Agenda of Regional Council Meeting - Wednesday, 13 December 2023

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

13 December 2023

Subject: Hawke's Bay Navigation Safety Bylaw 2023

Reason for Report

1. This item provides Council with the proposed Hawke’s Bay Navigation Safety Bylaw 2023 (the Bylaw) as updated through consultation and submissions, for decision-making to enable the Bylaw’s adoption for notification.

Officers’ recommendations

2. Council officers recommend that councillors consider the submissions received, and the officers’ considerations and adopt the Bylaw as proposed, for notification to the general public.

Consultation outputs

3. The results of the consultation feedback have been reviewed by the Harbourmaster and project team. This has led to a number of marked-up changes to the draft document attached. All markups have been ‘authored’ and are shown in black strike-through text to indicate deletions, and red highlight to indicate an addition.

Background

4. In April 2023 a project team was formed to undertake the process of updating the 2018 Navigation Bylaw. Pre-engagement feedback from key stakeholders alongside the identification of known navigational issues in the region, was the starting point for the drafting process. A further key consideration was the need to simplify and refine the document to make it more readable and relevant to a wider variety of recreational water users.

5. Overall, it was felt that the existing Bylaw was working well but changes were needed to address the increased popularity and patronage of some mixed-use areas, coupled with the advent of new water recreation technologies, including:

5.1. The Hardinge Rd waterfront in Napier which is becoming increasingly popular with ocean swimmers, surfers and paddle boarders, foil-boarders, recreational boaties and jet-skiers. The area is relatively confined and gets very busy over the summer months. Navigational risk occurs in such areas where high-speed or powered vessels are in close proximity to passive recreational water users. Similar issues are present at Napier’s Pandora Pond and the Pourerere Stream.

5.2. Minor changes have been included to Part 3, clause 9 ‘Reserved area for Rocket Launching’. The main reason for this is to make the process of providing public notice for rocket launches simpler.

6. Pre-engagement with key contacts was undertaken in mid-April 2023 and drafting the updated Bylaw began in May 2023, with attention also given to overall document refinement and further navigational risk identification.

7. Subject to final Council approval, it is anticipated that the updated Bylaw will come into effect in late December 2023 or early January 2024.

Public consultation and submissions

8. The public engagement phase of the Navigation Bylaw review took place across a four-week period between 30 September 2023 and 30 October 2023. It was advertised widely in print and on-line media, and an on-line ‘have your say’ submission web page was designed and promoted. Key Harbourmaster and tangata whenua contacts were notified in advance of the opening date and were encouraged to participate. Four public meetings were held during the period in Wairoa, Waipawa, Clive and Napier.

9. In total, 23 submissions were received – 17 through the on-line format, one from Jetboating NZ (JBNZ) and three in-person submissions were also received during the Sailing Club meeting in Napier. Feedback came from Maritime NZ (MNZ), and an in-person meeting took place between a member of the Sailing Club and Harbourmaster representatives as a follow up to this submission.

Submission questions

1	Do you think the proposed bylaws will be effective (or otherwise) in managing risks to navigation and safety in Hawkes' Bay?
2	What if any changes do you seek to the proposed bylaw to address issues, gaps and /or manage risks to navigation and safety in Hawkes Bay?
3	Do you support restricting the use of motorised vessels for the Napier Hardinge Road as shown in the map?
3.1	Do you have any other feedback or views about the use of motorised vessels at Hardinge Road?
4	Do you support the use of high-speed foiling craft from Napier's Pandora Pond as shown in the map?
4.1	Do you have any other feedback or views about high-speed foiling craft, or similar, at Napier Pandora Pond?
5	Do you support restricting the use of motorised vessels and high-speed foiling craft, between the bridge and the coast of the Pourerere Stream/ lagoon area?
5.1	Do you have any other feedback or views about the use of motorised vessels and high-speed foiling craft at the Pourerere Stream/lagoon?
6	Do you have any feedback on potential regulatory or educational requirements for new technologies, such as inflatable jet boats, foiling bikes/ commuter craft or underwater drones?
7	Do you have any further safety issues or feedback on the draft consultant document or proposed bylaw?

Key themes

10. Four of the questions (1,3,4 and 5) were considered key in terms of gauging a clear ‘for and against’ opinion. The remaining six questions were posed to gather additional feedback.

11. Of the 48 responses to the four key questions, 35 were in support of the changes (73%), with eight opposed (17%) and five were categorised as ‘other’ (10%). This indicates a large majority of respondents were in agreement with the risks and emerging issues identified at the outset of the Bylaw update project.

12. Answers to the additional six questions were more varied, so identifying common themes was challenging. Notably, however, respondents did provide further feedback around a desire to restrict the use of motorised or high-speed craft in passive recreational areas.

Maritime NZ

13. Maritime New Zealand (MNZ) submitted a number of points before and during the engagement period. Their comments centred largely on matters of detail pertaining to inconsistencies or perceived inconsistencies between the Maritime Transport Act (1994), Maritime Rules and what was stated in the draft Bylaw. Officers are of the view that the identification of these items is helpful and assists with factual accuracy and, therefore, suggest that all MNZ marked-up changes identified be adopted as a matter of course.

Jetboating NZ

14. A submission was received from Jetboating NZ (JBNZ). At issue was the suggested changes proposed by HBRC to create three 5-knot restricted reserves on the Mohaka River. JBNZ pointed out that these sections of river have had a speed-uplifted status for many years and imposing such restrictions would effectively close the river to jetboats as they are incapable of navigating this waterway at 5 knots. The possibility of a seasonal provision was suggested by the Harbourmaster and agreed to by JBNZ. Under the proposal, powered craft would be excluded from the three reserves (Mohaka River Farm, Glenfalls Campsite and Everetts Ford Campsite) during the period of 16 October to 31 March each year. The rationale being that during the summer months, when passive recreation water users frequent the areas, river volumes are too low to navigate by jetboat, and at other times of the year when conditions suit jetboating, there is a much-reduced presence of recreational water users.

Engagement with Tangata Whenua

15. Key Treaty partners were approached for feedback at the project’s inception. However, this was not able to be effectively obtained at the time due to cyclone recovery efforts taking priority. At the time HBRC indicated that a further opportunity for participation would be available later in the year during the public consultation period. Accordingly, tangata whenua were approached directly for further feedback prior to the public consultation phase but unfortunately none was received. The project team suspects that resourcing constraints post-cyclone were likely to still be a factor.

Financial and resource implications

16. All implementation costs including signage, equipment and asset upgrades have been budgeted for. Such costs are modest and will be funded as part of business-as-usual activity.

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

17.2. The use of the special consultative procedure is prescribed by legislation. The Council must consult directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

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

17.4. The persons affected by this decision are all persons with an interest in the region’s waterbodies that are used for navigation and recreation.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Hawke's Bay Navigation Safety Bylaw 2023 staff report in conjunction with the public submissions received and the marked-up version of the draft Bylaw.

2. Agrees with the staff analysis of submissions received and consequential amendments made to the Hawke's Bay Navigation Safety Bylaw 2023.

3. Delegates authority to the Group Manager Policy and Regulation to finalise the Hawke's Bay Navigation Safety Bylaw 2023 to incorporate the following amendments specified during deliberations, being:

3.1. ...

3.2. …

4. Adopts the Hawke's Bay Navigation Safety Bylaw 2023 (which incorporates the amendments specified in 3. above) for notification.

Authored by:

Jason Doyle

Project Manager Policy & Planning

Martin Moore

Harbourmaster

Approved by:

Katrina Brunton

Group Manager Policy & Regulation

Attachment/s

1	Draft HB Navigation Safety Bylaw 2023	Under Separate Cover
2	Navigation Safety Bylaw Submissions table	Under Separate Cover
3 ⇩	Jet Boating NZ Navigation Safety Bylaw submission

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

13 December 2023

Subject: HBRC Group Statement of Investment Policies and Objectives

Reason for report

1. This item presents a new Statement of Investment Policy and Objectives (SIPO) for HBRC Group Managed Fund’s investments for Council’s approval.

2. The Statement of Investment Policy and Objectives (SIPO) is a formal document that outlines an organisation's investment goals, strategies, risk tolerance, and guidelines. It serves as a blueprint for overseeing and administering the Group’s Managed Funds portfolio and is used to ensure that investment decisions align with the organisation's overall objectives and financial requirements. This document typically includes details on asset allocation, investment limits, performance benchmarks, and responsibilities of the investment managers. It's an essential tool for guiding investment decisions and monitoring performance.

Officers’ recommendations

3. Officers recommend that Council considers and approves the revised SIPO as proposed.

Executive Summary

4. A revised Statement of Investment Policy and Objectives (SIPO) is required to guide the HBRC Group's investment strategy.

5. The update is overdue following significant growth in the Council's managed funds following the Napier Port IPO and aims to realign the investment strategy for increased resilience and income.

6. Key changes include designating HBRIC as the Investment Manager, transitioning management of various investment assets, and targeting improved financial returns through a rebalanced asset allocation.

Background /Discussion

7. The current SIPO was updated in 2018. It preceded the Napier Port IPO which subsequently tripled Council’s managed funds portfolio.

8. Following a twelve month review process, on 25 October 2023 Council resolved to implement changes to the management and oversight of the HBRC and Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Limited (HBRIC) investment portfolios. These were documented in a Statement of Expectations issues by HBRC to HBRIC on 9 November 2023. Of note are the following changes:

8.1. Council reinforces the importance of a building resilience into the Group, and the value of deriving a constantly growing income stream from those assets.

8.2. Council confirmed the role of HBRIC as the Investment Manager for the overall Group’s investment assets. This role includes management of HBRIC’s own assets (such as the Port and other investments), but also includes oversight of Council’s investment assets including Forestry, Investment Property and Managed Funds.

8.3. Council is looking to transition management of the Managed Fund function on or after 1 December 2023. Other asset classes will be as at 1 July 2024 at the earliest.

8.4. Council desires that HBRIC identify ways to create a reserve portfolio, initially equivalent to one year’s distribution from the Port, over the duration of the 2024 Long Term Plan, to buffer Council from the impacts of downturns such as we are currently seeing from Cyclone Gabrielle. HBRIC can build reserves from any distribution from the Port in excess of the levels forecast in support of the Council 2024 Long Term Plan or outperformance in other Group assets.

8.5. Initial draft Investment return targets have been set but are subject to revision as Council works through the 2024 Long Term Plan process and are reflected in the final Statement of Intent for HBRIC. The targets reflect Council’s cash income expectations from the existing assets owned and to be managed by HBRIC under the SOE, less budgeted HBRIC costs. For the first three years of the LTP these are proposed as:

8.5.1. LTP 1 (2024) – $12.5m

8.5.2. LTP 2 (2025) – $13.0m

8.5.3. LTP 3 (2026) – $13.5m.

8.6. Council wishes to see HBRIC grow resilience equivalent to one year’s dividend from the Port, through the retention of capital gains and any surplus cash from Investment Assets over and above the distribution proposed in the Long Term Plan.

9. As noted through the Investment Strategy Review process, the legacy split in management between Council’s and HBRIC’s investment portfolios obscured an overarching Group portfolio viewpoint. The review identified that the Group’s circa $150m managed funds portfolio was too defensively positioned in the context of the Group’s investment goals and wider mix of investment property and infrastructure assets owned.

10. As a first step in delivering on the Statement of Expectations the HBRIC Board has drafted the attached SIPO for Managed Funds for the Group’s portfolio. The portfolio is currently allocated as follows.

Table 1. Breakdown of Managed Funds holdings between managers, Future Investment Funds (FTI) and Long Term Investment Funds (LTI)

Fund Manager	HBRC	HBRIC	Total
Jarden FIF Funds	38,577,415	14,137,050
Jarden LTI Funds	23,504,174		$76,218,639
Mercer FIF Funds	21,630,962	29,803,006
Mercer LTI Funds	23,155,006		$74,588,974
Total	$106,867,557	$43,940,056	$150,807,613

11. Approval of the SIPO is a necessary first step to a review of the Managed Funds by HBRIC – including a Request for Proposal process involving the incumbent providers and others interested parties. Preferably this would be initiated by the end of December. Resetting of the portfolios in line with the revised SIPO forms a key component of delivering on Council’s overall investment portfolio return expectations.

12. Scott Hamilton will present the changes at the meeting. Key changes include:

12.1. A shift from a 50:50 fully hedged growth/defensive allocation to a 70:30 partially hedged growth / defensive allocation.

12.2. Affirming the minimum expectations of the Managed Funds is a 3% cash yield for Council and inflation proofing of the portfolio (at 2.5%). Returns are targeted to be in excess of this over time, supporting the rebuilding of Group resilience.

12.3. Expansion of the Groups policy on Ethical Investment to a Responsible Investment based on a combination of principles and exclusions. The Group will draw on the examples of leading Crown-owned investment institutions.

12.4. A requirement for fund managers to take into account the Group’s wider investment portfolio when building fund allocations.

12.5. Confirmation that HBRIC has delegated authority to implement and administer the SIPO.

12.6. Requirements for a structured process between HBRIC and HBRC to plan capital contributions or withdrawals (e.g. for annual reserve requirements).

Non-managed funds investments

13. As noted earlier, as has been the case previously, the SIPO only relates to the Group’s Managed Funds Portfolio. Following receipt of Council’s Statement of Expectation, HBRIC has initiated a number of implementation workstreams give effect to the changes, including:

13.1. Establishment of a joint HBRIC-HBRC project implementation team for the transition of management oversight for HBRC’s investment assets. This includes establishing appropriate reporting and delegation frameworks, and confirming management hand-over timeframes.

13.2. HBRIC Investment Strategy reset – a review of the group investment assets, individually and as a portfolio, and reporting to Council with any recommendations, noting the restraints around key Strategic Assets such as Napier Port of course. A phase one workshop has been completed and the follow-up is scheduled for February 2024 following the Managed Fund’s RFP.

13.3. HBRIC resourcing response – as the outcomes of the above two workstreams emerge HBRIC will develop and the finalise the appropriate staffing and operating model for the Group Investment Manager function.

13.4. Working alongside Council to support the development of 2024-2027 Long Term Plan, particularly the Investment Strategy.

Strategic fit

14. The changes set out in the Statement of Expectations aim to positively impact Council’s Investment Strategy for the 2024-2027 Long Term Plan. The approvals sought in this paper are consistent with implementing the changes sought by Council.

Significance and Engagement Policy assessment

15. The Future Investment Fund (inflation adjusted capital base retention of net proceeds from partial sell-down of 45% ownership of Napier Port following Initial Public Offering) is a Strategic Asset, currently owned and managed by HBRIC and HBRC.

16. The significance of approvals sought are determined to be low/medium. The impacts of the changes are expected to have a favourable financial impact for Council.

17. While changes are sought to the settings through which a strategic asset (Future Investment Fund) is managed, there are no changes proposed to the nature of the strategic asset itself.

Climate Change considerations

18. In the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle, Council has committed to building greater financial resilience to regional exposure and vulnerability to climate-related events. Council has directed HBRIC to establish and build financial resilience equivalent to one year’s dividend from the Port of Napier, through the retention of capital gains and any surplus cash from Investment Assets over and above the distribution proposed in the Long-Term Plan. The approvals sought are aligned with the Council’s objectives.

Financial and resource implications

19. The approvals sought represent the first step in lifting the long-term performance of the Group’s Managed Funds portfolio.

20. The financial outcomes will be more accurately quantifiable at the conclusion of the Investment Manager selection process. But it is expected that the improvement in Managed Funds net returns could be in the order of 1.0% per annum over time as a result of changes in Strategic Asset Allocation.

Decision-making process

21. 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:

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

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

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

21.4. The persons affected by this decision are all ratepayers.

21.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the HBRC Group Statement of Investment Policies and Objectives 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. Adopts the HBRC Group Statement of Investment Policies and Objectives 2023 as proposed.

Authored by:

Tom Skerman

HBRIC Commercial Manager

Scott Hamilton

Rautaki

Approved by:

Susie Young

Group Manager Corporate Services

Attachment/s

Draft HBRC Group SIPO 2023

Under Separate Cover

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

13 December 2023

Subject: Report and recommendations from the Risk and Audit Committee

Reason for report

1. The following matters were considered by the Risk and Audit Committee (RAC) on 18 October 2023 and the recommendations to Council are now presented for the Council’s consideration and resolution.

Agenda items for Council decision

2. The Insurance – annual review and update item sought RAC’s recommendations to Council in relation to insurance coverage renewals. The RAC recommendations to Council are to:

3.1. Note the MWLASS Infrastructure Insurance Layers Update report (attached).

3.2. Progress with participation in the excess layer of infrastructure asset cover with MWLASS of $200m.

3.3. Investigate how HBRC might review and assess how alternative means of insurance may be implemented across the business.

Information items

3. The Ernst & Young Audit Close report on year ended 30 June 2023 item presented the report (attached). Highlights from the EY report include:

3.1. The Audit Opinion includes 2 non-standard opinions, an emphasis of matter relating to greenhouse gasses (which is standard amongst local government) and a qualification specific to HBRC about the revaluation of infrastructure assets not having been done.

3.2. In relation to infrastructure asset valuations, as the repair and rebuild of stopbanks is completed, staff will have those assets revalued at the earliest opportunity.

4. The Risk Management Policy Renewal item proposed an updated policy for the Committee’s consideration. Discussions on the day highlighted:

4.1. Day to day management of risks is operational and the responsibility of the Chief Executive, and the Policy is about managing the risks to Council (the organisation).

4.2. Suggested amendments to the Policy included that a link to HBRC’s purpose and community commitments be included in the purpose of the Risk Management Policy, and that the Risk Management Framework document be attached to the Policy for context.

4.3. Staff will incorporate suggested amendments and seek RAC’s approval to the updated Policy at the next meeting.

5. The Treasury Compliance Report item presented the RAC with the compliance monitoring report of HBRC treasury activity and the performance of Council’s investment portfolio for the quarter ended 30 June 2023, and highlighted:

5.1. Non-compliance with third party limits occurred due to management of the funding received from central government associated with the Cyclone Gabrielle response, particularly silt taskforce funding.

5.2. Some of the debt limits set previously will need to be adjusted through the Investment Strategy review and Long Term Plan processes currently under way.

5.3. Exceptions are managed and rectified on a day-to-day basis by the CFO and reported to the Risk and Audit Committee via the quarterly Treasury Compliance Report and managed monthly in liaison with PWC, as per Council’s Treasury Policy.

6. The Health, Safety and Wellbeing Management System review item provided RAC with an update on progress to align the HBRC Health, Safety and Wellbeing Management System (HSWMS) with the ISO45001 framework, and noted:

6.1. Despite the impacts of Covid 19 lockdowns of 2020-2021 and the staffing levels within the HSW team, HBRC’s HSWMS was maintained at a level commensurate with WSMP Tertiary. This was verified via an internal review conducted in 2022.

6.2. HSWMS strategy and work plans covering 2021-2024 are built around the health and safety cornerstones of:

6.2.1. Knowledgeable workplace leadership

6.2.2. Actively identifying, managing, and monitoring risk

6.2.3. Managing the pandemic response to Covid-19 and variants

6.2.4. Improving the management of contractors

6.2.5. Improving health, safety and wellbeing engagement and culture

6.2.6. Enabling an effective implementation plan and reviewing annually

6.2.7. Improving reporting and provision of relevant information.

6.3. Activity to date includes:

Time period	Activity
2001-2019	HBRC certified under ACC WSMP programme
2018	Crowe Horwath Internal Audit Decision by the Group Manager Office of the Chief Executive and Chair, the HR Manager re recommendations HBRC to adopt HBRC WSMP certification extended to 2019
2019	Work begins to implement recommendations ACC WSMP programme ceases; HBRC certification ends
2020	HSW TL new into role, manages HBRC Covid response; picks up and continues implementation of recommendations as part of HSW workplan
2021	HSW TL continues with recommendations (as part of HSW workplan)
2022	Internal review of HSMS against ACC WSMP standard Investigation into alternative safety standard programmes – findings and recommended pathway presented to ELT
2023	ELT approves recommendation to align HSMS with ISO45001 Pathway stages mapped and stage 1 to occur

6.4. Timeframes for transition to ISO45001 are:

Programme

Year one (2023)

Year two (2024)

Year three (2025)

Year five (2027)

ISO45001

Programme as recommended by External Auditors

Stage 1 Document review

Review processes. Post review 12 months to update/amend (based on recommendations) and collect evidence of any changes in practice as a result of those. ‘In general, 12 months evidence of operational implementation required

Onsite Gap Analysis

Review processes alongside updates from previous recommendations and evidence of practice. Conducted onsite.

Onsite Gap Analysis

Review processes alongside updates from previous recommendations and evidence of practice. Conducted onsite.

Move to standard 2-yearly review cycle

7. The Risk Maturity Refresh item, presented by David Nalder and Helen Marsden in the public excluded session, provided the reset of the approach to risk management within Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. The purpose of adopting a different approach to risk management is to improve the quality of risk information and enable a comprehensive understanding of the risk profile of HBRC to feed into executive (ELT) and governance discussion, planning, decision-making and monitoring.

8. The key concepts that underpin the new approach are:

8.1. Defining risk in terms of HBRC’s purpose, what success looks like, and the major areas of uncertainty associated with this.

8.2. Single point accountabilities for each area of success/uncertainty (risk) at the ELT level, with supporting business leads to develop and maintain the one-page management plans for each area.

8.3. One page management plans for each area to drive explicit action and decision-making.

8.4. Monthly sentiment surveys completed by the ELT to gauge the overall level of confidence/concern (risk rating) associated with each area, and the consistency of views across ELT.

8.5. The Enterprise Dashboard used by ELT, Council, and the Risk and Audit Committee each meeting to focus risk discussion, with three one-page management plans to enable deep-dives into specific areas of risk.

9. The distinction between the roles of the full Council and the Risk and Audit Committee is that:

9.1. RAC ensures that an effective risk management process is in place and working effectively to identify, assess, manage and report on risk.

9.2. Council uses the content of risk management to take into account the major areas of risk faced by HBRC in decision-making.

10. The RAC resolved to receive and note the report, specifically the:

10.1. concept of the Enterprise Dashboard and One Page Management Plans

10.2. path to maturity to implement the approach (attached)

10.3. Enterprise Dashboard for October 2023, reflecting the current state risk profile

10.4. three examples of 1-page Management Plans.

11. The Internal Assurance Dashboards item (in Public Excluded session) provided an update to RAC on progress on management actions from previous audits and the status of internal audits and reviews under way. The Assurance Universe (attached) is aligned to the Risk framework and is a snapshot of what is currently on the work plan. The Risk and Audit Committee resolved:

11.1. Receives and notes the Internal Assurance Dashboards update staff report.

11.2. Confirms that the Internal Assurance Corrective actions update report has provided adequate information on the status of the Internal Assurance Corrective Actions.

Decision-making process

12. 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:

12.1. The decisions do not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset, nor is it inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

12.2. The items were specifically considered by the Risk and Audit Committee on 18 October 2023.

12.3. The persons affected by this decision are staff and governors of HBRC.

12.4. Given the nature and significance of the issues to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make these decisions without consulting directly with the community.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Report and recommendations from the Risk and Audit Committee staff report.

Insurance – annual review and update

3. Notes MWLASS Infrastructure Insurance Layers update report attached.

4. Progresses with participation in the excess layer of infrastructure asset cover with MWLASS of $200m.

5. Investigates how HBRC might review and assess how alternative means of insurance may be implemented across the business.

Authored by:

Jess Bennett

Senior Manager Finance Recovery

Chris Comber

Chief Financial Officer

Leeanne Hooper

Team Leader Governance

Helen Marsden

Risk & Corporate Compliance Manager

Approved by:

Susie Young

Group Manager Corporate Services

Attachment/s

1	MWLASS Infrastructure Insurance Layers Update	Under Separate Cover
2	Ernst Young Audit Close Report - HBRC year ended 30 June 2023	Under Separate Cover
3 ⇩	Pathway to risk maturity
4 ⇩	HBRC Assurance Universe 2018-2025

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

13 December 2023

Subject: Issuance of Security Stock under Debenture Trust Deed

Reason for report

1. This item seeks approval for the issuance of variable security stock under the existing Debenture Trust Deed to ANZ, with the primary objective of setting up a facility for interest rate hedging transactions specifically with ANZ.

2. The Treasury Policy states that “External borrowing, treasury investment and interest/foreign exchange risk management related transactions would only be entered into with organisations specifically approved by Council”.

3. This item also seeks approval to enter into a banking relationship with ANZ as approved hedging relationships already exist with Westpac and BNZ.

Officers’ recommendation

4. Officers recommend that Council considers and approves the issuance of security stock to new stockholder ANZ under the Debenture Trust Deed for the purposes of setting up a facility to transact interest rate hedging.

Executive Summary

5. HBRC has a Debenture Trust Deed, which is a deed entered into between a local authority and a trustee under which the local authority grants a security interest in its rates and rates revenue to the trustee to hold on behalf of holders of "stock" issued under the Debenture Trust Deed.

6. The local authority can then issue "stock" to creditors which has the benefit of the security granted to the trustee. Council currently grants security (being a charge over its rates and rates revenue) to financiers by issuing security certificates under its Debenture. The security is recorded on the register kept by the Council.

7. The proposed issuance of security stock allows ANZ to set up a credit facility, or dealing line, to enable financial instruments such as interest rate swaps to be entered into by Council for the purpose of managing interest rate risk.

8. Council is required to approve new bank relationships under para 14 of the Treasury Policy and approval of new issuance of variable security stock to a new stockholder under the Debenture Trust Deed.

Background / Discussion

9. As highlighted to the Council at the Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting on 6 December, HBRC remains challenged in complying with Counterparty risk measures given the significant volume of financial transactions incurred since the cyclone, with an expected further spend profile in the coming LTP.

10. Diversification of banking partnerships is important and can assist with financial resilience and flexibility for the future of Council’s operations. In addition, Council benefit from the ability to leverage these relationships for the best possible advice and information across various banks and sectors.

11. Council currently has existing banking relationships with BNZ, our main transactional bank, and Westpac directly and an indirect relationship with ANZ via cash management facilities held with Jarden.

12. ANZ’s involvement provides an additional layer of assurance as they bring their expertise and experience in interest rate hedging transactions.

Significance and Engagement Policy assessment

13. The significance of approvals sought are determined to be low including the overall default risk of HBRC defaulting on any obligation. The impacts of the proposal are expected to have a favourable financial impact for Council.

14. While the proposal is adding a security stockholder to our existing Debenture Trust Deed, there are no changes proposed to the interest rate risk management policy, this proposal enables us to better carry out our management of the interest rate management.

Climate Change considerations

15. In the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle, Council has committed to building greater financial resilience to regional exposure and vulnerability to climate-related events. The approvals sought are aligned with these Council objectives.

Financial and resource implications

16. Council delegates management of interest rate risk to Chief Executive and Group Manager Corporate Services within delegated authority daily limits of $15m and $10m respectively.

17. The approvals sought represent the first step in lifting the long-term performance of the Group’s Managed Funds portfolio.

18. The financial outcomes will be more accurately quantifiable at the conclusion of the Investment Manager selection process. But it is expected that the improvement in Managed Funds net returns could be in the order of 1.0% per annum over time as a result of changes in Strategic Asset Allocation.

19. Default risk, that HBRC defaults on any repayments, is considered extremely low.

Decision-making process

20. 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:

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

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

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

20.4. The persons affected by this decision are all ratepayers.

20.5. Given the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and also the persons likely to be affected by, or have an interest in the decisions made, Council can exercise its discretion and make a decision without consulting directly with the community or others having an interest in the decision.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

1. Receives and considers the Issuance of Security Stock under Debenture Trust Deed staff report.

3. Adopts the Issuance of Security Stock under Debenture Trust Deed as proposed.

Authored by:

Jess Bennett

Senior Manager Finance Recovery

Tracey O'Shaughnessy

Treasury & Investments Accountant

Approved by:

Susie Young

Group Manager Corporate Services

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

13 December 2023

Subject: Affixing of Common Seal

Reason for Report

1. The Common Seal of the Council has been affixed to the following documents and signed by the Chair or Deputy Chair and Chief Executive or a Group Manager.

Seal No.

Date

1.1

Leasehold Land Sales

1.1.1 Lot 243

DP 11258

CT B3/577

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.2 Lot 53

DP 11604

CT C2/563

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.3 Lot 216

DP 6598

CT C2/336

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.4 Lot 3

DP 13099

CT E3/139

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

4576

4577

4578

4579

28 November 2023

1.2

Staff Warrants

1.2.1 N. Hannan

(Delegations under Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Land Drainage Act 1908; Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-92) and Local Government Act 2002 (s.177))

4580

4 December 2023

2. The Common Seal is used twice during a Leasehold Land Sale, once on the Sale and Purchase Agreement and once on the Land Transfer document. More often than not, there is a delay between the second issue (Land Transfer document) of the Common Seal per property. This delay could result in the second issue of the Seal not appearing until the following month.

3. As a result of sales, the current numbers of Leasehold properties owned by Council are:

3.1 No cross lease properties were freeholded, with 62 remaining on Council’s books

3.2 No single leasehold properties were freeholded, with 77 remaining on Council’s books

3.3 The Agreement for Sale and Purchase have been for properties that have subdivided, moving from cross lease to a single lease.

Decision-making process

4. Council is required to make every decision in accordance with the provisions of Sections 77, 78, 80, 81 and 82 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within these sections of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

4.1 Sections 97 and 88 of the Act do not apply.

4.2 Council can exercise its discretion under Section 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Act and make a decision on this issue without conferring directly with the community or others due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

4.3 That the decision to apply the Common Seal reflects previous policy or other decisions of Council which (where applicable) will have been subject to the Act’s required decision making process.

Recommendations

That Hawke’s Bay Regional Council:

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

2. Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

Authored by:

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

Vanessa Fauth

Finance Manager

Approved by:

Nic Peet

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

13 December 2023

Subject: Land Categorisation update

Reason for report

1. This item provides an update of the land categorisation process and decisions to date, and outlines the remaining land categorisation decisions to be progressed.

Executive Summary

2. On 1 May 2023, the Government released its initial risk categories and associated definitions to guide local authorities’ decision-making in respect of the risk categorisation of affected properties following Cyclone Gabrielle.

3. Staff developed a process and framework to assess risk to affected residential properties in the Hawke’s Bay region.

4. Nearly 3000 properties across Hawke’s Bay have been assessed through the land categorisation process and assigned a category which are defined as follows:

4.1. Category 1 - Repair to previous state is all that is required to mitigate risk to life from flooding

4.2. Category 2C* - Repairs to existing flood scheme assets are effective in mitigating future flood risk from design events

4.3. Category 2C – Additional community level interventions are effective in mitigating future flood risk from design events

4.4. Category 2P - Property level interventions are needed to mitigate future flood risk, including in tandem with community level interventions

4.5. Category 2A - Significant further assessment required before category determined

4.6. Category 3 - Future flood risk cannot be sufficiently mitigated.

5. At the date of writing, Council has confirmed the Category 3 status of 326 properties and these property owners are now progressing through the Voluntary Buy-Out Programme with their respective local authority. This is being managed by a newly-established Voluntary Buy-out Office (VBO) led by Hastings District Council.

6. There are five areas that remain in Category 2C – Omāhu, Pohutakawa Drive / Whirinaki, Pākōwhai, Waiohiki and Havelock North. Additionally, there are the two remaining areas in Category 2A – Porangahau and Wairoa – which are intended to move to Category 2C if viable solutions can be identified.

Background of Land Categorisation process and framework

7. On 1 May 2023, the Government released its initial risk categories and associated definitions to guide local authorities’ decision-making in respect of the risk categorisation of affected properties.

8. These categories and definitions did not have a specific statutory basis and, therefore, Council commenced work to develop a categorisation approach that satisfied the principles the Government had articulated. The Government was clear that categorisation of properties (and the articulation of the technical metrics that are used to determine whether risk is “intolerable”) was the responsibility of local government.

9. Staff developed a process and framework to assess risk to affected residential properties in the Hawke’s Bay region, which were primarily impacted by flooding during the Cyclone Gabrielle event. This focused on impacts at a community scale rather than impacts to discrete / individual residential properties.

10. The over-arching consideration when determining categorisation has been whether there is an intolerable risk to life from flooding. This is a technical question that has been considered by technical experts alone. Where the future risk to residential properties from flooding is intolerably high and where that risk cannot be sufficiently mitigated, those properties were identified as Category 3.

11. Developing the methodology in a principled and equitable manner, while limiting Council’s financial and legal exposure has been complex. This was compounded by the need to move at pace to not only meet the timeframes set by Government, including those relating to negotiations for funding contributions, but also to limit as much as possible the negative social impacts on communities brought on by flood damage and the uncertainty of the land categorisation framework.

12. Attached is the Land Categorisation Process and Framework which is a public document that outlines how Council applied the Government’s Future of Severely Affected Land Risk Categorisation Framework. This document provides further detail on the risk assessment process.

13. This information has also been shared publicly on the Hawke’s Bay Land Categorisation website - Land Categorisation Hawke's Bay | Hastings District Council (hastingsdc.govt.nz).

14. This website includes other relevant information including the various iterations of maps for impacted communities.

15. Nearly 3000 properties across Hawke’s Bay have been assessed through the land categorisation process with the breakdown between categories as follows:

How land categorisation has progressed in Hawke’s Bay

Provisional mapping

16. On 1 June, affected landowners in Hawke’s Bay were notified by email of the provisional land categorisation for impacted communities. There were 18 provisional hazard maps produced which were intended to provide a rough guide of the land categorisation status of impacted communities. A further and more considered process of refinement followed the provisional mapping exercise.

17. The provisional maps were prepared using the following information:

17.1. Approximate flood extents derived from air photos taken on or around 16 February 2023 (post Cyclone Gabrielle) by Skycan

17.2. Rapid building assessment data for Hastings District Council, Wairoa District Council, Napier City Council, and Central Hawke’s Bay District Council

17.3. Contour information derived from LiDAR data collection November 2020

17.4. Photographs of flood extents and flood damage and information supplied during public meetings and discussions with residents

17.5. Information from insurance providers.

18. Council commissioned Pattle Delamore Partners to independently review and assure the provisional mapping process. Site visits to all Category 3 areas were completed in order to validate the provisional mapping.

19. The Cyclone Gabrielle Recovery Taskforce Secretariat engaged Tonkin & Taylor Ltd to provide a high-level assurance review of the process followed by Council and Pattle Delamore Partners. Tonkin & Taylor considered that the preliminary risk categorisation process used was technically valid and appropriate given the constraints of the available information and the need for timely decision making and community engagement.

Category 2C*

20. An additional Category 2C* was defined by Council, following the release of the Government risk categories.

21. For those communities that were in Category 2C*, future flood risk was capable of being sufficiently mitigated because of existing flood infrastructure in the area that could be repaired and restored by HBRC Rapid Repair teams. Once the asset was rebuilt back to the original standard prior to Cyclone Gabrielle of 1% AEP, the impacted community was released to Category 1.

22. This work enabled Council to move a number of communities to Category 1 at pace to avoid the prolonged uncertainty of remaining in Category 2, which became the initial focus of staff following the provisional mapping exercise. It was acknowledged early on by Council that there are significant social implications for prolonged periods in Category 2. Examples include: living in temporary accommodation, withholding of new building consents, builders declining work due to builders’ insurance concerns, insurance companies with-holding payments, financial pressures associated with mortgage repayments and people highly stressed that any financial help they had with short term accommodation was fixed at 6 or 12 months.

23. The Category 2C* related work entailed the repair of 5.6 kilometres of stopbank breaches and approximately 20 kilometres of weakened stopbanks. All breaches in the Heretaunga Plains Flood Control Scheme were repaired in under 4 months, at which point the focus shifted to repairing weakened stopbanks.

24. Current outstanding stopbank repairs are Ebberts, Ohiti Rd (scour) and Stablefords. These repairs are expected to be completed by the end of April 2024. However, these three sites do not impact on land categorisation.

Category 2P

25. Category 2P was the most complex to navigate as potential solutions were focussed at an individual property level, there was no clear funding pathway for individual property owners, and the building consent process that flowed from a Category 2P determination was unclear.

26. An additional complexity for Category 2P is the possibility of a notice identifying that the land is subject to a natural hazard remaining on the property’s Record of Title, pursuant to sections 72-74 of the Building Act 2004, even after the completion of the Category 2P works. This was not palatable for many property owners and raised issues around insurability.

27. As much as possible, it was the preference of Council to move property owners out of Category 2P into other categories where there was greater certainty around funding availability and future processes. Three impacted communities were re-categorised from Category 2P to Categories 1, 2A and/or 3.

28. For the one property remaining in Category 2P in Rissington, the property owner is currently working through the building consent process and Council is exploring options for a funding contribution if the works are to proceed.

Requests for reassessment and refinement of category boundaries

29. Following the initial provisional mapping exercise, property owners had the opportunity to request reassessment of their land categorisation. All requests for reassessment were considered by a technical expert and responded to by staff. There were around 330 requests for reassessment over 3 months.

30. Reassessment involved the following steps and considerations:

30.1. Review the desktop assessment to determine if there were any errors, or other justification for reconsidering the categorisation.

30.2. Decide whether further information is required for an additional technical review.

30.3. Consult with additional experts where further detailed assessment is required.

30.4. Arrange a site visit where required.

30.5. Factors that may be considered at the point of reassessment were:

30.5.1. Topographical features

30.5.2. Observed level of damage

30.5.3. Property boundaries, and

30.5.4. How accessible safe egress is for potentially impacted residents.

31. In addition to addressing requests for reassessment, the technical experts refined their risk analysis of impacted areas which resulted in boundary adjustments in all areas. For example, there were many minor boundary adjustments in the Esk Valley following site visits, aerial view assessments, and analysis of the silt line and contours of the land.

32. One of the biggest changes was the inclusion of Aropaoanui which was omitted from the initial provisional mapping exercise. This impacted community was assigned a Category 3 status.

Confirming Category 3 boundaries

33. Following completion of the reassessment and refinement process, staff focussed on confirming the Category 3 boundaries across the region in order to provide property owners with certainty and to enable them to move through to the territorial authority-led Voluntary Buy-Out Programme.

34. Throughout August and September, Council told affected property owners of its intent to close the land categorisation process for provisional Category 3 areas and public meetings were held for each provisional Category 3 community. All information and feedback submitted as part of the community engagement process was considered and the technical experts provided the Chief Executive with a final recommendation on the risk to life of affected property owners.

35. On 3 October 2023, Council wrote to Category 3 property owners to confirm that there was an intolerable risk to life from future flooding events and mitigations were not available to sufficiently reduce this risk at their property. Property owners were informed that it was considered unsafe for them to have a residential dwelling in areas that were designated Category 3.

36. Council was able to confirm the Category 3 status of 297 properties and these property owners are now progressing through the Voluntary Buy-Out Programme with their respective local authority. This is being managed by a newly-established Voluntary Buy-out Office (VBO) led by Hastings District Council.

37. Council will only consider further changes to confirmed land categorisations in the event that new compelling information was presented that was not previously available to technical experts.

38. There were approximately 40 queries and/or requests for reassessment after confirmation of the Category 3 areas. A large majority of queries related to points of clarification that were dealt with easily and only a handful of queries required a more substantive response. There were five requests for reassessment that did result in a change to the property owners Category 3 boundary during this stage of the process.

Category 2A

39. There were six areas that were classified as Category 2A. These areas have required significant further assessment before land categorisation can be determined.

40. The process for further assessment has involved the appointment of independent experts to conduct a review of potential community and/or property level interventions that can mitigate risk. Council and the relevant territorial authority have engaged with communities on potential solutions.

41. Based on the outcome of the further assessments, Council determined whether recategorisation to Category 2C or 2P, with a view to moving to Category 1 was appropriate. If not, then Category 3 would be applied as an intolerable risk to life cannot be mitigated.

42. Currently, Tangoio Beach is the only area where a viable solution has not been identified. This community has recently been advised of the confirmed Category 3 status.

43. The independent experts are still working on identifying engineering solutions for Porangahau and Wairoa. These two impacted communities are the last with a Category 2A status. Staff are currently focussed on these two impacted communities to find viable engineering solutions ideally before Christmas, so that property owners can have certainty of their future land categorisation.

44. The process to move communities out of Category 2A has been arduous with the scale of the assessments and the project planning and design being unprecedented in Hawke’s Bay. This has been coupled by resourcing challenges, although teams have been in place since May and working at pace to identify solutions. HBRC is, within a matter of months, designing several large and difficult flood scheme projects that would normally take years. All projects are being progressed as fast as possible.

Category 2C

45. There are five areas that remain in Category 2C; Omāhu, Pohutakawa Drive / Whirinaki, Pākōwhai, Waiohiki and Havelock North. Additionally, there are the two remaining areas in Category 2A, as noted above, which are intended to move to Category 2C if viable solutions can be identified.

46. These Category 2C properties will be released to Category 1 when the following conditions are met:

46.1. A sound concept that has a consenting pathway, and

46.2. A legal interest in favour of HBRC in the relevant land, and

46.3. Available funding confirmed.

47. Council accepted the Government’s offer of $203.5 million towards flood mitigation and approved an additional $44.15 million of debt to fund its cost-share portion. The cost-share agreement with the Crown was signed by all five Hawke’s Bay councils in October following the initial acceptance subject to consultation in August.

48. The Asset Management Engineer Pods are working through the solution investigation phase with key partners. Each area is at different stages in the process due to their individual technical complexities, but this work continues to progress at pace.

49. In order to successfully deliver this infrastructure programme of works, Council is moving to a Programme Management Office approach to infrastructure delivery supported by the capital funding arrangement with Government. Implementing a Programme Management Office approach will create a single integrated delivery entity to provide guidance, support, tracking, reporting services and structure to better enable successful delivery of a myriad of projects simultaneously. This will see the current delivery team scale up from 9 staff to around 30 staff and will include support functions in the programme office including communications, iwi engagement, legal, procurement, PMO reporting, financial, consenting, digital solutions and health and safety.

Confirming Category 1 boundaries

50. In order to close out the land categorisation process, the final step will be to confirm the Category 1 areas and in particular the boundary of these areas. Currently, the entire region has a Category 1 layer over it which might imply that the entire region has been subject to a risk assessment, which is not the case.

51. Staff will refine the boundaries to the impacted communities that were assessed. It is likely that the Category 1 boundaries will closely follow the silt line left by flooding. Outside of these boundaries, there will be no land categorisation applied.

52. It is critical to note that being in Category 1 does not mean there is no risk to life, or that there was no impact from Cyclone Gabrielle. For the purpose of this process, Category 1 has been applied to properties where there is no intolerable risk to life.

Timeline of land categorisation decisions

Date of Decision	Impacted Area	Decision
1 June 2023	All impacted areas	Provisional maps released
26 June 2023	Brookfields / Awatoto	Re-categorisation from Category 2C* to Category 1
26 June 2023	Omāhu	Re-categorisation from Category 2C* to Category 1
4 July 2023	Twyford – Ruapere Sites 1 & 2	Re-categorisation from Category 2C* to Category 1
4 July 2023	Korokipo Road	Re-categorisation from Category 2C* to Category 1
4 July 2023	Moteo, Swamp Road	Re-categorisation from Category 2C* to Category 1
6 July 2023	Ōmarunui	Re-categorisation from Category 2C* to Category 1
6 July 2023	Waipawa	Re-categorisation from Category 2C* to Category 1
7 July 2023	Te Aute, Papanui	Re-categorisation from Category 2C* to Category 1
7 July 2023	Wairoa	Re-categorisation from Category 2P to Category 2A
26 July 3023	Pākōwhai (Franklin Rd)	Re-categorisation from Category 2C* to Category 1
2 August 2023	Hawke’s Bay	HBRC accepted the Government’s offer of $203.5 million towards flood mitigation and approved an additional $44.15 million of debt to fund its cost-share portion.
4 August 2023	Pākōwhai	Re-categorisation from Category 2A to Category 2C and 3
16 August 2023	Dartmoor Road	Re-categorisation from Category 2C* to Category 1 and Category 2A to Category 3
30 August 2023	Puketapu	Re-categorisation from Category 2C* to Category 1
30 August 2023	Tamumu Bridge	De-categorisation of Category 2P area
30 August 2023	Waipawa	De-categorisation of Category 2P area
30 August 2023	Omāhu	Re-categorisation from Category 2P to Category 1, 2A and 3
30 August 2023	Waiohiki (Springfield Rd)	Re-categorisation from Category 2P to Category 3 and Category 1
19 Sept 2023	Mangaone, Rissington	Re-categorisation from Category 2P and 3 to Category 1, 2P and 3
2 October 2023	All Category 3 areas	Confirmed Category 3 areas in: 1. Arapaoanui-Arapawanui 2. Dartmoor 3. Esk 4. Mangaone Rissington 5. Omāhu 6. Pākōwhai 7. Tangoio, Te Ngarue, Pākuratahi 8. Waiohiki - Springfield Rd
31 October 2023	Tangoio Beach	Re-categorisation from Category 2A to 3
6 Nov 2023	Omāhu	Re-categorisation from Category 2A to Category 2C
13 Nov 2023	Esk – Pohutakawa Drive / Whirinaki	Re-categorisation from Category 2A to Category 2C
5 Dec 2023	Tangoio Beach	Confirmed Category 3 for Tangoio Beach

Remaining land categorisation decisions

Remaining Impacted Areas	Current Status	Intended Decision
Porangahau	Category 2A	Move to Category 2C and 2P to 1
Wairoa	Category 2A	Move to Category 2C to 1
Mangaone, Rissington	Category 2P	Move to Category 1
Tangoio Beach	Category 3	Confirm Category 3
Omāhu	Category 2C	Move to Category 1
Esk – Pohutakawa Drive / Whirinaki	Category 2C	Move to Category 1
Pākōwhai	Category 2C	Move to Category 1
Waiohiki	Category 2C	Move to Category 1
Havelock North	Category 2C	Move to Category 1
All Category 1 areas	Category 1	Confirm Category 1 boundaries

Next steps

53. There are five areas that remain in Category 2C – Omāhu, Pohutakawa Drive / Whirinaki, Pākōwhai, Waiohiki and Havelock North. Additionally, there are the two remaining areas in Category 2A, Porangahau and Wairoa, which are intended to move to Category 2C if viable solutions can be identified.

Decision-making process

54. 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 Land Categorisation update staff report.

Authored by:

Jessica Easton

Legal Counsel

Matthew McGrath

Legal Counsel

Chris Dolley

Group Manager Asset Management

Approved by:

Nic Peet

Chief Executive