HAWKE’S
BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Wednesday
31 August 2022
Subject: Deliberations on the future of our coastline
Reason
for Report
1. This deliberations report provides
Council with information to assist it to make a decision, in principle, whether
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) should take charge of coastal hazard adaptation for the
coastline between Clifton and Tangoio. This decision will be subject to
confirmation through Council’s Long Term Plan 2024-2034.
2. This report outlines the key themes
raised by submitters in their feedback and provides staff analysis of
those.
3. Also attached to this report is a
position statement provided by the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal
Hazards Strategy Joint Committee Chair to inform Council’s deliberations.
Officers’
Recommendations
4. Staff recommend that Councillors
consider this report in conjunction with the written and verbal submissions
presented to Council at the Hearing on 23 August 2022 and decide whether or not
to agree in principle to take charge of adapting to coastal hazards between
Clifton and Tangoio, subject to confirmation through its next Long Term
Plan.
Background
5. HBRC has been working with
the partner councils, mana whenua, coastal communities, and technical experts
for more than eight years to develop the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal
Hazards Strategy 2021 (the Strategy).
6. All partner councils
– Napier City Council, Hastings District Council and HBRC - have legal
responsibilities relating to natural hazards and climate adaptation, and these
councils have equally and jointly funded the Strategy’s development up to
this point.
7. In the absence of clear
direction in current legislation, difficult decisions over who should manage
and fund the required works, including the ‘public good’ component
of adaptive action, have stalled the development of the Strategy. Currently no
physical works recommended in the Strategy are budgeted for in any of the
partner councils’ Long Term Plans.
8. An independent funding
review, commissioned by the partner councils and led by Raynor Asher QC, found
that HBRC is best placed to ‘take charge’ of all aspects of
adapting to coastal hazards on the Clifton to Tangoio coast. This includes the
transfer of all existing coastal assets (such as the rock revetments at Ahuriri
and Clifton) to HBRC, to enable coordinated and consistent management along the
coast.
9. The review also
recommended an advisory committee be established to support HBRC as the lead
agency, with the same membership as the existing Coastal Hazards Joint
Committee.
10. In May 2022, the partner councils
adopted a Memorandum of Transition which supports the recommendations in
principle.
11. HBRC taking charge of
coastal hazard adaptation for the coastline between Clifton and Tangoio
represents a change in the status quo and would be a significant new activity
for HBRC. Therefore, HBRC must consult the community and amend its Long Term
Plan (LTP) to confirm this outcome.
12. The purpose of seeking the
community’s view at this stage was to gauge public sentiment ahead of the formal process and difficult decisions in the future, including
funding.
13. At the Regional Council meeting on 29
June 2022, HBRC adopted the consultation document The future of our
coastline, agreed to the proposed public consultation period of 1-31 July
2022, and agreed the planned consultation complied with section 82 of the Local
Government Act.
14. Staff provided an update on the
community feedback to the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint
Committee on 15 August 2022.
15. A Hearing was held on 23 August 2022
where Councillors heard from six submitters. Councillors received all of the written
submissions and social media feedback ahead of the Hearing.
Scope of the
Decision
16. The scope of the feedback process was
whether HBRC should, in principle, take charge of coastal hazard adaptation for
the coastline between Clifton and Tangoio, subject to confirming the proposal
through its Long Term Plan.
17. It did not include the content of the
Strategy, funding to implement it, or how the rates are proposed to be
allocated. If HBRC does take charge, it will be responsible for developing
these matters, and consulting on them separately.
18. HBRC sought feedback on the question
“Who should take charge of adapting to coastal hazards between Clifton
and Tangoio?”.
19. Two options were proposed with a
yes/no tick box.
19.1. Option 1: (the preferred option) HBRC
takes charge.
19.2. Option 2: (status quo) Continue with
coastal hazards managed in various ways by all three councils, with no defined
lead agency.
20. The proposal document stated that
doing nothing is not an option.
21. Submitters were also invited to give
their reasons for why they supported the option they did.
Feedback
Process
22. The community feedback process ran
from 1 to 31 July 2022.
23. Staff used several platforms to
promote the engagement and encourage people to provide feedback. Postcards were
delivered to 3,500 households in the Clifton to Tangoio coastal area and to 200
households in Waimārama informing them of the consultation and directing
them to the HBRC’s website. There was an online submission form on the
website. A submission form was also provided in the online proposal document.
That form included details of where to email, post, or hand deliver submission
forms.
24. Promotion also included:
24.1. a media release on 1 July 2022
24.2. a public notice in Hawke’s Bay
Today on 2 July 2022
24.3. an advert in the July/August 2022
BayBuzz
24.4. digital adverts, social media
(Facebook and LinkedIn) and content on HBRC’s website
24.5. the HB Coast e-newsletter.
HBRC’s
Facebook social media channel delivered six posts concerning this feedback
process, resulting in:
24.6. Impressions (content served): 17,786
24.7. Reach (content seen): 14,402
24.8. Engagement (interactions): 1,023.
25. LinkedIn delivered one post, resulting
in:
25.1. Impressions: 522
25.2. Engagement: 9.
26. Staff are confident that the process
undertaken is compliant with the requirements under the Local Government Act
2002.
Submissions
Received
27. A total of 60 submissions were
received. All except two were received through the online submission
form.
27.1. The majority of submissions, 52 (87%),
supported Option 1: (the
preferred option) HBRC takes charge of adapting to coastal hazards between
Clifton and Tangoio.
27.2. Six (10%) supported Option 2: (status
quo) Continue with coastal hazards managed in various ways by all three
councils, with no defined lead agency.
27.3. Two submitters (3%) didn’t
support either of the options.
28. The majority of submitters identified
themselves on the submission form as being from the Heretaunga-Hastings or
Ahuriri-Napier constituencies. The majority of those supported HBRC taking
charge. A breakdown of constituencies and options supported is provided below.
|
Constituency
|
Number of submitters
|
Number who supported option1
|
Number who supported option 2
|
Number who supported neither options
|
|
Wairoa
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Ahuriri-Napier
|
21
|
19
|
1
|
1
|
|
Heretaunga-Hastings
|
28
|
23
|
4
|
1
|
|
Ngaruroro
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
-
|
|
Tamatea-Central
Hawke’s Bay
|
2
|
2
|
-
|
-
|
|
Not
sure
|
3
|
3
|
-
|
-
|
|
Out of
region
|
3
|
3
|
-
|
-
|
29. Comments on HBRC Facebook posts were
presented at the Hearing but are not considered formal submissions and
therefore not part of the analysis.
Verbal
submissions
30. Six submitters spoke at the Hearing on
23 August 2022. They were generally supportive of Option 1. A couple of
submitters appreciated the opportunity to provide input on a wide scope.
Speakers impressed upon Council the urgency of the situation, uncertainty
exists, a desire for innovation, the significant responsibility to protect
people and property, and the need to focus on building awareness and education
to bring people along on the journey.
31. Submitter #43, representing WOW Inc
(Walking on Water), raised concern that the good work of the community panels
to develop the Coastal Hazards Strategy has not translated into action on the
ground.
32. Submitter #61, representing Forest and
Bird, emphasised nature-based solutions as the best method, and the opportunity
to integrate Council’s regional planning functions with coastal hazards
work.
33. Submitter #12, representing the North
Shore Road Residents & Ratepayers Committee, said caution was needed when
considering predictions made in Tonkin + Taylor’s recent report, as
earlier predictions made in a 2004 report for the North Shore Road erosion zone
had not eventuated.
Option 1:
(the preferred option) HBRC takes charge of adapting to coastal hazards between
Clifton and Tangoio.
Key Themes of Submissions (Option 1)
34. Of the 52 submissions that supported
this option, 41 gave additional feedback. Two clear themes emerged of why they
supported HBRC taking charge. They are:
|
Key themes
|
|
Needs to/it makes sense to have one organisation lead this
|
|
It's logical that HBRC takes this role
|
|
Other
|
Needs
to/it makes sense to have one organisation lead this.
35. Many felt adapting to coastal hazards
between Clifton and Tangoio needs to, or it makes sense to have one
organisation take charge. Reasons included that this would help in terms of
clarifying responsibility, provide accountability, enable a consistent and
coordinated approach, help decision making, and greater efficiency.
35.1. Submission #3: “There needs to
be 1 clear driver behind this. Too much falls between council boundaries which
means they point the finger at each other.”
35.2. Submission #4: “Hawkes Bay needs
to take a coherent and cohesive approach to managing these
hazards…”
35.3. Submission #8: “Need one council
to oversee as currently there are no decisions being made.”
35.4. Submission #33: “One lead agency
has clearer accountability and to my mind greater efficiency…”
It's logical that HBRC takes this role.
36. Many commented that they supported
option 1 as it was logical that HBRC takes this role. Reasons included that
HBRC was best placed to do so, HBRC covers the whole of the coastline, has the
rating capability, coastlines are part of HBRC’s role or mandate, HBRC
has proven capability, has a bigger and long-game view of climate change
impacts, has up-to-date scientific evidence and is better able to acquire the
required technical staff, and HBRC is already responsible for many stop banks
and flood control schemes.
36.1. Submission #36: “Logical. One
council has autonomy to take action. Fits with environmental focus of Regional
Council”
36.2. Submission #6: “HBRC is the
logical body to take on this role as it covers the whole of the coastline rather
than just a portion of it and therefore it can be a truly all of coast response
+ HBRC has the rating capability to cover all Hawke's Bay ratepayers, and this
is an issue which impacts all residents regardless of whether they live
directly on the coast…”
36.3. Submission #43: “…HBRC
under the current local government structure is the body in Hawke’s Bay
best positioned to fund and rate for work related to this
implementation…”
Other
37. Some submissions
supported option 1 with a proviso or conditionally such as HBRC follows the
advice of the external review led by Raynor Asher QC, governance of the
Strategy be under the umbrella of HBRC but that it remains independent, and
that support for HBRC taking control was only because it’s the only
council committed to taking care of our environment.
38. There was some feedback
that coastal hazard adaptation was a national issue and that the Government
should take charge or provide support. This came through from two submitters
who supported Option 1, and one who chose Option 2 and one who didn’t
support either option. One submitter commented he would like to see and ensure
that HBRC is able to clearly define and communicate how it is working with
other councils and government to have a national approach on these issues. This
would increase effectiveness and also make sure that the local solutions are
not in isolation to national strategies.
38.1. Submission #27: “… There
is a third option namely view this as a National problem and emergency. It
would make perfect sense for the government to take charge of this and provide
infrastructure, management and maintenance…”
Staff
Analysis (Option 1)
39. The feedback received under the two
themes (Needs to/it makes sense to have one organisation lead this and It's
logical that HBRC takes this role) strongly aligns with the advice
presented by Raynor Asher QC summarised below:
39.1. Neither the Napier City Council or
Hastings District Council has jurisdiction over the coast of the other. In
contrast, the coast all falls within the boundaries of the HBRC which provides
the most compelling rationale for HBRC to lead; there is no other existing
single suitable body with the power to plan for, rate for, manage and implement
measures to respond to coastal hazards.
39.2. Analysis of Local Government Act and
Resource Management Act plans indicates primacy of the Regional Council in
relation to policy on coastal hazards.
39.3. A single agency model is the most
practical in terms of efficiency and cost.
39.4. Even with a single agency approach,
local interests can be recognised and promoted by members of the HBRC, given
that they are elected on a constituency basis; and
39.5. There is a considerable body of
experience in the area of coastal hazards in the HBRC, and the work has a
connection with flood control.
40. In response to a proposal that three
ratepayer representatives are appointed from the community working group to the
Advisory Committee:
A draft Terms of Reference for the Advisory Committee proposes membership to
consist of 12 members, with Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, Mana Ahuriri
Trust, Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust, and the partner councils each to
appoint two members. Currently, only one appointed member from each council
needs to be an elected representative which suggests that there is scope to
accommodate the submitter’s proposal, should the appointing entities
determine to do so at that time. Staff do not consider that amending the draft
Terms of Reference (which is included in the Memorandum of Transition) is
within scope for this consultation process, given that any such amendment would
require agreement from all signatories to the Memorandum. However, and
regardless of the precise makeup of the Advisory Panel when it is formed, staff
consider that a continued close working relationship with affected communities
will be critical to successful Strategy implementation.
41. In response to feedback that coastal
hazard adaption was a national issue and that central government should take
charge or provide support:
This issue has been debated by the Joint Committee a number of times. Ministry
for the Environment has previously undertaken a case study on the Clifton to
Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy to explore issues around implementation, and
HBRC has supported a Local Government New Zealand remit on this issue. The
proposed Climate Adaptation Act is expected to clarify the role of central
government in climate change adaptation, but this is not expected (at this
stage) until 2023. The Joint Committee has elected to proceed with developing a
local solution for Hawke’s Bay, while central government policy is
developed.
42. In response to comments about the role
of the Port of Napier in erosion issues at Westshore (in feedback in support of
option 1 and 2):
The Strategy development process has produced a recommended long-term pathway
for Westshore, however, these elements (including funding arrangements) are not
within scope for this feedback process. Any funding decisions taken by HBRC
will follow the process defined by the Local Government Act 2002 and need to be
consulted on through a Long Term Plan process. This legal framework and the
transparency and accountability associated with these processes are considered
to address any actual or perceived conflicts of interest with HBRC’s
ownership of the Port of Napier.
43. A comment was made about the need to
also plan for the effects of coastal hazards on other communities in the
region, noting Waimārama, Kairakau, and Pourerere/Tuingara as examples. It
is recognised that there are coastal hazards issues outside of the Clifton to
Tangoio area. The intention is that the Strategy, once confirmed, can
provide a model for expanding into other parts of the region.
Option 2:
(status quo) Continue with coastal hazards managed in various ways by all three
councils, with no defined lead agency.
Key Themes of Submissions (Option 2)
44. Of the six submitters,
five gave reasons of why they supported this option. Two preferred to keep
coastal hazards management local:
44.1. Submission #55: “We prefer to
have local council representatives from Hastings District Council working on
our behalf for our local area”.
44.2. Submission #56: “I want the
assets of HDC to stay with HDC to continue with the work they have started in
our area”.
45. One submitter commented
that although he feels it is a regional problem, his preference would be for
central government to take over the management of coastal hazards. He said HBRC
had not implemented a long-term solution due to a conflict of interest in
regards to its ownership of the port, and that HBRC and NCC have “failed
big time” in erosion mitigation.
One thought district councils will make better
decisions balancing cost versus action, and one said HBRC is too political and
lacks a practical approach.
Staff
Analysis (Option 2)
46. In response to feedback of keeping coastal hazards management local; Mr Asher
considered the implications for democratic representation from his
recommendation for a single agency, HBRC-led model for Strategy
implementation. He noted that regional councillors are elected on a
constituency basis, which means that there are specific elected representatives
with particular interests in particular parts of the Clifton to Tangoio coast.
As a result, in a single agency approach, local interests can be recognised and
promoted. The proposed Advisory Committee further supports local representation
and input. The asset transfer process is part of the proposal, but subject to a
later Asset Transfer Agreement being confirmed. Mr Asher considered that it was
appropriate and practical to support the single agency model for future works,
by also transferring existing assets to HBRC.
Did not
support Option 1 or 2
47. Of the two submitters who didn’t
support either option, one provided a reason. This submitter felt that HBRC is
better placed than local municipalities to address this, coastal protection
should be addressed at a national level and the approach should be consistent
across New Zealand.
Strategic
Fit
48. This engagement is an
important step in progressing the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy 2120.
49. The Strategy’s
implementation is one of the 24 strategic goals in the Council’s Strategic
Plan 2020-2025, contributing to the focus area of sustainable and
climate-resilient services and infrastructure: By 2025 the Coastal
Hazards Joint Committee is implementing its strategy to manage coastal hazards
in Clifton to Tangoio and by 2040 for the rest of the region to adapt to
foreseeable climate change risks to coastal communities out to 2100.
Significance
and Engagement Policy Assessment
50. Significant involvement
and collaboration with coastal communities has been undertaken to date in the
development process for the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy
2120.
51. Formal consultation will take place in
late 2023.
Engagement
with Tangata Whenua
52. Tāngata whenua are
represented on the Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee
through appointed representatives from Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust, Mana
Ahuriri Trust, and Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust. The Joint Committee was
responsible for commissioning the independent funding review led by Raynor
Asher QC, and unanimously recommended that the partner councils adopt the
reviews findings and recommendations.
53. Wider work under the
Strategy development process has had direct participation and input from
tāngata whenua through the community panel process. A Mana Whenua
Engagement Plan is in place and has been endorsed by HBRC’s Regional
Planning Committee and Māori Committee. More recently, and in response to
limited engagement occurring under the Mana Whenua Engagement Plan, a
Mātauranga Māori Workstream has been established under the Strategy.
Climate
Change Considerations
54. The Clifton to
Tangoio Coastal Hazards Strategy 2120 is a key component of
HBRC’s climate change adaptation work. The stretch of coast between
Clifton and Tangoio is the most developed and populated part of the
region’s coastline. Important strategic assets include Napier Port,
Hawke’s Bay Airport, the railway, State Highway 51, industry, popular
recreational spaces, and thousands of homes.
55. The Strategy identifies
nine priority units in the Clifton to Tangoio coastal area for immediate focus
and recommends adaptive pathways or responses for each priority unit.
56. The Strategy is based on
the premise that in many situations any form of coastal defence will only buy
time as sea levels continue to rise.
Financial
and Resource Implications
57. If HBRC does decide to
take charge and lead the Strategy’s implementation, there will be
financial and resource implications for:
57.1. Strategy development – HBRC will
take primary responsibility to finish developing and consult on the Strategy.
However, the partner councils have agreed to continue contributing equally and
jointly until HBRC takes on the new activity, which if confirmed following
consultation is planned to take effect from 1 July 2024. These costs are within
existing budgets, with each council contributing $100,000 per year.
57.2. The transfer of coastal
hazard assets – an agreement in principle to transfer specified assets
has been established in a Memorandum of Transition. The actual transfer will
occur subject to developing and agreeing further detail in an Asset Transfer Agreement.
If this is confirmed, Hastings District Council and Napier City Council will
transfer the ownership of existing infrastructure assets that manage coastal
hazards to HBRC. HBRC will take over responsibility for the assets, such as
ongoing maintenance, monitoring, any debt, and collecting associated rates.
These costs and funding sources will take effect from the date the assets are
transferred, which is proposed to be 1 July 2024.
57.3. Strategy implementation
– significant capital and operational funding is needed to implement the
proposed works in the Strategy. This includes detailed design, securing and
maintaining compliance with resource consents, construction, and ongoing
maintenance. These costs and funding sources will be proposed and consulted on
as part of the next stage.
Next
Steps
58. Should Council decide in principle to take charge of adapting to coastal hazards between Clifton and
Tangoio, the next steps include:
58.1. Working with the Clifton to Tangoio
Coastal Hazards Strategy Joint Committee to finalise and notify the strategy
document for consultation in late 2023.
58.2. The three partner councils sign an
Asset Transfer Agreement, including a written undertaking from Napier City
Council and Hastings District Council confirming the assets have been
constructed, maintained, and monitored in line with all the resource consents,
long term plans, and asset management plans.
58.3. HBRC to include final implementation
details including funding arrangements in the Long Term Plan 2024-2034.
58.4. Subject to the above steps being
successfully completed, the assets are transferred and HBRC takes on the new
activity from 1 July 2024.
59. Should Council decide in principle
that the situation remain as status quo,
coastal hazards will continue to be managed in various ways by all three
councils, with no defined lead agency. This
submissions process represents an important opportunity to test community views
on HBRC’s in-principle decision to accept the advice and recommendations
presented in the funding review led by Raynor Asher QC, and to enter into the
Memorandum of Transition with Napier City Council and Hastings District
Council. The significant majority of submissions received have been in support
of this outcome, and staff do not consider that any matters raised in
submissions should cause Council to reconsider its position.
Decision
Making Process
60. 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:
60.1. This decision does not
significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is
it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.
60.2. The use of a special
consultative procedure is prescribed by legislation should Council’s
decision be to proceed to take charge of adapting to coastal hazards between
Clifton and Tangoio.
60.3. The persons directly affected by this
decision are all people with an interest in the region’s management of
coastal hazards.
Recommendations
That
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:
1. Receives and considers the Deliberations
on The future of our coastline staff report in conjunction with the written
and verbal submissions previously received and considered by Council.
2. Agrees in principle to take charge of adapting to coastal hazards between Clifton and
Tangoio, subject to confirmation through its Long Term Plan 2024-2034.
or
3. Does not agree in principle to take
charge of adapting to coastal hazards between Clifton and
Tangoio and continue with the status quo, where coastal hazards are managed in
various ways by all three councils, with no defined lead agency.
Authored by:
|
Sarah Bell
Team Leader
Strategy & Performance
|
Desiree Cull
Strategy
& Governance Manager
|
|
Drew Broadley
Communications
& Engagement Manager
|
Simon Bendall
Coastal
Hazards Strategy Project Manager
|
|
Mandy Sharpe
Project
Manager
|
|
Approved by:
|
Chris Dolley
Group
Manager Asset Management
|
|
Attachment/s
|
1⇩
|
Future of our Coastline Submissions
Feedback
|
|
|
|
2⇩
|
Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazards
Strategy Joint Committee statement to HBRC August 2022
|
|
|
HAWKE’S
BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL
Wednesday
31 August 2022
Subject: Report and recommendations from the Corporate and Strategic
Committee
Reason
for Report
1. The following matters were
considered by the Corporate and Strategic Committee (C&S) meeting on 24
August 2022 and the recommendations agreed to are now presented for
Council’s consideration alongside any additional commentary from the Committee
Chair, Councillor Neil Kirton, wishes to offer.
Agenda items
2. The Hawke's Bay Regional Council
shareholding in the Regional Sector Shared Services Organisation (RSSSO) item
provided
background and steps required, for Council to become a shareholder of the
Regional Sectors Shared Services Organisation:
2.1. Once the current
shareholders sign the new Shareholders’ Agreement, the Council can sign
the Deed of Accession and be issued a single, fully paid Class A share and
become a shareholder of RSSSO and a share price of $1 for 1 Class A Share.
2.2. There are no financial implications to
Council at this stage.
3. The 2021-2022 Carry forwards
item sought approval from the Corporate and Strategic Committee to carry
forward expenditure budgets from 2021-2022 to 2022-2023:
3.1. Carry forwards is a common practice
amongst Councils and allows for unspent funds against projects to be moved
forward so that projects can be completed.
3.2. A total of $4.032m unspent opex and
$9.319m unspent capex is requested to be carried forward into the 2022-2023
budget.
4. The 1 April – 30 June 2022
Financial Report item provided the Committee with draft financial results
for the 2021-2022 financial year:
4.1. Council continues to see and
experience the impacts of Covid-19 on planning and delivery. Delivery for most
levels of service is on track to be achieved but there are impacts on the
larger projects.
4.2. The Long Term Plan (LTP) capital work
programme will require re-profiling across the remaining 8 years of the 10-year
plan horizon to account for changes to project scoping, building internal
capability, and shifts in the external operating environment.
4.3. Q4 Groups of Activities operating
expenditure was $21m (30% annual opex) and exceeded the Q3 year-end forecast by
$3.4m.
4.4. Q4 Corporate and Groups of Activities
capital expenditure was $6m (27.9% of annual capital expenditure). This was
$4.7m below the Q3 year-end forecast. This reflects ongoing delays across the
capital work programme.
4.5. Preliminary results indicate an
operating deficit of $2.8m compared to a budget operating surplus of $4m.
4.6. Investment income for the year
totalled $7.2m compared to a budgeted figure of $21.6m, 64% below budget.
4.7. Managed funds returned a $9.3m deficit
for the year delivering an adverse variance of $15.3m when compared to the
expected $6m return. The full-year result shows an additional $5m decline
during the final quarter of the financial year reflecting the continued
volatility in the World economic markets.
5. The HBRIC Quarterly Update item
provided the Committee with a quarterly update on the activities of
Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company (HBRIC) for the fourth quarter of
the 2021-2022 financial year and provided guidance on the outlook for the
2022-2023 financial year:
5.1. In the 10-year period
ending 30 June 2022, HBRIC’s net assets have increased from $177m to
$369m.
5.2. Napier Port’s expected underlying
result from operating activities for the year to 30 September 2022 remains
at between $38m and $42m, assuming a continuation of current market conditions.
5.3. The 2021-2022 financial year recorded
a reduction in net assets of $76m due to the lower NPHL share price and losses
from managed funds. Values had recovered by approx. $42m in mid-August 2022.
5.4. Based on forecast assumptions, HBRIC
is able to fund its annual operations and meet Council’s dividend
expectations without recourse to borrowings or further drawdowns against
overall capital gains within its portfolio. HBRIC remains conscious of the need
to proactively optimise its profitability and yield in the current uncertain
financial conditions.
6. The Organisational Performance
Report for the period 31 March – 30 June 2022 item provided the
Organisational Performance Report for the third quarter of the 2021-2022
financial year - from 1 April 2022 to 30 June 2022:
6.1. No significant changes from the
previous report.
6.2. This is the last quarterly report for
the current year, which is year one of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.
6.3. Metrics from the new
Customer Experience software are being developed for PowerBI and will be
incorporated into the dashboard when completed.
6.4. Further improvements,
particularly around the Corporate Metrics, will be incorporated when data can
be tested and reported with confidence to provide additional information.
7. The 2021-2022 Annual Report –
Interim Non-Financial Results item provided the Committee with the interim
non-financial results for inclusion in the 2021-2022 Annual Report:
7.1. The Annual Report is due to go to
Ernst & Young for auditing in October 2022 and to the Finance, Audit and
Risk Subcommittee and Council for recommendation and adoption in December 2022.
8. The Hawke's Bay Tourism Six-Monthly
Update item provided
HB Tourism’s update on achievements against key performance indicators:
8.1. The financial year was particularly
challenging due to further Covid-19 lockdowns, travel restrictions and
continued border closures with major events been postponed to later in 2022 or
early 2023.
8.2. Hawke’s Bay still managed to
maintain market share in a restrictive operating environment.
8.3. In the final stages of developing a
visitor strategy for tourism in Hawke’s Bay, ‘our version’ of
MBIE’s Destination Management Plan programme. This sets out a future
state for the visitor economy and the work programme required to achieve it.
9. The Report from the Finance Audit
and Risk Sub-committee meeting item reported on the following
matters:
9.1. Continued to see a decline in
investment returns over the last quarter, however, the shortfall in investment
funds won’t require any additional borrowing because operating
expenditure has been lower than forecast due to delays in delivering capital
projects.
9.2. 2022-2023 Enterprise Internal Audit
Plan: Following
discussions with the CE and Group Manager Asset Management, it was agreed that
the Asset Management Framework audit would be deferred to 2023-2024
9.3. Data Analytics audit report: No major concerns were identified, and
corrective actions have been taken where needed.
10. The Section 36 charges for Water
Holdings HB item was the subject of a separate public excluded agenda item
at this meeting.
Decision
Making Process
11. 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:
11.1. Given the items were
specifically considered by the Corporate and Strategic Committee on 24 August
2022, Council can exercise its discretion and make decisions without consulting
directly with the community or others
having an interest in those in accordance with the following recommendations.
Recommendations
The Corporate and Strategic Committee
recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:
1. Receives and considers the Report
and recommendations from the Corporate and Strategic Committee.
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 these issues without conferring directly with
the community or persons likely to have an interest in the decision.
Hawke's
Bay Regional Council shareholding in the Regional Sector Shared Services
Organisation (RSSSO)
3. Notes the approach to shareholding and
appointments of directors related to establishing the Regional Sector Shared
Services Organisation, and as incorporated into the Shareholders’
Agreement and Constitution.
4. Delegates authority to the CEO to sign
the Shareholder’s Agreement - Deed of Accession on behalf of the Council.
2021-2022 Carry Forwards
5. Approves the carry forward of all
expenditure requests from the 2021-2022 to the 2022-2023 budget, being:
Operating expenditure carry forward requests
|
Activity / Project
|
Amount Requested
|
Source of funds
|
|
General
|
Reserve
|
External
|
Debt
|
|
Integrated Catchment Management (ICM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
Biodiversity
|
$712,566
|
|
|
$512,566
|
$200,000
|
|
2
|
Erosion Control Scheme grants
|
$324,000
|
|
|
|
$324,000
|
|
3
|
Predator Free Hawkes Bay
|
$82,000
|
$18,224
|
$42,522
|
$21,255
|
|
|
4
|
Environmental Enhancement Programme
|
$293,000
|
$113,543
|
|
$179,457
|
|
|
5
|
Air quality science
|
$10,000
|
$10,000
|
|
|
|
|
Asset Management
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6
|
Makara Dam
|
$100,000
|
$14,099
|
$85,901
|
|
|
|
Governance & Partnerships
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
Climate change engagement
|
$80,000
|
|
$80,000
|
|
|
|
8
|
Tāngata whenua Partnerships
|
$300,000
|
$300,000
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
Corporate sustainability
|
$33,000
|
$33,000
|
|
|
|
|
Policy & Regulation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
Kotahi (policy & planning)
|
$1,000,000
|
$1,000,000
|
|
|
|
|
11
|
Enforcement proceeds
|
$244,000
|
$244,000
|
|
|
|
|
Transport
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
On Demand/My way
|
$124,388
|
|
$124,388
|
|
|
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13
|
Staff remuneration
|
$729,000
|
$729,000
|
|
|
|
|
Total
|
$4,031,954
|
$2,461,866
|
$332,811
|
$713,278
|
$524,000
|
Capital expenditure carry forward requests
|
Activity / Project
|
Amount Requested
|
Type of funding
|
|
Reserve
|
Debt
|
|
Integrated Catchment Management (ICM)
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
3D Aquifer mapping
|
$294,931
|
|
$294,931
|
|
2
|
Hydrodynamic modelling
|
$25,000
|
|
$25,000
|
|
3
|
SOE Ground water monitoring drilling
|
$176,903
|
|
$176,903
|
|
4
|
Right Tree Right Place (RTRP)
|
$507,000
|
$507,000
|
|
|
5
|
Ruataniwha ground water model
|
$325,877
|
|
$325,877
|
|
6
|
LiDAR Mapping
|
$187,956
|
|
$187,956
|
|
7
|
Enviro info technical equipment
|
$105,000
|
$105,000
|
|
|
Asset Management
|
|
|
|
|
8
|
Clive river dredging
|
$100,000
|
$100,000
|
|
|
9
|
Flood warning system (Mt Misery)
|
$50,000
|
|
$50,000
|
|
10
|
Forestry (Tangoio)
|
$30,388
|
$30,388
|
|
|
11
|
Hawkes Bay Trails/cycleways
|
$100,000
|
|
$100,000
|
|
12
|
Heretaunga Plains flood control scheme (HPFCS)
|
$698,687
|
$546,437
|
$152,250
|
|
13
|
IRG HPFCS
|
$1,583,578
|
$1,583,578
|
|
|
14
|
Regional Parks
|
$247,854
|
|
$247,854
|
|
15
|
Water Security
|
$1,745,825
|
$1,745,825
|
|
|
Corporate Services
|
|
|
|
|
16
|
Office renovations
|
$1,375,025
|
$70,944
|
$1,304,081
|
|
17
|
Fleet
|
$55,448
|
$55,448
|
|
|
18
|
Radio network
|
$203,686
|
$203,686
|
|
|
19
|
ICT network & equipment
|
$306,340
|
$34,670
|
$271,670
|
|
20
|
ICT projects
|
$1,200,000
|
|
$1,200,000
|
|
Total
|
$9,319,498
|
$4,982,976
|
$4,336,522
|
Reports
Received
6. Notes that the following reports were
provided to the Corporate and Strategic Committee:
6.1. 1 April – 30 June 2022 Financial
Report
6.2. HBRIC Quarterly Update
6.3. Organisational Performance Report for
the period 31 March – 30 June 2022
6.4. 2021-2022 Annual Report –
Interim Non-Financial Results
6.5. Hawke's Bay Tourism Six-Monthly update
6.6. Report from the Finance Audit and Risk
Sub-committee meeting.
Authored by:
|
Annelie Roets
Governance
Advisor
|
Peter Martin
Senior
Governance Advisor
|
Approved by:
|
Katrina Brunton
Group
Manager Policy & Regulation
|
Chris Dolley
Group
Manager Asset Management
|
|
Iain Maxwell
Group
Manager Integrated Catchment Management
|
James Palmer
Chief
Executive
|
Attachment/s
There are no attachments for this
report.
