Meeting of the
Hawke's Bay Regional Council
Date: 14 December 2022
Time: 1.30pm
|
Venue:
|
Council
Chamber
Hawke's
Bay Regional Council
159
Dalton Street
NAPIER
|
Agenda
Item Title Page
1. Welcome/Karakia/Apologies/Notices
2. Conflict
of Interest Declarations
3. Confirmation of Minutes of
the Regional Council meeting held on 30 November 2022
4. Call
for minor items not on the Agenda 3
Decision
Items
5. 2021-2022
Annual Report and Summary 5
6. Report
and recommendations from the Biosecurity Working Party 9
7. Council
appointments to the Regional Planning Committee 13
8. Napier-Hastings
Future Development Strategy Joint Committee 17
Information
or Performance Monitoring
9. Organisational
Performance report for the period 1 July – 30 September 2022 31
10. Discussion
of minor items not on the Agenda 33
12. Treasury
report for the period 1 July – 30 September 2022 (late item to come)
Decision
Items (Public Excluded)
11. Confirmation
of Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 30 November
2022 35
13. Appointment
of HBRIC Councillor Directors (late item to come)
Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council
14
December 2022
Subject: Call for minor items not on
the Agenda
Reason for Report
1. This item provides the
means for councillors to raise minor matters relating to the general business of
the meeting
they wish to bring to the attention of the meeting.
2. Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council standing order 9.13
states:
2.1. A meeting may discuss an
item that is not on the agenda only if it is a minor matter relating to
the general business of the meeting and the Chairperson explains at the
beginning of the public part of the meeting that the item will be discussed.
However, the meeting may not make a resolution, decision or recommendation
about the item, except to refer it to a subsequent meeting for further
discussion.
Recommendations
3. That Council accepts the
following Minor items not on the Agenda for discussion as Item 10
|
Leeanne
Hooper
Governance
Team Leader
|
James
Palmer
Chief
Executive
|
Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council
14
December 2022
Subject: 2021-2022 Annual Report and
Summary
Purpose of Agenda Item
1. This item presents the
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Annual Report for the 2021-2022 financial
year for adoption, and the 2021-2022 Annual Report Summary for information.
Executive
Summary
2. Under the Local
Government Act 2020 (the Act), the Annual Report and Summary are statutory
requirements and required to be audited by an independent auditor.
3. ‘Legislation’
was passed in July 2021 to extend the statutory deadline for adoption of both
the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 Annual Reports (with 30 June balance dates) by two
months due to a severe shortage of auditors. That means that those annual
reports must be adopted no later than 31 December in their respective year.
4. An unmodified audit opinion
will be issued.
5. Auditing of
Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd’s (HBRIC) accounts has
been completed separately and received an unmodified audit opinion.
6. The Summary does not require Regional Council adoption but is instead authorised
by the Chief Executive.
Background
7. The purposes of the Annual
Report are to:
7.1. compare actual financial
and service performance against intended performance as set out in Year 1 of
the Long Term Plan 2021-2031
7.2. promote accountability to
the community for the decisions made throughout the year by the Regional
Council.
8. Schedule 10 of
the Act prescribes what must be included in the Annual Report.
9. The summary
must represent, fairly and consistently, the information regarding the major
matters dealt with in the Annual Report. It must not include any new
information (not included in the full document) but does offer the opportunity
to engage more effectively with the community.
Discussion
points
10. This is the first Annual
Report undertaken with our new auditors, Ernst and Young (EY).
11. Draft financial results and
an interim version of the non-financial results were presented to the Corporate
& Strategic Committee on 24 August 2022.
12. Of the 58 levels of service
measures, 72% were achieved or partially achieved, and 19% were not achieved.
Five (9%) were not due to be measured in this year of the Long Term Plan
2021-2031.
13. The production of the
Annual Report 2021-2022 financial information has been a challenging process
for staff as this is the first time using a new finance system, TechOne.
14. The Annual Report 2021-2022
includes 3 prior year adjustments being
14.1. In April 2021, an international
accounting standards committee clarified the accounting treatment for
Technology projects relying on a Software as a Service (SaaS) platform. This
clarification affected the accounting treatment of the new finance system and
Technology (ICT) projects. In essence, most of the expenditure on this type of
project should be treated as operating expense whereas previously this
expenditure was recognised as an asset and the cost spread over many years
through depreciation. The Long Term Plan 2021-2031 budgets were set prior to
this change and 90% of the ICT capital expenditure in the Long Term Plan
has been changed to operating expenditure in subsequent Annual Plans.
The
change has resulted in a $2.4m reduction in intangible assets and an increase
in operating expenditure of $2.1m in the 2020-2021 financial year and a
decrease in accumulated funds of $0.3m from the 2019-2020 financial year.
14.2. A new accounting standard on financial
instruments (financial assets, financial liabilities, and derivatives) became
effective during the life of the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031 with Council adopting
the change from the start of the plan. The change results in most of the fair
value gains on the Council and Group’s managed funds being accounted for
through surplus/deficit rather than other comprehensive revenue and expense.
For Council, the result has moved $11.7m within equity from the fair value reserve
to accumulated funds.
14.3. Our new auditors identified an error
in the presentation of the non-controlling interest in the Council’s and
HBRIC’s Group financial statements. This change has resulted in a
different method of presentation on the statement of changes in equity and some
additional disclosure lines. This change has not affected the total balance.
15. In 2019-2020, the 3D
aquifer, LiDAR and Ruataniwha groundwater modelling projects were set up as
capital expenditure. Discussions with our new auditors has resulted in these
project deliverables not meeting the requirements of accounting standards for
intangible assets. Council has reversed the previously recognised
work-in-progress and intangible asset resulting in an increase in operating
expenditure of $3.9m in 2021-2022.
16. The $1.6m work-in-progress
on the Regional Water Security program was reviewed and did not meet the
requirements of accounting standards to be treated as an asset and the costs
have been recognised as operating expenditure in 2021-2022.
17. Council made an operating
loss of $15.6m compared to a budget surplus of $6.7m. This reflects the $15.3m
adverse variance on the managed funds reported in the draft financial
statements plus $5.5m in capital expenditure now recognised as operating
expenditure.
18. Including other
comprehensive income and expense, Council made a loss of $81.6m driven
primarily by the drop in the share price of Napier Port Holdings. For the
12-month period Napier Port Shares went down from $3,20 to $2.75 per share.
This large drop in value was partially offset by the increase in the property
portfolio and carbon credit valuations.
19. It is important to
recognise that this loss is primarily driven by a non-cash accounting
entry. This means that our investment value only has decreased (equity
values) and does not require additional cash to balance.
20. Next year, our 2022-2023
Annual Report will require to be audited and adopted no later than 4 months
after the end of the financial year (i.e. by 31 October 2023).
Next
steps
21. Following Council adoption,
and in line with section 98 of the Local Government Act 2002, both the
2021-2022 Annual Report and the 2021-2022 Annual Report Summary will be made
publicly available within one month. Both will be published on the HBRC website
(hbrc.govt.nz, search: #annualreports) and a limited number of the
Annual Report Summaries will be printed.
22. A short video of the Chief
Executive narrating an overview of 2021-2022, including video footage of our
work in action, has been produced by our Digital Comms team. It will be
published on the HBRC website (as above) with shorter versions used on social
media posts.
Decision Making Process
23. The Regional 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:
23.1. That because the Annual
Report is a statutory report required to be adopted by Council under Section 98
of the Act, the other decision-making provisions do not apply.
Recommendations
That Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council:
1. Receives and notes the 2021-2022
Annual Report and Summary
staff report.
2. Adopts the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
2021-2022 Annual Report for publication.
Authored by:
|
Sarah Bell
Team Leader Strategy &
Performance
|
Desiree Cull
Strategy & Governance Manager
|
|
Tim Chaplin
Senior Group Accountant
|
Chris Comber
Chief Financial Officer
|
Approved by:
|
James Palmer
Chief Executive
|
Susie Young
Group Manager Corporate Services
|
Attachment/s
|
1⇨
|
2021-2022 HBRC Annual Report
|
|
Under separate cover
|
|
2⇨
|
2021-2022 Annual Report Summary
|
|
Under separate cover
|
|
3
|
2021-22 Auditors Close Report
|
|
Confidential - under separate cover
for councillors only
|
Hawke’s
Bay Regional Council
14 December
2022
Subject: Report and recommendations
from the Biosecurity Working Party
Reason for Report
1. This agenda item provides
the recommendations of the Biosecurity Working Party (BWP) on proposed changes
to the delivery of possum control for the region to enable Council decisions.
Background
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s Biodiversity
approach
2. Staff consider that the
changes proposed to the Possum Control Area (PCA) programme is one of the most
significant things the Council could do to protect and restore the
region’s indigenous terrestrial biodiversity. In doing so, this proposal
will support achieving Council’s 2020 Strategic Plan. One of that
plan’s four strategic goals is “healthy, functioning and
climate-resilient biodiversity.” To achieve this Council will need to
scale-up biodiversity protection by using new technologies and techniques,
including pest control operations.
3. There is clear evidence
from research over the last 20 years that possum control provides significant
biodiversity benefits. One report, “A review of biodiversity outcomes
from possum-focused pest control in New Zealand” is a meta-analysis
of 47 research projects and one of the largest studies of quantitative data to
date on the biodiversity benefits of possum control.
4. The report found:
4.1. 85% of studies reported a
positive response of vegetation after possum control
4.2. 80% of the relevant studies
showed that native birds did better and were more abundant after possum
control.
5. Possum control also helps restore
native bird life in our cities and towns. Following possum control which began
in Napier in 2008, bellbird numbers doubled after one year. After five years,
bellbird numbers trebled, and tui quadrupled. Napier also saw the first
evidence of kereru breeding in 30 years.
6. A shift to using
professional contractors will ensure that possum control in the Hawke’s
Bay is of a consistent high standard, with positive flow-on benefits for
biodiversity around the region.
7. Council managed possum contracting
is also a potential foundation to the region’s efforts to become predator
free. Possums are the most likely of the Predator Free 2050 species to be the
target of eradication across the New Zealand mainland. The use of professional
contractors, the latest pest control tools and techniques and the ability to
record a detailed range of information related to pest management programmes
all create a greater opportunity to progress from possum suppression to possum
eradication across the region.
RPMP
review consultation and submissions
8. The proposition to
transition the PCA programme from land occupier responsibility to contractor
delivery requires a partial plan review to amend the Hawke’s Bay Regional
Pest Management Plan 2018-2038 (RPMP).
9. A Biosecurity Working Party
(BWP) was established to take the proposed change through the public
consultation and submissions process under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (BSA) to
the stage of making recommendations to Council for decisions on whether to
progress with the change to a contractor management model of PCA delivery. The BWP consisted of
councillors Will Foley (Chair), Jerf Van Berk and Charles Lambert, and Mr John
Simmons.
10. A key step in the review
process was public notification of the proposal in accordance with sections
70-71 of the BSA. The review was notified on 1 July and closed on 31 July 2022,
with 155 submissions were received. 103 submitters supported the proposed
changes, with 37 against and 16 undecided. The key themes were:
5.1 Biodiversity benefits from
Possum Control
5.2 Concerns about the
effectiveness of the current model for possum control
5.3 Achieving greater
consistency in possum control
5.4 Concern that neighbouring
land occupiers are not undertaking possum control
5.5 Land tenure neutral
approach
5.6 The need to focus on other
pests, not just on possums
5.7 Contractor uncertainty
5.8 Concerns about how the
programme will be funded.
11. The Hearing of submissions
was held on 17 August 2022, followed by deliberations on 6 September 2022.
Table 1 Steps to “make” a
regional pest management plan under the Biosecurity Act
|
S70, First step
|
Plan is initiated by a proposal (s70 prescribes the
matters that must be set out in the Proposal)
|
12 May 2021
|
|
S71, Second step
|
Satisfaction on requirements
|
6 December 2021
|
|
S72, Third step
|
Council is satisfied with consultation, or requires
further consultation to be undertaken (for example through public
notification of the Proposal)
|
2 December 2022
|
|
Public notification of the proposal,
receipt of submissions
Hearing of submissions
|
1 July 2022 – 31 July 2022
17 August 2022
|
|
S73, Fourth step
|
Approval of preparation of a plan and decision on the
management agency
|
2 December 2022
|
|
S74, Fifth step
|
Satisfaction on contents of the plan and requirements
(included in hearing panel report to Council as per sixth step)
|
2 December 2022
|
|
S75, Sixth step
|
BWP recommendations to Council on submissions and the
Plan.
Council makes decision on Plan.
|
14 December 2022
|
12. The final part of Step 6 is
for the Council to adopt the Report and recommendations as its decision
on the Plan and publicly notify its decision.
13. It is noted that one of the
Panel members has a dissenting view on the Proposal. Cr van Beek opposes the transition
from occupier responsibility model to contract model, due to some landowners
managing their own properties sufficiently and with concerns over cost. Cr van
Beek would like to see a hybrid model put into place, where landowners who are
doing their own controls effectively would be exempt from paying the contractor
rates associated with the PCA programme. This is outlined in the Panel’s
Report itself. However, it is also noted that the majority of the Panel
members agree with the recommendations in the Report.
Sufficiency
of consultation
14. Under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (BSA)
the BWP, when making recommendations to the Council, is required to be
satisfied that the consultation undertaken was sufficient.
15. In considering whether consultation
was sufficient, the BWP noted:
15.1. The scale of the impacts on
those affected by the changes proposed are moderate, and that further
discussion with the community on how the contractor model will be funded and
implemented will be undertaken as part of the 2024-2034 Long Term Plan process.
15.2. The persons likely to be
affected by the plan or their representatives have been consulted through the
public notification process, letters sent to 4,500 stakeholders directly
affected, the receipt of 155 submissions on the proposal, and the opportunity to
participate at a public hearing of the submissions.
15.3. The level of support for
the proposed changes as evidenced by the majority of submissions received in
support.
15.4. If
the Council approves the proposed change to the RPMP, a public notice will be
given of the decision together with a full decision report including any
adopted changes to the RPMP. If submitters wish to do so, they will have 15
working days
to lodge an appeal with the Environment Court in accordance with section 76 of
the BSA.
15.5. The period for applications
will be open from 15 December 2022 to 31 January 2023.
Amended
Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) 2018-2038
16. The draft amended
Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) 2018-2038 was presented
to the 2 December 2022 BWP meeting, incorporating the BWP’s decisions
from deliberations on the submissions received on the proposal to change from
landowner possum control to a contractor model. On reviewing the draft RPMP,
the BWP noted:
16.1. The changes envisioned in
the draft amended RPMP are enabling but will not be operationalised until the
Revenue and Financing Policy review and 2024-2034 LTP processes have been
completed, consulted on and final form adopted by HBRC.
16.2. Possum control by all
landowners across the region is complex and expensive to manage and monitor.
16.3. Some sectors will continue
to be actively involved in the RPMP, particularly forestry owners who are
expected to be involved in the contractor appointment process.
16.4. Cost-benefit analysis
revealed proven biodiversity gains provided by effective possum control.
13. In accordance with BSA
section 75, the report setting out the BWP reasons for accepting or rejecting
submissions is attached.
Decision Making Process
17. 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:
17.1. Given the items were
specifically considered by the Biosecurity Working Party on 2 December
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.
17.2. If the Council decides not
to adopt the BWP’s report and recommendations, it is not able to simply
substitute its own decision. The Council has not heard the submissions,
so there may be a breach of the principles of natural justice if the Council
sought to substitute its own decision in place of the BWP’s. In the
event that the Council does not wish to adopt the BWP’s report and
recommendations, then it will need to conduct a re-hearing of the submissions
before making its own decision.
Recommendations
The Biodiversity Working Party
recommends that Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:
1. Receives the Report and
recommendations of the Biosecurity Working Party staff report.
2. Adopts the Report and
recommendations of the Biosecurity Working Party as the Council's written
report and decision on the Proposed Changes to Possum Control in Hawke’s
Bay under section 75 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.
3. Approves the amendment of
the Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Plan as set out in Appendix 2 of
the Report and recommendations of the Biosecurity Working Party under
section 100D(7) of the Biosecurity Act 1993.
4. Resolves to publicly notify
Council's decision on the Proposed Changes to Possum Control in Hawke’s
Bay under section 75(4) of the Biosecurity Act 1993 on 15 December 2022.
Reports
received
5. Notes that the following
reports were provided to the Biodiversity Working Party to support
decision-making on the recommendations to Council.
5.1. Draft amendments to the
Hawke’s Bay Regional Pest Management Plan 2018 - 2038
5.2. Impact on specific properties
5.3. PCA review submissions.
Authored by:
|
Lauren Simmonds
Project Manager - Biosecurity Review
|
Mark Mitchell
Team Leader Principal Advisor
Biosecurity Biodiversity
|
Approved by:
|
Iain Maxwell
Group Manager Integrated Catchment
Management
|
|
Attachment/s
|
1⇨
|
Report and Recommendations of the
Biosecurity Working Party
|
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
2
|
Appendix 1 Draft amendments to Hawke’s
Bay Regional Pest Management Plan 2018-2038
|
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
⇨3
|
Appendix 2 Recommendations on
submissions
|
|
Under Separate Cover
|
|
⇨4
|
Apendix 3 17 August 2022 Biosecurity
Working Party Minutes
|
|
Under Separate Cover
|
Hawke’s
Bay Regional Council
14
December 2022
Subject: Council appointments to the
Regional Planning Committee
Reason for Report
1. This item provides the
means for Council to make the appointments of councillor members of the
Regional Planning Committee and elect its Co-Chair and Deputy Co-Chair of that
Committee.
Officers’
Recommendations
2. Staff recommend that
Council appoints nine councillors to the Regional Planning Committee.
3. Staff recommend that
Council adopts Option B (detailed following) to conduct the elections of Regional
Planning Committee Co-Chair and Deputy Co-Chair due to its simplicity and
because historically there have not been more than two nominees for any of the
committee chair positions.
Background
4. Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council is required
by statute to have the Regional Planning Committee in accordance with the Hawke’s Bay Regional
Planning Committee Act 2015 (HB RPC Act).
5. The Regional Planning
Committee (RPC) was formally established[1]
under the HB RPC Act for the purpose of improving tāngata whenua
involvement in the development and review of the Regional Resource Management
Plan and Regional Coastal Environment Plan (documents prepared in accordance
with the RMA). It is a permanent committee of Council. The HB RPC Act
states that “the purpose of the RPC is to oversee the development and
review of the RMA documents prepared in accordance with the Resource Management
Act 1991 for the RPC [Hawke’s Bay] region.”
6. Under the HB RPC Act, the
RPC is to consist of an equal number of tāngata whenua members and Council
members. The tāngata whenua members are respectively appointed by nine Appointers[2]
specified in the HB RPC Act. The Council appoints an equal number of
Council members (up to ten) using a method of its own choice. The method is not
prescribed in the HB RPC Act.
7. A Council member is
appointed to the RPC for a term commencing with the first meeting of the
Council after the triennial general election of members of a local authority
under the Local
Electoral Act 2001
and ending with the close of the day before the next triennial general
election. However, if a Council member is appointed after the date of the first
meeting of the Council referred to in subclause (1)(b), the member is
appointed from that date until the close of the day before the next triennial
general election.
Discussion
8. At the Council meeting on
16 November 2022, the Regional Council considered options for its governance
structure for the 2022-2024 triennium. In relation to the Regional Planning
Committee, the Council resolved that it:
8.1. Confirms the
Council’s agreement to the Terms of Reference
8.2. Defers the appointment of
councillors, and the election of councillor Co-chair and Deputy Co-chair to a
future Regional Council meeting to be held prior to the 15 February 2023
meeting of the Regional Planning Committee.
8.3. Notes that the Post
Settlement Governance Entity tāngata whenua appointees and the
tāngata whenua elected co-chair and deputy co-chair for the RPC will be
confirmed at the first RPC meeting scheduled 15 February 2023, if not
before.
9. The Council agreed Terms of
Reference are in the process of being sent to the PSGE appointees for
endorsement. Until that time the current arrangement continues with
‘active’ TOR being the 2014 version overlaid with HB RPC Act
itself.
10. The appointment decisions
were deferred to enable time to discuss the appointments with the tāngata
whenua representatives (TWR) of the RPC, which occurred at the TWR planning hui
on 24 November and to seek advice on the best way to ensure equal numbers of
TWR and Councillor members of the Committee.
11. At the 24 November hui, the
RPC TWR selected Tania Hopmans as their Co-Chair, and Apiata Tapine as their
Deputy Co-Chair. This has been notified in writing to the Regional Council as
required by the HB RPC Act.
12. Following a Council
decision on its appointees, the Regional Council must also notify in writing
all other RPC member appointing entities (i.e. the nine PSGEs).
13. For the avoidance of doubt,
the appointment of Council members and selection of the Council’s
co-chair and deputy co-chair are decisions for the Council itself to make.
Those decisions do not need any prior agreement or recommendations to be made
by the RPC (including tāngata whenua representatives).
Membership
of RPC
14. The overriding principle
under the HB RPC Act is that RPC consists of an equal number of TWR members and
Council members. Given there are currently nine TWR members, it is proposed
that the Regional Council also appoints nine members for now, until such time
as Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua (TUT) appoints a member. Like other committee
meetings, non-members can attend meetings but cannot participate in the
discussion or sit at the table.
15. Staff advice is that
alternates are not envisaged by the HB RPC Act. Alternates are typically
used when there are multiple entities on a committee represented by a small
number of members. An alternate is typically used to make sure the information
flows back and from that entity and that the entity is represented in voting.
This is not the case here as Council is well represented on the
RPC. Of the eleven Hawke’s Bay Regional Councillors, the two
Councillors not appointed to the RPC will be well informed via other channels
such as the All Governors’ Forum and regular Council meetings.
Moreover, tāngata whenua appointers do not have the option to
appoint alternates.
16. The Regional Council must
decide for itself how to appoint its nine members (i.e. how to choose the two
members that are not appointed). At the Council meeting on 16 November, one
Napier constituency member volunteered to step-aside. Staff consider this
a tidy option, where one of each of the three Napier and Hastings constituency
members would essentially ‘volunteer’ to not be appointed. This
would ensure Councillor representation from each of the seven constituencies.
17. If the
‘volunteer’ approach is not favoured, then another option could be
to draw names out of a hat (although reporting staff still prefer the
‘volunteer’ approach over a random drawing of straws).
Alternatively, some other method could be agreed and used by councillors prior
to the first meeting of the RPC on 15 February 2023.
Options
for appointing the Co-Chair and Deputy Co-Chair
18. The Council has unfettered
discretion as to the councillors it elects to roles of RPC Co-Chair and Deputy
Co-Chair. Past convention has seen those roles held by the Regional Chair
and Regional Deputy Chair respectively. However, there is no rule or
requirement obliging the Council to continue that past convention. The
Council is able to elect whomever it chooses to those roles.
19. As with other committee
chair appointments, Council needs
to resolve the system of voting before the elections can take place. The options, Option A and
Option B, and
requirements are outlined following.
Section
25
Voting
systems for certain appointments—
(1) This clause
applies to—
(c) the election or appointment of the
chairperson and deputy chairperson of a committee; and
(2) If this clause
applies, a local authority or a committee (if the local authority has so
directed) must determine by resolution that a person be elected or appointed by
using one of the following systems of voting:—
(a) the voting system in subclause (3)
(`system A'):
(b) the voting system in subclause (4)
(`system B').
20. System A has the following
characteristics
20.1. there is a first round of
voting for all candidates; and
20.2. if no candidate is
successful in that round there is a second round of voting from which the
candidate with the fewest votes in the first round is excluded; and
20.3. if no candidate is
successful in the second round there is a third, and if necessary subsequent,
round of voting from which, each time, the candidate with the fewest votes in
the previous round is excluded; and
20.4. in any round of voting, if
2 or more candidates tie for the lowest number of votes, the person excluded
from the next round is resolved by lot.
21. System B has the following
characteristics:
21.1. there is only 1 round of
voting; and
21.2. if 2 or more candidates tie
for the most votes, the tie is resolved by lot.”
22. Council officers recommend
that Option B is used, as the simpler of the two.
Decision Making Process
23. 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:
23.1. Council is required to (LGA
sch.7 cl.19(1)) hold the meetings that are necessary for the good government of
its region
23.2. Council may appoint (LGA sch.7 cl. 30(1)(a)) the committees,
subcommittees, and other subordinate decision-making bodies that it considers
appropriate and is
required by
statute to have the Regional Planning Committee in accordance with the Hawke’s Bay Regional
Planning Committee Act 2015 (HB RPC Act)
23.3. Given the provisions above,
Council can exercise its discretion and make these decisions 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 Council
appointments to the Regional Planning Committee staff report.
2. Agrees that Council can exercise its discretion
and make these decisions without consulting directly with the community.
3. Appoints the following
Councillors to the Regional Planning Committee:
3.1. __________________________________
3.2. __________________________________
3.3. __________________________________
3.4. __________________________________
3.5. __________________________________
3.6. __________________________________
3.7. __________________________________
3.8. __________________________________
3.9. __________________________________
4. Resolves to adopt voting
system B for the election of the Regional Planning Committee Co-chair and
Deputy Co-chair as detailed in Schedule 7 Part 1 Section 25(3) of the Local Government
Act 2002.
4.1. ________ nominates
_________ for RPC co-chair, seconded by __________
4.2. ________ nominates
_________ for RPC co-chair, seconded by __________
4.3. __ votes for ______________
and __ votes for ______________
4.4. Appoints _____ as RPC
co-chair
4.5. _______ nominates _________
for RPC deputy co-chair, seconded by ________
4.6. _______ nominates _________
for RPC deputy co-chair, seconded by ________
4.7. __ votes for ______________
and __ votes for ______________
4.8. Appoints _____ as RPC
deputy co-chair.
5. Notes that the Council will
appoint a tenth Councillor as a member of the Regional Planning Committee
following receipt of notice from each of the Tāngata Whenua Appointers
that they have made their appointments, thus the maximum of ten tāngata
whenua appointees have been confirmed.
6. Formally confirms the Post Settlement Governance
Entity tāngata whenua appointees’ election of Tania Hopmans to
Co-chair and Apiata Tapine to Deputy Co-chair the Regional Planning Committee.
Authored by:
|
Desiree Cull
Strategy & Governance Manager
|
Gavin Ide
Principal Advisor Strategic Planning
|
Approved by:
|
Katrina Brunton
Group Manager Policy &
Regulation
|
Pieri Munro
Te Pou Whakarae
|
Attachment/s There are no attachments
for this report.
Hawke’s
Bay Regional Council
14
December 2022
Subject: Napier-Hastings Future
Development Strategy Joint Committee
Reason for Report
1. This report presents the
Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Napier Hastings Future Development Strategy
Joint Committee for the Council’s consideration and potential adoption.
If agreeable, the Council should also appoint two councillors and an alternate
member to that joint committee.
2. A near identical report is
being presented to a Hastings District Council meeting on 15 December 2022
and to Napier City Council in early 2023.
Officers’
Recommendations
3. Senior staff from the three
councils working together on the Future Development Strategy project recommend:
3.1. the formation of a joint
committee
3.2. that each of the three
councils can appoint two members to that joint committee, plus one alternate
member
3.3. that the three Post
[Treaty] Settlement Governance Entities are each invited to appoint two members
to the joint committee if they choose to.
Executive
Summary
4. In November, the Council
had agreed to support establishing a joint committee to oversee preparation of
a Future Development Strategy for the Napier Hastings Urban Environment,
subject to confirmation of the terms of reference. At its meeting on 16
November 2022, Council resolved that it:
4.1. “Supports the
establishment of the Future Development Strategy Joint Committee,
subject to confirmation of the Terms of Reference including membership.”
5. Terms of reference for the
joint committee have been prepared (refer Attachment 1). The Terms of
Reference provide for the Regional Council to appoint two members to the joint
committee and one alternate member. Similar membership representation is
proposed for Hastings District Council and Napier City Council who are
“jointly responsible” for preparation of a Future Development
Strategy for the Napier-Hastings Urban Environment.
6. The report (and TOR)
provide for three Post [Treaty] Settlement Governance Entities to each appoint
two members to the joint committee if they choose to. Those entities are
Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust, Mana Ahuriri Trust and Maungaharuru
Tangitū Trust.
7. This report presents to the
Terms of Reference for the Council to consider and adopt. If adopted, then the Council
should also appoint its two members and one alternate member for the Napier
Hastings Future Development Strategy Joint Committee.
Background
/Discussion
8. It is proposed that a Joint
Committee of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, the Napier City Council
and the Hastings District Council be established to provide governance
oversight and preliminary decision-making in respect of the Future Development
Strategy (FDS) for the Napier-Hastings Urban Environment. The FDS is a
requirement on the three councils under the National Policy Statement on Urban
Development 2020 (NPS-UD). Final decisions on the adoption of the draft and
final FDS document will be made by each of the three councils individually.
9. A proposed Terms of
Reference for the Joint Committee has been prepared (Attached). The Terms of
Reference provides for representation of the councils responsible for the
development of the FDS.
10. The NPS-UD requires that
the FDS be informed by tāngata whenua values and aspirations for urban
development. While not a requirement, it is proposed within the Terms of
Reference to provide, alongside representation from the councils, for
representation from each of the post settlement governance entities (PSGEs)
with statutory acknowledgement within the study area for the FDS (should they
each wish to appoint representatives). This is seen as one mechanism, among
others, to help to incorporate the values and aspirations of tāngata
whenua in a manner that is consistent with a partnership relationship between
the Councils and mana whenua.
11. On that basis, the proposed
make-up of the Committee is as follows:
11.1. Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council – 2 representatives
11.2. Napier City Council –
2 representatives
11.3. Hastings District Council
– 2 representatives
11.4. Heretaunga Tamatea
Settlement Trust – 2 representatives
11.5. Mana Ahuriri Trust –
2 representatives
11.6. Maungaharuru Tangitū
Trust – 2 representatives.
12. This is not to say that
engagement with tāngata whenua on the FDS will be limited to the
identified PSGEs. Wider and more extensive engagement with iwi and hapū is
planned alongside specialist technical input. However, it is proposed that the
appropriate approach to seeking governance input is to provide for appointments
from the PSGEs within the study area who have a statutory acknowledgement in
relation to planning matters (so long as those bodies wish to appoint a
representative).
13. A modified approach to this
would be to provide for a representative to be appointed by Ngāti
Kahungunu Iwi Incorporated (NKII) alongside the PSGE representatives. This
would recognise the longstanding involvement of NKII in supporting growth
planning in the Napier-Hastings area (e.g. via HPUDS). However, the context for
mana whenua representation in planning and consenting processes has evolved
since previous HPUDS processes due to Treaty settlements and related statutory
acknowledgements. Having a governance appointment made by NKII would widen the
basis for governance representation beyond organisations that have statutory
acknowledgements in terms of planning/consenting matters. It can be argued that
relying on a statutory acknowledgement provides a clear, transparent and legally
robust basis for drawing governance representation.
14. It is also proposed that
each party appointing or nominating representatives be able to appoint one
alternate representative. While alternates can detract from continuity and
consistency through the governance process, permitting organisations to have
one consistent alternate who can cover for absences by either primary
representative is considered to provide an effective balance between ensuring
representation from each organisation and providing for a high level of working
knowledge on the part of participants. This is particularly the case if
alternates can attend meetings as observers when their organisation’s
primary representatives are present.
15. It is proposed that the
Committee appoint a Chair and Deputy Chair from among the representatives
appointed. An alternative approach would be to consider the appointment of an
independent (possibly non-voting Chair) if councils wished.
16. Under the Local Government
Act 2002, the Joint Committee is a committee of each of the partner Councils.
In order to facilitate the proposed PSGE representation noted above, it is
proposed that provision for PSGE appointments be made within the Terms of
Reference and that each of the PSGEs within the study area be asked to identify
and appoint suitable representatives to the Joint Committee.
17. The Terms of Reference
provides that partner councils will be responsible for remunerating their
respective representatives on the Joint Committee. The partner councils together
shall meet the remuneration costs of the mana whenua representatives on the
Joint Committee on the basis set out in the Terms of Reference.
18. Schedule 7 of the Local
Government Act 2002 provides that a local authority may not appoint a joint
committee unless it has first reached agreement with every other local
authority or public body that is to appoint members of the committee. To comply
with this clause, it is proposed that the Council agrees to appoint and
establish the Joint Committee, and also resolves, subject to the agreement of
the other Councils, to appoint the Committee and its representatives on the
Joint Committee.
Options
Assessment
19. The Council has previously
agreed to support formation of a FDS joint committee, subject to acceptable
terms of reference. Several options have been considered by FDS project staff
from the three councils during drafting ad re-drafting of the terms of
reference. The Council could still choose to:
19.1. adopt the terms of
reference as set out in Attachment 1
19.2. make amendments to the
terms of reference, but any such amendments would also require the agreement of
Napier City Council (meeting in early 2023) and Hastings District Council
(meeting on 15 December 2022)
19.3. or revoke its earlier
support for establishing a joint committee (this option not favoured by
reporting staff).
Financial
and Resource Implications
20. Remuneration matters for
Councillor members of the joint committee are set out in the TOR.
Councillor remuneration for membership of the joint committee is subject to the
Council’s member remuneration policy (i.e. Councillors would not receive
extra remuneration for membership of this joint committee, but are entitled to
meeting expenses such as for travel).
21. Other project costs
incurred in course of developing the FDS will typically be shared three-ways
between Hastings District Council, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and
Napier City Council. This would include one-third share of the PSGE
representatives’ remuneration, and those costs would need to be
accommodated within the FDS project budgets – not governance costs or
Maori Partnership Group budgets.
Decision Making Process
22. 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:
22.1. Council is required to (LGA
sch.7 cl.19(1)) hold the meetings that are necessary for the good government of
its region
22.2. Council may appoint (LGA sch.7 cl. 30(1)(a)) the committees,
subcommittees, and other subordinate decision-making bodies that it considers
appropriate, including joint committees
22.3. Given the provisions above,
Council can exercise its discretion and make these decisions 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 Napier-Hastings
Future Development Strategy Joint Committee 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. Agrees to appoint, on the
basis set out in the Terms of Reference in Attachment 1, the Napier-Hastings
Future Development Strategy Joint Committee, being a Joint Committee
established under Clause 30 of the Local Government Act 2002 with the Hastings
District Council and the Napier City Council.
4. Subject to the agreement of
the Hastings District Council and the Napier City Council to the appointment of
the Napier-Hastings Future Development Strategy Joint Committee:
4.1. appoints the
Napier-Hastings Future Development Strategy Joint Committee, being a Joint
Committee established under Clause 30 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act
2002 with the Hastings District Council and the Napier City Council.
4.2. approves the Terms of
Reference for the Napier-Hastings Future Development Strategy Joint Committee
set out in Attachment 1, noting that the Terms of Reference is an agreement
between the Hastings District Council, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council
and the Napier City Council as required under Clause 30A of Schedule 7 of the
Local Government Act 2002.
4.3. appoints ____________ and
____________ as its representatives on the Napier-Hastings Future Development
Strategy Joint Committee.
4.4. appoints ____________ as
its alternate representative on the Napier-Hastings Future Development Strategy
Joint Committee.
4.5. delegates authority to and
invites, in conjunction with the Hastings District Council and the Napier City
Council, the Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust, Mana Ahuriri Trust and
Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust to appoint Mana Whenua representatives to the
Napier-Hastings Future Development Strategy Joint Committee as provided for in
the Terms of Reference, and notes that these appointments will take effect once
they have been notified to the Chief Executive of the Administering Authority,
Hastings District Council.
5. Authorises the Chief
Executive to give effect to resolution 2 above following receipt of advice from
the Hastings Council and the Napier City Council that they have each agreed to
appoint the Napier-Hastings Future Development Strategy Joint Committee.
Authored
by:
|
Gavin Ide
Principal Advisor Strategic Planning
|
Desiree Cull
Strategy & Governance Manager
|
Approved by:
|
Katrina Brunton
Group Manager Policy &
Regulation
|
|
Attachment/s
|
1⇩
|
Napier-Hastings Future Development
Strategy Joint Committee Terms of Reference
|
|
|
|
Napier-Hastings Future Development
Strategy Joint Committee Terms of Reference
|
Attachment
1
|
Hawke’s
Bay Regional Council
14
December 2022
Subject: Organisational Performance
report for the period 1 July – 30 September 2022
Reason for Report
1. This item provides the
Organisational Performance Report for the first quarter of the 2022-2023
financial year which is the period 1 July to 30 September 2022.
Content of the Report
2. The report contains three
parts:
2.1. Executive Summary with highlights and lowlights
for the quarter (pp 4-5).
2.2. Corporate Metrics that focus on how well we
are performing across a number of corporate-wide measures such as health and
safety incidents and customer satisfaction (pp 6-12).
2.3. Activity
Reporting by group of activities with non-financial traffic light status and commentary
(pp 13-20).
2.4. EXCLUDED from
this report: Level
of Service Measures (LOSM) by group of activities with adopted targets, traffic
light status and commentary.
3. This is the 16th
Organisational Performance Report to be presented. The status and commentary
reporting are rolled up from cost centre to activity level. Commentary by cost centre
is still available to committee members via the PowerBI dashboard.
4. As with the previous
report, this quarter does not include financial information.
5. Staff complete their
reporting in a software tool called Opal3. For LOSM and Activity reporting,
staff select the status (red, amber, green) of non-financial results and
provide commentary on what they did in the quarter.
6. This report is usually
presented to the Corporate & Strategic Committee.
Points
of Interest
7. Activity status and
commentary for seven Corporate Services have been included for the first time.
This includes ICT, People & Capability, Finance & Procurement,
Corporate Support, Communications & Engagement, Risk & Audit, and
Strategy & Governance
8. Level of Service Measures
(LOSM) by group of activities with adopted targets, traffic light status and
commentary are excluded from this quarterly report. This was due to the
absence of a Corporate & Strategic Committee meeting following Local Body
Elections.
9. LOSMs will be included as a
six-monthly update in the next report to be presented at the Corporate and
Strategic Committee on 8 March 2023.
10. This is the first quarterly
report for the current year, which is year two of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.
Reporting Dashboard (PowerBI)
11. The dashboard is produced
using PowerBI to give a visual representation of the results over time. The
Organisational Performance Report document is produced from the dashboard.
12. Staff will be available to
present the dashboard to new councillors and elected members who would like to
review its content.
13. The dashboard also provides
committee members with the ability to delve deeper into activities of interest
(via cost centres) and all level of service measures results (not just by
exception).
13.1. To access the dashboard,
please open your PowerBI app on your iPad. The dashboard will be on your
homepage.
14. Strategic projects
commentary and status by schedule, risk, and budget are updated on a monthly
basis on the dashboard. They are also included in the Significant Activity
Report that is presented to Council monthly (with an exception of this meeting
of Council).
15. Community outcome results
(which are the same as the 24 strategic goals from the Strategic Plan
2020-2025) are reported on within the Annual Report at the end of the financial
year only.
16. We are continuously
improving the dashboard and improving the data reliability across all areas,
and would appreciate any feedback you have.
Future developments
17. Financial reporting will be
re-introduced at the next report.
18. Metrics from
the new Customer Experience software are being developed for PowerBI and will
be incorporated into the dashboard when completed.
19. Further
improvements, particularly around the Corporate Metrics, will be incorporated
when data can be tested and reported with confidence to provide additional
information.
Decision Making Process
20. 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
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council receives and notes the Organisational performance
report for the period 1 July – 30 September 2022 staff report.
Authored by:
|
Sarah Bell
Team Leader Strategy &
Performance
|
Hariza Adlan
Performance & Data Analyst
|
Approved by:
|
Desiree Cull
Strategy & Governance Manager
|
|
Attachment/s
|
1⇨
|
1 July - 30 Sept 2022, Quarter 1
Organisational Performance Report
|
|
Under Separate Cover
|
Hawke’s
Bay Regional Council
14
December 2022
Subject: Discussion of minor items not
on the Agenda
Reason for Report
1. This document
has been prepared to assist Councillors note the Minor items not on the
Agenda to be discussed as determined earlier in Agenda item 4.
Hawke’s Bay Regional
Council
14
December 2022
Subject: Confirmation of Public Excluded Minutes of the Council
meeting held on 30 November 2022
That
Hawke’s Bay Regional Council excludes the public from this section of the
meeting being Confirmation of Public Excluded Minutes Agenda Item 11
with the general subject of the item to be considered while the public is
excluded. The reasons for passing the resolution and the specific grounds under
Section 48 (1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act
1987 for the passing of this resolution are:
|
General
subject of the item to be considered
|
Reason
for passing this resolution
|
Grounds
under section 48(1) for the passing of the resolution
|
|
Napier Port update and
Annual General Meeting
|
s7(2)(a) That the public
conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of
information where the withholding of the information is necessary to protect
the privacy of natural persons
s7(2)(j) That the public
conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of
information where the withholding of the information is necessary to prevent
the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper
advantage
|
The Council is specified,
in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.
|
|
Process for Director
appointments to Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company
|
s7(2)(a) That the public
conduct of this agenda item would be likely to result in the disclosure of
information where the withholding of the information is necessary to protect
the privacy of natural persons
|
The Council is specified,
in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.
|
Authored by:
|
Leeanne Hooper
Team Leader Governance
|
|
Approved by:
|
Desiree Cull
Strategy & Governance Manager
|
|
