Agenda of Regional Council Meeting

	Agenda Item	Action	Responsible	Status Comment
1	Work Plan Looking forward through February	Update on when Komar Report is expected to be released and status of Strategy development	M Adye	Draft strategy scoping report completed and agreed with NCC and HDC staff. Staff are awaiting priced proposal from consultant for strategy development, and for completion of report by Paul Komar. Both expected towards end of March or early April when full report will be put to Council.
2	Minor Items not on the Agenda	Query why HBRC doesn’t use prisoner labour	M Adye	Verbal report provided at the 12 February Environment & Services Committee meeting
3	Minor Items not on the Agenda	Fruitfly infestation in Whangarei - if the infestation is more widespread all HB agencies are actively preparing their response	M Adye	Verbal report provided at the 12 February Environment & Services Committee meeting

	Agenda Item	Action	Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
4	Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme Investment - Proposed Evaluation Process	Expressions of Interest for independent review/assessment of the RWSS business case	E Lambert	29Jan 2014	Presentations made and providers selected by Council. Work to commence as soon as final Terms of Engagement signed.

	Agenda Item	Action	Responsible	Due Date	Status Comment
5	Annual Plan Progress Report	Briefing on progress of the development of a regional and lower North Island spatial planning framework	H Codlin	Feb 14	Work programme scheduled to commence in 2014-15 financial year – with project timelines, deliverables and service level indicators to be presented as part of the Annual Plan development process

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 February 2014

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 Chairman or Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive or a Group Manager.

Seal No.

Date

1.1

Leasehold Land Sales

1.1.1 Lot 1

DP 11041

CT P1/826

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.2 Lot 11

DP 13111

CT E3/553

- Transfer

1.1.3 Lot 12

DP 4488

CT 55/87

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.4 Lot 1

DP 11779

CT C3/427

- Transfer

1.1.5 Lot 129

DP 13096

CT E3/527

- Transfer

1.1.6 Lot 41

DP 7201

CT B4/942

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.7 Lot 318

DP 11329

CT B3/130

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

1.1.8 Lot 71

DP 12780

CT E1/744

- Agreement for Sale and Purchase

- Transfer

3750

3751

3752

3754

3755

3756

3759

3760

3761

27 January 2014

28 January 2014

30 January 2014

4 February 2014

11 February 2014

18 February 2014

1.2

Subvention Agreement

Port of Napier Limited and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

3753

28 January 2014

1.3

Staff Warrants

1.2.1 A Hicks

(Delegations under Resource Management Act 1991; Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Land Drainage Act 1908 and Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91) and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174)

1.2.2 A Hicks

(Delegations under Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941; Resource Management Act 1991; Land Drainage Act 1908; Civil Defence Act 1983 (s.60-64); Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (s.86-91)and Local Government Act 2002 (s.174))

3757

12 February 2014

1.4

Memorandum of Agreement

Lot 1 DP6839

CT 105/84

(75m² for soil conservation and river control purposes for the cycle path)

3758

12 February 2014

Decision Making Process

2. 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:

2.1 Sections 97 and 88 of the Act do not apply;

2.2 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;

2.3 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 Council:

1. Agrees that the decisions to be made are not significant under the criteria contained in Council’s adopted policy on significance and that Council can exercise its discretion under Sections 79(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Local Government Act 2002 and make decisions on this issue without conferring directly with the community and persons likely to be affected by or to have an interest in the decision due to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided.

2. Confirms the action to affix the Common Seal.

Diane Wisely

Executive Assistant

Liz Lambert

General Manager (Operations)

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 February 2014

SUBJECT: 2013-16 Triennial Agreement

Reason for Report

1. Under section 15 of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act) all local authorities are required to enter into a triennial agreement not later than 1 March after each triennial general election. The specific requirements of the Act are specified below:

“15. Triennial agreements—

(1) Not later than 1 March after each triennial general election of members, all local authorities within each region must enter into an agreement containing protocols for communication and co-ordination among them during the period until the next triennial general election of members.

(2) Each agreement must include a statement of the process for consultation on proposals for new regional council activities.

(3) After the date specified in subsection (1), but before the next triennial general election of members, all local authorities within each region may meet and agree to amendments to the protocols.

(4) An agreement remains in force until replaced by another agreement.”

2. The Regional Council has prepared the proposed Triennial Agreement (attached) which is now being presented to all Councils who are parties to the agreement. This exercise to be completed by the required date of 1 March. The agreement is presented to Council for specific consideration.

Background

3. The first Triennial Agreement was entered into in December 2003 and this document forms the basis of the new Triennial Agreement. There are several key changes to the content, compared to previous agreements.

4. The content changes to this Agreement, from that of the 2010-13 Agreement, are as follows:

4.1. An update to reflect the establishment of the Hawke’s Bay Local Authority Shared Services Co in 2012;

4.2. Changes to wording in sections 2,3,4 and 6 to reflect changes in local government legislation since 2010 around the purpose of local government, and consequential changes including the removal of references to the four wellbeings and community outcomes monitoring.

5. The draft Agreement is attached as an appendix to this paper and has been circulated to all other local authorities in the region who are likewise now considering the document. The Agreement attached is relatively self-explanatory and contains all the material which it is required to include. It is proposed as part of the Council approval process to obtain authority for each Council’s respective Chief Executive Officer to approve changes to the Agreement that may be proposed by other local authorities but which do not materially affect the content of the document. If more substantial changes are required then the agreement will be resubmitted to Council for approval.

Decision Making Process

6. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

6.1. Sections 97 and 98 of the Act do not apply as these relate to decisions that significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

6.2. Sections 83 and 84 covering special consultative procedure do not apply.

6.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of the Council’s policy on significance.

6.4. Council does not have an option but to adopt the Triennial Agreement as this is a statutory requirement contained within the Local Government Act.

6.5. Section 80 of the Act covering decisions that are inconsistent with an existing policy or plan does not apply.

6.6. 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 having given due consideration to the nature and significance of the issue to be considered and decided, and by direction provided by statute on the contents of this agreement.

Recommendations

That Council :

2. Considers the Triennial Agreement that has been prepared in accordance with the requirements contained within the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act 1991 and after making amendments, if any, approves signing of the Agreement by the Chairman and Chief Executive on behalf of Council.

3. Grants the Chief Executive delegated authority to approve changes to the draft Triennial Agreement that may be proposed by other local authorities in the Hawke’s Bay Region which will not materially affect the contents of the Agreement, as approved by Council at this meeting.

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 View

Draft 2013-16 Hawke's Bay Triennial Agreement

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 February 2014

SUBJECT: Draft Annual Plan 2014-15 Update

Reason for Report

1. Following on from the Council workshop on 11 February 2014 it was requested that further work be undertaken to reduce the rate level as proposed at the workshop. This paper provides this detail and recommends a reduced rating level.

Comment

2. A significant number of topics were covered at the 11 February workshop and discussions continued for approximately seven hours covering these issues and their impact on the Annual Plan and how best they be included and presented in that Plan.

3. There was only one major area yet to be finalised and that was the rate level to be included in the Draft Annual Plan 2014-15 document. This paper requests that Council resolves a level of rate increase so the Annual Plan document can be compiled and presented to Council for adoption in draft form at the Council meeting on 26 March 2014.

4. The budgets presented to Council at the workshop were based on the third year of the LTP 2012-22 and were also subject to scrutiny by the Executive in order to ensure that operational efficiency had been achieved. To this end groups of activities net expenditure reduced by $174,000 from the level set in the LTP for the 2014-15 year. These reductions were achieved in the areas of overheads and consultancy.

5. The table below sets out the rating increases adopted for the first three years of the LTP 2012-22 and compares this to the actual increases in the annual plans for 2012-13 and 2013-14 and shows the increase required by Council in order to deliver on the total rate increases for the first three years of the Plan.

Table 1

6. Table 1 above recommended a 5.7% increase in rates for the 2014-15 year as a base case.

7. Two additional funding requests were presented at the workshop which would, if approved, have the effect of increasing the rates above the 5.7%.

Economic Development – Increased Funding

8. The detail of this request is shown in tables 2 and 3 below.

Table 2

Table 3

9. Staff have evaluated the additional funding request and have resolved that the $31k requested for a new activity for Maori Agribusiness could be funded from project 874 (targeted assistance) for Maori initiatives. This would have the effect of reducing the requested increase in the economic development targeted rate from $64k to $33k.

Increase Requested in Support for Tourism

10. For the last three financial years (2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14) Council has paid the sum of $850k per year to Hawke’s Bay Tourism (HBT) under an approved funding agreement. HBT has requested Council to renew this funding agreement for a further three years at $850k per annum plus an additional $160k in 2014-15 and an additional $125k in 2015-16 and 2016-17. The increase of $160k in the 2014-15 year was requested to cover support for the Cricket World Cup ($35k), China tourism development ($50k) and Australian campaign activity ($75k).

11. This paper proposes that Council renew the funding support for HBT for the 2014-15 year at $850k and any consideration to increasing this level be left to be renegotiated as part of the LTP discussion. Accordingly, all LTP strategic planning and requests for additional funding will be discussed at the same time. This would also allow a commitment for the support of HBT for a three year term in line with LTP planning timeframes.

Additional Land Management Officer to Assist with Plan Change 6

12. The Draft Annual Plan figures as presented at the workshop included only one additional FTE and this was for an additional Land Management Officer to assist in the introductory phases of the implementation of Plan Change 6 in Central Hawke’s Bay. Because of the importance of this work and the need to make a start on the implementation during the 2014-15 year (along with two current Land Management Officers who will also be assisting with this task), this paper does not recommend that the budgets be reduced by the cost of this FTE ($60,000). If this additional FTE was deleted from the draft budget figures, then the increase in rates from the current rating levels would be 5.46%.

13. Additional resources will need to be devoted to the implementation of Plan Change 6 in Central Hawke’s Bay and this work, and the resources needed, will be the subject of LTP discussions.

Summary

14. The proposed rates for the Annual Plan 2014-15 would be $15,666,000 which is $868k (5.86%) increase on the actual rates currently set for the 2013-14 year and an increase of $103k (0.66%) on the rate level forecast in the LTP for the 2014-15 year.

Decision Making Process

15. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

15.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

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

15.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

15.4. The persons affected by this decision will be ratepayers of all rateable properties in the region.

15.5. Options that have been considered include either accepting the recommended increase in rating levels for the 2014-15 year or to revise this level by increasing or decreasing the proposed level.

15.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

15.7. 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 Council:

2. Agrees that the Draft Annual Plan 2014-15 to be presented to Council on 26 March 2014 will reflect an increase in rates of 5.86% from Council’s current rating levels.

3. Agrees that Hawke’s Bay Tourism funding be extended for a further year to 30 June 2015 at the current assistance level of $850k per annum, noting that the timing of any revisions in funding levels and an extension of the term of assistance will be considered in line with the 2015-25 Long Term Plan planning cycle.

Paul Drury

Group Manager

Corporate Services

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

HBRC Submission to the Local Government Commission on the Draft Proposal for HB Local Government Reorganisation

Attachment 1

Submission

To: Local Government Commission

Subject: Draft Proposal for Local Government Reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay

Overview

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council (HBRC) welcomes the opportunity to submit on the Local Government Commission’s draft proposal for local government reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay.

HBRC requests the opportunity to be heard in support of its submission by the Commission.

HBRC seeks to assist the Local Government Commission through its submission by noting a number of matters which we consider should be given greater consideration by the Commission in its decision making on whether or not to proceed to a final proposal and, if so, what that final proposal should look like.

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is the only local authority within the area affected by the draft proposal that represents all the communities within that area. In our view this allows the regional council to provide a greater level of independence in respect of the communities of interest.

HBRC submitted an Alternative Proposal for local government reorganisation when this was called for by the Local Government Commission in March 2013. While the structure in our alternative proposal by HBRC has not been accepted as a reasonably practicable option our submission expresses concern that the principles outlined in that alternative proposal, which are a fundamental of good local governance, have not been addressed in any sense in the draft proposal.

The basic contention of this submission is to provide solutions for the Commission to consider in addressing these fundamentals of good local governance.

Rationale

The underlying premise of HBRC’s submission is that form should follow function when it comes to determining local government structure. In HBRC’s view the draft proposal has not given adequate consideration of existing local government functions but rather focuses on what local government might potentially do in a unitary authority (noting that this is set out in the draft proposal without supporting evidence).

A provincial unitary council on the scale of Hawke’s Bay has not been contemplated before. The current proposals for Northland are also of a smaller scale. Two thirds of the new unitary Council’s population would be based in Napier and Hastings. Six of the nine elected councillors will represent the Hastings and Napier wards. Their interests and political mandates are likely to be influenced more by urban than rural concerns, and more by matters of a territorial authority nature than those of a regional council. With only ten politicians governing the Hawke’s Bay Council, the distance between them and the community, particularly in the rural area will increase. The specialist political representation and knowledge of rural and natural resources is likely to be lost to a significant degree.

Natural resource knowledge and management, providing an integrated approach and specialist expertise to natural resource management is a core function regional councils. This is particularly essential to Hawke’s Bay given the region’s significant natural resource base including large areas of land suitable for intensive agriculture or horticulture and given that the region’s economy is driven by primary production.

The region needs to retain a core focus on ensuring the investment funds deliver intergenerational work in the complex natural resource areas and the investment capital is used for critical regional scale infrastructure which unlocks sustainable economic opportunities. A dedicated focus on assisting the primary sector to build resilience, and if possible to expand, also needs to be retained in any future structure.

While it is accepted that any regional council regulatory functions would need to continue irrespective of structure the arguably more important contribution of the regional council is in undertaking scientific investigations of natural resources, particularly freshwater, and in adding value through the use of investment capital for critical regional scale infrastructure which unlocks sustainable economic opportunities.

Draft Proposal

Key elements of the draft proposal are:

· Amalgamation of current councils into one unitary authority.

· Inclusion of small area of Rangitikei district currently within Hawke’s Bay Regional Council into new council

· Exclusion of two areas of Taupo district currently within Hawke’s Bay Regional Council from new council HOWEVER the new Hawke’s Bay council would be responsible for regional council functions in these areas (transferred from Bay of Plenty Regional Council)

· Nine councillors would be elected from five wards. The Mayor would be elected at large

· The council would have five community boards with 37 elected members.

· A standing council committee comprising representatives of local iwi and elected members of council would hear the views of Māori

· Existing council debt and financial arrangements would be ring-fenced for at least six years to the communities which incurred them or benefit from them. Current regional assets would be transferred to Hawke’s Bay Council.

Commentary

Regional Council functions

The regional council is particularly focussed on the issues of environmental management, rural land use and primary production, and how this is linked to the performance of the regional economy. This is built upon a focus on freshwater management and soil/land management. The 2011 National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS) means that regional councils are and will be busy with a number of significant issues in its implementation, including:

· Reviewing key planning documents in order to "give effect to" the NPS

· Developing freshwater objectives and quality and quantity limits

· Grappling with issues of "efficient allocation", "efficient use" and water permit transfer criteria

· Reviewing discharge permit consent conditions

· Increasing the involvement of iwi and hapū and improving the integrated management of fresh water.

This is leading to considerable policy and plan development by regional councils over the next few years on what are very contentious issues. The work required to underpin the setting of limits is complex, quite sophisticated and is going to take the best part of a decade to work through.

Of concern to HBRC in the establishment of a unitary authority is the focus on territorial authority activities. While this is understandable, and is not a criticism, it does lead to questions around the ongoing financial sustainability of the programmes required to be undertaken over long term periods to validate the policies required to be developed, not just in the area of freshwater management but in the management of other public resources such as air, land and the coast.

In recognition of the responsibilities placed on regional councils to manage the “commons” without the ability to recover costs directly, regional councils were transferred ownership of port companies in the 1989 New Zealand-wide local government reorganisation. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council relies on the dividend paid to it annually by the Port of Napier Ltd to allow it to undertake scientific investigations, environmental monitoring and land management activities that would otherwise have to be funded directly by the ratepayer. HBRC’s concern is that the funding of such activities is vulnerable to the more immediate needs often associated with urban based council activities.

The tone of regional council decisions is different to that of territorial authorities. Of necessity regional councils generally takes a long-term strategic look at its decisions as these involve long-term outcomes and significant, ongoing financial resourcing. In that regard HBRC believes that the formation of an elected rural and natural resources special purpose board with advisory and/or decision making functions should also be completed by the Commission, so that specialist governance input for regional council functions will be adequately provided to a future Hawke’s Bay Council.

We request that the dividend paid by the Port of Napier Ltd be “ring-fenced” for regional council environmental management functions in the final proposal. It is the Regional Council’s understanding that such “ring-fencing” can be undertaken in perpetuity and is not limited by a six-year maximum term.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that any final proposal for local government re-organisation in Hawke’s Bay that excludes the retention of a stand-alone regional council includes provision for the ring-fencing of the dividend paid to the local authority by the Port of Napier Ltd for expenditure on the following functions:

· Environmental air quality control

· Natural resource environmental monitoring

· Biosecurity

· Harbourmaster functions/navigation and safety

· Land management

· Regional resource management planning

· Coastal planning and management

· Freshwater science investigations, including water allocation and water quality monitoring

· Stormwater and wastewater regulations

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that any final proposal for local government re-organisation in Hawke’s Bay that excludes the retention of a stand-alone regional council includes provision for the establishment of an elected Natural Resources Board to provide specialist governance input for the regional council functions of the Hawke’s Bay Council.

A stand-alone regional council

The Draft Proposal rejects the concept of one Hawke’s Bay District Council and one Hawke’s Bay Regional Council on the basis that it would be seen as creating confusion in the public mind as to who had political mandate to speak for Hawke’s Bay. No other considerations that are required to be assessed by the Local Government Commission are presented in the draft proposal in relation to this option e.g. whether or not this option facilitates efficiencies and cost savings; productivity improvements and simplified planning processes.

Amendments to the Local Government Act in December 2012 mandate that any proposed reorganisation must ‘promote good local government’ by facilitating:

· Efficiencies and cost savings;

· Productivity improvements, both within the affected local authorities and for the businesses and households that interact with those local authorities; and

· Simplified planning processes within and across the district or region through, for example, the integration of statutory plans or a reduction in the number of plans to be prepared or approved by the local authority.

In addition any proposed authority must –

· Have the resources necessary to enable it to carry out effectively its responsibilities, duties and powers;

· Contain within its district or region 1 or more communities of interest, but only if they are distinct communities of interest;

· Enable catchment-based flooding and water management issues to be dealt with effectively by the unitary authority.

The legislation does not specify that the issue of political mandate to speak for an area is a criterion for the promotion of good local government. The draft proposal fails to address the matters that the Local Government Act 2002 specifies must be facilitated by any proposed reorganisation and therefore fails to give the submitting public of Hawke’s Bay an opportunity to explore the rationale for the rejection of a stand alone regional council.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that any final proposal for local government re-organisation in Hawke’s Bay that excludes the retention of a stand-alone regional council includes a detailed analysis of the rationale for the Local Government Commission rejecting a stand- alone council in accordance with all the required provisions of the Local Government Act 2002.

Community Boards

The effectiveness of the “local voice” in the draft proposal relies to a large extent on the existence of the community boards. The draft proposal notes that it may be possible that the passing of local government legislation amendments will allow for the provision of local boards in Hawke’s Bay.

A unitary authority with community boards does not guarantee the effective representation of Hawke’s Bay’s communities or the delivery of local services based on communities’ needs. The existence of community boards is subject to a six-yearly representation review at which point the Hawke’s Bay Council could form a view to abolish or reconstitute them. In addition the powers and duties of a community board are largely determined by the governing body (the Hawke’s Bay Council). Such a hierarchical model does not guarantee the sustained, strong, localised governance needed in an area like Hawke’s Bay, nor does it enhance the relationship of the ratepayer to the authority that sets its rates.

Should the required legislation be passed to allow for local boards the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council requests that the Local Government Commission, as provided for in Clause 21 (1) C) of Schedule 3 of the Local Government Act 2002, identify another preferred option as the basis of a new draft proposal. We do not consider that the issuing of a modified draft proposal would be satisfactorily transparent. The public of Hawke’s Bay need to be able to know what a local board is and what it can do on their behalf, how it and its activities are funded, and the extent of its decision making powers.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that a revised draft proposal be issued to enable public submissions to be lodged in the event that the Local Government Commission determines that it wishes to see the establishment of local boards for Hawke’s Bay, should the requisite legislation be passed.

Māori representation

Underpinning the people, the economy and the environment is the development of an appropriate co-governance model. A resilient and sustainable planning framework is coming out of the co-governance Regional Planning Committee of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, which maintains equal numbers of iwi (represented by mandated Treaty settlement groups) and elected regional representatives at the table, debating and making recommendations for future natural resource management. Through reforms to the Resource Management Act the Government is seeking to ensure that Māori interests and values are considered earlier in resource management planning processes with solutions developed up-front.

The draft proposal provides for the establishment of a standing committee to hear the views of Māori. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee, comprising equal representation of elected representatives and mandated treaty groups, will be in place legislatively by the time the Local Government Commission issues its final proposal. HBRC considers it essential that the final proposal, or a new draft proposal, includes clarification of the relationship between the Regional Planning Committee roles and responsibilities and that of the standing committee.

The Regional Planning Committee model, being based upon Treaty settlement groups, ensures that all appropriate iwi are represented at the decision-making table through their mandate. The primary purpose of the Regional Planning Committee Bill will be to improve tāngata whenua involvement in the development and review of documents prepared in accordance with the Resource Management Act 1991 for the Hawke’s Bay region. It is essential that the Local Government Commission ensures should the final proposal be for one unitary authority, that cognisance is given of the implications of meeting requirements for district and regional policy development for the Regional Planning Committee. The unitary authority will have a significant commitment to make to tangata whenua in this regard.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that any final proposal for local government re-organisation in Hawke’s Bay that excludes the retention of a stand-alone regional council includes clarification around the roles and responsibilities of the Māori Standing Committee and the legislated Regional Planning Committee. This is important as while the Māori Standing Committee will act in an advisory role only the Regional Planning Committee has a co-governance role. The expectations arising from these two separate roles need to be made clearer to the public in any final proposal.

Taupo

The draft proposal creates an unacceptable level of uncertainty around the exclusion of two areas of Taupo district currently within the Hawke’s Bay Regional council area from the new unitary authority. These two areas are in the headwaters of the Mohaka River, Hawke’s Bay’s longest river. There is a small usually resident population within these two areas (2011 est: 90) and the land is predominantly high country indigenous bush and scrub, with the balance in forestry and farming. The total area is around 78,500 ha.

It is clear that in the draft proposal the Commission considers that community of interest has primacy over catchment. It proposes that these areas remain with Taupo district, and be included in the Bay of Plenty Regional Council area, but that the regional council responsibilities in those two areas then be transferred to the Hawke’s Bay Council under the final reorganisation scheme. No direction is given in the draft proposal about how such activities would be funded and by whom, whose Resource Management Act provisions would apply and how any differences could be resolved.

We note that:

· The LGC noted that for the purposes of effective catchment management, two small areas of Taupō district and one small area of Rangitikei district are presently included in Hawke’s Bay region. Following discussion with Hawkes Bay Regional Council (HBRC) officers, the LGC concluded that it would be important for these areas to remain under the authority of any new Hawke’s Bay unitary authority, at least for catchment and related purposes (Clause 175).

· The LGC noted that the two small areas of Taupō district were in Hawke’s Bay region, in order that the Mohaka River catchments were contained within the boundaries of one regional council, i.e. HBRC. The LGC considered that it was important that these catchments were not divided, given the national significance of the river which has a conservation order on it, and which has been the subject of a Waitangi Tribunal recommendation relating to interests of Ngāti Pahauwera (Clause 177).

· On the other hand, the LGC received correspondence from Taupō District Council opposing the separation of these two areas from Taupō district, on community of interest grounds (Clause 178). The LGC agreed there were strong community of interest arguments for these areas to be kept within the boundaries of Taupō district and also that this was likely to be supported by Ngāti Tūwharetoa (Clause 179).

· In order to meet the conflicting arguments, the LGC concluded that if one unitary authority were to be established for Hawke’s Bay, the two areas of Taupō district should be excluded from the new district but that responsibility for the regional council functions presently being undertaken by HBRC, should continue to be the responsibility of the new Hawke’s Bay unitary authority. This would involve including these areas in the Bay of Plenty region and transferring the regional council statutory obligations for these areas to the new Council under Section 24(1)(e) of the LGA (Clause 180).

Specifically, we are unclear how the transfer of statutory obligations from BOPRC to the Hawke’s Bay Council would work in practice and seek clarification on this matter, including but not limited to:

· Funding - how the delivery of functions and services would be funded, including how rating would work practically. Our understanding is that rating functions cannot be transferred to another authority, so BOPRC would of necessity be the rating authority for these areas.

· Governance arrangements – how representation of residents and ratepayers for regional council functions would operate, i.e. which Council(s) residents would vote for, in terms of regional council functions, and whether this would be the same Council that is delivering regional council functions and services in their area.

· Resource Management Act – how roles and responsibilities under this Act would operate without creating inconsistencies and uncertainty. For example, if the two areas in question were to be covered by the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement (which is currently based on entire catchments) and Bay of Plenty regional plans, while resource consenting and regulatory roles were transferred to the Hawke’s Bay Council.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that any final proposal for local government re-organisation in Hawke’s Bay clarifies the transfer of statutory obligations from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to the Hawke’s Bay Council. It is extremely difficult for HBRC to determine a position of support for this aspect of the proposal until these points of clarification have been provided.

Further analysis

In our view the draft proposal issued by the Local Government Commission in November 2013 is inadequate in terms of detail. Before the Local Government Commission issues a final proposal, or a new draft proposal, it must do much more analysis of the current functions and responsibilities of the councils, the number of FTEs associated with performing those functions and the costs of transition and integration.

Robust data and evidence must be provided in support of the preferred option so that the public can understand what the true costs and benefits of the options are.

Much has been made of the costs and benefits of the creation of the Auckland super-city, with almost as many different accounts put forward as there are commentators. It would be of huge assistance to the people of Hawke’s Bay to have an assessment of the costs and benefits of the preferred option provided by the Commission to assist them make up their minds.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council requests that if the Commission determines that local boards are to be included in the local government structure in Hawke’s Bay, and include these in a re-issued draft proposal, it is critical that the cost and resources associated with local board plans and agreements and the administration and support services associated with them are quantified.

Transition arrangements

There is very little detail about the transition phase in the draft proposal and particularly about the resourcing requirements that may be required from councils. Given that HBRC operates in as lean and efficient way as possible this is a potential concern impacting on council functions during transition and the maintenance of current levels of service to Hawke’s Bay.

The draft proposal proposes that the Hawke’s Bay Council’s administrative headquarters would initially be located in Napier City. However if the transition board decides there is a more appropriate location it would make a recommendation to the new council on the future location of the headquarters. In our view the transition board should not be concerning itself with a recommendation to the new council on the future location of the headquarters. The transition period is brief enough as it is and it seems inefficient and not cost effective to establish the body in one location and potentially move it quickly to another. The new Council should have a period of bedding in and aligning a range of existing organisations into one body before considering the location of its headquarters.

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council seeks that any final proposal for local government re-organisation in Hawke’s Bay specifies the location of the council headquarters and service centres for a period of five years and removes responsibility for making a recommendation on this from the Transition Board. This time period is in line with the Commission’s proposal that Council services would continue to be provided for at least five years at service centres in existing council locations in Wairoa, Napier, Hastings, Waipawa and Waipukurau. This would allow for a comprehensive review of all physical locations of Council services at that time.

Conclusion

Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is of the view that the draft proposal for local government reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay does not provide sufficient certainty for the ongoing resourcing and prioritisation of natural resource management functions in Hawke’s Bay. This is critical for the ongoing economic development prospects of the region. It would be helpful for the Local Government Commission to give further consideration to a number of matters raised in our submission and we are willing to provide assistance in this if asked.

Given the concerns we have raised we are unable to support the draft proposal for Local Government Reorganisation in Hawke’s Bay in its present form.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 February 2014

SUBJECT: Amended Terms of Reference for the Regional Planning Committee

Reason for Report

1. The Council has previously established a Committee for Regional Planning, with membership comprising equal representation of Councillors, and non-Councillors from the Treaty claimant groups.

2. The role of the Committee is to develop statutory planning documents, namely regional policy statements, and regional plans, and changes and variations to these, required under the Resource Management Act 1991.

3. In December 2011 Council adopted Terms of Reference for the Regional Planning Committee following agreement on these between Council and tangata whenua representatives. The Committee held its inaugural meeting in April 2012.

4. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the tangata whenua parties have been working with the Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS) and the Parliamentary Counsel Office (PCO) on drafting a Regional Planning Committee Bill to establish the Committee permanently. This was a requirement of the Ngati Pahauwera Settlement Act. The Minister for Treaty Negotiations has advised that it is his intention to have the Bill placed before the Legislative Committee on 20 March 2014.

5. The Bill provides the legislative basis for the Committee – its purpose, membership and key functions. All parties felt it was important that the detail around the operation of the Committee is not prescribed through legislation but instead is set out in Terms of Reference that can be adapted with the agreement of both Council and the tangata whenua parties at any time.

6. The Crown wishes to see an agreed Terms of Reference accompany the draft Bill to the Legislative Committee as part of an overall package. Council staff and tangata whenua parties have agreed they will do their best to obtain the approval of their respective governors for the Terms of Reference ahead of the deadline.

7. Consequently the amended Terms of Reference are attached for Council’s approval.

Discussion

8. The interim Terms of Reference were previously aligned as closely as possible with the likely Terms of Reference for the permanent Committee as established through legislation so few revisions are sought.

9. The proposed revisions are:

9.1. Section a) “Introduction” – some contextual changes to recognise the introduction of the Bill.

9.2. Section c) “Procedure” – The Crown sought a limit to the length of time the Regional Planning Committee takes to re-submit a recommendation to Council. Both HBRC staff and tangata whenua parties believe that this is impractical because there may be information needing to be sought or further consultation needing to be undertaken. We have agreed that a statement requiring that the Committee takes all steps reasonably necessary to enable the Council to meet statutory timeframes is sufficient.

9.3. Section d) “Functions” – the heading for this section “Specific responsibilities” is changed to “Functions” to align with the wording in the legislation.

9.4. Section m) “Costs of administering and operating Committee” – This is a new section of the terms of reference and formalises current arrangements as well as providing long term certainty for the tangata whenua representatives.

Decision Making Process

10. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained in Part 6 Sub Part 1 of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded the following:

10.1. The decision does not significantly alter the service provision or affect a strategic asset.

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

10.3. The decision does not fall within the definition of Council’s policy on significance.

10.4. The persons affected by this decision are members of the community that benefit from the activities of Council.

10.5. Options that have been considered are to consider or not consider revised Terms of Reference.

10.6. The decision is not inconsistent with an existing policy or plan.

10.7. 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 Council:

2. Resolves to approve the attached revised Terms of Reference for the Regional Planning Committee for consideration alongside the Regional Planning Committee Bill.

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

1 View

Proposed Terms of Reference Regional Planning Committee

Financial Reports for the Seven Months to 31 January 2014

Attachment 1

SECTION A

Management Comments on Variances from Pro-Rata Budgets
Note Ref	Activity / Revenue	Variation from Pro-Rata $’000 (F) or (U)	Project	Management Comment (major variances)
1	Strategic Planning	$89 (U)	191	Regional Coastal Plan - $51,000 (F) relates to work yet to commence on scoping possible plan changes necessary to give effect to the NZ Coastal Policy Statement (Awaiting Minister's approval of coastal marine area provisions in the RCEP).
			192	Strategy & Planning - $62,000 (U) is associated with the Tukituki Plan Change process where expert witness budgets were exceeded.
			196	Statutory Advice - $36,000 (U) is associated with preparation of submissions on the Proposed Hastings District Plan, the Change 10 to the Napier District Plan, preparing the Annual Report for the Regional Planning Committee and various other comments prepared for RMA reforms.
			151	Hazardous Waste/Substance Management - $48,000 (U) relates to a peak of chemical collection early in the year than anticipated.
			182	Unspecified Research & Grants - $54,000 (U) is associated with unplanned expenditure for Tukituki Plan Change related modelling. This will be offset by reductions in other projects within this section.

2	Regional Resources	$1,010 (F)	304	East Coast Drylands - $39,000 (U) relates to the timing of partner income being received from MPI and Beef & Lamb. This will be received in coming months and the project will balance.
			339	Regional Land Research & Investigations - $234,000 (F) due to significant spending to come later this year with model development for Mohaka and TANK.
			340	Land Monitoring - $46,000 (F) due to significant spending to come later this year with model development for Mohaka and TANK.
			380	Sustainable Land Management - $326,000 (F) due to Regional Land Care Grants (RLS), land users typically carry out the majority of work from November to May each year. All RLS funds are currently committed to 30 June 2015.
			310	Regional Groundwater Research - $223,000 (F) due to model development for TANK and Mohaka has yet to show for this project. This expenditure is occurring now and is expected to be fully spent
			312	Regional Surface Water Ecology Research - $53,000 (F) due to peak water quality sampling runs are occurring now, significant costs associated with this project yet to come through. Expected to be fully spent.
			325	Ground Water Quality - $50,000 (F) due to peak water quality sampling runs are occurring now, significant costs associated with this project yet to come through. Expected to be fully spent.
			330	Ground Water Quantity - $46,000 (F) due to peak water quality sampling runs are occurring now, significant costs associated with this project yet to come through. Expected to be fully spent.
			331	Coastal Water Quality - $68,000 (U) due to increased staff time for the policy investigations for TANK by Coastal Scientists.
			369	Gravel Management - $45,000 (F) due the project is fully funded by section 36 charges associated with gravel extraction. Gravel extraction volumes are lower than budgeted and accordingly expenditure has been curtailed to reduce the likelihood of a deficit in the project at year end.
			370	River Cross Sections - $45,000 (F) due to the bulk of river cross section surveys are undertaken over the summer months when rivers are low and the surveying contractor has access to students. Those costs should come in over the next few months.

3	Regulation	$322 (U)		Compliance programmes are processing on budget but are only invoiced out to the public at the end of the year. Once these have been invoiced the income will offset the expenses to give actual net funding required.

4	Biosecurity	$203 (F)	660	Regional Animal Pest Control - $177,000 (F) relates to stage one of the Cape to City approved by Council in November 2013 will be completed and paid out between 1st March and 30 June 2014.

5	Governance & Community Engagement	$125 (F)	874	Targeted Assistance - $67,000 (F) due to contributions to Massey University, HB LASS and various Iwi projects have been progressing but have yet to be invoiced.
			840	Contingency Funding Support - The contingency budget of $50,000 has not been utilised.

6	HBRIC Dividends	$101 (F)		HBRIC underpaid dividends last year and these have been included this year.

7	Rail / Road Hub Investment	$219 (U)		The Rail / Road Hub Investment is no longer going ahead and so the income on the investment has not materialised.

8	Restricted Leasehold Land Rental	$297 (F)		The expense reimbursement from ACC for maintaining the portfolio was higher than budgeted and we have received this in January for the whole year.

9	Investment Property Rental	$510 (F)		The Wellington Leasehold property was not sold as assumed in the budget.

10	Interest	$399 (U)		Interest rates are slightly lower than budgeted and the Wellington Leasehold property was not sold to add to these investment funds.

Heatsmart Progress Report

1. The demand for Clean Heat and Insulation support reduces over the summer months and will increase again in the last quarter of the year.

2. Reduced demand for loan is offset by increased demand for grants.

3. The programme continues to perform above the targets required to meet national emission standards by 2020.

VOLUMES

	2013/14 Annual Plan	7 Months to 31 January 2014
Loan Type	Budget Volumes	Pro-Rata Budget Volumes	Actual Volumes	Actual over Budget Target 58%
Insulation Loans	735	429	366	50%
Clean Heat Loans	600	350	302	50%
Clean Heat Grants	660	385	744	113%
TOTAL	1,995	1,164	1,412

EXPENDITURE (EXCL GST)

	2013/14 Annual Plan	7 Months to 31 January 2014
Loan Type	Budget $’000	Pro-Rata Budget $’000	Actual $’000	Actual over Budget Target 58%
Insulation Loans	1,558	909	808	52%
Clean Heat Loans	1,771	1,033	935	53%
Clean Heat Grants	402	235	464	116%
TOTAL	3,731	2,177	2,207

Management Comments on Scheme Balances
Note Ref	Activity	Variation from Annual Plan $’000 (F) or (U)	Management Comment (major variances)
1	Makara	114 (F)	The Makara dam is under construction and cost for this will be hitting the scheme in the coming months.
2	HPFCS Rivers Scheme	234 (F)	The majority of costs are yet to come in over the second half of the financial year.
3	HPFCS Drainage Schemes	290 (F)	The majority of costs are yet to come in over the second half of the financial year.
4	Healthy Homes Initiatives - Operating	136 (U)	More grants for Clean Heat subsidies have been given out than budgeted. Borrowing has increased to cover these variances.
4	Healthy Homes Initiatives - Capital	2,226 (F)	$3,500,000 was borrowed in advance to fund the project which will be used up as the year progresses.
5	Tangoio Soil Conversation Reserve	357 (U)	Harvesting has just started and is assumed to take three months. $400,000 was budgeted to be received from the harvesting which will increase the scheme balance.
6	Water Initiatives	198 (U)	Water monitoring costs are invoiced to the public at the end of the financial year which will increase the scheme balance to budgeted levels.
7	Emergency Management	124 (F)	It was determined by management during the year that the Emergency Management projects should be ring fenced in a scheme balance to ensure that any under spend due to the timing of major exercises was not returned to the general funding pool but retained to use for Emergency Management as it was rated for.

HBRIC Ltd and RWSS February 2014 Update

Attachment 1

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD (HBRIC Ltd)

Report to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council

26 February 2014

Summary

This report covers developments over the December 2013 – January 2014 period for the following:

· HBRIC Ltd

· RWSS Execution

HBRIC Ltd

Key operational activities undertaken by the HBRIC Ltd Board in December 2013 – January 2014 included:

· On 18 December 2013 Council resolved to appoint Danelle Dinsdale and David Faulkner as two new independent directors to replace the three councillor directors and managing director on the HBRIC Ltd Transition Board through to 30 June 2014.

· Approval of the draft Statement of Intent (SOI) for the year ending 30 June 2015. The draft SOI will be presented to Council as part of this agenda.

· Completion of first formal biennial performance evaluation of the HBRIC Ltd Board as set out in the SOI. The HBRIC Ltd Chairman will provide an update on this when presenting the SOI as part of this agenda

RWSS Execution

Critical Deadlines

It is important to note that the following deadlines are critical from this point onwards.

Concession Deed and RWS Project Agreement

HBRIC Ltd on behalf of HBRC is coordinating the development of the Concession Deed which will entrench key elements of the structure including concession period, transfer, and obligations of the Ruataniwha Water Limited Partner. The RW Project Agreement will enable HBRIC Ltd to ensure that the RWLP can access consents and land to operate the scheme. HBRIC Ltd is targeting the Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting of 12 March 2014 for a presentation to HBRC.

Investment Recommendation to HBRC

Ÿ HBRIC Ltd will now seek to table the business case and with appropriate recommendations to HBRC by late March 2014. Condition precedent issues will include a workable consent, sufficient contracted water uptake and all investors agreeing to go unconditional. Subject to these conditions we are seeking to have financial close by June 30.

EPA and consenting

Ÿ The Board of Inquiry hearing concluded on 21 January 2014. Subsequent to the completion of the hearing the Board of Inquiry requested a one month time extension for the final decision which HBRIC Ltd supporting this request. The draft consent conditions are now expected by no later than mid April 2014 with final consent conditions no later than 28 May 2014.

Design & Construction

Ÿ The contractual fixed time fixed price offer was received on 14 February 2014. The final contract and terms is expected to be finalised by end March 2014. The negotiation phase involving scheme optimisation, capital cost and contractual terms and conditions has continued with the Preferred Consortia OHL - Hawkins since late November 2013. This process has involved consideration of 35 specific optimisation opportunities identified within the original consortia submission. These opportunities have been refined down to 18 items that have formed part of the resubmitted price and project offer. We are pleased with progress so far. The offer delivers a significantly more comprehensive scheme than was the case at feasibility design level including the ability to distribute 104 Million m3 of water and water under pressure to the farm connection point. The pressurisation design is for a 35 metre head sufficient to drive spray irrigators, thereby very significantly reducing on farm infrastructure and energy costs and other barriers to entry. The proposed capex is within 5% of the feasibility estimate.

Ÿ Note the additional availability of water comes from refinements within the reservoir, reduction of losses through the distribution network and more refined assessment of reliability based on addition of the three years of most recent hydrological data and a more accurate assessment of reliability on farm.

Ÿ Landowner discussion and negotiations are also ongoing in the dam and reservoir area, primary canal and pipe headrace and Zone M easements, with an expectation of obtaining conditional contracts on these properties by financial close in June 2014.

Water uptake

Ÿ 109 EOIs signed – 43.6 million m3 of water.

Ÿ The Preliminary Investment Memorandum has been released this week. This PIM is intended to inform potential investors in Hawke’s Bay of the broad parameters of the offer and seek non binding expressions of interest between now and the end of April. This phase is not seeking to raise capital; rather it is seeking to gauge the extent and degree of potential interest. Thereafter a full Information Memorandum (IM) will be released. Note the IM is being offered to Eligible Investors who meet the definition and tests of experienced investors.

Ÿ Water contract and refined price by late February 2014. We can confirm that we have a water price with a take or pay component within the feasibility range of 22-25 cents. In addition there will be a maximum 3 cent variable energy charge associated with scheme pressurisation costs, noting that water consumption will determine the actual charge in a given year. The discounts signalled in the EOI phase for early take up still apply. These water access charges are being indexed to CPI to maintain the value of invested funds over time. A reset mechanism in the index will apply to ensure neither the investors nor the customers are materially advantaged or disadvantaged over time. Note all financial modelling at this point assumes a take or pay price of 23 cents.

Ÿ A water contract will also be released alongside the price information and PIM which is anticipated to be no later than the first week of March.

Financing

Ÿ Formation of the investor consortium – next Investor Representative Committee meeting is scheduled for early March 2014.

Ÿ CII terms sheet to be developed in February 2014. We expect this to be complete with the major terms agreed, noting of course that the final deal remains subject to shareholder approval.

Ÿ Work continues to ensure all investors align and we note that elements of the investor framework will continue to evolve over the next two months –such as the public offer, possible investment by other parties etc.

Communications

· The Communications Activity Plan for HBRIC Ltd is outlined below.

COMMUNICATION ACTIVITY PLAN – February 2014 Update

TO WHOM	WHAT	OWNER	Action Date
Media & Public Stakeholders Farmers General public Business Media & Public	February 2014 § Media Release - South Island Business Leader Tour § Media Release - BoI Delay § Media Release - Independent Assessor § Media Release – SI Tour review § Stakeholder letter re public consultation forums § Quarterly Farmer Update § RWSS Newsletter Update § Leaders Briefing Additional Media Releases § Media Release – Crown funding § Media Release – Concession Deed § Media Release – D&C announcement § Media Release – Confirm water price after D&C announcement	Helen	3 Feb - Done 4 Feb - Done 5 Feb – Done Mid-Feb Mid-Feb Feb late Feb TBC TBC

	Public Consultation phase - Comms Activities § Communications Campaign - specific elements and exact timing to be confirmed § Library display – dispatched to all eight HB libraries § Community forums/ Roadshow § RWSS Newsletter on Public consultation § Media Release – Signals consultation § Media Release – Business Case to HBRC § Media Release – SoP to HBRC § Media Release – Public consultation opens § Media Release – Public consultation half way § Media Release – Public Consultation ends, advises next steps § Public hearings § Media Release – HBRC final decision	Helen	TBC

Financials

Table 1 sets out the January 2014 Financial Report for HBRIC Ltd.

The report sets out the actual costs incurred for both the month and the year to date against the full year budget reforecast to 30 June 2014 (operating) and full project budget to April 2014 (capital).

A summary of the key elements outlined in the report for the month of January is as follows:

Operating Income and Expenditure

· There was a total of $31,962 of operating expenditure in the month of January with a breakdown of these costs set out as follows:

- $14,500 for Board Fees for the Chairman and four non-executive Directors.

- $9,376 for Management Services provided by HBRC staff.

- $3,500 for Consultancy Fees which includes taxation advice as well as fees for the independent RWS Board Committee member for the month of January.

- $5,182 for other miscellaneous expenditure.

RWSS Phase 2 Costs ($192,287)

· The $42,879 of HBRC internal staff time for January covers a number of work streams including:

- Ongoing landowner liaison meetings with dam, reservoir and Zone M landowners, including headrace canal and pipe landowners within the distribution network.

- Attendance and presentation at the Board of Inquiry hearing.

- Ongoing negotiations with Investor Representative Committee including meeting with Crown Irrigation Company.

- Ongoing negotiations with OHL - Hawkins in relation to capital expenditure review.

- Ongoing project management.

· The $104,362 of Other Consultants costs covers off a number of pieces of work including:

- Various landowner meetings and negotiations for January.

- Continued further evaluation and negotiation by RWSS Technical Advisors with preferred D&C candidate (OHL-Hawkins) as part of refining overall bid cost, including weekly meetings.

- Water contract and sales advisory costs.

- Other miscellaneous expenditure including meeting and travel expenses.

Ÿ $45,046 for Commercial Legal & Tax Advisory services for January.

EPA Process Costs ($351,315)

· $18,232 of HBRC internal staff time for January covering project management for the Board of Inquiry hearing and witness evidence preparation.

· The $159,143 of costs for Project Team Consultants for January covers a number of work streams including:

- DOC land exchange consultations.

- Preparation for and attendances at Board of Inquiry hearing through to January 2014.

- Ongoing project management.

· $23,940 of costs for witnesses covering off the finalisation of rebuttal evidence, and preparation for and attendances at Board of Inquiry hearing commencing on 18 November 2013 through to January 2014.

· The $150,000 of Environmental Protection Authority Expenses relates to an accrual for January costs.

Project Reforecast

· A process is currently being undertaken to identify additional budget requirements for the RWSS through to financial close. The key areas where there additional budget will be required are:

- HBRC internal staff time largely associated with the following two work streams

- D&C evaluation and negotiation costs

- EPA hearing and decision making expenses noting that the Board of Inquiry effectively determines that expense

· Once completed this reforecast will be assessed by the Investor Representative Committee, including the Ministry for Primary Industries, with finalisation and approval of this reforecast scheduled for late February/early March.

· It is anticipated that following this assessment and subsequent discussions with the Investor Representative Committee, HBRIC Ltd will require additional funding from Council over and above the funds approved on 31 October 2012. On this day Council transferred the responsibilities for progressing the RWSS to the conclusion of the resource consent phase to HBRIC Ltd and approved total funding of $5.3m for this phase based on estimated costs.

· HBRIC Ltd will provide a full report which sets out details of the additional funding requirements once the reforecast has been assessed and discussed through the Investor Representative Committee.

· It is important to note that all development costs incurred by HBRIC Ltd prior to financial close will form part of its total investment quantum in the RWSS.

HAWKE’S BAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Wednesday 26 February 2014

SUBJECT: Monthly Work Plan Looking Forward Through March 2014

Reason for Report

1. The table below is provided for Councillors’ information, to provide them with an indication of issues and activities coming up over the next month in each area of Council.

Group	Area of Activity	Activity Status Update
Asset Management & Biosecurity	Land Management Rivers and Streams Upper Makara Scheme Open Spaces Forestry Coastal	- Focus on Papanui catchment as a pilot for implementation of Plan Change 6. - Application to Hill Country Erosion fund for continuation of hill country erosion work in Wairoa district and initial work in Tukituki catchment successful. Project implementation to be undertaken early January. - Repairs to flood damage from 29 November 2013 storm event on the Upper Tukituki Scheme Rivers is largely complete. Public meeting to be held for the Ongaonga community 3 March. - Construction work to repair the Makara No 1 Dam underway. Expected completion date April 2014. - The development of individual management plans for Pekapeka, Tutira and Pakowhai Regional Parks initiated with objective of completing to draft stage for consultation by 30 June 2014. - A review of Council’s forestry portfolio is being undertaken and will be reported back to Council early in 2014. - A review of the Tangoio Soil Conservation Reserve Management Plan has been commenced. The review process will include consultation with a number of stakeholders. Once the consultation process has been completed it will be brought to Council for consideration and adoption. - Harvesting of Stands 2.01 and 2.02 in the Reserve underway. Harvesting is expected to take until May 2014. - Komar report to be completed. Draft strategy for coast between Clifton and Tangoio being developed. These will be brought to Council before 30 June 2014.
Corporate Services		- Draft Annual Plan document to be compiled over the next three weeks. - Draft Annual Plan for adoption at 26 March 2014 Council meeting.
External Relations/ CE’s office	Communications Strategic Alliances CE’s Office	- Writing and finalising of April edition of Our Place - Preparation for public engagement processes around Draft Annual Plan and RWSS Special Consultative Process - Finalising of draft Regional Planning Committee Bill for submission to legislative Committee on 20 March - In discussion with OTS, Mana Ahuriri and other parties on proposal for future management of Ahuriri Estuary - Finalising of Draft Annual Plan 2014/15 for consideration by Council on 26 March - Oversight of preparation for special consultative procedure for RWSS investment decision
Resource Management	Client Services Compliance	- Contract management process review for Resource Management Group - Preliminary scoping for data systems integration - Science charging process review - Heatsmart data migration to Sharepoint/Herbi - Develop with HBDHB a clean heat /insulation programme targeting low decile and rental properties to improve health status - A global consent trial is underway with Twyford Irrigators that implements an allocated water sharing model to enable growers to irrigate on a communal basis. They are sharing their consented water allocations on a rostered basis to help avoid overuse in time of impending water take bans, that may reduce water levels any cause early bans that might be avoidable.
Resource Management continued	Consents Science	- Ongoing consent processing - HDC Wastewater consent – further prehearing has been held. Consent to be finalised without need for hearing. - Tyreless Co Ltd (tyre pyrolysis plant) discharge to air consent application at Awatoto subject to submissions and to proceed to hearing (27 Feb). - NCC application for coastal protection structure at Whakarire on hold but likely to proceed to a hearing. - Poukawa group of consents on hold while monitoring is identified and a Catchment Management Strategy is considered which may avoid the need for hearing. - Science investigations for the Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri management zone continue - Technical Advisory Group formed for the proposed development of a coupled/linked surface-groundwater model with letters of invitation and contracts being processed - Conduct of fieldwork associated with Greater Heretaunga and Ahuriri management zone plan change continues – surface water quality, estuarine water quality and spring-fed streams. - The Hydrometric Network is currently being reviewed. The review includes the potential addition of any NIWA sites and the resulting resourcing required to operate and archive the data according to relevant performance standards - Workstreams associated with the Mohaka Plan Change implementation continue. - Workstreams associated with the Tukituki Plan Change implementation continue, with emphasis on phosphorus mobilisation. - Routine seasonal monitoring programmes continue, including recreational water quality monitoring, with progress on summer-focused ecological, groundwater and hydrological monitoring progressing well. - First draft of “Mohaka River catchment characterisation report” delivered. Assessing additional investigations for Taharua/Mohaka and requirements for groundwater flow model. - Collating available data for Lake Poukawa. Assessing additional investigations for modelling requirements.
Strategic Development	Resource Management Planning	- Environment Court likely to issue directions on next steps for dealing with appeals on Change 5. - Board of Inquiry hearing on ‘Tukituki Catchment Proposal’ (including Change 6) completed. Draft decision likely by 15 April 2014. - TANK Group’s First Report presented to the Regional Planning Committee meeting on 19 February and Maori Committee meeting on 25 February. - Taharua/Mohaka stakeholder discussions continuing in parallel to science investigations. Includes hui with iwi representatives. Update report presented to Regional Planning Committee meeting on 19 February. - Statutory advocacy project involving reviews of, and potential further submissions on: 1. Proposed Hastings District Plan and 2. Proposed Change 10 to Napier District Plan. - Further report to Corporate and Strategic Committee meeting on 12 March regarding further information on development of a policy for oil and gas exploration in HB.
Strategic Development	Transport	- The second consultation stage of the New Zealand Transport Agency Funding Assistant Rate (FAR) Review is being carried out and will be completed March 2014. - Following a TAG meeting on 18 February, a draft submission will be presented to the Regional Transport Committee on Friday, 7 March with a final submission to be lodged with NZTA by the closing date of 28 March 2014.
Civil Defence & Emergency Management	HB CDEM Group Draft Group Plan	- Submissions closed on 13 Dec 2013 with eight being received. These will be heard at the next Joint Committee Meeting in April 2014. The outcome of that meeting will be to resolve a final draft plan which will then be sent to the Minister of Civil Defence for her comments.

Decision Making Process

2. Council is required to make a decision in accordance with Part 6 Sub-Part 1, of the Local Government Act 2002 (the Act). Staff have assessed the requirements contained within this section of the Act in relation to this item and have concluded that as this report is for information only and no decision is required in terms of the Local Government Act’s provisions, the decision making procedures set out in the Act do not apply.

Recommendation

1. That Council receives the Monthly Work Plan Looking Forward Through March 2014 report.

Mike Adye

Group Manager

Asset Management

Helen Codlin

Group Manager

Strategic Development

Paul Drury

Group Manager

Corporate Services

Iain Maxwell

Group Manager

Resource Management

Ian Macdonald

Group Manager/Controller Hawke's Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management

Liz Lambert

Chief Executive

Attachment/s

There are no attachments for this report.

Request Status	Date Received	Response Due	Requested By	Request Summary
Completed	18/02/2014	18/03/2014	Jochen Schmidt	All climate station locations and parameters
Completed	17/02/2014	14/03/2014	Jing Yang	Rainfall for the Awanui sub catchment
Active	10/02/2014	10/03/2014	Bruce Graham (consultant for MfE)	The 2010 Air Emissions Inventory (AEI) and incident reports of outdoor burning for the purpose of compiling a dioxin update for MfE.
Completed	7/02/2014	7/03/2014	Mark Harris	Oct 2013 - Jan 2014 Rainfall at Doneraille Park
Completed	4/02/2014	5/02/2014	Karen Bothwell	January rainfall for 3 sites in CHB
Completed	3/02/2014	4/03/2014	Colin and Denise Davis	Waipoapoa rainfall 2013 and 2014 to date
Active	23/01/2014	20/02/2014	Glen Greer	RWSS/TTPC data supply to Lincoln University re Big N Project

GENERAL SUBJECT OF THE ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED	REASON FOR PASSING THIS RESOLUTION	GROUNDS UNDER SECTION 48(1) FOR THE PASSING OF THE RESOLUTION
Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Draft 2014-15 Statement of Intent	7(2)(i) 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 enable the local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).	The Council is specified, in the First Schedule to this Act, as a body to which the Act applies.