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

Topic

Raised by

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

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.

 

Topic

Raised by

 

 

 

 

 


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

 

 



[1] The RPC was originally established in 2012 as an interim committee pending passing of the HB RPC Act.

[2] Trustees of the Heretaunga Tamatea Settlement Trust are entitled to appoint two members, whereas the other eight tāngata whenua appointers may appoint one member each.  Therefore the maximum total number of tāngata whenua members that may be appointed to the RPC is ten members.