Agenda of Council Meeting - 29 August 2019

Council Meeting Agenda 29 August 2019

MINUTES OF Central Hawkes Bay District Council
Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, 28-32 Ruataniwha Street, Waipawa
ON Thursday, 20 June 2019 AT the conclusion of the public forum which commences at 9am

PRESENT: Mayor Alex Walker

Cr Ian Sharp (Deputy Mayor)

Cr Shelley Burne-Field

Cr Kelly Annand

Cr Tim Aitken

Cr Tim Chote

Cr Gerard Minehan

Cr Brent Muggeridge

Cr David Tennent

Dr Roger Maaka

IN ATTENDANCE:

Monique Davidson (Chief Executive)

Joshua Lloyd (Group Manager, Community Infrastructure and Development)

Bronda Smith (Group Manager, Corporate Support and Services)

Doug Tate (Group Manager, Customer and Community Partnerships)

Nicola Bousfield (People and Capability Manager)

Leigh Collecutt (Governance and Support Officer)

3 members of the public were in attendance at the commencement of the meeting.

1 Prayer

The meeting opened at 9.00 and Dr Maaka opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

RESOLVED:

Moved: Mayor Alex Walker

Seconded: Cr David Tennent

THAT a Leave of absence be granted to Cr Shelley Burne-Field from 1-29^th August

CARRIED

3 Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

None

4 Standing Orders

Resolved: 19.47

Moved: Cr Ian Sharp

Seconded: Cr Gerard Minehan

THAT the following standing orders are suspended for the duration of the meeting:

20.2 Time limits on speakers

20.5 Members may speak only once

20.6 Limits on number of speakers

And that Option C under section 21 General procedures for speaking and moving motions be used for the meeting.

Standing orders are recommended to be suspended to enable members to engage in discussion in a free and frank manner.

Carried

5 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolved: 19.49

Moved: Cr Kelly Annand

Seconded: Cr Gerard Minehan

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 23 May 2019 as circulated, be confirmed as true and correct.

Carried

Resolved: 19.50

Moved: Cr Kelly Annand

Seconded: Cr Brent Muggeridge

That the minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 30 May 2019 as circulated, be confirmed as true and correct

Carried

Cr Sharp sought an amendment to the meeting minutes of the 23^rd May around removing the word ‘not’ from his statement about the Council being exposed to legal action.

6 Reports from Committees

6.1 Minutes of the Hawkes Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee Meeting held on 11 April 2019

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the minutes from the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee Meeting held 11 April 2019.

Resolved: 19.51

Moved: Cr Tim Chote

Seconded: Cr Tim Aitken

That the minutes of the Hawke’s Bay Drinking Water Governance Joint Committee held on 11 April 2019 be received.

Carried

6.2 Minutes of the HB Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Commitee meeting held 3 December 2018 and the Group Annual Report 2017-2018

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the minutes of the Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee meeting held on the 3 December 2018.

Resolved: 19.52

Moved: Cr Shelley Burne-Field

Seconded: Cr Gerard Minehan

That the minutes of the Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee meeting held on the 3 December 2018 be received.

Carried

7 Report Section

7.1 Adoption of the Annual Plan 2019/20

PURPOSE

The matter for consideration by the Council is the adoption of the Annual Plan 2019-20.

Resolved: 19.53

Moved: Cr Ian Sharp

Seconded: Cr David Tennent

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

In regards to the Annual Plan 2019/20 Council resolves to

a) Adopt the Annual Plan 2019/20 in accordance with section 95 of the Local Government Act 2002.

b) Delegate responsibility to the Chief Executive to approve the final edits required to the Annual Plan in order to finalise the documents for printing and distribution.

Carried

Mayor Walker sought clarification about the definition of revaluation reserves.

It was confirmed that accounting policy requires the organisation to revalue assets regularly. The amount shown in the revaluation reserve is an accounting amount only and does not constitute cash in the organisation’s bank.

Cr Sharp spoke to the motion and provided his congratulations about the way the Annual Plan document was presented. He noted that the Council could be proud of the document despite some of the funding challenges faced.

Cr Tennent concurred with Cr Sharp and highlighted that the big challenges would start in the next year’s annual plan and following. He raised concern that this meant an 0.5% rates increase from the LTP last year. Cr Tennent highlighted that the Council was currently experiencing good will in the community which may be difficult to continue with ongoing affordability issues.

Cr Minehan highlighted the importance of major costs needing to come to elected members attention in a timely way to enable them to make considered decisions gv. Cr Minehan expressed that although the rates increase is higher than was initially planned for, he was comfortable overall with the increase of 4.59%.

Cr Aitken thanked staff for the work done on the plan. He outlined that although the rates increase was close to what was set out in the Long Term Plan, that rates rises are an ongoing concern in the community. Over time this had potential to create big affordability issues and raised the importance of Council giving thought to how rates are allocated overall.

Mayor Walker highlighted the big capital work programmes driving this increased investment and the importance of remaining committed to delivering on them in future. Mayor Walker raised the issue of the framework around water on a local, regional and national basis and suggested that the Council needed to work carefully with partners to see how it could get financial help regionally and nationally.

Mayor Walker also considered that a robust process had been followed to reach the rates increase level of 4.59% and that she was proud of the services being delivered. Although the increase was higher than planned for initially, the increase across the district is lower than most Hawke’s Bay counterparts.

Cr Sharp raised that it was important to focus on all the improvements being made rather than the cost.

7.2 Fees and Charges 2019/20

PURPOSE

The matter for consideration by the Council is the adoption of the Fees and Charges for 2018/19

Resolved: 19.54

Moved: Cr Brent Muggeridge

Seconded: Cr Tim Aitken

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That the Fees and Charges for the financial year dated 2019/20 as set out in Attachment A excluding Animal Control Fees be approved.

b) That Council give notice pursuant to Section 103 of the Local Government Act 2002 of its intention to prescribe the fees payable for the period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 in respect of certificates, authorities, approvals, consents, and services given or inspections made by the Council under the Local Government Act 2002, the Building Act 2004, the Building (Infringement Offences, Fees, and Forms) Regulations 2007, the Amusement Devices Regulations 1978, the Resource Management Act 1991, Health (Registration of Premises) Regulations 1966, Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fees) Regulations 2013, the Gambling Act 2003, the Burial and Cremation Act 1964, and the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council Bylaws as set out in the Fees and Charges Schedule 2019/20.

Carried

Cr Muggeridge spoke in support of the motion. He noted that Council had spent a lot of time debating the fees and charges and raised that democracy has played its part and that he was pleased that users would pay for services.

Cr Burne-Field noted her objection to the increase in cemetery fees.

Cr Minehan highlighted the importance that in future Council needed to consider the direct benefit to community and distribution of those benefits and the ability for people to pay.

Mayor Walker agreed that these are tough decisions to make and highlighted that the fees and charges were set on the basis of the Revenue and Financing Policy in terms of the cost splits which dictate charges. Mayor Walker agreed with Councillor Minehan that people’s ability to pay was an important consideration and highlighted the importance of the rating review.

Mayor Walker spoke about the need for developers to be responsible for their costs and highlighted that the public had been clear about this expectation.

7.3 Setting of Rates for 2019/20

PURPOSE

The matter for consideration by the Council is the setting of the rates for 2019/20.

Resolved: 19.55

Moved: Cr Kelly Annand

Seconded: Cr Ian Sharp

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) Pursuant to Section 23(1) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the Central Hawke's Bay District Council resolves to set the rates, due dates and penalties regime for the 2019/20 year.

1. General Rate

A general rate set under section 13 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for the purposes of providing all or some of the cost of:

· Community leadership, including administration, cost of democracy, community voluntary support grants

· All regulatory activities, including district planning, land use and subdivision consent costs, building control, public health, animal control, and compliance.

· Solid waste

· Parks and reserves, public toilets, theatres and halls, cemeteries, and miscellaneous property costs

For the 2019/20 year, this rate will be 0.10793 cents per dollar (including GST) based on the rateable capital value of all rateable land within the District.

2. Uniform Annual General Charge

A rate set under section 15 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 on each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit within the District. See definition below. This rate is for the purpose of providing:

· Economic and social development.

· A portion of the cost of solid waste

· Libraries and swimming facilities

For the 2019/20 year, this rate will be $278.26 (including GST).

Targeted Rates

3. District Land Transport Rate

A rate for the Council's land transport facilities set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. This rate is set for the purpose of funding the operation and maintenance of the land transport system.

For the 2019/20 year this rate will be 0.21106 cents per dollar (including GST) based on the land value of all rateable land in the district.

Separately Used or Inhabited Parts of a Rating Unit

Definition – for the purposes of the Uniform Annual General Charge and the targeted rates above, a separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit is defined as –

A separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit includes any portion inhabited or used by [the owner/a person other than the owner], and who has the right to use or inhabit that portion by virtue of a tenancy, lease, licence, or other agreement.

This definition includes separately used parts, whether or not actually occupied at any time, which are used by the owner for occupation on an occasional or long term basis by someone other than he owner.

Examples of separately used or inhabited parts of a rating unit include:

· For residential rating units, each self-contained household unit is considered a separately used or inhabited part. Each situation is assessed on its merits, but factors considered in determining whether an area is self-contained would include the provision of independent facilities such as cooking/kitchen or bathroom, and its own separate entrance.

· Residential properties, where a separate area is used for the purpose of operating a business, such as a medical or dental practice. The business area is considered a separately used or inhabited part.

These examples are not considered inclusive of all situations.

5. Water Supply Rates

A targeted rate set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for water supply operations of a fixed amount per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit. The purpose of this rate is to fund water supplies for Otane, Takapau, Waipukurau, Waipawa, Kairakau, Porangahau and Te Paerahi.

The purpose of this rate is to fund the maintenance, operation and capital upgrades of water supplies and treatment in those parts of the District where these systems are provided.

The rate is subject to differentials as follows:

(a) a charge of per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit connected in the Otane, Takapau, Waipukurau, Waipawa, Kairakau, Porangahau, and Te Paerahi Beach communities.

(b) a half charge per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit which is serviceable for the above locations.

For this rate:

· "Connected" means a rating unit to which water is supplied.

· "Serviceable" means a rating unit to which water is not being supplied, but the property it is situated within 100 metres of the water supply.

For the 2019/20 year these rates will be:

	Charge	Water Rate ( incl GST)
a	Connected	$721.67
b	Serviceable, not connected	$360.83

6. Metered Water Rate

A targeted rate under section 19 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 per cubic metre of water supplied, as measured by cubic metre, over 300 cubic metres per year. This is applied to water users deemed ‘Extraordinary’ where payment of the Water Supply rate above entitles extraordinary users to the first 300 cubic metres of water without additional charge.

The rate is subject to differentials as follows:

(a) a rate per cubic metre of water, for users consuming below 40,000 cubic metres

(b) A rate per cubic metre of water, for users above 40,000 cubic metres, and where the land use category in the valuation database is not ‘industrial’

(c) a rate of per cubic metre of water, for users consuming above 40,000 cubic metres, and where the land use category in the valuation database is ‘industrial’

For the 2019/20 year these rates will be:

	Volume of water (cubic metres)	Rate per cubic metre (incl GST)
a	Below 40,000	$2.52
b	Above 40,000, non- industrial	$2.52
c	Above 40,000, industrial	$1.91

7 Sewerage Rates

A targeted rate set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for the Council's sewage disposal function of fixed amounts in relation to all land in the district to which the Council's sewage disposal service is provided or available, as follows:

(a) a charge per rating unit connected.

(b) a charge per pan within the rating unit, after the first one.

The rate is subject to differentials as follows:

· "Connected" means the rating unit is connected to a public sewerage system.

· "Serviceable" means the rating unit is not connected to a public sewerage drain but is within 30 metres of such a drain.

· A rating unit used primarily as a residence for one household is treated as not having more than one pan.

· For commercial accommodation providers, each subsequent pan will be rated at 50% of the charge.

· For those Clubs who qualify for a rebate of their General Rates under Council’s Community Contribution and Club Rebate Remission Policy, and who are connected to the sewerage network, each subsequent pan will be rated at 50% of the Sewerage Charge.

The purpose of this rate is to fund the maintenance, operation and capital upgrades of sewerage collection, treatment and disposal systems in those parts of the District where these systems are provided.

For the 2019/20 year these rates will be:

	Charge	Sewerage Rate (incl GST)
a	First charge per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit connected	$933.32
b	Additional charge per pan after the first	$933.32
c	Serviceable, not connected, per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit	$466.66
d	Additional charge per pan after the first – commercial accommodation provider, qualifying club	$466.66

9. Stormwater Rates

A targeted rate set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for the purpose of funding operations and maintenance, plus improvements and loan charges on the stormwater drainage network as follows:

A uniform targeted rate on the capital value of all rateable land in the Waipukurau and Waipawa Stormwater Catchment Areas.

For the 2019/20 year this rate will be 0.08076 cents per dollar (including GST).

8. Kerbside Recycling Rate

A targeted rate set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for the Council’s collection of household recyclables for Waipukurau and Waipawa on each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit to which the Council provides the service.

For the 2019/20 year this rate will be $84.69 (including GST).

9. Refuse Collection Rate

A targeted rate set under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 for the collection of household and commercial refuse for Otane, Onga Onga, Takapau, Tikokino, Waipukurau, Waipawa, Porangahau, Te Paerahi, Blackhead Beach, Kairakau, Mangakuri, Aramoana and Pourerere Beach on each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit to which the Council provides the service.

For the 2019/20 year this rate will be $21.06 (including GST).

10. Te Aute Drainage Rate

Te Aute Drainage rates are set on all rateable area of rateable property within the designated area subject to a graduated scale for the purpose of funding the operations, loan charges and the repayment of loans for the Te Aute Drainage Scheme area.

The amount required and the classification is set by the Te Aute Drainage Committee.

Each hectare of land in each property is classified according to the susceptibility of that hectare to flooding as follows:

A (100 points), B (80 points), C (15 points), F (3 points), and G (0 points).

The total number of points is 73614. The total amount of funding required each year determines how much each of these points are worth. In this way, the total amount required is apportioned on a pro rata basis using the weightings on each hectare.

The total amount of funding required for 2019/20 is $17,250

The amount per point is 23.43304 cents including GST.

The Te Aute drainage scheme area is defined by reference to the classification list establishing the graduated scale.

Approach to Rating

Rates are set and assessed under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 on all rateable rating units on the value of the land and improvements as supplied by Quotable Value New Zealand Limited. . The last rating revaluation was carried out in September 2018 and is effective from 1 July 2019.

The objectives of the council's rating policy is to:

(i) spread the incidence of rates as fairly as possible

(ii) be consistent in charging rates

(iii) ensure all ratepayers pay their fair share for council services

(iv) provide the income needed to meet the council’s goals.

The Central Hawke’s Bay District Council rating system provides for all user charges and other income to be taken into account first, with the rates providing the balance needed to meet the council's objectives.

Rating Base

The rating base will be the database determined by the contracted rating service provider. Because this database is constantly changing due to change of ownership, subdivision, regular revaluations, change of status from rateable to non-rateable (and reverse), the rating base is not described in detail in this policy.

Due Dates for Rate Payments

Pursuant to Section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the following dates are proposed to apply for assessing the amount of each instalment of rates excluding metered water rates for the year 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020. Each instalment will be assessed in four equal amounts, rounded.

Instalment number	Instalment Start Date	Last day of payment without additional charge	Penalty date
1	1 July 2019	20 August 2019	21 August 2019
2	1 October 2019	20 November 2019	21 November 2019
3	1 January 2020	20 February 2020	21 February 2020
4	1 April 2020	20 May 2020	21 May 2020

Due Dates for Metered Water Rates

Pursuant to Section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, the following dates are proposed to apply for assessing the amount of metered water rates for the year 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020. The assessment is applied to water users after the first 300 cubic metres of water without additional charge has been used as part of the Water Supply Rate.

Area/Users	Water Meters read during	Last day of payment
High Users	Monthly	20th month following
Waipukurau Takapau	Sep-19	20-Oct-19
	Dec-19	20-Jan-20
	Mar-20	20-Apr-20
	Jun-20	20-Jul-20
Waipawa Otane Kairakau Porangahau/Te Paerahi	Aug-19	20-Sep-19
	Nov-19	20-Dec-19
	Feb-20	20-Mar-20
	May-20	20-Jun-20

Penalty Charges

(Additional Charges on Unpaid Rates)

Pursuant to Section 58(1)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, an additional charge of 10% will be added on the penalty date above, to all amounts remaining unpaid for each instalment excluding metered water rates.

Pursuant to Section 58(1)(b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act, a further additional charge of 10% will be added on 1 July 2019 to the amount of rates assessed in previous financial years and remaining unpaid as at 30 June 2019 (Section 58(1)(b)) excluding metered water rates.

Carried

Mayor Walker went through each of the rates being struck.

Cr Sharp highlighted that the rates split showed the philosophy of the Council in terms of user pays. It also showed the importance of the rates review and how it will impact ratepayers, including the ability to pay, fairness and who pays for which service.

Cr Tennent agreed that the rates review was an important step going forward, particularly in terms of the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC). He noted that most rural districts are looking at spreading that cost over whole district particularly in relation to wastewater treatment.

Mayor Walker raised that the UAGC was significantly lower than last year based on the changes to the Revenue and Financing Policy. She highlighted that the changes were based on revaluations and the big shift in lower value residential properties. Because of this, Mayor Walker noted that she was unapologetic for the decision but noted that long term viability needed to be considered carefully.

7.4 Adoption of WMMP for Consultation

PURPOSE

The matter for consideration by the Council is to receive and adopt the waste minimisation and management plan to be released for community consultation.

Resolved: 19.56

Moved: Cr Gerard Minehan

Seconded: Cr Kelly Annand

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That the WMMP is adopted for consultation

Carried

Cr Burne-Field congratulated officers on the document and raised that it was a great start for the community and would likely gather momentum as it continues. She also highlighted that it would be good to see that ‘Waste Free CHB’ was branded.

Cr Minehan thanked the Solid Waste Management Reference Group and staff involved. Cr Minehan also raised the need to consult with existing contractors to make it work effectively..

Cr Annand concurred with Cr Minehan that it was good to see community involvement and passion in the waste space.

Cr Sharp congratulated the Solid Waste Management Reference Group on the positive aspirations in the document. He highlighted that education was important and that the Council would need to invest in it, and that he looked forward to the community embracing the aspirations.

Mayor Walker reflected that the document showed a good balance of aspiration and action and ways that funding could be supported. She raised that community engagement needed to provide an opportunity for people to provide clear answers on the things that mattered most to them.

Cr Minehan acknowledged the input provided from Clint Deckard as part of the reference group.

He noted that this document was a good first step to effective and affordable waste infrastructure for the community.

7.5 Endorsement of WWTP Environment Court Response

PURPOSE

The matter for consideration by the Council is to endorse the report responding to the supplementary enforcement order issued from HBRC through the environment court in 2018.

Resolved: 19.57

Moved: Cr David Tennent

Seconded: Cr Gerard Minehan

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That Council endorses the report responding to the Environment Court in relation to the Waipawa Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Carried

Mayor Walker highlighted that although the outcomes in the report were operational, that the report provided Council with the opportunity to lend support by endorsing it.

Cr Tennent noted his confidence that the Council had done their best to come up with some good options going forward. He noted clear direction from the community through Project Thrive that Wastewater should be disposed to land, rather than into the river.

Mayor Walker noted that this was a big step forward for an important priority project and that she looked forward to seeing the response from the Environment Court.

The meeting was suspended at 10.04 for morning tea.

The meeting reconvened at 10.29am

7.6 Remits for consideration at LGNZ 2019 Conference

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider its position in relation to the 2019 LGNZ AGM Remits.

Resolved: 19.58

Moved: Cr Ian Sharp

Seconded: Cr Gerard Minehan

That, having considered all matters raised in the report, the report be noted.

That Council confirm voting rights on behalf of Central Hawke’s Bay District Council to Mayor Alex Walker and Councillor Tim Chote at the AGM.

That Council confirm Councillor Gerard Minehan and Chief Executive Monique Davidson also attend the AGM to represent Central Hawke’s Bay District Council.

That Council support the following remits at the LGNZ AGM: (Note – delete those remits Council does not support)

" 1. That LGNZ calls on the government to include local government representation (as determined

by local government) at all levels of policy development, technical risk and resilience assessment,

and data acquisition on climate change response policies - with an emphasis on climate

adaptation: policy; legal; planning; and financial compensation regimes."

“5. That LGNZ advocates for enabling legislation that would allow councils to require all guest

accommodation providers to register with the council and that provides an efficient approach to

imposing punitive action on operators who don’t comply.”

“6. That LGNZ recommend to the government the funding of additional research into the effects of

nitrates in drinking water on human health, and/or partner with international public health

organisations to promote such research, in order to determine whether the current drinking water

standard for nitrate is still appropriate for the protection of human health.”

“7. That LGNZ initiates a review of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (1987)(LGOIMA) request management nationally with a view to establishing clear and descriptive reporting for and by local authorities that will create a sector-wide picture of:

• Trends in the volume and nature of LGOIMA requests over time.

• Trends in users.

• The impacts of technology in terms of accessing information sought and the amount of

information now held by local authorities (and able to be requested).

• The financial and resource impacts on local authorities in managing the LGOIMA function.

That LGNZ use the data obtained to:

• Identify opportunities to streamline or simplify LGOIMA processes.

• Share best practice between local authorities.

• Assess the value of a common national local government framework of practice for

LGOIMA requests.

• Identify opportunities to advocate for legislation changes on behalf of the sector (where

these are indicated).”

“8. That LGNZ encourages member councils to consider using environmentally friendly weed control methods.”

“9. LGNZ calls on central government to take action as recommended by the Law Commission in its 2014 report on “Liability of Multiple Defendants” to introduce a cap on the liability of councils in New Zealand in relation to building defects claims whilst joint and several liability applies.”

“10. That LGNZ, in conjunction with central government, urgently focus on the development and implementation of a broader range of funding and financing tools in respect of community/social housing provision, than those which currently exist in the housing needs space. These should include funding to support the operation, upgrade and growth of council housing portfolios and, where a council chooses, access to Income Related Rents for eligible tenants.”

“11. That LGNZ investigate the ability of the sector to collaborate in procuring open-source designs and plans for bulk infrastructure that are largely similar, with an initial approach to look at water and wastewater treatment facilities.”

“12. That LGNZ advocates to the government to phase out single use polystyrene.”

“13. That LGNZ pursue an amendment to the Local Government Act 2002 to:

a. Re-number sub-sections 181 (5) and (6) to sub-sections (6) and (7); and

b. Introduce a new sub-section (5) to read: For all purposes the term “any work” in subsection

4 means any works constructed before xx Month 20xx; and includes any works that were

wholly or partly in existence, or work on the construction of which commenced, before xx

Month 20xx.”

“14. That LGNZ request the government to amend the Camping - Ground Regulations to allow councils to approve remote camp facilities on private property, subject to any such conditions as deemed required by a council, including the condition that any approved campground is x distance away from an existing campground, unless the existing campground operator agrees to waive this condition in writing.”

“21. That central government funding be made available on an annual basis for museums and galleries operated by territorial authorities with nationally significant collections.”

Carried

· The Council considered each remit to determine whether representatives would endorse the remit at the Local Government New Zealand Annual General Meeting.

· In some instances, remits were not supported by the Council and were moved and seconded to establish the view of the table

· In other instances the remits were not supported but there was no mover for that remit

Resolved: 19.59

Moved: Cr David Tennent

Seconded: Cr Gerard Minehan

That Council supports the following remit:

1. “1. That LGNZ calls on the government to include local government representation (as determined by local government) at all levels of policy development, technical risk and resilience assessment, and data acquisition on climate change response policies - with an emphasis on climate adaptation: policy; legal; planning; and financial compensation regimes."

Carried

That Council does not support the following remit:

"2. That LGNZ works with central government to introduce legislation to ban the sale of fireworks to the general public and end their private use.”

This remit was subsequently changed after the remit paper was written. The amended remit was:

“That LGNZ work with Central Government to raise the issue (about the sale of fireworks) and advocate for legislative change.”

That Council does not support the following remit:

“3. That LGNZ request the government to bring into line camera and officer-detected red light

running offences with other traffic offences that incur demerit points.”

Motion

Moved: Cr Kelly Annand

Seconded: Cr Tim Chote

That Council supports the following remit:

“4. To seek an amendment to clause 6.2 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 to prohibit parking on urban berms.”

Motion lost

For: Cr Annand, Cr Chote

Against: Cr Sharp, Cr Tennent, Cr Burne-Field, Cr Minehan, Cr Muggeridge, Cr Aitken, Mayor Walker

Therefore Council did not support the remit

Resolved: 19.60

Moved: Cr Tim Chote

Seconded: Cr Brent Muggeridge

That Council supports the following remit:

“5. That LGNZ advocates for enabling legislation that would allow councils to require all guest

accommodation providers to register with the council and that provides an efficient approach to

imposing punitive action on operators who don’t comply.”

Councillors discussed the wider implications of the impact tourism could have on infrastructure and the potential need for larger Councils to regulate.

Cr Burne-Field was against this remit and felt that providers should be part of the conversation.

Carried

Resolved: 19.61

Moved: Cr David Tennent

Seconded: Mayor Alex Walker

That Council supports the following remit:

“6. That LGNZ recommend to the government the funding of additional research into the effects of nitrates in drinking water on human health, and/or partner with international public health

organisations to promote such research, in order to determine whether the current drinking water

standard for nitrate is still appropriate for the protection of human health.”

Carried

Resolved: 19.62

Moved: Cr Gerard Minehan

Seconded: Cr Tim Chote

That Council support the following remit:

• Trends in the volume and nature of LGOIMA requests over time.

• Trends in users.

• The impacts of technology in terms of accessing information sought and the amount of

information now held by local authorities (and able to be requested).

• The financial and resource impacts on local authorities in managing the LGOIMA function.

That LGNZ use the data obtained to:

• Identify opportunities to streamline or simplify LGOIMA processes.

• Share best practice between local authorities.

• Assess the value of a common national local government framework of practice for

LGOIMA requests.

• Identify opportunities to advocate for legislation changes on behalf of the sector (where

these are indicated).”

Carried

Resolved: 19.63

Moved: Cr Ian Sharp

Seconded: Cr Shelley Burne-Field

That Council supports the following remit:

“8. That LGNZ encourages member councils to consider using environmentally friendly weed control methods.”

Cr Tennent highlighted a concern about the vagueness of the remit and what might be considered to be safe. Cr Tennent subsequently abstained from the vote.

Carried

Resolved: 19.64

Moved: Cr Tim Chote

Seconded: Cr Tim Aitken

That Council supports the following remit:

Carried

Resolved: 19.65

Moved: Cr Kelly Annand

Seconded: Cr Tim Chote

That Council support the following remit:

Carried

Resolved: 19.66

Moved: Cr Brent Muggeridge

Seconded: Cr Kelly Annand

That Council support the following remit:

Carried

Resolved: 19.67

Moved: Cr Tim Aitken

Seconded: Cr Kelly Annand

That Council support the following remit:

“12. That LGNZ advocates to the government to phase out single use polystyrene.”

Cr Aitken also sought clarification about whether polystyrene panels used in houses were considered single use and requested that this was clarified by the Council’s representatives at the AGM.

Carried

Resolved: 19.68

Moved: Cr Kelly Annand

Seconded: Cr Gerard Minehan

That Council support the following remit:

“13. That LGNZ pursue an amendment to the Local Government Act 2002 to:

a. Re-number sub-sections 181 (5) and (6) to sub-sections (6) and (7); and

b. Introduce a new sub-section (5) to read: For all purposes the term “any work” in subsection

4 means any works constructed before xx Month 20xx; and includes any works that were

wholly or partly in existence, or work on the construction of which commenced, before xx

Month 20xx

Carried

Resolved: 19.69

Moved: Cr David Tennent

Seconded: Cr Tim Chote

That Council support the following remit:

Carried

Council did not support the following remit:

“15. Wellington City Council asks that LGNZ members consider engaging with the Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand Movement when developing policies on payment of the Living Wage.”

Council did not support the following remit:

“16. LGNZ, on behalf of its member councils ask for a review of the effectiveness of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 in reducing alcohol harm (eg price, advertising, purchase age and availability) and fully involve local government in that review.”

Councillors discussed that there was overall support for the intentions of the remit, but not for the remit itself. Cr Burne-Field raised that although she agreed that alcohol causes harm in the community, there were other mechanisms for dealing with the issue.

Resolved: 19.70

Moved: Cr Shelley Burne-Field

Seconded: Cr Tim Aitken

That Council does not support the following remit:

“17. Wellington City Council asks that LGNZ members collectively adopt the position that government should revise the Resource Management Act 1991 to adequately consider the impact of greenhouse gases when making decisions under that law and to ensure that the Resource Management Act 1991 is consistent with the Zero Carbon Bill.”

· Cr Aitken raised concerns about potential future costs for the community if the RMA was revised to address greenhouse gases

· Cr Tennent agreed that it could potentially have an impact on a main source of income for Central Hawkes Bay.

· Cr Sharp considered that the RMA is a powerful document and consideration needed to be given to the long term effects of decisions.

· Cr Burne-Filed highlighted that this remit was divisive and clarified that not supporting remit does not mean Council does not support work regarding climate change.

Carried

Council did not support the following remit:

“18. That LGNZ recommends to government that they establish an independent expert group to develop a new policy framework for adapting to climate change impacts as recommended by the Climate Change Adaptation Technical Working Group (CCATWG). This new expert group would be supported by a secretariat and stakeholder advisory group.”

Council did not support the following remit:

“1. That LGNZ acknowledges that the New Zealand Transport Agency's (NZTA's), Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM) is a comprehensive and robust document, and that NZTA ensures the CoPTTM system is regularly reviewed, refined and updated. However, in light of the recent road worker fatalities LGNZ requests NZTA, in partnership with Road Controlling

Authorities (RCAs);

a. Review afresh its Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM} to satisfy themselves that;

i. The document provides sufficient guidelines and procedures to ensure approaching

traffic are given every possible opportunity to become aware of the worksite ahead

and to respond appropriately and in a timely manner.

b. Review its CoPTTM Training System to ensure;

i. Trainers are sufficiently qualified and adequately covering the training syllabus.

ii. Site Traffic Management Supervisors (STMS's) and Traffic Controllers (TC's) are only

certified when they can demonstrate competence in the application of CoPTTM.

ii. A robust refresher programme is in place to ensure those in charge of Traffic

Management on worksites remain current in the required competencies.

c. Review its Site Auditing requirements to ensure the traffic management at worksites is

independently audited at a sufficient frequency to ensure compliance, and that a significantly robust system is put in place to enable enforcement of compliance.

2. That LGNZ takes steps to remind its members of their duties with respect to their role as Road Controlling Authorities including;

a. Appointing and sufficiently training and resourcing a Traffic Management Coordinator to

ensure their obligations under the Health and Safety Work Act 2015, with respect to traffic

management, are being met.

b. Adequately resourcing and undertaking audits of road work sites to ensure compliance

with CoPTTM.”

Cr Tennent noted that there was concern where contractors in the region were not following guidelines for traffic management.

Cr Minehan raised that detailed traffic management plans should have these policies covered in them already. Cr Annand agreed that these issues should be being managed already and that this was not necessarily the right forum to address them.

Cr Muggeridge raised the point that the issue was something that should be managed by Worksafe

Council did not support the following remit:

20. “That LGNZ requests that government investigate the introduction of strengthened rules to govern the safe use of mobility scooters, particularly in relation to speed limits and registration.”

Resolved: 19.71

Moved: Cr Shelley Burne-Field

Seconded: Cr Tim Chote

That Council supports the following remit:

“21. That central government funding be made available on an annual basis for museums and galleries operated by territorial authorities with nationally significant collections.”

Carried

Council did not support the following remit:

“22. That the selection of all independent commissioners for Resource Management Act hearings be centralised to improve independence and enhance the quality of decisions.”

Resolved: 19.72

Moved: Mayor Alex Walker

Seconded: Cr Tim Chote

That Council does not support the following remit:

“23. That LGNZ request the government to amend S.41A of the LGA2002 to give Mayors the same powers to appoint a deputy mayor as held by the Mayor of Auckland.”

Cr Chote noted his opposition to this remit, as it was important for Councillors to have an opportunity to have input to this decision.

Mayor Walker agreed that the remit did not promote democracy.

Carried

Council did not support the following remit:

“24. That LGNZ calls on the Government to develop and implement national guidelines, policy or regulations to achieve national consistency for the largely unregulated ‘health and beauty’ industry”

7.7 LGNZ Rule Amendments and Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider its position on the LGNZ Rules Review and to make recommendations to Councils representatives at the LGNZ AGM.

Resolved: 19.73

Moved: Cr Kelly Annand

Seconded: Cr Tim Chote

That, having considered all matters raised in the report, the report be noted.

That Council support proposal one, two, three and four of the LGNZ Rules Review change

Carried

The meeting was suspended at 12.26pm for lunch

The meeting reconvened at 1.03pm

7.8 Quarterly Activity Reporting - January to March 2019

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of the organisation’s quarterly activity reporting for the period January to March 2019.

Resolved: 19.74

Moved: Cr Shelley Burne-Field

Seconded: Cr Gerard Minehan

That, having considered all matters raised in the report, the report be noted.

Carried

Item 8.1 – The Chief Executive Report was considered prior to item 7.8 – Quarterly Activity Reporting

Cr Burne-Field sought an update on the progress of community housing initiatives. It was confirmed that opportunities were being explored regarding the investment in transitional and social housing in the district with relevant agencies.

Cr Tennent sought clarification about whether the Council was undertaking a review of its own housing portfolio. Officers confirmed that a review would commence in August.

Cr Aitken sought confirmation about why targets had not been met for consent processing times.

Officers confirmed that the increase in demand for consents has meant that there has not been sufficient resourcing to manage it however this was likely to improve given new staff appointments.

8 Chief Executive Report

8.1 Chief Executive Report

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council, the six weekly organisation report for April/May 2019.

Resolved: 19.75

Moved: Mayor Alex Walker

Seconded: Cr Tim Chote

That, having considered all matters raised in the report, the report be noted.

Carried

Cr Tennent asked about how fundraising was progressing for the Waipawa Pool .

Officers confirmed that the community fundraising was progressing well.

Mayor Walker acknowledged officers for the work that was put into the Provincial Growth Fund Announcement event on 12^th June.

9 Public Excluded Business

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolved: 19.76

Moved: Cr Tim Chote

Seconded: Cr David Tennent

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
9.1 - Minutes of the Chief Executive Employment and Performance Committee Meeting held on 11 June 2019	s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons	s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

Resolved: 19.77

Moved: Cr Ian Sharp

Seconded: Cr Tim Aitken

That Council moves out of Closed Council into Open Council.

Carried

10 Date of Next Meeting

Resolved: 19.78

Moved: Cr David Tennent

Seconded: Cr Gerard Minehan

THAT the next meeting of the Central Hawke's Bay District Council be held on 29 August 2019.

Carried

11 Time of Closure

The Meeting closed at 2.29pm

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Council Meeting held on 29 August 2019.

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON

Finance and Planning Committee Meeting Minutes 15 August 2019

MINUTES OF Central HAwkes Bay District Council
Finance and Planning Committee Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, 28-32 Ruataniwha Street, Waipawa
ON Thursday, 15 August 2019 AT at the conclusion of public forum which commences at 9am

PRESENT: Mayor Alex Walker

Cr Ian Sharp (Deputy Mayor)

Cr Tim Aitken

Cr Kelly Annand

Cr Tim Chote

Cr Gerard Minehan

Cr Brent Muggeridge

Cr David Tennent

Dr Roger Maaka

IN ATTENDANCE: Monique Davidson (CEO)

Joshua Lloyd (Group Manager, Community Infrastructure and Development)

Bronda Smith (Group Manager, Corporate Support and Services)

Doug Tate (Group Manager, Customer and Community Partnerships)

Nicola Bousfield (People and Capability Manager)

Darren de Klerk (3 Waters Programme Manager)

Helen O’Shaughnessy (District Plan Manager)

1 Apologies

None - Cr Burne-Field leave of absence granted as per 20^th June Council meeting

2 Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

None

3 Standing Orders

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cr David Tennent

Seconded: Mayor Alex Walker

THAT the following standing orders are suspended for the duration of the meeting:

· 20.2 Time limits on speakers

· 20.5 Members may speak only once

· 20.6 Limits on number of speakers

And that Option C under section 21 General procedures for speaking and moving motions be used for the meeting.

Standing orders are recommended to be suspended to enable members to engage in discussion in a free and frank manner.

Carried

4 Confirmation of Minutes

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cr Gerard Minehan

Seconded: Cr Tim Aitken

That the minutes of the Finance and Planning Committee Meeting held on 28 March 2019 as circulated, be confirmed as true and correct.

Carried

5 Report Section

5.1 Resolution to apply for funding to Eastern and Central Community Trust

PURPOSE

The matter for consideration is a resolution to apply to the Eastern and Central Community Trust Community Assets and Facilities Fund for Ngā Ara Tipuna –Waipukurau Pā site interpretation project.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cr Kelly Annand

Seconded: Mayor Alex Walker

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

That the Finance and Planning Committee recommend to Council to resolve to apply for funding of $250,000 to the Eastern and Central Community Trust Community Assets and Facilities Fund for Ngā Ara Tipuna –Waipukurau Pā site interpretation.

Carried

Cr Tennent sought clarification on the meaning of Waipukurau Pa site interpretation. Officers explained that this was considered to be both physical and digital interpretation of pre-colonial pā sites including whare korero and pou as well as digital storytelling on websites.

Cr Annand spoke to the motion to thank staff for the work that had been done on this project.

Cr Muggeridge sought clarification about whether putting this funding application in would be likely to be detrimental to future potential funding applications. Officers confirmed that it wouldn’t have an impact on future applications.

5.2 Remuneration Authority Determination - Childcare Allowance

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider its position on the optional Childcare Allowance as gazetted in the 2019 Remuneration Authority decision.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Mayor Alex Walker

Seconded: Cr Kelly Annand

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That Council receives the information contained in the report.

b) That Council agrees to approve payment of a Childcare allowance as per the 2019-2020 determination

c) That Council note that if approved, the necessary provisions will be included in the Elected Members Remuneration, Allowances and Reimbursements Policy for Council adoption following the 2019 triennial election.

In Favour: Crs Alex Walker, Ian Sharp, Tim Aitken, Kelly Annand and David Tennent

Against: Crs Tim Chote, Gerard Minehan and Brent Muggeridge

carried 5/3

Carried

Cr Aitken highlighted the concern that at $6000 per annum per child, that a member with multiple children would incur high costs.

Officers confirmed that the committee could decide to cap the amounts per member and include in future policy.

Cr Tennent considered that although it was a positive step forward to encourage people to stand for Council, that it was not in the budget. He then sought clarification on the financial impact it would have in 2020. Mrs Davidson determined that it would be included in future budgets as part of the draft annual plan 2020/21

Cr Sharp sought clarification on whether by the current Council accepting the policy, that it would create a cost that couldn’t not be avoided by the new Council.

Officers confirmed that the newly elected Council did not have to adopt the new policy if they did not wish to.

Cr Tennent asked why a committee in this term was voting on a future council matter.

Mrs Davidson confirmed that an example had been taken from other councils and that it could provide some certainly to incoming candidates about whether the childcare allowance would be available or not.

Mayor Walker spoke to the motion that the allowance was important to local government given that females and all people under 40 are underrepresented and that cost of childcare is a barrier. She spoke in support of the policy because it was important to be clear to the community and new councils that the table supports mixed representation.

Cr Chote spoke against the motion asking what allowances there are for other groups of people.

He raised that the new Council should make the decision and that the policy needs to cover a wider group.

Cr Aitken agreed with both Mayor Walker and Cr Chote.

He would be in favour of capping the amount per elected member.

Cr Minehan spoke against the motion because the determination was light on details and he was concerned about the precedent it could set.

Cr Sharp stated that there were barriers for a number of people to stand for Council but that this would be a simple way of dealing with some of the issues around low remuneration for the work of Councillors.

Mayor Walker highlighted that while there was a perception around fairness of the allowance for groups such as business owners, that there is a particular barrier for people who struggle to be representative at this level due to issues with childcare.

She raised that the remuneration authority had considered this at a national level and determined that there was a need.

5.3 Finance and Planning Committee Work Programme Report

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Finance and Planning Committee on the key priorities as identified in the Terms of Reference and work programme for the committee.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cr Tim Chote

Seconded: Cr Gerard Minehan

That, having considered all matters raised in the report, the report be noted.

Carried

5.4 KEY PROJECT STATUS REPORT #5 - BIG WATER STORY

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is to provide information to Council on the progress and status of #thebigwaterstory programme.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cr Brent Muggeridge

Seconded: Cr Kelly Annand

That, having considered all matters raised in the report, the report be noted.

Carried

Mayor Walker sought clarification about the Takapau treatment upgrade and the issue with the colouration in the water and whether that had changed anything in the project.

Officers confirmed that it has not changed the timeframe of the project but that the issue did highlight there was a need for contingency and a plan is in place for a flushing programme.

Cr Muggeridge asked about the Otane Wastewater line going through White Road and whether contractors would seal holes where the alternate water supply runs or leave them open.

Mr de Klerk confirmed that separate trenches would be run.

Cr Minehan asked about progress on the Waipukurau 2^nd supply and whether we had located other areas to drill in. Officers confirmed that 5 locations had been shortlisted based on a set of criteria and that they were continuing to work through options.

5.5 Key Project Status Report - District Plan Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update of the District Plan Review.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cr David Tennent

Seconded: Cr Tim Aitken

That, having considered all matters raised in the report, the report be noted.

Carried

Cr Tennent asked that Mrs O’Shaughnessy give an explanation of what the implications of the national planning standards would be for the district plan.

It was confirmed that the intention is for plans throughout the country to be consistent in structure but that it did not have an impact on the provisions in the district plan. It is possible that there may be a need to change some definitions and the layout.

Cr Sharp asked whether the national planning standards would have an effect on budget.

Officers confirmed that the Ministry for the Environment would be undertaking this work at their own cost so had no impact on council budgets. Cr Sharp commended Mrs O’Shaughnessy on her relationship with the ministry.

Cr Annand asked whether subcommittee members could provide some insight about the intention for hearings. Cr Sharp suggested that the subcommittee be maintained for those hearings as they have a good understanding of the content of the plan.

Cr Minehan asked whether all Councillors would get a full set of submissions to the draft district plan. It was confirmed that they would.

5.6 Central Hawke's Bay District Council Resident Opinion Survey 2019 Report

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is for the Finance and Planning Committee to formally receive the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council 2019 Residents Opinions Survey 2019 Report.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cr Brent Muggeridge

Seconded: Mayor Alex Walker

That, the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council 2019 Residents Opinions Survey 2019 Report, be noted.

Carried

Cr Tennent highlighted the dramatic improvement from 3 years ago.

Mayor Walker raised that Central Hawke’s Bay’s governance did not have much media attention hence why some of those scores may be low.

Mayor Walker also raised that this data should help the council to set its future long term plan measures.

5.7 Quarterly Activity Reporting - April to June 2019

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of the organisation’s quarterly activity reporting for the period April to June 2019.

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cr David Tennent

Seconded: Cr Tim Aitken

That, having considered all matters raised in the report, the report be noted.

Carried

Members reflected that some of the measures in the activity reports were not meaningful and that the measures for the next Long Term Plan would be better informed.

Cr Sharp reflected on the council’s presence in social services being better than ever before and this not being reflected.

Discussion around the number of new dwelling this calendar year.

Cr Aitken raised concerns about the Waipawa Transfer Station and that people could not get trailers around the recyclables piled up there. It was confirmed that an improvement plan was in place to address the matter.

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Committee Resolution

Moved: Cr Kelly Annand

Seconded: Cr Brent Muggeridge

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution

6.1 - Leachate to Landfill Irrigation Budget

s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

Committee Resolution

Moved: Mayor Alex Walker

Seconded: Cr Tim Aitken

That Council moves out of Closed Council into Open Council.

Carried

Cr Sharp closed by highlighting the number of achievements of the committee. He congratulated the committee for these achievements and its relationships with other committees. He also congratulated staff on the quality of reports.

6 Date of Next Meeting

Recommendation

THAT the next meeting of the Central Hawke's Bay District Council be held on 16 August 2019.

7 Time of Closure

The Meeting closed at 10.57am

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Council Meeting held on 29 August 2019.

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON

Council Meeting Agenda 29 August 2019

7.2 Deliberations on the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2019

File Number: COU1-1400

Author: Darren de Klerk, 3 Waters Programme Manager

Authoriser: Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments: Nil

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council analysis of the submissions received in relation to the recent Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) 2019 consultation.

Recommendation

a) That, having considered all matters raised in the report, that Council deliberates on submissions received on the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

WASTE management and minimisation plan

SUBMISSIONS:

1.Nathan McKenzie, 2.Greg Frater, 3.Lisa Wilson, 4.Richard Glendinning, 5.Rochelle Phillips, 6.Kay Griffiths, 7.Allan Neckleson, 8.Robin and Cathy Baker, 9.Sally Chandler,10.Anne-Marie Bancks, 11.Cheryl Paul, 12.Rose Chapman, 13.Dean Hyde, 14.Harold Petherick, 15.David Bishop, 16.J Williams, 17.Neen Kennedy, 18.Gill Tracy, 19.Mel Irvine, 21.Rose Hay, 22.Jennifer Brown, 23.Dan Elderkamp, 24.Dianna Karauria, 25.Gerard Patai, 26.Mary-Anne Ward, 27.Kerry Whiley,

28.Argyll East School (Lottie Smith, Lachie Butler, Ruby Finch, Benjamin Valentine, Kyra Ashla Holt, Eva Baile, Lily Shorten, Lily Kent, Paraire Mitchell, Fletcher T, Lucas Perceval, Baxter Twist, Kaela Brans, Gareth, William Carter, Lily Drepaul, Erikka G, Allura Holt, Addison Oliver, Izaac Chadwick, Laura Brun, Payton Tautau, Maddie Finch, Jessica, Gabriella, Jet Hapuku, Xavier Hansen, Ella Nicholson (29 received from Argyll East School)

29. Ian Scott, 30. Janet Smith

LATE SUBMISSIONS:

31. Kiwi Kanz

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ DISCUSSION

Overall, submissions received were positive and supportive of the draft plan.

In total council received 59 submissions of which 29 were from Argyll East School.

Highlighting a number of trends which council have provided actions for in the draft WMMP.

Following a consultation and engagement period held during the month of July 2019, council has received responses and feedback from the community via a number of avenues, and these are presented to Council below.

The submissions received provide further insight that our WMMP and the path Council is on is certainly in the right direction, with the responses largely providing justification for the actions provided for in the WMMP.

Topic One	Formal Submissions
Topic Two	Informal Facebook Comments
Topic Three	Informal Residents Survey Comments
Topic Four	Verbal Comments from Events
Topic Five	Late Submission

FORMAL SUBMISSIONS

01 Submission:

01 Nathan McKenzie

Summary of submissions:

The submitter is unhappy about the safety railings at the transfer station in Waipukurau. Doesn't believe that waste from out of the district should be accepted at the landfill.

Analysis:

The railings at the Waipukurau transfer station were installed in response to very real safety concerns. Council has a responsibility to ensure the publics' safety while they are using the facilities.

Waste is accepted from out of the district to help pay for the day to day operating costs of the landfill, which would have to be met regardless of whether the landfill was receiving ten tonnes or a hundred tonnes. There is an action in the WMMP which will ensure that this facility is managed in such a way that cost-effective access to disposal services will be able to continue well into the future.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

Council to respond explaining the reasons why safety railings were put in, and the financial implications of restricting quantities of waste at the landfill.

02 Submissions:

02 Greg Frater

Summary of submissions:

The submitter suggests that Council focus on the areas that are going to gain the biggest improvements quickly.

Analysis:

Council agrees with the submitters suggestions, and will focus on short term and long term improvements through the action plan outlined within the WMMP - Many of the actions are focusing on significant opportunities - e.g. the investigation of a food waste collection.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

03 Submissions:

03 Lisa Wilson

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council progress wheelie bins in use for rubbish and recycling.

Analysis:

Wheelie bins haven't been considered for rubbish collections as it is difficult to provide a user-pays collection with a wheelie bin-based system; also households that use wheelie bins tend to put out more rubbish, particularly more recycling and organic waste. Wheelie bins will be investigated and considered for kerbside recycling as part of ongoing efforts to improve this service.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

Confirm that wheeled bins are not being considered for rubbish collections at this point, but that wheeled bins are being considered for kerbside recycling collections.

04 Submissions:

04 Richard Glendinning

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council progress more public place recycling, support improvements being made to rural services, and highlights the contribution of services like 'foodbasket'.

Analysis:

Public place recycling facilities were not included in the draft WMMP. Various proposals were made relating to rural waste and Council appreciates the support for this work. Council is aware of 'foodbasket' and will continue to support these initiatives as much as possible, and note that the WMMP does also include actions around exploring a community zero waste action group, and the potential to set up a community reuse centre in partnership with this and/or other community groups.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, based on feedback, council to include a new action to explore available information relating to public place recycling and consider installing some bin banks if the exploration shows that these are an effective way of collecting recycling in public places.

05 Submissions:

05 Rochelle Phillips

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council should organise second-hand Sundays more often.

Analysis:

Council acknowledges that Second-hand Sundays are currently held annually. Officers consider that these could perhaps be held twice, but more often that that would result in less participation.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP - Second-hand Sundays will be discussed with the community zero waste action group. The draft WMMP does also provide for the establishment of a community reuse centre to be explored, which would be an alternative avenue to manage many of the same waste types.

06 Submissions:

06 Kay Griffiths

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council recycling centre provision should be reviewed. Would like to see action taken on food waste, green waste - perhaps through community gardens with a community composting coordinator. Need more information on recycling. Tetrapaks are recycled in Australia but not here. Producer responsibility theories raised, and the suggestion that rural recycling could be carried out by KiwiKanz.

Analysis:

The draft WMMP already includes actions relating to recycling centre provision, food waste, green waste, rural waste, and education/ information relating to recycling. There is also an action for Council to lobby central government for better extended producer responsibility provisions.

Tetrapaks are partially recycled in Australia, and are also accepted in Auckland, but nowhere else in New Zealand. Tetrapak are a very difficult material to recycle, as they are made of layers of cardboard, metal and plastic. Council can raise the issue with their contractor, and will continue to provide support for expanded recycling infrastructure within New Zealand, but until there is a way to recycle these items they will not be accepted in kerbside recycling.

Officers appreciate the support for producer responsibility approaches, and point out that the associate minister for the environment has recently made an announcement regarding priority products under the Waste Minimisation Act, which is the first step towards compulsory produce stewardship programmes.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP - Confirm to the submitter that many issues raised are already included in the draft WMMP in various forms.

The issue of tetrapak recycling will be progressed on two fronts; with Council officers pursuing this with their contractor, and with Council in a wider sense continuing to lobby and support central government in provision of more New Zealand recycling facilities.

Council looks forward to seeing some positive outcomes regarding product stewardship.

07 Submissions:

07 Allan Neckleson

Summary of submissions:

The submitter raised a number of points where they disagree with Council:

· Landfill should be closed

· High temperature incineration should be used instead

· Rubbish bags should be paper not plastic

· Services should be cheaper

The submitter agrees with council on a number of issues:

· Greenwaste should be composted

· Product stewardship should be introduced for materials like packaging, particularly non-recyclable plastic

· Drop-off centre provision should be reviewed for effectiveness

· Rural waste issues require further investigation

Analysis:

Council will be reviewing the future of the landfill through its legislative section 17a review later in 2019, but concludes the landfill should continue to remain open for the time being to ensure a cost-effective disposal option for the district, and compliance with a resource consent to 2030.

High-temperature incineration (or waste to energy) is an alternative to landfill, but not one that has been used in New Zealand. This is mainly for two reasons: firstly, few places can achieve the required economies of scale, and secondly while landfill costs are relatively cheap (with the landfill levy at only $10 per tonne), a waste to energy plant cannot compete financially.

Council's driver for many of the proposed actions is to keep organic waste out of landfill, to reduce the production of greenhouse gases and harmful leachate. Replacing plastic rubbish bags with paper bags will work against this goal; paper bags are also more resource and energy intensive to produce.

Council strives to find the best balance between quality of service and cost effectiveness possible, and to deliver services efficiently.

A number of the issues raised by the submitter are included in the draft WMMP.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP - Actions in the draft WMMP relating to the landfill, rubbish bags collection, and service provision will remain unchanged.

Council acknowledges the support for actions relating to composting greenwaste, product stewardship, review of drop-off centre provision, and improvement of services for rural residents.

08 Submissions:

08 Robyn and Cathy Baker

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council extend recycling services to Omakere and to Pourerere beach, make improvements to rural recycling, and introduce an organic waste system similar to that provided in Christchurch.

Analysis:

The draft WMMP includes an action relating to kerbside recycling collections and aligning these to the existing rubbish collection areas; and also various actions relating to waste services in rural areas.

The organics collection service in Christchurch is reasonably effective in diverting food waste from landfill, but has also been incredibly effective in capturing garden waste - including garden waste that was not previously in the kerbside collection system. This means that instead of managing their garden waste at home or taking it to a composting centre or transfer station, residents are instead using the kerbside collection. This has resulted in an expensive service relative to the amount of waste that has been diverted from landfill.

If Council does introduce a kerbside organics service, this would be for food waste only. Greenwaste will remain a user pays service.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP - Council acknowledges the need for recycling and rubbish collection services to be aligned and will begin discussions with its contractor with a view to resolving this.

There are a number of actions in the draft WMMP relating to waste services for rural areas, and Council will continue to pursue the potential of a kerbside food waste collection service.

09 Submissions:

09 Sally Chandler

Summary of submissions:

The submitter provides support for the draft WMMP and recognition of support for the Enviroschools programme.

Analysis:

Council will through its education and awareness action continue to support programmes like Enviroschools.

No further analysis required on this submission.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

10 Submissions:

10 Anne-Marie Bancks

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council setup a enviro/ reuse centre in Waipukurau. More recycling is required for rural residents, and more frequent emptying of recycling containers. Mixed plastics are very difficult to recycle.

Analysis:

The draft WMMP includes a number of actions relating to waste services in rural areas, and also an action to investigate and develop a community reuse/ recovery centre.

Council officers agree that mixed plastics are very difficult to recycle, and particularly so recently due to the changes in China's importing policy. Council and its contractor currently accept any rigid plastic packaging in the kerbside collection, and separate as much of this for recycling as possible.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

11 Submissions:

11 Cheryl Paul

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council have a single, larger transfer station that could possibly incorporate a second hand shop, repair shop, - to be a 'one stop' location for waste. Would also like to see variable charging at the landfill for different waste types. Finds recycling bins hard to handle and commented that theirs is broken. Support for more public place recycling locations.

Analysis:

The suggestion to focus waste diversion activities at one location in the district does have merit and will be considered as part of the wider review of transfer station and drop-off centre provision.

Variable charging at the transfer station could be considered as long as there are alternatives in place for customers to divert the unwanted materials.

The draft WMMP already covers a review of kerbside recycling, and the feedback on the current crates will be considered; and also includes actions relating to a drop-off/reuse centre and Greenwaste processing.

Recycling processing is expensive and is usually done at large scale - it isn't considered feasible at this stage to have processing of recycling within the district.

There isn't currently an action in the draft WMMP relating to public place recycling.

Recommendation:

Council to contact customer to arrange replacement for their broken recycling crate.

12 Submissions:

12 Rose Chapman

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council considers the charges at the landfill and transfer station to be too high, and would like longer hours (both Saturday and Sunday).

Would like to see a separate area for building/demolition waste (at Waipawa) and believes green waste should be free.

Concerned that half of the waste going to landfill is from out of the district. Need more information about what plastics are recyclable and what aren't. Concern about packaging, e.g. at supermarkets.

Analysis:

Charges at the transfer station and landfill are intended to meet cost recovery. The draft WMMP does include an action for these charges to be reviewed to ensure that this is achieved. Along with a section 17a review later in 2019.

Waipukurau transfer station has an area for building and demolition waste. Green waste charges are reasonable compared to other similar areas; processing green waste to divert it from landfill does cost Council and part of this cost is recovered through user charges.

The waste assessment and draft WMMP explain why Council continues to accept out of district waste at the landfill - the daily operating costs would be prohibitive were this facility only used for Central Hawkes Bay waste.

The draft WMMP includes actions relating to education and communication about waste issues, and officers will ensure issues around plastic and packaging are included.

Council will continue to lobby central government for increased product stewardship, but note that central government has recently made an announcement relating to this.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

13 Submissions:

13 Dean Hyde

Summary of submissions:

The submitter would like to see a council-community partnership approach taken - suggests establishing a trust to deliver services, education, access funding, create employment etc.

Would also like to see the true cost of waste management reflected in waste disposal and compliance charges.

Analysis:

The draft WMMP does include an action to establish a community zero waste action group, and also to work with community to explore the potential to establish a community reuse centre.

However, the legal obligation and responsibility to ensure waste is managed sits with Council; and while Council is keen to work with the community, it must ensure that their legal obligations are met.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP - Council appreciates the support for a community partnership approach and encourages the submitter to become involved in any future community groups so they can benefit from his knowledge and experience.

14 Submissions:

14 Harold Petherick

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council provide more collection points in rural areas, and more service provision for hazardous waste and bale wrap.

Would like an extra container for recyclables (perhaps dedicated to plastics). More education is needed.

Analysis:

The draft WMMP does include an action to review the current provision of transfer stations and drop-off centres.

Hazardous waste services are provided but officers will note the request for an increase if possible. Services are available for bale wrap but these are on a user charge basis.

Council officers will explore options to promote this service further, and provide logistical support to the provider where possible.

The draft WMMP includes a number of actions relating to education and communications, and also enhancements to the recycling service.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP - Officers note the request for increased hazardous waste services, and will investigate this further.

15 Submissions:

15 David Bishop

Summary of submissions:

The submitter would like a drop-off centre within each town and more public place recycling. Green waste should be chipped and processed.

Supports the goals and objectives but believes Goal 1, objective 2 is a priority.

Would like to see a processing centre - for building waste, white ware and also supports a weekly collection of organic waste.

Targets should have a shorter timeframe and the kerbside recycling target should be 90%.

There should be penalties for incorrect use of services, and wheeled bins shouldn't be used due to the negative impact on diversion.

Analysis:

The submitter supports a number of proposals in the draft WMMP.

The request to have additional drop-off centres should be noted during the planned review of these facilities. An action will be added to the final WMMP (as pre previous comments) covering the investigation of public place recycling. The timeframe for the targets is based on the deadlines set out in the action plan; given the need to investigate the best option in many cases, and the lead in time required for new services or improvements to existing services, it is unlikely that significant measurable progress will be made by 2021.

It is understood that the submitter is referring to the target for kerbside recycling participation - while it is admirable that a higher target is suggested, 90% is more than is achieved in even the highest performing systems and is an extremely significant step up from the current estimated level.

The draft WMMP includes an action to review the bylaw section relating to waste, and officers will bear in mind the submitter's comments.

Recommendation:

A number of suggestions will be considered by officers when delivering on the action plan as set out in the draft WMMP.

16 Submissions:

16 J Williams

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council need to clear the dropoff points more often.

Packaging is a significant issue. Could Council invest in a recycling plant?

Analysis:

Several submitters have mentioned the need to clear the drop-off points more often, and officers will monitor this closely. Residents are encouraged to report to the council when they find these are full, so that officers are informed in discussions with the contractor.

Council will continue to lobby central government relating to packaging and product stewardship, and notes that (as per previous comments) government has recently made a public announcement on this topic.

Recycling plants are costly, and process large quantities of material in one plant. Central Hawkes Bay does not have sufficient material, and instead uses recycling plants already established in other areas.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP - Officers will note the request for increased servicing of the drop-off points.

17 Submissions:

17 Neen Kennedy

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council recognise that the Takapau drop-off centre is often overflowing.

Using wheeled bins for rubbish collections would avoid animal strike.

Better education and information needed - believe community perceive that putting rubbish in a bag and out for collection is enough.

Establishing an environment centre in CHB would help with this - information, education, continue current workshops etc, provide collections for soft plastics, e-waste, fluorescent bulbs, etc - encourage community commitment and work with local business and industry.

Green waste and food waste - kerbside green waste collection.

Use of Plasback could be encouraged through subsidies and centralised collection points.

Analysis:

Draft WMMP already includes actions addressing a number of these points.

As per previous comments, if a green waste collection were provided, this would need to be through user charges. A kerbside food waste collection will be investigated however.

The draft WMMP has identified farm waste services as an area needing attention.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP - Confirm that a rates-funded green waste collection will not be provided, but that Council will work with industry to expand the availability of user-pays services.

Options for farm waste will be explored further once the final plan is adopted, and officers will take note of the suggestion to provide a subsidy to encourage use of services like Plasback.
As per previous comments, customers should be encouraged to report full recycling containers to Council so that they can discuss servicing schedules with their contractor.

18 Submissions:

18 Gill Tracy

Summary of submissions:

The submitter supports but notes need for regular evaluation.

Would rather plastics 3,4, 6 7 were not collected at all rather than going to the expense of collecting, sorting, then landfilling - should instead educate community and encourage them to avoid these. Continuing education is needed.

Review of the drop off centres and transfer stations definitely required after new/ improved kerbside services are introduced.

Analysis:

Submitter generally supports the draft WMMP.

Two points made - educate about non-recyclable plastics rather than collecting them; also review drop off points/transfer stations after any service changes.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP - Officers to consider suggestions through progression of the action plan.

19 Submissions:

19 Mel Irvine

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council provide a 'free' garden waste collection service and wheeled bins for recycling and rubbish.

Has noticed that drop-off point at Waipukurau is always very full.

Would like to see a reuse centre established and visits to the landfill for everyone to educate them.

Analysis:

Draft WMMP includes actions addressing a number of these points.

A rates-funded garden waste service is very unlikely, for the reasons given previously. However, Council does intend to work closely with industry to expand the availability of user-pays garden waste collections.

The suggestion of incorporating visits to the landfill will be noted, and occurs occasionally at present – officers will look to expand this with robust health and safety, and with interest.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP - Officers to note the suggestion of incorporating visits to the landfill in education and communication strategies.

21 Submissions:

21 Rose Hay

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council setup a re-use centre to increase the amount that can be recovered from landfill, along with green waste.

Believes a 'free' e-waste service is required, and that reducing cost at the transfer stations would reduce illegal dumping.

Would also like to see central government lobbied more strongly around plastic packaging and a container deposit scheme; stronger regulation, and enforcement of service use; and an update of the Enviroschools material.

Would Council consider Paper for Trees? to help solve issues with paper/cardboard collection.

Analysis:

Many of these issues are covered in the draft WMMP.

However, it is difficult to see how a 'free' (rates-funded) e-waste service could be managed, given the high cost of processing and recycling these items correctly.

Previous research has shown little or no relationship between illegal dumping levels, and charges to dispose of waste. It is more likely that illegal dumping is due to other issues (such as lack of understanding, or not wanting to drive non-road legal vehicles into the transfer stations).

Council has previously been contacted by the submitter regarding Paper 4 Trees and their difficulties with the discontinued paper/cardboard service, and officers have requested and are waiting on information in response.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP - Officers to follow up on Paper 4 Trees and advise submitter of progress.

22 Submissions:

22 Jennifer Brown

Summary of submissions:

The submitter would like to see a re-use centre to increase the amount that can be recovered from landfill, along with green waste.

Believes a 'free' e-waste service is required, and that reducing cost at the transfer stations would reduce illegal dumping.

Would Council consider Paper for Trees? to help solve issues with paper/cardboard collection.

Analysis:

Many of these issues are covered in the draft WMMP.

However, it is difficult to see how a 'free' (rates-funded) e-waste service could be managed, given the high cost of processing and recycling these items correctly.

Recommendation:

The submitter’s comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

Officers to follow up on Paper 4 Trees and advise submitter of progress.

23 Submissions:

23 Dan Elderkamp

Summary of submissions:

The submitter would like to see actions focusing on education, persuasion, incentives and regulation - tighter deadlines and more ambitious targets, bans on various materials going to landfill, changes to private waste collections, ensuring all waste coming in to transfer stations is sorted - and that waste from outside the district follows the same rules as CHB.

Council should lobby to attract waste industry to CHB, and aim for a higher diversion target (mentions a national goal of zero waste by 2050)

Analysis:

Many of these points are covered in the draft WMMP.

The diversion targets within the term of this draft WMMP have been calculated based on delivering the action plan - meeting a more ambitious diversion target would require a significant expansion of the action plan, which financial and staff resources don't allow.

Many of the submitter's suggestions regarding regulation are useful and officers will consider these when reviewing the waste section of the bylaw.

Officers are not aware of a national goal to be zero waste by 2050.

Recommendation:

The submitter’s comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

Officers will ensure submitter's suggestions are considered when undertaking various actions once the plan has been finalised.

24 Submissions:

24 Dianna Karauria

Summary of submissions:

The submitter would like an alternative to plastic rubbish bags, and to have a reuse/ environment centre in CHB.

Believes there should be recycling in all schools and preschools, and that composting of food scraps should be encouraged.

It should be possible to compost waste within CHB. Council should ensure their contractor is working to the contract, and would like to be able to dispose of computers at no charge more often. Education is crucial.

Analysis:

Many of the points have been addressed in the draft WMMP.

At this stage, Council doesn't intend to provide recycling services to schools and preschools, although if they are in an area that is covered by the rubbish collection they are welcome to use this.

It is unlikely that the household kerbside recycling collection would be appropriate for many schools, although potentially some preschools would be small enough to use it - officers will investigate.

As previously mentioned, the main alternative to plastic rubbish bags - paper - is much more environmentally and financially costly, therefore Council continues to use plastic bags.

Recommendation:

The submitter’s comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

Officers will investigate whether the kerbside recycling scheme could be extended to preschools.

25 Submissions:

25 Gerard Patai

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council place emphasis on product stewardship is important and would like to see central government lobbied more on this - responsibility should be on producers not consumers.

Agrecovery - would like the system changed so containers don't have to be washed. Would like to know where plastics 3-7 are going.

Analysis:

There has recently been an announcement from central government relating to product stewardship. However, Council will continue to lobby government for progress on this issue.

Council doesn't run the Agrecovery system but could try to find out why the washing arrangements are as they are. Officers understand that a key reason is to prevent potentially reactive chemicals coming into close contact.

Council is currently collecting all plastics, as this is a simple message to convey to the public, but only grades 1, 2 and 5 are actually being recycled. It should be noted however that this accounts for around 80% of the plastic packaging put out for the recycling collection.

Recommendation:

The submitter’s comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

Officers can further investigate the Agrecovery system with respect to the washing requirements.

26 Submissions:

26 Mary Anne-Ward

Summary of submissions:

The submitter is in support of the recycling scheme for polypropylene (#5 plastic).

Analysis:

Council's contractor is already recycling PP #5 plastics.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

27 Submissions:

27 Kerry Whiley

Summary of submissions:

The submitter would like to have an environment centre/reuse centre, and to have plastic bags replaced with compostable bags.

Rural residents should be encouraged to work together to establish collection systems and points.

Analysis:

The draft WMMP includes actions relating to the establishment of a community zero waste action group, the exploration of a possible community reuse centre, and various issues relating to rural and farm wastes.

Compostable bags will not be used for rubbish collections, as this will only contribute to the problem of sending biodegradable waste to landfill where it causes methane and leachate.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

Confirm to resident why compostable bags will not be introduced for rubbish collections.

28 Submissions:

28 Argyll East School

Summary of submissions:

A number of submitters raised similar points:

· that more recycling centre/drop off points are needed;

· that littering on the roadside is a severe (and related) issue, and;

· that more signs and education are needed.

A number of suggestions were made such as;

· security cameras;

· support for container deposit systems;

· reduced disposal fees;

· checking closed landfills near water are secure, etc.

Analysis:

The draft WMMP includes actions relating to the review of drop off centre and transfer station provision and offices can consider the East Argyll school location; while noting that schools are not usually considered for drop-off points due to security and illegal dumping concerns.

National research suggests that illegal dumping quantities have little or nothing to do with the charges for disposing of rubbish, and are more likely to be addressed successfully through education and enforcement.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

Officers to confirm to the school that the location could be considered for a drop-off centre, although there are currently centres located at Tikokino, Otane, Ongaonga, and Waipawa - within approximately 10-15km of the school.

29 Submissions:

29 Ian Scott

Summary of submissions:

The submitter proposes two innovations to council; a process that creates affordable fuels from waste plastic – Pyrolysis, and a waste to oil innovation.

Analysis:

The submitter provides links to innovation in the form of a waste generating fuel and waste generating oils.

The Central Hawkes Bay region does not have the economies of scale, and the volume is not sufficient enough to justify investing in the innovations as suggested, but working with the central government and lobbying for greater product stewardships will breed innovation and provide other options for dealing with our waste streams.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

30 Submissions:

30 Janet Smith

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council re-open the charity shop at Waipawa and Waipukurau to minimise furniture and other re-usable household items being dumped, and that second-hand Sunday is great, but we need more.

Analysis:

Council acknowledges the interest for a reuse shop, and this has been included as an action in the draft WMMP.

Council acknowledges that Second-hand Sundays are currently held annually. Officers consider that these could perhaps be held twice, but more often that that would result in less participation.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

Officers will confirm with the respondent that in the Action Plan – council will investigate a community reuse centre (IN6).

Second-hand Sundays will be discussed with the community zero waste action group.

INFORMAL FACEBOOK COMMENTS

Submissions:

Comments and Polls from Facebook Posts

Summary of submissions:

The comments received from the facebook were centred around improving service delivery, and an interest in wheelie bins and recycling.

The poll on making recycling easier – received the most interest for introducing wheelie bins.

The poll on reducing the amount of waste to the landfill again generated interest for wheelie bins and extending services to the rural areas.

Analysis:

Upon reviewing the comments, council found trends in the fields of service improvements, investigating reuse centres, and other innovative methods, and interest in wheelie bins.

Summary of comments/ trends are outlined below;

· Repair services for run down household items

· Council to support and send out ‘No Junkmail’ Stickers

· Increase second hand Sundays

· Reinstall clothing centres/ bins

· Support for wheelie bins

· Service delivery improvements and frequency of collections

· Extending/ expanding recycling areas

· Green drop off points

· Recycling bins

These are consistent with the draft WMMP, where council will be investigating wheelie bins, and extending services to the rural areas, or working with our private operators.

Recommendation:

The comments are noted; no specific recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

Council officers to investigate the re-introduction of a clothing bin at the drop off centres or transfer stations, and the option of supporting No Junkmail.

Second-hand Sundays will be discussed with the community zero waste action group.

Council to include a new action to explore available information relating to public place recycling and consider installing some bin banks if the exploration shows that these are an effective way of collecting recycling in public places.

INFORMAL RESIDENTS SURVEY COMMENTS

Submissions:

2018/19 Residents Survey

Summary of submissions:

Council analysed the recent resident survey for trends, and commentary to provide insight into what the community may want to see improved or introduced via the WMMP.

Analysis:

The community is largely satisfied with the provision of solid waste services, with the area receiving 81% positive scores. However, feedback has been given on how council could improve service provisions, with 81 comments received in this area.

Below are the trends;

· 23 comments related to recycling improvements/ appetite.

· 11 comments were in relation to improvements required in current service delivery

· 10 comments were related to rural provisions

· 7 comments were related to rubbish/ refuse

· 6 were related to public awareness and education

· 4 comments equal were in relation to wheelie bins and innovation/ reuse centre; and

· 3 comments in relation to green waste service offerings

Following analysis, officers are comfortable that they have captured through the draft WMMP in essence the feedback and trends seen in the residents survey, with actions in the WMMP related to increasing recycling to at least match the rubbish provisions (C1), look at filling gaps in the service (C5), working with rural communities to understand opportunities (C6), and from an operational level council is working through its supplier improvement programme to ensure we are maximising the value and improving our current service delivery levels.

As per recommendation below, officers will add an action related to public place recycling.

Recommendation:

The comments are noted, based on feedback, also noticed through the formal submissions, council to include a new action to explore available information relating to public place recycling and consider installing some bin banks if the exploration shows that these are an effective way of collecting recycling in public places.

VERBAL COMMENTS FROM EVENTS

Submissions:

Verbal conversations and comments from community interactions

Summary of submissions:

Council officers through the pop up sessions held in the community, discussed the WMMP with approx. 103 community members.

The trends that were recognised through these conversations are outlined below;

· 5 community members wanted to see greater emphasis on recycling

· 3 conversations on greater and clearer awareness/ education

· 3 conversations related to improvements in rural provisions

Analysis:

Following analysis, officers are comfortable that they have captured through the draft WMMP in essence the feedback and trends received verbally, with actions in the WMMP related to increasing recycling to at least match the rubbish provisions (C1), look at filling gaps in the service (C5), working with rural communities to understand opportunities (C6), and a section focused on education and awareness (E1-6).

Recommendation:

LATE SUBMISSION

Submissions:

31 KiwiKanz

Summary of submissions:

KiwiKanz have been providing both rural and urban refuge collection services to Central Hawke’s Bay for many years. They are keen to collaborate to maybe offer recycling services in the rural areas to assist with reducing waste.

Analysis:

This aligns with the action plan in the draft WMMP.

Action C1 suggests that council will investigate expanding recycling to match the rubbish collections.

Officers support this proactive approach by the private operator, and aligns with the thinking of the organisation and community in working with private operators to ensure CHB is gaining the best on offer.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted; no recommendation is necessary with regard to the WMMP.

Council officers will upon adoption of the WMMP, commence discussions with the private operator.

CONCLUSIONS and findings

Following the review of feedback, we believe the following amendment/ improvements should be made on the current plan;

§ An additional action created and included in the WMMP to investigate increasing recycling in public places.

The key trends and support we have seen for actions in the current plan are;

§ Wheelie Bins

§ Improvements to service delivery

§ Expansion to rural areas

§ Working with private operators

§ Investigate green waste options

Next Steps

To respond to all submitters, thank them for their feedback and provide a personalised response.

To take recommendation from council on submissions received and heard, and either adopt WMMP as it stands, or make amendments based on the feedback received, and recommendations made by officers above to include an action related to recycling in public places.

To commence with the minor suggestions outlined within this report and look to take action on the WMMP.

Recommendation

a) That, having considered all matters raised in the report, that Council deliberates on submissions received on the Draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Council Meeting Agenda 29 August 2019

7.4 Update on Draft District Plan

File Number: COU1-1400

Author: Helen O'Shaughnessy, Senior Planner

Authoriser: Doug Tate, Group Manager Customer and Community Partnerships

Attachments: 1. Minutes of the District Plan Sub Committee of 14 August 2019. ⇩

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to formally update Council on the Draft District Plan and to consider appointees to the Informal Hearings Panel to consider all submissions on the draft District Plan.

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That Council receive the minutes of the District Plan Sub- committee meeting of 14 August 2019.

b) That Council adopt the recommendation of the District Plan Subcommittee that the existing District Plan Subcommittee hear the informal submissions and make recommendations on all submissions to Council regarding the draft District Plan.

c) That Officers review the Terms of Reference for District Plan Subcommittee to be brought back and considered by Council prior to the District Plan Submission hearings commencing.


compliance
Significance	This matter is assessed as being of some importance to impact the Central Hawkes Bay community.
Options	This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter: 1. That Council adopt the recommendation of the District Plan Subcommittee that the existing District Plan Subcommittee hear the informal submissions and make recommendations on all submissions to Council regarding the draft District Plan. 2. That Council reject the recommendation of the Subcommittee and propose a change.
Affected persons	The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter include all persons/organisations that made submissions on the draft District Plan.
Recommendation	This report recommends Option One for addressing the matter.
Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan Implications	Yes
Significant Policy and Plan Inconsistencies	No

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The draft District Plan was released for public comment on 20 May 2019 and the period for lodging submissions closed on 15 July 2019. At the time of writing this report a total of 97 submissions have been received by Council.

This report provides a high level overview of the submissions received on the draft District Plan and outlines a probable hearings schedule for the submissions to be heard.

Council has committed to engaging with the Central Hawkes Bay community and in particular all those persons and entities who have made a submission on the draft District Plan. The hearings panel is an opportunity identified by members of the District Plan Subcommittee to meet with individual submitters to the draft District Plan to enable them to directly explain comments made in submissions and for members of the hearings panel to ask questions of the submitter if necessary.

District Plan Subcommittee

The District Plan Subcommittee met on August 14 to consider possible options relating to the hearings panel. The options considered by the Subcommittee included both the appointment to the hearings panel and timing of the hearings.

This report includes the minutes of this meeting of the subcommittee and summary of the discussion and recommendations made by the Subcommittee on 14 August regarding appointment to the hearings panel. Any hearings panel will also need to deliberate on the submissions not presented to the hearings panel.

The minutes of the 14 August Subcommittee meeting are attached to this report for receipt.

This was the final meeting of the Sub-Committee, with the Committees role as outlined in its Terms of Reference now at an end.

BACKGROUND

The draft District Plan was released for public consultation over a period of eight weeks, (20 May - 15 July 2019). During this period a comprehensive programme of public consultation and community engagement was undertaken by Council.

The public consultation programme included six public meetings at venues throughout the district as well as three Hui. In addition a number of individual meetings were held with different stakeholder groups and property owners on specific provisions in the draft Plan.

The scheduled meetings were supported by a comprehensive and detailed communications strategy providing supporting information on the draft District Plan review and how to make a submission.

Although one or two late submissions remain outstanding, at the time of writing this report 97 submissions have been lodged with Council. Of this total 58 submitters wish to present to the hearings panel, 35 submitters do not wish to be heard and three or four submitters are yet to decide on this option.

Council has achieved its goal of engaging with the Central Hawke’s Bay community. The engagement process has identified a number of issues that are complex and will require careful assessment. Council’s investment in the pre-statutory engagement process has afforded it the opportunity to consider and potentially resolve the issues in this non-statutory phase, prior to the legal Schedule 1 process beginning.

Overall the quality of the content of submissions is considered to be comprehensive and well considered. Although many submissions focus on single issues, several submissions cover multiple points in significant detail. It is apparent from the wide-ranging nature of many of the submissions that considerable time and thought has been invested in the submissions.

To facilitate the hearings process officers have grouped submissions into categories focusing on similar issues or sections of the draft Plan. The following broad topic groups have been identified and the number of submissions relevant to each topic group is shown in Table One.

Table One

The following comments provide a high level summary across the range of submissions;

· The proposed 12 hectare minimum lot size in the Plains Production Zone is too small,

· The 20 hectare subdivision the Rural Production Zone is inappropriate.

· Not all land in the Plains Production Zone is productive

· Provisions relating to lifestyle subdivision in both rural zones are too restrictive

· Restrictions on land use activities in the rural zones are not appropriate.

· Controls on Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) are not equitable

· Earthwork controls are too restrictive

· Lack of support for Councils approach to protection of sites of cultural significance.

· Integration of National Planning Standards

· Policies and rules in the Coastal Environment Section are not consistent with the National Policy Statement for the Coastal Environment.

District Plan Subcommittee Meeting 14 August 2019.

Members of the District Plan Subcommittee considered the issues and options relating to the appointment of members to the informal hearings panel and when the hearings should be held at the 14 August meeting.

A number of options relating to the process of appointment to the hearings panel were presented to the Subcommittee for consideration.

Following reflection and discussion of the four options, the Subcommittee decided in preference to formulate their own recommendation. This recommendation is as follows:

That the existing District Plan Subcommittee hear the informal submissions and make recommendations on all submissions to Council regarding the draft District Plan.

Members of the Subcommittee supported this recommendation as it provides for continuity by the elected members and iwi representatives who have represented Council on the review of the plan since the full review began in 2017.

In the event that Council adopt this recommendation of the sub-committee, Officers will prepare Draft Terms of Reference for the Informal Hearings Panel, to be formally presented to Council before the informal hearings process commences.

The proposed schedule for the informal hearings is programed for November/December 2019. Due to number of submitters wishing to be heard (57) and the complexity of many of the submissions it is likely that over 30 hours will be necessary to ensure all submitters are heard comfortably. Additional time will also be required in February/March 2020 for the hearings panel to deliberate on all submissions received.

Officers are preparing a schedule of submitters and when complete this will be presented to Councils.

District Plan Budget

Elected members will recall that a budget over the current and next three financial years for the District Plan review was presented and discussed by Council in November 2018. This budget was part of adopting Option B, which provides for the notification of the Proposed Plan in June/July 2020.

While expenditure is currently tracking at anticipated levels, now an understanding of the complexity of the issues raised from submissions is developing, it is anticipated that technical expertise, above that budgeted in November 2018, is necessary to enable the sub-committee to make informed recommendations to Council in 2020 in this non-statutory phase.

This risk was identified to Council in November 2018 when it adopted the program, with a noted ‘placeholder’ at the completion of the public consultation phase to reassess the funding and resourcing impact of the processing and consideration of the submissions. An example of this is the high number of submissions received on the proposed rural zones and rural subdivision standards. Complicating this one example, is the consideration of the impact of addressing the proposed National Policy Statement on highly productive land, only recently announced by Government. The Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development have also just released a proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development which will need to be addressed as part of the review.

Preliminary analysis of the issues, identify that many are complex in nature and will require considerable technical input and may require revision of some aspects of the draft District Plan as part of the deliberation.

Officers are continuing to assess the financial implications of this, as we further interrogate the nature and detail of the submissions. We will report back to Council in November, the likely probable financial and resourcing implications that we anticipate to address these issues.

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as of some importance because the District Plan is a significant document which has the potential to impact on all ratepayers.

OPTIONS

Option 1 That Council adopt the recommendation of the District Plan Subcommittee that the existing District Plan Subcommittee hear the informal submissions and make recommendations on all submissions to Council regarding the draft District Plan.

a) Financial and Resourcing Implications

The existing District Plan Committee has two members that are not seeking re-election. At the time of writing it is not clear what, if any, reimbursement those members of the subcommittee of the subcommittee may seek.

Further in the event that those existing members of the subcommittee who are standing in the upcoming local body elections are unsuccessful, again it is not known what reimbursement, if any, may be sought.

Funding has not been provided within the existing District Plan project for the reimbursement of any members of the informal hearings panel, with the exception of the independent chair.

b) Risk Analysis

Option one is considered to have a low strategic risk. This option will contribute to Council’s commitment to engaging with the community and also conclude the non-statutory phase of the review as anticipated.

c) Alignment to Project Thrive and Community Outcomes

This Option supports Project Thrive by demonstrating Councils commitment to engaging with the community on the district wide issues identified through Project Thrive.

d) Statutory Responsibilities

There are no statutory responsibilities to specifically consider in making this decision.

e) Consistency with Policies and Plans

There are no other specific policies or plans to consider in making this decision.

f) Participation by Māori

Option one provides for on-going participation by Māori by enabling Council to engage directly with individual hapū and iwi.

g) Community Views and Preferences

This option is supported by the community through submissions made on the draft District Plan. It is likely that the community would support this option, knowing that members of the Subcommittee have a detailed understanding of the provisions and matters addressed in the draft District through their work on this document from 2017.

h) Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages of Option one are significant and include:

· Potential to minimise the possibility of appeals on the Proposed Plan.

· Confidence in the community that Council have engaged effectively.

· A fit for purpose plan that includes the aspirations of the community.

There are no obvious disadvantages to Option one.

Option 2 That Council reject the recommendation of the Subcommittee and propose a change.

a) Financial and Resourcing Implications

Any alternative recommendation should be tested for its financial and resourcing implications.

b) Risk Analysis

By not adopting Option One, the Council may incur more risk of legal appeal on the Proposed Plan if the hearings panel does not fully comprehend the intent of the Plan.

c) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes

The District Plan review would continue progressing but without the important phase of community engagement could risk legal appeal.

d) Statutory Responsibilities

This phase is a non-statutory period of the review.

e) Consistency with Policies and Plans

There are no other specific policies or plans to consider in making this decision.

f) Participation by Māori

It is unclear if this option would specifically deny participation in the non-statutory review phase by Māori.

g) Community Views and Preferences

The community have expressed a strong interest through submission forms on the draft District Plan to engage with elected members on key resource management issues in the District Plan.

h) Advantages and Disadvantages

Disadvantages may be significant and include:

· Lack of relevant information for inclusion in the Proposed District Plan if the hearings panel do not fully comprehend the intent of the Plan.

· Potential delays in notification of the Proposed Plan.

Recommended Option

This report recommends Option One for addressing the matter.

NEXT STEPS

Should Council adopt the sub-committee recommendation, Officers next steps will be to prepare a draft Terms of Reference document for the role and responsibilities of the Informal Hearings Panel for Council to adopt.

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That Council receive the minutes of the District Plan Sub- committee meeting of 14 August 2019.

c) That Officers review the Terms of Reference for District Plan Subcommittee to be brought back and considered by Council prior to the District Plan Submission hearings commencing.

Council Meeting Agenda 29 August 2019

CENTRAL HAWKE’S BAY DISTRICT COUNCIL

Minutes of a meeting of the District Plan Subcommittee Working Party will be held in the meeting room at DAC Legal, 9 Herbert Street, Waipukurau on Wednesday 14 August 2019 commencing at 9.00am.

PRESENT: Commissioner Mick Lester, Councillors I G S Sharp, D Tennent, T H Aitken, and Her Worship the Mayor A Walker

R C A Maaka

IN ATTENDANCE: Doug Tate [GM – Customer & Community Partnerships]

Helen O’Shaughnessy [District Planner]

Tiffany Gray [Project Support Officer]

1.0 kARAKIA / MIHI / INTRODUCTIONS

2.0 apologies

Mick put in an apology for B Gregory.

A Walker/ R Maaka

CARRIED

3.0 declarations of conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest to be reported for minuting.

4.0 confirmation of minutes

RESOLVED:

THAT the minutes of the District Plan Subcommittee Working Party Meeting held on Tuesday 9 April 2019, as circulated, be confirmed as true and correct.

A Walker/ I Sharp

CARRIED

5.0 overview of meeting

Helen provided an overview of the progress to date on the District Plan Review.

6.0 FEEDBACK ON SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED ON DRAFT PLAN

Discussion

Mick began discussion by asking when will the subcommittee decide to not accept late submissions. The closing date for submissions was 15 July. His concern is fairness to the officers, so they have enough time to look through the submissions. Mick also wished to recognise that there is another opportunity to make submissions when the plan becomes notified in 2020.

Alex asked if it be valuable for us to make a recommendation to go to Council about accepting late submissions.

There was some discussion about the implication of late submissions. In the formal procedure late submissions have to be accepted and Council has to follow the RMA Schedule 1 process.

The Subcommittees discussed issues around late submissions in relation to the elections. Members debated the pros and cons of receiving late submissions; if Council don’t take late submissions, we might not receive the best idea ever.

Members agreed the point of this draft process is to avoid hearings/costs in the formal process and receiving submissions was an important part of developing a District Plan that the community are comfortable with.

Mick suggested that the subcommittee move that we accept late submissions up until the end of August.

Doug clarified that there are still parties we’re working with e.g. Porangahau community. It was stated that technically we have until late Oct/early Nov before the informal hearings commence to take late submissions.

Tim suggested late submissions be cut off 4 - 6 weeks before the informal hearings.

Helen commented that in terms of Councils commitment to engagement it would be a positive thing to accept late submissions and that submissions were unlikely to be provided so close to the informal hearings that officers were unable to process them.

Tim was concerned about the workload leading up to the informal hearings and how late submissions might affect this.

Ian stated that Council is no longer advertising that we’re still taking submissions.

Helen provided reassurance that we have capacity to accept late submissions.

David asked if we need to formalise that we’re accepting late submissions.

Mick stated that this decision is up to the hearing's committee/panel.

Alex stated that it is clear from this report that some parties have approached Council, and that Council continues to work with and provide support to them. It is these particular parties that have flagged to Council that they cannot meet the deadline and that this is where late submissions should be accepted.

It’s acknowledged that some submitters may feel aggrieved about rushing to prepare submissions to meet the deadline.

Alex commented that she disagrees with the wording of the second to last paragraph of this report and asked for it to be deleted.

RESOLVED:

THAT the Subcommittee receive the above report.

A Walker/ T Aitken

CARRIED

7.0 Update on integration of draft district plan to national planning standards

Discussions

Mick said that he is thankful for the Ministry for the Environment’s (MfE) assistance at no cost [for rehousing the plan].

Alex asked if there will there be a cost? Will they hold us up? Her concern of cost is about time.

Helen confirmed that there is high confidence that we will meet our timeline.

Tim asked if this will this create issues with people seeing a completely new plan?

Helen stated that this has been raised with the Ministry and that the Ministry has also offered assistance with communications to the public about the changes they will find in the Proposed Plan.

Ian was concerned that it may affect how user-friendly the Plan will be.

Mick was concerned about submissions on the draft District Plan but was reassured that the National Policy Standards are more about aligning the plan to a standardised format.

Alex asked if there are key issues around definitions or anything else that could present a substantial challenge. And how will our decision making be affected by minor wording changes or something that will have a more substantial impact. Alex is concerned about that nuance of who decides whether something is major enough to flag?

Helen confirmed that the Ministry aren’t addressing the integration of definitions and that this is concerning. This has the potential to affect the intent of the rules and performance standards.

It is clarified that the Proposed Plan will include the National Planning Standards and it will be clear by the use of different text/colour which sections are from the standards.

Tim asked if we should write to every submitter to explain the process of integrating the standards? It’s important they have an understanding and that this is a Ministry for the Environment requirement.

There was agreement that being transparent with our submitters is vitally important especially because they have made the effort to be involved in the review process. Helen agreed that we will keep submitters informed.

Alex offered congratulations to Helen for keeping us aligned in this process - well done.

Roger believes that we give submitters as early warning as possible so they can understand that these provisions are coming in.

Alex agrees that this is important, and it’s also a nice story about us having a proactive and positive relationship with MfE.

There was an understanding that the integration of standards won’t affect the content and provisions of the plan.

RESOLVED:

THAT the Subcommittee receive the above report.

I Sharpe/ D Tennent

CARRIED

8.0 District plan – appointment of committee/panel to hear submissions

Discussions

Mick began the discussion by saying his personal view is that is up to this committee to make this recommendation to Council on the hearings panel. He personally favours recommendation 3, as options 1 and 2 would require education to new members of what the intent of the plan was.

There was some clarification regarding the process around the hearings panel and whole Council processes.

Alex stated that we need to go back to good process around standing orders, governance and legal responsibilities; going back to our mandate which is in our terms of reference. She is uncomfortable with the wording of recommendation 3 and thinks that we have to make a recommendation that is truly about the integrity of the hearings process.

Alex suggested the following recommendation;

“the Council appoints a hearings panel that comprises x y z people for x y z reason and there is always a minimum of two elected members and two iwi representatives on the hearings panel”.

Alex supports a panel of six, so this could be the current members of the subcommittee which would provide for continuity. Alex was of the belief that the intent was that the subcommittee would hear the submissions and stated that the Subcommittee need to make a recommendation explicit about the role of the hearings.

There was discussion around time dedicated to the hearings and uncertainty around remuneration. There were also some questions around who will chair the meetings.

Tim stated that his thinking was that the Subcommittee carry on and hear the submissions to the next stage. That way we understand the issues.

There was discussion about what would happen if there was a split vote with an even number of people on the hearings panel.

The following recommendation was tabled:

‘that the existing district plan subcommittee hear the informal submissions and make recommendations on all submissions to Council regarding the draft district plan”

The subcommittee debated this recommendation and were satisfied it clearly expressed the role and membership of the informal hearings panel. The subcommittee agreed to make this recommendation to Council at the 29 August 2019 meeting, and recommend the Council adopt this recommendation.

There was discussion around updating the terms of reference.

RESOLVED:

THAT the Subcommittee receive and adopt the above report.

THAT the Subcommittee recommend that the Council receive and adopt the above report

THAT the Subcommittee receive and adopt the following recommendation;

‘that the existing district plan subcommittee hear the informal submissions and make recommendations on all submissions to Council regarding the draft district plan”.

THAT the Subcommittee recommend that Council adopt this recommendation in relation to the hearings panel at the Council meeting on the 29^th August 2019.

A Walker/ D Tennent

CARRIED

9.0 date of next meeting

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the next meeting / workshop of the District Plan Subcommittee Working Party be determined at a later date

Crs_____________/_____________

10.0 TIME OF CLOSURe

With no further business the meeting closed at 10.17am.

………………………………

CHAIRMAN

Council Meeting Agenda 29 August 2019

7.5 Draft Results and Carry Forwards

File Number: ANN1-300

Author: Bronda Smith, Group Manager, Corporate Support and Services

Authoriser: Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments: 1. Draft Financial Results 2018/19 ⇩

PURPOSE

The matter for consideration by the Council is the draft financial results for 2018/19 and for Council to approve the Carry Forwards and additional Loans.

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) Council approve the budget allocations proposed to be carried forward from 2018/19 year to 2019/20 year to enable projects to be completed and future work to be funded.

b) Council approve the District Plan loan of $15,462 for a period of 10 years and Water Supply Loan of $266,951 for Operational expenditure for a period of 10 years to fund the additional expenditure required for the 2018/19 financial year.


compliance
Significance	This matter is assessed as being of some importance
Options	This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter: 1. Council approve the budget allocations proposed to be carried forward from 2018/19 year to 2019/20 year to enable projects to be completed and future work to be funded. And Council approve the District Plan loan of $15,462 for a period of 10 years and Water Supply Loan of $266,951 for Operationa for a period of 10 years to fund the additional expenditure required for the 2018/19 financial year. 2. Council do not approve the budget allocations and provide officers with guidance as to the funding of the additional expenditure in District Plan and Water Supply and the allocations of carry forwards.
Affected persons	The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter are the ratepayers of Central Hawke’s Bay District Council.
Recommendation	This report recommends option 1 for addressing the matter.
Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan Implications	None
Significant Policy and Plan Inconsistencies	None

BACKGROUND

To increase transparency in financial reporting, Council is provided with quarterly financial reports during the year and the unaudited year end result will be presented annually at the Finance and Planning Committee meeting. Due to the timing of the Committee meeting and the audit process this year, the report is being presented to the August Council meeting.

This report includes the financial statements for Council and also the Funding Impact Statements for the Overall Council and for each Group of Activities.

The financial report contains summarised information. Please feel free to contact the Group Manager – Corporate Support and Services directly on any specific questions from the reports before the meeting. This will ensure that complete answers can be given at the meeting on the detail in the report.

overall year end result

Statement of Comprehensive Income

Set out below is a summary of the draft unaudited financial operating results for the 2018/19 financial.

	Budget 2018/19 $000	Actuals 2018/19 $000	Variances $000
Operating Income	30,225	35,754	5,529
Less Operating Expenditure	30,081	36,263	6,182
Net Surplus/(Deficit) from Operating	144	(509)	(653)
Other Expenses		0	0
(Gains)/Losses on Public Debt		(17)	(17)
(Gains)/Losses on Investments		39	39
Operating surplus/(deficit)	144	(531)	(675)
Gains/(losses) on the revaluation of property, plant and equipment	13,777	44,270	30,493
Total Comprehensive Income	13,921	43,739	29,818

It is important to note that the above is based on accounting results and is different from the funding requirements of Council. Funding information is provided in the Group Surplus and Deficits part of the report and the Funding Impact Statements.

Summaries of the major variances are below:

Operating Income

	Budget 2018/19 $000	Actuals 2018/19 $000	Variances $000
Subsidies and Grants	6,984	11,167	4,183
Fees & Charges	2,946	3,416	470
Other Revenue	376	788	412

· Higher subsidies were received primarily from NZTA for weather event funding - $3.9m

· Higher Fees and Charges across Solid Waste - $272k

· Higher Fees and Charges across Wastewater - $183k

· Higher Other Revenue includes Economic Development Funding - $262K

Operating Expenditure

	Budget 2018/19 $000	Actuals 2018/19 $000	Variances $000
Personnel Costs	4,774	5,147	(373)
Depreciation and Amortisation	12,028	13,906	(1,878)
Other Operating Expenditure	13,015	17,037	(4,022)

Personnel costs

· Higher personnel costs includes one-off costs of $255k

Other Operating Expenditure

· Economic Development Costs offset by income -$292k

· District Plan expenses that are covered by carry forwards - $339k

· Water Supply Operational partially offset by extra income - $266K

· Wastewater Operational Costs to cover the Waipukurau and Waipawa Wastewater Treatment Investigating - $297k

· Solid Waste Carbon Credits for increased Landfill tonnage - $214k

· Higher maintenance costs in Land Transport offset by a reduction in Renewals - $934k

· Higher maintenance costs for Emergency Management offset by Subsidy from NZTA - $1.329m

Gains/(losses) on the revaluation of property, plant and equipment

	Budget 2018/19 $000	Actuals 2018/19 $000	Variances $000
Gains/(losses) on the revaluation of property, plant and equipment	13,777	44,270	30,493

All asset classes are on a revolving revaluation cycle. This year the revaluation of the Land and Building assets have been the major revaluation activity. The Roading assets have also had a desktop revaluation.

The overall revaluation for the Roading assets showed an increase of $35.7m in value and Land and Buildings (excluding Land under Roads) showed an increase of $8.5m. This is the primary reason for the increase in Depreciation and Amortisation.

External Debt

Council Treasury Management Policy states

“The funds from all asset sales, operating surpluses, grants and subsidies will be applied to specific projects or the reduction of debt and/or a reduction in borrowing requirements, unless the Council specifically directs that the funds will be put to another use.”

As part of the Treasury function, external debt has been managed on an overall Council basis. Council was budgeted to raised $7.707m in External Debt. There was no long term debt raised this year. This is due to the major projects being in the planning stages in 2018/19. The majority of the projects have been scheduled or started. (Council should note that in July 2019 $10m loan was drawn down to fund the capital projects).

The External Debt as at 30 June 2018 is $2.026m against External Debt of $2.737m last year.

transfers to reservers

The Special Funds and Trust accounts are allocated interest annually from the interest received by Council in the way of investments and interest from activities. It is allocated based on the opening balance and in 2018/19 a total of $203k was allocated to the funds.

Also transferred to the Special Fund Reserves is the following

Special Funds Reserves	From Activity	Amount	Comment
Capital Project Fund	Parks & Reserves	(10,957)	Expenses for the sale of reserves
Adverse Events Fund	Solid Waste	8,683	Landfill Fire Costs Repayment as budgeted
Retirement Housing Fund	Retirement Housing	216	Surplus from Retirement Housing

Transfers to other reserves include

Reserves	From Activity	Amount	Comment
Landfill Aftercare Reserve	Solid Waste	50,743	Aftercare Provision
Bridge Replacement Fund	Land Transport	51,000	For future funding of Bridge Replacements
Waste Minimisation Levy Fund	Solid Waste	18,625	Surplus Levy Funding
Wastewater Upgrade Reserve	Wastewater	200,000	Funding for upgrade

GROUP SUPRLUS AND DEFICITS AND CARRY FORWARDS

Carry Forwards is a common practice within Councils and allows for a number functions to occur. These include the funding of the final costs of projects to be carried forward, carrying forward rates to smooth peaks and troughs of funding and the build-up of funds for an activity to cover a larger renewal requirement.

Below is the Schedule of Carry Forwards and amounts that officers have requested to be carried forward to the 2018/19 year. Management and Officers has compared them to budgets and to ensure that the appropriate amount is being carried forward.

Community Leadership

The Activities have $149 funding surplus

Activity	Amount
Leadership & Governance	6,251
Economic & Social Development	(6,102)
Total	149

The surplus has been transferred to Recreation and Communities Facilities Group.

The following carry forwards of $5k have been allocated prior to the above surplus.

Activity	Amount
Leadership & Governance	5,100
Total	5,100

Planning and Regulatory

The Activities have a net funding deficit of $15k and are made up of the following

Activity	Amount
District Planning	(77,059)
Land Use & Subdivisions	2,383
Building Control	(66,273)
Public Health	(3,399)
Animal Control	(3,473)
Emergency Management	132,359
Total	(15,462)

It was signalled to Council in November 2018 that there would be $110K funding required to accelerate the District Plan Review based on decision to release the draft in June 2019 and a decision would be required at year end of how to fund the expected overspend. This overspend at the end of the year is $77,059. The remaining $32,941 is expected to be spent in 2019/20.

Based on the overall surplus in the other activities this requirement has been reduced to the above funding deficit of $15,462.

Based on the Revenue and Financing Policy, Council is able to loan fund the deficit over the period of the life of the District Plan (10 years). The costs for funding the loan payment in 2019/20 will need to come out of the operational. The rating impact from 2020/21 will be $1,954.

There are no carry forwards proposed for this Group from 2018/19.

Carry Forwards of $35k from previous years still in carry forwards

Public Health	District Licensing Committee accumulated funding held to fund hearings	25,000
Emergency Management	For the implementation of the corrective action from the CDEM audit	15,000
Total		35,000

Land Transport

The Activity has the $473k funding surplus which is being carried forward for the below funding

Activity	Description	Amount
Land Transport	Bridge replacement budgeted funding for future years	51,000
	Rates Share of Structural Work not spent this year due to weather events	422,189
Total		473,189

Carry Forwards of $332k from previous years are still in carry forwards

Activity	Description	Amount
Land Transport	Footpaths carry forward from 2017/18	254,175
	Carpark carry forward from 2016/17	77,984
Total		332,159

Solid Waste

The Activity has a funding surplus of $268k from the following

Activity	Amount
Solid Waste	268,258

The above surplus is proposed to be carry forward for the following

Activity	Description	Amount
Solid Waste	Carry Forward from 2017/18 for Landfill Capping	62,231
	Carry Forward from 2017/18 for Leachate to Land Project	196,543
	Waste Minimisation Levy Surplus Income	18,625
	Operational Expenditure from 2019/20 budgets	(9,141)
Total		268,258

The following loans have been requested to be carried forward to 2019/20 to complete the projects listed

Activity	Amount	Comment
Leachate to Land	183,600	Loan to complete project

Water Supply

The Activity has a funding surplus of $220K from the following

Activity	Amount
Carry Forwards and Future Funding	487,597
Operational Deficit	(266,951)
Deficit	220,646

The following carry forwards are proposed from this group for completion of current projects and future funding provided in the Long Term Plan.

Activity	Description	Amount
Water Supply	Waipukurau Shortfalls Fire Fight Improve Modelling	6,715
	Waipukurau Water Shortfalls / Firefighting Stage 1	71,671
	Porangahau Treatment Plant Upgrade	34,598
	Waipukurau SH2 Pump Station Upgrade	224,613
	Rate Smoothing budgeted in the LTP	150,000
Total		487,597

The additional operational expenditure of $267k has been signalled to Council in the Monthly Reporting based on requirements during the year including water monitoring, leak detection, treatment plant remedial works and other work required for Water Safety Plans.

Council has asked for information on the ability of using the $150K rate smoothing budgeted in the LTP. As part of the Long Term Plan, Council recognised that in Year 3 of the Long Term Plan, the water rate requirement would jump significantly based on the loan requirements of the completing the Big Water Story Projects in the first 3 years of the Long Term Plan. To smooth the rating impact, Council agreed to increase rates in year 1 and 2 of the LTP and this would be bought back into Water Supply to assist with the funding in Year 3 (2021/22). The rating reduction in year 3 of the LTP based on 2019/20 connections of 4205.5 is $41.03 incl GST per connection.

As present Council is on track with completing the Big Water Story Projects. The only project that may extend past Year 3 is the Second Supply to Waipukurau as this is based on the requirement to find a viable water source. Currently the 3 Waters Programme Manager has estimated that $1m of expenditure could move from 2020/21 to 2021/22. This would reduce the additional rate requirement in this year by $35,300 incl GST. Based on the above numbers this would reduce the rating requirement would reduce by $8.39 per connection.

It is therefore proposed that the full operational deficit be loan funded and the following be drawn down:

Activity	Amount	Period
Operational	266,951	10 years

It is recommended that the Operational Expenditure of $266k be loan funded over 10 years. The costs for funding the loan payment in 2019/20 will need to come out of the operational budgets. The rating impact from 2020/21 will be $38,681 which is $9.19 per connection.

The following loans have been requested to be carried forward to 2018/19 to complete the projects listed

Activity	Amount	Comment
Otane Alternative Water Supply	821,941	Balance of loan to complete project
Takapau Water Treatment Upgrade	495,891	Balance of loan to complete project
Waipukurau Shortfalls and Firefighting	153,450	Loan to complete project
State Highway 2 Pump Station Upgrade	324,750	Balance of loan to complete project
Waipukurau Second Supply	1,953,919	Balance of loan to complete project
Total	3,749,951

Wastewater

The Activity have the following funding surplus or (deficits)

Activity	Amount
Wastewater	347,101

The Waipukurau and Waipawa Treatment Investigations were expected to be loan funded from the Waipukurau and Waipawa Improvements included in 2019/20 budgets. Due to the extra income and operational savings, this will be funded from these surpluses. This will allow for the $300k taken from the 2019/20 budgets to be added back.

It is proposed to carry forward the above surplus for the following

Activity	Description	Amount
Waste Water	Otane Treatment Plant Upgrade	182,080
	Waipawa Main Trunk Renewal	91,630
	District Minor Renewals to be allocated in 2019/20	80,222
	Minor Deficit Operational Expenditure to be covered from 2019/20 budgets	(6,831)
Total		347,101

The following loans have been requested to be carried forward to 2018/19 to complete the detailed projects

Activity	Amount	Comment
Takapau Resource Consent	70,524	Balance of loan to complete project
Takapau Treatment Upgrade	306,900	Balance of loan to complete project
Waipawa Main Trunk Renewal	315,064	Balance of loan to complete project
Otane Treatment Plant Upgrade	1,022,490	Balance of loan to complete project
Otane Resource Consent Extension	33,765	Balance of loan to complete project
Otane WWTP I&I Study	18,176	Balance of loan to complete project
Total	$1,766,919

Stormwater

The Activity has the following funding surplus or (deficits)

Activity	Amount
Stormwater	510,915

It is proposed to carry forward the surplus to complete the following

Activity	Description	Amount
Stormwater	District Stormwater AMP	71,064
	District Remediation	22,535
	Waipukurau Harris Street Drain	9,891
	Waipukurau Woburn/Wilder Improvements	153,450
	Waipukurau Jellicoe to Travistock Helicoil Reline	206,262
	Stormwater Resource consent action plan	47,713
Total		510,915

The following loans have been requested to be carried forward to 2018/19 to complete the projects detailed below

Activity	Amount	Comment
Waipukurau Savage Carpenter Churchill Improvements	248,439	Balance of loan to complete project
Waipukurau Service Land Overflow	85,364	Balance of loan to complete project
Waipukurau Woburn/Wilder Improvements	20,857	Balance of loan to complete project
Total	$354,660

Recreation and Communities Facilities

The Activities have the following funding surplus or (deficits)

Activity	Amount
Parks, Reserves and Swimming Pools	57,613
Theatres, Hall & Museums	97,681
Cemeteries	31,150
Properties	32,788
Total	219,232

There was a small operational deficit of $149 which has been funded from Community Leadership

The following carry forwards are proposed from this group

Activity	Description	Amount
Parks & Reserves	District Parks Reserves Minor Renewals	37,213
	Te Reo Sign Design	10,200
	Te Reo Sign installation	10,200
Theatres, Hall & Museums	District Minor Renewals	7,138
	Municipal Theatre Heating Cooling System	45,985
	Municipal Theatre Minor Renewals	44,558
Cemeteries	District Minor Renewals	31,150
Properties	Library Minor Renewals	32,788
Total		219,232

The following loans have been requested to be carried forward to 2019/20 to complete the projects detailed.

Activity	Amount	Comment
Waipukurau Camping Grounds Toilets	61,200	Loan to complete project
Waipawa Band Rotanda	5,064	Loan to complete project
Russell Park BBQ	29,186	Loan to complete project
Total	94,450

Corporate

The following carry forwards are proposed from this group

Information Management	Rates Smoothing for Information Management changes following the Section 17A Review carried forward from previous years	200,000
	iWorkplace Licenses for the Hive carried forward from previous years	70,116
	Property File Document Scanning (½ from previous years)	101,969
Finance	Rates Penalties Income to smooth penalties (½ from previous years)	68,001
	Long Term Plan Audit Fees	20,000
GIS	Aerial Photography from 2017/18 to fund Rural Imagery carried forward from previous years	30,000
Chief Executive	CE Development Funding carried forward	15,000
	Riskpool Call to be covered by Civic House dividend	(23,928)
Total		481,158

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as of some importance. The projects to be completed and the funding requirements for future work effects the affordability of rates for future ratepayers.

OPTIONS

The following analysis applies to all options.

a) Financial and Resourcing Implications

The projects highlighted for completion require the identified funding to complete the projects.

b) Risk Analysis

There is a risk to the projects of non-completion if the carry forwards are not approved for those projects identified.

c) Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes

Carrying forward the surplus funding allows Council to complete projects and therefore

d) Statutory Responsibilities

There is a statutory obligation under the Local Government Act that targeted rates raised for an activity must be expended within that activity.

e) Consistency with Policies and Plans

This report is consistent with policies and plans

f) Participation by Māori

This issue is not identified as requiring specific engagement with Maori.

g) Community Views and Preferences

This issue is not identified as requiring specific engagement with the community.

h) Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantages of approving the budget allocations to be carried forward are the projects currently underway can be completed. Future year’s funding will not be detrimentally impacted. The budget allocations have also been identified to apply to the areas where they were raised from a targeted rate or where they possibly will be required in the future. If they become surplus in future years, reallocation could be considered based on how the funds were raised.

If option 2 is selected a disadvantage would be that if carry forwards are not used for projects described, they may not have sufficient budget to be completed.

Option 1 Council approve the budget allocations proposed to be carried forward from 2018/19 year to 2019/20 year to enable projects to be completed and future work to be funded.

Council approve the District Plan loan of $15,462 for a period of 10 years and Water Supply Loan of $266,951 for Operational for a period of 10 years to fund the additional expenditure required for the 2018/19 financial year.

Option 2 Council do not approve the budget allocations and provide officers with guidance as to the funding of the additional expenditure within Wastewater and the budget allocations of carry forwards.

Recommended Option

This report recommends option 1 for addressing the matter.

NEXT steps

Work continues on the Annual Report. The Auditors commenced work on the 21 August 2019 and will be onsite for two weeks from 26August to 6 September.

The audited Annual Report will be presented to the Risk and Audit Committee on the 12 September and is scheduled to be adopted by Council on 26 September.

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) Council approve the budget allocations proposed to be carried forward from 2018/19 year to 2019/20 year to enable projects to be completed and future work to be funded.

b) Council approve the District Plan loan of $15,462 for a period of 10 years and Water Supply Loan of $266,951 for Operational for a period of 10 years to fund the additional expenditure required for the 2018/19 financial year.

Council Meeting Agenda 29 August 2019

7.8 Outcome of Rating Review Stage 1

File Number: COU-1400

Author: Bronda Smith, Group Manager, Corporate Support and Services

Authoriser: Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments: 1. Activity Summary For Step One Analysis ⇩

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is for Council to adopt the outcome of the first stage of the Rating Review.

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) Council adopts the step one analysis for its activities as per the attached schedule.

b) The Property and Building Activity costs be considered within Libraries, Council Administration and Theatres and Halls.


compliance
Significance	This matter is assessed as being of some importance
Options	This report identifies and assesses the following reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter: 1. Council adopts the step one analysis for its activities as per the attached schedule. a) 2. Council does not adopt the step one analysis for its activities as per the attached schedule and gives guidance to officers to the changes required.
Affected persons	The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter are the ratepayers of Central Hawke’s Bay.
Recommendation	This report recommends option 1 for addressing the matter.
Long-Term Plan / Annual Plan Implications	The outcome of the full rating review will require changes to the Revenue and Financing policy and is expected to affect the way rates are apportioned for the 2020/21 Annual Plan.
Significant Policy and Plan Inconsistencies	None

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the report is to adopt step one of a two step process to review Council’s Revenue and financing policy. This is a requirement of section 101(3)(a) Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

A formal Rating Review was last conducted in late 2008 and applied to the Revenue and Financing Policy and Funding Impact Statement as part of the 2009/10 financial year. Since this time Council has made minor changes to the Revenue and Financing Policy with a move to more private funding for activities that are considered to have a higher individual benefit.

As part of the Long Term Plan Consultation, Council considered the proposal to change the funding for drinking water and wastewater and to include a District Wide Targeted Rate set on a uniform base that would be paid by all ratepayers in the district whether or not you are connected to the network. As part of the deliberations, Council resolved the following:

Retain the current funding for drinking water and wastewater with targeted rates for those connected to the network and initiate a full Rating Review only after all the information is gathered and known about the extent of the CHB drinking water and wastewater future expenditure

In March 2019, Finance and Planning Committee adopted the Rating Review Scope and Timing which included the requirements to do a Two Step Process for a First Principles Review.

Step one requires Council to form a view on each the following for each activity:

· Community outcomes to which the activity primarily contributes

· Distribution of benefits – who gets the benefit whole/part of community or individuals?

· Period the benefits are expected to occur

· Extent actions or inactions contribute to need to undertake the activity (exacerbators)

· Costs and benefits of funding the activity separately from other activities

The following sessions with the Council were conducted to review the activities.

Steps required	Details	Date
Before election
Session one	1. Set out the process required and how the Council will consider section 101 (3) (a) 2. Agree the template that will be used to assess benefits for each activity 3. Use an activity that has most of five criteria of 101 (3) (a) that need to be considered 4. Agree the order that activities will be considered	02/05/19
Session two	Consider selected activities	16/05/19
Session three	Consider selected activities	05/06/19
Session four	Consider selected activities	20/06/19

It is important to note that step one should be completed before any modification occurs as part of step two. Step one is also known as a Funding Needs Analysis (FNA).

As part of the completion of this step the Council has selected its preferred funding tools for both operational and capital expenditure for each activity. For some activities the Council has identified a percentage of either public good or private good, and for other activities, it has not. At this stage it is important for Council to confirm the tools it intends to be used and the rationale for the selection of tools, not the allocation between either public good or private good.

Step two requires Council to consider the overall impact of any allocation of liability for revenue needs on the current and future social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of the community. This provides Council with significant scope to modify which funding tools are used and the impacts on identifiable groups. This step can only be completed after Council has formally adopted step one and has considered the impacts on the community. This step will be considered by the new Council after the October elections.

Therefore, Council is required to consider, modify if required and then adopt the attached schedule of its activities, before it considers the impact of these allocations on its community. The attached schedule does not include Property and Building activity. As the cost of this activity are primarily allocated to the libraries, and the Council administration function, therefore there is little benefit in considering this activity as the costs would then be reconsidered as part of each activity. In addition, the remaining costs relating to the community rooms are better included with Theatres and Halls activity.

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as of some importance as this is the first step in determining the appropriate rating requirements of the Council across the ratepayers of the district. Prior to the implementation of the outcome of the rating review, Council will be required to consult with the community.

OPTIONS

The following analysis applies to all options

a) Financial and Resourcing Implications

There are no financial or resourcing implications contained in this report.

b) Alignment to Project Thrive and Community Outcomes

This report aligns with Project Thrive and the Community Outcomes.

c) Statutory Responsibilities

Section 101(3)(a) Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires Council to follow a two step process when completing a rating review. This report contains the outcome of step one which Council is required to adopt before moving to step two.

d) Consistency with Policies and Plans

This report is consistent with the current policies and plans of Council however the outcome of the review will have an implication on the Revenue and Financing Policy and is expected to effect the way in which rates are apportioned in the Annual Plan 2020/2.

e) Participation by Māori

This outcomes contained in the report do not require participation. Maori will be consulted following the full rating review.

f) Community Views and Preferences

The community’s views were considered as part of the consultation on the Long Term Plan 2018-28 and it was agreed by Council following consultation that a full rating review would be conducted

Option 1 Council adopts the step one analysis for its activities as per the attached schedule

b) The Property and Building Activity costs be considered within Libraries, Council Administration and Theatres and Halls.

a) Risk Analysis

c) There are no identified risks associated with this option. The new council is able to revise the outcome of step one following the election.

b) Advantages and Disadvantages

The advantage of this option is the conclusion of the first step is adopted by Council and allows step two start following the election.

There are no identified disadvantages of this option.

Option 2 Council does not adopt the step one analysis for its activities as per the attached schedule and gives guidance to officers to the changes required

a) Risk Analysis

There are no identified risks associated with this option.

b) Advantages and Disadvantages

There are on identifiable advantages of this option.

The disadvantage of this option is the outcomes of step one of the rating review will needed to be adopted by the new Council following the election prior to step two commencing. The new council is able to revise the outcome of step one following the election.

Recommended Option

This report recommends option 1 for addressing the matter.

Next steps

Once Council has adopted step one or the Funding Needs Analysis (FNA), the new Council must complete the following steps before any changes to its Revenue & financing policy including changes to the impacts of rates, can be implemented.

1. Model the rates impact on the FNA

2. Consider the overall impacts of step 1 and update the FNA

To undertake this step the Council should have a preferred option. The FNA (Step 2) is also a requirement of section 101(3)(b) LGA.

This is an opportunity for the council to step back from the individual funding activities to consider the overall allocation of liability including impacts of rates, debt and fees & charges in the community. Ultimately, this is a political judgement. Step 2 involves looking carefully at the funding choices developed in Step one and being clear about the reasons for modifying them.

A council must not only complete the two-stage process but also be able to show that they have done so AND that both steps have been fully documented.

3. Model and confirm the preferred rates allocation option

4. Draft Revenue & financing policy and supporting rating policies

In addition to the Draft Revenue & financing policy, Council may need to modify its rates remission or postponement policies. It is also possible that other policies including liability management, investment and development contributions or financial contributions may need to be updated.

5. Draft the proposal and supporting information for consultation

Consultation on the Revenue & financing policy and supporting polices^{^[1]} will be required.

For a section 82 consultation the legislation lists essential information which must be included in the proposal. This essential information is:

• analysis of the options;

• copies of any policies that will need to be changed.

The proposal is a primary communication document that helps the reader understand the proposal, the options council has considered, how the reader may be affected and why council prefers the proposed option. To be effective, the proposal it must be concise and to the point (while meeting the legal requirements). But it will be useful to have additional information available for those that want to dig more deeply into the matter.

6. Carry out community consultation

This is a formal step required to set a lawful rate, whether through a section 82 (LGA) consultation or section 83 (LGA) SCP.

The key things for compliance are that the proposal must contain:

• the proposal; and

• the reasons for the proposal.

In an effective rating review the proposal should be a clear statement about which rates are changing. This statement should describe how rates are allocated currently and how it is proposed to allocate them in future.

The proposal should also include a summary of the other options considered and give reasons why the council considers those options are not the best way forward for the community. These reasons may link back to the reasons given for the review at the start of the process. The status quo should be one of the options discussed, along with reasons why staying with it is not appropriate.

7. Hear submissions

8. Update and amend policies after considering submissions

9. Adopt new policies

10. Set the rates

Steps required	Details	Date
After the election
Briefing with new Council	Brief on allocations made to date Confirm or modify the allocation	TBC
Session	Consider the tools (e.g. Types of rates, debt and fees) that reflect the benefits in step one	TBC
Model the tools	Impacts of rates on ratepayers	TBC
Session	Consider the results of the models	TBC
Re model tools	Impacts of rates on ratepayers	TBC
Session	Confirm tools to be used	TBC
Develop consultation process	Report to Council	TBC
Draft Revenue & financing policy and supporting rating policies	Report to Council	TBC
Draft the proposal and supporting information for consultation	Report to Council	TBC