HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Tuesday 15 September 2020
Subject: Receipt of the
Hawke’s Bay Three Waters, Business Case of Three Waters Service Delivery
Options Report
Reason for Report
1. This report
provides for the formal receipt by Council of the business case for a reformed
delivery model for the delivery of three waters services in the region. The
Regional Council has been a partner in this project alongside the territorial
authorities in the region given the strategic importance of effective and efficient
delivery of these services for the Council’s role as regulator and
manager of both source and receiving environments.
Officers’ Recommendations
2. Council
officers recommend that the Council receives and notes the Hawke’s Bay
Three Waters, Business Case of Three Waters Service Delivery options report and
commits to continuing to work collaboratively with the region’s councils
in good faith to grow a thriving Hawke’s Bay economy to support inclusive
and connected communities and sustainable and resilient environments.
Executive Summary
3. Central
Hawke’s Bay District Council, Hastings District Council, Napier City
Council and Wairoa District Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
commissioned Morrison Low in December 2018 to review the current and potential
three waters (drinking, waste and storm) service delivery options for the
region.
4. This report
contributes to the strategic priority areas for the 2019-2022 triennium, Water
– safety, security and planning agreed by the Hawke’s Bay Leaders
Forum on 25 November 2019 and expressed in the Triennial Agreement
provided for by the Local Government Act 2002. Specifically, the priority areas
for cooperative approaches on the regional three waters review of the provision
of drinking water, wastewater and storm water services.
5. It should be
noted that Central Hawke’s Bay District Council, Hastings District
Council, Napier City Council and Wairoa District Council have opted into the
government three waters reform and stimulus programme committing these councils
to engage in the first stage of the reform programme. This means that
this report delivered to Council is for information only and will be used by
council representatives participating in the government programme to inform
discussions to represent Hawke’s Bay’s interests in the design of
multi-regional service delivery entities.
6. The review
followed a structured, staged process moving from current state assessment,
definition of key objectives and principles, into analysis of a long and short
list of options and their impacts on councils. The review report is now
complete and provides independent analysis and recommendations on the
effectiveness of existing drinking water, wastewater and storm water services,
and alternative service delivery options.
7. It is important
to note that the review is not directly about freshwater reforms, privatising
assets or services, water storage or issues such as chlorination. Flood
protection and control assets owned and managed by Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council were considered outside the scope for the review, but a reformed
delivery model may present future opportunities for the delivery of
Council’s flood and drainage services.
8. The review
report identifies that the status quo is not an option for the future of three
waters service delivery in Hawke’s Bay. Making no changes to the
way the region’s three waters services are delivered is not affordable or
sustainable.
8.1. New
regulations and standards are coming which will force change
8.2. Future affordability challenges need to be addressed
8.3. Strategically there are good reasons for the councils to work
together:
8.3.1. For customers, ratepayers, staff and councils
8.3.2. To achieve the best solution for Hawke’s Bay.
9. The
Hawke’s Bay councils face the same or substantially the same issues and
need to address these challenges in an affordable, coordinated way that
eliminates duplication and ensures that all councils and their communities have
access to the appropriate strategic capability and capacity to do so.
10. Meeting the new
regulations under current service delivery arrangements poses significant
affordability challenges for the Hawke’s Bay region, and in particular
smaller councils. Recent consent of wastewater in Central Hawke’s Bay and
current consenting processes for wastewater in Wairoa are highlighting
challenges of asset performance and affordability for these smaller
communities.
11. The Review’s
forecast investment in three waters infrastructure across the region to meet
new drinking and wastewater standards is estimated to, at a minimum, double
since councils’ 2018-2028 Long Term Plans from $313m to $605m.
12. The report recommends an
asset owning council controlled organisation (CCO) as the preferred service
delivery model as, in the view of the reviewers, it best met the
councils’ investment objectives and the cultural principles.
12.1. It is the option that
best addresses the issue of affordability. It is also the option that best
addresses the very real risk that the scale of investment required to meet new
standards and community expectations is greater than forecast.
12.2. A dedicated regional
water CCO is able to concentrate on three water challenges and prioritise
investment decisions across the region, leading to better environmental and
community outcomes than the Councils can individually achieve.
12.3. It would have sufficient
scale to create strategic capacity and capability across the region and support
the areas where that is currently lacking. Scale, strategic capacity and capability
gives a level of expertise and resilience in three waters that can be applied
regionally, benefitting all ratepayers of the region rather than only some as
is the case now.
12.4. The model best provides
the opportunity to provide a meaningful role for Māori, including
co-design and co-governance.
12.5. A regional water CCO is
able to provide improved asset management, improved management of risk, and be
better placed to meet any increased compliance requirements or increased
environmental standards than the councils can individually.
12.6. In addition to being the
only model that effectively addresses affordability issues across the region,
the asset owning model also maximises available operational savings for the
region, ensuring that services are not only affordable, but delivered in a cost
effective way.
12.7. There will be a need to
ensure that the Statement of Intent and Shareholders Agreement of the regional
CCO retain an appropriate balance between the individual priorities of each
council with regional priorities including planning and supporting growth.
13. The reviewers believe that
a regional asset owning CCO should be owned collectively by Central
Hawke’s Bay, Hastings, Napier and Wairoa and taking into account the
findings of the cultural case should be implemented using a co-governance model
in partnership with Māori.
14. Partnering with Māori
to co-design and co-govern responds directly to the principles developed for
the review and the investment objective to have a model that enables a
meaningful role for Māori. It builds on existing models of co-governance
but does so in a way that would be designed specifically for Hawke’s Bay
three waters service delivery.
15. A regional asset owning
CCO would operate as a separate legal entity external to all four councils,
with its own governance, executive, administration support, procurement
strategies and operational equipment. Importantly it would also own the
networks and treatment plants and deal directly with customers.
16. A board of professional
directors would be appointed by the shareholding Councils and Māori. The
directors would have the associated duties, obligations and liabilities of
company directors rather than of councillors.
17. Scrutiny of the CCO would
be provided by a joint committee of the combined councils and Māori. The
joint committee would, amongst other responsibilities, appoint and remove the
directors and provide Māori with a co-governance role.
18. The CCO would co-locate
staff virtually and/or physically, housing all management, administration,
asset management, planning and project management staff, and the coordination
of the maintenance crews and contractors. Wairoa and Central Hawke’s Bay
would operate as satellite offices. There would be an estimated 143 staff
(including Napier City Services staff) in the CCO. This includes more than 16
additional roles than are currently directly involved in delivering and
supporting the three waters across the four councils.
19. The
report also sets out the key challenges and risks associated with adopting
asset owning CCO models.
19.1. Perceived inequity that
arises when councils are transferring different levels of debt or assets of
varying conditions. Where this happens, ratepayers may feel that they are
inheriting someone else’s problem.
19.2. The impact of
regionalising costs is that in order to reduce the costs of three waters
services to an affordable level across the Hawke’s Bay, Napier ratepayers
may pay more for three waters than they otherwise would (under the enhanced
status quo).
19.3. Without the critical
mass of all four councils there is a danger that the benefits of change will be
substantially reduced or lost.
19.4. Water and the formation
of CCO’s are both politically sensitive issues for councils and a risk
that other issues are brought into the conversation that detract from the key
underlying issues highlighted in this report.
19.5. The development of a
co-design and co- governance approach will require councils and Maori to
participate in a new and potentially a resource intensive process.
19.6. Creation of a regional
water entity will impact resourcing organisation structures and functions of
each council. Water activity is a significant proportion of each
council’s budget so the transfer of the activity to a CCO will impact the
way each council operates in the future. Consideration should be given to
Councils broader priorities. COVID-19 has demonstrated how quickly the needs
and priorities of communities can change.
19.7. The extent to which
Government is able to support formation of an asset owning CCO with a)
legislative change to the Local Government Act 2002 and b) providing funding or
investment to resolved the challenges of regionalisation and cross
subsidisation.
Background /Discussion
20. Central Hawke’s Bay
District Council, Hastings District Council, Napier City Council and Wairoa
District Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council commissioned Morrison
Low in December 2018 to review the current and potential three waters (drinking,
waste and storm) service delivery options for the region.
21. The review aligns with all
five councils shared strategic priority for water safety, security and planning
agreed as part of the Hawke’s Bay Triennial Agreement October 2019 -2022
and specifically referenced as a priority area for cooperation to review the
provision of drinking, waste and storm water services.
22. Central government has
supported the Hawke’s Bay three waters review and the Minister’s
funding of $1.55 million announced in January 2019 attests to that support.
Hawke’s Bay now has the opportunity to provide further perspective into
the Central Government review on developing options to address the key concerns
on regional solutions to improve the management of drinking water, storm water
and wastewater.
23. Over the past three years,
central government have been considering the issues and opportunities facing
the system for regulating and managing the three waters.
24. The Government Inquiry
into Havelock North Drinking Water – set up following the serious
campylobacter outbreak in 2016 – identified widespread, systemic failure
of suppliers to meet the standards required for the safe supply of drinking
water to the public. It made a number of urgent and longer-term recommendations
to address these significant systemic and regulatory failures.
25. The Government’s
Three Waters Review highlighted that, in many parts of the country, communities
cannot be confident that drinking water is safe, or that good environmental
outcomes are being achieved. This work also raised concerns about the
regulation, sustainability, capacity and capability of a system with a large
number of localised providers, many of which are funded by relatively small
populations.
26. The local government
sector’s own work has highlighted similar issues. For example, in 2014,
LGNZ identified an information gap relating to three waters infrastructure. A
2015 position paper, argued for a refresh of the regulatory framework to ensure
delivery of quality drinking water and wastewater services, and outlined what
stronger performance in the three waters sector would look like.
27. Both central and local
government acknowledge that there are many challenges facing the delivery of
water services and infrastructure, and the communities that fund and rely on
these services. These challenges include:
27.1. Underinvestment
in three waters infrastructure in parts of the country, and substantial
infrastructure deficits. For example, it is estimated that between $300 to $570
million is required to upgrade networked drinking water treatment plants to
meet drinking water standards; and up to $4 billion is required to upgrade
wastewater plants to meet new consent requirements. These deficits are likely
to be underestimates, given the variable quality of asset management data.
27.1.1. Persistent funding and
affordability challenges, particularly for communities with small rating bases,
or high-growth areas that have reached their prudential borrowing limits.
27.1.2. Additional investment
required to increase public confidence in the safety of drinking water, improve
freshwater outcomes, and as a critical component of a collective response to
climate change and increasing resilience of local communities.
27.2. COVID-19
has made the situation even more challenging. Prior to COVID-19, territorial
authorities were planning on spending $8.3 billion in capital over the next
five years on water infrastructure. However, COVID-19 is likely to cause
significant decreases in revenue in the short term. As a result, borrowing will
be constrained due to lower debt limits that flow from lower revenues, and
opportunities to raise revenue through rates, fees and charges will be limited.
Progress with government three waters regulatory reforms
28. Progress
is being made to address the regulatory issues that were raised by the Havelock
North Inquiry and the Governments Three Waters Review. The Government is
implementing a package of reforms to the three waters regulatory system, which
are designed to:
28.1. improve national-level
leadership, oversight, and support relating to the three waters – through
the creation of Taumata Arowai, a new, dedicated Water Services Regulator
28.2. significantly strengthen
compliance, monitoring, and enforcement relating to drinking water regulation
28.3. manage risks to drinking
water safety and ensure sources of drinking water are protected; o improve the
environmental performance and transparency of wastewater and stormwater
networks.
29. Legislation to create
Taumata Arowai had its third reading on 22 July 2020 and should be enacted
shortly. This new Crown entity is currently being built, and will become
responsible for drinking water regulation once a separate Water Services Bill
is passed (anticipated mid 2021).
30. However, both central and
local government acknowledge that regulatory reforms alone will not be
sufficient to address many of the persistent issues facing the three waters
system. Reforms to service delivery and funding arrangements also need to be
explored.
31. Hawke’s Bay as a
region has now completed our Three Waters Review, which assesses current and
potential service delivery options for drinking, waste and stormwater for all
of Hawke’s Bay. Through this, the intention was that our councils would
form a collective view on how we can use this opportunity to find the best
long-term solution for three waters service delivery in Hawke’s Bay,
meeting the needs of all our communities.
32. As a region and district,
our communities will be in a very good position to participate in the
Government’s co-design of three waters service delivery entities.
Together, we will form a collective view on how we can use this opportunity to
find the best long-term solution for three waters service delivery in
Hawke’s Bay, meeting the needs of all our communities.
Government Reform Process
and indicative timetable
33. Government has
communicated a three-year programme to reform three waters service delivery
arrangements, which is being delivered in conjunction with an economic stimulus
package of Crown investment in water infrastructure. The reform programme will
be undertaken in stages.
34. The initial stage is an
opt in, non-binding approach, which involves councils signing a Memorandum of
Understanding, Funding Agreement, and Delivery Plan documents. Wairoa
District Council, Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and Central
Hawke’s Bay Council have agreed to participate in this initial stage of
the reform process and will receive a share of the initial $50 million Hawke’s
Bay funding package.
35. Any further tranches of
funding will be at the discretion of the Government and may depend on progress
against reform objectives.
36. An indicative timetable
for the full reform programme is provided below. While this is subject to
change as the reforms progress, and subject to future Government budget
decisions, it provides an overview of the longer-term reform pathway.
Considerations of Tangata Whenua
37. The Local
Government Act requires councils to provide for Māori to contribute to
decision-making processes. Section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act 1991
sets out:
37.1. “Matters
of national importance – In achieving the purpose of this Act, all
persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the
use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall
recognise and provide for the following matters of national importance: The
relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their
ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga”.
38. The Māori engagement
strategy used in this project was to meet with the existing council Māori
committees of the four territorial authorities, as well as the Hawke’s
Bay Regional Council Regional Planning Committee and Māori Committee.
Noting that Central Hawke’s Bay does not have a formal committee, a
meeting was held with Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea in place of a formal committee of
Central Hawke’s Bay District Council. Over 2019 and early 2020 tangata
whenua engagement affirmed seven principles.
39. The
significance Māori place on these principles and therefore on water is
best encapsulated in the following korero.
39.1. Te
wai, he taonga i tuku iho mai i ngā tīpuna – water is a taonga,
a precious treasure passed down from our ancestors.
40. The chairs of the
Māori committees were clear that a meaningful role for Māori starts
with the opportunity for partnership with co-design of the model across
co-governance and operations. They were stringent in their view that the status
quo is not a sustainable option for our environment and Te mauri o te wai. An
Assert owning CCO was their preferred model with adaptation to a Māori
worldview that places people within the environment, and not in a dominant and
exploitive view.
41. The engagement identified
a cultural gap in the better business case framework. Initially the approach
was to weave a cultural element through the business case but during the
project it became clear that a separate cultural case was required. The
rationale for a cultural case was that Māori cultural values and
traditions associated with water have been well documented within Council
processes, however the operational implementation of cultural values was
considered to be a gap.
42. The role of the cultural
case is to highlight that within the regulatory framework relating to water, Te
Ao Māori, through its language, genealogy, stories and traditions,
requires a greater level of competency than usual. The cultural case is
underpinned by the Treaty of Waitangi.
Financial and Resource Implications
43. There are no financial
implications arising from the receipt of this report at this time.
Consultation
44. Consultation on the
options for reform of three waters service delivery was intended once
council’s selected a preferred approach or approaches, and the
development and receipt of this report was intended to be the first step in
this process. As a result of the Government’s national reform process
formal public consultation is currently on hold until such time as the
implications of these reforms for the region become clearer.
Decision Making
Process
45. 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:
45.1. The
decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a
strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
45.2. The use
of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
45.3. The
decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s
adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.
45.4. 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 Ngā Tūtohunga
That
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:
1. receives the report titled Hawke’s Bay Three Waters,
Business Case of Three Waters Service Delivery options.
1.1. The report is for information purposes only. No decision
relating to the recommendations set out in this report are required by
Council.
2. Notes that Central Hawke’s Bay District Council, Hastings
District Council, Napier City Council and Wairoa District Council have opted
in to the government three waters reform and stimulus programme committing
our councils to engage in the first stage of the reform programme. This
includes working together with neighbouring councils and government to
consider the creation of multi-regional entities.
3. Agrees that the Hawke’s Three Waters, Business Case of Three
Waters Service Delivery Options report provides our region’s
representatives in the reform programme detailed information and analysis to
engage with government to identify approaches to service delivery reform
design that considers the recommendations, findings and challenges from the
report.
4. Based on the principles agreed in the Hawke’s Bay Triennial
Agreement, agrees to continue the collaboration between the five councils as the region engages in
the Central Government Three Waters Reform programme.
|
Authored by:
|
Chris Dolley
Group Manager
Asset Management
|
Pieri Munro
Te Pou Whakarae
|
Approved by:
|
James Palmer
Chief Executive
|
|
Attachment/s
|
⇨1
|
Hawke's Bay
Business Case of Three Waters Service Delivery Options
|
|
Under
Separate Cover
|
HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL
COUNCIL
Tuesday 15 September 2020
Subject: Leveraging Council's
$1M Recovery Fund
Reason for Report
1. This item seeks the Council’s support to commit $700,000 of
the $1M Recovery Fund established through this year’s Annual Plan towards
two Freshwater Improvement Fund applications.
Officers’ Recommendation(s)
2. Council
officers recommend that councillors consider the opportunity to utilise the
Recovery Fund for leveraging funding from the Freshwater Improvement Fund (FIF)
for two large environmental enhancement projects and agree in principle to
support the funding of these projects as part of an application to the FIF by
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the Porangahau Catchment Group.
Executive Summary
3. Council staff
are completing applications to the Ministry for the Environment’s
Freshwater Improvement Fund (FIF). The FIF will 50/50 match Hawkes Bay Regional
Councils (HBRC) contributions towards the project, including external costs and
in-kind time. To take greatest advantage of this match funding, we are
requesting to use funds from the HBRC Recovery fund to leverage further funding
from the FIF. This $1million Recovery Fund is part of the HBRC Climate. Smart.
Recovery. Programme to ensure our recovery from the COVID-19 crisis is sustainable
and our environment enhanced.
Background /Discussion
Recovery Fund
4. In July 2020,
Council resolved to proceed with its proposal through the 2020-21 Annual Plan
to establish a $1 million Recovery Fund. The purpose of the Recovery Fund
is to enable Regional Council to act quickly and with some flexibility to
leverage potential government co-funding into planned Council related capital
projects that promote employment, encourage economic activity and accelerate
positive environmental change and therefore support the Hawke’s Bay
economy back to its fastest recovery.
5. The $1M for
this fund was reallocated from a budget tagged for additional office space and
updated facilities for field staff. New opportunities arising from COVID-19
have enabled the Council to revisit needs for additional office space and delay
the timing for this project.
6. A draft
Recovery Fund Policy was presented to Council at the time the Annual Plan was
adopted to give confidence to submitters to the Annual Plan and ratepayers that
there is rigour around the spending of the funding. The Policy is a
non-statutory policy that sets out the decision-making process, including
criteria that will be used to assess proposals.
7. The two
projects put forward in this paper to access $700,000 of the Recovery Fund,
(i.e. the Freshwater Improvement Funding application for Ahuriri Catchment
($400,00) and Porangahau catchment ($300,000) are considered a good fit with
the objectives and score highly when assessed against the Climate. Smart. Recovery
criteria in the draft Policy.
8. At this stage
no other projects have been identified and scored against the Climate. Smart.
Recovery criteria, but staff have earmarked $250,000 to support Asset
Management activities such as regional parks and fish passage (subject to
successful applications to the next round of the Freshwater Improvement Fund),
and $50,000 for the Whangawehi Catchment project.
9. As noted in the
draft Policy, staff recommend these projects to Council for consideration.
Freshwater Improvement Fund (FIF)
10. In August, two new
Freshwater Improvement Fund (FIF) rounds were announced as part of the $1.3
billion Jobs for Nature programme. $55 million is available over two
rounds. The first-round closes on 21 September 20, while the second round
will open from 27 January to 10 February 21. This funding is available
for environmental projects supporting initiatives that create employment
opportunities to improve the management of lakes, rivers, wetlands and streams.
11. Collectively, we expect
the proposed catchment projects in this report to create work for approximately
40 people, through planters, fencers, project managers, engineers, and
advisors.
12. The
FIF is based on a 50/50 co-funding arrangement, therefore the Council is
required to put forward 50% of the funding to be matched by the FIF. A
contribution to the catchment projects from the HBRC Recovery Fund, would
increase the total amount we are requesting to be matched by the FIF.
Project Funding
13. The
two projects proposed for application to the FIF form part of the existing
Catchment Management activity budgets. The existing budget for the
Ahuriri Catchment project is within the Environmental Enhancement &
Protection activity, funded by general rates. The Porangahau catchment
project is part of the Erosion Control Scheme, which is a mix of loan funding,
general funding and landowner contributions (external revenue).
14. The
HBRC Recovery Fund established as part of the 20/21 Annual Plan is for capital
works, to be funded via a 10-year external loan. A total of
$700,000 is requested from this fund, to be used towards the Ahuriri and
Porangahau Catchment projects as outlined in this paper. As the projects are
multi-year, the contribution requested from the Recovery Fund would not all be
required in 20/21. If the request for funding from the Recovery Fund is
approved and we are successful in obtaining the FIF funding, there would be a
requirement to phase the loan drawdown over 4 years.
15. The
two catchment projects requesting contribution from the Recovery Fund are not
building Council owned assets, but they are creating community assets that will
benefit future generations. As such, the use of the Recovery Fund loan funding
is in alignment with the intergenerational equity principle.
16. If
a contribution from the Recovery Fund is approved for the catchment projects, a
budget would need to be added to these projects for the loan financing
costs. This would not be an increase above existing funding, but rather a
re-allocation from the original building project, which the Recovery Fund was
created from.
17. Council should note that
the FIF round is a contestable process and as an applicant we have no greater
chance of successfully obtaining funding than any other applicant. If
unsuccessful the funds in the Recovery Fund would then be potentially available
to fund other projects as they are identified. The funding would be
treated as ‘committed’ until such time as we are notified either
way about our application, by mid-November.
18. In the event one or other
project being unsuccessful we would bring back further advice for council on
options for utilizing the uncommitted funding. For example if the Ahuriri
catchment project was the only successful FIF application, we would potentially
revisit the project and increase its scope to use any available budget within
the recovery fund.
|
Projects
(across 4 Financial
years)
|
HBRC Existing Budgets
|
Landowner contribution
(existing
arrangements)
|
Request from Recovery
Fund (HBRC)
|
FIF application (funding
match from MfE)
|
Total Project $
|
|
External costs
|
Staff Time
(In-kind)
|
|
Ahuriri catchment
|
$480,000
|
$499,480
|
$255,000
|
$400,000
|
$1,634,480
|
$3.27m
|
|
Porangahau catchment
|
$442,707
|
$360,000
|
$307,293
|
$300,000
|
$1,410,000
|
$2.82m
|
|
Total
|
$922,707
|
$859,480
|
$562,293
|
$700,000
|
$3,044,480
|
$6.0m
|
FIF application for Ahuriri Catchment
(Applicant: Regional Council)
19. The ‘jewel’ of
Napier, and Te Maara a Tawhao (the garden of Tawhao), Te Whanganui-ā-Orotu
(Ahuriri Estuary) is an ecologically unique east-coast estuary, with a rich
cultural history, traditionally a sustainable ‘food-basket’, a
taonga, a place of physical and spiritual connection. Natural and
anthropogenic changes have contributed excess sediments, nutrients and
contaminants to the estuary over the last century, which has resulted in the
estuary ‘tipping’ into a highly nutrient rich and disturbed state.
20. The purpose of this
project is to provide a targeted approach to control identified high sediment
source areas within the Ahuriri Catchment with a focus on remediating high risk
erosion sites along Wharerangi Stream. This will be achieved using a
range of activities, including:
20.1. Hard and soft river engineering
solutions
20.2. Fencing for stock
exclusion
20.3. Riparian planting for
bank stability
20.4. Investigating improved
fish passage
20.5. Land Services advisor
provision and erosion control subsidy scheme
20.6. Biodiversity and
partnerships.
Recovery fund leverage
21. The purpose of the
Recovery fund is ‘to accelerate the delivery of Council-related capital
projects’. If this project could leverage $400,000 from Councils
$1m Recovery fund, it would allow the total project delivery timeframe to be
reduced from five years to three years. The project would prioritise delivering
the engineering solutions that would remediate an identified high-risk sediment
area that could impact significantly on the Ahuriri Estuary if it were to
fail. Additionally, it would allow for an increased focus on biodiversity
and working in partnership with tangata whenua and community.
22. By completing the
engineering solution in three years, it would enable the environmental
enhancement funding to be shifted to a wider programme of work to enhance the
Ahuriri Estuary two years earlier.
Proposed funding by year
|
Financial Years
|
Existing HBRC Environmental
Enhancement Budgets
|
Landowner contribution
(existing
arrangements)
|
Request from Recovery Fund
|
FIF match
funding
|
|
Staff time
(In-kind)
|
External Costs
|
|
Year 1 - FY20/21
(6 months Feb to 30 June)
|
$80,000
|
$ 80,000
|
$42,500
|
$ 100,000
|
$ 260,000
|
|
Year
2 –
FY 21/22
|
$ 178,080
|
$ 160,000
|
$85,000
|
$ 300,000
|
$638,080
|
|
Year
3 -
FY 22/23
|
$ 161,400
|
$ 160,000
|
$85,000
|
|
$321,400
|
|
Year
4 -
FY 23/24
(6 months Jul to 31 Dec)
|
$80,000
|
$80,000
|
$42,500
|
|
$160,000
|
|
TOTAL
|
$ 499,480
|
$ 480,000
|
$255,000
|
$ 400,000
|
$1,634,480
|
|
TOTAL PROJECT
|
$3,268,960
|
Strategic
Fit: Assessment Criteria
23. This
project has been assessed to determine their fit with the draft criteria from
the HBRC Recovery Fund.
|
|
Score
|
Reasoning
|
|
Climate
action
|
4
|
This
project will protect land and productive systems within the catchment
including Ahuriri estuary from the challenges posed climate change by
planting and stream protection. This includes flood protection, increased
rainfall intensity and sediment loss.
|
|
Strategic
Alignment
|
5
|
This
project aligns with all four of the strategic outcomes. It is targeting
sediment control on a catchment scale which improves water quality and health
of the Ahuriri estuary and protects infrastructure such as bridges. The
planting will promote biodiversity outcomes. Climate is mentioned above.
|
|
Core
Competencies
|
4
|
The
recovery funding portion of the project will be delivered using an
experienced Senior Catchment Advisor who is already actively working in the
Ahuriri Catchment.
Specific
consultants will be engaged during the detailed design phase. Their expertise
will be used to build the competency of our internal experts.
|
|
Ease
of implementation
|
4
|
The
recovery funding portion of the project is an extension of the existing
Protection and Enhancement fund which has been successfully delivered on time
and within budget for the past 3 years.
|
|
Leverage
|
4
|
This
funding, as well as $980,000 other existing HBRC funds will be used as
leverage for 50:50 funding from the MFE Freshwater improvement Fund.
|
|
Impact
|
3
|
The
project has a positive impact across a number of fronts including water
quality, biodiversity and infrastructure.
|
|
Recovery
|
4
|
The
Ahuriri Estuary makes a significant contribution to Hawke’s Bay marine
fisheries, the region’s tourism industry and recreational resources.
This project will protect existing economic growth and create jobs through
additional planting, fencing and engineering work in the catchment.
|
FIF application for Porangahau Catchment
(Applicant: Porangahau Catchment Group)
24. The
Porangahau Estuary is one of the most ecologically significant but vulnerable
estuarine ecosystems on the East Coast. It forms part of a 700ha Recommended
Area for protection that also includes the region’s best examples of
coastal dune and rare dune wetland ecosystems. The applicant for this project
is the newly formed Porangahau Catchment Group. Council has a great
relationship with this group and Councils Catchment Management team have agreed
to support them through this application. Any recovery funding provided
by Council can only be used as leverage for this application.
25. The
Porangahau Catchment application will deliver a combination of:
25.1. Funding for a Catchment
Coordinator
25.2. Assistance with the
planning and resourcing of excluding all classes of stock from priority
waterways
25.3. Increased capacity for
poplar and willow planting on erosion prone pastoral hill country
25.4. Targeted protection and
management of regional areas of protection, including the Porangahau estuary
and dune systems, significant wetlands and whitebait spawning areas
25.5. The coordination of a
native riparian plant programme
25.6. A series of
workshops/field days to promote industry best practice and resilience building
25.7. Facilitated farm
planning sessions
Recovery fund leverage
26. If this
project could leverage $300,000 from Councils $1m Recovery Fund, it would allow
work to occur in Ecosystem Prioritisation Sites. These highly valued sites are
remnant native bush blocks which comprise important headwater streams. They
provide carbon storage, nutrient cycling, water and air purification, wildlife
habitat and social and cultural benefits. They also include headwater streams
and springs which have aquatic communities that are distinct and contribute
significantly to regional biodiversity.
27. Year one
has been planned for this project and will build 5.4km of deer fencing to
protect 45 hectares on two sites. Year two and three will achieve similar
outcomes. The team will work with landowners in Year one to plan projects and
will aim to achieve 5km of deer fencing annually to protect 40 ha of EP sites
annually.
Proposed funding by year
|
Financial Years
|
Existing HBRC Budgets
|
Landowner contribution
(existing
arrangements)
|
Request from Recovery Fund
|
FIF match
funding
|
|
Staff
time (In-kind)
|
External Costs
|
|
Year 1 - FY20/21
(6 months Feb to 30 June)
|
$60,000
|
$73,785
|
$51,216
|
$50,000
|
$235,000
|
|
Year
2 - FY 21/22
|
$120,000
|
$147,569
|
$102,431
|
$100,000
|
$470,000
|
|
Year
3 - FY 22/23
|
$120,000
|
$147,569
|
$102,431
|
$100,000
|
$470,000
|
|
Year
4 - FY 23/24
(6 months Jul to 30 Dec)
|
$60,000
|
$73,785
|
$51,216
|
$50,000
|
$235,001
|
|
TOTAL
|
$360,000
|
$442,707
|
$307,294
|
$300,000
|
$1,410,001
|
|
TOTAL PROJECT
|
$2,820,000
|
Strategic Fit: Assessment Criteria
28. This
project has been assessed to determine their fit with the draft criteria from
the HBRC Recovery Fund.
|
|
Score
|
Reasoning
|
|
Climate
action
|
3
|
Protecting
these EP sites will ensure they continue storing carbon in perpetuity. They
will provide an ecosystem for wildlife in the future while allowing the
farmers to continue farming the sustainable areas of their farms.
|
|
Strategic
Alignment
|
5
|
The
recovery fund portion of this project will protect and enhance healthy
functioning and climate resilient biodiversity.
|
|
Core
Competencies
|
5
|
HBRC
is already delivering the Ecosystem Prioritisation program and is only
limited by funding. It is a core competency of the council.
|
|
Ease
of implementation
|
4
|
The
first year of work is already planned with landowners, they are poised to put
up the fences and are just awaiting the green light. The Ecosystem
Prioritisation team have delivered similar sized projects in the past.
|
|
Leverage
|
4
|
This
funding, as well as $800k other existing HBRC funds will be used as leverage
for 50:50 funding from the MFE Freshwater improvement Fund.
|
|
Impact
|
3
|
This
change proposal will have a noticeable impact on the native bush in the
Porangahau catchment. It will create fencing work immediately and will create
pest plant and animal work into the future.
|
|
Recovery
|
3
|
Local
growth and investment will be supported by the EP site projects directly
related to this.
|
Decision Making Process
29. 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:
29.1. The
decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a
strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
29.2. The use
of the special consultative procedure is not prescribed by legislation.
29.3. The
decision is not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s
adopted Significance and Engagement Policy.
29.4. Given
the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also
the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions
made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without
consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in
the decision.
|
Recommendations
That
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:
1. Receives and considers the “Leveraging Council's $1M
Recovery Fund” staff report.
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 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.
3. Notes the opportunity to utilise the Recovery Fund for leveraging
funding from the Freshwater Improvement Fund for two large environmental
enhancement projects and agrees to support the funding of these projects as
part of an application to the FIF by Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and
the Porangahau Catchment Group.
|
Authored by:
|
Amy Allan
Management Accountant
|
Desiree Cull
Strategy and Governance Manager
|
|
Nicola
McHaffie
Catchment Team Leader Central
|
Thomas Petrie
Project Manager Environmental Hotspots
|
|
Jolene
Townshend
Senior Advisor Integrated Catchment
Management
|
|
Approved by:
|
Iain Maxwell
Group Manager Integrated Catchment
Management
|
|
Attachment/s
There are no
attachments for this report.
