle Trails network contributes to the Community Outcome of:

17.1. Sustainable Services and Infrastructure

17.2. As per the Hawke’s Bay Regional Cycle Plan 2015, the vision for cycling in the region is:

“To recognise cycling in Hawke’s Bay to such an extent that the region is nationally and internationally recognized as providing the most bike-friendly experience in New Zealand”

18.3 HBRC, along with other key partners, developed this strategy with the aim to maximise the financial and social returns from cycling in the areas of:

18.3.1 Liveability

18.3.2 Health

18.3.3 Tourism.

18. The benefits are extensive and deliver on HBRC’s Long Term Plan Community Outcomes:

18.1. Vibrant Community: An opportunity for safer cycle network connectivity allowing community recreation, events and cycle commuting, thus reducing vehicle congestion, and more liveable cities

18.2. Healthy Environment: Providing an enduring infrastructure for cycling/walking/running; providing safe off-road routes for recreation, sport and providing transport alternative of cycle commuting, to reduce carbon emissions

18.3. Prosperous Economy: These enhancements are highly integral to our tourism industry, these improvements providing new routes, safer year-round, for local cycle tourism operators, ensuring their survival, while connecting locals/visitors to local business’s like hospitality, retail and accommodation.

Financial and Resource Implications

19. This proposal is for new budget currently not allowed for in the Annual Plan (but have been raised as an issue). The budget is specifically supporting infrastructure including trail building with wayfinding signage, fencing and maintenance overall, covered by other budgets to be included in the LTP draft where these would follow trail construction. There will be no impact on FTEs. Maintenance cost will be minimal and only on HBRC land and HBRC owned asset. Majority of the assets are vested in Hastings District Council and NZTA respectively.

	Description	2020-21	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3
FTEs
OPEX	Internal time
	Consultancy
	Maintenance & Enhancement		$8,500	$8,500	$8,500
CAPEX		$418,500

Consultation

20. The key stakeholders include Hastings District Council, Tāngata Whenua, Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment, private landowners and NZ Transport Agency. Waimarama Road Safety Project team has completed an archaeological assessment and hui-ā-hapū with mana whenua of Heretaunga.

Other Considerations

Benefits

21. The benefits of the Great Rides have been documented in an evaluation report in 2016 which show that:

21.1. around 1.3 million people used the 22 Great Rides of Ngā Haerenga, the New Zealand Cycle Trail

21.2. around 86.5% of users of the Great Rides were New Zealanders, and just over 114,000 or 13.5% were international visitors

21.3. for every dollar attributed to construction and maintenance of the Great Rides during 2015, approximately $3.55 of annual benefits were generated

21.4. the economic contribution of the cycle trails in 2015 was estimated at $37.4 million

21.5. the social contribution of the Great Rides was estimated to be $12 million. This includes reduced mortality and cost savings from diseases associated with physical inactivity

21.6. key factors of successful governance included having a clear strategy, marketing expertise and dedicated resource for trail maintenance.

22. An extension of these highly valued assets will continue to make them appealing to Hawke’s Bay residents and form part of a strong domestic tourism offering which will continue to attract visitors to the region and provide valuable economic stimulus.

Strategic Context

23. The strategies and plans used to inform this report are as follows;

23.1. Hawke’s Bay Trails Great Ride Business Case 2018-2023

23.2. Hawke’s Bay Trail CBA Summary – Martin Jenkins report

23.3. Hawke’s Bay Regional Cycle Plan 2015

23.4. Government Policy Statement on land transport (GPS)2018

24. The trails’ purpose is primarily recreation and supports both the Recreation and Economic outcomes and values of the Regional Park Network Plan.

Linkage with Overall Investment and Priority Projects

25. The other two trail projects in (5) above have already attracted investment. In April 2019 Tourism Minister Kelvin Davis, announced the investment to create an extra 27km of new cycle ways around Napier and Hastings and extend the existing network of Cycle Trails. The two projects to gain funding in Hawke's Bay were:

25.1. A 16km Ngaruroro Explorer which will provide an attractive, easy and off-road loop route around the Ngaruroro River. ($764, 500 initial estimation - Hawke’s Bay Trails Great Ride – Business Case 2018 to 2023)

25.2. A 11km Karamū Stream extension which will create a safe, off-road link to the Wineries Ride.($913,000 initial estimation Hawke’s Bay Trails Great Ride – Business Case 2018 to 2023)

25.3. Funding decision for these projects will be advanced through the 2021-2031 LTP.

Decision Making Process

26. 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:

26.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

26.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation nor required under HBRC’s policies with respect to this legislation.

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

26.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s cycle trail use and network opportunities.

26.5. 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. “One way’ communication may be used to inform project partners and the community on council’s contribution to these existing projects being led and undertaken by other agencies where HBRC is primarily a funding partner.

Recommendations

1. That the Corporate and Strategic Committee receives and approved the “Cycleway co-funding” staff report.

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

2.2. Support and approves the loan funding of $418,500 for the Waimarama Road Safety Improvements, Ahuriri Underpass Improvements, and Bayview Whirinaki Trail capital priority projects to leverage Central Government funding approved by the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment.

Authored by:

Martina Groves

Acting Regional Asset Manager

Approved by:

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide the final Group financial report for the 2019-20 year for the approval of the Committee.

Officers’ Recommendations

2. That the Committee adopts the 2019-20 Hawke's Bay CDEM Group Financial Report.

3. That the Committee agrees that the 2019-20 overspend from the COVID-19 response be held as a deficit in the Hawke's Bay CDEM Group targeted rate reserve account.

4. That this deficit be recovered through the management of expenditure in future financial years.

Executive Summary

5. The response to COVID-19 has had a significant impact on the Group finances and work programme. The provision of emergency welfare support and direct operational response costs resulted in $1,692,324 additional expenditure in 2019-20. Reimbursement of $530,053 has been approved for the first welfare cost claim from the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA). A further three claims amounting to a total of $409,351 are currently being assessed.

6. This has resulted in a net overspend of $374,077 (after Lifelines expenditure has been removed). The Group currently has $371,515 held in reserves leaving a deficit of $2,562 in the reserve account.

7. It is recommended that this small deficit in the reserve be recovered by way of managing expenditure over the 2020-21 financial year. The risk with this approach is that further emergency expenditure maybe required as the result of a resurgence of COVID-19 or another emergency event.

8. In summary, while there has been significant unbudgeted expenditure in the CDEM Group budgets, the decision to hold under-expenditures in recent years as a reserve has meant this has been managed, with some residual risk from future events, without the need to increase the regional targeted rate.

Background/Discussion

9. Attachment 1 contains the final financial reports for 2019-20 summarising the costs attributed to the COVID-19 response and more detailed reports for the four Group project areas that are currently funded by the regional CDEM targeted rate (711, 712, 713 and 714).

10. Prior to the COVID-19 response, the Group budgets were on track for under expenditure for the 2019-20 financial year. This has also helped in reducing the financial impact of the COVID-19 response.

11. As part of the COVID-19 response the Group incurred two additional types of expenses. These include operational response and emergency welfare support expenditure. A summary of these costs are attached.

12. The operational response costs included matters such as:

12.1. Short term contracts for additional welfare staff

12.2. Development and operation of the welfare 0800 number and the team of needs assessors

12.3. Personnel costs for extra staff hours

12.4. Miscellaneous response costs such as food for shifts, extra IT equipment and software licences.

13. Emergency welfare costs included such items as:

13.1. Grocery items

13.2. Household goods such as clothing and blankets

13.3. Delivery costs

13.4. Emergency accommodation

13.5. Reimbursement of food bank costs

14. The extra expenditure due to COVID-19 has been significantly offset by reduced activity in other areas such as risk reduction, hazard research, coordination and community engagement.

15. Another factor to be considered as part of the Group finances is the addition operational expenditure of $60,000 in supporting the drought response.

16. In summary the additional COVID-19 and drought operational response costs have been absorbed through reduced activity in non-response areas and the utilisation of the existing reserve.

17. 2020-21 Financial Year Risks – As the CDEM reserve account is now depleted there is a risk that if another significant event was to occur a large deficit may arise.

18. By far the biggest risk now, is any response required as part of a resurgence of
COVID-19. Based on our previous experience and the fact that across all levels of government and the community we are better prepared. It is probable that any resurgence will not have as large impact and will be better managed. Given recent work and conversations across the all of government response there is confidence that the demand on CDEM welfare services in particular will not be as high as it was in the first response.

19. As the 2020-21 rates have now been struck there are no real short-term options available to provide for a reserve. Therefore any emergency expenditure over the next 12 months may require the reserve account to move further into deficit.

Options Assessment

20. As expected the COVID-19 response has had a significant impact on the finances of the Group. The gross result of this would have been an approximately $700,000 overspend. However, after taking out reduced expenditure across the CDEM activity and using the $371,000 held in reserve a minor deficit remains.

21. There are limited options available to address this, and the risk of further deficit into 2020-21.

Strategic Fit

22. Under the Group Plan the Group is required to efficiently and effectively respond to an emergency event. There is nothing in this paper or recommendations that adversely impact on this.

Financial and Resource Implications

23. Any financial or resource implications have been addressed as part of this paper.

Decision Making Process

24. 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:

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

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

24.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of the Administrating Authority’s (HBRC) policy on significance and engagement

24.4. No persons can be identified who may be affected by this decision.

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

24.6. 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.

Reason for Report

1. The purpose of this report is to attain endorsement from the Committee on a decision by the Coordinating Executives Group (CEG) as to the direction of the Group work program over the next 6-12 months.

Executive Summary

2. There is an ongoing high risk of a future recurrence of COVID-19 in Hawke's Bay and some form of community transmission beyond what has already occurred.

3. The Group work program needs to be re-orientated to help manage the impacts of this risk.

4. The learnings from the COVID-19 response to 30 June 2020 has helped inform the priorities and direction of the Group’s work/projects for at least the next 6-12 months.

Background

5. Post the initial COVID-19 response it was deemed prudent to review the work being undertaken by Group office, with the support of Council and partner agency staff. This work had commenced and CEG provided guidance and decisions at its 20 July meeting.

6. Subsequently on 12 August community transmission was confirmed in Auckland and Hawke's Bay was placed back into Level 2 restrictions.

7. National advice is that there continues to be a high risk of a recurrence of COVID-19 and some form of community transmission into the future.

8. In mid-June some initial decisions were made by the Group Manager/Controller to set the high-level intent for the Group office for the rest of 2020. These are:

8.1. To ensure Group office staff can support a Group response to a COVID-19 recurrence.

8.2. To ensure any work/projects will add value to a Group response to a COVID-19 recurrence.

9. The aim is to have Group office staff rested and capable of supporting a sustained response, while also reviewing or developing supporting systems, processes and relationships to respond to a COVID-19 recurrence.

10. This work commenced with staff wellbeing initiatives and monitoring, and the commencement of the COVID-19 response to 30 June after-action review (AAR). Some initial COVID-19 recurrence response planning was also completed and this was further prioritised and advanced upon returning to Level 2 on 12 August.

Discussion

11. Decisions on the Group work priorities over the next 6-12 months also have implications for council staff and partner agencies. While the Group office staff will play a significant role, much of what needs to occur also requires commitment and input from key council staff and partner agencies. As such this work needs to be given a high priority within organisations.

12. Work has commenced on reviewing the current Group COVID-19 recurrence plan (dated 14 Aug) in light of the National Action Plan being released on 19 August. In priority order, the CEG confirmed the following key work areas for improvement:

12.1. The identification, selection, onboarding, and staff management policies (e.g. rostering, contracts, EAP) of staff in the GECC.

12.1.1. Significant work has been completed in this area.

12.1.2. The Group office has completed engagement with Councils, controllers and staff have been clearly identified to play roles within specific functions in the GECC and as needs assessment analysts. Short training sessions with these staff have commenced.

12.2. Review of health and safety for the GECC facility and staff within, safe working methods for those deployed. Including bubble management and use of PPE.

12.2.1. Work on this review has commenced. Health and safety staff from HBRC, HDC and NCC have commenced a review of existing documentation, induction and procedures including ongoing wellbeing.

12.3. System accessibility, stability, shared understanding of response systems and data management within response information systems.

12.3.1. The work in this area are a number of smaller process/hardware initiatives and training. As mentioned training is underway and ICT systems are part of this.

12.3.2. A security review of ICT systems which hold personal information through emergency welfare needs assessment has just been completed and any implications are being identified.

12.4. Supply chain and logistical processes, integration of Fast-Moving Consumer Goods systems into procurement and food package system.

12.4.1. The Hawke's Bay councils Director, Regional Strategic Procurement has commenced reconnecting with local supermarkets and gaining an understanding of their capability to support food distributing if needed.

12.4.2. Further work is required in this area however to an extent this is driven at a national level.

12.5. Welfare needs assessment and referrals process. Options analysis of the Āwhina needs assessment tool vs The Development Hub. Integration and implementation into Group response systems.

12.5.1. Good progress has been made in this area. Work has been ongoing with HBRC, HDC and NCC as to how we might internalise the call centre (the so called 0800 number) by better using existing staff who will be under utilised should Hawke's Bay move back into Level 3 restrictions or above.

12.5.2. At this stage it has been decided not to use the national needs assessment tool (Āwhina) primarily to maintain continuity for the on-going COVID-19 response. However, we will be reviewing this decision as Āwhina is developed further by the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA).

12.5.3. As mentioned we intend to use council staff to carry out the detailed welfare needs assessment as people are referred from the 0800 number. Council staff and two facilities from HDC and NCC have already been identified. Training packages have been developed and training of the needs analysis staff will occur over the next few weeks.

12.6. Embedding community engagement in response into our wider response framework. Ensuring networks of networks approach in response is enduring, informs a re-escalation, and increases long term resilience of Hawke’s Bay.

12.6.1. The Group Welfare Manager has been working with the wider Welfare Coordination Group (WCG) to review the roles and responsibilities to help guide and lead the individual networks. Attachment 1 outlines how this is now structured.

12.6.2. Each of the networks have met at least once since July and this relationship management will be ongoing.

12.6.3. Feedback from staff has been that while the NGOs and volunteers involved in the networks are feeling drained, and are still dealing with the ongoing impacts of COVID-19 on their communities, there is self-confidence that they will be able to effectively support their communities should Hawke's Bay move into Level 3 or above again.

12.6.4. This work area has also been enhanced by the establishment of the Regional Leadership Group (RLG) which is part of the central government Caring for Communities initiative. The role of the RLG is to provide support, advice and governance to the overall regional response to COVID-19. The members of this Committee are also part of this Group.

13. The recommendations above are consistent with a number of learnings from the national COVID-19 response review which was undertaken in late July. Three Group office staff attended this review.

14. An outline timeframe for this work is as follows. Due to the August resurgence of COVID-19 much of this work has been accelerated and where necessary operational decisions made on actions and priorities in keeping with the intent from CEG:

14.1. 20 July CEG - project initiation, work program areas of focus for recurrence was approved.

14.2. August - Engaging with project teams and stakeholders, understanding the problem. Scoping the work for re-escalation. Due to the current COVID-19 resurgence this work has been accelerated.

14.3. September – where developed project plans socialised and consulted with stakeholders.

14.4. 19 October CEG – Present outstanding project plans and approval for implementation. Review existing or completed work.

14.5. Ongoing already - Embed formal COVID-19 to Jun 2020 response lessons, implement and monitor project plans.

15. At the July CEG meeting, the point was made that the above should not be viewed as a purely linear process and where appropriate and within the guidance of this paper, projects or work may be brought forward or occur concurrently. This is what has occurred.

16. The implications of changing the direction of the Group work program for the next 6-12 months are:

16.1. The review of the Group Plan will need to be delayed until 2021. Given the review of the National Plan has been further delayed, the current Plan is seen as generally fit for purpose and has been updated as appropriate, the residual risk of this decision is low.

16.2. In general current risk reduction and community engagement work will be delayed by about 6 months – although some work which was significantly advanced is being completed.

16.3. Significant exercises will be placed on hold until 2021 and some training will be delayed.

17. The Committee should also note that the Group Welfare Manager Alison Prins has resigned her position and will leave on 9 September. Due to the pivotal role of this position in readiness and response particularly in the COVID-19 response, the Group office has employed Joanne Lawrence on a short-term contract until the end of the year. This is to provide continuity in the current response while the position is reviewed and the market recruitment process completed.

18. Ms Lawrence was an alternate Group Welfare Manager during the first COVID-19 response and covered for a couple of weeks while the incumbent was rested. She also held a leadership position at MSD and was a member of the WCG for a number of years.

Next Steps

19. It is requested that the Committee endorse the CEG decisions outlined in this report. This will ensure that the Group is well positioned to continue to respond to the intermediate risks of an ongoing recurrence of COVID-19.

20. CEG and the Regional Leadership Group will be kept up to date on the Group COVID-19 Recurrence Work Plan as it is further developed and implemented.

21. This will also be reported on at the next Committee meeting.

Strategic Fit

22. Under the Group Plan the Group is required to respond to emergencies efficiently and effectively within Hawke's Bay. This paper helps to facilitate this for COVID-19.

Considerations of Tangata Whenua

23. Tangata whenua are included as part of the Regional Leadership Group and at a more operational level the networks of networks.

24. There is further work started in developing a more deliberate approach to working with tangata whenua across the 4Rs in emergency management.

Financial and Resource Implications

25. There are no significant resourcing issues as existing budgets should cover any costs in the work mentioned in this paper.

26. The only risk with funding is in the response to moving to Level 3 or 4 as the Groups current reserves were exhausted in the initial response. This has been noted in a previous paper.

Decision Making Process

27. 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:

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

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

27.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of the Administrating Authority’s (HBRC) policy on significance and engagement

27.4. No persons can be identified who may be affected by this decision.

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

27.6. 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.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 02 September 2020

Subject: HBRC Covid-19 Response Review Update

Reason for Report

1. This item provides an update on the review being carried out on HBRC’s organisational response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Background

2. In December 2019 an outbreak of Coronavirus disease (Covid-19) was detected in Wuhan, China. The virus rapidly spread across the globe. On 30 January 2020 the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the Covid-19 outbreak a ‘public health emergency of international concern’. On 11 March 2020 WHO declared Covid-19 a ‘global pandemic’.

3. Within New Zealand the first case of Covid-19 was announced on 28 February. The first locally transmitted case was announced exactly one week later on 5 March 2020.

4. On 19 March 2020 New Zealand’s borders were closed to all non-residents. In addition to the border closures any returning; citizen, permanent resident, or non-residents with border exemptions were required to self-isolate for 14 days.

5. To complement the border restrictions and to control the Covid-19 outbreak in New Zealand the Government in conjunction with the NZ Ministry of Health (MOH) updated the pandemic New Zealand response plan and four tier alert system. On 21 March 2020, at the time of the alert level system announcement the Government also confirmed New Zealand would enter alert level 2 in a ‘go hard and go early’ strategy that attempted to eliminate the disease. With the alert level system confirmed New Zealand Covid-19 response has taken the following path:

5.1. 21 March 2020 – alert level 2 (whole country)

5.2. 23 March 2020 – alert level 3 (whole country)

5.3. 25 March 2020 – alert level 4 (whole country)

5.4. 27 April 2020 – alert level 3 (whole country)

5.5. 13 May 2020 – alert level 2 (whole country)

5.6. 8 June 2020 – alert level 1 (whole country)

5.7. 12 August 2020 – alert level 3 (Auckland region only)

5.8. 12 August 2020- alert level 2 (rest of country outside the Auckland region)

6. Each alert level impacts the way in which organisations can operate. With the most significant impacts to organisations being at alert level three and four where non-essential staff are required to work from home. For a period of nearly two months (from 23 March 2020 to 13 May 2020) New Zealand operated under either alert level three or four. During this time HBRC operated by activating its Business Continuity Plan (BCP). Therefore, a review has been undertaken to capture the learnings and possible improvements to HBRC’s BCP.

Discussion

7. When an organisation operates under business continuity arrangements it is deemed good practice to review the effectiveness of the response. The objective of a review is to identify improvement opportunities to ready the continuity plans to more efficiently respond to future events. At the FARS meeting on 12 August 2020 the Committee requested the review of HBRC’s BCP that was activated in response to the Covid-19 lockdown be undertaken internally by staff rather than by Crowe through the 2020-21 Internal audit plan.

8. The scope and approach to obtain necessary information to undertake the BCP review included: an organisational wide staff survey, a facilitated workshop with organisational leaders using outputs from the staff survey, other key stakeholder insights, and a desktop review of relevant documentation such as HBRC’s BCP, pandemic plan and response team structure.

9. The scope of the review specifically excludes Hawke’s Bay CDEM response. However, did include Hawke’s Bay CDEM requests for HBRC staff time required to staff the Group Emergency Coordination Centre. In addition, the scope of the review excludes additional business activities required under alert level one and alert two. The additional practices under alert level one and two were not deemed extensive and did not require HBRC to respond under BCP arrangements.

10. To date, information gathered for the final report indicates that HBRC’s response to both alert level thee and four was largely effective. No material issues were immediately apparent that highlight concerns regarding the safe execution of HBRC’s critical processes over this time. The final report is unlikely to identify any ‘high’ findings for urgent action that if remained unresolved could jeopardise HBRC’s execution of critical processes if the region was to revert back into alert level three or four. These observations are supported by staff survey feedback and the facilitated session feedback. The average overall rating for HBRC’s response to Covid-19 by staff was 8.49 positive on a scale of 1 being poor to 10 being excellent. In addition, staff consistently rated HBRC’s response positive (greater than 80%) across all survey areas.

11. It is intended that the final report will be split across five key themes being; BCP and pandemic plans, communications (internal and external), technology, health and safety and wellbeing, and work distribution including tension between BCP and CDEM response. Details of observations within these themes based on information gathered to dated is outlined below.

Business Continuity and Pandemic Plans

11.1. There was no documented pandemic plan. Therefore, processes around staff isolation, segregation and pandemic supplies initiated as part of HBRC’s Covid-19 response should be documented as reference for any future pandemic or epidemic.

11.2. HBRC’s documented business continuity plan identified HBRC’s critical processes that enabled an effective pandemic response by prioritising those processes. However, work arounds for critical processes within the BCP could be strengthened using a ‘denial’ focus; i.e. denial of staff, systems, facilities, and suppliers/services. This should ensure critical process work arounds respond to a variety of situations. For example, HBRC’s Covid-19 response was focused on staff not being able to come to their usual place of work referred to as ‘denial’ of facilities. However, if the situation worsened and many staff became ill with Covid-19 this situation could require an additional response known as ‘denial’ of staff.

Communication (Internal and External)

11.3. Staff feedback through both the survey and facilitated session on the effectiveness of internal communication during alert levels three and four was favourable. Staff scored the effectiveness of internal communication as 88% positive. Internal communication channel included; formal Chief Executive Zoom meeting updates, regular HBRC online newsletter (Snappy), regular Line Manager meetings and check-ins via Microsoft Teams, and informal staff catchups through Microsoft Teams. Data is still being collated for the final report to analyse the success of HBRC external communication.

Technology

11.4. Staff feedback through both the survey and facilitated session with regards to the HBRC’s technology; use, capacity, availability, and support during alert levels three and four was favourable. Staff felt that transition to working from home was smooth. The availability of IT equipment and help desk support was commendable.

Health, Safety and Wellbeing

11.5. Overall, the additional pandemic health and safety processes work well, these processes included; cleaning and cleansing, segregation, contact tracing, and pandemic PPE use. However, some improvements to the design of where work activities are undertaken to ensure ’work bubbles’ remain separated is required at the Works Group.

Work Distribution Including BCP and CDEM Response Resource Tensions

11.6. Through the facilitated session with HBRC’s leaders it was identified that the dependency to staff Hawke’s Bay CDEM with HBRC staff created some tension. In addition, internally some staff felt the work distribution between individual staff was not always equitable. The equitable distribution of work and the tension between CDEM and HBRC resource requirements will be addressed by the review of the BCP noted in paragraph 11.2.

Next Steps

12. Finalise the full HBRC Covid-19 Response Review Report, including:

12.1. collating additional information from key external stakeholders such as external complaints and compliments data

12.2. compiling management comments into the full draft report

12.3. presenting the final draft to the Executive Leadership Team (ELT) for endorsement

12.4. assigning agreed findings and actions to a responsible staff

12.5. presenting the final report to the FARS at the 11 November 2020 meeting.

Decision Making Process

13. 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 “HBRC Covid-19 Response Review Update” staff report.

Authored by:

Helen Marsden

Risk and Assurance Lead

Approved by:

Jessica Ellerm

Group Manager Corporate Services

James Palmer

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Corporate and Strategic Committee

Wednesday 02 September 2020

Subject: Regional Drought Relief Fund

Reason for Report

1. This paper sets out for Council the criteria for the Regional Drought Relief Fund (RDRF) and associated contributions and expenditure from this fund.

Executive Summary

2. The RDRF was created through contributions from the Ministry for Primary Industries ($500K), HBRC ($200K), Central Hawke’s Bay District Council ($50K), Hastings District Council ($200K), Centralines ($50K) and a local “Give-a-little” fund ($15,110 as of 26 August 2020). It totals as of 26 August 2020 $1,015,110.

3. The fund was created principally to support the supply of stock feed on to farms. There is an acknowledgement that given the widespread drought conditions across the North Island and the lack of normal feed supply chains in the North Island, the costs to obtain feed, primarily from the South Island, are significantly elevated.

4. Current expenditure from the RDRF, as of 26 August 2020, is $627K. Projections indicate that a further $175K will be spent in the remaining 5 weeks that the fund remains open. It is projected that at the close of the fund (the end of September) approximately $800K will have been spent or committed.

Background

5. Drought conditions developed in Hawke’s Bay and across the North Island during summer 2019-20, leading to the declaration of a “large scale adverse event” by the Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor on 12 March 2020.

6. Hawke’s Bay had below normal rainfall, above average temperatures and relatively high rates of potential evapotranspiration from November 2019 to April 2020. Rainfall accumulations from November to April were lower in 2019-20 than in the 2012-13 drought in all areas of the region, apart from Waikaremoana and the Kaweka Range.

7. Following the 2012-13 drought, NIWA developed a New Zealand Drought Index (NZDI) based on four common indices of climatological drought. Throughout summer 2019-20 the NZDI typically categorised Hawke’s Bay as very dry or extremely dry, with parts of the region in drought or severe drought. Drought or severe drought levels were largely along the western ranges, particularly the Ruahine Range and adjacent hill country and surrounds. At the end of April the NZDI still categorized eastern Hawke’s Bay as dry but extremely dry or in drought on the Heretaunga Plains, the Ruataniwha Plains and southern coastal areas.

8. The funding is to support reliable and appropriate supply chain logistics for stock feed to come to Hawke’s Bay. A reliable supply of feed into the region is critical to support animal welfare and to allow landowners to manage their way through the winter to bridge the lack of on farm feed.

9. A complication with this current drought is that it has been a North Island wide event. Whilst many parts of the North Island may well no longer be in meteorological drought conditions, the effects of that on feed availability continue to be felt across the North Island. Put simply there is currently limited feed available in the North Island as a result of the island wide conditions. Feed is available in some South Island locations, but the transport costs for this are considerable.

Discussion

10. The RDRF is held by the Hawke’s Bay Disaster Relief Trust (HBDRT) and administered by the finance team at HBRC. The HBDRT comprises Mayors of the Territorial Authorities and Chair of HBRC who is also Chair of the HBDRT.

11. Criteria for eligibility for individuals to access the fund were developed by the Rural Advisory Group (RAG) and have been used to apply the funding to date. The criteria were developed to support the principle of supplying feed to farms. The criteria were initially very financially conservative as there was no previous history to draw from to understand what the demand might be. Recently the criteria were further refined by the RAG to expand the eligibility in response to feedback from landowners affected by the drought and to make them less financially conservative as the demand was not as high as anticipated.

12. Regional Council data indicated 3,000 farms were in the drought affected area of Central Hawke’s Bay and outlying areas of Hastings. The RAG made a conservative assessment that 50% of those farms will need support. This understanding then informed the scale of the funding initially made available to individuals.

13. The criteria and process to access the funding is as follows:

13.1. Applicants have to apply for funds via an online form on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s website: https://www.hbrc.govt.nz/environment/farmers-hub/drought-crisis-hub/drought-relief-fund-register (note this link is unpublished), or by phoning us

13.2. Applicants need to confirm that they have a feed plan/budget and that this has informed the feed requirements being supported by their application. This information is auditable and must be supplied if asked for at a later date

13.3. Applicants will provide their bank deposit slip and the invoice from the supplier (they must have the same name on the invoice and bank deposit slip, and the invoice must have the transport cost separated from the feed cost) and receive an email to confirm their eligibility

13.4. The applicants will then be reimbursed as soon as possible for the transport cost – up to the maximum amount agreed according to the size of their land

13.5. A farm trading entity can apply for the support up to the indicated maximums below.

13.6. Farms are split into three categories:

13.6.1. Greater than 150 ha (eligible for a maximum of originally $1,350, but now increased to $3000)

13.6.2. Between 20 ha – 150 ha (eligible for a maximum of originally $400, but now increased to $1000)

13.6.3. Less than 20 ha (This funding will be administered directly to support transport operators for feed supplies for this lifestyle market). No change to this category.

13.7. Originally landowners could claim funding support from the date of 19 May 2020, which was the date the RDRF was created, this has now shifted to 12 March 2020 which is when the adverse drought event was announced by the Minister for Agriculture

13.8. There is a reserve set aside of ($10) for the Rural Support Trust for on farm emergency situations and $37K for previously committed donated feed transport costs.

14. Further recent changes have been to:

14.1. To not on-charge transportation costs to the recipients of donated feed ($141,000 to date). Note that this has resulted in over 2,200 large bales of feed being brought into the region

14.2. To fund the transportation of stock to properties outside the region to graze and then transport back on farm. Note that the amount paid is the same using the same size thresholds as the feed transport costs in paragraph 13. A property can claim only once for either the transport of feed or stock, not twice for both.

15. As noted in the summary for this paper, it is envisaged that the fund will be under spent. It is important to remember that HBRC has an interest in only 20% of any remaining funding. At the time the fund closes staff will bring back further advice on the remaining funding and suggested options for this. Staff would highlight now that there is the potential to tag this funding to the development of the regional drought resilience strategy work that is beginning in September. Funding could be leveraged off MPI and other sources to fund both the strategy development and strategy implementation.

Decision Making Process

16. 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 “Regional Drought Relief Fund” staff report.

Authored and Approved by:

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager Integrated Catchment Management

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

[1] Tikanga relates to spiritual, cultural and social values while mahinga kai is customary food harvesting traditions and practices.

	Agenda Item	Follow-up / Request	Responsible	Status Comment
1	Remit to Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting	Support for Hauraki District Council’s Coastal Hazards remit was emailed within timeframes.	J Palmer /R Graham	Support emailed on 12 June and remit passed by LGNZ AGM
2	Risk Maturity Roadmap	Formal 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 organisation	H Marsden/ J Ellerm	Council resolved agreement to the implementation of the Risk Management Maturity Roadmap on 24 June. FARS meeting on 12 August received.
3	Health and Safety Governance Charter	Report on the status of 2018 Health & Safety internal audit recommendations	K McInnes /J Palmer	Report provided to 12 August FARS meeting.

1	CDEM Income and Expenditure 2019-20 Financial Year
2	Project Progress Report - Reduction - Hazard Identification and Mitigation
3	Project Progress Report - Readiness and Response
4	Project Progress Report - Recovery and Coordination
5	Project Progress Report - Local Emergency Management
6	Project Progress Report - Emergency Management Total
7	CDEM Reserve Account

⇩1	2019-20 HB CDEM Group Financial Report
⇩2	CDEM Group Covid-19 Resurgence Planning and Future work programme

Topic	Raised by