I hereby give notice that a Meeting of Council will be held on:

 

Date:

Thursday, 23 May 2019

Time:

9.00am

Location:

CHB Municipal Theatre

18 Kenilworth St

Waipawa

 

AGENDA

 

 

Council Meeting

23 May 2019

 

Our vision for Central Hawke’s Bay is a proud and prosperous district made up of strong communities and connected people who respect and protect our environment and celebrate our beautiful part of New Zealand.

Monique Davidson

Chief Executive

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

Order Of Business

1          Prayer. 3

2          Apologies. 3

3          Declarations of Conflicts of Interest 3

4          Standing Orders. 3

5          Confirmation of Minutes. 3

6          Reports from Committees. 11

Nil

7          Report Section. 12

7.1            Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/2020 - Management Overview.. 12

7.2            Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - #the even bigger water story. 22

7.3            Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - Revenue and Financing Policy. 68

7.4            Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - Finance. 93

7.5            Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - Environment 100

7.6            Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - Community. 107

7.7            Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - The Establishment of a Disaster Relief Fund Trust 116

7.8            Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - Draft Environmental and Sustainability Strategy. 119

7.9            Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - Governance and Leadership. 139

7.10          Quarterly Financial Reporting for March 2019. 141

7.11          Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - Proposed Dog Pound. 176

7.12          Implementation of Dust Suppression Policy. 181

8          Chief Executive Report 197

Nil

9          Public Excluded Business. 197

Nil

10       Date of Next Meeting. 197

11       Time of Closure. 197

 

 


1            Prayer

“We dedicate ourselves to the service of the District of

Central Hawke’s Bay/Tamatea and its people.

We ask for God’s help

to listen to all

to serve all

and to lead wisely.

Amen.”

2            Apologies

3            Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

4            Standing Orders

RECOMMENDATION

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.

 

5            Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting - 9 May 2019


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

   MINUTES OF Central Hawkes Bay District Council
Meeting
HELD AT THE CHB Municipal Theatre, Kenilworth Street, Waipawa
ON Thursday, 9 May 2019 AT 9.00am

 

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)

Darren De Klerk (3 Waters Programme Manager)

Leigh Collecutt (Governance and Support Officer)

 

1            Prayer

Mayor Walker opened the meeting with a prayer

2            Apologies

Cr Tim Chote leave of absence granted as per Council meeting 10th April.

3            Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

No conflicts of interest were declared.

4            Standing Orders

Resolved:  19.21

Moved:       Cr Ian Sharp

Seconded:  Cr Brent Muggeridge

THAT the following standing orders are suspended for the later parts of the meeting after the submissions hearing is complete:

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:  19.22

Moved:       Cr Kelly Annand

Seconded:  Cr Tim Aitken

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 10 April 2019 as circulated, be confirmed as true and correct.

 

Carried

 

 

6            Reports from Committees

Nil

7            Report Section

7.1         Submissions on the Annual Plan 2019-2020

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council submissions received on the Annual Plan 2019-2020 for their consideration.

 

Recommendation

a)   That the submissions on the Annual Plan Parts 1 to 4 be received and

b)   That Council resolves to accept late submissions and further late submissions for consideration

 

 

Submission 59 – Clint Deckard

 

Submission 54 - Arthur Rowlands

 

Submission 33 - Angus Mabin

A copy of Mr Mabin’s further comments was provided.

 

Submission 105 -  Lon Anderson

A copy of Mr Anderson’s further comments was provided.

 

Submission 49 – Robby Smith

 

Submission 47 – CHB Forest and Bird – Louise Phillips

 

Meeting adjourned for morning tea at 9.49am

Meeting reconvened at 10.10am

 

Submission 55 - Louise Phillips

 

Submission 79 – Sharleen Baird

 

Submission 103 – Gren Christie

 

Submission 82 - Charles Nairn

 

Submission 86 -  Harold Petherick

 

Submission 84 – John Jukes

 

Submission 67 – Murray Howarth

 

Meeting adjourned due to gaps in hearing schedule at 10.52am

Meeting reconvened at 11.24am

 

Submission 101 -  Trevor Le Lievre

 

Submission 113 – Rei Sciascia

A handout was provided.

 

Submission 117 – Peter Kittow

 

Submission 118 – Fred Nichol

 

Submission 119 - Bruce Stephenson

 

 

Submission hearing was ahead of time and moved to the notice of motion – item number 7.2

 

 

Meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.15pm

Meeting reconvened at 1.00pm

 

 

Submission 42 – Robin Horder

 

Submission 15 – Sir Graeme Avery

Marcus Agnew was in attendance with Sir Graeme.  Sir Graeme delivered a Powerpoint presentation to support his submission.

Submission 100 – Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay – Charles Daugherty and Sam Jackman

A powerpoint presentation was delivered in support of the submission.

 

Submission 80 – Murray Cammock

Mr Cammock provided a demonstration of the principles of base aggregates and soil and the impact that this could have on water storage and filtration.

Further comments were distributed.

 

Submission 88 – Malcolm Gourlie

 

Submission 61 – Forest and Bird NZ – Tom Kay

 

Submission 6 – Mike Smith

 

Submission 93 - Rebecca Baker

 

Further Late submission – not processed or numbered – Jenny Nelson-Smith

 

Further Late submission – not processed or numbered – Carol Slingsby

 

 

 

7.2         Notice of Motion - Implementation of Dust Supression Policy

PURPOSE

In accordance with Standing Order 26, the Chief Executive has received a Notice of Motion from Councillor Burne-Field, seconded by Councillor Minehan, with the request that the Notice of Motion be placed on the agenda for the 9 May 2019 Council meeting.

The purpose of report is to provide Councillor Burne-Field and Councillor Minehan an opportunity to speak to the Notice of Motion and for Council to consider appropriate courses of action.

 

 

Resolved:  19.23

Moved:       Cr Shelley Burne-Field

Seconded:  Cr Gerard Minehan

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a)         That Council requests that the Chief Executive prepare a report to be considered as part of Annual Plan deliberations on the 23 May 2019 on the funding and finance options to prioritise the implementation of the Dust Suppression Policy;

b)         And further that the report include options and recommendations on allocation from the Rural Reserve Fund, reprioritisation of existing transport investment, and options for investment via the general rate.

 

Carried

 

Cr Burne-Field spoke to the Notice of Motion.

 

Cr Minehan spoke in support of the motion and about the dissatisfaction in the district about the condition of rural roads.  Cr Minehan highlighted that through the Project Thrive process, the community was clear that they wanted Council to bring a new approach to dust suppression issues.

 

Mayor Walker agreed that getting more information from staff was a good idea but did have some reservations about how much funding could be allocated to dust suppression at this moment in time.

Mayor Walker indicated that this would likely need to inform the next Long Term Plan discussion.


 

 

 

8            Chief Executive Report

Nil

 

9            Public Excluded Business

 

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolved:  19.24

Moved:       Cr Ian Sharp

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 - Supplier Recommendation : Waipawa Trunk Sewer Main Renewal

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

 

 

Resolved:  19.25

Moved:       Cr David Tennent

Seconded:  Cr Tim Aitken

That Council moves out of Closed Council into Open Council

Carried

   

10          Date of Next Meeting

Resolved:  19.26

Moved:       Cr Shelley Burne-Field

Seconded:  Cr Brent Muggeridge

THAT the next meeting of the Central Hawke's Bay District Council be held on 23 May 2019.

Carried

11          Time of Closure

The Meeting closed at 2.50pm.

 

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Council Meeting held on 23 May 2019.

 

 

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

CHAIRPERSON


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

 

6            Reports from Committees

Nil


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

7            Report Section

7.1         Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/2020 - Management Overview

File Number:           COU1-1400

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

Authoriser:             Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments:          1.       Letter from CHB Community Trust 2 May 2019  

 

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council for deliberation a management overview and issues identified since the adoption of the Annual Plan Consultation Document and Supporting Information.

 

Recommendation

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a)   That Council note the changes requested to the 2019/2020 Annual Plan budget, which will be included in the Annual Plan 2019/2020 that is presented for adoption on 20th June 2019.

 

Overview

Procedure

This Management Overview report is intended to help set the scene for the matters that form part of the Annual Plan 2019/20 deliberations. This report strives to make the Council’s starting point clear and set out those matters that have been identified post the adoption of the Annual Plan 2019/20 Consultation Document and Supporting Information in February 2019 and includes a recommendation for these matters to be incorporated into final Annual Plan. The report also collectively identifies the specific funding requests that have been presented to Council through the consultation and submission process.

Background

The Annual Plan 2019/20 Consultation Document was the compilation of six months of Council briefings and information that has been presented to Council to review the levels of services, capital programme and the budgets from Year 2 of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan (LTP) for Central Hawke’s Bay.

Council adopted the Consultation Document on 28 February 2019. A formal consultation and submission processed followed with seven community Have Your Say meetings enabling members of the community to engage with elected members and officers on the issues they would like addressed.

The Annual Plan Consultation Document was seeking community feedback on the following key items:

·    #the even bigger water story

·    Changes to the Revenue and Financing Policy

·    Establishment of a Disaster Relief Fund Trust

·    Draft Environmental Strategy

As part of the Consultation Document and Supporting Information, Council consulted with the community on a proposed rate increase of 4.36%.

Submissions closed on 12 April 2019 with an extension to 18 April 2019 for Porangahau residents due to the postponement of the Have Your Say meeting. Council received a total of 134 submissions. Hearings were held on 9 May 2019 with 28 submitters presenting their submissions to Council.

This report forms part of a suite of reports that officers have compiddled to provide elected members to inform the deliberations on the submissions received. Following deliberations and the associated resolutions, the Annual Plan will be compiled and presented to Council for adoption on 24 June 2019.

Overview of impacts

As part of the Consultation Document and Supporting Information, Council consulted with the community on a proposed rate increase of 4.36%.

As Council went through the formal consultation process, and in particular as it considered submissions and heard from submitters at the hearings officers observed and listened actively to all Elected Members and submitters.

Rates affordability was a strong message from many submitters. That of course is a challenging exercise. On the one hand we have submitters raising the issue of rates affordability and the other we have submitters asking Council to do more. That coupled with issues uncovered by management subsequent to the publishing of the Consultation Document makes for an extremely difficult task.

Officers have completed the following table which summaries the impact of the issues identified by Management and requests for funding that have been presented to Council through the Consultation and Submission Process.

 

No

Description

Cost

Budget Type

2019/20 Rates Impact

Report

Overview Report

1

Three Waters Compliance

$113,191

Opex

0.59%

Overview

2

LiDAR

$100,000

Capex

0.12%

Overview

3

Elected Members Remuneration

$16,624

Opex

0.08%

Overview

4

CHB Community Trust Additional

$8,909

Opex

0.05%

Overview

5

Emergency Management

$43,500

Capex

Reserves Funded

Overview

 

0.84%

 

Dog Pound Report

6

Dog Pound

$297,000

$6,000

Capex

Opex

0.09%

Dog Pound

Finance Reports

7

Ongaonga Historical Society

$2,572

Opex

0.01%

Finance

8

Hawke’s Bay Fitness Trust

$20,000

Opex

0.10%

Finance

9

Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay

$10,000

Opex

0.05%

Finance

 

0.16%

 

 

In summary if all the issues identified by Management and requests for funding that have been presented to Council through the Consultation and Submission Process were to be supported by Council as per the above table the rates increase for 2019/20 would be 5.45%.

Issues identified by Management since the adoption of the Annual Plan Consultation Document

During the period between the Council adopting the Annual Plan 2019/20 Consultation Document and Supporting Information and Council reviewing and hearing the submissions, officers have identified a number of items that are recommended as amendments to the Annual Plan.

Many of these represent costs that Council is required to spend as a result of compliance and giving effect to decisions outside of the Council’s influence.

Topic 1.    Three Waters Compliance

Officers request an alteration to the 2019/20 Annual Plan to allow for necessary increases in internal and contracting resource to meet new and changing legislative and wider regulatory and compliance requirements for drinking water, storm water and waste water. An increase in the following budgeted amounts within the presented Annual Plan are requested:

The increases in operating expenditure required are necessary given changes in the regulatory and compliance regimes for all three waters. The changes necessitating an increase in Council investment are described below categorised under each of the three waters.

The total increase in targeted rates is $113,191 which has a rates impact of 0.59%

Drinking Water

A national move to a new format of Water Safety Plans has been embraced by the HBDHB and local Drinking Water Assessors (DWAs). The new format has been accompanied by an increased enthusiasm of the DWAs who are seeking now to review many previously accepted practices, processes and procedures. DWAs locally are now requiring reviews of all supporting documentation to all water-safety-related activities at a level much greater than previous. Weekly reviews are occurring internally now to meet the compliance workload and this is considered unsustainable in the medium to long term.

The HBRC have also tightened up on requirements now requesting much greater detail and timeliness in water-use information. HBRC are also more strictly enforcing consent conditions for water takes requiring additional monitoring and reporting on Councils part.

 

Current Budgeted Amount

New Budget Requirement

Additional Budget required

Water Operational Monitoring

$87,485

$148,818

$61,333

 

Waste Water

The extension of consents for some plants to optimise capital investment has resulted in an increase in short-medium term monitoring and reporting requirements. The sophistication of analysis and information processing for monitoring and reporting against all wastewater consents has also increased with annual return reports increasing from 20 to 60 pages in most cases.

 

Current Budgeted Amount

New Budget Requirement

Additional Budget required

Wastewater Operational Monitoring 4081129

$153,000

$196,630

$43,630

 


 

 

Storm Water

The implementation of and adherence to CHBDCs Stormwater Resource Consent is requiring a radical increase in resource. New monitoring and sampling programmes are being created, new reporting frameworks published and landowners are being engaged with under a totally new model and approach to managing Stormwater. Stantec have been supporting the work to date and have compiled a 12-month roadmap of actions required to meet consent conditions complete with estimated resource requirements for each task.

 

 

Current Budgeted Amount

New Budget Requirement

Additional Budget required

Stormwater Operational Monitoring

 

$32,640

$40,868

$8,228

 

Topic 2.    LIDAR data

Following the initiation of Consultation on the Annual Plan 2019/20, Officers were advised of a project for the completion of gathering LiDAR data for the Hawke’s Bay Region.

As part of the Provincial Growth Fund, Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has co-funding available to help regions obtain a baseline elevation dataset which will deliver practical value and multiple uses over the coming decades for councils and regional industries.

LiDAR data is x,y,z coordinate points, surveyed using laser (from aircraft in this case) to produce high-resolution maps that are able to assist with future planning.

It is used widely in local government and other sectors including mining, forestry and farming. For example, it has been used for roading design and set out (Gisborne and New Plymouth), to understand of sea-level rise impacts (Dunedin), Stormwater design (many Councils in NZ) and geohazard mapping (Hastings).

 

Funding

The funding required for the project has been estimated at $2.1m for the Hawke’s Bay Region and LINZ have indicated they will contribute between 50-60% of the costs ($1.3-1.5m) from the Provincial Growth Fund. Hawke’s Bay Regional Council is providing $305K of the funding with the balance to be split across the remaining Hawke’s Bay Councils.

Central Hawke’s Bay District Council has been requested to contribute $100K to the project.

Based on the nature of the expenditure, Officers recommend that this be funded by loan funding over a period of 5 years and increase rates by of $22,779 for the Annual Plan 2019/20 which is 0.12%.

 

Topic 3.    Elected members remuneration

Following the Remuneration Authority’s major review of the remuneration of elected members of local government, each council was resized and the first stage of the adjustment to the remuneration was completed this financial year.

The Remuneration Authority has since provided additional information for the next two stages with stage 2 taking effect on 1 July and the third stage taking effect following the local government elections.

Based on information from the Remuneration Authority this requires an increase to the budgets of $16,264 which is 0.08%.

Topic 4.    CHB Community trust request for funding

Officers have received a request from the Central Hawke’s Bay Community Trust to provide an increase above and beyond the current funding allocation provided for in their service agreement with Council.  The increase is requested to cover operational costs that have increased beyond the Trusts capability to sustainably fund these.

 

Council currently provides $209,146 (excluding GST) in the 2018/19 year as part of the service agreement.  The agreement provides for a compounding inflation value each year.

 

Based on the anticipated inflation figure for the 2018/19, the expected value of the service agreement for the 2019/20 year is $211,237.  The budget in the 2019/20 year is $216,828, providing a surplus of $5,590.

 

The Trust have requested an increase in funding of their service agreement to $225,737.  This increase is $14,499 above the value in the 2019/20 year that the service agreement anticipates, and $8,909 above the budgeted value in the 2019/20 Annual Plan and is an increase in rates of 0.05%.

 

The request from CHB Community Funding is attached to this report.

Topic 5.    Addressing Deficiencies in Councils Emergency Management Preparedness

In November 2017 an audit of Central Hawke’s Bay Districts Councils Civil Defence preparedness was undertaken by the Hawkes Bay Emergency Management Group.  The Audit identified some 80 corrective actions to lift the preparedness of the organisation.

Substantial progress on the corrective action list has been made, with the list of actions now over 70% complete. 

Councillors will recall in the December-January Organisational Report that an audit of Councils VHF radio capability was being done following the failure of the main Omakere Repeater late last calendar year.  This audit has identified major deficiencies in Councils VHF radio capability.

Areas of the District only have communication through the radio network, such as parts of Pourerere where radio was the only communication link with these areas in previous events such as the Coastal Storm event in 2011.  The radio network is a key part of Councils business-as-usual processes, providing health and safety cover where there is no cellphone coverage and for other day-to-day services such as animal control.

We have also finalised our review following our organisations first Tier 1 exercise in some time, with a number of basic deficiencies being identified that require addressing for the operation of our Emergency Operating Centre.

The Hawke’s Bay Emergency Management Group, while regional does not fund or provide for the basic operation of Emergency Operations Centres and preparedness.  This is a cost that is required to be borne by each Territorial Authority.

The Council is currently using an emergency services radio frequency (ESB) for business-as-usual operations. The penalty for anyone using an ESB channel for non-emergency purposes is $10,000 per transmission. Napier City Council were warned and threatened with a fine for using their ESB for parking wardens. They have since moved to a non-ESB channel.

Radio tests have identified that a number of base radio sets are near failure or have failed and our Council own VHF radio aerial network is deficient. 

 

We are proposing to establish a new Radio Channel for Central Hawke’s Bay District Council, removing our services from the emergency services radio frequency.  We are also proposing to replace Councils current radio antennae and to establish new repeater hardware on a new channel, requiring the programming of all suitable radios with the new channel.  The number of community radios will be decreased from 27 to seven, with these being replaced shifting to mobile radio devices. 

 

Other organisational radio sets that have failed will be will be replaced, including our basic handheld units with modern digital units.  These will be able to be used for other basic events such as Christmas parades and other events and activities.

 

The cost to upgrade the radios is $36,300 (excluding GST).

 

Our Emergency Operating Centre also requires new dedicated technology, including an additional fixed smart projector, and specific notebooks/chromebooks for the roll-out of the new National Emergency Management Operating Systems expected in September.  This technology will also be available for use in the organisation for other training use. 

 

This cost is $7,200 (excluding GST).

 

We are proposing the total cost of $43,500 (excluding GST) is funded from the Rural Fire Fund, which has a balance of $94,093.  This will result in no impact on rates, being funded from a reserve fund.

Topic 6.    Building control fees and charges

Officers have reviewed the budget requirements and compared fees to other councils and request an increase to aspects of the Building Control fees and charges to accurately reflect the increasing costs to serve and costs to maintain level of service.

The fees below were not updated during the initial review.

Building Control fees and charges are comprised of numerous (exceeding 60) separable rates applied depending on the work undertaken. This disaggregation is purposeful and designed to provide an effective and fair means of recovering costs.

The existing and the proposed fees are set out below.

Activity

Current Fee

Proposed Fee

Difference

Simpli Consent Fee

Not currently charged

Actual Cost – to be set by Simpli based on building cost

GoGet Administration Fee - all consents

Not currently charged

$50.00

New

Hourly Charge Out Rate - Plan check of building consent

Not currently charged

$165.00

New

Hourly Charge Out Rate - Pre-lodge of building consent

Not currently charged

$165.00

New

Hourly Charge Out/Processing Rate - Building Consent Officer/Monitoring and Compliance

$160.00

$165.00

$5.00

 

 

Recommendation

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a)   That Council note the changes requested to the 2019/2020 Annual Plan budget, which will be included in the Annual Plan 2019/2020 that is presented for adoption on 20th June 2019.

 

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                     23 May 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

7.2         Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - #the even bigger water story

File Number:           COU1-1400

Author:                    Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Authoriser:             Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments:          1.       Discussion Document - Water Holdings CHB  

 

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the submissions received on the Annual Plan consultation in relation to whether the Council should provide a suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB for the purpose of exploring and assessing workable options to achieve water security.

 

Recommendation

That, having considered all matters raised in the report that Council deliberate to determine their preferred option.

 

The Even Bigger Water Story

Submissions:

3 Lorraine Keighley, 4 Kevin Davidson, 5 Joan Chatfield, 6 Michael Smith, 7 Gregory Kent, 8 Jennifer Woodman, 9 David Lewis, 11 Peter Watson, 17 Bruce Stern, 18 Tony Cunningham, 19 Andrew Renton-Green, 20 Sarah von Dadelszen, 21 George Harper,  24 Martin Lord,  25 Nicky Harper, 28 Kathryn Bayliss, 29 Graham Palmer, 30 Myles Henderson,  31 Duncan Smith, 32 Mike Petersen, 33 Angus Mabin, 34 Reidun Marshall, 35 Duncan Holden, 36 Sheryl Bayliss, 37 Lorraine Horder, 38 Sharon Ritchie, 39 Kevin Davidson, 40 Hay Rose, 41 Tony Murphy, 42 Robin Horder, 43 Jamie Gunson, 45 Alan Neckelson, 47 CHB Forest and Bird Society, 48 Angus Robson, 49 Robby Smith, 51 David Bishop, 52 Alan and Delphine Delugar, 53 Peter Meredith, 54 Arthur Rowlands, 55 Louise Phillips, 57 Liz and Ian Bayliss, 58 Dan Elderkamp, 59 Clint Deckard, 60 David and Kerry Mackintosh, 61 NZ Forest and Bird, 62 Victoria Bloomer, 63 Megan Fitter, 64 Murray Rosser, 65 Dean Hyde, 66 Greenpeace, 67 Murray Howarth, 68 Bruce Anderson, 69 William Stevenson, 70 Nicola Hobson, 71 Gill Tracy, 72 Adrienne Tully, 74 Diane Seager, 75 Jim and Yvonne Macaulay, 76 Tony Ward,  77 Catherine Pedersen, 78 Andrew Robb, 79 Sharleen Baird, 80 Murray Cammock, 81 Rawiri Barlow Johnston, 82 Charles Nairn, 83 George T Konia, 84 John Jakes, 85 Ray Freemantle, 86 Harold Petherick, 87 Terry Lamont, 88 Justin Courtney, 89 Peter Charlton-Jones, 90 Fiona Harty, 91 Neil Bayliss, 92 Rachel Hornblow, 94 Vera Smith, 95 Hugh Ritchie, 96 R Pickering, 97 L Guy and R Bell, Denise Cox, Gerard Pain, 101 Trevor Le Lievre, 102 Larry Dallimore, 103 Gren Christie, 104 Helen Walker, 105 Lon Anderson, 107 Ian Walker, 109 Nicolette Brasell, 110 Anne Wallace, 115 Dawn Le Lievre, 116 Ali Schaper, 117 Peter Kittow, 118 Fred Nichol, 119 Bruce Stephenson, 120 Di Murphy, 121 Maureen Clegg

Late submissions: 111 Richard Thomas, 112 Chris Davis, 125 Genne Rapaea, 128 Sam and Claire Bradley, 130 Sam and Megan Meadows

 

Summary of Submissions:

Whether or not Council should provide a suspensory loan of $250,000 to Water Holdings CHB was one of the key topics council sought public feedback on as part of the Annual Plan 2019/20 process.  In total Council received 10628 Kathryn Bayliss, submissions on this topic.

Introduction

 

Water storage has been a focus of much discussion in Central Hawke’s Bay for several years now.

 

We now need to invest our energy and resources into finding water security solutions which seek to balance the impact we have on the Tukituki catchment, with security of water not just for social and economic reasons, but with the health and sustainability of the river and aquifer at the centre of our decisions.

 

Water security presents significant challenges for Central Hawke’s Bay and the wider Hawke’s Bay region. If sustainable solutions are navigated it will afford the opportunity for businesses to return to or explore value adding opportunities for a Central Hawke’s Bay of the future.

 

The reality is though that Water Storage alone is not the silver bullet that will resolve the challenges that Central Hawke’s Bay is facing. Water Storage may be one part of a wider solutions package for water security in Central Hawke’s Bay.

 

As part of the Draft Annual Plan 2019/20 Central Hawke’s Bay District Council sought feedback from the community on the proposition that a $250,000.00 suspensory loan be provided to Water Holdings CHB Limited.

 

The purpose of this report is to summarise the submissions sought from the community through the special consultative process, and to provide Council options on how they might proceed.

 

What was the proposal?

 

Council proposed to allocate $250,000 from the Rural Ward Funds to work specifically with Water Holdings CHB Limited and other key stakeholders to determine feasible water storage options for Central Hawke’s Bay.  Given the high public interest that water storage to date has received, Council chose to consult with the public on their thoughts about providing the suspensory loan.

 

Water Holdings CHB Ltd is a Limited Liability company set up to purchase the Intellectual Property (IP) for the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme from Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Investment Company.

 

The entity, while a private business, promotes itself as being not for profit from the assets which have been purchased.

 

A suspensory loan is a non-repayable loan, which is dispensed over time or upon the completion of a set of agreed outputs. A suspensory loan normally is not repayable, however there can be mechanisms whereby repayment can be required. In the instance of the investment being proposed, this could include Water Holdings CHB Ltd commercialisation of the IP or the sale, divestment or transfer of IP or the company who holds the IP.

 

This project sought to support Water Holdings CHB Ltd and key stakeholders to further assess the IP of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme to explore and produce workable options to achieve water security for inter-generational economic, social and environmental resilience of Central Hawke’s Bay.

 

The proposed money would support Water Holdings CHB Ltd to investigate existing IP and work in a collaborative way with Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and other key stakeholders to determine a solutions package for sustainable and reliable summer water supply both in Central Hawke’s Bay Ruataniwha Plains and the lower Tukituki catchment.

 

Attached to this report is a copy of the initial discussion paper provided for public engagement.

 

No detailed agreement or conditions were proposed as part of the Discussion Document, recognising the very preliminary stage of seeking community feedback on whether to proceed with the proposal or not.

 

What did our community say?

45 submitters supported Council providing the suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB.  Some of the key matters raised by submitters in support of this option included:

·    That Central Hawkes Bay is at risk of costing many jobs if no adequate water storage solution is found

·    The previous attempt at looking at a water storage solution had the wrong ownership structure

·    Water is necessary for long term sustainability for the future of Central Hawke’s Bay’s future economic and population growth

·    There would be considerable benefit to the entire community if an environmentally acceptable but commercially viable solution can be found.

·    Ratepayers will benefit from the Council investing in a lasting solution, especially given the water restrictions currently in place.

·    That a low level dam would likely be all that was required and if the concept were feasible that the loan would be supported

·    That a large proportion of winter and spring rainfall in the catchment ends up in the sea so to dam water courses would be sensible

·    That to delay implementation of a solution will stifle growth and enterprise in the district

·    That although the submitter had no issue with the suspensory loan, that they question the point of the proposal, given the legalities of swapping DOC land for the main dam.  The submitter questioned whether a smaller dam would have any affect during low rainfall.

·    That there is no easy solution to water shortages

·    Storage of water would provide water to the growing towns and allow development and diversified crops on the Ruataniwha Plain

·    That the proposal would allow irrigators to move away from ground water use and combined with possible flushing could restore the Tukituki River.

·    That Council should be encouraging the public towards water storage in Central Hawke’s Bay

·    The economic and social wellbeing of the district depends on a thriving rural economy

·    Water security is vital in ensuring that Central Hawke’s Bay can withstand  the challenges of climate change in the future

·    The opportunity to take surplus water for storage needs to be explored to enable innovative crop opportunities

·    That we need an overarching look into the best solution for water storage, allocation and distribution in the district to meet everyone’s needs

·    That plenty of countries have no water, but we are only short in the summer months so need to find a way to manage how to have a supply year round

·    Restriction through the Regional Council’s Plan Change 6 restricts a large amount of water that has not been restricted previously

·    That this is a good opportunity for the district now that the ownership is in Central Hawke’s Bay

·    That this is a no brainer for the future prosperity of the community

·    Security of water would enable a mosaic of land uses increasing economic resilience for the region

·    The future for Central Hawke’s Bay development lies in land use change driven by water availability

·    That this is a conflict of interest for the council to be involved in as a regulator and funder

·    That although this is supported, that the submitter questions why it is coming from the Rural Ward Fund

·    That checks and balances will need to be done by the Council to ensure the loan is a sound investment

·    That the proposal is supported, but with reservations

 

59 submitters opposed Council providing the suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB.  Some of the key matters raised by submitters in support of this option included:

·    That although there is an understanding of the need for a secure water supply, that the investment does not change the previous decisions made, where DOC lands can’t be flooded and a land swap is not a viable option.

·    That it would be preferable to revise existing water resource consents for pastoral users

·    Taking water out of the water table would mean it was not available for forests 

·    That the Council should not give money to a private company without any accountability to the Council

·    That the Makaroro River is unsuitable for a dam for a number of reasons, and that we should head towards using the land in a way that requires less water.

·    That ratepayers have already contributed enough to a water storage solution

·    That there is no security offered by the recipients to back the loan

·    That land owners need to plan and fund their own water storage and supply

·    That it would be wise to develop ways to use land in a manner that requires less water to be sustainable

·    That in order to pay for the scheme, users must increase production, further polluting aquifers and waterways

·    That there is a lack of transparency and that there has not been any detail on how the money would be spent

·    That although the Council says that Water Storage is critical for the future security of water in CHB, it doesn’t seem to have explored any other options to ensure adequate quantity and quality for community users year round

·    That the Council has said there will be strict criteria but have not elaborated on what these are

·    That there is a lack of clarity about what the Rural Ward Fund would otherwise be for and that if it is available to use that this should be used to encourage water conservation and to encourage primary producers to improve the efficiency of their water use

·    That the amount of water used for irrigation is disproportionately higher than water used for drinking

·    That ratepayer money should be spent on ensuring water is used sustainably

·    That there is concern about the suspensory status of the loan and that if the IP is sold by Water Holdings CHB, the loan should be repaid.

·    That given the significant investment made by the regional council on a solution, that the district council and Water Holdings CHB would be unlikely to make it a reality

·    The loan exposes ratepayers to a high risk, through imprudent use of public funds

·    That the loan would contradict the Council’s Treasury Management Policy which outline that investments should be low risk and that Water Holdings CHB does not have a credit rating.

·    That Council is not required to supply water to rural areas for irrigation.  Most irrigation schemes are owned by famers and very few, if any, Councils help fund them.

·    That Council will not have the resources to set up the loan and actively manage the conditions of it.

·    That there are a number of conflicting statements that have been released including the fact that the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme is not being revisited, despite it being  the IP from the scheme which is being reviewed.

·    That a proposal to build a dam would be a contradiction to the proposed Environmental and Sustainability Strategy and the HB Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan.

·    That it would be a terrible catastrophe to cause destruction of our natural environment

·    That Council has previously voted not to invest in the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme

·    That the Council would not get Provincial Growth Funding for a mega dam

·    That Water Holdings CHB Limited should find the money elsewhere

·    That there are alternative methods for farmers and growers to farm sustainably so as not to degrade the environment

·    That if funding is going to benefit everyone in the district, why is it just being taken from the rural fund and not an urban equivalent fund?

·    That there would be probable poor economic and environmental outcomes if the project should proceed

·    That the likely downstream impacts would be significant and extend all the way to the coast

·    That  ratepayers and the environment would end up bearing the cost for the benefit of an interested few

·    That it is not right to make changes to Council policies to allow the loan to occur

·    That the money could be put to better use

·    That this is simply ‘flogging a dead horse’

·    That we should wait until the HBRC Ruataniwha Aquifer study is released in order for Water Holding’s CHB to get a more solid business case to put to Council to secure public funding

·    No guarantee that a private company will deliver benefits and that Council should employ consultants to do this work

·    That Sole assets in the company are the IP of the previous scheme, so what other options are Water Holdings CHB likely to consider?

·    That the interests of ratepayers are inadequately protected from the conflicting interests of the company’s shareholders.

·    The risks are understated and the benefits exaggerated

·    The company plans a public relations campaign for a law change to allow the land swap for the high dam.  Any other options offered are misleading and designed to secure public funding.

·    Once public funds have been secured the company can change policies at any time

·    That risk mitigation would need to include rigorous loan conditions and staged payments on the basis of milestones and that the Council should take a majority shareholding with rights to appoint the board

·    Surface water users are the main beneficiaries and should be required to fund the scheme

·    It is unlikely that the water storage would provide sufficient augmentation of river flows so it is unlikely that the dam will make economic sense

·    Dairy farming and associated water demand will be curtailed by Plan Change 6

·    Secure water supplies discourage adaptation to water scarcity and consideration of alternatives that have less impact on the environment, e.g. restoration of wetlands and rebalancing water take consents granted by the regional council

·    That is doesn’t stack up environmentally, socially or financially

·    A legal framework needs to be put in place to hold Water Holdings CHB to account for any negative consequences of their proposed scheme

·    Water storage is not mitigation for climate change

·    The loan is not a loan, but a gift

·    Council needs to work with the regional council and central government to implement law change to decrease water allocations.  Summer conservation campaigns do nothing to save water when irrigators are carrying on business as usual.

·    That giving money to a private company undermines community involvement such as through the Tukituki Task Force

·    That given the law that directors of the company must act in the interests of shareholders, community interest will be secondary

·    That if an off river water storage option was suggested it would be received better

·    That Council should lobby Minister for the Environment to change legislation around ground water takes for large scale irrigation

·    A more equitable water solution for all could prevent a water storage scheme being necessary

·    That instead of fighting nature, that we should promote farming practices that align with the environment

·    The loss of thousands of trees will further increase greenhouse gas emissions

·    That Water Holdings CHB need to spend their own money to make sure that they will meet water quality and quantity objectives in the short and long term.

·    That any further increase in farm output will increase nitrate levels further frustrating the objectives of Plan Change 6

·    That Council grants should be available to more than one contestant, not just one company because they have asked for it

 

As can be read above within the analysis of submissions, a number of points were made in either support or against the proposal to provide a suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB Limited.

Before presenting options to Council, the following part of the report attempts to pull out the key themes raised during submissions and provide further or clarified information for Council to consider.

The report also contains updates to Council on any matters that have progressed or changed since Council first considered this proposal in February 2019.

What could we possibly find in the IP that hasn’t already been found before?

 

Water Holdings CHB Ltd, as the holder of the IP associated with the RWSS, is in a unique position to explore what value remains in the science, consents and construction plans to create a new approach to water storage as a part of the regional solutions for water security. 

 

The direction of work has its foundational intent to store sufficient water during the winter period to secure minimum river flows during the summer months. 

 

The scope of work that Water Holdings CHB Limited are seeking financial support for intends to work through the IP and engage with key stakeholders on a number of factors involved in the current consented structure.

 

The work will measure and prioritise the role of each factor in reaching a water storage solution that has wide community benefits and acceptance.

 

These factors include: 

  

1.   The volumes of water required in the main Makaroro, Waipawa and Tukituki tributaries to achieve minimum flow rates 

2.   The volume of water able to be held behind different wall heights 

3.   The breadth and composition of distribution network required to achieve coverage of the catchment, or parts thereof 

4.   The role water storage in this project could play in the wider regional approach to water security in the Tukituki Catchment – including Managed Aquifer Recharge and other private or community based water storage initiatives 
 

There is clearly a relationship between the minimum flow level and the volume of storage required to guarantee that flow level in drier years. This, in turn, implies that there is a significant trade-off between the provision of the minimum flow and the availability of water for irrigation purposes.

 

The focus of the assessment work is to evaluate this trade off to find an option that is acceptable to a majority of the community that looks at the priority of bringing environmental flow to the river and how that could be leveraged to support the land use changes we want to achieve in Central Hawke’s Bay. 

 

What is unique with Water Holdings CHB Limited proposal is the level of investment made to date in validating and designing a scaled water storage development. It is worth noting that the investment to date was via the Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company before the transfer of the IP to Water Holdings CHB Limited.

 

While significant investment in the proposition of water storage has already been made via the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Investment Company, the proposition that exists now is for community ownership and leadership of the IP to determine whether a refreshed approached can navigate a positive way forward.

 

Elected Members are requested to consider whether the investment proposition of providing what has been described as a last chance to look at the IP with fresh eyes to determine whether value can be found in the IP to help solve water security challenges for Central Hawke’s Bay.

 

What does the money get us? And how is the budget made up?

Water Holdings CHB Limited maintain that an opportunity exists to take a fresh look at the IP.

 

The IP was purchased by Water Holdings CHB Limited for $100,000.00. Since the purchasing of the IP, the shareholders have provided further capital to enable the startup of the company and some early work on the investigation of the IP.

 

Mike Smith has been engaged by Water Holdings CHB Limited and has completed early work in developing a high level programme plan.

 

The investment being sought by Water Holdings CHB Limited from Central Hawke’s Bay District Council is for $250,000. 

 

Water Holdings CHB Limited initially proposed that these funds will be matched by alternative funding sources.

 

The following Table provides a breakdown of the funding split that makes up the total proposed quantum of funds being sought.  

 

Table 1. Water Holdings CHB Limited Investment Split. 

Funder 

Quantum 

Comment 

Provincial Growth Fund (or alternative funding sources)

$250,000 

Not confirmed 

Other 

$50,000 

To be confirmed from other partners 

CHBDC 

$250,000 

Council investment being sought 

Total 

$550,000.00

 

 

Water Holdings CHB Limited have provided a comprehensive budget to Council Officers.

The budget provides a 4 stage priority process in which stage 2, 3 and 4 only commence should stage 1 present a clear pathway forward.

The stages are described as follows:

Table 2. Water Holdings CHB Limited Expenditure Split.

Stage

Outcomes

Budget

Stage 1
Corporate
Stakeholders
Technical
Project Management


Legal structure and asset ownership plan
Stakeholder engagement and storage decision analysis
Design basis and critical design decisions (power generation)
Management of above activities

$165,000

Stage 2
Operations
Project Deliverables
Technical
Economic
Project Management


Operating philosophy for completed assets (who, where, how)
Hazards Management Plan, Project Execution Strategy
Geotech data plan, power generation preliminary design
Regional benefits update
Management of above activities

$55,000

Stage 3
Corporate
Project Deliverables
Technical
Economic
Project Management


Business process set up for project execution
PM plans – cost, schedule, logistics, IT, project controls etc
Technical project scope confirmation
Project economics evaluation
Management of above activities

 $200,000

Stage 4
Corporate
Technical


Communications and IM Plans
Secondary Distribution scope confirmation

$30,000

SUBTOTAL

$450,000

Travel Costs Allowance

$10,000

Contingency

$50,000

Other Activities – Legal, Accounting etc

$40,000

TOTAL

$550,000

 

At the time of writing this report, it remains unclear whether Water Holdings CHB Limited will be successful in attaining short term funding from the Provincial Growth Fund. Water Holdings CHB Limited are currently exploring alternative funding options but will not pursue this further until Stage 1 of the next steps is completed, as stage 1 will determine whether through a collaborative engagement process key stakeholders can find compromise and determine a positive way forward. 

Water Holdings CHB Limited have an annual science charge payable to Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. This is currently $120,000 including GST per annum and is essential to keeping the resource consents active, which have 8 years left to run. Consequently, there is some urgency to completing review of the IP to ensure unnecessary cost is not incurred in keeping any unusable consents alive.

Where will Council fund the suspensory loan from?

If Council provides a suspensory loan to Central Hawke’s Bay it is proposed Council’s funding will be made available via the Rural Ward Funds.  

The funds were established to provide funds for the provision or maintenance of recreational, cultural or infrastructural assets within the Aramoana / Ruahine Wards. 

 

The Special Funds Policy is the Council policy that governs the use of the Rural Ward Funds. The Rural Funds, also known as the Aramoana / Ruahine Ward Disbursement Reserve Accounts were established following the 1989 Central Hawke’s Bay Councils amalgamations.  

 

The Special Funds Policy states that unless otherwise stated, only the interest earned on each fund shall be available to be spent, thereby preserving the individual fund amounts.

 

A decision by Council to provide $250,000 by way of suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB Limited, would require an amendment to the Special Funds Policy given the current policy is limited to only granting interest earned.  

 

The Aramoana / Ruahine Rural Ward Funds have a current balance of $811,114.  By drawing on the reserve funds there would be no further impact on rates.  The money is managed as part of the treasury function and is invested as part of the overall funds of Council as per the Treasury Policy – NZ Registered Banks A+/A-1 ratings

In the last 5 years the funds have been used to assist with the installation of a heat pump at the Settlers Museum, Tamatea Trails feasibility and Porangahau Hall War Memorial Project.

Feedback was raised during submissions that given it would not only be the rural sector that benefited from a long term water storage solution, that alternative funding provisions other than the Aramoana / Ruahine Rural Ward Fund should be considered.

 

Council could utilise funds from the Urban Ward Fund, but should note that the balance of this fund is only $82,000.

 

How does the proposal apply to current Council Policies?

The proposed structure of the funding is consistent with the intent of the fund and the potential benefits to the district could be significant. While the Rural Ward Fund have typically been used for Council owned assets, the policy does not specify that it must be Council assets.  

 

Council’s current investments policy limits equity investments to shares. The proposition to provide funding to Water Holdings CHB Limited via a suspensory loan is considered an investment because of the nature of the proposed key terms and conditions. 

 

For Council to go ahead with this proposal a small change to the current Investment Policy would be required to allow this structure.  

 

This would include the addition of “and other appropriate structures” in the definition of equity investments.   

 

It may be appropriate to have limited investment(s) in equity (shares) and other appropriate structures when Council wishes to invest for strategic, economic development or social reasons, such as Local Government Insurance Corp[1]. 

 

Council will approve equity investments on a case-by-case basis, if and when they arise. 

 

[1] Council currently holds 8,290 shares in the NZ Local Government Insurance Corporation Ltd.  The purpose of the entity, in which most local authorities are shareholders, is to ensure that adequate insurance arrangements are available to local authorities at the lowest possible cost.  The shares are not readily transferable. 

 

Both changes to the Special Funds Policy and Investments Policy can be achieved via Council resolution and would only be recommended following community consultation and once Council make deliberations on the Annual Plan 2019/20.  

 

Commentary was made through submissions that the proposition was in breach of Council’s Investment Policy.

This comes down to the definition of the Investment. Although this is a loan, it is being considered as an equity investment in nature rather than as a financial investment (such as term deposits and bonds).

Financial Investments has the following objective:

Council’s primary objectives when investing is the protection of its investment capital. Accordingly, Council may only invest in approved creditworthy counterparties.

These investments are done to protect the capital invested for future use and to produce a return to Council.

Equity Investment has the following objective:

It may be appropriate to have limited investment(s) in equity (shares) or appropriate structure when Council wishes to invest for strategic, economic development or social reasons, such as Local Government Insurance Corp.

Council will approve equity investments on a case-by-case basis, if and when they arise. The suspensory loan is being considered as equity investment as it is being considered for strategic and economic development reasons rather than as capital protection.

If Council chose to provide a grant or enter a service level agreement with Water Holdings CHB Limited, rather than provide a suspensory loan then Council’s Investments Policy does not apply; only the special funds policy.

Should Council be providing a suspensory loan to a Limited Liability Company?

Concerns were raised during formal submissions that Council were giving money to a private company.

 

Water Holdings CHB Limited is a limited liability company, 100% owned by private shareholders and describes itself as a conglomerate of community and business leaders in Central Hawke’s Bay with an interest in securing the long term and sustainable water security for the region.  

 

The entity, whilst a private business, promotes itself as being not for private profit from the assets which have been purchased. 

 

Water Holdings CHB Limited shareholding (of 9999 shares) is split between six shareholders being: 

·      Hugh Ritchie 

·      Gavin Streeter 

·      Tim Gilbertson 

·      Bruce Stephenson 

·      Bruce Worsnop 

·      Arthur Rowlands 

 

In addition to the shareholder/ directors, Water Holdings CHB Limited has an independent chair, Angus Mabin. 

 

All shareholders are actively involved in local businesses throughout Central Hawke's Bay and the wider Hawke's Bay region. 

 

Water Holdings CHB Limited holds the IP for the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme that was developed by Hawke’s Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd and was sold in 2018 following Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s decision not to pursue the feasibility of the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme.  

 

The proposed investment being sought by Water Holdings CHB Limited is not a unique investment precedent.

 

There are multiple examples whereby private/ public investment has been made into large scale infrastructure/ social infrastructure projects by Government and Councils, where there is a direct tangible community benefit and return. 

 

Throughout submissions concerns were raised regarding the proposition that Council are providing financial assistance to a private company.

 

The proposition of Water Holdings CHB Limited, which is currently a holding company transferring to a Charitable Trust has been explored. However the complexity associated with the development of a Charitable Trust when the intent is for Water Holdings CHB Limited to be a holding company until a time that it can be determined whether there is a way forward to extract value from the IP means there is little merit in further exploring this.

 

What are the proposed Key Terms and Conditions, and what checks and balances will be put in place?

In Council making any form of investment, whether by way of a grant, loan or as a direct investment; careful consideration needs to be given to how the funds will be used and what caveats or conditions will be imposed so as to ensure Councils position is protected. The nature of the caveats or conditions will largely depend on the commercial structure Council elects to choose. 

 

Whilst the investment being sought is not significant in the context of the overall potential opportunity, it is still a significant sum of monies for Council to consider and the final implementation and commercialisation of the IP will require a significant level of investment to be made.  

 

Council Officers have intentionally not gone down the path of engaging expert legal advice to draw up the key terms and conditions, or a draft agreement. Should Council in principle proceed with the proposal to provide a suspensory loan, the next step would be to engage legal experts in develop a robust commercial agreement that outlined key terms and conditions which protected Council’s interests.  The agreement would seek accountability and line of sight to progress of milestones and ensured a staged approach to any investment was followed.

 

In terms of the investment being treated as a loan, we believe the most appropriate mechanism would be for Councils investment into Water Holdings CHB Limited to be a suspensory loan.

 

Based on the feedback during community engagement, it is critical that should Council approve in principle the suspensory loan, strict checks and balances need to be put in place. 

 

The basis of payment of any funds would be made on a milestoned basis being the completion or satisfaction of agreed outputs. This will protect Council’s position and the potential for any loss. It will also ensure if the initiative is not feasible there will be no unnecessary Council expenditure occurring. This will also provide a feedback loop for reporting purposes. 

 

The following condition precedents for repayments or dispensation of liabilities are likely to include:

 

Repayment: 

·      The sale or divestment of Water Holdings CHB Limited. 

·      The transfer of IP to a subsidiary entity or third party, other than Council. 

·      Failure to deliver outputs identified

 

Dispensation: 

·   The development of water storage facilities and measureable economic benefits being   created and realised; being: 

1.   Contribution towards water security solution identified

2.   Employment. 

3.   New business/ investment. 

4.   The review of IP does not identify any tangible or financially sustainable water storage solution that can be implemented. 

We believe if Water Holdings CHB Limited do receive a dispensation under point 4 Council should as condition of the loan agreement have access to all IP obtained and developed by Water Holdings CHB Limited as part of the investigation exercise. 

 

Some options available for Council to consider but not necessarily recommended to agreeing to a $250,000 suspensory loan are as follows:

 

1.  The appointment of an observer to Water Holdings CHB Limited.

2.  Seek the suspensory loan to be converted to equity in any commercial proposition should one eventuate.

 

Another option available to Council is rather than providing a suspensory loan of $250,000 a smaller sum of money could be provided by way of grant or service level agreement to Water Holdings CHB Limited. As an example, Council could enter a service level agreement of a smaller sum of money with Water Holdings CHB Limited to allow Stage 1 or part of the work identified by Water Holdings CHB Limited work to be completed so they are in a position to constructively contribute to the Tukituki Water Taskforce in finding collaborative water security solutions.

 

Does the proposal contradict the Draft Environmental and Sustainability Strategy?

The Draft Environmental and Sustainability Strategy aims to capture those activities and initiatives that Council can influence, coordinate or facilitate, and in some instances actually deliver.

At its heart, the Strategy has four primary objectives or priorities and four supporting themes that

set out how Council will act to work towards the priorities. The four priorities are:

 

·    Managing our impact on waterways

·    Increasing recycling and reducing waste to landfill

·    Conserving water

·    Managing for climate change

 

A key issue raised throughout feedback was the perception that the adoption of the Strategy is contradicted by Council’s proposal to provide a suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB Limited.

While the issues need to be debated and determined separately, Officers advice is that there is connection between the two issues.

Council Officers advice to Elected Members is that the security of water to landowners presents greater opportunities to enhance the environmental, social, economic and cultural aspirations of Central Hawke’s Bay through positively enabling change in land use to allow a move from product volume to product value and keeping within Plan Change 6 limitations, while potentially also enhancing environmental summer flows.

The proposal to provide Water Holdings CHB Limited with a suspensory loan has the opportunity to support the objectives of the Environmental and Sustainability Strategy.

Security of water will assist the Central Hawke’s Bay economy in further transitioning to a high-value less animal intensive, lower nutrient producing activities which ultimately supports the priorities set out in the Environmental and Sustainability Strategy.

How does the proposal fit into the Tukituki Water Taskforce and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council’s role?

 

The Tukituki Water Taskforce was formed from a view within both Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council that action was needed within the catchment community to work through what was anticipated to be a very dry summer and the recognition that it had potential impacts on both commercial and domestic water users and required both short-term and long term strategies.

However, in light of some of the challenges experienced by the Tukituki Water Taskforce and what has been have learnt from other processes across the region and nationally, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council are taking some time to reflect on the approach to ensure that we have the right model and the right resourcing to support a collaborative approach in understanding and solving our water security problem in Central Hawke’s Bay.

Despite a pause for the Tukituki Water Taskforce at the moment, The Hawke’s Bay Regional Council have made it clear they are committed to taking a leadership role in partnership with Central Hawke’s Bay District Council.

Further to the role of the Water Tukituki Taskforce, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council are currently awaiting to hear the outcome of the Regional Water Security application to the Provincial Growth Fund. It is expected an outcome will be known on Monday 10th June.

Options for Council to consider

One of the points raised through submissions was the risk that Council in supporting the suspensory loan were superseding the Tukituki Water Taskforce process. In the re-formation of the Taskforce with HBRC, it is suggested that the following questions need to be posed to bring more advice back to Council, these questions include:

·      What does the future model for Tukituki Water Taskforce look like?

·      How does the work of Water Holdings CHB Limited potentially fit into this model?

·      What is the opportunity for Water Holdings CHB Limited to contribute to the water security solutions framework within the Tukituki Water Taskforce process?

·      How does the Regional Water Security Package impact Central Hawke’s Bay and is there any synergy with the work Water Holdings CHB Limited intend to undertake?

 

It is anticipated that this information could be available to Council on 20 June 2019.

While Council may consider making a decision in the absence of this information, Council may also consider awaiting this additional information.

Either way the Chief Executive seeks direction from Council on the general approach in principle Council seeks to take on this matter, so that the required advice can be researched and provided.

If Council agreed in principle to the tagging of $250,000 from the Rural Reserves Fund to exploring water security solutions for Central Hawke’s Bay, then further work could be completed to develop a framework for Council to consider. The framework would consider the roles of the Tukituki Taskforce, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, and the capacity for Water Holdings CHB Limited to contribute to a collaborative community approach.

Options available for Council consideration could include:

Option 1

That Council agree in principle to provide a suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB Limited of up to $250,000.00.

 

That the Chief Executive be delegated authority to negotiate a Draft Services Agreement with Water Holdings CHB Limited which includes Key Terms and Conditions to bring back to Council for further consideration.

 

That the Draft Services Agreement which includes Key Terms and Conditions include provisions for a staged approach to the funding with a high level of checks and balances.

 

Option 2

That Council does not agree in principle to provide a suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB Limited of up to $250,000.

 

 

Additional options Council may consider as alternatives or in addition to these options are:

·    Council’s leadership and participation in the Tukituki Water Taskforce.

·    Contributing a smaller sum of money to Water Holdings CHB Limited by way of grant or service level agreement to complete a particular stage of the work identified to allow Water Holdings CHB Limited to contribute to a collaborative community approach.

·    Contributing financially to the Tukituki Water Taskforce

·    Considering Central Hawke’s Bay District Council’s own resource requirements to contribute to an enhanced collaborative community approach.

 

Next Steps

On decision from Council the Chief Executive will take appropriate direction, and then provide advice on next steps.

Recommendation

That, having considered all matters raised in the report that Council deliberate to determine their preferred option.

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                     23 May 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

7.3         Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - Revenue and Financing Policy

File Number:           COU1-1400

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

Authoriser:             Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments:          1.       Revenue and Financing Policy - Statement of Proposal  

 

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council for deliberation of the submissions received on the Annual Plan consultation in relation to proposed minor variations to the Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

 

Recommendation

That, having considered all matters raised in the report:

a)   That Council adopt the Revenue and Financing Policy as proposed.

 

Revenue and financing policy

Submissions:

5 Joan Chatfield, 6 Michael Smith, 7 Gregory Kent, 11 Peter Watson, 17 Bruce Stern, 19 Andrew Renton-Green 23 Tony Robson, 24 Martin Lord, 26 Di Petersen, 27 Magali Martin, 31 Kathryn Bayliss, 29 Graham Palmer, 32 Mike Petersen, 36 Sheryl Bayliss, 38 Sharon Ritchie, 45 Allan Neckelson, 51 David Bishop, 56 Rhea Dasent  Federated Farmers, 58 Dan Elderkamp, 68 Bruce Anderson, 72 Adrienne Tully, 74 Diane Seager, 77 Catherine Pedersen, 79 Sharleen Baird, 82 Charles Nairn, 83 George T Konia, 85 Ray Freemantle, 86 Harold Petherick, 91 Neil Bayliss, 94 Vera Smith, 95 Hugh Ritchie, 96 R Pickering, 97 L Guy and R Bell, 98 Denise Cox, 99 Gerard Pain, 104 Helen Walker, 107 Ian Walker, 117 Peter Kittow, 119 Bruce Stephenson, 120 Di Murphy

Late submissions: 113 Rei Sciascia, 125 Genne Rapaea, 128 Sam and Clare Bradley, 130 Sam and Megan Meadows

 

Summary of Submissions:

The Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy being amended to reallocate the Leadership, Governance and Consultation activity from the General Rate to the Uniform Annual General Rate (as well as other minor amendments) was one of the key topics council sought public feedback on as part of the Annual Plan 2019/20 process.  In total Council received 44 submissions on this topic.

 

Analysis:

29 submitters supported the proposed amendments to the Revenue and Financing Policy.  Some of the key matters raised by submitters in support of this option included:

·    That there is still some concern with the way a higher UAGC can impact on the viability of small agricultural holdings that don’t include housing.

·    That the changes would mean that the submitter’s rates were cheaper if the Leadership, Governance and Consultation activity was moved whereas if it was funded from the UAGC the increase would be over the Rates Affordability Index

·    Agree with the proposal for a fairer rating system

·    That in light of valuation changes, that this change would be supported

·    As long as it was a cost of Council and could be identified so that it could be understood.

·    For too long there has been an attitude of reducing cost of rates without considering long term investment in the area, meaning that infrastructure maintenance has been short changed and now requires major investment to gain proper functionality.

1.       

7 submitters opposed amendments made to the Revenue and Financing Policy.  Some of the key matters raised by submitters in support of this option included:

·    It is not fair….UAC charges should be greater as people use Council services and charging on value means aging land owners pay for everyone else.

·    That the upcoming rating review would be a more appropriate mechanism and time to change the rating policy.

·    That the whole community benefits from the Leadership, Governance and Consultation activity and so the proper place for that rate should be the UAC.

·    The change does not reflect the true cost of these activities across all ratepayers and places an unfair burden on land owners relative to general population.

·    It increases the rates burden for the rural ratepayer without any increase in benefit

·    Requests that Council fully utilises the UAGC mechanism at 30% of total rates income to ensure equity between ratepayers.

·    That if the Council believes that some ratepayers deserve to pay lesser rates then these rate payers should be given a specific rebate so that it is clear and evident what is happening

·    That District Planning is moved into the UAGC from the general rate

·    That the Council should make better use of uniform charges as these more accurately target ratepayers that benefit from services provided

·    Impact of revaluations on rates affordability would not be alleviated by using the General Rate more and that uniform charges were not vulnerable to property value fluctuations

·    Rates should be assessed on the area you live in

 

In addition, there were 8 submitters who made comment on the Revenue and Financing Policy without indicating their preference.  4 submitters were not clear what the changes meant, so were not able to support or oppose the proposal.  One of these submissions expressed that it was not clear how the proposed variation would achieve fairness and that it seemed rates for rural properties would increase.

1 submitter sought that Council apportion the costs of animal control time between register or non-registered dog owners, in order to realistically evaluate the Council approved rating share for this activity.

1 submitter asks whether such a change is necessary or merely desirable.

1 submitter’s view was that the Council would never get the perfect solution to this issue.

1 submittter agreed with areas in the policy relating to economic development but did not agree with the policy areas dealing with waste and drinking water.

Attached to this report is a copy of the Draft Revenue and Financing Policy which Council sought public feedback on.

Every three years Council is required to perform a revaluation of the rating valuations for the rating units within the district to use for setting rates. In 2018 the revaluation was conducted and the new valuations will be used for the setting of rates for the 2019/20 financial year.

Residential property values have increased significantly, with much of the growth being driven by land value increases, and section prices at unprecedented levels. Housing at the lower end of the market, has experienced substantial capital value increases compared to the District average increase of 54.9%. Residential land values have increased on average 55.6% with some lower land values more than doubling, and high land values increasing approximately 25%. The average capital value for lifestyle properties has increased 38% to $740,000, with the corresponding average land value increasing by 54% to $460,000. The rural sector values have increased between 13% and 71% with property types transitioning between lifestyle and larger farms with already strong values. The Commercial and Industrial value changes are generally positive, however there have been some decreases in value for properties which are earthquake prone or potentially earthquake prone.

As part of the Long Term Plan Consultation, Council resolved to initiate a full Rating Review, however this process, which is expected to take between 12 to 18 months would not be completed in time for the 2019/20 rating year.

Following the completion of the revaluation, Council considered the impact of the revaluation changed the overall impact for the liability of rating revenue on the community and considered the impact to be high enough that the rating revenue needs were no longer appropriate for the 2019/20 year.  

During the Submission Hearings a number of points were raised. The proposed targeted rates for 2019/20 is calculated as 9.2% of rates (excluding water and wastewater rates) against the cap of 30% set by the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. In comparison, Hastings District Council is 22% and Manawatu District Council is 26%. This will form part of the full Rates Review that is being conducted by Council.

The impact on the rural properties across the district is varied based on the impact of the revaluation as identified in the Rates Sample included in the Funding Impact Statement.  There are rural properties that are receiving a rates reduction based on lower changes to the Capital and Land Value in comparison to the rest of the District.

If the Leadership, Governance and Consultation activity remained as part of the UAGC, the UAGC would increase to $416.95 for 2019/20 from $276.63 and the General Rates would reduce to 0.0911 cents from 0.10743 (prior to any other changes resulting from the Annual Plan Consultation). The UAGC for 2018/19 was $383.51

With the majority of submitters having supported the proposal (29 out of 44 submissions), officers conclude that there is sufficient support to adopt the Revenue and Financing Policy as proposed. Officers also propose that all the feedback and comments included in the submissions inform the full Rating Review.

 

Recommendation

That, having considered all matters raised in the report:

a)   That Council adopt the Revenue and Financing Policy as proposed.

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                     23 May 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

7.4         Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - Finance

File Number:           COU1-1400

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

Authoriser:             Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments:          Nil

 

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the submissions received on the Annual Plan consultation in relation to Finance.

 

RecommendationS

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

 

a)   That funding for Ongaonga Historical Society is increased to $4,000 each year as a grant for mowing; OR

b)   That Council increases the Parks budget each year for Council to take over the maintenance of the Ongaonga Historic Reserve.

 

a)   That funding for Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Trust is granted funding of XX for XX year(s) to assist with completion of the EIT Institute of Sport and Health in Hastings; OR

b)   That Council continues to invest in our facilities in CHB to allow us to act as a feeder to the Regional Programme and are fully in support of the trust’s initiatives.

 

a)    That funding for Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay is granted funding of XX for XX year(s) to contribute to the biodiversity endowment fund; OR

b)    That Council will not make any financial contribution in any form AND

 

 

a)    For the other submissions, the submitters’ comments are noted and no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Finance - Topics for COnsideration

Topic One

Rates Increases and Service Levels

Topic Two

Rates Remission Policy relating to revaluations

Topic Three

Targeted rates

Topic Four

Funding for Ongaonga Historical Society

Topic Five

Funding for Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre

Topic Six

Funding for Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay

Topic Seven

Rates Affordability

 

Topic One – Rates Increases and Service Levels

Submissions:

8 Jennifer Woodman, 13 Annette Libby, 24 Martin Lord, 27 Magali Martin,

 

Summary of submissions:

These submitters raise concerns about rates increases, including concerns about rising property values and the associated rates implications.

Ms Woodman requested that Council did not increase rates in future.

Ms Libby expressed concern about the recent increase given new housing developments in the area and therefore having the ability to spread the rates load across more households.

Mr Lord questions the average rates increase figures and indicated that this was not an accurate assessment of how much the true average rise was across the district. He also raises concerns about service levels in rural areas and a higher proportion of increases for rural ratepayers versus urban ratepayers.

Ms Martin indicates that the increase was high considering the limited number of services received in a rural community.

 

Analysis:

The proposed average rate rise of 4.36% has been calculated on the additional total rates required (excluding water meter rates) in 2019/20 as a portion of the total rates from 2018/19 (excluding water meter rates). These figures are calculated as GST exclusive figures as the GST component of rates is not revenue for the Council. The total rates of $23.7m included in the Funding Impact Statement on page 3 are GST inclusive as required by legislation.

The individual increase for each property will depend on the rates that are levied on each property and therefore a sample of the rates impact across the district are included as part of the Funding Impact Statement. The overall rate increase percentage is included for information at the bottom of the rate sample.

During the Long Term Plan, Council must consider the need to deliver on the purpose of Local Government set out in Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) and the financial management required by Section 101 of the LGA. As costs of services go up, Council must consider the affordability of the service, the overall impact of the liability for the revenue needs on the Community and the requirement to deliver the service.

On an Annual basis, Council considers the delivery of service and the costs of delivering those services. As the costs of delivering those services increase by factors such as inflation, increased compliance requirements or regulation changes, the revenue required will also need to increase.

As part of the Long Term Plan Consultation, Council resolved to initiate a full Rating Review and the scope and timing of the Rating Review was adopted by Council on 10 April 2019. The concerns raised by the submitters will help to inform the process of the Rating Review. The draft Revenue and Financing Policy will be open for public consultation and submitters will have an opportunity at this time to provide feedback.

 

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Two – Rates Remission Policy relating to revaluations

Submissions:

56 Rhea Dasent – Federated Farmers

Summary of submissions:

Ms Dasent requests that a Rates Postponement or Remission Policy is introduced to provide relief for revalued properties where their new valuation is disproportionately higher than comparable properties due to unrealised development potential.

Analysis:

As part of the Long Term Plan Consultation, Council resolved to initiate a full Rating Review and the scope and timing of the Rating Review was adopted by Council on 10 April 2019. The concerns raised by the submitters will help to inform the process of the Rating Review. The draft Revenue and Financing Policy will be open for public consultation and submitters will have an opportunity at this time to provide feedback. The inclusion of a Rates Postponement or Remission Policy would be considered during the Rate Review to understand the overall impact in Rates Revenue.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Three – Targeted rates

Submissions:

56 Rhea Dasent – Federated Farmers

Summary of submissions:

Ms Dasent sought that water and wastewater continued to remain funded by rates targeted at connected properties.

Analysis:

As part of the Long Term Plan Consultation, Council resolved to initiate a full Rating Review and the scope and timing of the Rating Review was adopted by Council on 10 April 2019. The concerns raised by the submitters will help to inform the process of the Rating Review. The draft Revenue and Financing Policy will be open for public consultation and submitters will have an opportunity at this time to provide feedback.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Four – Funding for Ongaonga Historical Society

Submissions:

14 Ongaonga Historical Society – Karen Bedogni

Summary of submissions:

The Ongaonga Historical Society seeks additional funding of $2,572 funding per annum to $4,000 to assist with maintenance, advertising and rates.

Analysis:

Currently the Ongaonga Historical Society only receives funding of $1,428 each year.  This funding is a grant paid that covers the maintenance of reserves, including all mowing, spraying and general care of the reserve.  If the society were to return the maintenance of the site to Council, costs to Council would be in excess of $4,000 each year.   The funding is also used to support the existing historic buildings in Ongaonga that are unique and part of the fabric of the Central Hawke’s Bay community.

There are limited other funding mechanisms for the Society to seek external funding for operational costs such as grounds maintenance – essentially being a core function of Council.

Options for Council to consider include providing new funds to the society or alternatively, providing new funding for the Parks activity for the work to be undertaken instead by Council.

The rates impact of increasing the funding to OngaOnga Historical Society is 0.01%.

Recommendation:

That funding for Ongaonga Historical Society is increased to $4000 each year as a grant for mowing.

OR

That Council increases the Parks budget each year for Council to take over the maintenance of the Ongaonga Historic Reserve.

 

Topic Five – Funding for Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre

Submissions:

15 Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust – Sir Graeme Avery

Summary of submissions:

Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Trust seeks ongoing annual financial support of $20,000 per annum for the next five years to assist with completion of the EIT Institute of Sport and Health in Hastings.

Analysis:

During the Long Term Plan 2018-28 consultation, Council considered the submission by the Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Trust to fund $250,000 over 5 years and the resolution of Council was

That CHB feels that we are better to invest in our facilities in CHB to allow us to act as a feeder to the Regional Programme and are fully in support of his initiatives.

 

Options for Council to consider include:

1.   Making a financial contribution to the project;

2.   Offering written support to funders;

3.   Or providing both with the financial contribution being lower than requested.

 

Based on the current Revenue and Financing Policy, the funding of $20,000 over 5 years for the submission would have an impact on rates as it would be considered a grant to the Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust. Based on the current Revenue and Financing Policy, this would be funded from the General Rate.

If Council was to consider funding $20,000 from Rates, the rate increase would be 0.10%

Recommendation:

That funding for Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Trust is granted funding of XX for XX year(s) to assist with completion of the EIT Institute of Sport and Health in Hastings.

OR

That Council continues to invest in our facilities in CHB to allow us to act as a feeder to the Regional Programme and are fully in support of the trust’s initiatives.

 

Topic Six – Funding for Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay

Submissions:

100 Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay – Genevieve Bennett

Summary of submissions:

Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay seeks that Council provides an annual contribution to the biodiversity endowment fund, ongoing operational financial support and continues to grow its partnership through collaboration on biodiversity projects.

Analysis:

During the Long Term Plan 2018-28 Council considered a submission from Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay to allocate $50,000 per year for four years to support the establishment of the endowment fund and to become a member of the Biodiversity Guardians. During the deliberations, Council resolved not to provide any financial support, Council resolved to provide $10,000. However during the Council Meeting on 31 May 2018, Council resolved to provide $10,000 from the rural fire fund is allocated for Year 1 of the Long Term Plan to support activities for protection and promotion of Biodiversity in Hawke’s Bay through the Biodiversity Foundation. Council also resolved that Central Hawke’s Bay District Council become financial guardians of the Biodiversity foundation, which is $1,000.00, to be funded out of existing budgets.

As part of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 Council indicated it would develop an Environmental and Sustainability Strategy to help Council with the way it would deliver services in the future and identify further initiatives that may form part of Council’s services.

The Draft Strategy has been considered during the Annual Plan Consultation and the resulting submissions and deliberation report is being considered as part of the Deliberations meeting on 23 May 2019. With the large majority of submitters having supported the intent of the strategy, officers conclude that there is sufficient support to adopt the Environmental and Sustainability Strategy.

Through the strategy, Council would look to grow its partnership through collaboration on biodiversity projects and would work with Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay on projects within Central Hawke’s Bay.

Options for Council to consider include:

1.   Funding via a grant through General Rates for the contribution to the biodiversity endowment fund.

2.   Funding via a grant through General Rates for ongoing operational support of the foundation.

3.   Not making any financial contributions in any form.

 

Recommendation:

That funding for Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay is granted funding of XX for XX year(s) to contribute to the biodiversity endowment fund.

Or

That Council will not make any financial contribution in any form

 

Topic Seven - Rates Affordability

Submissions:

118 Fred Nichol

Summary of submissions:

The submitter raises the point that the Council needs to consider affordability for pensioners, as pensions do not keep up with rates rises.

Analysis:

As part of the Long Term Plan Consultation, Council resolved to initiate a full Rating Review and the scope and timing of the Rating Review was adopted by Council on 10 April 2019. The concerns raised by the submitters will help to inform the process of the Rating Review. The draft Revenue and Financing Policy will be open for public consultation and submitters will have an opportunity at this time to provide feedback.

Council would also like to remind rate payers of the availability of the Rates Rebate Scheme from the Department of Internal Affairs which offers rebates to low income household such as those on pensions and will contact the submitter to ensure they are aware of the scheme.

 

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RecommendationS

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

 

a)   That funding for Ongaonga Historical Society is increased to $4,000 each year as a grant for mowing; OR

b)   That Council increases the Parks budget each year for Council to take over the maintenance of the Ongaonga Historic Reserve.

 

a)   That funding for Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Trust is granted funding of XX for XX year(s) to assist with completion of the EIT Institute of Sport and Health in Hastings; OR

b)   That Council continues to invest in our facilities in CHB to allow us to act as a feeder to the Regional Programme and are fully in support of the trust’s initiatives.

 

a)    That funding for Biodiversity Hawke’s Bay is granted funding of XX for XX year(s) to contribute to the biodiversity endowment fund; OR

b)    That Council will not make any financial contribution in any form AND

 

 

a)    For the other submissions, the submitters’ comments are noted and no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

7.5         Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - Environment

File Number:           COU1-1400

Author:                    Josh Lloyd, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure and Development

Authoriser:             Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments:          Nil

 

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the submissions received on the Annual Plan consultation in relation to Environmental matters.

 

Recommendation

That having considered all matters raised in the report;

a)   That submitters’ comments are noted, with no specific recommendation necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/2020.

 

Environment - Topics for COnsideration

Topic One

Waste Management

Topic Two

Footpath on Porangahau Road

Topic Three

Investment in core infrastructure

Topic Four

Otane Footpaths and Streetlights

Topic Five

Road sealing – Cooks Tooth Road

Topic Six

Road Sealing – Whangaehu Road

Topic Seven

Water Quality - Porangahau

Topic Eight

Maintenance of Wilder Road

Topic Nine

Maintenance of North Block Road

Topic Ten

Sewage Ponds – Porangahau

Topic Eleven

Porangahau River Health

Topic Twelve

Repairs on Blackhead Road

 

Topic One Waste Management

Submissions:

11 Peter Watson

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council fix the waste management problem

Analysis:

Council is soon to consult with the community on the Solid Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. This plan will aim to improve the management of waste in Central Hawke’s Bay. Council Officers will include this specific submission when developing the Draft Solid Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Two – Footpath on Porangahau Road

Submissions:

11 Peter Watson

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that the footpath is completed between 77 to 113 Porangahau Road. The submitter is also seeking expansion of street lights.

Analysis:

This section of footpath is on the new footpath construction list. For Council to construct this footpath requires the removal of numerous property fences and hedges; a complete design as a retaining structure for the footpath would be required along with a safety rail . This would be beyond the current budget to implement.

This footpath location is in the programme and will be completed when funding allows and other higher priority footpaths have been completed

An inventory of street light requirements will be undertaken in the 19/20 fiscal year to determine a future course of action

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Three – Investment in core infrastructure

Submissions:

85 Ray Freemantle, 87 Terry Lamont

Summary of submissions:

The submitters seeks that Council focus their costs on core infrastructure such as water, wastewater and footpaths.

Analysis: The submitters will be pleased to note the significant investment in drinking water, wastewater and stormwater via #thebigwaterstory programme. Council’s 30 year infrastructure strategy reflects increased investment in core infrastructure.

It is also worth noting that as a result of a change to the Government Policy Statement for investment in transport, Council has been able to increase its investment in footpaths across the District.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

 Topic Four – Otane Footpaths and Streetlights

Submissions:

93 Rebecca Baker

Summary of submissions:

Submitter seeks more footpaths and streetlights in Otane to encourage safety in the community.

Analysis:

Based on the Council approved footpath policy and the supporting matrix all footpath requests are evaluated and ranked on need and potential usage. Numerous footpaths in Otane have been run through the matrix and 2 new ones will be constructed this year. Higginson Street and Dee Street are both programmed for construction in 2019 with Rochfort Street and Lawrence Street on the programme for 2020. The Council will continue to undertake analysis of all areas over the next couple of years to determine the requirements for new footpaths

An inventory of street light requirements will be undertaken in the 19/20 fiscal to determine a future course of action

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Five – Road sealing – Cooks Tooth Road

Submissions:

108 Wade Stoddart, 114 Rosalie and Ossie Buchanan, 124 Ian Scott

Summary of submissions:

The submitters seek that Cooks Tooth Road is re-sealed. Mr Scott highlighted that this should extend to the junction at Ireland Road.

Analysis:

The re-seal programme is based on need, age, condition and remaining life of the existing seal. It is a yearly programme with suggested sites for the following 2 years which have to be confirmed in the field. Once they are confirmed they are scheduled for re-seal and the work is completed. There are currently 2 sections of Cooks Tooth Road that are scheduled for re-seal pending a final investigation. These are scheduled for the 2019/20 fiscal year. Council will be re-sealing 2 sections of the road during the next sealing season starting in November 2019 and running through to March 2020

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Six – Maintenance Whangaehu Road

Submissions:

114 Rosalie and Ossie Buchanan

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that maintenance is undertaken on Whangaehu Road

Analysis:

Whangaehu Road is located at the southern end of our district and is a metal road accessing the beach. Storms and natural springs in this area have damaged the road and in some cases we have had to retreat the road just to maintain access. The road currently has one area that has slumped and requires a geotechnical investigation to determine the cause of the defect and to ensure we are putting in place the correct solution. While this is happening the area will be maintained by the maintenance contractor. There is some potential logging in the area which is scheduled to take place next summer which will have a major negative impact on the road as the road was never designed to handle the heavy vehicles of today. This will be investigated over the winter and a repair and design implemented early spring.

 

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Seven: Water quality Porangahau

Submissions:

124 Ian Scott

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that something is done about the water quality at Te Paerahi

Analysis:
Through the #bigwaterstory Council has a project in motion to upgrade the water treatment plant in Te-Paerahi supplying the townships of Porangahau and Te-Paerahi. The project has milestones where designs will be completed by the end of May 2019 with the upgrade construction planned for July to October 2019. Commissioning of the upgraded plant is planned for October 2019.

A community meeting is planned for Mid-May 2019 to inform the community of the project and expected outcomes.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

 

Topic Eight – Maintenance of Wilder Road

Submissions:

127 Colin Bremer

Summary of submissions:

The submitter raises concerns about the quality of maintenance that is done on Wilder Road

Analysis:

The maintenance programme is guided by inspections and maintenance is programmed accordingly. Grading and metalling are activities which fall under this category. An increase in the amount of or the size of the trucks using any individual road is not always apparent as we have no way of knowing who is expanding their production thus increasing the amount of trucks.

The heavier (larger) truck issue should only be an increase of 2 tonne per truck and as this happened recently (June 2018) we have not had any opportunity to analyse the impact on the road network. We will re-look at our frequency of inspections for Wilder Road and ensure that grading and metalling is carried out in a timelier manner.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.


 

Topic Nine – Maintenance of North Block Road

Submissions:

128 Sam and Clare Bradley

Summary of submissions:

The submitter raises concerns about the slippery road after it has been graded

Analysis:

While red metal does make a good base when put down when the weather is dry it becomes slippery when it gets wet. The material we have used to try to minimise the slippery condition has not worked as we had hoped. The remoteness of the area has made it difficult to find a material which will work year round. As any metal road is trafficked, the top material migrates to the sides of the road and has to be reclaimed by grading. We will need to find a different material to cover the red metal for the seasons when we experience rain. It is sometimes difficult to get the grading right.  The Land Transport team along with the maintenance contractor will explore new and different types of metal to alleviate the slippery conditions as well as review the grading practices

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Ten: - Sewage Ponds Porangahau

Submissions:

129 Rose Tahuparae

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks clarification about Council’s use of ancestral lands for the sewage ponds and seeks an appropriate outcome to assist people in the community

Analysis:

Council officers will be working with the community and iwi as we develop options for the future of the wastewater plant in line with the current resource consent expiring in May 2021. A key component of the new wastewater plant will involve input from community and iwi around the future of treatment and discharge and what may be acceptable. Community and iwi can expect this work to commence in late 2019.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Eleven: Porangahau River Health

Submissions:

129 Rose Tahuparae

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that the Council cleans up the Porangahau River

Analysis:

As part of the wastewater consent replacement/ renewals and subsequent upgrade works, Council will be reviewing treatment and discharge options. An improved treatment process will ensure a higher quality effluent is discharged into the river, if the river discharge remains. If sustainable and feasible council will review the option to remove discharge from the river. This will follow a process commencing late 2019, as we work towards a new or amended resource consent post May 2021.

The other comments related to cleaning up the Porangahau River will need to be discussed in conjunction with the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council who manage the waterways.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Twelve - Repairs on Blackhead Road

Submissions:

130 Sam and Megan Meadows

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks urgent repairs on Blackhead Road due to the sealed edges crumbling away

Analysis:

Blackhead Road has various sealed sections along its length which due to the heavy vehicles using the road suffers edge break damage. This will be inspected and where required work will be programmed and completed to remove the edge break.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Recommendation

That having considered all matters raised in the report;

a)   That submitters’ comments are noted, with no specific recommendation necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/2020.

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

7.6         Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - Community

File Number:           COU1-1400

Author:                    Doug Tate, Group Manager Customer and Community Partnerships

Authoriser:             Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments:          Nil

 

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the submissions received on the Annual Plan consultation in relation to Community activities.

 

Recommendation

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a)   That the provision of a new toilet at Whangaehu be considered as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-31;

b)   That the points raised in submission 123 for the landscaping of Abercrombie Street, Porangahau,  are considered as part of the 2021 Long Term Plan review;

c)   That Officers work with the Porangahau Community to determine the most appropriate location for a netball/tennis court in Porangahau, for consideration as part of the Annual Plan 2019/20 process;

d)   That Officers work with Forest and Bird to understand local priorities and opportunities for Lindsay bush for consideration as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-31; AND

e)   That for all other submissions, submitters’ comments are noted, with no specific recommendation necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

 

Community - Topics for COnsideration

Topic One

Animal Control and Animal Welfare

Topic Two

Community Safety

Topic Three

Reserve and Lawn Maintenance

Topic Four

Toilet and Shower provision in Porangahau

Topic Five

Catering for elderly population

Topic Six

Settlers Museum

Topic Seven

Solar Heating – Waipawa Pool

Topic Eight

Cycle Lane on Main Highway

Topic Nine

Provision for Future Development – Otane and Waipawa

Topic Ten

Maintenance of Whangaehu Beach reserve

Topic Eleven

Whangaehu Beach Toilets

Topic Twelve

Development of Abercrombie Street Porangahau

Topic Thirteen

Porangahau Netball Courts Resurfacing

Topic Fourteen

Lindsay Bush Management Funding

 

 

Topic One – Animal Control and Animal Welfare

Submissions:

8 Jennifer Woodman, 83 George T Konia

Summary of submissions:

Ms Woodman seeks that Council outlaws feedlots as a permitted land use activity, or alternatively ensures that additional welfare checks are made to feedlot locations.

Mr Konia seeks that council manages dog control more actively.


 

Analysis:

The District Plan is currently under review with the draft District Plan being released to the public on 20 May.  The public submission process as part of the draft District Plan is the correct process where the submitter can have their say on feedlots, in relation to Councils regulatory functions.

Following the review of animal and regulatory services late last calendar year, a number of changes have been made in the activity to boost the services and proactivity of the service.  This will include more proactively working with communities of focus to reduce the potential for serious injury from dog incidents occurring and to promote appropriate dog owner behaviours.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Two – Community Safety

Submissions:

83 George T Konia

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that there is more police patrol around town streets.

Analysis:

Council works closely with the New Zealand Police and other agencies to promote the safety of residents of Central Hawke’s Bay.  Police and community patrols, regularly pass through areas of the District as resource and volunteers are available for this to occur.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Three – Reserve and Lawn Maintenance

Submissions:

92 Rachel Hornblow

Summary of submissions:

That Council needs to research how to manage cost of maintenance of lawns and reserves.

Analysis:

There is a high cost related to maintenance of mown areas, due to the high labour and regular frequency of mowing required.  The District does not receive high levels of maintenance, with the cost of mowing being directly attributable to the level of service provided – ie mow less, pay less.

Officers are exploring avenues to adjust levels of service over the coming months, to determine what opportunities there are to reallocate service.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 


 

 

Topic Four – Toilet and Shower provision in Porangahau

Submissions:

125 Genne Rapaea, 129 Rose Tahuparae

Summary of submissions:

The submitters seek upgraded or new coastal facilities at Te Paerahi and Parimahu, as well as the launching area near the Porangahau River.

Analysis:

The submitters appear to be concerned with the state of the facilities at the freedom camping areas in Te Paerahi – Council has no facilities at Parimahu.  This area is part of an application to the Tourism Infrastructure Fund where funding is sought to upgrade the existing facilities. 

There is a request for a new toilet at the Porangahau River Jetty.  This area has not been identified for any development at this time, with other areas of priority including Whangaehu for toilet development.

A focus on renewal of existing assets and new assets will be a major priority in the review of Asset Management Plans, ahead of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 review.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Five - Catering for elderly population

Submissions:

120 Di Murphy

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Council considers initiatives that cater for the growing elderly population in the district.

Analysis:

Council has a specific Positive Aging Action Plan that forms part of its Community Wellbeing Strategy. The action plan has a number of actions that the community are working on to reflect and ensure services meet the diverse needs of the community – whether young or old.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Six – Settlers Museum

Submissions:

122 Corrin Coleman

Summary of submissions:

The submitter raises a number of points in relation to development of the Settlers Museum.

Analysis:

Council has an agreement with the Central Hawke’s Bay Settlers Museum for the occupation of the building and to provide museum services to the Central Hawke’s Bay Community. 

The submitter makes a number of observations, specifically noting at a point in the submission that Council should be looking to empower existing talent to explore opportunity in the cultural as well as other legitimate fields. 

From the context of the submission, it would appear the submitter is referring to the name of the museum being of greater scope than just ‘settlers’ of Central Hawke’s Bay, instead recognising culture in the wider sense.  A number of points are also made in relation to the buildings and the need to be more strategic and considered for the future.

Officers work closely with the Museum Trust, and will brief Councillors on any proposed name change or strategic plans, during the Museum reporting back into Council in September 2019.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Seven– Solar Heating Waipawa Pool

Submissions:

27 Magali Martin

Summary of submissions:

The submitter suggests that the pool should be solar heated, to enable it to be open year round.

Analysis:

Unfortunately solar heating does not provide sufficient guaranteed heating when booster heating is actually required for the complex, being the shoulder periods of the day – morning and evening, and during days of low sunlight, when solar gain cannot be made in the complex.

Most solar solutions work in public pool situations where electrical or gas heating is provided, allowing solar to be an alternate heating source. 

The Waipawa Pool reference Group are considering heating as part of Stage 2 of the pool, with the immediate priority being the completion of fundraising for Stage 1 of the pool complex.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Eight – Cycle Lane on Main Highway

Submissions:

83 George T Konia

Summary of submissions:

The submitter requests that the cycle lane is connected on the main highway between Waipawa and Waipukurau.

Analysis:

A cycleway between Waipawa and Waipukurau on the State Highway is a project the New Zealand Transport Agency is currently actively working on.  It is expected at the time of writing that this project will be complete by July 2020.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

Topic Nine - Provision for Future Development – Otane and Waipawa

Submissions:

119 Bruce Stephenson

Summary of submissions:

The submitter asks what provision for land is being planned for future development in Otane and Waipawa.

Analysis:

The draft District Plan is due for release for community consultation on 20 May, ahead of the legal statutory process Council is required to go through.  In the draft District Plan, consideration is given to future growth areas through the District including Otane and Waipawa.  

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Ten – Maintenance of Whangaehu Beach reserve

Late Submissions:

114 Rosalie and Ossie Buchanan

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that the beach reserve at Whangaehu is maintained by the Council regularly

Analysis:

The reserve is part of Council routine maintenance, albeit at with low levels of service.  Over the last ten years, Council has not actively engaged with residents in Whangaehu on reserve issues, with the submissions providing a great opportunity to engage with the local community.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Eleven – Whangaehu Beach Toilets

Submissions:

106 Dianna Karamaena, 124 Ian Scott, 114 Rosalie and Ossie Buchanan,

Summary of submissions:

The submitters express concerns about the impact of freedom camping in Whangaehu and Parimahu.  Others request a public toilet at Whangaehu, the nearest toilet being 20km away in Porangahau.

Analysis:

There is clear concern heard from the submitters on the requirement for a toilet block at Whangaehu Reserve.

One submitter notes problems with freedom camping at Whangaehu Beach reserve.  Council has not received any complaints over the last 12 months with freedom camping at Whangaehu, however Officers will investigate on site to determine what impact is happening on site, again with submitters noting clear issues on site.

An option for Council to consider is making new provision in the Annual Plan 2019/20 for funding of $60,000 for a new toilet block, with Council seeking the balance from the Tourism Infrastructure Fund, as is currently occurring at Te Paerahi.  If Council were to do this, there would also be new servicing costs of $10-12,000 each year that Council does not currently have budgeted.

Alternatively, Council could defer any investment decision until the Long Term Plan 2021-31 Review.

Recommendation:

That the submissions are noted.

That the provision of a new toilet at Whangaehu be considered as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

 

Topic Twelve – Development of Abercrombie Street Porangahau

Late Submissions:

123 Nicola Henderson

Summary of submissions:

The submitter seeks that Abercrombie Street is developed to further enhance the work, which has already taken place at the Porangahau Memorial Hall.

Analysis:

Work outside the Porangahau Memorial Hall was recently completed in time for Armistice Day in 2018.  The work is part of a wider package of work that has been designed for the Main Street of Waipukurau. 

There is no funding in the Long Term Plan 2018-28 for the continuation of this work, however this could be picked up in the community planning process, prior to the 2021 Long Term Plan Review process.

Recommendation:

That the points raised in submission 123 for the landscaping of Abercrombie Street, Porangahau,  are considered as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 review.

 

Topic Thirteen – Porangahau Netball Courts Resurfacing

 

Late Submission:

Porangahau Memorial Hall Committee

Summary of Submission:

The submitter requests that urgent attention is given to the resealing and repair of the Porangahau Netball Courts.

Analysis:

The netball courts have failed and are dangerous for any type of competitive or even casual play.  At the time of writing, Officers have closed the courts for competitive play/training with signage being organised.

The playing surface has major deviations in it, being unsuitable for tennis and it is unclear how Netball training on the surface has continued for some time without injury.

Funding in year 6 of the Long Term Plan 2018-28 of $56,974 has been made.  At the time of writing, it is highly unlikely that this funding will be sufficient to resurface the courts, based on the high level of remediation work that will be required, not including surrounding surface drainage channels that will need to be established and replacement fencing that will also be required.

While a site for netball training, the area has a single large basketball hoop and is often used as an area for young people to undertake physical activity.

A conversation with the submitter has identified that simply resurfacing and replacing the court in its current location may not be the best solution for the Porangahau Community, with relocation to White Domain or the school two possible options.

Time to work with the community on the appropriate location for upgraded courts should be given, to ensure that investment is provided in the right location, with this proposal likely able to be considered as part of the community planning process for Porangahau.  This would also provide an opportunity for the community to seek external funding, with Council possibly needing to bring funding forward from Year 6 to Year 3 to support this. 

Recommendation

That Officers work with the Porangahau Community to determine the most appropriate location for a netball/tennis court in Porangahau, for consideration as part of the Annual Plan 2020/21 process.

 

Topic Fourteen: Lindsay Bush Management Funding

Submission:

47 – Management of Otaia/Lindsay Bush

Summary of Submission:

The submitter has an MOU with Council for the management of Lindsay Bush, with intentions to develop a strategic plan.  The drafted strategic plan identifies work including signage, maps, developing the parking area and other things and requests $5,000 for this work to occur.

Their submission also sought clarification about who was responsible for the safety of members of the public when they entered the bush on work and planting days

 

Analysis:

Lindsay Bush is a scenic reserve under the Reserves Act 1977.  Council has an Memorandum of Understanding in Place with Forest and Bird for activities at the site.  At the time of writing, it appears the reserve is vested in Council to administer on behalf of the Crown, rather than Council owning the site outright.  The total area that people would consider to be the reserve, also covers other areas outside of Council control, including the river bed.  The carpark for example is not on Council land.

Historically, Council Officers have had little interaction with the group – providing an annual payment, with there being little co-ordination between them and other Council activities.  It is important that activities are consistent between other Council parks activities, and that activities on Reserve Land are consistent with the Reserves Act.

The preparation of a Strategic Plan, has the inference of being a management plan for the site.  The Reserves Act sets out very clear legal processes for how this must be reviewed and when.  Council currently has no Reserve Management Plan in place for the site.  Council has no other active Reserve Management Plans in place across the District.

The most logical way forward, is for Officers to meet with the group, to determine the most appropriate way forward with any funding being considered as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

Recommendation:

That Officers work with Forest and Bird to understand local priorities and opportunities for Lindsay bush for consideration as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-31.

 

Recommendation

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a)   That the provision of a new toilet at Whangaehu be considered as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-31;

b)   That the points raised in submission 123 for the landscaping of Abercrombie Street, Porangahau,  are considered as part of the 2021 Long Term Plan review;

c)   That Officers work with the Porangahau Community to determine the most appropriate location for a netball/tennis court in Porangahau, for consideration as part of the Annual Plan 2019/20 process;

d)   That Officers work with Forest and Bird to understand local priorities and opportunities for Lindsay bush for consideration as part of the Long Term Plan 2021-31; AND

e)   That for all other submissions, submitters’ comments are noted, with no specific recommendation necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

7.7         Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - The Establishment of a Disaster Relief Fund Trust

File Number:           COU1-1400

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

Authoriser:             Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments:          Nil

 

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council for deliberation the submissions received on the Annual Plan consultation in relation to the proposal to establish a Disaster Relief Fund Trust.

 

Recommendation

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a)   Council approves the establishment of a Disaster Relief Fund Trust as a Council Controlled Organisation under the Local Government Act.

 

Establishment of a disaster relief Fund Trust

Submissions:

5 Joan Chatfield, 6 Michael Smith, 8 Jennifer Woodman, 9 David Lewis, 11 Peter Watson, 19 Andrew Renton-Green, 24 Martin Lord, 26 Di Petersen, 27 Magali Martin, 28 Kathryn Bayliss, 29 Graham Palmer, 36 Sheryl Bayliss, 38 Sharon Ritchie, 45 Alan Neckelson, 51 David Bishop, 52 Alan and Delphine Delugar, 53 Peter Meredith, 58 Dan Elderkamp, 65 Dean Hyde, 68 Bruce Anderson, 72 Adrienne Tully, 74 Diane Seager, 75 Jim and Yvonne McAulay, 77 Catherine Pedersen, 79 Sharleen Baird, 83 George T Konia, 85 Ray Freemantle, 86 Harold Petherick, 87 Terry Lamont, 89 Peter Charlton-Jones, 91 Neil Bayliss, 92 Rachel Hornblow, 94 Vera Smith,  95 Hugh Ritchie, 96 R Pickering, 97 L Guy and R Bell, 98 Denise Cox, 99 Gerard Pain, 101 Trevor Le Lievre, 104 Helen Walker, 106 Dianna Karameana, 107 Ian Walker, 115 Dawn Le Lievre, 117 Peter Kittow, 118 Fred Nichol, 119 Bruce Stephenson, 120 Di Murphy

Late submissions: 113 Rei Sciascia, 128 Sam and Claire Bradley

Summary of Submissions:

A proposal to establish a disaster relief fund trust was one of the key topics council sought public feedback on as part of the Annual Plan 2019/20 process.  In total Council received 49 submissions on this topic.

Analysis:

40 submitters supported the establishment of a disaster relief fund trust.  Some of the key matters raised by submitters in support of this option included:

·    That it is a good idea as long as it is closely managed to what events can be classified as a disaster

·    That if the Council plans to donate to the fund that it should first consult with ratepayers

·    That being prepared is sensible

·    That it would be supported so long as the costs of servicing a CCO was minimal

·    That although the submitter generally supports the setting up of the trust, that it should also consider allocating some funds to it, particularly from the Rural Ward Fund

·    The move to a single collective structure for Civil Defence in Hawke’s Bay was welcomed and it makes sense that any potential funds are also managed on a regional basis and in this case through a Trust.

·    That trusts can work well provided they are managed effectively with best practice governance mechanisms in place.

·    That Council needs to ensure that our community is represented as well as ensuring equity for all communities of interests (rural, urban, coastal, city and smaller communities)

·    That although they support the establishment, they are aware that rates will eventually increase to fund it

·    That it is important to be prepared for the increasing (in severity and frequency) adverse weather events

·    That it is about time this happened

·    That it was a good idea provided Central Hawke’s Bay gets its share when a disaster happens in the district

·    That this is a vital fund for the district

·    That the Council is encouraged to align with the relief fund in Hastings for Hawke’s Bay Federated Farmers in order not to duplicate administrative costs

·    That the eventual rates impact would be lessened by having an intact Rural Ward Fund.

·    That there would need to be a process to ensure prudent and responsible spending

·    That climate change is going to put heavy strain on all of Hawke’s Bay infrastructure

·    That the fund would allow central government the instrument to provide funding

3 submitters opposed the establishment of a disaster relief fund trust.  Some of the key matters raised by submitters in support of this option included:

·    That Council already has a number of other funds (Mayoral Fund, Rural Fires Reserve, Adverse Events Contingency etc) which should  cover the Council’s assets

·    Individuals generally will have recourse to their own insurance and or EQC

·    That the submitter could not support the proposal as there was too little information in the consultation document.  If such a trust were to proceed that clear and transparent criteria for appointment of trustees would need to be established and that trustees would need to come from all levels of the community

The Hawke’s Bay Civil Defence Emergency Management (CDEM) Group is a collective of the five Hawke’s Bay local authorities required under the CDEM Act 2002 to govern and manage CDEM within the region.

Following the Christchurch Earthquakes, it was identified that a mechanism to receive and distribute charitable donations for those effected by a civil defence emergency was needed prior to an event occurring.

The approved CDEM Group Plan seeks to establish a Hawke’s Bay Disaster Relief Trust with the objective of collecting and distributing donations made by the public and organisations to assist people affected by a civil defence emergency in Hawke’s Bay. Establishing the Trust will enable us to put in place the mechanisms to immediately seek and administer donations as a charity before a disaster occurs. This will allow for donated funds to be distributed as quickly as possible to those most in need. The trust would not hold funds other than in times of an emergency when donations would be received and then distributed to the community.

The funds that would be placed in the Trust are not Council funds, nor are they funds that would otherwise be coming to the Council.

As the Trustees will need to be appointed by the Hawke’s Bay Councils, it is necessary to establish a Council Controlled Organisation under the Local Government Act to form and administer the Trust. There is no rates impact for the establishment of the trust.

The next steps will be working with the Hawke’s Bay Councils to establish the trust deed which will be bought back to Council for adoption including the appointment of trustees to represent Council.

With the large majority of submitters having supported the proposal (40 out of 49 submissions, 81.6%), officers conclude that there is sufficient support to establish a Disaster Relief Trust to support people affected by a civil defence emergency in Hawke’s Bay in the event of an emergency.

 

Recommendation

That, having considered all matters raised in the report:

a)   That Council approves the establishment of a Disaster Relief Fund Trust as a Council Controlled Organisation under the Local Government Act.

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                     23 May 2019

7.8         Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - Draft Environmental and Sustainability Strategy

File Number:           COU1-1400

Author:                    Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Authoriser:             Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments:          1.       Draft Environmental and Sutainability Strategy - Statement of Proposal  

 

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the submissions received on the Annual Plan consultation in relation to the draft Environmental and Sustainability Strategy.

 

Recommendation

That, having considered all matters raised in the report;

a)   That Council adopt the Environmental and Sustainability Strategy and

b)   That Council consider future funding requirements to implement the Environmental and Sustainability Strategy as part of the Annual Plan 2020/21

 

Draft Environmental and Sustainability Strategy

Submissions:

6 Michael Smith, 8 Jennifer Woodman, 19 Andrew Renton-Green, 26 Di Petersen, 27 Magali Martin, 28 Kathryn Bayliss, 38 Sharon Ritchie, 42 Robin Horder, 45 Alan Neckelson, 47 CHB Forest and Bird, 51 David Bishop, 53 Peter Meredith, 55 Louise Philips, 58 Dan Elderkamp, 61 NZ Forest and Bird, 65 Dean Hyde, 68 Bruce Anderson, 71 Gill Tracy, 72 Adrienne Tully, 74 Diane Seager, 79 Sharleen Baird, 83 George T Konia, 84 John Jakes, 85 Ray Freemantle, 88 Justin Courtney, 89 Peter Charlton-Jones, 94 Vera Smith, 96 R Pickering, 97 L Guy and R Bell, 99 Gerard Pain, 100 Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Foundation, 101 Trevor Le Lievre, 104 Helen Walker, 107 Ian Walker, 110 Anne Wallace, 115 Dawn Le Lievre, 119 Bruce Stephenson, 120 Di Murphy

Late submissions: 113 Rei Sciascia

Summary of Submissions

The Council’s Draft Environmental and Sustainability Strategy was one of the key topics council sought public feedback on as part of the Annual Plan 2019/20 process.  In total Council received 38 submissions on this topic.

Analysis

Overall, submissions received on this topic were in support of the intentions outlined in the strategy and congratulated the Council on its development. However a number of the submissions did note concerns that the objectives for exploring water storage solutions were a contradiction to Question one in the Annual Plan Consultation – i.e the proposal to potentially provide a suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB.

Specific feedback related to this can be found under the heading “Theme two: Ensuring Environmental vitality through our way of working.”

Feedback has been categorised by the four themes outlined in the draft Environmental and Sustainability Strategy initially and then into additional feedback received.

Theme one: Leading the way in environmental sustainability

Submissions received on this theme included the following feedback:

·    That Council should take the impact of climate change seriously

·    That although it is good for Council to consider its own practises, that this is only a small amount of environmental impact compared to discharges from cows

·    That Council should consider use of mopeds or bicycles instead of 4 x 4 vehicles for staff

·    That Council intensively zone private land for food and crop production due to the much lower carbon footprint and promote new systems for beef and lamb production.

·    That Council should promote smarter farming that chooses crops more suitable to our climate

·    Mr Courtney submitted that he supported the establishment of the Community Environmental and Sustainability Reference Group

·    Ms Woodman sought clarification on the cost of the reference group

·            

Theme two: Ensuring Environmental vitality through our way of working

Submissions received on this theme included the following feedback:

·    A number of submitters indicated that the objective around investigating long term water storage solutions was at odds with the proposed suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB.

·    Mr Smith supported the move to provide funding to Water Holdings CHB to manage this, for the sake of efficiency

·    Ms Bayliss felt that reference to water storage should be deleted

·    Mr Elderkamp sought that Council consider alternative water storage options, including urban water storage in conjunction with regional council initiatives

·    Mr Anderson sought that instead of a large dam, that Council implements a water storage scheme based on several storage ponds with local piped water reticulation

·    That the strategy states that a top priority is conserving water but instead only focuses on long term storage solutions.

·    Dr Le Lievre noted that if the Council wishes to demonstrate genuine intent regarding the strategy, it should not provide the suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB.

In addition, there were a number of other submissions relating to Theme two in the document as follows:

·    Dr Le Lievre requested that water metres were installed for all ratepayers on town supply

·    Ms Martin submitted that reducing waste was ideal but that with China now refusing the export of NZ waste that options in this space were limited

·    That Council should stop accepting waste from out of the district going to landfill as it is in conflict with the objective of waste minimisation in the district

·    That Council should follow the lead of Hastings and Napier and only accept plastics 1 and 2 for recycling

·    That high temperature incineration should replace the landfill

·    That Council should consider providing wheelie bins for kerbside collection

·    CHB Forest and Bird outlined their support for a revised Solid Waste Management and Minimisation Plan.

·    That there needs to be attention given to the amount of recycling going to landfill from the transfer station

·    That Council needs to implement the programs to fix water and wastewater issues in the district with costs spread over generations.

·    That Council should stop discharging wastewater into rivers

·            

Theme three: Connecting our people and place

Submissions received on this theme included the following feedback:

·    2 submitters wanted Council to promote sustainable housing including making water tanks or rainwater collection mandatory

·    That Central Hawke’s Bay should officially become GMO free

·    That Council should plant native trees wherever possible

·    That Council manages large fires burning e.g. through forestry slashing

·    5 submitters welcome Council’s support for biodiversity initiatives

·    That the Council should consider ways to create and restore wetlands to retain water, sustain summer flows and encourage biodiversity

·    That Council should have a strong website with up to date information on environmental sustainability

·    That the establishment of an environmental centre in CHB would be welcomed to raise awareness and empowering the community to do the right thing

·    That Council needs to prioritise protection, restoration and conservation of native wildlife species in the district and should spend more time working with government in future on development of national policy statements.

·    Hawke’s Bay Biodiversity Foundation considered that this was a great theme for the strategy

Theme Four: Building a sustainable economy

Submissions received on this theme included the following feedback:

·    That Council would be better to work with regional council and central government to finds ways to achieve an equitable distribution of current water consents

·    That promoting alternative land use options should be at the forefront of this initiative

·    That protecting the environment and enhancing sustainability of it can be achieved parallel to economic growth

Funding the strategy:

·                Submissions were received which both supported and opposed investment into the Strategy.  Some of the comments about funding included:

·    That it looks to be environmentally sustainable and financially sound

·    That Council should invest in the strategy and its outcomes

·    That it was unclear how funding and resources would be allocated

·    That the strategy had the potential to require endless funding to maintain it

General comments:

·    Mr Renton-Green highlighted that some of the data on which proposals were based was from pre-destined political positions and so was flawed

·    Ms Bayliss suggested some changes in wording in the introduction of the document as follows;

o Change ‘Managing our impact on waterways to “Improving our rivers’

o “Successful environmental guardians ensuring future generations THRIVE here” should be changed to “Successful environmental guardians ensuring we and future generations THRIVE here”

·    That the strategy lacked substance

·    That the proximity of the sewage treatment ponds and refuse station to the Tukituki river has potential to cause issues in the event of a 100 year flood.

·    That farmers were going to be taxed heavily by the government, so to take their costs into consideration when making decisions

·    Mr Hyde’s submission noted the importance of working in partnership with key stakeholders to achieve meaningful outcomes.

As can be read above significant feedback was provided to the strategy.

By way of background, in the Long Term Plan Council 2018-28 indicated it would develop an Environmental and Sustainability Strategy to help Council with the way it would deliver services in the future and identify further initiatives that may form part of Council’s services.  This was in recognition of how important the natural environment is to the community as noted in Project THRIVE.  The aim is to work alongside partners across the region to improve the environmental footprint. 

The Vision, Themes and Actions outlined in the Environmental and Sustainability Strategy (as attached) align with community views and preferences expressed during Project THRIVE and the following Community Outcomes -

§ Proud District.  The community has identified the importance of the unique landscape ‘from the mountains to the sea’.  Through the Environmental and Sustainability Strategy, Council will reaffirm the importance of the natural landscape, strengthen local connection with environmental points of difference and community identity. 

§ Prosperous District.  It is anticipated that the actions coming out of the Environmental and Sustainable Strategy will assist towards protecting and promoting the natural landscape.  An attractive district with well managed natural resources is vitally important to local iwi, to retaining and attracting new residents and businesses, and supporting industry to flourish and prosper i.e. primary and tourism sectors.

 

§ Strong Communities.  Central Hawke’s Bay is home to several environmental community groups working to deliver sustainable initiatives and environmental programmes to the community.  Council will work alongside of community groups and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and others in a collaborative manner in effort to reduce the environmental footprint. 

 

§ Smart Growth.  Growing Central Hawke’s Bay in a smart and sustainable way is important to the Council and the community.  It is anticipated that the Environmental and Sustainability will complement the principles of the Central Hawke’s Bay District Plan and Economic Development Strategy.

 

§ Environmentally Responsible.  Central Hawke’s Bay is home to a unique and beautiful landscape.  The Environmental and Sustainability Strategy will include monitoring action and evaluating effectiveness.  The monitoring indicators and completed actions will provide Council with data to demonstrate environmental responsibility.

The Draft Environmental and Sustainability Strategy aims to capture those activities and initiatives that Council can influence, coordinate or facilitate, and in some instances actually deliver.

At its heart, the Strategy has four primary objectives or priorities and four supporting themes that

sets out how Council will act to work towards the priorities. The four priorities are:

 

• Managing our impact on waterways

• Increasing recycling and reducing waste to landfill

• Conserving water

• Managing for climate change

 

The most contentious issue raised throughout feedback was the perception that the adoption of the Strategy is contradicted by Council’s proposal to provide a suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB Limited.

While the issues need to be debated and determined separately, Officers advice is that there is connection between the two issues.

Officers advice to Elected Members is that the security of water to landowners presents  opportunities to enhance the environmental, social, economic and cultural aspirations of Central Hawke’s Bay through positively enabling change in land use to allow a move from product volume to product value and keeping within Plan Change 6 limitations, while potentially also enhancing environmental summer flows. Council when considering separately the feedback to the proposal to provide a suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB Limited will need to consider how the proposal aligns with the intent and priorities of the Environmental and Sustainability Strategy.

To the point that a number of submitters indicated that the objective around investigating long term water storage solutions was at odds with the proposed suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB. The specific reference to the investigation of water supply storage solution links to one of the four priorities “conserving water”. This initiative was specific to Council’s goals as part of #thebigwaterstory which is to increase water storage for municipal water supply to increase resilience in the drinking water network.

With the large majority of submitters having supported the intent of the strategy, officers conclude that there is sufficient support to adopt the Environmental and Sustainability Strategy.

Officers recognise the role of the Community Environmental and Sustainability Group as critical to the success of the implementation of the Strategy. Officers see the establishment of the group as the most important next step and should Council adopt the strategy, initial energy will be put on this. The Community Environmental and Sustainability Group will also be able to consider the many ideas suggested as part of consultation and see whether priority can be given to any specific projects.

Officers’ view is that the establishment of the Community Environmental and Sustainability Group and implementation of initiatives in Year 1 can be funded via existing budgets. To this point it is worth noting that a number of the initiatives are already programmed within the Long Term Plan 2018-28. This provides time for further projects to be prioritised and a full assessment of costs determined, to then be considered as part of the Annual Plan 2020/21 process.

 

Recommendation

That, having considered all matters raised in the report:

a)   That Council adopt the Environmental and Sustainability Strategy and

b)   That Council consider future funding requirements to implement the Environmental and Sustainability Strategy as part of the Annual Plan 2020/21

 PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

7.9         Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - Governance and Leadership

File Number:           COU1-1400

Author:                    Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Authoriser:             Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments:          Nil

 

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council submissions received in relation to Governance and Leadership activities

 

Recommendation

That having considered all matters raised in the report;

a)   That submitters’ comments are noted, with no specific recommendation necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Governance and LEadership – Topics for consideration

Topic One

Maintaining a Local Voice in Shared Services

Topic Two

Maori representation in Council decision making

 

 Topic One – Maintaining a Local Voice in Shared Services

Submissions:

75 Jim and Yvonne Macauley

Summary of submissions:

The submitters seek that in any shared services that our local voice and representation remains.

Analysis:

The submitters raise valid points that when decisions on shared services are made local voice and representation is considered. In 2018 the five Hawke’s Bay Councils supported a recommendation to make Hawke’s Bay Local Shared Services Company dormant, and instead mandate the five Chief Executives to work smarter together on achieving shared service outcomes. Specific projects and outcomes will be explored where it makes sense, and enhanced local value will always be pursued.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

Topic Two – Maori representation in Council decision making

Submissions:

113 Rei Sciascia

Summary of submissions:

The submitter raises concerns around Council shortcutting processes by select Maori representation and biases regarding iwi based hapu and whanau representation.

Analysis:

Council values the relationship it has with Te Taiwhenua o Tamatea, and appreciates having a forum where all Marae are represented.

The Post Treaty Settlement process presents a greater need for Council to increase its ability to meaningfully partner. 

Council have committed to developing a Maori Engagement Strategy in the Annual Plan 2019/20. This Strategy will provide Council a framework moving forward to ensure Iwi, Hapu and Marae are meaningfully engaged.

Recommendation:

The submitters comments are noted, no recommendation is necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.

 

 

Recommendation

That having considered all matters raised in the report;

a)   That submitters’ comments are noted, with no specific recommendation necessary with regard to the Annual Plan 2019/20.


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

7.10       Quarterly Financial Reporting for March 2019

File Number:           COU1-1410

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

Authoriser:             Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments:          1.       Quarterly Financial Report March 2019  

 

PURPOSE

Provide Council with a summary of Council's third quarter financial performance for the 2018/19 financial year.

 

Recommendation

That, having considered all matters raised in the report, the report on Council's third quarter financial performance for the 2018/19 financial year be noted.

 

 

significance and engagement

This report is provided for information purposes only and has been assessed as being of some importance.

DISCUSSION

This report is to supply Council with a summary of the financial performance of Council and highlights the key financials for the third quarter for the year ended 30 June 2019.

The report contains a Financial Overview for Whole of Council and the Groups of Activities, Treasury Report and Rates Debt Information.

This Financial Report is for the 9 months to 31 March 2019. Council shows a $5.748m surplus against a budgeted surplus of $5.108m. March is 75% through the year and the result shows that Council has spent 74.8% of the expenditure budget and received 76.0% of the budgeted income.  Personnel Costs is $84k above budget and includes $145k of one off expenditure. Other Expenses are under budget by $38k. Interest income is tracking higher than budgeted as more cash is held due to the reduced capital expenditure. Most other variances are favourable being underspent budgets or timing differences between budget allocations and actual expenditure.  Details of the variances can be found in the reports within the attached report.

Elected Members were sent a copy of this report earlier this month.

Financial and Resourcing Implications

Officers will continue to monitor and manage the finances of Council.

Implications ASSESSMENT

This report confirms that the matter concerned has no particular implications and has been dealt with in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002.  Specifically:

·          Council staff have delegated authority for any decisions made;

·          Council staff have identified and assessed all reasonably practicable options for addressing the matter and considered the views and preferences of any interested or affected persons (including Māori), in proportion to the significance of the matter;

·          Any decisions made will help meet the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions in a way that is most cost-effective for households and businesses;

·          Unless stated above, any decisions made can be addressed through current funding under the Long-Term Plan and Annual Plan;

·          Any decisions made are consistent with the Council's plans and policies; and

·          No decisions have been made that would alter significantly the intended level of service provision for any significant activity undertaken by or on behalf of the Council, or would transfer the ownership or control of a strategic asset to or from the Council.

Next Steps

Officers will continue to monitor and management the finances of Council.

 

Recommendation

That, having considered all matters raised in the report, the report on Council's third quarter financial performance for the 2018/19 financial year be noted.

 

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                                    23 May 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

7.11       Deliberations - Annual Plan 2019/20 - Proposed Dog Pound

File Number:           COU1-1400

Author:                    Lisa Harrison, Organisation Transformation Manager

Authoriser:             Doug Tate, Group Manager Customer and Community Partnerships

Attachments:          Nil

 

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present to Council for deliberation the proposed options for the issues identified since the adoption of the Annual Plan Consultation Document and Supporting Information in regards to the development of the Dog Pound for Central Hawke’s Bay.

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a)         That Council approve additional capital expenditure of $297,000 in the 2019/20 for the development of a pound facility in Central Hawke’s Bay; and further:

b)         That a report is brought back to Council on the proposed new pound, prior to any capital expenditure commencing.

BACKGROUND

Under section 67 of the Dog Control Act 1996 Council is required to have a pound available for enforcement of the Act and animal bylaws. Council can do this through by having their own facility available, contracting out, sharing services or any other means – but a pound must be available for use.

 

Council currently has a pound facility, provided through an agreement with the SPCA at the SPCA’s site at 15 Coughlan Road Waipukurau.  Council owns small uncompliant kennels on the SPCA’s site.  For some time, the agreement with the SPCA has been periodic in nature (month to month). 

 

Late last year Council and the SPCA entered into negotiations to develop a new occupation and service agreement on the site. While negotiations were initially forthcoming, the SPCA national office brought those negotiations to an end, prior to the agreement being executed. 

 

The reason negotiations ended, was primarily due to a misalignment in the SPCA’s Strategic direction, with that of Council.  The SPCA jointly enforces the Animal Welfare Act 1999 with Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the New Zealand Police.  The new regulations are resulting in more importance for the SPCA in this role and in their view, fundamentally make it difficult for them to act as a service delivery agent for Council or being seen to align with Council, while enforcing the regulations. 

 

The facilities at 15 Coughlan Road do not comply with the new mandatory regulations under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 that came into force on 1 October 2018.  These include minimum kennel sizes, run areas, ensuring they are dry, shade and managing the extremes of heat and cold. Additionally, there are Health and Safety risks associated with the kennels current configuration for staff operating the pound.  These standards set a much higher threshold than Council currently provides for animals in the pound.

 

Council will recall that in the development of the Annual Plan 2019/20, funding of $125,000 was included for the development of an upgraded pound facility.  The funding of $125,000 was established, based on upgrading the pound at its current location to meet the requirements, requiring considerably less capital than development of a pound at a new site. 

 

Since notice has been given to Council to vacate the site, further work on options for pound provision have been undertaken, that have identified that additional capital funding above that budgeted in the Annual Plan 2019/20 is required.  There is expected to also be new operational expenditure implications as a result of notice being given.

OPTIONS

Council engaged a contractor who has been widely used across the local government sector for animal control services, to investigate options to ensure that we are complying with relevant legislation and can achieve best value for the community in considering the options available to Council.

 

An options analysis exercise was completed and the following options were considered for pound provision:

 

·    New agreement with SPCA

·    Purchase or lease of land at various sites

·    Shared Services

·    Contracting out the Service

·    Other private Sector Partnerships

·    Council Land

 

A brief description of each of these options include:

 

Option 1    SPCA Occupation

2.         This was the primary option for pound provision and was the basis of funding included in the Annual Plan 2019/20.  This is not a viable long term solution for Council due to a number of factors that are out of our control.  It is not clear and the SPCA would not divulge, what their long term intentions were for this site and the SPCA facility in Central Hawke’s Bay long term. 

3.          

4.         There is clear direction from SPCA at the highest national level, that a long term alignment with and occupation of sites with the SPCA is not desirable to them.  To this end the status quo arrangement or a modified arrangement are not possible.

Option 2    Existing Council Land Holdings

Working alongside the contractor we have exhausted all Council owned land options as part of this analysis. 

 

Reserve Land cannot be used due to the restrictions under the Reserves Act 1977.

 

Other sites considered have included wastewater treatment sites and landfills, however until final long term solutions have been identified at these sites, there are no locations within these sites readily available or appropriate for a pound facility.

Option 3    Leasing, Contracting Out and Shared Service Options

We have seriously considered all possible lease, contracting or other shared service options.  The options considered have included: 

 

Contracting out

We have explored opportunities to occupy part of a new substantial animal facility development being built to meet the requirements of the Act, with an existing Waipukurau business.  This was not supported by the business due to the types of aggressive or unknown nature of dogs the pound may introduce.  There are no other obvious new or complementary businesses available.

 

Shared Services

We explored shared services with both Tararua and Hastings District Councils.  Both of these locations were not feasible, simply due to the distance to travel for day-to-day business as usual and customer inconvenience, with both pounds being in a position where they could be at capacity and unable to take animals.

 

Leasing

We have had initial discussions with a landowner that would be interested in a design-build and lease option, subject to negotiation.  The primary barrier for Council however is the significant resulting increase in operational costs from a lease - covering the build, land lease and developer margin that would be included. 

 

Based on initial estimates, this option is the most financially unachievable option for Council long term.  Based on cost-benefit analysis, this option over a whole of life period of thirty years, would see nearly a fourfold increase in costs, versus purchasing and developing outright.

 

Increases in fees and charges would be ongoing beyond the term of a purchase (20 years), and subject to rental reviews.  Council with this option also has limited control over the assets.

 

The most logical reason why Council would take this approach of leasing an asset and not incurring the debt, would be if they were constrained by debt or their ability to borrow.  Neither of these are immediate issues at this time.

 

Option 4    Outright Land Purchase and Council Development

This option has looked at purchasing land and developing a new purpose built pound facility on a greenfield site. At this time, we anticipate a total capital cost envelope of $422,000 (excluding GST) for a greenfield development.

 

The estimated cost of a greenfield build has been estimated at $272,000.  This includes fencing, service connections, consenting – both building and resource consent and construction, for a modest eight bay pound.  The costs of these will be relative to the final site location.

 

An additional land value of $80,000 - $150,000 (excluding GST) has been estimated for land purchase, either as an existing parcel or a new parcel created through subdivision, with very limited industrial/commercial land sales available to determine a recent comparable sale price.  This provides a large area of risk to the project.  The final land costs will be dependent on the ability to finalise and identify a site for purchase and an overall development plan. 

 

Regardless of the option adopted, new direct operational costs of $24,000 per annum are anticipated.  With the development of a new pound facility not expected to realistically to be complete until late in the 2019/20 financial year, additional costs will not be fully effected till the 2020/21 year.  It is expected that an additional operational costs of $6,000 would be incurred in 2019/20.  Additional costs relating to debt servicing costs of circa $22,832 per year, would also affect the activity, however would also not take full effect till the 2020/2021 year.

 

The fees for 2019/20 have been adopted by Council and are therefore unable to be changed at this time. Therefore, the additional funding of $6,000 for operational costs and an estimated $11,416 for loan repayment will be required to be funded in the 2019/20 year.

 

Based on the current number of registered dogs - without any rates input, this would see an average of a $9.36 increase in Dog Registrations fees and charges, required for the 2020/21 year at the full development and operational costs anticipated at this time.

 

It is acknowledged that the base capital costs for development may appear high, however when compared to a recent development in Tararua District, are considerably lower.

Option 5 – Do nothing

Do nothing is an option to the elected Council, however is not an option recommended by Officers.

 

In the near future, Council could find itself without a pound facility, if the SPCA give a specific date to vacate the current pound premises, leaving nowhere to temporarily house dogs while impounded.  If audited by the Ministry for Primary Industries, it is highly unlikely that Council could demonstrate compliance. 

 

Council also has a legal responsibility under the Dog Control Act 1996 to have a pound facility available to them.  Council could not satisfy this requirement long term, without some provision being made for a new facility.

 

A doing nothing approach – not complying with legislation, also does not met Councils adopted risk appetite profile.  

 

Recommended Option

We have concluded that of all of the options, an outright purchase of a new site and construction of a purpose built pound facility is the recommended option.  This has been assessed as the most feasible option and best value for money for Council, when considering whole of life costs.

 

There are limited opportunities to defer the decision long term or not comply with the new regulations.  Further, Council could be given four weeks’ notice to vacate the current site from SPCA.

 

The total cost of this option is up to $422,000 of capital expenditure in the 2019/20 year for the development of a new pound facility for Central Hawke’s Bay.

 

Again, it is acknowledged that it is considerable expenditure, however not significant in terms of Councils significance and engagement policy.

 

We propose that prior to any capital expenditure on the facility being expended in the 2019/20 year, a full report is brought back to Council finalising the location for purchase and bringing the full and final cost to Council for approval.

 

 

Recommended Option

This report recommends Option 4 - outright land purchase and new development of a pound facility for addressing the matter.

 

NEXT STEPS

Officers will continue to liaise with the SPCA and manage this relationship with care.  It is for Council to consider the recommended option, which if adopted, will provide the way forward to address a pound facility for Central Hawke’s Bay long term.

 

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a)         That Council approve additional capital expenditure of $297,000 in the 2019/20 for the development of a pound facility in Central Hawke’s Bay; and further:

b)         That a report is brought back to Council on the proposed new pound, prior to any capital expenditure commencing.

 

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

7.12       Implementation of Dust Suppression Policy

File Number:           COU1-1400

Author:                    Josh Lloyd, Group Manager - Community Infrastructure and Development

Authoriser:             Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments:          1.       Dust Supression Policy - Adopted 10 April 2019

2.       Dust Supressions Guidelines - Adopted 10 April 2019  

 

PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is for Council to consider the options to expedite the implementation of the Dust Suppression Policy.

 

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That, having considered all matters raised in the report that Council deliberate to determine their preferred option.

 

 

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.     Utilise a portion of Rural Ward Funds to invest in sealing to control dust

2.     Re-prioritise a portion of the existing Land Transport budget/work programme to seal roads to control dust

3.     Capture additional revenue through targeted rates to invest in sealing to control dust

4.     The targeting of external funds through the creation of business cases to support investment in sealing to control dust

5.   Council request that further work be undertaken by Officers to consider the funding for sealing to control dust as part of the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

 

Affected persons

The persons who are affected by or interested in this matter are the residents of Central Hawke’s Bay who live on or regularly travel on unsealed roads where dust creates nuisance, safety and potential health hazards.

Recommendation

This report recommends that Council deliberate on the options provided to determine their preferred option or combination of options.

Long-Term Plan /
Annual Plan Implications

Option 5 may have implications for the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

Significant
Policy and Plan Inconsistencies

No

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents options to Council to consider how it could invest, or target investment, to give effect to the recently adopted Dust Suppression Policy. The report considers options for Council to utilise its own existing funds (not currently set for dust suppression) and options for Council to target external funding through the creation of robust business cases. The options are discussed separately but combinations of the options are possible and Officers request that Council provide guidance on next steps and preferred options. 

BACKGROUND

In April, Council adopted the Dust Suppression Policy (the Policy) and supporting Guidelines (the Guidelines). The Policy adopted (attached) was a revision of a previous policy that was considered restrictive and did not allow Council the option to invest in sealing unsealed roads to control dust. The Policy adopted would allow Council to invest in sealing roads to control dust where;

1.   External funding was available (this could be from NZTA, landowners or other sources)

2.   Funds were available within Council (this could be through the creation of dedicated funds, through additional revenue gathering means or through the reprioritisation of existing funds/investment programmes)   

The Guidelines created (also attached) provide a transparent, consistent and rigorous means for Officers to consider the need to invest in sealing to control dust. The Guidelines allow Officers to determine where Council investment is appropriate based on the following criteria:

1.   Frequency of dust issues

2.   Intensity of the dust issue / concentration

3.   Duration of exposure to dust

4.   Offensive/Character – the type of dust

5.   Location of issue and context

Importantly these criteria and the Guidelines also afford Officers an effective means of prioritising between potentially competing uses of funds.

Financial levers to ‘fast track’

Council, in adopting the Policy, requested that the Guidelines (part 7) stated that Council would only invest where Council funds and external funds were available. Officers consider broadly the following levers to provide its share of funding:

1.   The use of Rural Ward Funds

2.   A reprioritisation of existing budgets within Land Transport

3.   The capture of additional revenue through rate take

4.   The targeting of additional external funds through the creation of business cases

These levers are each considered separately in the options analysis section of this report but some combinations of these options are possible.

Amount to Invest

The Policy, by design, does not set a given amount in any year to be invested to seal roads to control dust. Officers are aware of known areas on the 403km unsealed road network where dust is a serious concern and methods alternate to sealing have proven to not be effective.

Officers consider that approximately 5km of unsealed road are immediately known candidates for sealing to control dust. At approximate (but highly variable) rates of $250,000/km for sealing, Officers consider a total investment of $1,250,000 may be required. At an anticipated 50% funding share, Councils contribution, if funds were available, would approximate to $625,000. This amount could be spread over multiple years with one or several known problem areas being addressed each year.

Officers advise that if a minimum or target amount was to be invested each year it should be sufficient to complete a meaningful and cost-effective amount of work. Officers consider that $250,000 is an amount that would give effect to a meaningful amount of work and allow for cost-effective construction. This would allow at least 1km of new seal which for example would cover the cost of sealing the problem parts of Blacks Road or (not and) problem parts on Scenic or (not and) Pourerere Beach Roads.

Prioritising Investment

As with any investment, several layers of prioritisation are required. For sealing to control dust, the Guidelines provide the means to prioritise within the category and across other categories. That is, the Guidelines allow Officers to determine if investment is warranted compared with other options for investment (across category prioritisation) and to determine what sections of road should be sealed first to control dust if there are several competing (within category prioritisation).

Officers have not completed a comprehensive assessment of all known areas on the network where dust is an issue against the Guidelines as this has not been formally requested. Officers have begun the exercise on one of the highest ranked problem areas however. Officers advise that to formalise a recommendation about whether or not to invest in sealing to control dust (as opposed to investing in other activities such as road maintenance or footpath creation), more information is required. However, Council could still make an investment decision in the absence of a prioritisation process.

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as of some importance because the high public interest in the decision and the potential impact any decision may have on other work programmes or on rates. 

OPTIONS

The section below considers each option against pre-defined criteria (financial, risk, alignment etc). The following listed criteria (normally included in standard reports) have not been specifically considered against any option as they are deemed to be non-relevant. Comment is not provided on each of these standard criteria for each of the options below unless it is considered specifically relevant.

·    Statutory Responsibilities. All options are considered in line with statutory responsibilities and will be carried out within the limits of existing legislation.

·    Participation by Māori. No option is considered to have specific impact on Maori or require a need for specific consultation with Maori.

·    Community Views and Preferences.

·    Alignment to Project Thrive and Community Outcomes. This criteria is considered relevant for all options below but the same response is appropriate for all so it is covered here. All options are designed and are being considered specifically to address community outcomes and to respond to issues raised by residents in project THRIVE and following consultation and engagement exercises.

Option 1         Utilise a portion of Rural Ward Funds to invest in sealing to control dust

 

a)         Financial and Resourcing Implications

The Rural Ward Funds contain reserves of $811,114 (not including a potential outlay of $250,000 via a suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB) and were established to provide funds for the provision or maintenance of recreational, cultural or infrastructural assets within the Aramoana / Ruahine Wards. 

By drawing on the reserve funds there would be no further impact on rates.  The money is managed as part of the treasury function and is invested as part of the overall funds of Council as per the Treasury Policy – NZ Registered Banks A+/A-1 ratings

In the last 5 years the funds have been used to assist with the installation of a heat pump at the Settlers Museum, Tamatea Trails feasibility and Porangahau Hall War Memorial Project.

 

b)         Risk Analysis

The primary risk is considered to be the reduction in the Ward Funds and the inability therefore to utilise them in the future for other needs as and when required. Officers are not able to quantify this risk as currently there are no known other listed items for consideration under the Ward Funds (other than Water Holdings CHB).

 

c)         Consistency with Policies and Plans

The Special Funds Policy is the Council policy that governs the use of the Rural Ward Funds. The Rural Funds, also known as the Aramoana / Ruahine Ward Disbursement Reserve Accounts were established following the 1989 Central Hawke’s Bay Councils amalgamations.  

The Special Funds Policy states that unless otherwise stated, only the interest earned on each fund shall be available to be spent, thereby preserving the individual fund amounts.

A decision by Council to utilise any amount of the funds to invest in sealing to control dust, would require an amendment to the Special Funds Policy given the current policy is limited to only granting interest earned.  

 

d)         Community Views and Preferences

Council and Officers heard through the Annual Plan consultation strong feedback about the use of the Rural Ward Funds when it was being considered to support a suspensory loan to Water Holdings CHB. Officers consider that the use of the Rural Ward Funds to seal unsealed rural roads is in line with the feedback heard from the community which had a strong focus on benefiting rural communities.

 

e)         Advantages and Disadvantages

The primary advantages of this option are the readily available funds.

This option shares disadvantages with other options in that further work would still be required to determine where Council would invest first to ensure value for money.

This option would also have a disadvantage of depleting the Rural Reserve Fund with no plan in place to replenish it.


 

 

Option 2         Re-prioritise a portion of the existing Land Transport budget/work programme to seal roads to control dust

 

a)         Financial and Resourcing Implications

An option exists to reprioritise portions of the existing Land Transport works programme to invest in sealing to control dust. An update was provided to the March Finance and Planning Committee that outlined the state of the current work programmes and the amount of work scheduled and expected to be completed within the 2018/19 financial year. This update also provided guidance on the levels of risk of each of the different investment categories within the total Land Transport programme.

Of note, approximately $1,100,000 is forecast to be carried into the 2019/20 financial year from the structural renewals work category. Structural renewals include planned works to upgrade and repair bridges, retaining walls and large culverts. This work is identified through asset inspections and condition assessment and is prioritised based on risk. A total value of $1.4M is routinely allocated to this programme of work and is designed by engineering consultants and taken to market for construction.

 

b)         Risk Analysis

Officers consider that utilising a portion (up to $250,000) of the Structural Renewals carryover and investing in sealing to mitigate dust would not increase risk to the network. This assessment has been made considering the sites identified for renewal/repair within the work category and the risk of deferring work. Officers had planned to complete all carried over work from 2018/19 in the 2019/20 as well as the already planned and budgeted 2019/20 programme of work. Utilising $250,000 of the carried forward amount would push $250,000 of other planned works out but this is considered manageable from a risk perspective.

The other activities within the Land Transport programme of works are expected to be all or ‘nearly-all’ spent this year and all are considered of high risk to the network if any are deferred.

 

c)         Consistency with Policies and Plans

This option can be carried out in line with Councils existing approach (policies) to land transport planning and in line with existing land transport plans.

 

d)         Advantages and Disadvantages

The primary advantages of this option is the relatively low financial and resourcing implications given the funds are available at low risk to the network without depleting other budgets.

This option shares disadvantages with other options in that further work would still be required to determine where Council would invest first to ensure value for money.


 

Option 3         Capture additional revenue through targeted rates to invest in sealing to control dust

 

a)   Financial and Resourcing Implications

Changes to the rating mechanism could be made to target additional revenue to cover future costs of sealing to control dust. An increase to the existing Land Transport Targeted Rate could be implemented in the 2020/21 or future Annual Plans following the required consultation. The rating review currently underway will also provide an ability to implement a new structure for revenue collection that could target specific roads where sealing will occur. As an example, to fund $250,000 to invest in sealing to control dust would equate to an approximate rate increase of 1.3%.

 

b)         Risk Analysis

This option is considered of low or negligible risk to the network with the only risk foreseen being one of real or perceived affordability to ratepayers.

 

c)         Consistency with Policies and Plans

A review of the Significance and Engagement Policy will be required based on the type and scale of change to rating proposed and it is likely that most types of changes to rates would trigger significance and require a consultative process.

 

d)         Advantages and Disadvantages

The primary advantages of this option are the potential to raise significant funds if required and to apportion these in a fair and equitable manner based on a well-considered and structure rate take.

This option shares disadvantages with other options in that further work would still be required to determine where Council would invest first to ensure value for money.

This option also has the disadvantage of what would be considered a moderate to high rate impact on residents.

 

Option 4         The targeting of external funds through the creation of business cases to support investment in sealing to control dust

a)         Financial and Resourcing Implications

Officers have considered the use of the Guidelines to properly assess known areas where dust is an issue for Council investment and advise that further work is required to form a clear picture. This work would create the foundations for a business case that could be put to external potential funding providers including NZTA and the Ministry of Health. To complete a business case suitable for external presentation Council will require the support of contracted professionals (such as Stantec) with costs expected to be $50,000 - $60,000.

To fund the work to complete the business case Officers would seek an increase in the complete Land Transport budget.

Alternately a combination of this option and Option 2 could be possible where Officers would reprioritise some existing Land Transport funds into the creation of business cases.

 


 

b)         Risk Analysis

This option is considered to have a low risk to the network. This option is considered however to have a moderate financial risk in that funds invested to create a business case would not guarantee return on investment. The risk is considered to be manageable through effective planning and gates on the process whereby work would only progress and funds would only be spent based on ongoing dialect with potential future investors and confidence of success.

 

c)         Consistency with Policies and Plans

Officers have engaged with NZTA to investigate the potential for future investment. NZTA advise that to be successful in any application for funding Council must demonstrate alignment to the 2018 GPS and the subsequent Targeted Enhanced Funding Assistance Rate. Officers consider that some areas on the network may align closely with the GPS for safety (extended to public health).

 

d)         Advantages and Disadvantages

The primary advantages of this option are that Council’s own investment is relatively low and that time would be afforded to carry out a robust study of the network and known problem areas against the Policy and the Guidelines.

The primary disadvantage of this option is the financial risk in that Councils investment would not be guaranteed a return.

 

Option 5         Council request that further work be undertaken by Officers to consider the funding for sealing to control dust as part of the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

 

a)         Financial and Resourcing Implications

An option exists to defer any decision on Council investment (in line with the Policy adopted) and to request further work be undertaken by Officers within current budgets to provide a recommendation for inclusion of budget to invest in sealing roads to control dust as part of the 2020/21 Annual Plan. Officers will consider all known roads for sealing to control dust against the Guidelines and complete a more thorough analysis of available funding implications.

 

b)         Risk Analysis

This option is considered a low risk to the network with the highest risk being a perception of inaction by Council on the adopted Policy.

 

c)         Alignment to Project THRIVE and Community Outcomes

This option, more so than others presented, will defer the achievement of community outcomes.

 

d)         Consistency with Policies and Plans

This option is consistent with the Dust Suppression Policy.

 

e)         Advantages and Disadvantages

The primary advantage of this option is the time afforded to complete a more thorough consideration of funding options and a proper analysis of roads against the Guidelines. This option also has the advantage of having no immediate budget impact.

The primary disadvantage of this option is the delay in investing in the sealing of new roads.

 

Recommended Option

This report recommends that Council deliberate to determine their preferred option.

NEXT STEPS

Officers request guidance from Council on the next steps and which option, or combination of options, are desirable.

 

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That, having considered all matters raised in the report that Council deliberate to determine their preferred option.

 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                     23 May 2019

PDF Creator


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                     23 May 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator 


Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                                   23 May 2019

8            Chief Executive Report

Nil

 

9            Public Excluded Business  

Nil

10          Date of Next Meeting

Recommendation

THAT the next meeting of the Central Hawke's Bay District Council be held on 20 June 2019.

11          Time of Closure