Agenda of Council Meeting - Thursday, 13 May 2021

Challenge / Issue	Consultation Assumption	Recommended Assumption	Item Number	Further Rating Impact Year 1 if recommendations adopted.
Challenge / Issue	Consultation Assumption	Recommended Assumption	Item Number	General / UAGC	Land Transport	Rubbish / Recycling Targeted Rate	3 Waters Targeted Rate	Total Rates Impact
Wastewater Upgrades Loan vs Rate Funding Trade Waste Capital Contribution	Loan Fund Years 1-5 $250k contribution pa, applied to loan servicing	Loan Fund Years 1-15 $250k Contribution Year 1, applied to loan servicing	7.3 7.3, 7.15	Nil Nil	Nil Nil	Nil Nil	No Impact Till Yr 6 Nil	No Impact Till Yr 6 Nil
Replacement of Assets	Loan Fund Years 1-5	Loan Fund Years 1-5	7.5	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Waste Free CHB Keep Drop Off Centres Higher Recycling Costs due to Collection Expansion	Close and Trailers Minimal Cost Change	Keep Open for Rural – Opex Capex Loan Funded New Pricing Confirmed	7.6	+$69,125 +$12,780 Nil	Nil Nil Nil	Nil Nil +$42,000	Nil Nil Nil	+$69,125 +$12,780 +$42,000
Paying for Growth Review DC Policy	Developers Pay 100% 1,340 new houses over 10 years	Developers Pay 100% 1,340 new houses over 10 years But could be impacted by pre LTP growth we are seeing	7.7	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Central Hawkes Bay Community Trust	Capital Grant $600k	Divert $160k of grant to AMP Development	7.14	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Waipawa Pool Covers	No Provision	Loan Fund $30k	7.14	+$4,128	Nil	Nil	Nil	+$4,128
Regional Sports Park Contribution	No Provision	Loan Fund $10k Grant per year for 3 Years	7.14	+$1,100	Nil	Nil	Nil	+$1,100
Regional Sports Park Travel Fund	No Provision	Divert $3k of Existing Budget	7.14	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Development of Sports Hub at Russell Park	No Provision	Provide $35k of funding Years 2 and 3	7.14	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Temporary Changing Rooms – Russell Park Funding	No Provision	Reconsider for 2022/23 Annual Plan	7.14	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Interest Allocation to Special Funds	All Interest Revenue applied to reducing Rates	Some Interest Revenue needs to applied to Trust Funds, balance to reducing rate. Error in Draft Long Term Plan modelling.	7.14	+$15,000	Nil	Nil	Nil	+$15,000
Asset Life Expectancy / Depreciation	Depreciate new water asset over 30 years	Depreciate New Assets over longer periods where sensible	7.14	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Electricity Contract Renewal	General Inflation Added	New Contract Rates known, and usage changes known	7.14	+$15,000	Nil	Nil	+$10,000	+$25,000
Kiwisaver Cost Allocation	All Kiwisaver treated as overhead	Kiwisaver follows the salary as direct cost	7.14	+$37,335	($31,325)	Nil	($8,403)	($2,393)
Total Change Proposed				+$154.5k	(31.3k)	+$42.0k	+$1.6k	+$166.7k
				Summary of Rating Impact Year 1 if recommendations adopted.
2020/21 Rate 2021/22 Draft LTP Rate 2021/22 Draft LTP % Change 2021/22 Proposed Changes 2021/22 Proposed LTP Rate 2021/22 Proposed LTP % Change No. Connected Rate Payers Avg Rate per Rate Payer				$7,069.2k $8,350.7k 18.1% +$154.5k $8,505.2k 20.3% 7,600 $1,119	$6,853.7k $6,790.2k (0.9%) ($31.3k) $6,758.9k (1.4%) 7,600 $889	$372.8k $357.0k (4.2%) +$42.0k $399.0k 7.0% 4,000 $100	$7,130.4k $7,630.9k 7.0% $1.6k $7,632.5k 7.0% 4,100 $1,862	$21,453.2k $23,128.8k 7.8% +$166.7k $23,295.5k 8.6% 7,600 $3,065
Challenge / Issue	Consultation Assumption	Recommended Assumption	Item Number	Further Rating Impact Year 2 if recommendations adopted.
Challenge / Issue	Consultation Assumption	Recommended Assumption	Item Number	General / UAGC	Land Transport	Rubbish / Recycling Targeted Rate	3 Waters Targeted Rate	Total Rates Impact
Wastewater Upgrades Loan vs Rate Funding Trade Waste Capital Contribution	Loan Fund Years 1-5 $250k contribution pa, applied to loan servicing	Loan Fund Years 1-15 $375k Contribution Year 2, applied to loan servicing	7.3 7.3, 7.15	Nil Nil	Nil Nil	Nil Nil	No Impact Till Yr 6 ($125,000)	No Impact Till Yr 6 ($125,000)
Replacement of Assets	Loan Fund Years 1-5	Loan Fund Years 1-5	7.5	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Waste Free CHB Keep Drop Off Centres Higher Recycling Costs due to Collection Expansion	Close and Trailers Minimal Cost Change	Keep Open for Rural – Opex Capex Loan Funded New Pricing Confirmed	7.6	+$69,125 +$12,780 Nil	Nil Nil Nil	Nil Nil +$42,000	Nil Nil Nil	+$69,125 +$12,780 +$42,000
Paying for Growth Review DC Policy	Developers Pay 100% 1,340 new houses over 10 years	Developers Pay 100% 1,340 new houses over 10 years But could be impacted by pre LTP growth we are seeing	7.7	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Central Hawkes Bay Community Trust	Capital Grant $600k	Divert $160k of grant to AMP Development	7.14	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Waipawa Pool Covers	No Provision	Loan Fund $30k	7.14	+$4,128	Nil	Nil	Nil	+$4,128
Regional Sports Park Contribution	No Provision	Loan Fund $10k Grant per year for 3 Years	7.14	+$2,200	Nil	Nil	Nil	+$2,200
Regional Sports Park Travel Fund	No Provision	Divert $3k of Existing Budget	7.14	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Development of Sports Hub at Russell Park	No Provision	Provide $35k of funding Years 2 and 3	7.14	+$35,000	Nil	Nil	Nil	+$35,000
Temporary Changing Rooms – Russell Park Funding	No Provision	Reconsider for 2022/23 Annual Plan	7.14	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Interest Allocation to Special Funds	All Interest Revenue applied to reducing Rates	Some Interest Revenue needs to applied to Trust Funds, balance to reducing rate. Error in Draft Long Term Plan modelling.	7.14	+$15,000	Nil	Nil	Nil	+$15,000
Asset Life Expectancy / Depreciation	Depreciate new water asset over 30 years	Depreciate New Assets over longer periods where sensible	7.14	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Electricity Contract Renewal	General Inflation Added	New Contract Rates known, and usage changes known	7.14	+$15,000	Nil	Nil	+$10,000	+$25,000
Kiwisaver Cost Allocation	All Kiwisaver treated as overhead	Kiwisaver follows the salary as direct cost	7.14	+$43,328	($32,658)	Nil	($10,847)	($177)
Total Change Proposed				+$196.6k	(32.7k)	+$42.0k	($125.8k)	+$80.1k
				Summary of Rating Impact Year 2 if recommendations adopted.
2021/22 Rate 2022/23 Draft LTP Rate 2022/23 Draft LTP % Change 2022/23 Proposed Changes 2022/23 Proposed LTP Rate 2021/22 Proposed LTP % Change No. Connected Rate Payers Avg Rate per Rate Payer				$8,350.7k $9,018.8k 8.0% +$196.6k $9,215.4k 10.4% 7,600 $1,213	$6,790.2k $6,948.8k 2.3% ($32.7k) $6,916.1k 1.9% 7,600 $910	$357.0k $367.3k 2.9% +$42.0k $409.3k 14.7% 4,000 $102	$7,630.9k $8,587.0k 12.5% ($125.8)k $8,461.1k 10.9% 4,100 $2,064	$23,128.8k $24,921.9k 7.8% +80.1k $25,002.0k 8.1% 7,600 $3,290

Challenge / Issue	Consultation Assumption	Recommended Assumption	Item Number	Further Rating Impact Year 3 if recommendations adopted.
Challenge / Issue	Consultation Assumption	Recommended Assumption	Item Number	General / UAGC	Land Transport	Rubbish / Recycling Targeted Rate	3 Waters Targeted Rate	Total Rates Impact
Wastewater Upgrades Loan vs Rate Funding Trade Waste Capital Contribution	Loan Fund Years 1-5 $250k contribution pa, applied to loan servicing	Loan Fund Years 1-15 $550k Contribution Year 3, applied to loan servicing	7.3 7.3, 7.15	Nil Nil	Nil Nil	Nil Nil	No Impact Till Yr 6 ($300,000)	No Impact Till Yr 6 ($300,000)
Replacement of Assets	Loan Fund Years 1-5	Loan Fund Years 1-5	7.5	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Waste Free CHB Keep Drop Off Centres Higher Recycling Costs due to Collection Expansion	Close and Trailers Minimal Cost Change	Keep Open for Rural – Opex Capex Loan Funded New Pricing Confirmed	7.6	+$69,125 +$12,780 Nil	Nil Nil Nil	Nil Nil +$42,000	Nil Nil Nil	+$69,125 +$12,780 +$42,000
Paying for Growth Review DC Policy	Developers Pay 100% 1,340 new houses over 10 years	Developers Pay 100% 1,340 new houses over 10 years But could be impacted by pre LTP growth we are seeing	7.7	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Central Hawkes Bay Community Trust	Capital Grant $600k	Divert $160k of grant to AMP Development	7.14	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Waipawa Pool Covers	No Provision	Loan Fund $30k	7.14	+$4,128	Nil	Nil	Nil	+$4,128
Regional Sports Park Contribution	No Provision	Loan Fund $10k Grant per year for 3 Years	7.14	+$3,300	Nil	Nil	Nil	+$3,300
Regional Sports Park Travel Fund	No Provision	Divert $3k of Existing Budget	7.14	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Development of Sports Hub at Russell Park	No Provision	Provide $35k of funding Years 2 and 3	7.14	+$35,000	Nil	Nil	Nil	+$35,000
Temporary Changing Rooms – Russell Park Funding	No Provision	Reconsider for 2022/23 Annual Plan	7.14	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Interest Allocation to Special Funds	All Interest Revenue applied to reducing Rates	Some Interest Revenue needs to applied to Trust Funds, balance to reducing rate. Error in Draft Long Term Plan modelling.	7.14	+$15,000	Nil	Nil	Nil	+$15,000
Asset Life Expectancy / Depreciation	Depreciate new water asset over 30 years	Depreciate New Assets over longer periods where sensible	7.14	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil
Electricity Contract Renewal	General Inflation Added	New Contract Rates known, and usage changes known	7.14	+$15,000	Nil	Nil	+$10,000	+$25,000
Kiwisaver Cost Allocation	All Kiwisaver treated as overhead	Kiwisaver follows the salary as direct cost	7.14	+$46,673	($32,420)	Nil	($10,155)	+$4,098
Total Change Proposed				+$201.0k	(32.4k)	+$42.0k	($300.2k)	($89.6k)
				Summary of Rating Impact Year 3 if recommendations adopted.
2022/23 Rate 2023/24 Draft LTP Rate 2023/24 Draft LTP % Change 2023/24 Proposed Changes 2023/24 Proposed LTP Rate 2023/24 Proposed LTP % Change No. Connected Rate Payers Avg Rate per Rate Payer				$9,018.8k $9,281.8k 2.9% +$201.0k $9,482.8k 5.1% 7,600 $1,248	$6,948.8k $7,135.4k 2.7% ($32.4) $7,103.0k 2.2% 7,600 $935	$367.3k $561.4k 52.9% +$42.0k $603.4k 64.3% 4,000 $151	$8,587.0k $9,394.9k 9.4% ($300.2k) $9,094.8k 5.9% 4,100 $2,218	$24,921.9k $26,373.5k 5.8% ($89.6k) $26,283.9 5.5% 7,600 $3,458

Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

7.2 Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Draft Deliberations Report: Drinking Water, Stormwater and Wastewater Bylaws.

File Number: COU1-1400

Author: Darren de Klerk, 3 Waters Programme Manager

Authoriser: Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments: 1. Water Supply, Stormwater and Wastewater Bylaw Review - Summary of Submissions ⇩

2. Draft Water Supply Bylaw 2021 - v2 ⇩

3. Draft Stormwater Bylaw 2021 - v2 ⇩

4. Draft Wastewater Bylaw 2021 - v2 ⇩

PURPOSE

The matter for consideration by the Council is to consider and deliberate on submissions made on the 3 Waters Bylaws review (Water Supply, Stormwater and Wastewater bylaws).

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That Council receive the changes made to the Proposed Water Supply, Stormwater and Wastewater Bylaws attached to this report, following its release for community consultation as part of the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.

b) That council adopt the draft 2021 Water Supply Bylaw attached to this report, with the Policy having immediate effect upon its adoption.

c) That council adopt the draft 2021 Stormwater Bylaw attached to this report, with the Policy having immediate effect upon its adoption.

d) That council adopt the draft 2021 Wastewater Bylaw attached to this report, with the Policy having immediate effect upon its adoption.

e) That the submitters are thanked for their comments, which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to submitters.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Water Supply, Stormwater and Wastewater bylaws are intended to deliver on an integrated approach to three waters management in the District. These bylaws influence things like who can connect to our supplies, how much waste can be discharged, the requirement for water tanks at each property and how we manage stormwater. Our current bylaws needed to be refreshed to ensure they reflect the environmental and infrastructural demands of our time.

The draft bylaws inform how we approach asset management and durable infrastructure practices to support our sustainable water demand management plan and wastewater strategy. The impact of these bylaws is wide reaching – it ensures that step by step, we make positive changes which lead to smart growth while being environmentally sustainable.

Council resolved on 11 February 2021 to approve the draft bylaws for public consultation. The submission period for the Trade Waste Bylaw opened on the 12 February 2021 and closed on 12 April 2021. 28 submissions were received across all bylaws and of those 5 submitters wished to be heard. The submissions for each of the bylaws have been summarised in Appendix 1 of this report. The original copies of the submissions have been compiled in Appendix 2 of this report.

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

As the bylaws were engaged on together the 28 submitters include submissions made on the Trade Waste bylaw as well as the Water Supply, Stormwater and Wastewater bylaws.

28 submissions were received these are detailed below;

Submitter #	Contact name/Organisation	Wishes to be heard
1	Peter Seligman	Not Stated
2	Anonymous 1	Not Stated
3	Kaye [surname unknown]	Not Stated
4	Anonymous 2	Not Stated
5	Kathryn Bayliss	Not Stated
6	Dean Hyde	Not Stated
7	Keri Ropiha	No
8	Richard Thomas	No
9	Harvey Welsh	No
10	Anonymous 3	Not Stated
11	Richard Fox	Yes
12	Judith Finlay	No
13	Mary Drummond	Not Stated
14	Rob McLean	No
15	Tony & Jenny Feather	Not Stated
16	Peter & Viv Paton	No
17	Bill Hale	No
18	Hawke’s Bay District Health Board (Dr Nicholas Jones)	No
19	Forest and Bird (Tom Kay – Regional Conservation Manager)*	Yes
20	Graeme & Margaret Black	No
21	Bruce Stephenson**	Yes
22	DJ Williams	No
23	Anne Wallace	No
24	Diana Hollis	No
25	Mataweka Marae (Dianne Smith)	Yes
26	Hana Cotter	Yes
27	Ovation (Alastair Bayliss – General Manager)	No
28	Medallion 2020 Limited (Alastair Haliburton – Managing Director)	Yes

*Forest and Bird provided two submissions (one for Trade Waste Bylaw and another for the Water Supply, Stormwater and Wastewater Bylaws) – these have been combined and analysed as one submission.

**Bruce Stephenson provided two submissions (one for Long Term Plan and another for the Trade Waste Bylaw) – these have been combined and analysed as one submission.

Summary of Submissions:

The below table summarises how many submission points were received on each section of the draft bylaws and grouped by whether they were support, oppose, or neutral. There were several submissions received that did not state what the submitters position was, and these have also been captured in the table below as “not stated”.

Submission Points	Yes/A	No/B	Not Stated	Total
STORMWATER BYLAW
Q: Do you think the Council should introduce a policy for all new build homes to install a tank to capture roof water supporting both the stormwater and water networks?	18	2	4	24
Q: When a private property discharges contaminants into our stormwater network, breaching our bylaws, do you think we should: A) Respond and clean up the incident in the first instance, recovering costs later? Or B) Charge the private property immediately for the clean-up and response	12	8	4	24
WATER SUPPLY BYLAW
Q: Do you think we should be monitoring high use properties with water meters?	18	2	4	24
TRADE WASTE BYLAW
Q: Do you think the Council should charge businesses purely based on how much and what they discharge?	18	2	4	24
Q: Should the Council take into consideration other economic, employment or social benefits that a business may bring to the community when charging?	7	12	5	24
Q. Do you think Council should extend the monitoring of industry or commercial wastewater to include smaller contributors to further protect our waterways?	13	6	5	24
WASTEWATER BYLAW
Q. Do you support Council issuing defect notices to property owners to remedy a down pipe or lateral?	15	3	6	24
Q. If the notice is not followed, do you support Council fixing the issue and recovering costs from the property owner?	12	4	8	24

BACKGROUND

Council bylaws and policies are a set of rules or regulations that are created to control specific activities within the Central Hawke’s Bay District.  Bylaws and policies are a useful way of developing a local solution to local nuisance problems. 

Bylaws and policies focus on those issues which Council have determined can be dealt with appropriately using regulatory enforcement.

Council instigated a review of the bylaws to better align with recently adopted or under evaluation strategies and plans like the Wastewater Strategy, Environmental and Sustainability Strategy, Sustainable Water Demand Management Plan, Spatial Plan and District Plan.

The bylaws act as the enablers that set the rules to support these strategies and plans.

Council resolved on 11 February 2021 to approve the draft bylaws for public consultation.

The Trade Waste Bylaw opened for submissions on 12 February and closes on 12 April 2021. The remaining bylaws (Water Supply, Stormwater and Wastewater) opened for submissions on 01 March 2021 and closed on 31 March 2021 to gather review and feedback on the proposed changes. In accordance with section 148 of the Local Government Act 2002 the Central Hawkes Bay District Council (CHBDC) notified the Ministry of Health on 17 February 2021 that the draft Trade Waste Bylaw 2021 was publicly notified in the Central Hawkes Bay Mail on 11 February with submissions being received until 12 April 2021.

The key changes proposed were:

· Inclusion of an introductory note including the Overarching Purpose, Objectives and Context of the new bylaw

· Continuing to expand on water meters to meter water usage for high users and to align better with water sustainability outcomes

· Introducing urban water tanks - making dual purpose rainwater tanks mandatory for new urban residential dwellings

· Expand and strengthen contents in respect to prevention of contaminant discharges to the stormwater and drainage networks and systems

· Strengthening the ability to issue defects notice, and recover costs where defect notices were not implemented or resolved

· Strengthening the ability through the bylaws, and fees and charges to recover costs for capital upgrades for the wastewater system where an industry contributor relatively contributes to the need for the upgrade.

During the consultation period submissions were able to be made through the bylaw consultation page (https://chbdc.mysocialpinpoint.com.au/facingthefacts/water-bylaws/) and the Long Term Plan Consultation page (https://chbdc.mysocialpinpoint.com.au/facingthefacts).

Other engagement activities were also undertaken through five press releases (two of which were specific to the bylaw consultation process), social media (Facebook and Instagram), six community meetings, eight trader/business meetings, one on one direct communications and handing out flyers to potential trade waste operators.

28 submissions were received in total across all bylaws and of those, 5 submitters wished to be heard.

All submissions for the respective bylaws have been summarised and are included in Appendix 1 of this report.

ANALYSIS

Ten questions were posed on the submission form specific to each of the bylaws with one general question around managing water in the district.

These questions and the responses are outlined in detail in Appendix 1 (Summary of submissions). Below is a high-level overview for each bylaw.

Wastewater Bylaw

Question one received majority support (15 submitters) to issue defect notices to property owners to remedy a down pipe or lateral.

Question two received majority support (12 submitters) for Council to fix the issue and recover costs from the property owner.

Submitters also provided further commentary and the key theme is:

§ Education and encouragement around reuse to reduce pressure on Council infrastructure

The feedback and responses align with the bylaw intentions and in its current state recommend the bylaw is adopted with minor changes

Stormwater Bylaw

Question one received majority support (18 submitters) to introduce a policy for all new build homes to install a tank to capture roof water.

Question two received majority support (12 submitters) for when a private property discharges contaminants into our stormwater network, breaching our bylaws.

Submitters also provided further commentary and the key themes are:

§ Encouraging the use of water tanks and reuse of water

§ Education around stormwater runoff and reuse

The feedback and responses align with the bylaw intentions and in its current state recommend the bylaw is adopted with minor changes

Water Supply Bylaw

Question one received majority support (18 submitters) to monitor high use properties with water meters.

Submitters also provided further commentary and the key themes are:

§ Installation of water meters on all properties;

§ Recycling and reuse of grey water; and

§ Encouraging the use of water tanks and reuse of water

The feedback and responses align with the bylaw intentions and in its current state recommend the bylaw is adopted with minor changes

RISK ASSESSMENT and mitigation

The bylaw reviews carry risks across community, regulatory and legal components, whilst positively the bylaws support the operational components of Council and enables officers to better influence key Council policies, plans or strategies.

The risks will be mitigated through a thorough legal review and input, and the community risk has been mitigated through opportunity for engagement and input into the draft bylaws. Further legal review will be undertaken following the hearing and deliberation process and prior to Council adoption.

FOUR WELLBEINGS

The report and draft bylaws consider the four well-beings through an overarching purpose.

The overarching purpose proposes to achieve a holistic and integrated approach to three waters management in the District that is consistent with Council’s District Plan, other policies, plans, strategies and objectives and also reflect the principles of the Te Mana o Te Wai, the following overarching purposes have been set for all four water services bylaws (Water Supply, Stormwater, Wastewater and Trade Waste).

a) Meet Legislation Requirements

Proactively meet all Council’s statutory requirements relating to the provision of three waters services.

b) Integrated Approach

Adopt an integrated and holistic approach to the Three Waters (water supply, wastewater including trade waste and stormwater) that recognises the interconnections between each of the waters and promotes their sustainable management.

c) Environmental Responsibilities

Facilitate environmentally responsible practices by raising awareness of how the three waters interact and affect the District’s natural environment. Additionally, ensure that Council meet its own responsibilities in terms of resource consent requirements set by the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

d) Sustainable Practices

Encourage and incentivise the community and businesses to adopt practices that lead to the enhancement of the environment and the sustainable management of water resources including water and product stewardship, rainwater harvesting, waste minimisation and cleaner production.

e) Support Sustainable Growth

Support the sustainable provision of three waters infrastructure to enable future growth while minimising impacts on the environment.

f) Achieve Project Thrive Values

Develop and implement the Three Waters Bylaws to give effect to ‘Project Thrive’ values in particular trust, honesty, respect, innovation, and valuing people.

g) Te Mana o te Wai

Recognise the fundamental concept of Te Mana o Te Wai as prescribed under the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 and in particular the need to restore and preserve the balance between the water, the wider environment, and the community.

h) Tangata Whenua Status

Recognise the status of tangata whenua status as kaitiaki.

i) Durable Infrastructure

Develop and maintain durable and resilient infrastructure that achieves Council’s levels of service in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

j) Safety and Health

Ensure the protection, safety and health of Council staff and the community when using or operating the water supply system, and the wastewater and stormwater networks.

k) Obligations

Define the obligations of residential occupiers and businesses including trade waste occupiers and the public at large in relation to the Council’s water supply, wastewater and stormwater networks.

l) Discharge Controls

Regulate wastewater and stormwater discharges, including trade waste, and hazardous substances, into the wastewater and stormwater networks.

m) Equitable Costs

Provide a system for the equitable share of Council’s water services costs between trade waste dischargers, other businesses, and domestic customers.

DELEGATIONS OR AUTHORITY

This bylaw review triggers significance and engagement and required Council to resolve to take the bylaws out for consultation.

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter was assessed as significant and consequently community consultation was undertaken.

This consultation process was undertaken concurrently with the Long Term Plan process.

OPTIONS Analysis

Option 1 – To adopt the Water Supply, Stormwater and Wastewater bylaws with minor changes only.

Option 2 – To reject the bylaw adoption and provide officers guidance on next steps

	Option 1 To adopt the Water Supply, Stormwater and Wastewater bylaws with minor changes only.	Option 2 To reject the bylaw adoption and provide officers guidance on next steps
Financial and Operational Implications	No additional implications – the bylaw review was a project funded through the 3 waters tranche one stimulus funding.	Would incur operational time and likely council financial costs over and above the 3 waters tranche one funding.
Long Term Plan and Annual Plan Implications	Consistent the Long Term Plan approach and intent	Not consistent and may have implications dependant on guidance provided
Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes	Achieves community outcomes and support as expressed through the tanks and water metering comments, and as aligned with the draft district plan.	The 2018 bylaws do not achieve the community outcomes as expressed through the engagement process.
Statutory Requirements	Meets statutory requirements	May not meet statutory requirements dependant on next steps.
Consistency with Policies and Plans	Consistent with wastewater strategy, Sustainable water management plan, district plan, asset management plans and the Long Term Plan	Not consistent with plans and does not allow the goals and objectives in plans adopted since 2018 to be realised.

Recommended Option

This report recommends Option One To adopt the Water Supply, Stormwater and Wastewater bylaws with minor changes only for addressing the matter.

NEXT STEPS

Council to consider all submissions and may resolve to make changes to the bylaws as a result. The bylaws are proposed to be adopted at this meeting with the proposed changes attached to this report as tracked changes to be updated to finalise the bylaw. A final copy will be included in the LTP adoption pack on 17^th June 2021.

RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

b) That council adopt the draft 2021 Water Supply Bylaw attached to this report, with the Policy having immediate effect upon its adoption.

c) That council adopt the draft 2021 Stormwater Bylaw attached to this report, with the Policy having immediate effect upon its adoption.

d) That council adopt the draft 2021 Wastewater Bylaw attached to this report, with the Policy having immediate effect upon its adoption.

e) That the submitters are thanked for their comments, which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to submitters

Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

7.3 Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Draft Deliberations Report: Challenge 1 - Planning and Funding our Wastewater Upgrades

File Number: COUI-1400

Author: Darren de Klerk, 3 Waters Programme Manager

Authoriser: Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments: Nil

PURPOSE

The matter for consideration by the Council is to consider and deliberate on consultation feedback related to Challenge # 1 – ‘Planning and Funding our Wastewater Upgrades’ received through the Long Term Plan process.

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That Council adopt Option 4 to implement the 15 year investment programme of wastewater upgrades across the six wastewater systems through loan funding.

b) That council endorse the approach to recover a capital contribution from Trade Waste Industry contributors in addition to the current operational charges – with adoption taking place through the Revenue and Financing Policy and Annual fees and charges setting.

c) That the submitters are thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitters.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council has received 219 submissions on Challenge #1 of the 239 submissions received in total on the Long Term Plan. Of the submissions 68% of respondents supported Option 1 to deliver the upgrades within 15 years, 21% supported Option 2 to deliver the upgrades with 10 years, 3% supported Option 3 to do the minimum amount, and 20 submitters did not provide a preference on an option.

Option 4 was introduced as a hybrid of Option 1 – to lessen the future rates impact related to rate funding the renewal component from Year 6 onwards, the change and solution is to loan fund the entire community (rate payer) portion of the programme of works over 15 years - While you would save $14.6m of rate funding by swapping it out to loan, you would incur additional debt servicing so the real rate savings over this period would only be $13.2m (which is about a 3.9% rates savings over the 10 year period) but additional debt of 18.0m.

It is anticipated that council will see an $18m or 37% increase in the debt it has to take on over the first 10 years to service the option, while receiving a 10 year rating deduction of 3.9%.

Detailed below in the options analysis is the impact on debt ceiling and how the investment planned for Option 1 and 4, the two variant preferred options would impact the CHBDC debt levels.

BACKGROUND

The three options that were released for consultation are;

Option 1: A 15-year plan to upgrade our wastewater plants and remove wastewater discharges from waterways

We upgrade our wastewater plants across the six settlements of Central Hawke’s Bay within 15 years – removing wastewater discharges from our waterways. This includes the development of an integrated treatment and discharge wastewater system for the townships of Otāne, Waipawa and Waipukurau, that will see our wastewater irrigated to land at a single site. A new combined wastewater treatment plant will be built for Pōrangahau and Te Paerahi, and wastewater discharged to land at a new discharge site. Takapau will have minor treatment improvements, with wastewater discharged to land.

The scope of these works is significant – totalling some $68.2 million of capital expenditure over the next 10 years.

Waipawa, Waipukurau and Otane

Porangahau and Te Paerahi

Takapau

Option 2: A 10-year plan to upgrade our Wastewater Plants and remove wastewater discharges from waterways

This option accelerates the delivery of option 1 for completion of the entire programme within 10 years, instead of 15 years.

The benefit of this option is that we remove wastewater discharges from our waterways within 10 years, addressing the cultural and environmental impacts our discharges create sooner.

Completing this work will also allow us to meet our existing Levels of Service that we have been unable to achieve, based on our current asset provision – just in a much quicker timeframe. The capital works to be undertaken in the next years under this option is $74.2 million.

Waipawa, Waipukurau and Otane

Porangahau and Te Paerahi

Takapau

Option 3: Doing the minimum to meet current legal compliance, and remove wastewater discharges from waterways

This option sees us walk away from our Wastewater Strategy 2020. This option will still deliver the same pipelines and work towards discharging wastewater to land, as the previous options deliver.

Where this option differs is that no new treatment plants will be constructed, and only minor improvements to existing plants will be undertaken.

The capital cost of this option $41.1 million over the next six years.

This option would provide for us to achieve our levels of service in the short term (5 - 10 years), however as legislative standards continue to increase it is unlikely this option will support the achievement of levels of service in the long term.

This option is not our preferred option. While it has the lowest cost, it also comes with significant risk. While it will remove our direct discharges to our waterways, this option does not include additional work that will treat our wastewater to a higher standard as proposed in option 1 and 2.

This option would likely see us requiring to further invest in wastewater treatment plants in the next 10 years, in the event that only a short resource consent was granted or new legislative requirements for water quality were enforced. This option also does not allow for the projected population growth we expected to see across the district.

Waipawa, Waipukurau and Otane

Porangahau and Te Paerahi

Takapau

Submissions:

1 Zara Mackey

2 Hayley Webster

3 Jehoshaa Monegro

4 Jemma Nesbit

6 Courtney Green

7 Ben Waugh

8 Ihipera Rua

9 Greta Minehan

11 Danielle Hemi

12 Rita Simiona

13 Lydia Bucknell

14 Lachie Kirk

15 Ollie Wichman

16 Eden Lambert

17 Mitchell Thompson

18 Amalia Stevenson

20 Jackson Baylis

21 Emma Giddens

22 Emma Thomsen

23 Ramona Lively-Masters

24 Haylee Gray

25 Isaac Marshall

29 Stuart William Davies

30 Warwick Greville

31 Helen Burgin

32 Wendy Milne

33 Erina Sciascia-Bland

34 Ruth and Bruce Parker

35 Benjamin Hall

36 Gordon O'Neale

37 Chrissy Malcolm

38 JT and LD Jansen

39 Nathan Mckenzie

40 David Dicks

41 Jessica Draper

42 Peter Seligman

43 Hayden Berryman

44 Bruce McGechan

45 Kaye Harrison

46 Sandy Gilbert

47 Ben Clist

48 Bob Alkema

49 Christopher Bath

50 Peter Watson (1)

51 Peter Watson (2)

52 Rex Pickering

53 Robyn McLeod

54 David Taylor

55 Gary Leach

56 Tim Witton

57 Stephen Thomas

60 Chad Bauer

61 Jamara Dhull

62 Emma Mason-Smith

63 Marcia Mackrell

64 Sean Jackson Power

65 Liam Worsford

66 Kevin Rowell

67 Leslie Peni

68 Glenda Houston

69 Ron King

70 Stacey Thomas

75 Jo-Ann Hardwick-Smith

71 Marjon Greenwood

72 Ian Hawkes

73 Valerie Norris

74 Callum Slavin

76 Tina Keeling

77 Maria Lincoln

78 William Irving Peacock

79 David Lewis

80 Renee O'Sullivan

81 Gina Prosser

82 Lyn Horspool

83 L Guy and R Bell

85 Noel Pederson

86 Robin Horder

87 Meg Mackenzie

88 Jan Wroe

90 Sally Harding

91 Sandra Fleming

92 Jensen

93 V Leach

94 DE and HM Whitney

95 Brian and Marion Peterson

96 Jude Grant

97 Lisa

98 Penny Single

99 Barry Middleton

100 Melissa Price

101 AK Hansen

102 Ben Douglas

103 Mike Harrison

104 Serena Ann Spencer

105 Rebecca Jane Watt

106 Jacqueline Naylor

107 Shona Thompson

108 Patricia Ann Price

109 James Pretty

110 Nikau Hill Station

111 Danielle O'Shaughnessy

112 Vaughn Thomson

113 Tim Gilbertson

114 Shona Crooks

115 Patricia Sellers

116 Peter Robson

117 Maurice Groot

118 David Bane

119 Reuben George

120 Aimee Congreve

122 David Bishop

123 Deborah Mason

124 Donna Hossack

125 Di Petersen

126 Lorelei Hennessy

127 Teresa Makris

128 Wendy Gough

129 Peter Hallagan

130 Sue Kaan

131 Betina Barber

132 J & D Curtice

137 Lorraine Watson

133 Catherine Pedersen & Tony Ward

134 Nic & Karen Bedogni

135 Peter Missen & Wendy Yambaki

138 Martin Lord

139 Frances & Stephen Ulyatt

140 Cornelia van Falier

141 Keri Rophia

142 Forrest Ropiha

145 Donna Dahm

146 Phyllis Tichinin

147 Elliot Peacock

149 Ian Franklin

150 James Parsons

151 Sjoerd Gorter

152 Andrea Thomson

153 Sue McLeod

154 Warren Bayliss & Cecylia Rymarczyk

155 Margaret Isabella Fletcher

156 Alan Keate

157 Phillip Knight

158 Graeme J E Pedersen & Kathleen A Pedersen

160 Jesse Palmer

161 Kingston

162 Haamiora Nukunuku

163 Zoey

164 Rapata Te Pania

165 Bob Kerins

166 Kristin Yoldash

167 Terry Hare

168 Heather-Anne Tidey

169 Dora Player

173 Tony Robson

174 Louise Field

175 Lynnette Dewes

176 Vicky Harding

177 Miriam Howarth

178 Graham McHardy

179 Simone Tang

181 Kathryn Bayliss

182 Kirsty Taiaroa

183 Charles M Nairn

184 Murray Howarth

185 Andrea Mooney

186 Dean Hyde

187 Rea Arona

188 Ross and Margaret Munro

189 Jensen

190 Adam Allington

191 Jackie Scannell

192 Tania Arona

193 S Johnston

194 Rachel Hornblow

195 A M Banks

196 Jenny and Tony Feather

197 Bill Hale

198 Geert Gelling

199 Sara and Stephen Ellis

200 Peter and Viv Paton

201 Robbie Christiansen

202 Tracy and Andrew Gay

203 Biodiversity Hawke's Bay

205 Sport New Zealand

206 James Leigh

207 Benita

208 Neen Kennedy

209 Nicole Ellison

210 Marti Eller, Gillian Eller, Mark Eller

211 Clint Deckard

212 Karen Olsen-Mills

213 Alice Bellamy

214 Lathan Wroe

215 Forest and Bird

216 Federated Farmers

217 Sarah Giddens and Espen Kristensen

218 Elsa Ironside

219 Sport Hawke's Bay

220 John Kyle

221 Graeme and Margaret Black

223 Terry Kingston

224 Mike Shivnan

225 CHB District Community Trust

226 Trish Giddens

227 David William Cooke

228 Diana Hollis

229 Anne Wallace

230 D J Williams

231 Shelley Burne-Field

232 Chris Davis

233 CHB Settlers Museum

234 Dr Trevor Le Lievre

235 Stephenson Transport Limited

236 W M Henderson

237 CHB Rugby and Sports Club

238 Ned Malcolm

239 John McLean

HBRC

Summary of Submissions:

Of the 239 submissions received on the Long Term Plan, 219 identified a preferred option for the planning and funding of wastewater upgrades. 20 submitters did not pick an option.

Of the 219 submitters, 58 provided additional feedback and commentary with their submission – below is an analysis of the commentary and feedback related to each option and themes that were identified.

Analysis:

Topic 1 – Support for Option 1

68% or 163 submitters supported option 1 – To implement a 15-year plan to upgrade our wastewater plants and remove wastewater discharges from waterways. Some of the key matters raised by submitters in support of this option included:

2	Hayley Webster	12 year WW option?
19	Graeme Perry	Although ticking option 1, the reality is that those of us in Rural communities will see no direct benefit to us, despite having to fund the resolution for those that live in the townships. You'll argue that cleaner waterways will benefit all -yes they will -however the burden of cost should be borne by those who use the dilapidated systems, not spread across the entire District. Council may have to look at a split rating system rather than a one-size fits all option
24	Haylee Gray	More Time = Better Quality
44	Bruce McGechan	I agree that the cost for the overall plan should be covered by debt financing. Current ratepayers should not be burdened with the full cost through rates.
47	Ben Clist	Council needs to outline the investigation conducted into why the previous investment went wrong and offer assurances that the new plan is not going to result in the same outcome.
48	Bob Alkema	Council should also explore an option spreading the upgrade over a longer period, say 20 years. This further spreads the impact on property rates. CHB is not alone in facing this historic under-investment in the three waters infrastructure -the risk is all councils initiating a similar improvement programme calling on limited resources (if the construction sector can’t gear up quickly enough) resulting in higher costs.
49	Christopher Bath	Ratepayers will already have been shocked by the annual rate increases therefore Option 2 is a non starter.
54	David Taylor	Will Waipawa see any improvements? My end of town is in a state, smelly sewage and broken footpaths
62	Emma Mason-Smith	I am very pleased to hear that this is the future for CHB with the wastewater. It has been a long time coming to address this issue properly and hopefully our waterways will be clean for the next generation to enjoy.
72	Ian Hawkes	Spreads the burden over time and still gets a good final clean result.
82	Lyn Horspool	Thank goodness we have a Council who is prepared to make the big infrastructure decisions that will benefit us all. Keep up the great work!
85	Noel Pederson	You have to. If only it was done properly the first time
104	Serena Ann Spencer	My understanding is that all new housing developments have to supply their own water and waste solutions. How will water rates be portioned out? Will those developments have lower water rates? In my current situation, I pay full water rates but supply my own water via tank. Our house has town water to one (1) toilet and to the garden, whereas the rest of the house and drinking water is via our tank. Would we still pay full water rates under the new system?
113	Tim Gilbertson	1 Water metres should be installed on all water connections and water charged per cubic. It is inequitable to charge one section of the community only. 2 Water tanks should be retrofitted to all existing dwellings with financial assistance from CHBDC. 3 CHBDC should be looking to share services in all areas with the other 4 councils in Hawkes Bay to improve services and reduce costs as required by law under the triennial act of 2003 (?). Highest savings are achievable in high cost services such as water. 4 Council should peer review, audit and monitor closely all professional services to avoid capture by providers, which is a common fate among monopolies such as CHBDC. 5 Are hard Engineering solutions the best answer? Wetlands and biological processes may be better. Engineers love concrete and pumps and spending, CHBDC has been down that road before and it was a disaster.
122	David Bishop	a) For wastewater/sewage treatment in Waipukurau, I totally recommend a standalone treatment plant (primary stage: up to milli screening separation of solids stage; or complete treatment) to service the industrial area of Waipukurau, primarily the meat processing factories that are a major contributor of waste to the Waipukurau treatment plant. It is these factories that seemingly cause the overloading issues, time and time again at the Waipukurau wastewater treatment plant. Further industry can then be encouraged to set up in this zone, due to provision of this on-site wastewater/sewage service. b) For wastewater/sewage from new subdivisions, this as a cost on the subdivision should be primary treated (e.g. milli-screened with solids to landfill) on-site before entering Councils wastewater infrastructure. There are small scale milli-screening systems available for use in subdivisions. c) For town produced sewage, this should be primary treated (i.e. milli-screened, with solids to landfill) at several locations before being transported to the sewage treatment facility. d) I would like to treat wastewater discharged to land, provided effluent does not infiltrate into the aquifer. On land, plantations of - e.g. fast growing coppicing gum trees—should be grown to use such effluent. The gum trees should be on topography such that they are able to be cropped every decade for firewood, and discharges do not impact on nearby waterways. e) Using the Farm Road landfill (+ any new sites) for placement of milli-screened solids, will result in more greenhouse gases from decomposition. Use of a gas retaining membrane progressively over the refuse site, should enable greenhouse gases to be captured and while burning them for electricity does release carbon dioxide, this gas should be captured through the electricity generation process. f) Sequester the carbon from CO2 from landfill greenhouse gas electricity generation, by best practise industry means Feedback on draft LTP: i. an integrated wastewater treatment plant appears to have merit serving Otane, Waipawa, and Waipukurau; then with discharge of treated wastewater to land. iii. I promote the disposal of milli-screened solids from main towns, at landfill; ii. I much prefer the industrial area of Waipukurau has a standalone treatment plant serving the industry located there. Please cost this as an alternative option and present it back to the community! iv. Option 1 is supported, in preference to Options 2 & 3.
126	Lorelei Hennessy	Your options above and below are coercive and imbalanced to ensure people choose what you want them to choose the proposed rates are very expensive and is too much of a hike from what the current rates are. I am ok for a rates increase, but not as much as this
132	J & D Curtice	Anything that increases our rates by too much is going to be a massive hit to our family. We are a family of 6 on 1 income
141	Keri Rophia	I like the 10 year plan, but felt it unfair to choose, this is due to the cost as I am not a direct rate payer
142	Forrest Ropiha	Unfair to choose the 10 year plan (for me) because of the changes to rates, which I do not pay - otherwise I would choose 2
148	Gerard Pain	Rates already unaffordable for resident on fixed/ reducing incomes, a district growth strategy and higher rates will be of no use to them when they have to sell up and leave
159	Daniel & Heidi Repko	Based on the Councils preferred options in the 10 year plan, our rates will more than double in 10 years (from $3500 to $7600). As pensioners on a mostly fixed income there is no way I/we will be able to pay for that. It will probably mean we will have to sell and move elsewhere. We are dreading this. In can see the Councils dilemma, but that doesn't make it acceptable to us. Re the waste-water upgrade; We feel obliged to choose option 1, however can't that be spread over a longer period eg 20-25 years? Furthermore, a number of years ago we were convinced by the then Council the water treatment plant(s) we currently have the way to go. Now we know we were sold a lemon eg incompetent decision making. How do we know that this time around the same isn't going to happen again? (Sorry to be so blunt)
167	Terry Hare	Wastewater is one of the primary essential service issues for residential and commercial properties the longer period to upgrade I believe is the best option because it also gives time to consider new technology and ideas that may be beneficial to reducing waste contamination and cost.
170	Robert McLean	The pumps that pump waste are dependent on electricity, what about power outages, earthquakes
171	Neil Bayliss	Spreads the burden forward
175	Lynnette Dewes	also smoke testing of each house to see who is still putting stormwater straight into the sewerage…
184	Murray Howarth	This is the priority project
186	Dean Hyde	I support what is proposed in the Plan and would like to specifically comment on the following: -The provision of a single treatment plant for the communities of Otane, Waipawa and Waipukurau makes so much sense. -Irrigation onto land of treated wastewater isa far more intelligent use of this precious resource rather than discharging into waterways.
197	Bill Hale	Stop dumping into the makaretu as Takapau is the southern dump station worth considering consultation - I would strongly oppose aerial discharge of treated wastewater in any form
200	Peter and Viv Paton	I have seen some of your figures for doing this and she costs seem to be astronomical - could the figures for doing this be published
201	Robbie Christiansen	Fine people discharging illegaly. Introduce user pays for water and new sewage connections
210	Marti Eller, Gillian Eller, Mark Eller	This is really important work, but we’d rather it is spread across a longer time period, and done right, then rushed.
221	Graeme and Margaret Black	A pity more people didn’t take advantage of the bus tour - well worth it
222	Owen Spotswood	The next generation needs to assist in paying for the infrastructure upgrade
	Hawkes Bay Regional Council	A verbal submission was made by HBRC on 22^nd April 2021 – supporting the overall investment programme and the need to balance affordability constraints, while cautioning CHBDC of the need to implement the programme to achieve improved outcomes from the wastewater systems. The enforcement order issues in 2016/ 2017 and that CHBDC responded to in 2019 outlines the investment programme and solution required to upgrade the systems – this needs to be delivered on to meet compliance with the enforcement order – HBRC reminded CHBDC of this.

Trend and Analysis

Of the 163 who submitted in favour of Option One – to deliver the programme within fifteen years, 33 provided some form of written feedback.

The trends are outlined below;

- Concern with the financial impact of the proposed project

- Some felt it the most appropriate solution to balance affordability and achieve outcomes.

- A number that supported the concept raised concerns with previous solutions and investments.

- A number agreed it was an appropriate timeframe to spread the financial burden across generations.

Officers review confirmed that option One was by far the majority and supported preferred option Council had put forward to best address the programme of works required. The programme allows for the complimenting activities in the trade waste and flow management space to take place over the first five years that will inform the design basis of the ‘treatment plant’ component of the investment programme.

Topic 2 – Support for Option 2

21% or 48 submitters supported Option 2 – To implement a 10-year plan to upgrade our Wastewater Plants and remove wastewater discharges from waterways. Some of the key matters raised by submitters in support of this option included:

30	Warwick Greville	Hi I Support the 10yr plan but please be upfront with projected rated increase over that period as any increase compounds on the previous. Please tell us total rates increase ie $ 150%? Or what over 10 years
42	Peter Seligman	We need to clean up the waterways as fast as possible. It is truly a national scandal and something that the whole country should be quite ashamed of, especially given the image we like to project to the world (Lush, green, pure etc)
71	Marjon Greenwood	I think the impact on the waterways of the longer time frame will be too detrimental, but am very much aware that I am in a position to carry the larger increase in rates and not everyone is
87	Meg Mackenzie	Wastewater discharges should be removed from waterways as soon as possible. I don't think this is something we can afford to muck around with.
102	Ben Douglas	It's been put off for too long already and needs sorting. This period of rapid population growth and development resulting from people moving to CHB from other areas is the perfect time to do it. It would be tragic to think that in a time of skyrocketing house and land prices when so much money is being made that we can't afford to sort out the basics.
103	Mike Harrison	Cleaning up our waterways should be a priority
183	Charles M Nairn	This should be done as soon as possible
190	Adam Allington	Although ticking option 1, the reality is that those of us in Rural communities will see no direct benefit to us, despite having to fund the resolution for those that live in the townships. You'll argue that cleaner waterways will benefit all - yes they will -however the burden of cost should be borne by those who use the dilapidated systems, not spread across the entire District. Council may have to look at a split rating system rather than a one-size fits all option.
191	Jackie Scannell	This should not wait - the problem is getting worse, from compounding impacts over time. The spread of costs across generations - more equitable if front loaded when more people are investing in the region. The improvement will improve the attractiveness to the district
202	Tracy and Andrew Gay	Look after our waterways quickly please I want to be able to let my grandchildren to swim and catch trout downstream from Waipawa ASAP
204	Louise Phillips	I congratulate the CHBDC on taking the bold step to commit to wastewater upgrades despite the unpopularity of rate increases. These infrastructure issues cannot be ignored for the sake of political expediency, which passes on the cost to future generations. Any upgrades must ensure that the health of our waterways is paramount, therefore I would prefer option 2 (A 10-yearplan)
209	Nicole Ellison	Removing wastewater discharges from our waterways must be a priority and 15 years is just too long
211	Clint Deckard	Getting human waste from our rivers and streams should be a priority. The relatively small extra cost to achieve this could be covered in a variety of ways to ensure the financial burden was minimised for affected ratepayers. Our waterways are in a degraded state and it is past time that meaningful improvements were made. 15 years is just too long to wait. The challenges faced by the district’s wastewater should be an opportunity to ‘reset’ how we deal with wastewater and stormwater. Council should be embracing alternative methods to deal with waste. Composting toilets, separating grey water from sewerage and alternative treatment systems should be explored and encouraged as a way to reduce the load on the wastewater treatment system.
215	Forest and Bird	9. It is no longer, if it ever was, acceptable to dispose of human waste in waterways. This seemingly small shift in expectations requires a large change in practice. That the previous iteration of the wastewater treatment plants were never going to meet consent requirements demands that a new approach be taken. 10.Discharging wastewater, no matter how treated, into waterways is not acceptable. 11.We prefer Option 2. 12.The relatively small increase in per user cost ensures wastewater is removed from our waterways sooner. 13.Other ways to fund the small differential could be found e.g. non-connected users could contribute for a fixed period of time. 14.Further, whilst we applaud the suggested requirement for rainwater collection tanks on new urban houses, we believe Council should be bold and go further. Enabling and promoting the use of alternative systems for wastewater could help to reduce the demands on infrastructure. 15.This would include composting toilets or on-property treatment facilities. Greywater systems and composting toilets could be an important part of the solution and should be simple to install and use in Central Hawkes Bay. 16.CHBDC should be taking up Central Government’s offer to invest in regional three waters infrastructure by signing up to potential three waters management reform. 17.CHBDC should be lobbying Central Government for assistance to meet standards. 18.This problem is not limited to CHB: numerous wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) across Aotearoa discharge directly to freshwater environments and non-compliance with environmental standards is widespread. Freshwater quality across the country is severely impacted as a result. Forest & Bird consider this an archaic and disappointing situation to be in. Discharges to WWTPs that do not comply with standards set in local bylaws only exacerbate this issue, increasing the pressure on plant operators and making it harder for them to meet environmental standards. 19.Unfortunately, there is a legal loophole surrounding trade waste bylaws, as referenced in a recent Radio New Zealand (RNZ) exposé on companies’ compliance with bylaws across the country, and the impact this has on wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) operators’ ability to meet environmental limits set by regional councils. 20.Forest & Bird understands this loophole in the law prevents local governments issuing fines to non-compliant dischargers of wastewater to their networks and treatment plants. Councils are therefore limited to simply recovering any costs the breach might have resulted in (such as additional cleaning required to make the plant fully operative if its function was impacted by the breach) or taking the issue to the courts, at significant cost. 21.In response to this issue, Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) has suggested to numerous Ministers since 2002 that a law change is necessary to allow local councils to fine non-compliant companies. Addressing the issue requires a relatively simple amendment to section 259 of the Local Government Act 2002 to allow regulations to be made prescribing breaches of council bylaws that are infringements under the Act. We understand LGNZ has made this same request of the current Minister, yet the law still has not been changed. 22.We implore CHBDC to continue lobbying LGNZ, local MPs, and the Minister for Local Government to undertake a law change to allow council to fine those companies and organisations that are not complying with trade waste bylaw requirements. This would hopefully result in better compliance with trade waste bylaws, less stress on the WWTP, and fewer costly failures (or fewer non-compliance events). It would also allow CHBDC to recover costs of problems more readily.

Trend and Analysis

Of the 48 submitters who supported Option Two to deliver the programme in its entirety within ten years – 14 provided written feedback in support of their submission.

The trends are outlined below;

- Environmental outcomes at the heart of the submissions

- Concerns with the financial impact

Officers review of the submissions and feedback notes the financial impact that this Option would add to the community, and in the risk analysis further in this report this remains a risk of great concern.

Topic 3 – Support for Option 3 or Did not pick an option

3% or 8 submitters supported Option 3 – to do the minimum to meet current legal compliance, but as a minimum remove wastewater discharges from waterways. Some of the key matters raised by submitters in support of this option included:

138	Martin Lord	We have our own septic tanks and do not contribute to wastewater. Are we going to have to pay for other people’s wastewater problems? To stop an increasing wastewater problem you could insist that all new builds are provided with septic tanks and take care of their own wastewater.
151	Sjoerd Gorter	I am of the view that the council does not have the expertise or management skills to run this part of Hawkes Bay. Having a say is a good democratic thing. But who has any expertise in sewage plants and or the supply and treatment of drinking water? Why are farmers allowed irrigating their crops in the middle of the day in full sun and emptying the aquifer? We need expertise because people who are elected to council are out of their depth. Good examples are upgrading a pool in Waipawa just down the road from Waipukurau. The libraries are also a fiasco etc etc. There is just too much duplication. Popular by the voters but the end result is that what needs to be done does not happen, because the till is emptied by doing low priority jobs because it looks good. Those millions could have been used to make a start on the upgrade of the sewage pipework in town and or the sewage plant. Our population base is too small for the large projects. We simply cannot afford it. All councils in this area should be amalgamated into one, so we will have the management skills and financial resources to get things to happen. What is the point of a ten-year plan if you do not have the cash to make it happen? If you think you can just keep increasing the rates, means the council is completely out of touch with the local population. This is New Zealand; we should have the same facilities as the bigger towns. We should not be disadvantaged in any way because we are a small town. I have lost count as the number of rate increases as well as plans to fix the sewage plant. It is still a hazard and needs upgrading.
166	Kristin Yoldash	Option 4: This plan is not profitable for our elderly or our children, it is burdensome and I cannot in good conscience support it....You need a plan that sees a profitable and beneficial outlook to our future in Central Hawkes bays not something that seems to want to just comply with regulations which is upgrades that plunge us into debt...we need to create our plans for our people with the respect we all deserve, our waterways should be considered high on our list as it deserve the respect of a life source that governs our physical needs, yes you have upgrades but not a real plan around water protection and security.. also, there seems to be no interest in offsetting the cost by investing in $$$ to generate ideas instead you seem to have set your mind on debt and copying a failed Auckland City Council. That is no solution for the people of Central Hawkes bay as we want services but if those services become a huge burden to rate payers then go back to the drawing board and do a better job at planning. Your plan will increase homelessness, or poverty, although debt is the easy answer for you, it will be an additional burden for us, we didn't move here to have to pay the same rates as Havelock North, when we have none of the services or the land values as Havelock North....Investing in businesses and partnering with iwi and others businesses seems to be the future proof of increasing growth, and paying for infrastructure, so a few ideas are buy carbon credits to offset costs for waste management, invest in bottling and selling water so the profits can be used so future revenues which will be able to offset costs...build more subdivisions not just in Waipukurau. I can also think of cutting costs such as reduce the number of people working for the council, reduce wages...Since we do not have the population to sustain our needs we really need to go back to the long term planning and re do it as it should be a living plan with some flexibility to really design a more comprehensive solution that is not some quick fix job and which seems more reactionary than long term planning. Last year you already increased our rates by $300 for your long term plan to upgrade the treatment plant which was as I understand is done already, now you want to do it again?? So something is missing in your narrative? I should get a decrease cause last year’s rates paid for that upgrade. Your estimates for another increase seem ridiculously high.
182	Kirsty Taiaroa	Our rates money has not been used wisely to date, landowners and farmers cannot afford this. Do you want to see farmers off the land and replaced by pine forests to offset China's carbon footprints? Now councils are paying into 'Green' and 'carbon' costs to central government and international groups/agendas.
192	Tania Arona	Option 3 should be done anyway and not be an option

8% or 20 submitters did not choose an option – while this may have been oversight, some chose to withhold from an option due to the options not meeting their preference for the future of the matter. Some of the key matters raised by submitters in support of this are included:

121	Anthony Clouston	Establish environmentally friendly ways to dispose of our collective hard and soft wastes.
181	Kathryn Bayliss	I oppose all of the options. I think CHBDC should upgrade our wastewater plants and remove wastewater discharges from all waterways within 1-3 years. The loans can still be repaid over a longer period of time to spread the financial burden of upgrades. CHBDC pleaded guilty for breaching its wastewater resource consents in July 2017. Remedies for our wastewater discharges are long overdue. It is shameful CHBDC is still discharging wastewater into our waterways. Wastewater put on land also needs to be treated to a high standard to help stop the risk of contaminating the groundwater and land. In the Consultation Document the cost is misleading as it shows Option 1 as the cheapest when in reality the overall cost to complete the work will most likely be more. The cost only shows 10 years but the work is not finished. Option 2 covers the cost and it finishes the planned work. The longer it takes to upgrade our wastewater plants and remove wastewater discharges from all waterways the higher the risk of increased costs, higher interest rates and inflation. Paying off borrowings are likely to be more expensive over the longer term. In Long Term Plan 2021-31 Consultation Document, Page 165, the LTP Infrastructure Strategy outlines the upgrade of our wastewater plants and removal wastewater discharges from all waterways in less than 10 year.
187	Rea Arona	Stop Selling Our Water' - Water is Life - Water = Parks, Toilets, Everything needs Water (Why Give Options??)
216	Federated Farmers	We are alarmed that wastewater infrastructure improvement will need $68.2 million of capital expenditure over the next 10 years. Central Hawkes Bay has been allocated $11,090,560 by the Government from the Three Waters Investment Package Funding. For comparison, Wellington City has been allocated less at $10,885,693. A small council like Grey District is only receiving $1,921,000. Grey District has a similar population at 13,750 compared to 14,850 people in Central Hawkes Bay. Comparatively, Central Hawkes Bay has received a generous allocation from the Government.
231	Shelley Burne-Field	Rally against a 7.8% average rates rise! Push back and say enough is enough. Face the facts that our Council is simply spending above its means. DEFER unnecessary capex projects - 80% of our wastewater and drinking water infrastructure is mid-life. Right now is NOT the time to ‘be bold’ and spend up large. Be conservative and re-group until assumptions can be fleshed out e.g. three waters reform.
232	Chris Davis	Given this there is no point embarking on new wastewater schemes or renewals programmes that may well be overturned by decisions taken by the new entity. Consideration of scale may lead to different options being pursued by the new entity. The proposition that removing wastewater discharges from waterways is an absolute must for council is wishful thinking, flawed, and unlikely to be realised. Wastewater is primarily water so at some point it will find its way to a water course, no matter what means of treatment process it goes through. Whilst the community may prefer to avoid discharge to waterways the reality is somewhat different. Discharge to land is fraught with difficulties and very expensive. It will require significant conventional treatment facilities and processes to treat the wastewater to a stage where it could be clean and safe enough to be irrigated on land. The disposal to land of the wastewater effluent is at the end of the treatment process, it is not an effective treatment methodology in its own right. The combined communities of Otane, Waipawa and Waipukurau together with the significant amount of industrial waste, with its high BOD loading, have really outgrown the use of basic small community oxidation ponds. More appropriate conventional treatment processes are now required and will most certainly be the focus of the new 3 Waters entity and the water regulator, Taumata Arowai. Council previously considered a conventional treatment scheme but it was dismissed due to high cost and subsequently an unsuitable low technology approach was implemented, which duly failed to do what it was supposed to do, all at a wasted cost of $10M. The result of all this is we are now looking at a massively more expensive treatment solution to resolve the districts wastewater issues, the cost of which is well beyond the ratepayers’ ability to pay, even if the cost is debt funded as the debt servicing costs ($17.5 + $10.8M) bring the overall project cost to almost $100M. This will be crippling for the community and is simply not sustainable for a small community like CHB. Given that Takapau is not a huge distance further from Waipawa compared to Otane there seems some logic in also connecting Takapau to a central treatment plant at Waipawa, thereby reducing overall operating costs. An issue that still needs to be addressed is the cross subsidisation of the industrial wastewater generators who have never paid their fair share of disposal costs. They generate high BOD loadings, much greater than residential loadings, and yet council has never charged then adequate Trade Waste charges. In theory avoiding discharge to waterways is a nice to have but the reality is that it doesn’t work in practice. The treated wastewater effluent would need a massive receiving land area to accommodate the daily effluent discharge. And even so the soils would soon become saturated and not able to cope with additional effluent. There is only so much moisture soils can absorb before they become water logged. Added to this is the naturally occurring rainfall which also creates saturation, and rising water tables that prevent further soakage. Discharge of the effluent cannot be stopped because the soils can no longer accept any more liquid without ponding or flooding. What happens then to the effluent that can no longer be absorbed? The inevitable situation would likely arise where the soil can no longer accept the effluent so that surface runoff then occurs, which eventually finds its way to the nearest watercourse, thus defeating the whole objective of no discharges to waterways. There is a current drive to clean up waterways in NZ so that a proposed discharge to land scheme that is bound to fail most likely will not be supported as a sensible and viable option. For these reasons I do not support any of the 3 options proposed. The discharge to land aspect will not be cost effective or viable and should not be pursued. A 15 year proposal would be better, provided it did not have the discharge to land component. Having already wasted $10M council would not want to have the embarrassment of a failed $100M discharge to land scheme. As I have previously noted council would be wise to defer any wastewater decision until the implications of the new 3 waters entity are known.
234	Dr Trevor Le Lievre	Concerning infrastructure upgrades, I support option 4 to halt the upgrades and seek an alternative funding avenue before continuing. Council propose building an integrated treatment and discharge wastewater system for the townships of Otane, Waipawa and Waipukurau, which will irrigate to a single land site. This is an exciting concept, and I fully support and commend Council for their enlightened promotion of land based effluent disposal. The proposed engineering solutions have apparently been worked on for several years; however, there is no detail in the LTP about what these are? More transparency and better communication is required concerning the preferred system. The most environmentally friendly engineering solutions should be adopted, with cost a secondary consideration. I submitted in the 2016-2017 Annual Plan in favour of implementing a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) system on grounds of operational flexibility (i.e.able to be modified depending on influent and effluent requirement) and low footprint. As far as I am aware, the SBR system remains best practice technology. Council’s budget for this, along with other work to Porangahau, Te Paerahi and Takapau, is $68.2 million over 10 years (i.e. 24% of projected capex of $288 million). This is a substantial amount, and not within the capacity of Central Hawkes Bay ratepayers to finance. Yet, the work is an immediate and absolute priority. Our waterways, already under unsustainable ecological pressure, demand an effective solution that will create an environmentally sustainable legacy for future generations. Further, it is unfair that the rural agricultural enterprises in our district are being regulated as to discharges into waterways, under the HB Regional Council’s Plan Change 6, while the towns continue to discharge unsafe levels of ammonia into our main rivers. This work needs to commence as soon as possible, ideally within the next 2-3 years. Council’s options for either a 10 year or 15 year build are untenable. A business case should be finalised and presented to both the local government and environment ministers, with a request for funding, possibly under the next tranche of Three Water Reform funding. If an in-principle agreement can be obtained, a loan can be secured to commence work immediately, until the finalisation and release of funding.
235	Stephenson Transport Limited	Concerns around the CAPEX charge introduced as part of the Wastewater funding via the Trade waste bylaw. Submission noted here, but covered in detail in the Trade Waste bylaw report.

Trend and Analysis

Of the 22 submitters who supported either Option Three (Do Minimum) or refrained from picking an option, 7 provided written feedback in support of their submission.

The trends are outlined below;

- Major concerns with affordability of any of the options

- Concerns with the previous investments

- Questions around the local experience and capability to deliver the programme

- Proposed alternative solutions

- One piece of feedback imploring council to deliver the investment within 3 years

Officers review notes the significant financial impact all the options propose for the community, the investment programme is required to meet compliance, regulatory, growth, community, environmental and cultural outcomes and aspirations.

It is therefore recommended that although Option Three is the lowest impact it does not meet all the outcomes or aspirations that Option One or Two would.

Council has engaged industry experts to deliver.

Topic 4 – Affordability and Rating

Of the 54 submitters who provided written feedback, it was noted 12 provided commentary in relation to them ‘Affordability and Rating’ their comments are below;

19	Graeme Perry	Although ticking option 1, the reality is that those of us in Rural communities will see no direct benefit to us, despite having to fund the resolution for those that live in the townships. You will argue that cleaner waterways will benefit all -yes, they will -however the burden of cost should be borne by those who use the dilapidated systems, not spread across the entire District. Council may have to look at a split rating system rather than a one-size fits all option
30	Warwick Greville	Hi I Support the 10yr plan but please be upfront with projected rated increase over that period as any increase compounds on the previous. Please tell us total rates increase ie $ 150%? Or what over 10 years
44	Bruce McGechan	I agree that the cost for the overall plan should be covered by debt financing. Current ratepayers should not be burdened with the full cost through rates.
49	Christopher Bath	Ratepayers will already have been shocked by the annual rate increases therefore Option 2 is a non-starter.
104	Serena Ann Spencer	My understanding is that all new housing developments have to supply their own water and waste solutions. How will water rates be portioned out? Will those developments have lower water rates? In my current situation, I pay full water rates but supply my own water via tank. Our house has town water to one (1) toilet and to the garden, whereas the rest of the house and drinking water is via our tank. Would we still pay full water rates under the new system?
126	Lorelei Hennessy	Your options above and below are coercive and imbalanced to ensure people choose what you want them to choose the proposed rates are very expensive and is too much of a hike from what the current rates are. I am ok for a rates increase, but not as much as this
132	J & D Curtice	Anything that increases our rates by too much is going to be a massive hit to our family. We are a family of 6 on 1 income
148	Gerard Pain	Rates already unaffordable for resident on fixed/ reducing incomes, a district growth strategy and higher rates will be of no use to them when they have to sell up and leave
166	Kristin Yoldash	Option 4: This plan is not profitable for our elderly or our children, it is burdensome and I cannot in good conscience support it....You need a plan that sees a profitable and beneficial outlook to our future in Central Hawkes bays not something that seems to want to just comply with regulations which is upgrades that plunge us into debt...we need to create our plans for our people with the respect we all deserve, our waterways should be considered high on our list as it deserve the respect of a life source that governs our physical needs, yes you have upgrades but not a real plan around water protection and security.. also there seems to be no interest in offsetting the cost by investing in $$$ to generate ideas instead you seem to have set your mind on debt and copying a failed Auckland City Council. That is no solution for the people of Central Hawkes bay as we want services but if those services become a huge burden to rate payers then go back to the drawing board and do a better job at planning. Your plan will increase homelessness, or poverty, although debt is the easy answer for you, it will be an additional burden for us, we didn't move here to have to pay the same rates as Havelock North, when we have none of the services or the land values as Havelock North....Investing in businesses and partnering with iwi and others businesses seems to be the future proof of increasing growth, and paying for infrastructure, so a few ideas are buy carbon credits to offset costs for waste management, invest in bottling and selling water so the profits can be used so future revenues which will be able to offset costs...build more subdivisions not just in Waipukurau. I can also think of cutting costs such as reduce the number of people working for the council, reduce wages...Since we do not have the population to sustain our needs we really need to go back to the long term planning and re do it as it should be a living plan with some flexibility to really design a more comprehensive solution that is not some quick fix job and which seems more reactionary than long term planning. Last year you already increased our rates by $300 for your long term plan to upgrade the treatment plant which was as I understand is done already, now you want to do it again?? So something is missing in your narrative? I should get a decrease cause last years rates paid for that upgrade. Your estimates for another increase seem ridiculously high.
182	Kirsty Taiaroa	Our rates money has not been used wisely to date, landowners and farmers cannot afford this. Do you want to see farmers off the land and replaced by pine forests to offset China's carbon footprints? Now councils are paying into 'Green' and 'carbon' costs to central government and international groups/agendas.
190	Adam Allington	Although ticking option 1, the reality is that those of us in Rural communities will see no direct benefit to us, despite having to fund the resolution for those that live in the townships. You'll argue that cleaner waterways will benefit all -yes, they will -however the burden of cost should be borne by those who use the dilapidated systems, not spread across the entire District. Council may have to look at a split rating system rather than a one-size fits all option.
200	Peter and Viv Paton	I have seen some of your figures for doing this and she costs seem to be astronomical - could the figures for doing this be published
231	Shelley Burne-Field	Rally against a 7.8% average rates rise! Push back and say enough is enough. Face the facts that our Council is simply spending above its means. DEFER unnecessary capex projects - 80% of our wastewater and drinking water infrastructure is mid-life. Right now is NOT the time to ‘be bold’ and spend up large. Be conservative and re-group until assumptions can be fleshed out e.g. three waters reform.
232	Chris Davis	Given this there is no point embarking on new wastewater schemes or renewals programmes that may well be overturned by decisions taken by the new entity. Consideration of scale may lead to different options being pursued by the new entity. The proposition that removing wastewater discharges from waterways is an absolute must for council is wishful thinking, flawed, and unlikely to be realised. Wastewater is primarily water so at some point it will find its way to a water course, no matter what means of treatment process it goes through. Whilst the community may prefer to avoid discharge to waterways the reality is somewhat different. Discharge to land is fraught with difficulties and very expensive. It will require significant conventional treatment facilities and processes to treat the wastewater to a stage where it could be clean and safe enough to be irrigated on land. The disposal to land of the wastewater effluent is at the end of the treatment process, it is not an effective treatment methodology in its own right. The combined communities of Otane, Waipawa and Waipukurau together with the significant amount of industrial waste, with its high BOD loading, have really outgrown the use of basic small community oxidation ponds. More appropriate conventional treatment processes are now required and will most certainly be the focus of the new 3 Waters entity and the water regulator, Taumata Arowai. Council previously considered a conventional treatment scheme but it was dismissed due to high cost and subsequently an unsuitable low technology approach was implemented, which duly failed to do what it was supposed to do, all at a wasted cost of $10M. The result of all this is we are now looking at a massively more expensive treatment solution to resolve the districts wastewater issues, the cost of which is well beyond the ratepayers’ ability to pay, even if the cost is debt funded as the debt servicing costs ($17.5 + $10.8M) bring the overall project cost to almost $100M. This will be crippling for the community and is simply not sustainable for a small community like CHB. Given that Takapau is not a huge distance further from Waipawa compared to Otane there seems some logic in also connecting Takapau to a central treatment plant at Waipawa, thereby reducing overall operating costs. An issue that still needs to be addressed is the cross subsidisation of the industrial wastewater generators who have never paid their fair share of disposal costs. They generate high BOD loadings, much greater than residential loadings, and yet council has never charged then adequate Trade Waste charges. In theory avoiding discharge to waterways is a nice to have but the reality is that it doesn’t work in practice. The treated wastewater effluent would need a massive receiving land area to accommodate the daily effluent discharge. And even so the soils would soon become saturated and not able to cope with additional effluent. There is only so much moisture soils can absorb before they become water logged. Added to this is the naturally occurring rainfall which also creates saturation, and rising water tables that prevent further soakage. Discharge of the effluent cannot be stopped because the soils can no longer accept any more liquid without ponding or flooding. What happens then to the effluent that can no longer be absorbed? The inevitable situation would likely arise where the soil can no longer accept the effluent so that surface runoff then occurs, which eventually finds its way to the nearest watercourse, thus defeating the whole objective of no discharges to waterways. There is a current drive to clean up waterways in NZ so that a proposed discharge to land scheme that is bound to fail most likely will not be supported as a sensible and viable option. For these reasons I do not support any of the 3 options proposed. The discharge to land aspect will not be cost effective or viable and should not be pursued. A 15 year proposal would be better, provided it did not have the discharge to land component. Having already wasted $10M council would not want to have the embarrassment of a failed $100M discharge to land scheme. As I have previously noted council would be wise to defer any wastewater decision until the implications of the new 3 waters entity are known.
234	Dr Trevor Le Lievre	Concerning infrastructure upgrades, I support option 4 to halt the upgrades and seek an alternative funding avenue before continuing. Council propose building an integrated treatment and discharge wastewater system for the townships of Otane, Waipawa and Waipukurau, which will irrigate to a single land site. This is an exciting concept, and I fully support and commend Council for their enlightened promotion of land based effluent disposal. The proposed engineering solutions have apparently been worked on for several years; however, there is no detail in the LTP about what these are? More transparency and better communication is required concerning the preferred system. The most environmentally friendly engineering solutions should be adopted, with cost a secondary consideration. I submitted in the 2016-2017 Annual Plan in favour of implementing a Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) system on grounds of operational flexibility (i.e.able to be modified depending on influent and effluent requirement) and low footprint. As far as I am aware, the SBR system remains best practice technology. Council’s budget for this, along with other work to Porangahau, Te Paerahi and Takapau, is $68.2 million over 10 years (i.e. 24% of projected capex of $288 million). This is a substantial amount, and not within the capacity of Central Hawkes Bay ratepayers to finance. Yet, the work is an immediate and absolute priority. Our waterways, already under unsustainable ecological pressure, demand an effective solution that will create an environmentally sustainable legacy for future generations. Further, it is unfair that the rural agricultural enterprises in our district are being regulated as to discharges into waterways, under the HB Regional Council’s Plan Change 6, while the towns continue to discharge unsafe levels of ammonia into our main rivers. This work needs to commence as soon as possible, ideally within the next 2-3 years. Council’s options for either a 10 year or 15 year build are untenable. A business case should be finalised and presented to both the local government and environment ministers, with a request for funding, possibly under the next tranche of Three Water Reform funding. If an in-principle agreement can be obtained, a loan can be secured to commence work immediately, until the finalisation and release of funding.
235	Stephenson Transport Limited	Concerns around the CAPEX charge introduced as part of the Wastewater funding via the Trade waste bylaw. Submission noted here, but covered in detail in the Trade Waste bylaw report.

Trend and Analysis

The following trends were identified within the theme ‘Affordability and Rating’;

- Major affordability concerns

- Lack of understanding of how rating system works and is applied

- Interest in understanding the overall rating impact

- Concern with the overall investment budget

- Defer investment and wait until 3 waters reform outcomes are clearer

Officers review of the themes, has identified that some further education on how the rating system works in relation to this project, providing information on the rating impact this project has within wider rating system.

Reassuring community and ratepayers that CHBDC will be lobbying and investigating other funding opportunities and mechanism to better support this investment.

Providing further transparency by releasing or pointing those interested to specific technical reports.

Education around the 3 waters reform process and the requirements to deliver on a plan to ensure CHBDC doesn’t face another enforcement order in relation to our wastewater systems, and that doing nothing is not an option.

While some themes can be addressed generally, a number should be specifically addressed with the submitter who presented the feedback.

Topic 5 – Phasing

Of the 54 submitters who provided written feedback, it was noted 16 provided commentary in relation to the theme ‘Phasing’ their comments are below;

2	Hayley Webster	12 year WW option?
24	Haylee Gray	More Time = Better Quality
48	Bob Alkema	Council should also explore an option spreading the upgrade over a longer period, say 20 years. This further spread the impact on property rates. CHB is not alone in facing this historic under-investment in the three waters infrastructure -the risk is all councils initiating a similar improvement programme calling on limited resources (if the construction sector can’t gear up quickly enough) resulting in higher costs.
71	Marjon Greenwood	I think the impact on the waterways of the longer time frame will be too detrimental, but am very much aware that I am in a position to carry the larger increase in rates and not everyone is
72	Ian Hawkes	Spreads the burden over time and still gets a good final clean result.
87	Meg Mackenzie	Wastewater discharges should be removed from waterways as soon as possible. I do not think this is something we can afford to muck around with.
141	Keri Rophia	I like the 10 year plan, but felt it unfair to choose, this is due to the cost as I am not a direct rate payer
142	Forrest Ropiha	Unfair to choose the 10 year plan (for me) because of the changes to rates, which I do not pay - otherwise I would choose 2
159	Daniel & Heidi Repko	Based on the Councils preferred options in the 10 year plan, our rates will more than double in 10 years (from $3500 to $7600). As pensioners on a mostly fixed income there is no way I/we will be able to pay for that. It will probably mean we will have to sell and move elsewhere. We are dreading this. In can see the Councils dilemma, but that doesn't make it acceptable to us. Re the waste-water upgrade; We feel obliged to choose option 1, however can't that be spread over a longer period eg 20-25 years? Furthermore, a number of years ago we were convinced by the then Council the water treatment plant(s) we currently have, was the way to go. Now we know we were sold a lemon eg incompetent decision making. How do we know that this time around the same isn't going to happen again? (Sorry to be so blunt)
171	Neil Bayliss	Spreads the burden forward
181	Kathryn Bayliss	I oppose all of the options. I think CHBDC should upgrade our wastewater plants and remove wastewater discharges from all waterways within 1-3 years. The loans can still be repaid over a longer period of time to spread the financial burden of upgrades. CHBDC pleaded guilty for breaching its wastewater resource consents in July 2017. Remedies for our wastewater discharges are long overdue. It is shameful CHBDC is still discharging wastewater into our waterways. Wastewater put on land also needs to be treated to a high standard to help stop the risk of contaminating the groundwater and land. In the Consultation Document the cost is misleading as it shows Option 1 as the cheapest when in reality the overall cost to complete the work will most likely be more. The cost only shows 10 years but the work is not finished. Option 2 covers the cost and it finishes the planned work. The longer it takes to upgrade our wastewater plants and remove wastewater discharges from all waterways the higher the risk of increased costs, higher interest rates and inflation. Paying off borrowings are likely to be more expensive over the longer term. In Long Term Plan 2021-31 Consultation Document, Page 165, the LTP Infrastructure Strategy outlines the upgrade of our wastewater plants and removal wastewater discharges from all waterways in less than 10 year.
183	Charles M Nairn	This should be done as soon as possible
184	Murray Howarth	This is the priority project
191	Jackie Scannell	This should not wait - the problem is getting worse, from compounding impacts over time. The spread of costs across generations - more equitable if front loaded when more people are investing in the region. The improvement will improve the attractiveness to the district
210	Marti Eller, Gillian Eller, Mark Eller	This is really important work, but we’d rather it is spread across a longer time period, and done right, than rushed.
222	Owen Spotswood	The next generation needs to assist in paying for the infrastructure upgrade

Trend and Analysis

The following trends were identified within the theme ‘Phasing’;

- Either in support for the 15-year programme and that it spreads the investment and burden, or encouraging council to deliver the investment faster than ten years.

Officers review of this theme is that the feedback largely supports the investment programme and encourages council to be bold.

While some themes can be addressed generally, a number should be specifically addressed with the submitter who presented the feedback.

Topic 6 – Environmental

Of the 54 submitters who provided written feedback, it was noted 4 provided commentary in relation to the theme ‘Environmental’ their comments are below;

42	Peter Seligman	We need to clean up the waterways as fast as possible. It is truly a national scandal and something that the whole country should be quite ashamed of, especially given the image we like to project to the world (Lush, green, pure etc)
103	Mike Harrison	Cleaning up our waterways should be a priority
121	Anthony Clouston	Establish environmentally friendly ways to dispose of our collective hard and soft wastes.
197	Bill Hale	Stop dumping into the Makaretu as Takapau is the southern dump station worth considering consultation - I would strongly oppose aerial discharge of treated wastewater in any form
	Hawkes Bay Regional Council	A verbal submission was made by HBRC on 22^nd April 2021 – supporting the overall investment programme and the need to balance affordability constraints, while cautioning CHBDC of the need to implement the programme to achieve improved outcomes from the wastewater systems. The enforcement order issues in 2016/ 2017 and that CHBDC responded to in 2019 outlines the investment programme and solution required to upgrade the systems – this needs to be delivered on to meet compliance with the enforcement order – HBRC reminded CHBDC of this.

Trend and Analysis

The following trends were identified within the theme ‘Environmental’;

- Imploring council to take a leadership role in cleaning up our waterways.

- Investigating innovative ways to implement solutions

- To be mindful how we make improvements and not to create consequential impacts.

While some themes can be addressed generally, a number should be specifically addressed with the submitter who presented the feedback.

Topic 7 – General/ Other

Of the 54 submitters who provided written feedback, it was noted 24 provided commentary in relation to the theme ‘General’ some of their comments are below;

47	Ben Clist	Council needs to outline the investigation conducted into why the previous investment went wrong and offer assurances that the new plan is not going to result in the same outcome.
62	Emma Mason-Smith	I am very pleased to hear that this is the future for CHB with the wastewater. It has been a long time coming to address this issue properly and hopefully our waterways will be clean for the next generation to enjoy.
82	Lyn Horspool	Thank goodness we have a Council who is prepared to make the big infrastructure decisions that will benefit us all. Keep up the great work!
85	Noel Pederson	You have to. If only it was done properly the first time
102	Ben Douglas	It's been put off for too long already and needs sorting. This period of rapid population growth and development resulting from people moving to CHB from other areas is the perfect time to do it. It would be tragic to think that in a time of skyrocketing house and land prices when so much money is being made that we can't afford to sort out the basics.
113	Tim Gilbertson	3 CHBDC should be looking to share services in all areas with the other 4 councils in Hawkes Bay to improve services and reduce costs as required by law under the triennial act of 2003 (?). Highest savings are achievable in high cost services such as water 4 Council should peer review, audit and monitor closely all professional services to avoid capture by providers, which is a common fate among monopolies such as CHBDC. 5 Are hard Engineering solutions the best answer? Wetlands and biological processes may be better. Engineers love concrete and pumps and spending, CHBDC has been down that road before and it was a disaster
122	David Bishop	g) For wastewater/sewage treatment in Waipukurau, I totally recommend a standalone treatment plant (primary stage: up to milli screening separation of solids stage; or complete treatment) to service the industrial area of Waipukurau, primarily the meat processing factories that are a major contributor of waste to the Waipukurau treatment plant. It is these factories that seemingly cause the overloading issues, time and time again at the Waipukurau wastewater treatment plant. Further industry can then be encouraged to set up in this zone, due to provision of this on-site wastewater/sewage service. h) For wastewater/sewage from new subdivisions, this as a cost on the subdivision should be primary treated (e.g. milli-screened with solids to landfill) on-site before entering Councils wastewater infrastructure. There are small scale milli-screening systems available for use in subdivisions. i) For town produced sewage, this should be primary treated (i.e milli-screened, with solids to landfill) at several locations before being transported to the sewage treatment facility. j) I would like to treat wastewater discharged to land, provided effluent does not infiltrate into the aquifer. On land, plantations of -e.g. fast growing coppicing gum trees—should be grown to use such effluent. The gum trees should be on topography such that they are able to be cropped every decade for firewood, and discharges do not impact on nearby waterways. k) Using the Farm Road landfill (+ any new sites) for placement of milli-screened solids, will result in more greenhouse gases from decomposition. Use of a gas retaining membrane progressively over the refuse site, should enable greenhouse gases to be captured and while burning them for electricity does release carbon dioxide, this gas should be captured through the electricity generation process. l) Sequester the carbon from CO2 from landfill greenhouse gas electricity generation, by best practise industry means Feedback on draft LTP: i. an integrated wastewater treatment plant appears to have merit serving Otane, Waipawa, and Waipukurau; then with discharge of treated wastewater to land. iii. I promote the disposal of milli-screened solids from main towns, at landfill; ii. I much prefer the industrial area of Waipukurau has a standalone treatment plant serving the industry located there. Please cost this as an alternative option and present it back to the community! iv. Option 1 is supported, in preference to Options 2 & 3.
138	Martin Lord	We have our own septic tanks and do not contribute to waste water. Are we going to have to pay for other peoples wastewater problems? To stop an increasing wastewater problem you could insist that all new builds are provided with septic tanks and take care of their own wastewater.
151	Sjoerd Gorter	I am of the view that the council does not have the expertise or management skills to run this part of Hawkes Bay. Having a say is a good democratic thing. But who has any expertise in sewage plants and or the supply and treatment of drinking water? Why are farmers allowed irrigating their crops in the middle of the day in full sun and emptying the aquafier. We need expertise because people who are elected to council are out of their depth. Good examples are upgrading a pool in Waipawa just down the road from Waipukurau. The libraries are also a fiasco etc etc. There is just too much duplication. Popular by the voters but the end result is that what needs to be done does not happen, because the till is emptied by doing low priority jobs because it looks good. Those millions could have been used to make a start on the upgrade of the sewage pipework in town and or the sewage plant. Our population base is too small for the large projects. We simply cannot afford it. All councils in this area should be amalgamated into one, so we will have the management skills and financial resources to get things to happen. What is the point of a ten year plan if you do not have the cash to make it happen? If you think you can just keep increasing the rates, means the council is completely out of touch with the local population. This is New Zealand; we should have the same facilities as the bigger towns. We should not be disadvantaged in any way because we are a small town. I have lost count as the number of rate increases as well as plans to fix the sewage plant. It is still a hazard and needs upgrading.
167	Terry Hare	Wastewater is one of the primary essential service issues for residential and commercial properties the longer period to upgrade I believe is the best option because italso gives time to consider new technology and ideas that may be beneficial to reducing waste contamination and cost.
170	Robert McLean	The pumps that pump waste are dependent on electricity, what about power outages, earthquakes
175	Lynnette Dewes	also smoke testing of each house to see who is still putting stormwater straight into the sewerage…
186	Dean Hyde	I support what is proposed in the Plan and would like to specifically comment on the following: -The provision of a single treatment plant for the communities of Otane, Waipawa and Waipukurau makes so much sense. -Irrigation onto land of treated wastewater isa far more intelligent use of this precious resource rather than discharging into waterways.
187	Rea Arona	Stop Selling Our Water' - Water is Life - Water = Parks, Toilets, Everything needs Water (Why Give Options??)
192	Tania Arona	Option 3 should be done anyway and not be an option
201	Robbie Christiansen	Fine people discharging illegaly. Introduce user pays for water and new sewage connections
202	Tracy and Andrew Gay	Look after our waterways quickly please I want to be able to let my grandchildren to swim and catch trout down stream from Waipawa ASAP
204	Louise Phillips	I congratulate the CHBDC on taking the bold step to commit to wastewater upgrades despite the unpopularity of rate increases. These infrastructure issues cannot be ignored for the sake of political expediency, which passes on the cost to future generations.Any upgrades must ensure that the health of our waterways isparamount, therefore I would prefer option 2 (A 10-yearplan)
209	Nicole Ellison	Removing wastewater discharges from our waterways must be a priority and 15 years is just too long
211	Clint Deckard	Getting human waste from our rivers and streams should be a priority. The relatively small extra cost to achieve this could be covered in a variety of ways to ensure the financial burden was minimised for affected ratepayers. Our waterways are in a degraded state and it is past time that meaningful improvements were made. 15 years is just too long to wait. The challenges faced by the district’s wastewater should be an opportunity to ‘reset’ how we deal with wastewater and stormwater. Council should be embracing alternative methods to deal with waste. Composting toilets, separating grey water from sewerage and alternative treatment systems should be explored and encouraged as a way to reduce the load on the wastewater treatment system.
215	Forest and Bird	9. It is no longer, if it ever was, acceptable to dispose of human waste in waterways. This seemingly small shift in expectations requires a large change in practice. That the previous iteration of the wastewater treatment plants were never going to meet consent requirements demands that a new approach be taken. 10.Discharging wastewater, no matter how treated, into waterways is not acceptable. 11.We prefer Option 2. 12.The relatively small increase in per user cost ensures wastewater is removed from our waterways sooner. 13.Other ways to fund the small differential could be found e.g. non-connected users could contribute for a fixed period of time. 14.Further, whilst we applaud the suggested requirement for rain water collection tanks on new urban houses, we believe Council should be bold and go further. Enabling and promoting the use of alternative systems for wastewater could help to reduce the demands on infrastructure. 15.This would include composting toilets or on-property treatment facilities. Greywater systems and composting toilets could be an important part of the solution and should be simple to install and use in Central Hawkes Bay. 16.CHBDC should be taking up Central Government’s offer to invest in regional three waters infrastructure by signing up to potential three waters management reform. 17.CHBDC should be lobbying Central Government for assistance to meet standards. 18.This problem is not limited to CHB: numerous wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) across Aotearoa discharge directly to freshwater environments and non-compliance with environmental standards is widespread. Freshwater quality across the country is severely impacted as a result. Forest & Bird consider this an archaic and disappointing situation to be in. Discharges to WWTPs that do not comply with standards set in local bylaws only exacerbate this issue, increasing the pressure on plant operators and making it harder for them to meet environmental standards. 19.Unfortunately, there is a legal loophole surrounding trade waste bylaws, as referenced in a recent Radio New Zealand (RNZ) exposé on companies’ compliance with bylaws across the country, and the impact this has on wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) operators’ ability to meet environmental limits set by regional councils. 20.Forest & Bird understands this loophole in the law prevents local governments issuing fines to non-compliant dischargers of wastewater to their networks and treatment plants. Councils are therefore limited to simply recovering any costs the breach might have resulted in (such as additional cleaning required to make the plant fully operative if its function was impacted by the breach) or taking the issue to the courts, at significant cost. 21.In response to this issue, Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) has suggested to numerous Ministers since 2002 that a law change is necessary to allow local councils to fine non-compliant companies. Addressing the issue requires a relatively simple amendment to section 259 of the Local Government Act 2002 to allow regulations to be made prescribing breaches of council bylaws that are infringements under the Act. We understand LGNZ has made this same request of the current Minister, yet the law still has not been changed. 22.We implore CHBDC to continue lobbying LGNZ, local MPs, and the Minister for Local Government to undertake a law change to allow council to fine those companies and organisations that are not complying with trade waste bylaw requirements. This would hopefully result in better compliance with trade waste bylaws, less stress on the WWTP, and fewer costly failures (or fewer non-compliance events). It would also allow CHBDC to recover costs of problems more readily.
216	Federated Farmers	We are alarmed that wastewater infrastructure improvement will need $68.2 million of capital expenditure over the next 10 years. Central Hawkes Bay has been allocated $11,090,560 by the Government from the Three Waters Investment Package Funding. For comparison, Wellington City has been allocated less at $10,885,693.
221	Graeme and Margaret Black	A pity more people didn’t take advantage of the bus tour - well worth it

Trend and Analysis

The general category was a mixed bag, and has picked up a general feedback thread, the following trends were identified within the theme ‘General/ Other’;

- Major affordability concerns

- Concerns with previous investments

- Support for the project

- Council needs to ensure it is investigating and pulling as many levers and mechanisms as possible to support this programme

An ongoing education and story-telling piece is required to continue to share the story of this investment while being transparent on the challenges and successes.

While some themes can be addressed generally, a number should be specifically addressed with the submitter who presented the feedback.

RISK ASSESSMENT and mitigation

Submitters have voiced support and concern over the options presented. This section highlights risks that have been noted with the presented options.

Option 1 Risks:

Risks considered for Option 1 relate primarily to affordability challenges and confidence in asset management planning and infrastructure decision making. The affordability risks are to ratepayers not to Council. Council has the means confirmed through its Financial Strategy to service debt and complete the programme of work outlined in the Infrastructure Strategy and LTP. The noted risk to ratepayers is an inability for those on low or fixed incomes to afford rate increases to meet the programme of work. Officers consider that all steps possible are being taken or are signalled/planned to manage the unaffordability risk to ratepayers. Debt funding spreads the cost over time and a continued targeting of external funding will lessen the overall burden on ratepayers.

The risk of asset management planning relates to comments made about confidence in previous decision making and a required clarity and confidence in current decision making that has resulted in the increased programme of work housed in the Infrastructure Strategy and LTP. Council must be confident that effective decisions are being made to ensure that funds are being invested wisely in infrastructure in order to balance both financial and asset risk. Officers believe that quality processes are in place to ensure robust decision making and options assessment.

3 Waters Reform and pending changes remain a risk to all options, and we have used the guidance provided for by Central Government to carry on as ‘business as usual’ while there is no clarity on what the Water sector may look like. This brings risk to planning and community engagement in the matter.

Option 2 Risks:

The fundamental risk with Option 2 is a heightened unaffordability risk as described above for Option 1. Option 2 will see a greater and more immediate impact on ratepayers to fund the proposed programme. There is risk that affordability issues will become severe resulting in an inability of some ratepayers to meet payments. Officers consider that this risk is high and that there is no effective and practical means of mitigating the risk without avoiding it by spreading the impact over a longer period of time or not doing the planned work.

The option allows for the expediting of the programme. Where outcomes will be able to be achieved much faster than Option One or Three allows for.

Option 3 Risks:

This option avoids the risk of rate increases and affordability challenges (beyond those that may already exist) and transfers the risk squarely onto the compliance of the system, and the ability to meet future growth needs. Officers believe significant risk will remain with this option with the ability to meet current and future regulatory and compliance requirements. The significant growth CHBDC is currently seeing will remain a challenge that could in itself present further financial challenges to service, and this option will likely only result in council deferring a decision for the short term that will need to be made eventually.

FOUR WELLBEINGS

Each of the options presented is considered against the four wellbeing’s below. The explanation below attempts to present the premise of each option as well as considering the feedback received by submitters on the options.

Option 1 and 2 have the same cultural and environmental outcome but differ in time to implement.

	Cultural	Economic	Social	Environmental
Option 1	Addresses cultural aspirations to remove wastewater discharge from waterways – but differs in timeframe to do so.	The middle ground investment by targeting a longer timeframe to deliver the programme	The middle ground social and affordability impact	Improved treatment and removal of discharge from waterways means that environmental outcomes will be achieved – the options differ in the timeframe to implement these solutions
Option 2		The greatest financial impact but the greatest ability to meet other economic ambitions like servicing future growth	The highest social and affordability impact
Option 3		The lesser financial impact, but has other economic downfalls in that the ability to meet growth may be a problem in the short and longer term	The lowest social and affordability impact	While removal from waterways is an environmental benefit, the lack of any significant treatment improvements or growth catering could see overtime additional issues arise when dealing with growth or due to the pending regulatory changes.
Option 4		The middle ground investment by targeting a longer timeframe to deliver the programme	The middle ground social and affordability impact	Improved treatment and removal of discharge from waterways means that environmental outcomes will be achieved – the options differ in the timeframe to implement these solutions

Delegations or authority

Council has the delegations and authority to make this decision following community engagement through the Long Term Plan process.

sIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as being of significance and accordingly has undergone an appropriate process of formal consultation.

This has been assessed as of great significance, and is following the council significance and engagement policy – commencing with determining options through community meetings and groups, and through a pre-engagement phase in August 2020, through to engaging with the community on how best to fund and implement the options. Engagement will continue on the options once adopted and delivered in conjunction with the relevant communities and key stakeholders.

OPTIONS Analysis

Option 1: A 15-year plan to upgrade our wastewater plants and remove wastewater discharges from waterways (Loan funded Year 1-6, and Rate funded from Y6 onwards).

The scope and impact of these works is significant – this option received the greatest level of support with 70% of the options selected in favour of Option One.

Affordability remains a high risk and will need to actively be managed and considered if this option is adopted as the best option for addressing this matter.

The option may see an improvement in ratepayer impact if the trade waste capital contribution is increased from the placeholder budget, or if a full loan funding approach to this investment is applied, this is addressed further in Option 4.

Option One received 70% of the support – and between Option 1 and 2, 91% of the submissions supported councils approach to removing wastewater from waterways, implementing an upgraded treatment plant and consolidating our treatment plants.

A telling sign the community is in support of delivering a significant step change in how to address the future of our wastewater system.

Waipawa, Waipukurau and Otane

Porangahau and Te Paerahi

Takapau

Option 2: A 10-year plan to upgrade our Wastewater Plants and remove wastewater discharges from waterways (Loan funded Year 1-6, and Rate funded from Y6 onwards).

This option accelerates the delivery of option 1 for completion within 10 years, instead of 15 years.

The benefit of this option is that we remove wastewater discharges from our waterways within 10 years, addressing the cultural and environmental impacts our discharges create sooner.

Option Two received 21% of the support – and between Option 1 and 2, 91% of the submissions supported councils approach to removing wastewater from waterways, implementing an upgraded treatment plant and consolidating our treatment plants.

A telling sign the community is in support of delivering a significant step change in how to address the future of our wastewater system.

Officers analysis of this option holds reservations as outlined within the risk section on the financial and affordability impact that this option and to a lesser degree Option 5 – which looks to fully loan fund the ten year investment programme.

Option 3: Doing the minimum to meet current legal compliance, and remove wastewater discharges from waterways (Loan funded)

This option sees us walk away from our Wastewater Strategy 2020. This option will still deliver the same pipelines and work towards discharging wastewater to land, as the previous options deliver.

Where this option differs is that no new treatment plants will be constructed, and only minor improvements to existing plants will be undertaken.

The option has the lowest capital cost, and rating impact. Officers hold reservations that this option may meet short term requirements but will likely cause issues in the longer term when trying to deal with growth on the towns and the wastewater network, and/ or the changing regulatory landscape and requirements where the current treatment plants cannot adjust to meet what may be proposed.

It is therefore assumed that further intervention may be necessary within the next 10 years to address growth and/ or regulatory requirements which may lead to further costs.

Two new options have been introduced following consideration of the options to date and feedback – these options are variants on Option 1 and 2 above, specifically focussed on loan funding the entire investment programme and not rate funding the renewal component.

Option 4: A 15-year plan to upgrade our wastewater plants and remove wastewater discharges from waterways (Loan funded).

Option Four is the same investment programme, technical outcome and community outcomes as those outlined in Option One above.

This option does though change the funding mechanism from a part loan/ part rate funded approach to a fully loan funded approach.

The capital rate funding for years 6-10 adds to $14.6m.

While you would save $14.6m of rate funding by swapping it out to loan you would incur additional debt servicing so the real rate savings over this period would only be $13.2m (which is about a 3.9% rates savings over the 10 year period) but additional debt of 18.0m.

It is anticipated that council will see an $18m or 37% increase in the debt it has to take on over the first 10 years to service the option, while receiving a 10 year rating deduction of 3.9%.

If preferential this option would need to be factored into the debt ceiling and threshold calculations, an indication is outlined below to outlined the proposed impact.

Option 5: A 10-year plan to upgrade our Wastewater Plants and remove wastewater discharges from waterways (Loan funded)

This option accelerates the delivery of the entire programme within 10 years, instead of 15 years.

Option Four is the same investment programme, technical outcome and community outcomes as those outlined in Option One above.

This option does though change the funding mechanism from a part loan/ part rate funded approach to a fully loan funded approach.

This would see a rates savings of $9.1m over the 10 years (which is about 2.7% over the 10 year period) but additional debt of $24.0m.

It is anticipated that council will see a $24m or 50% increase in the debt it has to take on over the first 10 years to service the option, while receiving a 10 year rating deduction of 2.7%.

If preferential this option would need to be factored into the debt ceiling and threshold calculations.

Trade Waste Capital Contribution

A further subset of scenarios of the two preferred option(s) 1 and 4 are presented below, these refer to the amount of trade waste capital recovery that is contributed to the preferred option as a grant.

A number of variant options have been presented and workshopped in relation to how best to approach the capital recovery from trade waste contributors.

The current budget placeholder in the Long Term Plan allows for a capital recovery of $250,000 per year for the first 10 years of the LTP (this is 33% of the Year one investment capital costs attributed to trade waste contributors).

In support of Challenge #1, The bylaw review has proposed to enact section B13-20 in the fees and charges schedule C of the 2021 Draft Trade Waste Bylaw. This existed in the previous 2018 Bylaw but had not been enacted or enforced.

A significant component of the trade waste bylaw engagement has been focussed on the ‘trade waste calculator’ and the contribution which outlines how the charging may occur across a number of scenarios.

The scenarios have been workshopped and following considerable feedback and discussion with councillors and industry, officers are recommending to recover for the first 3 years of the Long Term Plan and as set out in the Revenue and Financing Policy, the trade waste industry contribution relevant to the investment programmed for that year of the Long Term Plan.

Officers are recommending this is phased in towards a 100% user pays recovery by Year 4 of the Long Term Plan, which would coincide with greater certainty on the water reform approach and by implementing a recovery based on the investment programme – this incentive helps trade waste contributors to either make a decision to implement enhanced pre-treatment and contribute less financially, however the improved treatment would allow Council to review its design basis for the new mechanical treatment plant in approx. 2026. Alternatively there is the option not to enhance pre-treatment and opting in to supporting the council investment programme by financially contributing.

Council officers recommend to investigate a loan based approach with trade waste contributor from Year 4 onwards to smooth the peaks and troughs that being 100% recovery aligned with the investment programme may bring.

This is proposed to be analysed in future years and would coincide with the next Long Term Plan period.

The proposed phasing approach and anticipated revenue from trade waste contributors is as follows;

Year 1 – 33% (expected revenue of $250k)

Year 2 – 37% (expected revenue of $375k)

Year 3 – 75% (expected revenue of $550k)

Year 4 – 100% (expected revenue of $700-900k to cover costs and loan)

Year 1 recovery (33%)

Year 2 recovery (37%)

Year 3 recovery (75%)

Year 4 onwards recovery (100%)

The is outlined in the Revenue and Financing policy as a differential weighting to be applied.

Targeted Rate/Fees and Charges Differential

2021/22 Differential

2022/23 Differential

2023/24 Differential

2024/25 Differential

2025/26 and onwards Differential

Targeted Rate

1.0

Trade Waste Volumetric Operational Fees (B1-B6)

1.0

Trade Waste Volumetric Capital Contribution Fees (B13-B20)

0.33

0.37

0.75

1.0

The policy decision is laid out in the Revenue and Financing Policy and the rates to be charged are set out in the Fees and Charges – allowing the rates to be reviewed annually.

Recommended Funding

Council has agreed on a 100% private funding split for this activity. Private funding is collected through a targeted rate from those connected to wastewater systems and with fees and charges and levies raised through the Trade Waste Bylaw. The targeted rates and trade waste fees and charges will collect both the wastewater operational costs and capital costs. In addition, development and capital contributions are applied to new development to recognise capacity requirements.

Council has agreed to recover a capital contribution from the trade waste industry contributors for the Waipukurau, Waipawa and Otane wastewater investment programme based on volumetric charges as detailed in the fees and charges schedule B13-B20.

Council has agreed to work towards a 100% trade waste industry capital contribution over a four year period staging the increase as outlined in the table below.

The capital contribution is anticipated to recover the trade waste industry share of the upgrade works required as set out in the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 wastewater investment programme.”

Investment Programme

The 15 year investment programme for Option 1 or 4 is detailed below.

Summary of community votes for each option

	Option 1 A 15-year plan to upgrade our wastewater plants and remove wastewater discharges from waterways (Part Loan/ Rate funded)	Option 2 A 10-year plan to upgrade our Wastewater Plants and remove wastewater discharges from waterways (Part Loan/ Rate funded)	Option 3 Doing the minimum to meet current legal compliance, and remove wastewater discharges from waterways (Loan Funded)	Option 4 A 15-year plan to upgrade our wastewater plants and remove wastewater discharges from waterways (Loan funded)	Option 5 A 10-year plan to upgrade our Wastewater Plants and remove wastewater discharges from waterways (Loan funded)
Financial and Operational Implications	The middle ground financial impact by spreading the investment programme over 15 years The most operational impact to deliver a programme of works of 15 years.	The highest financial impact on ratepayers. May address operational impacts and stresses quicker, but the ability to deliver the work programme and associated consents within 10 years will be challenging.	The lowest financial impact on ratepayers. The highest risk to ongoing operational site management The lowest risk delivery programme.	The middle ground financial impact by spreading the investment programme over 15 years. Further spreads the direct rates burden that would occur from Year 6 onwards under Option 1. The longest operational impact to deliver a programme of works of 15 years. But achieves significant milestones along the way.	The highest financial impact on ratepayers. May address operational impacts and stresses quicker, but the ability to deliver the work programme and associated consents within 10 years will be challenging.
Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes	Achieves the greatest holistic community outcomes	Achieves most community outcomes but negatively impacts the social and prospering community outcome.	Achieves most community outcomes, does not meet smart growth, and may have longer term impacts on durable infrastructure.	Achieves the greatest holistic community outcomes	Achieves most community outcomes but negatively impacts the social and prospering community outcome.
Statutory Requirements	This option is significant and requires consultation. This option will ensure that council can meet its current and future compliance requirements for its wastewater system	This option is significant and requires consultation. This option will ensure that council can meet its current and future compliance requirements for its wastewater system	This option is significant and requires consultation. This option may allow council to meet its short term compliance requirements for its wastewater system, but raises concern with the ability to meet longer term requirements	This option is significant and requires consultation. This option will ensure that council can meet its current and future compliance requirements for its wastewater system	This option is significant and requires consultation. This option will ensure that council can meet its current and future compliance requirements for its wastewater system
Consistency with Policies and Plans	This option is consistent with the Infrastructure Strategy and Financial Strategy as well as relevant asset management plans, the waste water strategy and the asset management policy.	This option is consistent with the Infrastructure Strategy and NOT the Financial Strategy as well as relevant asset management plans, the waste water strategy and the asset management policy.	This option is NOT consistent with the Infrastructure Strategy and Financial Strategy as well as relevant asset management plans and the asset management policy.	This option is consistent with the Infrastructure Strategy and Financial Strategy as well as relevant asset management plans and the asset management policy.	This option is consistent with the Infrastructure Strategy and NOT the Financial Strategy as well as relevant asset management plans and the asset management policy.

NEXT STEPS

Following adoption of any option, Officers will commence with delivering the appropriate programme of infrastructure works and implementing the mandated financial approach while using robust project management techniques including financial and stakeholder management. The existing project governance group would continue to maintain oversight and leadership across the programme.

RECOMMENDATION

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That Council adopt Option 4 to implement the 15 year investment programme of wastewater upgrades across the six wastewater systems through loan funding.

c) That the submitters are thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitters.

Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

7.4 Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Draft Deliberations Report: Trade Waste Bylaw

File Number: COU1-1400

Author: Darren de Klerk, 3 Waters Programme Manager

Authoriser: Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments: 1. Trade Waste Bylaw Review - Summary of Submissions ⇩

2. Draft Trade Waste Bylaw v2 - 2021 ⇩

PURPOSE

The matter for consideration by the Council is to consider and deliberate on submissions made on the 2021 Draft Trade Waste bylaw.

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That council adopt the draft 2021 Trade Waste Bylaw with minor changes as presented.

c) That council endorse the approach to phase or stage the recovery of capital contribution towards 100% within four years as set out in the revenue and financing policy.

d) That Council note that industry paying for their share of capital contribution relevant to the cost of discharging was the communities preferred outcome.

e) That the submitters are thanked for their comments, which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to submitters.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Trade Waste bylaw is intended to deliver on an integrated approach to three waters management in the District alongside the water supply, stormwater and wastewater bylaws. These bylaws influence things like who can connect to our supplies, how much waste can be discharged, the requirement for water tanks at each property and how we manage stormwater. Our current bylaws needed to be refreshed to ensure they reflect the environmental and infrastructural demands of our time.

Council resolved on 11 February 2021 to approve the draft bylaws for public consultation. The submission period closed on 31 March 2021 except for the Trade Waste Bylaw which closes on 12 April 2021. 28 submissions were received across all bylaws and of those 5 submitters wished to be heard. The submissions for the trade waste bylaw has been summarised in Appendix 1 of this report. The original copies of the submissions have been compiled in Appendix 2 of this report.

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

28 submissions were received these are detailed below;

Submitter #	Contact name/Organisation	Wishes to be heard
1	Peter Seligman	Not Stated
2	Anonymous 1	Not Stated
3	Kaye [surname unknown]	Not Stated
4	Anonymous 2	Not Stated
5	Kathryn Bayliss	Not Stated
6	Dean Hyde	Not Stated
7	Keri Ropiha	No
8	Richard Thomas	No
9	Harvey Welsh	No
10	Anonymous 3	Not Stated
11	Richard Fox	Yes
12	Judith Finlay	No
13	Mary Drummond	Not Stated
14	Rob McLean	No
15	Tony & Jenny Feather	Not Stated
16	Peter & Viv Paton	No
17	Bill Hale	No
18	Hawke’s Bay District Health Board (Dr Nicholas Jones)	No
19	Forest and Bird (Tom Kay – Regional Conservation Manager)*	Yes
20	Graeme & Margaret Black	No
21	Bruce Stephenson**	Yes
22	DJ Williams	No
23	Anne Wallace	No
24	Diana Hollis	No
25	Mataweka Marae (Dianne Smith)	Yes
26	Hana Cotter	Yes
27	Ovation (Alastair Bayliss – General Manager)	No
28	Medallion 2020 Limited (Alastair Haliburton – Managing Director)	Yes

*Forest and Bird provided two submissions (one for Trade Waste Bylaw and another for the Water Supply, Stormwater and Wastewater Bylaws) – these have been combined and analysed as one submission.

**Bruce Stephenson provided two submissions (one for Long Term Plan and another for the Trade Waste Bylaw) – these have been combined and analysed as one submission.

Summary of Submissions:

Submission Points	Yes/A	No/B	Not Stated	Total
TRADE WASTE BYLAW
Q: Do you think the Council should charge businesses purely based on how much and what they discharge?	19	2	7	28
Q: Should the Council should take into consideration other economic, employment or social benefits that a business may bring to the community when charging?	8	12	8	28
Q. Do you think Council should extend the monitoring of industry or commercial wastewater to include smaller contributors to further protect our waterways?	13	7	8	28

BACKGROUND

Bylaws and policies focus on those issues which Council have determined can be dealt with appropriately using regulatory enforcement.

The bylaws act as the enablers that set the rules to support these strategies and plans.

Council resolved on 11 February 2021 to approve the draft bylaws for public consultation.

The key changes proposed were:

· Inclusion of an introductory note including the Overarching Purpose, Objectives and Context of the new bylaw

· Continuing to expand on water meters to meter water usage for high users and to align better with water sustainability outcomes

· Introducing urban water tanks - making dual purpose rainwater tanks mandatory for new urban residential dwellings

· Expand and strengthen contents in respect to prevention of contaminant discharges to the stormwater and drainage networks and systems

· Strengthening the ability to issue defects notice, and recover costs where defect notices were not implemented or resolved

28 submissions were received in total across all bylaws and of those, 5 submitters wished to be heard.

All submissions for the trade waste bylaw have been summarised and are included in Appendix 1 of this report.

ANALYSIS

Ten questions were posed on the submission form specific to each of the bylaws with three questions specific to the trade waste bylaw, it was also encouraged to write a free text submission.

These questions and the responses are outlined in detail in Appendix 1 (Summary of submissions).

Trade Waste Bylaw

Question one received majority support (19 submitters) to charge businesses purely based on how much and what they discharge.

Question two received majority against (12 submitters) to consider benefits that the businesses bring to the community when charging.

Question three received majority support (13 submitters) for monitoring smaller contributors to further protect waterways.

Submitters also provided further commentary and the key themes are:

§ General support over user-pays policy; and

§ More encouragement to minimise trade waste

Submissions from Industry Contributors

Council Officers have taken every effort to work with our Trade Waste Industry to provide information on proposed charging, and work through the proposed bylaw. Engagement from the Trade Industry was constructive and resulted in some submissions from trade waste businesses as outlined within this report.

Trade Waste Capital Contribution

The bylaw review has proposed to enact section B13-20 in the fees and charges schedule C of the 2021 Bylaw. This existed in the previous 2018 Bylaw but had not been enacted or enforced.

A significant component of the engagement has been focussed on the ‘trade waste calculator’ and the contribution which outlines how the charging may occur across a number of scenarios.

The scenarios have been workshopped and following considerable feedback and discussion with councillors and industry, officers are recommending to recover for the first 3 years of the Long Term Plan and as set out in the Revenue and Financing Policy the trade waste industry contribution relevant to the investment programmed for that year of the Long Term Plan.

Officers are recommending this is phased in towards a 100% user pays recovery by Year 4 of the Long Term Plan, which would coincide with greater certainty on the water reform approach and by implementing a recovery based on the investment programme – this incentives trade waste contributors to either make a decision to implement enhanced pre treatment and contribute less financially but the improved treatment would allow Council to review its design basis for a the new mechanical treatment plant in approx. 2026, or choosing not to enhance pre treatment and opting in to supporting the council investment programme by financially contributing.

This is proposed to be analysed in future years and would coincide with the next Long Term Plan period.

The proposed phasing approach is;

Year 1 – 33%

Year 2 – 37%

Year 3 – 60%

Year 4 – 100%

This is outlined in the Revenue and Financing policy as a differential weighting to be applied.

The policy decision is laid out in the Revenue and Financing Policy and the rates to be charged are set out in the Fees and Charges – allowing the rates to be reviewed annually.

The feedback and responses align with the bylaw intentions and in its current state recommend the bylaw is adopted with minor changes as outlined in the tracked changed draft version 2 supporting this report.

RISK ASSESSMENT and mitigation

The bylaw reviews carry risks across community, regulatory and legal omponents, whilst positively the bylaws support the operational components of Council and enables officers to better influence key Council policies, plans or strategies.

FOUR WELLBEINGS

The report and draft bylaws consider the four well-beings through an overarching purpose.

a) Meet Legislation Requirements

Proactively meet all Council’s statutory requirements relating to the provision of three waters services.

b) Integrated Approach

c) Environmental Responsibilities

d) Sustainable Practices

e) Support Sustainable Growth

Support the sustainable provision of three waters infrastructure to enable future growth while minimising impacts on the environment.

f) Achieve Project Thrive Values

Develop and implement the Three Waters Bylaws to give effect to ‘Project Thrive’ values in particular trust, honesty, respect, innovation, and valuing people.

g) Te Mana o te Wai

h) Tangata Whenua Status

Recognise the status of tangata whenua status as kaitiaki.

i) Durable Infrastructure

Develop and maintain durable and resilient infrastructure that achieves Council’s levels of service in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

j) Safety and Health

Ensure the protection, safety and health of Council staff and the community when using or operating the water supply system, and the wastewater and stormwater networks.

k) Obligations

Define the obligations of residential occupiers and businesses including trade waste occupiers and the public at large in relation to the Council’s water supply, wastewater and stormwater networks.

l) Discharge Controls

Regulate wastewater and stormwater discharges, including trade waste, and hazardous substances, into the wastewater and stormwater networks.

m) Equitable Costs

Provide a system for the equitable share of Council’s water services costs between trade waste dischargers, other businesses, and domestic customers.

DELEGATIONS OR AUTHORITY

This bylaw review triggers significance and engagement and required Council to resolve to take the bylaws out for consultation.

SIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter was assessed as significant and consequently community consultation was undertaken.

This consultation process was undertaken concurrently with the Long Term Plan process.

OPTIONS Analysis

Option 1 – to adopt the bylaw with minor changes and endorse the approach to capital contribution recovery as outlined in the Revenue and Financing Policy and Fees and Charges.

Option 2 – to reject the bylaw and provide guidance to officers on further changes

	Option 1 To adopt the bylaw with minor changes and endorse the approach to capital contribution recovery as outlined in the Revenue and Financing Policy and Fees and Charges.	Option 2 To reject the bylaw and provide guidance to officers on further changes
Financial and Operational Implications	Aligned with the modelled financial and operational assumptions	Would add short term work operationally and financially, would delay the capital recovery and impact rating assumptions in the LTP
Long Term Plan and Annual Plan Implications	Aligns with LTP approach	Does not align with LTP approach
Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes	Factors in engagement feedback and is a rounded approach to community outcomes	Does not align with engagement feedback
Statutory Requirements	Meets statutory requirements	May not meet statutory requirements – dependant on the next steps and guidance.
Consistency with Policies and Plans	Consistent with bylaw review and LGA requirements	Not consistent bylaw review intention

Recommended Option

This report recommends Option 1 – to adopt the bylaw with minor changes and endorse the approach to capital contribution recovery as outlined in the Revenue and Financing Policy and Fees and Charges for addressing the matter.

NEXT STEPS

RECOMMENDATION

a) That council adopt the draft 2021 Trade Waste Bylaw with minor changes as presented.

c) That council endorse the approach to phase or stage the recovery of capital contribution towards 100% within four years as set out in the revenue and financing policy.

d) That Council note that industry paying for their share of capital contribution relevant to the cost of discharging was the communities preferred outcome.

e) That the submitters are thanked for their comments, which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to submitters.

Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

7.5 Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Draft Deliberations Report: Challenge 2 - Funding Replacement of our Assets

File Number: COUI - 1400

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

Authoriser: Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments: Nil

PURPOSE

The matter for consideration by the Council is to consider consultation feedback related to Challenge # 2 – ‘Funding the Replacement of our Assets’ received through the Long Term Plan process - The Funding for Replacement of Our Assets.

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That Council adopt Option 1 as set out in the Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 for Challenge 2. To debt fund in the short term to deliver essential renewals and upgrades to our drinking water, wastewater and stormwater assets.

b) That the submitters are thanked for their comments, which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to submitters.

BACKGROUND

Submissions on the topic were received by:

1 - Zara Mackey	74 - Callum Slavin	147 - Elliot Peacock
2 - Hayley Webster	75 - Jo-Ann Hardwick-Smith	148 - Gerard Pain
3 - Jehoshaa Monegro	76 - Tina Keeling	149 - Ian Franklin
4 - Jemma Nesbit	77 - Maria Lincoln	150 - James Parsons
5 - Celine Swanepoel	78 - William Irving Peacock	151 - Sjoerd Gorter
6 - Courtney Green	79 - David Lewis	152 - Andrea Thomson
7 - Ben Waugh	80 - Renee O'Sullivan	153 - Sue McLeod
8 - Ihipera Rua	81 - Gina Prosser	154 - Warren Bayliss & Cecylia Rymarczyk
9 - Greta Minehan	82 - Lyn Horspool	156 - Alan Keate
10 - Sinead Galloway	83 - L Guy and R Bell	157 - Phillip Knight
11 - Danielle Hemi	84 - Jacqueline Tukotahi Rapana	158 - Graeme J E Pedersen & Kathleen A Pedersen
12 - Rita Simiona	85 - Noel Pederson	159 - Daniel & Heidi Repko
13 - Lydia Bucknell	86 - Robin Horder	160 - Jesse Palmer
15 - Ollie Wichman	87 - Meg Mackenzie	161 - Kingston
16 - Eden Lambert	88 - Jan Wroe	162 - Haamiora Nukunuku
17 - Mitchell Thompson	89 - Baty	163 - Zoey
18 - Amalia Stevenson	90 - Sally Harding	164 - Rapata Te Pania
19 - Graeme Perry	91 - Sandra Fleming	165 - Bob Kerins
20 - Jackson Baylis	93 - V Leach	167 - Terry Hare
21 - Emma Giddens	94 - DE and HM Whitney	168 - Heather-Anne Tidey
22 - Emma Thomsen	95 - Brian and Marion Peterson	169 - Dora Player
23 - Ramona Lively-Masters	96 - Jude Grant	170 - Robert McLean
24 - Haylee Gray	97 - Lisa	171 - Neil Bayliss
25 - Isaac Marshall	98 - Penny Single	173 - Tony Robson
26 - Blair Hamilton	99 - Barry Middleton	174 - Louise Field
27 - Warren	100 - Melissa Price	175 - Lynnette Dewes
28 - Daniel	101 - AK Hansen	176 - Vicky Harding
29 - Stuart William Davies	102 - Ben Douglas	177 - Miriam Howarth
30 - Warwick Greville	103 - Mike Harrison	178 - Graham McHardy
31 - Helen Burgin	104 - Serena Ann Spencer	179 - Simone Tang
32 - Wendy Milne	105 - Rebecca Jane Watt	181 - Kathryn Bayliss
33 - Erina Sciascia-Bland	106 - Jacqueline Naylor	183 - Charles M Nairn
34 - Ruth and Bruce Parker	107 - Shona Thompson	184 - Murray Howarth
35 - Benjamin Hall	108 - Patricia Ann Price	185 - Andrea Mooney
36 - Gordon O'Neale	109 - James Pretty	186 - Dean Hyde
37 - Chrissy Malcolm	110 - Nikau Hill Station	187 - Rea Arona
38 - JT and LD Jansen	111 - Danielle O'Shaughnessy	188 - Ross and Margaret Munro
39 - Nathan Mckenzie	112 - Vaughn Thomson	190 - Adam Allington
40 - David Dicks	113 - Tim Gilbertson	191 - Jackie Scannell
41 - Jessica Draper	114 - Shona Crooks	192 - Tania Arona
42 - Peter Seligman	115 - Patricia Sellers	193 - S Johnston
43 - Hayden Berryman	116 - Peter Robson	194 - Rachel Hornblow
44 - Bruce McGechan	117 - Maurice Groot	195 - A M Banks
45 - Kaye Harrison	118 - David Bane	196 - Jenny and Tony Feather
46 - Sandy Gilbert	119 - Reuben George	197 - Bill Hale
47 - Ben Clist	120 - Aimee Congreve	198 - Geert Gelling
48 - Bob Alkema	122 - David Bishop	199 - Sara and Stephen Ellis
49 - Christopher Bath	123 - Deborah Mason	200 - Peter and Viv Paton
50 - Peter Watson (1)	124 - Donna Hossack	201 - Robbie Christiansen
51 - Peter Watson (2)	125 - Di Petersen	202 - Tracy and Andrew Gay
52 - Rex Pickering	126 - Lorelei Hennessy	206 - James Leigh
53 - Robyn McLeod	127 - Teresa Makris	207 - Benita
54 - David Taylor	128 - Wendy Gough	209 - Nicole Ellison
55 - Gary Leach	129 - Peter Hallagan	210 - Marti Eller, Gillian Eller, Mark Eller
56 - Tim Witton	130 - Sue Kaan	211 - Clint Deckard
57 - Stephen Thomas	131 - Betina Barber	212 - Karen Olsen-Mills
59 - Elaine Helen Guthrie	132 - J & D Curtice	213 - Alice Bellamy
61 - Jamara Dhull	133 - Catherine Pedersen & Tony Ward	214 - Lathan Wroe
62 - Emma Mason-Smith	134 - Nic & Karen Bedogni	217 - Sarah Giddens and Espen Kristensen
63 - Marcia Mackrell	135 - Peter Missen & Wendy Yambaki	218 - Elsa Ironside
64 - Sean Jackson Power	136 - Jim Burne	220 - John Kyle
65 - Liam Worsford	137 - Lorraine Watson	221 - Graeme and Margaret Black
66 - Kevin Rowell	138 - Martin Lord	222 - Owen Spotswood
67 - Leslie Peni	139 - Frances & Stephen Ulyatt	223 - Terry Kingston
68 - Glenda Houston	140 - Cornelia van Falier	226 - Trish Giddens
69 - Ron King	141 - Keri Rophia	227 - David William Cooke
70 - Stacey Thomas	142 - Forrest Ropiha	228 - Diana Hollis
71 - Marjon Greenwood	143 - Ray Turnbull	229 - Anne Wallace
72 - Ian Hawkes	145 - Donna Dahm	230 - D J Williams
73 - Valerie Norris	146 - Phyllis Tichinin

Summary of Submissions:

How we fund replacement of our assets was one of the key challenges the council has sought public feedback on as part of the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan process. In total Council received 209 submissions on this consultation topic.

Analysis:

Of the total 209 submissions received referencing Challenge 2, there was overwhelming support for Councils preferred option, Option 1. The chart below illustrates the level of support for each of the 3 options between the 209 submitters.

The sections below break down the feedback received from submitters into key themes/topics. Some submitters gave feedback that has been grouped under more than one ‘topic’ so the number of submitters on each of the topics below may sum to more than the total 209 submitters who gave feedback on Challenge 2.

Topic 1 – Support for Option 1

196 submitters supported option 1 – to debt fund in the short term to deliver essential renewals and upgrades to our drinking water, wastewater and stormwater assets. Some of the key matters raised by submitters in support of this option included:

● That existing ratepayers are bearing the brunt of underinvestment in infrastructure by previous councils and are seeing a significant increase in rates because of this.

● That the rates increase will cause financial hardship on some ratepayers.

● That although it is going to be costly, it is the right thing to do and it is agreed that the work needs to be done.

● That debt funding in the short term is the right thing to do, taking advantage of lower interest rates from the government.

● That if the council were to introduce the district wide rate, that it would set a precedent for future funding which submitters were concerned about.

● That it would be difficult for pensioners living on fixed incomes to be able to pay for rates increases.

The following comments were made by submitters in support of Option 1.

122 – David Bishop: My views: a. Given that new infrastructure has a life term closer to 100 years, I would like to see the total package of infrastructure upgrade costed over 100 years, with a per annum cost put forward for ‘sharing’ amongst ratepayers. b. Also, Government has long term low interest loans that should be acquired to fit this type of package. c. This concept should then be costed for at least for the next 15-year term of implementations. This concept of 100-year life term for infrastructure, costed initially for the next 15 year term, needs to be presented as an option to the ratepayers. Feedback on draft LTP: With the total package of infrastructure upgrade costed over 100 years, using Government low interest loans, the ‘debt funding’ [Council’s preferred Option1] approach appears eminently workable to kick start the implementation programme.

177 – Miriam Howarth: Debt funding is 'cheaper' at the moment with low interest rates and will also spread the expense over current and future rate payers.

183 – Charles M Nairn: Some debt could be involved, but we just have to get on and do it.

186 – Dean Hyde: I support what is proposed in the Plan and would like to specifically comment on the following:-The proposed method of debt funding in part will enable our community to replace and upgrade failing infrastructure in a timely manner.

201 – Robbie Christiansen: Use current low interest rates.

59 – Elaine Helen Guthrie: I am supportive of the upgrade, definitely at low interest could debt fund in the short term.

102 – Ben Douglas: May as well make the most of low interest rates and central government post-covid funding opportunities.

114 – Shona Crooks: It is very important for this work to be carried out and debt funding seems the best choice.

44 – Bruce McGechan: Option 1 in my opinion is the only real method and the fairest.

48 – Bob Alkema: Unless the improvement plans and contracts are already in place and ready to go to the market there will be a ramping up period -suggest this gets reflected in the initial three-year period of rates increases alongside the longer implementation period suggested above.

49 – Christopher Bath: Rates increases are already significant therefore Option 2 is a non starter.

72 – Ian Hawkes: Good option as many ratepayers are on limited incomes, pensioners who don’t have the previous higher interest rates to supplement their pension. Try to get Govt to increase rates rebates limits, haven’t changed for a long time.

175 – Lynette Dewes: option 1 as long as the rates are not put out of reach to single income families and pensioners.

190 - Adam Allington: it is too late makes sense from a service perspective. Increase in rates should be reflected earlier to reflect the true cost and borne by those who receive the benefit. It also reduces risk of exposure to rates increases in the cost of borrowing.

Officers Response:

The comments provided indicate strong support for both the need to complete proposed works on infrastructure and also to debt fund the work to spread the financial impact overtime and to take advantage of perceived cheap debt at present.

Officers agree with the comments made and this is the basis for this option being the preferred option through the LTP. Financial and Infrastructure modelling have identified the need for work and also the benefits of debt funding.

Topic 2 – Support for Option 2

9 submitters supported option 2 – to fund essential renewals and upgrades through rates alone - resulting in significant rates increases. There were no key matters raised in submissions on option 2 with all submitters in support of this option simply ticking the box rather than providing any additional written feedback.

Officers Response:

As there is no written feedback in support of this option it is difficult to add further comment other than to express that this is not Officers preferred option as although it will still see necessary works on assets completed, it will be largely unaffordable to many parts of the community, especially those on low and/or fixed incomes.

Topic 3 – Support for Option 3

4 submitters supported option 3 to continue to defer renewals and upgrades (status quo). There were no key matters raised in submissions on option 2 with all submitters in support of this option simply ticking the box rather than providing any additional written feedback.

Officers Response:

As there is no written feedback in support of this option it is difficult to add further comment other than to express that this is Officers least preferred option. This option is the least preferred as it will directly result in very high risk to Council assets and therefor levels of service and the environment. Maintaining status quo levels of renewals will see a continued decline in asset condition and performance and will place Council at a high likelihood of breaching level of service targets and legislative/compliance requirements.

Topic 4 – Appreciating the financial burden

15 submitters made specific mention of the need to understand and appreciate the financial burden that can or will be placed on ratepayers now and in future generations.

The following comments were made by submitters in respect of this topic.

101 - AK Hansen: Please also bear in mind the water pipes within private property are as old as what you are needing to replace roadside. This is a homeowner responsibility that we also have to cover the cost of: we are well aware pipes are old and need replacing because they are failing from the gate to tap as well. Also look at water pressure and the impact this has on the durability of pipes/connections.

113 - Tim Gilbertson: Apply to HBRC and Central government for funds. If they can invest spend $million on the racing industry and $50 million on dead people in coal mines they can affords to invest the provincial infrastructure

118 - David Bane: It is tragic that council has not had the foresight to plan its core services ahead and avoid such a maintenance debt. Proposed rate increases will cause hardship for many.

148 - Gerard Pain: Rates already unaffordable

159 - Daniel & Heidi Repko: Based on the Councils preferred options in the 10-year plan, our rates will more than double in 10 years (from $3500 to $7600). As pensioners on a mostly fixed income there is no way I/we will be able to pay for that. It will probably mean we will have to sell and move elsewhere. We are dreading this. In can see the Councils dilemma, but that doesn't make it acceptable to us. Re the waste-water upgrade; We feel obliged to choose option 1, however can't that be spread over a longer period e.g. 20-25 years? Furthermore, a number of years ago we were convinced by the then Council the water treatment plant(s) we currently have was the way to go. Now we know we were sold a lemon e.g. incompetent decision making. How do we know that this time around the same isn't going to happen again? (Sorry to be so blunt)

165 - Bob Kerins: My question on this is where did the years and years of rate payers funds go if i wasn’t spent correctly on infrastructure etc? It must have been spent somewhere else if there’s nothing left in the kitty now, I would propose enquiring into how much property and capital were purchased by the CHB council during this long period and suggest that it would only be fair to CHB residents to sell these properties as part payment for the water debacle we are currently facing, Look forward to your thoughts on this.

122 - David Bishop: My views: a. Given that new infrastructure has a life term closer to 100 years, I would like to see the total package of infrastructure upgrade costed over 100 years, with a per annum cost put forward for ‘sharing’ amongst ratepayers. b. Also, Government has long term low interest loans that should be acquired to fit this type of package. c. This concept should then be costed for at least for the next 15-year term of implementations. This concept of 100-year life term for infrastructure, costed initially for the next 15 year term, needs to be presented as an option to the ratepayers. Feedback on draft LTP: With the total package of infrastructure upgrade costed over 100 years, using Government low interest loans, the ‘debt funding’ [Council’s preferred Option1] approach appears eminently workable to kick start the implementation programme.

175 - Lynnette Dewes: option 1 as long as the rates are not put out of reach to single income families and pensioners.

Officers Response:

The comments above are reflective of much of what has been shared by the wider engagement process. They show in general a broad support for the required work but make specific mention of the affordability challenges faced by many residents that must be at the forefront of decision making.

Officers consider that the preferred option (option 1) provides the best balance between meeting infrastructure needs and affordability. Many (most) of those who have made comments about financial affordability have also shown favour/support for option 1.

Officers do not consider based on the feedback that fundamental change is required in the preferred option but that every effort must continue to be made to ease financial pressures through effective infrastructure planning, good financial policy and practice and continued targeting of external funding sources.

Topic 5 – General/Other feedback

A small number of submitters provided general comments about water infrastructure.

The following comments were made by submitters in respect of this topic.

197 - Bill Hale: provision for a doubling of our population could guide infrastructure renewal decisions and protect future generations

124 - Donna Hossack: Tiffen Lane residents have terrible water pressure and substandard piping. If our rates go up because of these infrastructure needs, then will our pipes be included in the upgrade? Alternatively, is it time to discuss with the residents affected (all three of us) about potentially taking us off town supply and installing water tanks? Water tank installs would be a big investment and potentially not feasible or affordable but it may be worth discussing.

Officers Response:

The above feedback is being passed on to operational teams with specific matters being dealt with.

It is further noted that there were some submissions received where the submitter was not clear if they would be receiving rates increases due to them not being connected to reticulated water or wastewater services. Officers are engaging directly with these submitters (2) to provide necessary clarity.

RISK ASSESSMENT and mitigation

Submitters have voiced support and concern over the options presented. This section highlights risks that have been noted with the presented options.

Option 1 Risks:

Risks considered for Option 1 relate primarily to affordability challenges and confidence in asset management planning and infrastructure decision making. The affordability risks are to ratepayers not to Council. Council has the means confirmed through its Financial Strategy to service debt and complete the programme of work outlined in the Infrastructure Strategy and LTP. The noted risk to ratepayers is an inability for those on low or fixed incomes to afford rate increases to meet the programme of work. Officers consider that all steps possible are being taken or are signalled/planned to manage the unaffordability risk to ratepayers. Debt funding spreads the cost over time and continued targeting of external funding will lessen the overall burden on ratepayers.

Option 2 Risks:

The fundamental risk with Option 2 is a heightened unaffordability risk as described above for Option 1. Option 2 will see a greater and more immediate impact on ratepayers to fund the proposed programme of infrastructure upgrades. There is risk that affordability issues will become severe resulting in an inability of some ratepayers to meet payments. Officers consider that this risk is high and that there is no effective and practical means of mitigating the risk without avoiding it by spreading the impact over a longer period of time or not doing the planned work.

Option 3 Risks:

This option avoids the risk of rate increases and affordability challenges (beyond those that may already exist) and transfers the risk squarely onto the asset base. The risk of this option is that low levels of investment in the assets, particularly water assets, will cause a detrimental deterioration of asset condition and performance. By not investing in replacements of old and tired assets Council is accepting a lower level of service for ratepayers and potentially an inability to meet compliance standards that are forecast only to increase. Officers consider that there is unlikely to be anything that could substantially mitigate this risk but that efforts to further prioritise work, to seek out further efficiencies and to work with regulators would go some way to lowering the risk.

FOUR WELLBEINGS

	Cultural	Economic	Social	Environmental
Option 1	These options will both see significant improvements in infrastructure with a focus on 3 waters assets. A direct result will be improved pipe and treatment networks which will improve the health of our wai and whenua. These options also provide for increased investment in open spaces and reserves to protect and enhance our place.	This option sees the lowest economic impact on ratepayers while still ensuring necessary work on assets is completed. Completing the works is also seen as critical to ensuring the future economic vitality and growth of the District as outlined in the Integrated Spatial Plan and Infrastructure Strategy.	This option spreads the costs of intergenerational infrastructure across current and future generations. This option embodies a social responsibility element with those who will benefit from infrastructure over a longer time paying for it. This option will ensure infrastructure is built and maintained to enable growth, prosperity and community/social wellbeing as related to infrastructure.	These options will see wastewater and Stormwater pipes significantly upgraded directly enhancing environmental outcomes. Reducing the likelihood of wastewater pipe failure, overflows and surcharges will ensure waste does not enter the environment.
Option 2		This option places economic burden on ratepayers but will still see necessary works completed. This option will ensure work is completed to allow for growth and prosperity of the District.	This option will ensure infrastructure is built and maintained to enable growth, prosperity and community/social wellbeing as related to infrastructure.
Option 3	This option does not afford for upgrades in infrastructure networks.	This option avoids any immediate or short term economic burden on ratepayers. It will see necessary work go uncompleted however putting core infrastructure and services at risk that will hinder the prosperity and growth of the District.	This option will see assets degrade which may have an impact on communities and social wellbeing. Contrastingly there has been some feedback (limited) received in favour of this option as it is the cheapest and will not place financial strain on our communities which could have positive social outcomes.	This option will see assets degrade and critically wastewater and Stormwater assets that have a direct impact on the environment.

Delegations or authority

The recommendations of this report require Council approval via resolution through the Long Term Plan process.

sIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

OPTIONS Analysis

The financial implications of the various options are discussed in detail in the Long Term Plan and Financial and Infrastructure Strategies and are summarised in the Consultation Document.

	Option 1 To debt fund in the short term to deliver essential renewals and upgrades to our drinking water, wastewater and stormwater assets	Option 2 To fund essential renewals and upgrades through rates alone - resulting in significant rates increases	Option 3 To continue to defer renewals and upgrades (status quo)
Financial and Operational Implications	Debt can be drawn down quickly to allow works to proceed. Operationally works are able to be delivered as per the LTP within existing structures.	Financial modelling for rates impacts if debt is not used has been completed and rates can be reset to these higher levels. Operationally works are able to be delivered as per the LTP within existing structures.	There are no financial implications of this option. Operationally works will not commence beyond what is already occurring. Operationally there will be impacts on maintenance programmes and the volume of reactive work as assets continue to degrade and fail.
Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes	Strong community support for this option in completing necessary works and spreading costs as best possible. Will allow for asset upgrades to ensure community vitality and levels of service to continue.	Limited community support for this option as it will see necessary works completed but in a potentially unaffordable way for many ratepayers.	Very limited community support for this option as it will see necessary works not completed which will have direct impacts on community outcomes. It will however come at no increase in cost to community.
Statutory Requirements	This option is significant and requires consultation. This option will ensure that council continues to meet its current future compliance requirements for waters infrastructure.	This option is significant and requires consultation. This option will ensure that council continues to meet its current future compliance requirements for waters infrastructure.	This option is not significant and does not require consultation. This option will mean council are at extreme risk of breaching compliance requirements for waters infrastructure.
Consistency with Policies and Plans	This option is consistent with the Infrastructure Strategy and Financial Strategy as well as relevant asset management plans and the asset management policy.	This option is consistent with the Infrastructure Strategy but not the Financial Strategy. It is consistent with relevant asset management plans and the asset management policy.	This option is not consistent with the Infrastructure Strategy and Financial Strategy or relevant asset management plans and the asset management policy.

Recommended Option

This report recommends Option 1, To debt fund in the short term to deliver essential renewals and upgrades to our drinking water, wastewater and stormwater assets for addressing the matter.

NEXT STEPS

Following adoption of any option, Officers will commence with delivering the appropriate programme of infrastructure works and implementing the mandated financial approach.

RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That Council adopt Option 1 as set out in the Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 for Challenge 2, To debt fund in the short term to deliver essential renewals and upgrades to our drinking water, wastewater and stormwater assets.

b) That the submitters are thanked for their comments, which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to submitters.

Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

7.6 Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Draft Deliberations Report: Challenge 3 - Creating a Waste Free CHB

File Number: COUI - 1400

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

Authoriser: Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments: Nil

PURPOSE

The matter for consideration by the Council is the LTP deliberations with respect to Challenge 3 and a Waste Free CHB.

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That Council adopt Option 1 as set out in the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 for Challenge 3, specifically that Council selects the following service delivery approach for Solid Waste:

1. Extend the recycling and rubbish service at an increase of $42,000 per year, and

2. Introduce a wheeled bin refuse service in year 3, and

3. Introduce a 3 crate system for recycling, and

4. Close the drop off centres in Otane, Takapau, Tikokino and Ongaonga and the create a targeted rural recycling scheme.

b) That the submitters are thanked for their comments, which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to submitters.

BACKGROUND

Submissions on the topic were received by:

1 - Zara Mackey	74 - Callum Slavin	148 - Gerard Pain
2 - Hayley Webster	75 - Jo-Ann Hardwick-Smith	149 - Ian Franklin
3 - Jehoshaa Monegro	76 - Tina Keeling	150 - James Parsons
4 - Jemma Nesbit	77 - Maria Lincoln	151 - Sjoerd Gorter
5 - Celine Swanepoel	78 - William Irving Peacock	152 - Andrea Thomson
6 - Courtney Green	79 - David Lewis	153 - Sue McLeod
7 - Ben Waugh	80 - Renee O'Sullivan	154 - Warren Bayliss & Cecylia Rymarczyk
8 - Ihipera Rua	81 - Gina Prosser	156 - Alan Keate
9 - Greta Minehan	82 - Lyn Horspool	157 - Phillip Knight
10 - Sinead Galloway	83 - L Guy and R Bell	158 - Graeme J E Pedersen & Kathleen A Pedersen
11 - Danielle Hemi	84 - Jacqueline Tukotahi Rapana	159 - Daniel & Heidi Repko
12 - Rita Simiona	85 - Noel Pederson	160 - Jesse Palmer
13 - Lydia Bucknell	86 - Robin Horder	161 - Kingston
14 - Lachie Kirk	87 - Meg Mackenzie	162 - Haamiora Nukunuku
15 - Ollie Wichman	88 - Jan Wroe	163 - Zoey
16 - Eden Lambert	89 - Baty	164 - Rapata Te Pania
17 - Mitchell Thompson	91 - Sandra Fleming	165 - Bob Kerins
18 - Amalia Stevenson	92 - Jensen	166 - Kristin Yoldash
19 - Graeme Perry	93 - V Leach	167 - Terry Hare
20 - Jackson Baylis	94 - DE and HM Whitney	168 - Heather-Anne Tidey
21 - Emma Giddens	96 - Jude Grant	169 - Dora Player
22 - Emma Thomsen	97 - Lisa	171 - Neil Bayliss
23 - Ramona Lively-Masters	98 - Penny Single	173 - Tony Robson
24 - Haylee Gray	99 - Barry Middleton	174 - Louise Field
25 - Isaac Marshall	100 - Melissa Price	175 - Lynnette Dewes
26 - Blair Hamilton	101 - AK Hansen	176 - Vicky Harding
27 - Warren	102 - Ben Douglas	178 - Graham McHardy
29 - Stuart William Davies	103 - Mike Harrison	179 - Simone Tang
31 - Helen Burgin	105 - Rebecca Jane Watt	181 - Kathryn Bayliss
32 - Wendy Milne	106 - Jacqueline Naylor	182 - Kirsty Taiaroa
33 - Erina Sciascia-Bland	107 - Shona Thompson	183 - Charles M Nairn
34 - Ruth and Bruce Parker	108 - Patricia Ann Price	184 - Murray Howarth
35 - Benjamin Hall	109 - James Pretty	185 - Andrea Mooney
36 - Gordon O'Neale	110 - Nikau Hill Station	186 - Dean Hyde
37 - Chrissy Malcolm	111 - Danielle O'Shaughnessy	188 - Ross and Margaret Munro
38 - JT and LD Jansen	112 - Vaughn Thomson	189 - Jensen
39 - Nathan Mckenzie	114 - Shona Crooks	190 - Adam Allington
40 - David Dicks	115 - Patricia Sellers	191 - Jackie Scannell
41 - Jessica Draper	116 - Peter Robson	192 - Tania Arona
42 - Peter Seligman	117 - Maurice Groot	193 - S Johnston
44 - Bruce McGechan	118 - David Bane	194 - Rachel Hornblow
45 - Kaye Harrison	119 - Reuben George	195 - A M Banks
46 - Sandy Gilbert	120 - Aimee Congreve	196 - Jenny and Tony Feather
47 - Ben Clist	122 - David Bishop	197 - Bill Hale
48 - Bob Alkema	123 - Deborah Mason	198 - Geert Gelling
49 - Christopher Bath	124 - Donna Hossack	199 - Sara and Stephen Ellis
50 - Peter Watson (1)	125 - Di Petersen	200 - Peter and Viv Paton
51 - Peter Watson (2)	126 - Lorelei Hennessy	201 - Robbie Christiansen
52 - Rex Pickering	127 - Teresa Makris	206 - James Leigh
53 - Robyn McLeod	128 - Wendy Gough	207 - Benita
54 - David Taylor	129 - Peter Hallagan	209 - Nicole Ellison
55 - Gary Leach	130 - Sue Kaan	210 - Marti Eller, Gillian Eller, Mark Eller
56 - Tim Witton	131 - Betina Barber	211 - Clint Deckard
57 - Stephen Thomas	132 - J & D Curtice	212 - Karen Olsen-Mills
59 - Elaine Helen Guthrie	133 - Catherine Pedersen & Tony Ward	213 - Alice Bellamy
60 - Chad Bauer	134 - Nic & Karen Bedogni	214 - Lathan Wroe
61 - Jamara Dhull	135 - Peter Missen & Wendy Yambaki	215 - Forest and Bird
62 - Emma Mason-Smith	136 - Jim Burne	217 - Sarah Giddens and Espen Kristensen
63 - Marcia Mackrell	137 - Lorraine Watson	220 - John Kyle
64 - Sean Jackson Power	138 - Martin Lord	222 - Owen Spotswood
65 - Liam Worsford	139 - Frances & Stephen Ulyatt	223 - Terry Kingston
66 - Kevin Rowell	140 - Cornelia van Falier	224 - Mike Shivnan
68 - Glenda Houston	141 - Keri Rophia	226 - Trish Giddens
69 - Ron King	142 - Forrest Ropiha	228 - Diana Hollis
70 - Stacey Thomas	143 - Ray Turnbull	229 - Anne Wallace
71 - Marjon Greenwood	145 - Donna Dahm	230 - D J Williams
72 - Ian Hawkes	146 - Phyllis Tichinin
73 - Valerie Norris	147 - Elliot Peacock

Summary of Submissions:

Council has sought public feedback on Challenge 3 as part of the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan process. In total Council received 202 submissions on this consultation topic, which provided two options:

· Option 1 – Extend the recycling and rubbish service at a small cost.

· Option 2 – No change to rubbish and recycling service (status quo)

Further to the two options, submitters were also asked to provide their views on collection methods with choices made available for wheelie bins, bags or crates as well as kerbside collection for recycling or the continued use of drop off centres in some townships.

Analysis:

Of the total 202 submissions received referencing Challenge 3, there was significant support for Councils preferred option, Option 1. The chart below illustrates the level of support for the two options between the 202 submitters.

The sections below provide a breakdown of the key areas that are associated to Challenge 3 to allow for further insight on what submitters value when it comes to refuse and recycling.

Topic 1 – Support for Option 1

135 submitters supported option 1 – to extend the recycling and rubbish service. Only a very small amount of written feedback was provided to support the option directly with the majority of comments referencing other specific issues and options for recycling. These are largely covered in a separate report for the wider Solid Waste Activity.

Below is feedback raised by a submitter in support of this option:

· Dean Hyde – “The proposals to improve kerbside recycling in respect to both the three-crate option and extending the service to Takapau, Otane, Ongaonga and Tikokino are particularly noteworthy. I am however not convinced that the provision for wheelie bins for refuse collection will encourage waste reduction and therefore diminish what goes to landfill. Therefore, I oppose the potential change from the current Council Rubbish Bag system”.

Officers Response:

Officers have interpreted the above feedback, the number of ‘ticks’ for Option 1 and wider comments made by submitters about recycling to inform this response. The strong support for Option 1 (67% or 135 out of 202 responses) is aligned with feedback received from the community over the last 3 years about desire for change in refuse and recycling services.

Further in this report is more detailed feedback about the nature of extended services provided and the choice between collection options.

Officers are in support of the changes proposed under Option 1 based on analysis completed through 2020 as part of the Section 17a Review and based on the strong showing of support for the option through this engagement process.

Topic 2 – Support of Option 2

67 submitters supported option 2 – no change to rubbish and recycling services (status quo). Only a very small amount of written feedback was provided to support the option directly with the majority of comments referencing other specific issues and options for recycling. These are largely covered in a separate report for the wider Solid Waste Activity.

Below is feedback raised by a submitter in support of this option:

· Shelly Burne Field – “I agree with keeping the Status Quo regarding recycling and waste – community partnerships and external funding can take care of any increase in service level later.

Officers Response:

Officers have interpreted the above feedback, the number of ‘ticks’ for Option 2 and wider comments made by submitters about recycling to inform this response. The moderate support for Option 2 (33% or 67 out of 202 responses) is contrasting to the majority of feedback received over the past 3-year period about changes required to service delivery options for refuse and recycling. Over the past 3 years and through the Section 17a Review in 2020, Council became increasingly aware of a need to expand and improve services in order to meet targets of the WMMP and the wider objectives of Waste Free CHB.

The very limited feedback provided limited clarity on exactly what aspects of the change proposal were not supported which makes further analysis now difficult. Officers consider that many may be in support of some change but do not want disruption to services.

The above direct feedback suggests that change can come later and potentially be completed by community groups or with external funding support. Officers have considered staging changes to services and this is reflected in the preferred option of introducing a wheeled bin for refuse at year 3.

Based on the responses Officers advise progressing with Option 1 but continuing to work closely with communities about the detailed nature and design of services.

The next three topics provide feedback from submissions about the detailed nature of service delivery. They do not directly influence the decision about Option 1 or Option 2 but can inform what service delivery change under Option 2 will look like.

Topic 3 – Refuse: Wheelie Bin vs Bags

Submitters were asked about their preference for refuse collection between the current bag service or a 120L wheeled bin. The consultation process specifically referenced the option of a wheelie bin service for refuse commencing in year 3. The deferred roll out of the wheelie bin service was planned in order to:

· Minimise disruption to ratepayers by introducing change in a staged fashion

· Allow Council and contractors time to adequately prepare for service delivery change

· Allow Council and contractors time to further enhance education and engagement initiatives in order to minimise total waste to landfill

63% of submitters indicated their preferred option for Refuse collection was a wheelie bin whilst 37% supported the continued use of bags for Refuse collection.

Below is feedback raised by submitters in support of the wheelie bin – refuse collection option:

· Jessica Draper – “Wheelie bins all the way – will be easier for residents but will also keep pests and pets out of it”.

· Neen Kennedy / Sustainable Ewe – “I strongly agree with the wheelie bin option, this reduces instances of animals tearing into bags and is an overall more sustainable option”.

Below is some of feedback raised by the submitters in support of bags for the refuse collection option:

· Christopher Bath - “From my observation is that the greater majority of households produce only one rubbish bag per house. A wheelie bin is overkill, likely resulting in rubbish that is prohibited or usually paid for being mixed in”.

· Emma Mason-Smith – “The reason I feel bags shouldn’t change is that it worries me that people will throw so much more waste into the landfill if we have wheelie bins”.

· Forest and Bird – “The introduction of ‘wheelie bins’ for refuse rubbish collection will almost certainly increase the amount of recyclable material, and material in general, going to landfill”.

Officers Response:

There is strong support for a wheeled bin option which is aligned with feedback captured over the past 3 years, through the Section 17a Review process and through the wider LTP consultation and engagement piece. Officers contribute that there are also known efficiency savings and safety benefits from a wheeled bin service.

Officers are aware of concerns of people ‘dumping more’ if a wheeled bin option is introduced and this is a common concern that in some cases can be accurate and has been evidenced in other districts. Officers believe there are effective means to manage volumes of waste with a Wheeled Bin service including appropriate sizing of bins, incentivising recycling, re-use and reduction practices and controlling what can and cannot be dumped in a bin. Through oral submissions/hearings, Council heard feedback about options to introduce ‘tag’ systems whereby bins would only be put out by residents when full on a user-pays basis. This would have the potential to incentivise waste minimisation and reducing volumes of waste put to the kerbside and landfill. Officers have investigated these options by working with other Councils that have introduced similar approaches. The images below show Auckland City Council’s tag system.

The introduction of the wheeled bin service at year 3 will allow further time to confirm the detailed aspects of the service delivery change including the potential for a tag system or other incentives. The option of introducing the bin service at year 1 was spoken to during oral submissions. Officers have further investigated this option and have received advice that the practicalities of rolling this out now would be challenging given the plant and equipment required and current long wait-lists particularly on the production of rolling plant.

Based on the feedback received and the options available to educate and reduce waste through incentives, Officers support the introduction of wheeled bins at year 3 for refuse collection with further detail to be confirmed about incentives.

Topic 4 – Recycling: Wheelie bin (+ 1 crate) vs 3 Crates

Submitters were asked about their preference for kerbside recycling collection method with choices between a 3 crate service or a service with a 120L wheeled bin for co-mingle products and a single crate for glass.

41% of submitters supported the option of a wheelie bin (+ 1 crate) for recycling collection.

59% of submitters supported the 3-crate option for recycling collection.

Some of the matters raised by submitters in support of the wheelie bin (+ 1 crate) – recycling collection option included:

· Rea Arona – “As a pensioner it would be easier for to push a bin rather than carry my bins”.

· Ian Hawkes – “Against recycling crates, wind is a big factor in spreading recycling and empty bins”.

Some of the key matters raised by the submitters in support of 3 crates – recycling collection option included:

· Diana Hollis – “Completely against the use of wheelie bins for rubbish or recycling. People will just put anything in. More rubbish will go to the landfill and recycling will be hard to Police if it’s in a wheelie bin with a lid”.

· Phyllis Tichinin – “Encourage people to buy less and to create less waste. Wheelie bins encourage us to generate more waste”.

· Meg Mackenzie – “From the experience in Napier, having 3 crates makes a big difference. When things are ‘hidden away’ in a wheelie bin, people can get away with putting non-recyclables in the bin again and again. Also, there is more responsibility taken by individual households with the sorting into crates”.

Officers Response:

There is greater support (59%) for a 3-crate system than a wheeled bin system, and this is aligned with the advice of recycling sector experts who promote the effectiveness of the 3-crate system for sorting product at the earliest time possible, reducing contamination and increasing total volumes ultimately recycled.

Officers acknowledge the physical and practical challenges with a 3-crate system particularly for elderly residents and would support working with the community to look at means of transporting and storing crates in homes. Solid Waste staff have started discussions with community members to form a community group that will help assist our elderly or non-able community with getting their crates out for recycling.

Further feedback was received during oral submissions/hearings about the risks and potential mitigations of increased recycling contamination through the introduction of a wheeled bin collection method. It is widely understood that wheeled bin collections for recycling (co-mingle typically) increase contamination rates. This is in conflict with the objectives and intent of Waste Free CHB. Noting the ease of use benefits of the wheeled bin option, Officers have further investigated options to reduce contamination with a wheeled bin service.

Officers reached out to two Councils who have both recently introduced a wheeled bin service for recycling and reported significant increases in contamination rates. Both Councils, Hamilton City and Christchurch City, provided useful information and were able to provide their wins and learnings from the implementation of wheelie bins for recycling. Both Council’s were unable to provide specific contamination rates or measurable data before and after the roll out of the service but offered some of the provisions they have set in place for future success. Both Councils have implemented the ‘three strike’ system through their bylaw for contaminated or non-compliant recycling and also a gold-star scheme to advertise that that are complying (see below).

To increase recycling education, Hamilton City Council employ a bin inspector that checks recycling bins and ensured there was a large presence of Council staff during the roll out to educate residents. Christchurch City Council established a bin auditing programme as well as on-going driver checks during kerbside recycling runs. Central Hawke’s Bay’s current contractor (Smart Environmental) have employed bin inspectors in locations where they use wheeled bins for co-mingle recycling collection also. Their experience is that the bin inspectors coupled with intensive communications campaigns and penalty systems are effective in managing contamination rates but come at a human resource and financial cost.

The consultation documents described the changes as an extension of services at a small cost. This cost has been quantified now with contractors and covers the provision of an enhanced level of service via the 3 crate or wheeled bin system and also the extension to new areas for kerbside collection which is covered in the next topic. The net cost of these increases in service offering is $42,000 per year which will see the solid waste targeted rate increase by 7% or roughly $10 per household.

The timing and detail of implementation will be dependent on the service offering chosen. Both the 3 crate system and the wheeled bin system will require new plant and equipment and in particular new purpose built trucks. There is significant worldwide delay on the production of suitable trucks at the moment due to global pressures. Any new trucks are not expected to be able to be available in New Zealand until January 2022. The 3 crate system is deliverable in the interim without the need for new trucks and can become effective 2 months after any decision is made (allowing time for the delivery of crates).

Based on the above, Officers support the 3-crate approach believing it will provide the best outcomes in alignment with WMMP and Waste Free CHB objectives and targets.

Topic 5 – DOC’s vs Kerbside recycling

Submitters were asked to provide feedback about recycling collection with a choice between a kerbside service or use of drop off centres (DOCs). Specifically, the option was presented to close the DOCs in Ongaonga, Tikokino, Otane and Takapau and replace these with an urban kerbside recycling collection and a rural trailer-based scheme. The consultation sought to capture feedback primarily from those who lived in or near the townships of Ongaonga, Tikokino, Otane and Takapau who currently do not get kerbside recycling collection and rely solely on the drop off centres.

56% of submitters who identified as living in or around Otane, Ongaonga, Takapau and Tikokino supported kerbside recycling collection.

44% of submitters who identified as living in or around Otane, Ongaonga, Takapau and Tikokino supported drop off centres for recycling collection.

See feedback raised by submitters in support of the kerbside recycling option:

· Hayley Webster – “We currently use drop off; it works for our family, but kerbside is more practical”.

· Peter Seligman – “It would be great if rural residents didn’t have to drive to drop off centres. The drive definitely lessens the ecological benefit of the exercise”.

· Neen Kennedy (oral submission) – comments were made during an oral submission by Neen Kennedy expressing concern about the practicality, safety and compliance with building code of the current drop off centres. Particular concerns were raised about the accessibility for disabled residents.

See feedback raised by submitters in support of drop off centres for recycling collection:

· Mike Harrison – “If the recycling bins are removed and replaced by kerbside recycling, I believe recycling will become a challenge for the following: People that live outside the village such a local farmers / lifestylers etc who diligently recycle but no longer have that option with the bins removed. Surprisingly, the recycling centre tends to be a bit of a hub at the weekends with many people around the village (and outside) doing their recycling”.

· Nikau Hill Station – “Never going to be able to kerbside collect all residents. Will need to keep rural recycling centres so don’t need kerbside in these areas”.

· Margaret Isabella Fletcher – “Leave as is”.

Officers Response:

There are similar levels of support for both an extended kerbside service and the retention of drop off centres. There was more vocal support for retention of drop off centres during oral submissions/hearings but across all submissions the support remains fairly evenly split with a general preference for a kerbside service.

Officers are confident that an extended kerbside service will provide greater levels of non-contaminated recycling and is aligned with the objectives of the WMMP and Waste Free CHB.

During oral submissions concerns were further raised about the practicality, safety and compliance of the drop off centres. While Council are confident based on a review of the Building Act that the sites are compliant, Officers are acutely aware of the need to improve the design and operation of the current DOCs should they be retained. Costs to upgrade the 3 DOCs that are proposed to be kept (Waipawa, Waipukurau and Porangahau) are estimated at $35,000 and this has been included within existing budgets with funding to come primarily from the Waste Levy return scheme. This work would include the movement of the DOCs inside gated transfer station facilities (for Waipawa and Waipukurau) and improved ramp/access designs for all 3 sites. The cost to upgrade the remaining 4 DOCs that are proposed to be removed (Takapau, Ongaonga, Tikokino and Otane) are estimated at an additional $60,000 that has not been included in existing budgets. This $60,000 to retain and upgrade the remaining 4 DOCs will be loan funded over a 5-year period with a repayment of $12,780 per year and will have an impact of 0.2% on the General Rate.

The budgets used to form the LTP profiles for consultation included options for either retaining the DOCs and not extending kerbside services or extending kerbside services and removing the DOCs apart from those in Waipukurau, Waipawa and Porangahau. The service costs avoided by removing the listed DOCs offset the cost increase of extending kerbside services. The figure provided by Councils contractor for this service is $69,125 per year. Should Council decide to keep the 4 listed DOCs proposed for removal ‘and’ extend kerbside services then this $69,125 per year operational cost will be added to budgets prepared to date. The impact of this is a further 0.98% increase on the general rate.

Officers remain confident that the concerns raised by those opposing the removal of the DOCs can largely be mitigated via the introduction of the proposed rural trailer-based collection scheme. Examples of that scheme are provided below with illustrations of the existing DOC locations as well as potential service locations for the trailer scheme.

Existing Provision of DOCs

Consulted Provision of Rural Trailered Scheme and Closure of DOCs

Possible schedule below to support above rollout of services:

Community	Location	Frequency / Schedule
Argyll	Argyll School	1 day, Fortnightly
Elsthorpe	Elsthorpe School	1 day, Fortnightly
Flemington	Flemington School	1 day, Fortnightly
Omakere	Omakere School	1 day, Fortnightly
Ashley Clinton	Sherwood School	1 day, Fortnightly
Otane	Otane School	1 day, Weekly
Tikokino	Tikokino School	1 day, Weekly
Ongaonga	Ongaonga community centre	1 day, Weekly
Takapau	Takapau School	1 day, Weekly

The above service offering could be provisioned with the development of 2 custom-built trailers and a crew operating them on a full-time basis.

Hybrid provision of retained DOCs and Limited Rural Trailer Scheme

Possible schedule below to support above rollout of services:

Community	Location	Frequency / Schedule
Argyll	Argyll School	1 day, Fortnightly
Omakere	Omakere School	1 day, Fortnightly
Ashley Clinton	Sherwood School	1 day, Fortnightly
Flemmington	Flemmington School	1 day, Fortnightly

The above service offering could be provisioned with the development of 1 custom-built trailer and a crew operating it on a part time basis.

Concept Rural Recycling Trailer

The table below presents a workable schedule for the rural trailered scheme taking into account the removal of DOCs in Tikokino, Ongaonga and Otane.

Topic 6 – Greenwaste, Food/Organic Waste and Recycling / Re-use& Recovery centre

The consultation process included questions and proposals for the management of the Districts greenwaste, food and organic waste and also the creation of a purpose-built re-use and recovery centre that would replace the transfer stations in Waipukurau and Waipawa. This section considers options and feedback on each topic.

Green Waste.

Council receive greenwaste at Transfer stations that is sorted and then processed and removed by specialist external contractors. The transport costs for carting greenwaste to external processing facilities to be composted or mulched make the activity costly for Central Hawke’s Bay residents. The Section 17a review highlighted opportunities to improve the management of greenwaste through investigating the creation of a local facility and this was committed to as an outcome of the review/report. Officers have begun investigating options for the processing of greenwaste locally and have recently received interest in a partnering opportunity from Tararua District Council. No direct feedback was received on greenwaste through the LTP consultation. Officers consider that plans and efforts already in progress to investigate greenwaste opportunities are sufficient and in line with community expectations/needs.

Food / Organic Waste.

Food and organic waste are significant contributors to methane emissions from the landfill and make up a large portion of total waste to landfill. The Section 17a review highlighted food and organic waste as a key are for improvement. At the completion of the review and in adoption of the findings, Council committed to further investigating or trialling targeted food waste collection methods and to closely watching trials already underway in New Zealand. No specific feedback was received through the LTP process about foodwaste or wider organic waste collections although some mentioned the promotion or incentivising of composting options. Officers are awaiting feedback from Ruapehu District Council who are several months into a trial of kerbside foodwaste collection and plan to base any further action on the outcome of this.

Re-use and Recovery Centre

The LTP budgets include the establishment of a purpose-built re-use and recovery centre that would replace the transfer stations in Waipukurau and Waipawa. The budgeted amount is $2,000,000 in year 10 of the plan. Officers have noted an error in the LTP budgets that had this budget line set at $4,000,000 (transcription error saw a doubling of the line item). This has been corrected and has had a positive impact on total rates at year 10. There was no specific feedback with respect to the planned development of the new facility however several submissions referred to the suitability and effectiveness of existing facilities’ and it is anticipated that the new facility will alleviate these concerns.

The facility is planned for year 10 of the LTP to reflect that currently only a low level of planning and investigation work has been completed. Questions have been asked about the ability to bring forward the planned investment and creation of the facility. The chart below shows Councils borrowing against debt limit as per the expenditure presented in this LTP. The purple columns stacked and starting at year 3 show indicatively what bringing forward the planned $2M investment into year 3 would mean for debt headroom. Officers consider that planning for the facility is possible within a 24-month timeframe and that beyond this amount of time, financial burden would be the biggest constraint/risk.

RISK ASSESSMENT and mitigation

Risks with Option 1.

The primary risk with option one is the operational delivery of new service offerings and changes to existing services. Officers are confident that this can be managed, and steps have already been taken to ensure that any changes possible are deliverable by the contracting market.

Risks with Option 2.

The primary risks with this option are not meeting community expectations and not progressing towards the targets of the WMMP and objectives of Waste Free HB. There is the ability to roll out some but not all proposed changes under Option 1 but this is not considered to be likely to meet community expectations based on feedback received.

Risks with Bags Vs Bin.

The feedback received and Officers advice indicate a preference to moving to a wheeled bin collection for refuse (in year 3). The primary risks with this are unknowns with service delivery operations and potential increases in volume to landfill as people misuse the service. The operational elements can be mitigated through working with the contracting market who have already provided a high level of confidence that the services can be delivered as expected. The risk of increased volumes of waste will need to be mitigated through specific and planned action including increased awareness and education, ensuring that recycling and other diversion schemes are effective and incentivised and the consideration of restrictions and enforcement for what is placed in bins. Officers will commit to investigating a user pays ‘tag system’ for the use of a wheelie bin for refuse in year 1.

Risks with Crates Vs Bin.

The feedback indicates a preference for a 3-crate option for kerbside recycling collection. Should this be progressed, the primary risks are practical and operational in nature with known issues of tidiness at the kerbside and physical challenges for some people with storing and moving crates. These challenges are real and hard to avoid. Officers are eager to investigate options to assist residents in storing and transporting crates with trollies or similar, but no plans are in place for this currently. Officers are committed to implement a ‘gold star’ reward system for crates as soon as practicable to encourage successful recycling participation.

Risks with Kerbside collection or Drop off Centres.

The risk in retaining drop off centres is financial implications for running the high cost service and the risk of continued or increased recycling contamination. The risk of moving to a kerbside service in the affected townships and removing the drop off centres is a loss of options for some rural residents. This can be offset by the introduction of a targeted rural service designed to meet needs and reduce the contamination risk.

FOUR WELLBEINGS

	Cultural	Economic	Social	Environmental
Option 1	This option allows for enhancement and protection of whenua and the wider environment through improved services and achievement of Waste Free CHB outcomes.	This option will come at a small cost to be fully determined when contracts are set with service providers. This option is not expected to have any wide economic impact.	This option will allow more communities to actively participate in recycling through kerbside services.	This option promotes diversion of waste from landfill and good waste management / environmental practice.
Option 2	This option does not change or improve waste management outcomes above current practices so there is no perceived benefit to cultural values.	This option will come at no additional cost and is expected to have no further economic impact.	This option will not enhance participation in recycling or better waste management so some social and community outcomes may be lost.	This option is considered not to align with our WMMP and Waste Free CHB outcomes and will not reduce tonnes to landfill.
Bags Vs Bin	Officers do not consider there to be a strong positive or negative cultural impact from either of these choices.	A wheeled bin collection is likely to prove marginally more cost efficient over time (once capital plant is recovered) for refuse however this will not apply to the recycling option as a crate collection is still needed for glass.	Communities, particularly elderly subsets of the community, have expressed desire for a wheeled bin service due to practicality reasons.	There is known risk that a wheeled bin service can cause increased waste to landfill and this will need to be carefully managed to ensure environmental outcomes are not worsened
Crates Vs Bin				A 3 crate kerbside sorting method is believed to be most effective in diverting tonnes from landfill and improving overall environmental outcomes
Kerbside Collection or Drop off Centres		The closure of drop off centres will directly offset the cost of other service improvements with kerbside collection being a proven more economically efficient means of collection	Communities have expressed concern about the loss of drop off centres which in some cases create a sense of community. This can be replaced by kerbside services, enhanced education and communication and the offering of rural collections.	Kerbside collection is known to reduce contamination and will therefore have improved environmental outcomes

Delegations or authority

This is a decision for Council to make, and they have the authority to make this decision as part of the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 process.

sIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

OPTIONS Analysis

The financial implications of the various options are discussed in detail in the Long Term Plan and Financial and Infrastructure Strategies and are summarised in the Consultation Document.

	Option 1 Extend the recycling and rubbish service at a small cost	Option 2 No change to rubbish and recycling service (status quo)	Refuse Bags Vs Bin	Recycling Crates Vs Bin	Kerbside Collection or Drop off Centres
Financial and Operational Implications	Extending the kerbside collection and shifting to a 3 crate system, plus a wheeled bin system for refuse in year 3 will add $42,000 to the targeted rate annually. This assumes the removal of the listed drop off centres at a saving of $69,125. If drop off centres are retained, then this figure will also need to be added back in. Operationally this option can be delivered within a number of months with exact timing to be confirmed based on contract market response.	There are no financial or operational implications with this option other than that the known operational challenges with current services will remain.	It is likely to be moderately cheaper and operationally more efficient to use a wheeled bin service.	There is no expected financial difference between the two options however a 3 crate system is considered more operationally efficient.	Retaining the drop off centres will add $69,125 to budgeted costs and extending kerbside collections and moving to an improved service level will add $42,000.
Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes	This option is aligned with community feedback to improve services.	This option does not align with feedback received that current services are not fit for purpose and are not meeting community expectations.	There is strong community support for a wheeled bin collection.	There is community support for a 3 crate system.	There is split support for kerbside services and retention of drop off centres. The rural community are strong in their views that they do not want to lose access to recycling.
Statutory Requirements	These changes have been considered as part of a formal Section 17A Review – there are no other relevant, impacted or at risk statutory or legislative requirements.
Consistency with Policies and Plans	This option is consistent with the WMMP, Waste Free CHB campaign and the Environmental strategy	This option is not consistent with the WMMP, Waste Free CHB campaign and the Environmental strategy	Both options are able to be delivered in a means consistent with relevant policies and plans.	A 3 crate system is considered most aligned with relevant policies and plans, being the WMMP, Waste Free CHB campaign and the Environmental strategy	A kerbside service and provision of a targeted rural scheme is considered most aligned with relevant policies and plans being the WMMP, Waste Free CHB campaign and the Environmental strategy

Recommended Option

This report recommends:

· Option 1 - Extend the recycling and rubbish service at a small cost, and

· the introduction of a wheeled bin refuse service in year 3 and

· the introduction of a 3 crate system for recycling, and

· the closure of drop off centres in Otane, Takapau, Tikokino and Ongaonga and the creation of a targeted rural recycling scheme.

NEXT STEPS

Should any changes to service delivery be adopted, Officers will quickly look to agree operational detail with contractors to deliver on new service offerings.

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That Council adopt Option 1 as set out in the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 for Challenge 3, specifically that Council selects the following service delivery approach for Solid Waste:

1. Extend the recycling and rubbish service at an increase of $42,000 per year, and

2. Introduce a wheeled bin refuse service in year 3, and

3. Introduce a 3 crate system for recycling, and

4. Close the drop off centres in Otane, Takapau, Tikokino and Ongaonga and the create a targeted rural recycling scheme.

b) That the submitters are thanked for their comments, which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to submitters.

Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

Summary of Submissions:

The community were asked as part of the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031, how do we pay for the growth that we are experiencing as a District.

Council is reviewing its Development Contributions Policy (DCP) as part of the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan. Council sought feedback on the extent that those that are developing property should pay for the cost of growth.

Council received a total of 208 submissions (prior to the closure date). 192 submissions supported Councils preferred option 1, that those developing pay for the full cost of growth, with 16 submissions supporting option 2, that the cost of growth if offset by ratepayers.

189 people indicated their preferred option by only ticking option 1 or 2, with 21 people providing additional comment. Three submissions provided detailed responses. No submitters specifically identified themselves as developers or builders in the submission process.

Analysis:

The review of the DCP as part of the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan has been a significant step change in the scope of the 2018 DCP.

The legislation that sets out how Council operates and prepares a DCP is the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). Council considers how it funds the required infrastructure for growth as part of the overall preparation of the Long Term Plan. Council must weigh up where benefits and costs should lie in increasing development contributions, as any reduction in the proportion of development contribution charges to pay for growth will have to be paid by existing ratepayers.

The LGA (S199) provides that development contributions may be required in relation to development if the effect of the development, either individually or cumulatively, is to require new or additional assets or assets of increased capacity, and as a consequence Council incurs capital expenditure to provide appropriately for reserves, network infrastructure and community infrastructure.

By way of background, the 2018 DCP was reviewed separately to the 2018 – 2028 Long Term Plan and adopted on 13 December 2018. Reflecting the transformational journey that Council has embarked on lifting the asset management sophistication of the organisation, the quality of the asset management data was insufficient for the 2018 DCP to clearly identify the impacts of growth with confidence. In developing the development contribution policy model in 2018, Council used a conservative rate of 10% on any capital work listed in the Long Term Plan as the cost of development.

In the development of the 2021 DCP, the level of asset management sophistication that the organisation has managed to achieve is reflected in the detail and scope change of the proposed DCP. Supported by detailed growth forecasting, the Central Hawke’s Bay 2050 Integrated Spatial Plan identifying areas of growth and detailed asset management plans, Council can more articulately identify the impacts of growth than ever before.

Page 248 of the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan supporting information outlines the PDCP that was consulsted on. The key proposed changes from the 2018 DCP to the PDCP included the need to:

· Be more transparent on the assumptions and basis for setting charges.

· Be more specific in responding to the requirements set out in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

· Significantly change the proportion of growth costs funded by DCs.

· Significantly increase the forecast growth.

· Add sections on units of demand and the rationale for the Policy settings.

· Increasing the categories and transparency of non-residential categories and measures,

· Include some Community Infrastructure (Administration building, library landfill / transfer stations, and public toilets.

· Include some Reserves projects, and

· Tidy up the references and structure of the DCP.

Submissions 44 from B McGechan, 45 C Bath, 64 S Power, 71 M Greenwood, 72 I Hawkes,87 M McKenzie, 103 M Harrrison, 114 S Crooks, 115 P Sellers, 116 P Robson, 124 D Hossack, 127 T Makris, 133 C Pedersen and T Ward, 146 P Tichinin, 167 T Hare, 173 T Robson, 186 D Hyde, 212 K Olsen-Mills and 228 D Hollis note that they support Option 1 that developers pay for the full costs associated with growth and provided commentary. These submitters raise key issues in support of the Councils preferred options, including:

· The proposed 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan already poses significant affordability changes without adding additional burden to the ratepayer.

· Developers and builders principally develop as a commercial activity to make a margin. To this end the cost of creating development should fall to those that create the activity, not be subsidised by ratepayers.

· Most of the additional cost will be passed on as part of the purchase price of new properties, and this mechanism is most appropriate rather for recovery of cost, rather than through ratepayers.

These three key points feature relatively consistently in the general feedback text. This feedback is also consistent with that received as part of Councils pre-engagement in July 2020 on development contributions.

Of the 16 submissions in support of option 2 were received – that Council subsidises the cost of development, only one submitter provided context for this decision. Submission 122 from Mr D Bishop notes that many new assets often have a much wider community benefit and good – such as new parks and playgrounds and assets. The submitter has very valid points. To address the point, the submitter makes examples in the Long Term Plan where assets should be a combination of renewal, loan funding and growth funding through development contributions in this 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan. Council does this and where possible the cost of development is broken down as much as possible, rather than the blunt tool of a new pipeline or playground being 100% growth related or not. This can be seen in the breakdown of projects in the PDCP.

Notably there are no submissions from any submitter than identifies as a developer or builder. This is despite reaching out and making regular contact with developers and indicating significant increases since late 2020. Anecdotal conversations with parties, indicate they are aware of the new development contributions and will factor this into their investment and development decisions. The impact of development contributions are likely to be more material to those property owners where development is either marginal or those smaller property owners who are not professional developers, and do not have the financial resilience in price variations.

At the time of writing this report, Council is experiencing a significant surge in subdivision activity.

This surge in subdivision numbers clearly indicates developers understand the likely scale of the new development contribution values. There is significant concern this will have a material impact on Councils ability to fund growth, and an Officer recommendation is included in this report to bring forward the effective date from 1 July 2021, to the policy having immediate effect upon its adoption recommended for this Council meeting.

The following topic specific points were raised by submitters on Challenge 4 or are issues raised by Officers for further consideration of Council. These are responded to more fully under each heading.

Topic 1	What is the full cost of Growth
Topic 2	Section 5.12 – Remissions of Development Contributions
Topic 3	Suggested Changes to calculating Development Contributions
Topic 4	Development within subdivisions
Topic 5	Housing Problems and Option 4 Language
Topic 6	Crown Exemptions to Pay Development Contributions
Topic 7	Guide for Development Contributions Policies and minor grammar changes
Topic 8	Immediate effect of the Proposed Development Contributions Policy

Topic 1: What is the full cost of Growth

Submission 39 from Mr G Perry questions whether development contributions pay for the full cost of growth, with running and maintenance costs still being incurred and the submitter questions whether the quality of work is sufficiently delivered to Council standards, noting roads fail months after being completed in new developments.

Analysis:

The proposed DCP does not provide for ongoing maintenance. The Local Government Act 2001 provides and enables for costs of maintenance in some instances to be recovered from developers, however this primarily through Development Agreements. In principle, upon the new assets being created in a subdivision these are vested to Council assuming they meet Councils requirements and standards. The new ratepayers then pay for the cost of the new infrastructure long term in terms of replacement, generally recovered over the life of the assets.

Our Council policies, standards and plans sets the standards for quality of work, including inspection. Standard works have warranty periods also.

Recommendation:

That the submitter is thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitter.

Topic 2: Section 5.12 – Remissions of Development Contributions

Submission 181 from K Bayliss agrees with most of the PDCP, however seeks to have Section 5.12 Remissions deleted. The submitters rationale is that the original purpose of the property that remission was given could easily and most likely be changed in the future.

Councillors in hearings also sought to understand what remissions could be provided to community housing providers.

Analysis:

Section 5.12 Remissions of the Proposed Development Contributions Policy (PDCP) on page 267 of the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 Consultation Document Supporting Information notes:

5.12 Remissions

Council will consider requests for remission of development contributions on the following grounds:

· The development is by a non-profit organisation and/or it will provide wide ranging benefits to the public.

Any such request must be made in writing and within 20 working days after the date on which the Council sent notice of the level of development contribution Council requires.

The request must include the following information:

· description of the site and specific application subject to the contribution.

· description of the organisation seeking the remission and confirmation that it is a non-profit organisation as defined in the glossary.

· description of the benefits that the development will provide to the public and the extent of access to those benefits.

The request will be considered in accordance the delegations provided to the appropriate authorised Officer of Council.

The Authorised Officer will have regard to the following criteria in determining whether to grant a remission and the quantum of the remission:

· the level of the public benefits provided by the activity and the extent of access to those benefits, and

· the development contributions reserve funding available to Council.

Council will give written notice of the outcome of its consideration of the request within 15 working days of its receipt of the request and all relevant information relating to the request.

Section 201(1)(c) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires any Territorial Authority, when seeking funding for community facilities as the PDCP does, to include, “the conditions and criteria (if any) that will apply in relation to the remission, postponement, or refund of development contributions, or the return of land”. To this end the submitters recommendation that Section 5.12 Remission of the DCP be deleted in its entirety is not recommended in order to meet the legal requirements of Section 201(1)(c) of the LGA 2002.

The submitter does raise however valid points relating to a future potential change in use of the property that could have a remission of development contributions.

As one means of mitigating this issue, there is currently no delegated authority to any officer (including the Chief Executive) for the remission of development contributions, with the elected Council the current decision maker for any remission. This would only change if Council delegated authority to the Chief Executive to grant the remission of Development Contributions.

To this end, if Council wished to provide a remission to community housing organisations, they have the discretion to consider this within the PDCP and their delegation.

The remission of development contributions that are based on other reasons such as an organisation or development having a charitable purpose or Council wanting to encourage a specific type of development for strategic reasons, such as high-density housing, still effectively creates a funding gap in the development contribution accounts however, as infrastructure capacity is taken up but not paid for. That gap must be funded somehow and for this reason, many councils do not permit such remissions or do so only at their complete discretion and do not delegate authority to Officers.

With the authority to remit DC’s remaining with Council, Council can consider each application on a case by case basis on its own merits and where there is concern relating to a change or sale of the property could seek to apply certain conditions in granting the remission of a DC.

Recommendation:

Based on this analysis there are a range of options available to Council:

· Council notes K Bayliss’ submission relating to the remission of development contributions and takes no action at this time.

· Council notes K Bayliss’ submission and that Section 5.12 of the PDCP is amended to provide for only Council to approve remissions with no delegation being provided.

This option would see the words ‘Authorised Officer’ replaced with ‘The Council’ and not contemplate any future delegation.

· An alternative approach is that Council take a new position in the PDCP that it will not provide or consider remissions.

This would see all of the text comprising of Section 5.12 deleted and replaced with the words “Council will not consider requests for the remission of development contributions”, to meet the requirements of Section 201(1)(c) of the Local Government Act 2002.

It is Officers recommendation that Council notes K Bayliss’ submission relating to the remission of development contributions and takes no action at this time.

Topic 3: Suggested Changes to calculating Development Contributions

Submission 99 from B Middleton suggests a mix of both options, including rebates to incentivise development where appropriate.

Submission 121 from A Clouston suggests a set rate unworkable and unfair and will not support the development of lower valued areas of land.

Submission 159 from D and H Repko suggests a tiered model, where if you can demonstrate you have contributed to infrastructure as a ratepayer you should contribute a lower level of development contribution.

Analysis:

Like any rate, tax or contribution there will be inequities, regardless of whether these are perceived or real. The proposed DCP seeks to provide a relatively simplistic DCP approach, without introducing unnecessary complexity, within the legislative requirements. As required by the legislation, some larger Councils base their geographic locations on network suburb locations, where discounts are provided that seek to incentivise development, however these suburbs are generally more densely populated and larger than either the centres of Waipawa or Waipukurau.

Councils asset management sophistication would have to increase to an extent that is not possible within the constraints of this DCP or Long Term Plan to address such complex funding considerations at this time.

This could be a focus for Council in the review of the DCP in 2024, if it sort to prioritise infill/brownfields subdivision over greenfields, with either a subsidy or it completed further analysis on the costs of areas of focus.

Recommendation:

That the submitters are thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitter.

Topic 4: Development within subdivisions

Submission 122 from D Bishop recommends promoting and requiring greater levels of on-site servicing such as milli-screening for wastewater in new subdivisions.

Analysis:

In the DCP, Council still have available to it a range of tools to reduce development contributions (Section 5.11), whereby developers can provide on-site provisioning of infrastructure. Council is not in a position to mandate this type of infrastructure fully at this time, however is already working proactively on opportunities such as storm water retention solutions as an example to mitigate the impacts of development.

Recommendation:

That the submitter is thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitter.

Topic 5: Housing Problems and Option 4 Language

Submission 211 from C Deckard notes the housing problems the country is collectively facing and notes that increased development contributions are counter-intuitive to this problem.

The submitter also makes a number of inferences that Option 4 was poorly designed, using emotive language to create a ‘them and us’ scenario, designed to elicit a specific scenario.

Analysis:

The challenges for housing through the District are noted and very much front of mind of many council operations. The reality is however that the cost of new growth for housing has to be paid for – either by those developing property or existing ratepayers. The 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan consultation sought to determine the extent that growth is privately or publicly funded.

Officers completely refute the submitters inferences relating to the use of emotive language or that the consultation document has been designed in a way to elicit a particular approach. Statements such as ‘we clearly heard that the cost of development should be borne by those creating the cost’ are factual, based on the robust pre-engagement process that Council completed with community in July 2020.

Recommendation:

That the submitter is thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitter.

Topic 6: Crown Exemptions to Pay Development Contributions

During Submission Hearings for the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan, Councillors sought clarification on whether Kainga Ora would pay development contributions or could community housing providers could seek remission of development contributions.

Analysis:

The Crown is not bound by the development contribution provisions pursuant to Section 8 of the Local Government Act 2002, even though the Crown benefits directly from infrastructure delivered to properties such as hospitals and schools.

Councils and other stakeholders have argued for some time now that this adds to the infrastructure funding and rates affordability challenges faced by many councils and that there is no obvious justification for maintaining a blanket Crown exemption.

In its November 2019 local government funding and financing inquiry report, the Productivity Commission recommended: “The Government should pay development contributions on all projects it undertakes in line with the development-contributions policies of the local authorities in which the projects are located”.

This exemption from paying development contributions is not transferred to Crown entities or Government Departments such as Kainga Ora. To this end, Kāinga Ora is liable to pay development contributions on its housing developments, and other urban development projects.

The way the PDCP is written, Kainga Ora could seek a remission of DC’s from Council. It would be totally at Councils discretion to provide a remission, with Council having not delegated any authority for the remission of DC’s currently.

Recommendation

There is no required recommendation from this topic.

Topic 7: Guide for Development Contributions Policies and minor grammar changes

In January 2021, the Department of Internal Affairs released a guide to developing and operating development contributions policies under the Local Government Act 2002, two weeks prior to the adoption of the DCP for release.

Developed by the Department of Internal Affairs with input from the local government and development sectors, the purpose of the guide is to provide a technical resource for the preparation and operation of development contributions policies under the Local Government Act 2002. While a helpful resource, the timing of the release, means that many Councils, including ours, have missed the opportunity to fully consider the guidance and make use of a recommended template in the development of development contribution policies (DCP’s) for the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.

Analysis:

An external review of the proposed DCP for adoption and the new guidance document, confirms that the proposed DCP places the District in a sound position, however there are a number of small changes based on the guidance and the transition of the document from a draft DCP for consultation to the final DCP that are required. These changes include:

· Deleting the Executive Summary to remove the proposed changes and the rationale for the changes as a transition from draft to final for adoption

· The addition of two paragraphs to the Introduction to capture best practice language from the guide and to bring the new DC’s to the front of the document (deleted from the Executive Summary).

· Changing the effective date through the document from 1 July to the date of adoption based on Officers recommendations in Issue 8.

· Confirming the acronym HEU (Househould Equivalent Unit) as the main term, with this term and Housing Unit Equivalent (HUE), Equivalent Household Unit (EHU) all being terms used in the industry and previously interchanged in the document.

· The deletion of Section 5.15 Development Agreements and replaced with the Development Agreement Section from the DIA guidance documents. There is no material difference to the policy or intent of the poilcy, with the DIA guidance simply stating the requirements and processes in a far more succinct and clearer manner that the PDCP.

· A bullet added to Section 5.12 (second to last paragraph) for Council to consider how it will fund any granted remission – i.e through rates or other reserves.

· Immaterial changes to the language relating to financial contributions, noting that financial contributions are provided for in the current operative District Plan, however not the proposed District Plan for roading in particular. Further language includes that Council has other mechanisms in its toolkit to address growth related impacts on roading as a result of subdivision, such as conditions of consent under the Resource Management Act 1991 that are not subject to the PDCP.

· Other immaterial spelling and grammar changes.

· Changes to page numbers and updates to the table of consents to create a standalone DCP.

Recommendation

That Council receive the changes made to the PDCP attached to this report, following its release for community consultation as part of the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.

Topic 8: Immediate effect of the Proposed Development Contributions Policy

Officers recommend to Council that the Proposed Development Contributions Policy (PDCP) is adopted at today’s meeting of 13 May 2021, that that the Policy has immediate effect upon its adoption, rather than an implementation date of 1 July 2021.

Analysis:

A risk to Council in the early release of the PDCP as part of the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan was that the development community seek to take advantage of considerably lower or no development contributions, by submitting applications for development prior to the proposed effective date of the PDCP of 1 July. This risk has been realised with unprecedented levels of applications and lots currently in the application stage.

The development community has been very transparent with Council on their intentions to achieve applications under the current DCP rather than the PDCP. As context in the 2019/20 financial year Council created 332 new lots. As at early March 2021 – three quarters through the financial year 440 new lots have been created, with applications for close to a further 850 lots being submitted between March and at the time of writing this report.

This level of development has the potential to seriously impact Council’s ability to fund the development programme proposed in the LTP 2021-2031 intended to service this growth, with the volume of potential lost development contributions close to $6 million of a total $23 million of development contributions required to be achieved over the ten years of the Long Term Plan to fund growth projects.

In assessing this financial impact on the deliverability of the Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031, Officers have sought legal advice on the implications for Council to consider bringing forward the adoption and effective date from that consulted on in the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan. This advice has confirmed that this approach is available to Council, subject to it meeting the tests under the Local Government Act 2002 relating to transparency relating to intent and approach. To meet this test in relation to transparency, Officers have written to known members of the development community and associated trades on 16 April 2021 of Officers intention to recommend to Council that it adopt the PDCP at its meeting on 13 May 2021, and for the PDCP to have immediate effect from that date.

On this date we also wrote to give notice to developers of when the development contributions imposed by the PDCP will take effect, if Council accepts the recommendation; and the Council’s intentions in respect of applications that it receives in the interim period between now and the date on which the PDCP takes effect.

While it is possible, but unlikely that Council will be able to recover the full value of development contributions identified in the PDCP in the interim period between notification and adoption of the PDCP, the approach by Officers to adopt the PDCP early seeks to minimise the potential loss of DC revenue required for the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan. At this time, Officers are not recommending a reduction in the forecast DC revenue in the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan, with the approach taken to date endeavouring to achieve the forecast DC revenue in the first years of the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

In the event that Council rejected Officers recommendation to bring forward the PDCP effective date, there would be significant financial and operational implications for Councils 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan. Most notably is Councils ability to fund the growth related components of development, placing at risk Councils ability to deliver works without the necessity or requirement or additional loan funding at a cost to the ratepayers. This could have a material impact on Councils overall 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan programme and budget and could be expected to have material issues for the successful audit of the Long Term Plan.

Bringing forward the effective date of the PDCP is not completely risk free in a legal sense. There are still opportunities for Developers to seek recourse on Councils approach, by seeking a Judicial Review of Councils decision. For some developments, the impact of the development contributions could be material enough for this to occur. Councils legal advice, however is clear that the process Officers have conducted is sufficient to meet the tests of the Local Government Act 2002.

At this point, the fundamental factor for Council to consider whether to bring forward the adoption and effective date of the Policy to today’s date (13 May) or defer the effective date to the PDCP’s original effective date of 1 July 2021. It is Officers recommendation that the adoption and effective date be immediate at todays meeting.

Recommendation:

That Council adopt the Development Contributions Policy 2021, with the policy having immediate effect upon its adoption.

RISK ASSESSMENT and mitigation

The most notable potential risk with the recommendations in this report is legal challenge. While no developers or those directly involved in subdivision have made a submissions to the policy, despite direct contact and updates on the matter this does not mean further challenge could be provided, particularly in the context of Officers recommending to implement the PDCP as effective immediately from adoption.

Officers have sought legal advice and implemented their recommendations to limit the potential risk and liability to council in this respect.

FOUR WELLBEINGS

This report addresses the four wellbeing’s in the following way:

Cultural

There are no obvious support or enhancement of cultural wellbeing in this decision.

Social

The DCP seeks growth funding for new community facilities, that provide opportunities for new residents and visitors to be socially connected in the community.

Economic

Development contributions could arguably have a detrimental economic effect slowing growth and development. Conversely, not having development contributions in place could restrict and slow growth also, where solely relying on ratepayer funding, could take considerable years to fund development, creating unnecessary constraints on new housing and development.

Environmental

Development contributions provide for Council to fund new development related to growth, that if solely ratepayer funded, would be unable to be achieved in a timely manner due to affordability. Development contributions will help support the cost of environmental projects including wastewater irrigation to land.

Delegations or authority

Only Council has the authority to adopt this policy.

sIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as of significance, having gone through a significant community engagement process.

OPTIONS Analysis

Three possible options available to Council are:

1. Adopt the Draft Development Contributions Policy without change

In this option Council would be noting submitters feedback and adopting the Policy as attached to this report, inclusive of Officers recommendations.

2. Adopt the Draft Development Contributions Policy with changes

In this option Council would be including other potential changes from submitters not recommended by Officers and adopting the policy with recommended changes and noting submitters feedback.

3. Do not adopt the Draft Development Contributions Policy

In this option Council would not adopt the Draft Development Contributions policy, noting submitters feedback. Responsibly, if this option was adopted Council should be giving guidance on its intended next steps to see the policy amended to achieve adoption.

	Option 1 Adopt the Policy as presented to Council for adoption	Option 2 Adopt the Policy with changes	Option 3 Do not adopt the Policy
Financial and Operational Implications	Adopting the policy without change presents no immediate financial or operational implications.	Notably one change to the policy are raised in submissions, being remissions in Section 5.12. To this end if changes are limited this would have no financial or operational implications.	This would have major financial and operational implications. Technically Council would be working on a lapsed DC policy, and financially Council would be unable to reap any of the forecast income projected in the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.
Long Term Plan and Annual Plan Implications	This option would support the success of the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.	Relative to the change, this option would support the success of the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.	This option would have major implications for the Long Term Plan, most notably income forecast would not be able to be achieved.
Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes	This option supports community outcomes, delivering on growth projects forecast in the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.	Relative to the change, this option supports community outcomes, delivering on growth projects forecast in the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.	It is unclear how this option would promote or achieve any community outcomes.
Statutory Requirements	Council must adhere to the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in the development of a development contributions policy.	Council must adhere to the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in the development of a development contributions policy.	Council must adhere to the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 in the development of a development contributions policy.
Consistency with Policies and Plans	This option is consistent with the Draft 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.	Relative to the change, this option in consistent with the Draft 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.	This option is inconsistent with the Draft 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.

Recommended Option

This report recommends option 1 – that Council adopts the Proposed Development Contributions Policy.

RECOMMENDATION

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That Council note that Option 1 – that Developers pay for the full cost of growth was the communities preferred option.

b) That Council notes K Bayliss’ submission relating to the remission of development contributions and takes no action at this time.

c) That Council receive the changes made to the Proposed Development Contributions Policy attached to this report, following its release for community consultation as part of the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.

d) That Council adopt the Proposed Development Contributions Policy 2021 attached to this report, with the Policy having immediate effect upon its adoption.

e) That the submitters are thanked for their comments, which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to submitters.

Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

7.8 Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Draft Deliberations Report: Financial and Infrastructure Strategy

File Number: COU1-1400

Author: Brent Chamberlain, Chief Financial Officer

Authoriser: Doug Tate, Group Manager Customer and Community Partnerships

Attachments: 1. Treasury Management (including Investment and Libability) Policy ⇩

PURPOSE

The matter for consideration by the Council is to consider consultation feedback on the financial and infrastructure strategy received through the Long Term Plan process and to make any required decisions.

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That the submitters are thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitters.

b) That the Financial and Infrastructure Strategies pending amendments following Councils decisions on the key 4 challenges and other activities be endorsed, ready for adoption when the Long-term Plan 2021 – 2031 is considered for adoption.

c) That the Treasury Management Policy (including Investment and Liability Policies) attached to this report be adopted.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council has received 203 submissions on the Financial Strategy and Infrastructure Strategy. Of the submissions 91% of respondents were supportive of the financial strategy, and 90% were supportive of the infrastructure strategy.

Council also received a number of free text responses to these policies which fell into six main topic areas: Rates Affordability; Prioritisation of Spend; How Rates and Fees and Charges are set and whether this is equitable; The increased use of Debt; Good Infrastructure leads to Thriving Communities; and Feedback on various Council Policies.

Submissions:

The following submitters have submitted on the financial and infrastructure strategy:

4 Jemma Nesbit

6 Courtney Green

7 Ben Waugh

8 Ihipera Rua

9 Greta Minehan

11 Danielle Hemi

12 Rita Simiona

13 Lydia Bucknell

14 Lachie Kirk

15 Ollie Wichman

16 Eden Lambert

17 Mitchell Thompson

18 Amalia Stevenson

20 Jackson Baylis

21 Emma Giddens

22 Emma Thomsen

23 Ramona Lively-Masters

24 Haylee Gray

25 Isaac Marshall

29 Stuart William Davies

30 Warwick Greville

31 Helen Burgin

32 Wendy Milne

33 Erina Sciascia-Bland

34 Ruth and Bruce Parker

35 Benjamin Hall

36 Gordon O'Neale

37 Chrissy Malcolm

38 JT and LD Jansen

39 Nathan Mckenzie

40 David Dicks

41 Jessica Draper

42 Peter Seligman

43 Hayden Berryman

44 Bruce McGechan

45 Kaye Harrison

46 Sandy Gilbert

47 Ben Clist

48 Bob Alkema

49 Christopher Bath

50 Peter Watson (1)

51 Peter Watson (2)

52 Rex Pickering

53 Robyn McLeod

54 David Taylor

55 Gary Leach

56 Tim Witton

57 Stephen Thomas

60 Chad Bauer

61 Jamara Dhull

62 Emma Mason-Smith

63 Marcia Mackrell

64 Sean Jackson Power

65 Liam Worsford

66 Kevin Rowell

67 Leslie Peni

68 Glenda Houston

69 Ron King

70 Stacey Thomas

75 Jo-Ann Hardwick-Smith

71 Marjon Greenwood

72 Ian Hawkes

73 Valerie Norris

74 Callum Slavin

76 Tina Keeling

77 Maria Lincoln

78 William Irving Peacock

79 David Lewis

80 Renee O'Sullivan

81 Gina Prosser

82 Lyn Horspool

83 L Guy and R Bell

85 Noel Pederson

86 Robin Horder

87 Meg Mackenzie

88 Jan Wroe

90 Sally Harding

91 Sandra Fleming

92 Jensen

93 V Leach

94 DE and HM Whitney

95 Brian and Marion Peterson

96 Jude Grant

97 Lisa

98 Penny Single

99 Barry Middleton

100 Melissa Price

101 AK Hansen

102 Ben Douglas

103 Mike Harrison

104 Serena Ann Spencer

105 Rebecca Jane Watt

106 Jacqueline Naylor

107 Shona Thompson

108 Patricia Ann Price

109 James Pretty

110 Nikau Hill Station

111 Danielle O'Shaughnessy

112 Vaughn Thomson

113 Tim Gilbertson

114 Shona Crooks

115 Patricia Sellers

116 Peter Robson

117 Maurice Groot

118 David Bane

119 Reuben George

120 Aimee Congreve

122 David Bishop

123 Deborah Mason

124 Donna Hossack

125 Di Petersen

126 Lorelei Hennessy

127 Teresa Makris

128 Wendy Gough

129 Peter Hallagan

130 Sue Kaan

131 Betina Barber

132 J & D Curtice

137 Lorraine Watson

133 Catherine Pedersen & Tony Ward

134 Nic & Karen Bedogni

135 Peter Missen & Wendy Yambaki

138 Martin Lord

139 Frances & Stephen Ulyatt

140 Cornelia van Falier

141 Keri Rophia

142 Forrest Ropiha

145 Donna Dahm

146 Phyllis Tichinin

147 Elliot Peacock

149 Ian Franklin

150 James Parsons

151 Sjoerd Gorter

152 Andrea Thomson

153 Sue McLeod

154 Warren Bayliss & Cecylia Rymarczyk

155 Margaret Isabella Fletcher

156 Alan Keate

157 Phillip Knight

158 Graeme J E Pedersen & Kathleen A Pedersen

160 Jesse Palmer

161 Kingston

162 Haamiora Nukunuku

163 Zoey

164 Rapata Te Pania

165 Bob Kerins

166 Kristin Yoldash

167 Terry Hare

168 Heather-Anne Tidey

169 Dora Player

173 Tony Robson

174 Louise Field

175 Lynnette Dewes

176 Vicky Harding

177 Miriam Howarth

178 Graham McHardy

179 Simone Tang

181 Kathryn Bayliss

182 Kirsty Taiaroa

183 Charles M Nairn

184 Murray Howarth

185 Andrea Mooney

186 Dean Hyde

187 Rea Arona

188 Ross and Margaret Munro

189 Jensen

190 Adam Allington

191 Jackie Scannell

192 Tania Arona

193 S Johnston

194 Rachel Hornblow

195 A M Banks

196 Jenny and Tony Feather

197 Bill Hale

198 Geert Gelling

199 Sara and Stephen Ellis

200 Peter and Viv Paton

201 Robbie Christiansen

202 Tracy and Andrew Gay

203 Biodiversity Hawke's Bay

205 Sport New Zealand

206 James Leigh

207 Benita

208 Neen Kennedy

209 Nicole Ellison

210 Marti Eller, Gillian Eller, Mark Eller

211 Clint Deckard

212 Karen Olsen-Mills

213 Alice Bellamy

214 Lathan Wroe

215 Forest and Bird

216 Federated Farmers

217 Sarah Giddens and Espen Kristensen

218 Elsa Ironside

219 Sport Hawke's Bay

220 John Kyle

221 Graeme and Margaret Black

223 Terry Kingston

224 Mike Shivnan

226 Trish Giddens

227 David William Cooke

228 Diana Hollis

229 Anne Wallace

230 D J Williams

236 W M Henderson

238 Ned Malcolm

239 John McLean

Summary of Submissions:

The public were asked whether they agreed with Councils Financial Strategy and Infrastructure Strategy as part of the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan process, and to provide some general feedback comments.

203 submitters (out of a total of 239) answered these questions.

Analysis:

Do you agree that we should increase our debt limit to enable us to address the significant infrastructure investment requirements whilst keeping rates as low as possible?

179 submitters agreed with this question, and 18 disagreed (91% favourable).

Do you agree that the priorities in our infrastructure strategy correctly reflect the need for investment in our community assets today?

157 submitters agreed with this question, and 17 disagreed (90% favourable).

The freeform text responses have been broken down below into Financial Strategy and Infrastructure Strategy topics, and then grouped into common themes:

FINANCIAL STRATEGY FEEDBACK

Rates Affordability

Tina Keeling: “We need to be careful of rate increases, people are struggling after Covid and some are just getting back on their feet. I don’t want to see people losing their homes. I know that they are going up but be mindful of by how much”.

Brian and Marion Peterson: “A lot of us are retirees on fixed incomes. We cannot control what the past history is on rate rises but I / we ask that we are taken into consideration. Any small investment we might have is now getting about 8% or less and so we cannot subsidize our income. On your website you show the proposed rate increases. For most on fixed income this (for us anyway) would be totally unaffordable. I am currently just over $3000 in rates but in 10 years this would go to around $7000. And with prices that increase at about twice the estimated cost we could be paying about $12000. A builder’s rule of thumb is price something and then double it. That would take it to around $15 -$20000. Whatever it will be in 10 years I cannot predict, but I do know the rate increased as proposed would make life very very difficult for many of us. I do agree action must be taken, but spread around with the newest and younger people paying more and some of the retirees getting a degree of relief. Thanks for the opportunity to feed some of this back to council.”

Gina Prosser: “Rates in CHB are NOT low. Increasing them too much is to the detriment of residents. We just simply cannot afford it. We have some of the highest rates in the country. Residents should not have to pay for the shortcomings and incompetence of the council whether it be historical or not.”

Teresa Makris: “Needs be stretched out with new rates plan I'm going struggle with payments of $65 week and that doesn’t include regional rates a lot of single parent households and elderly are going struggle with continued increases.”

Meg Mackenzie: “While low rates are always appreciated by ratepayers, you get what you pay for. We cannot, as a district, continue to incur debt without establishing a sound repayment strategy. The Council is very brave to be attacking this problem, but it needs to be done. It would be unwise and irresponsible to continue to pass the buck to the next Council down the chain. I do, however, think it is important that the areas of historic under-investment are resolved first, and that once these areas are fixed, the rates are again reviewed, so that ratepayers don't continue to pay high rates associated with rebuilding and repair, but more moderate rates associated with maintenance and planned replacement of aging infrastructure over time.”

J & D Curtice: “The bottom line for us is we are trying to provide a family home for our children and the rates just keep climbing which is hard enough without it jumping up again. This is going to cause so much stress on our family and many others’ I know. We can't keep taking the hit for everything when we need to feed and clothe our 4 children and pay a mortgage.”

Martin Lord: “The rates increase for our property last year was almost 20%, which does not match your published rates increase for the region. This year I am hearing, on the radio, that you are proposing another 20% increase in rates this year. My concern with increases to rates is that the increase this year will become permanent and will then have year on year increases compiled on top of it. Once you are on top of the repairs and upgrades are our rates going to be reduced back to their "normal" levels, or is the council going to continue to charge us inflated rates?”

Phyllis Tichinin: “Increase rates and consider a rates reduction/rebate for seniors”.

Sjoerd Gorter: “It is an insult to state that our rates are artificially low. The reason that no upgrades took place in the past, is because we simply cannot afford to pay for it. Under investment due to lack of money not because of lack of will. Every New Zealander is entitled to have access to services such a waste water treatment and a safe and healthy fresh water supply. Knock on the door of government and ask for some cash needed. Do not be afraid to ask. Jacinda likes handing out cash. Borrow plenty as rates are low. This is the best time to borrow. CHBDC borrowed money for a dam that never went ahead.”

Lyn Horspool: “I'm happy with higher rates to get and sustain top class infrastructure for all.”

Daniel & Heidi Repko: “Once again we feel obliged to choose YES. However, as mentioned earlier Based on the Councils preferred options in the 10 year plan, our rates will more than double in 10 years (from $3500 to $7600). As pensioners on a mostly fixed income there is no way I/we will be able to pay for that. It will probably mean that eventually we will have to sell and move elsewhere. We are dreading this idea. I can see the Councils dilemma, but that doesn't make it acceptable to us. You refer to 'compromised decision making', we call it incompetent decision making. How do we know that this time around the same isn't going to happen again? (Sorry to be so blunt). It is more common than not that infrastructure builds/repairs etc go 50% or more over budget...or the resulting 'fix/work' isn't fit for purpose (Library strengthening/ waste water plants anyone?). How do we know that there are iron-clad solutions/budgets/contracts in place to avoid those (unfortunately frequent) events happening again? Putting a lot more COLLECTIVEPRESSURE on Central Government to come to the party, in particular for regions like CHB that have several small communities that need basic services with only a very small rate-base to pay for these services.”

Miriam Howarth: “I have concerns about the burden on ratepayers especially those on fixed incomes such as pensioners living in their own homes but with limited financial resources. I feel that central government should be doing more for smaller communities; our ratepayer base is simply not large enough to fund the scale of infrastructure and services that the local council is expected to provide.”

Terry Hare: “I am extremely concerned that the inflated property market values at the next QV review is going to disproportionately inflate rates using Council’s current methods for determining rates values and will have a detrimental financial impact on the entire community. Council must seriously consider reviewing its charges methodology given that it is inevitable there will be excessive Quotable Value increase that will impact on the cost of rates for the entire community. Ratepayers will simply not be able to survive and either abandon the district or commit suicide and that will leave council with a ghost town and no ratepayers. Allowances for this in the LTP I believe is essential.”

Kathryn Bayliss: “CHBDC has high aspirations and does a lot of good work but it needs to remember ratepayers are not an unlimited source of money. Many are on limited incomes and can't afford increasingly higher rate charges. Rates must be kept as low as possible and CHBDC should focus on necessities, essential infrastructure, assets and services. The less money that ratepayers have means some people will need to spend less locally and not be able to support our retailers and other businesses. Large rate increases could break some ratepayers. User-pays and people who benefit should be the ones who pay rates for that service.”

Alice Bellamy: “I’m seriously concerned for my household at the prospect of having these rates increases when we are having significant financial difficulties already and I’m deeply concerned this is just going to make matters worse for us and other families like us.”

Lathan Wroe: “Rates artificially low is misleading. True they were stagnant even 15yrs ago but they've shot up exponentially since. They are a huge budgeting cost and a major financial burden. The proposed increases are horrendous.”

Federated Farmers: “That the Council immediately implements a financial strategy that includes reducing costs in all non-core activity areas, and not solely relying on rates increases.

That the unsustainable rates increases proposed are reduced.”

Trish Giddens: “Rates for our small community will prove to be a great cost against the family weekly budget. At a time when housing is expensive and people are recovering post COVID, rates need to be kept to an acceptable level.

I would like to see more transparency with the Financials and an indepth review of our operating costs. The poor investment decisions in regards to Wastewater, the Memorial Hall and Library upgrades are all costly errors for ratepayers to bear. Staff numbers appear to have increased substantially. Is the cost of Contractors proving more efficient and effective than past operators? Comparative financials would assist understanding and be more palatable and acceptable perhaps to the proposed plan.

When housing is at a crisis, it is a poor decision by Council to consider selling the Retirement units and hard to see how these can be costing the Council as opposed to at least being self-maintaining. Tenants and the community at large, being provided with a thorough explanation of the costs of running them versus the income, would be receptive to considering a warranted, justified and reasonable increase.”

Shelley Burne-Field: “Please Don’t raise rents for pensioners in retirement housing! Especially now! It is unaffordable for them. Get rid of any pretentious arguments about discounts or market rents. Please - the whole point of having affordable housing is...having affordable housing. I don’t buy your flawed logic at all that maintenance costs will break the bank. Your own figures contradict that argument. Cut your operational overheads.

Don’t raise the ugly head of attempting to sell the retirement housing stock again. Your preferred option was to sell the family silver - once again! Please think of the tenants and the original reason for building the retirement housing units - to offer affordable housing for pensioners.

I explained to Mayor Walker back in 2017 that her and her Council’s programme was “on steroids” and unaffordable - I stand by my words. Many in the community feel the same. Cut your operational overheads. Live within your means. Every project does not need to be ‘shiny and new’.

These rates increases are NOT affordable to the community. Do not exceed the debt cap. Short term borrowing by exceeding our means is not the way.

DEFER unnecessary capex projects - 80% of our wastewater and drinking water infrastructure is mid-life. Right now is NOT the time to ‘be bold’ and spend up large. Be conservative and re-group until assumptions can be fleshed out e.g. three waters reform.”

Dr Trevor Le Lievre: “I do not support the proposed rate increases, which are too high and will unfairly burden ratepayers who are already under rates pressure, and are heading into a decade of Covid-driven economic uncertainty, and a housing bubble ready to burst”.

Officers Response: Ratepayers have highlighted that rates are a burden on those who are on a fixed income (just as our pensioners), or those with high mortgages, or those who have been impacted by drought or Covid-19.

When constructing the budget, officers had to balance the need to upgrade aged, not fit for purpose assets against rates rises. To minimise the burden of these upgrades Officers have pursued third party funding (government, developers, trade wasters) and utilised loans to spread the payments out over a number of years.

Council and Government both have policies to assist low income earners and Covid-19 sufferers with their rates burden.

One suggestion that came out of Terry Hare’s verbal submission was whether ratepayers are sufficiently aware of Councils and Central Governments rates rebate policies. Are present Council does advertise these on its rates inserts, the rates team promote them when talking to ratepayers, and the rates team follow up rate payers who have applied for rebates in the past but haven’t done so in the current financial year. Council could try to get some Central Government Funding to fund a part time position to be a more dedicated “rates rebate champion” for the community.

Rates are set at a level sufficient to cover Council’s cost of operations and aren’t affected by Quotable Values (QV). QV is simply the method of spreading the rates. For example, simplistically if Council required $1m of rates to operate and the combined QV value across the district was $100m then the rates would be set at $0.010 in the dollar of QV. However if the value of district increased to $200m, Council would still only need $1m to operate so the rates would drop to $0.005 in the dollar of QV.

Section 17a of the Local Government Act requires “A local authority must review the cost-effectiveness of current arrangements for meeting the needs of communities within its district or region for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions.” Central Hawkes Bay District Council is continuously reviewing its structures, staffing and cost bases to ensure cost effectiveness is achieved.

One of the areas reviewed recently was Council’s Retirement Units. These units are funded 100% from rental income (no ratepayer subsidy), however the units are old and need modernising and the S17a review considered how this might be achieved, and whether Council was the best vehicle to run social housing (Council doesn’t have access to the full range of government rental subsidies that other Social Housing Providers have). Council resolved on the 22^nd October 2020 to retain ownership of its Retirement Housing, but adjust rents to achieve the funding required for the upgrades/renewals.

Prioritisation of Spend:

Kaye Harrison: “Concentrate on the urgent repairs, the rest can wait or be funded by fundraising by the community. eg: you mention the play grounds and public toilets, yes they need doing but let the community fundraise for it. The rates increases should only be for the URGENT repairs.”

AK Hansen: “I don’t agree with spending money on “nice” things like the Waipawa pool which has minimal usability when there is a great facility in Waipuk. The distance between Waipuk / Waipawa is so small don’t use rate payer money to double up on facilities DURING A TIME WHEN MONEY IS TIGHT. Prioritise the NEED before the WANT as much as possible, and defer those WANTS until a better time. Please.”

Sue McLeod: “You need to make sure the money is spent on the things you have identified – not introducing other things.”

Lynnette Dewes: “be extra careful how rate payer’s money is spent !!!!!! check check and check the figures...”

New Zealand Memorial Museum Trust –Le Quesnoy: “Our submission is to request that Central Hawke’s Bay District Council supports the project to build a Museum and Visitor Centre in Le Quesnoy with a donation equivalent to $1 per resident of your district, to remember those who gave their lives in the World Wars to give us freedom.”

Geert Gelling: “Preference to fix/upgrade property. Plan and organise finance to do it.”

Peter & Viv Paton: “In the past a lot of money has been wasted when things haven’t been done properly eg the way pipes have been repaired (bandaids), library, hall etc”.

Benita: “It sucks but it has to be done.”

Federated Farmers: “That durable and fit-for-purpose infrastructure becomes the district’s #1 priority.”

Chris Davis: “Given this (the 3 waters reform) there is no point embarking on new wastewater schemes or renewals programmes that may well be overturned by decisions taken by the new entity. Consideration of scale may lead to different options being pursued by the new entity.

In the meantime, Council should not commit to new initiatives that could be overturned but would be wise to do the best it can to ensure wastewater consent compliance without any significant new financial expenditure. Whilst we should get on with a renewals programme it would be unwise to do so until the outcome of the reforms is known.”

Officers Response: Ratepayers have expressed concern that rates money if applied in accordance to the priorities outlined in the Long Term Plan, and that the urgent infrastructure needs are addressed before the “nice to haves” are undertaken. This is exactly the premise that the Long Term Plan was constructed under ie that until Council sorts its urgent infrastructure needs, Council doesn’t have the headroom in rates to consider any substantial “nice to haves” and that urgent repairs and compliance issues must be addressed first.

The wastewater upgrades are being prioritised in the LTP due to current non-compliance with resource consents, threats of prosecution, and the need to renew these consents. While there is uncertainty about the future ownership model of these treatment plants going forward, regardless of who owns them, they will remain assets for the benefit of the Central Hawkes Bay Community. That is, they can’t be relocated elsewhere in the country. Council has also been reassured by MBIE that any debt held by Council related to 3 Waters Assets will be transferred to the new asset owning entity (along with the assets) if the reform proceeds. For this reason, Officers are confident that any money spent on these assets, and debt incurred, will not be wasted during this period of uncertainty.

How Rates and Fees and Charges are set and whether this is equitable:

Andrea Thomson: “Future proofing must include a plan for when more development comes. You the council will need to decide who is to be accountable for allowing people hooking in to the upgraded infrastructure here on out to ensure this doesn’t happen again! This is something I would love to hear the council share details on. I would hate for my children or even my grandchildren to have to pay for rich men to become richer because our council should have made them pay more to maintain and upkeep the infrastructure that this council and rate payer are working hard at doing.”

Lisa: “Rates have not been kept low for years, they are high. We pay more $ than some in Napier / Hastings and they have more services.”

David Dicks: “I think that development companies should be required to help the communities rather than rip them off by adding higher prices for the work to be done. I think that potentially the council should invest in such companies and actually employ staff for ongoing trade rolls so that they can control the costs involved such as builders, drainlayers etc.”

Marjon Greenwood: “Difficult balance to achieve between keeping rates affordable and debt low -the debt cannot be allowed to become a noose around future generations' necks. Please make sure to ask those who hold the district's wealth (mostly land owners) to shoulder their fair share of the burden - without the (generally much poorer) town dwellers to support their businesses they would not be thriving either”.

Mike Harrison: “I have serious concerns around the misinformation in your "facing the Facts" consultation document regarding the rates increases. The advertised rate increases are 7.1% for 2021/22 however the general rate rise for residents of Tikokino is actually 17.1%. I believe the council is being dishonest and grossly unfair by not disclosing the real rates rise to Tikokino ratepayers. I would like the council to provide a detailed report showing how the rates increases were formulated for all Central Hawkes Bay townships.”

Gary Newnham: “We need to increase population”

Bill Hale: “A view to doubling of our population and allow for that growth will protect our future generations in my opinion”.

Barry Middleton: “With accommodation currently being at a premium nationally, I wonder if it could be a good strategy to initiate construction of large scale accommodation with council collecting rent from tenants. This could possibly be done in conjunction with one (or more) of the retirement home providers (e.g. Rymans. Summerset, Bupa). I see C.H.B as an ideal retirement area and rental income could possibly provide a substantial boost to income from rates. I realise there is a reluctance for councils to become landlords but this could benefit the district in multiple ways, boosting council income and increasing population, thus providing business stimulus for existing business owners.”

Maurice Groot: “As a European immigrant, I don't understand why New Zealand citizens don't just pay rates to the national treasury through tax. With that, the government can fund district councils to make sure everybody in NZ has the same standards.”

Elliott Peacock: “Numbers working for the Council have increased a lot! Those using Council facilities eg swimming pools and council grounds should be paying the full cost of running them. What would it cost the CHB College to operate a swimming pool? Are they paying that amount to use the Council Pool?”

Bob Kerins: “My question on this is where did the years and years of rate payers funds go if I wasn’t spent correctly on infrastructure etc? It must have been spent somewhere else if there’s nothing left in the kitty now, I would propose enquiring into how much property and capital were purchased by the CHB council during this long period and suggest that it would only be fair to CHB residents to sell these properties as part payment for the water debarkle we are currently facing, Look forward to your thoughts on this.”

Officers Response: Ratepayers have expressed concern about how rates and fees and charges are set, and whether this methodology is equitable.

Last September Councillors undertook a review of their Revenue and Financing Policy which considered exactly this topic. During this review every activity that the Council undertakes was considered separately to identify who the beneficiaries were of that activity, and flowing from that what was the most appropriate funding mechanism for that activity. For example, parks and reserves were considered to have a high public benefit and therefore 97% of their funding was to come from rates and the balance of 3% would be raised through fees and charges. Alternatively, activities such as retirement housing were at the other end of the spectrum where 100% of the benefit was attributed to the tenant of the property and recovered through rents with no rate funding used to subsidize the activity. The full details of this policy can be found on page 183 of the Long Term Plan supporting document. This review was publically consulted on at the time.

Sitting alongside this policy is the Development Contributions Policy that details what contribution developers have to pay for growth and the related infrastructure required in the district. Council is proposing that developers should pay 100% of this growth (see challenge four on page 24 of the Long Term Plan consultation document).

Once the growth has occurred and the infrastructure paid for, having more rate payers in Central Hawkes Bay is a good thing. Currently Council only has approximately 8,000 rating units (of which 4,175 are connected to water services). These rating units have to pay for 6 wastewater treatment plants, 1,264km of roads, 15 cemeteries, and 24 public toilets (just to name a few of the activities of Council). For every new rate payer that moves to the district this will improve the economics of supplying this infrastructure.

Council is currently updating its district plan, and has already completed spatial planning to help determine where growth should occur and where infrastructure needs to be built. Both these measures should enable planned growth to occur which will assist Central Hawkes Bay’s housing shortage. This could include retirement villages such as those Barry Middleton is supporting.

Across the district Council has a wide range of ratepayers, who enjoy different levels of service provision. For example, every rate payer has access to libraries, public toilets, play grounds and reserves, local roads, but not every rate payer is connected to water services or has kerbside refuse and recycling. It is for this reason that rates are a mixture of general rates that get spread across every property, and targeted rates that only apply to properties that are connected to that benefit.

Across the district the average rate increase was 7.8%. However, some towns, such as Takapau had rate increases of 16.5%. This is because Council is changing the levels of service supplied to those townships. Takapau for example is going to receive kerbside recycling collection for the first time, and is going to have an upgrade to its stormwater network. Mike Harrison, in his submission mentions Tikokino which is also going to get kerbside recycling collection for the first time. A full breakdown of how some sample ratepayers across the district are impacted can be found on page 39 of the Long Term Plan Consultation document.

Rates is essentially a form of tax that is related to the value of your property and the services it enjoys as opposed to your family’s income like central governments income tax system.

Rates and Fees and Charges are set each year to match the level of activity that Council plans to undertake. By deferring activity (i.e. asset replacement or planned maintenance) you can keep rates low, but eventually this catches up with you when your assets are so old they are at the point of failure. This is the point the Council currently finds itself at. It hasn’t historically rated for these replacements and hasn’t got reserves/investments set aside to fund this activity.

The increased use of Debt:

L. Guy, R. Bell: “To upgrade the infrastructure in the short term requires borrowing. Rates can help with the receiving”.

Serena Ann Spencer: “Is any money borrowed going to have the same interest rate for the entire length of the loan? My main concern would be that in 100 years’ time our descendants will find themselves in the same situation as we are now. Council needs to make sure that adequate monies are put aside each year to allow for regular upgrades of ALL assets, infrastructure, wastewater etc. Monies saved for each department, should be used by those departments, and not 'borrowed' by others because they have short falls. It may be a struggle to start off with but eventually should, with good management, become easier to save.”

David Bane: “Loans are always a risk in terms of future pay back. Therefore, there needs to be a high level of diligence applied. Do we absolutely need the loan for essentials? Is the amount of the loan correct? Is the cost of the loan acceptable? Are there any penalties? I personally believe that our system of local government seriously needs an overhaul. There has to be much more accountability. It is not appropriate for any business to manage its failures by handing on costs to its captive consumers. Council needs to keep close control of its expenses (staffing, operating costs etc.).”

David Bishop: “I support these principles:

· A conscious and continuing review of Council services to determine need for, priority, and implementation span;

· To try and reach a prudent balance between loan and rate funding for the purchase of new and maintenance of old assets;

· To reduce the need to borrow, by progressively paying for more asset renewals from rates, with loans being used to fund new assets required for increases in levels of service and growth.”

Keri Rophia: “Now I am on an Investment Committee of $100m+ I understand how debt can be an advantage and agree in this instance”.

Kristin Yoldash: “I oppose debt increases and rate increases no matter who is to blame. I think the government needs to front up and support rural infrastructure costs. Our pensioners should not have to have an increase in rates it is too much. You will increase homelessness in the area. Cost of living has increased so much that we pay export prices on food, coupled with electricity and phone, internet plus rent or mortgages then additional rate increases, we need to be realistic. I'm not sure what the solution looks like but let’s get some more thinkers / investment planners on board.”

AM Banks: “Has to be done – Cannot put it all on rate payers”

Marti Eller, Gillian Eller, Mark Eller: “Debt funding will ensure the costs are spread across future users. The debt ratio for CHB is not extreme. But the previous underfunding was extreme!”

Federated Farmers: “That a policy of fully funding the depreciation of the Three Waters is implemented, and that this funding be fully utilised to meet the current demand for renewals and upgrades.”

Chris Davis: “Council implementing a funded depreciation regime in addition to debt funding where necessary and embarks on a balanced/smoothed long term asset renewal programme that can be used to predict future levels of expenditure and hence rating requirements. Debt funding may be necessary to make progress on the deferred renewals backlog.

It is prudent for council to service capital works through debt as it spreads the cost over say 20 years and takes account of intergenerational equity. It also avoids massive rates hikes in any one year. Current interest rates are very attractive and council should take advantage of this.”

Dr Trevor Le Lievre: “Concerning infrastructure upgrades, I support option 4 to halt the upgrades and seek an alternative funding revenue before continuing; and as a contingency, in the event that alternative funding is not secured, I support the leveraging of the Council’s balance sheet to acquire more debt to undertake priority projects, which can be amortised over a longer period.”

Officers Response: Ratepayers are generally supportive of using debt as a mechanism to undertake the upgrading of long term assets, however concern has been expressed about whether this was a long term strategy or a short term strategy, how is Council going to manage interest rate risk, and what is Council going to do to ensure it doesn’t get in the same situation in the future.

Ratepayers are also keen, as are Councillors and Officers, that all external funding opportunities are exhausted before rates and debt are used to fund capital spend.

Council generally will use debt as a mechanism of funding “new” assets, but it is unusual for Council to fund “replacement” assets through debt. A more normal approach would be to set aside a small amount each year (equal to depreciation) into an investment account to fund the assets eventual replacement. Central Hawkes Bay District Council hasn’t been fully funding this depreciation historically which is why we are where we are, however once the Council has caught up it intends to fund depreciation in the future. So the intention is that this is a short term solution (at least the loans for the replacement of assets).

During this period of catch up, debt is being used as a mechanism of spreading this additional burden over multiple years thus lowering the immediate rating need. Council is also actively pursuing other third party funding (such as central government and developers) to minimise the need for these debt increases.

Council has the ability to borrow both floating and fixed and historically has used the fixed option to limit its exposure to interest rate changes. Councils existing debt has the average interest rate of 2.3%, but Council can currently borrow between 0.75% and 2.7% depending on the term of the loan (the rates above are for loans with a 1 Year - 22 Year duration). Council has assumed an average interest rate of 2.5% throughout the period of the Long Term Plan.

Treasury Policy

Kathryn Bayliss: “I only partly agree that CHBDC should increase the debt limit to enable it to address the significant infrastructure investment requirements whilst keeping rates as low as possible.

I think CHBDC should stay at Local Government Funding Agency Tier 2 and update the Treasury Policy so it can borrow up to 150% of CHBDC operating revenue, which is lower than the LGFA’s 175% limit. If it needs to Council could simply adjust its own internal treasury policy to allow for the debt to operating revenue cap to be 175% rather than the current 150%. I oppose CHBDC becoming a Tier One Council with the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) and revising its Treasury Policy to allow Council to borrow to 200% of its revenue. This is too high and risky. It could place a burden ratepayer. Council has a Policy to build up contingency funds e.g. Catastrophic Events Funds, Adverse Events Contingency, and there is the HB Disaster Relief Fund Trust. These help pay for storm damage to roads and general disaster response and recovery. CHB Council also has insurance. Alongside the Council, Central Government also has a role in disaster recovery and restoration works after natural disasters have happened. I think CHBDC should wait for the outcome of Central Government Three Waters Reform process before it considers raising the borrowing limit above 150% of CHBDC operating revenue.

I oppose the following section in the Treasury Management (including Investment and Liability) Policy: "Guarantees/contingent liabilities and other financial arrangements Council may act as guarantor to financial institutions on loans or enter into incidental arrangements for organisations, clubs, trusts, Council-controlled trading organisations or Business Units, when the purposes of the loan are in line with Council’s strategic objectives...."I would like it to be deleted as it is imprudent and could place a needless liability on ratepayers. I agree that the priorities in our infrastructure strategy correctly reflect the need for investment in our community assets today.”

Officers Response: Officers are recommending that the Council’s Debt limit be set at 150% of revenue (as proposed in the Long Term Plan). This will allow Council to get on and do the first five years of the capital works proposed in the Long Term Plan.

By year six, Council will be needing to review its Treasury Policy again and could consider raising debts limits to 175%, or obtaining credit ratings and moving to Tier One of the LGFA. However, given the uncertainty about the future of 3 Waters within Local Councils (given Central Governments 3 Waters Reform program), and the speed of future growth of the population within Central Hawkes Bay (which is driving some the capital program) officers would prefer not to lift debt to revenue ratios straight to 175% but defer this decision until these matters have some more clarity.

Also, before the decision to go to 175% or become credit rated is required, Council will have another Long Term Plan round (2024-2034 LTP), and depending on treasury constraints and the level of debt at the time will consult on further updates to the Treasury Policy. As an aside, the Risk and Assurance Sub-committee has requested that Council engage specialist Treasury advice on future borrowings, and that this treasury specialist reviews Council’s Treasury Management Policy before the 2024-2034 LTP is prepared for consultation.

The section of policy that deals with “Guarantees/contingent liabilities” has been in Council’s treasury and liability policy for some time, it’s not something that has been added as part of this LTP’s treasury review.

Currently Council does have a guarantee in place in favour of LGFA, where Central Hawkes Bay District Council (as well as 57 other Councils) act as cross guarantors for each other’s debt in proportions determined by the size of your Councils rates revenue. Without this guarantee, Central Hawkes Bay District Council could not borrow more than $20m from the LGFA, and therefore could not deliver on the capital program outlined in this LTP.

Officers recommend that Council adopts its draft Treasury Management Policy (including Investment and Liability Policies) as presented in the Long Term Plan Consultation Document Supporting Information Booklet. Remembering that Officers have already given an undertaking to the Risk and Assurance Sub-Committee that this policy will again be reviewed before the next Annual Plan, partly in regard to the investment section, and the knowledge that the outcome of the 3 Waters Reform should be known by late 2021.

Revenue and Financing Policy

Kathryn Bayliss: “I am against rural ratepayers paying for Urban Storm Water Systems as part of the general rate. During storms and very wet weather most rural people would stay home if possible and not visit urban centres.”

“I agree with the variable component of general rates is set as cents per dollar of capital value, which is assessed according to two differentials based on location:

i. Central Business District in Waipawa/Waipukurau (all rating units excluding domestic residential) and

ii. ii. All other Rating Units”

Charles M Nairn: “The upgrade of the water services needs to be done as quickly as possible, but it should be funded by those who use the services. To that end the water rates should be increased by 20% (not the 6% currently proposed). The general rate should not fund the upgrade and so should not need the 20% increase proposed. This further burdens the rural ratepayers who do not benefit.”

Robbie Christiansen: Rates for Rural District Land Transport is seriously out of whack. Town people travel to the hills and beaches”.

Federated Farmers: “That the General Rate remains at the same level as last year and does not increase, given that it does not fund the Three Waters.

That the Council investigates a hybrid road funding model consisting of a district-wide targeted uniform charge to reflect public benefit, as well as the existing land value general rate which recognises private benefit.

Federated Farmers congratulates the Council on sticking to its policy of 100% targeted rates for water and wastewater, paid by serviced and serviceable properties.

The Council becomes compliant with Schedule 10 Section 20(3)(b) of the Local Government Act 2002, in that the UAGC percentage and the calculation method needs to be reported.

That Council fully utilises the UAGC mechanism at 30% of the total rates income to provide equity between ratepayers.

That district planning is shifted off the general rate and onto the UAGC.

The General Rate is not increased and remains at the same 0.10743cents in the CV dollar as 2019-20 year.

That equal benefit activities like Planning and Regulatory are funded by a flat charge, to ensure that ratepayers are paying an equal amount.

That a differential system is implemented to provide for rating areas plus land use differentials, similar to Hastings.

Federated Farmers asks the Council what percentage of animal control costs originate from rural dogs, compared to urban dogs.

That working dog registration fees provide a discount for subsequent dogs which are additional to the first working dog.

That a flat fee is introduced to provide a discount for a team of 10 working dogs.”

Officers Response: The Revenue and Financing Policy was reviewed and consulted on in September 2020 as part of the lead up to developing the LTP. During this review every activity that the Council undertakes was considered separately to identify who the beneficiaries were of that activity, and flowing from that what was the most appropriate funding mechanism for that activity. This included viewing what was rated through general rates, targeted rates, and UAGC (uniform annual charge).

Currently the LTP proposes only 8% of Central Hawkes Bay District Council’s rates are collected through UAGC (which is similar to the 2019/20 rating year). The rates factors will be published once the LTP is adopted and final rates are struck, although Federated Farmers were supplied this information on the 12^th March 2021 via email.

To alter the mix between general rates and the UAGC, the Council would have to undertake another review of the Revenue and Financing Policy, and if material changes were to be made this would need separate public consultation. This can be scheduled before the development of the next Annual Plan if Councillors wish to build it into their work plan.

The UAGC is a flat charge per property, as opposed to most other rates which are set based on land or capital values. Rates can be argued, are a form of wealth tax since they are primarily linked to your property value (and to a certain extent your ability to pay, or affordability). By shifting more to UAGC you are breaking this nexus, and moving away from wealth based to flat charges. This will put more financial pressure on those in the lower social economic demographic of the community. The 30% UAGC mentioned in the Federated Farmers is the maximum UAGC rate a Council allowable under the Local Government Rating Act.

It was determined during this review, that while the majority of the benefit of providing stormwater networks is the protection of private property from flooding (hence the 90% of this activity funded from a targeted rate assigned to the properties within the stormwater network area). However, Council also agreed that there was a public good benefit to the wider district that roads remain open, unflooded allowing all ratepayers to freely move around the district, and that business districts are able to continue to operate providing essential services such as supermarkets and petrol stations. This wider public benefit was considered to be 10% of the total benefit and should be collected through general rates across the whole district.

In terms of both wastewater and drinking water, Council has determined that 100% of the benefit of those networks are enjoyed by the houses connected to those services. For that reason, these services are paid for 100% by a targeted rate to those connected (or able to connect), and nothing is collected through general rates for these water services.

Land Transport Rates are collected based on so many cents per dollar of land value, and this rate is the same regardless of where people live in the district. While this does put more of a burden on farmers (as they typically have higher land values than town folk), you also have to take into consideration the type of traffic and distance travelled when looking at wear and tear on Councils roading networks. Rural trips are typically longer than urban trips, and heavy trucks do more damage to roads than lighter vehicles by many multiples. For this reason, Officers are happy with the way Land Transport Rates are currently set.

Currently Dog Registrations are set as a Fee and Charge. In the LTP Rural dog registrations are set at $51 compared to town dogs which are $108, so already get more than a 50% discount per dog. As noted in the Federated Farmers report, Councils proposed fee structure is not that dissimilar for a pack of 10 dogs to our neighbours Hastings District Council.

Rates Remission, Postponement, Discounts and Collection Policy

Kathryn Bayliss: “I oppose the Remission of Water Meter Rates Attributable to Water Leaks Policy and think it should be deleted. (Long Term Plan 2021-31 Consultation Document page 224) Leaks should be fixed as soon as possible. Given a month to fix them is too wasteful of water. Not being given a remission of Water Rates would make people responsible to fix them as soon as possible. Water meters should be monitored daily.”

Officers Response: This policy was reviewed in August 2020. Prior to this review the water leak remission policy had been silent on the period in which a leak was to be fixed within and as a result of some tardy repairs the policy was updated to say that “the leak has been repaired as soon as practical, and within one calendar month of being identified (unless evidence is provided that the services of an appropriate repairer could not be obtained within this period)”. Officers believe that this wording is appropriate.

Currently Council does not have water meters on every property. Every new build, and properties historically identified as high water users, have meters (approximately 30% of all connections). The approximate cost to provide water meters to the remaining 70% of properties is $2m for dumb meters. Dumb Meters have no telemetry in them, meaning they have to be read manually which is what Council currently does with the 2,150 meters it currently has on its network. For the majority of customers, they are read quarterly.

Currently the only smart meters (the ones that report back reads over a network connection) are housed at pump stations, treatment plants, and reservoirs which allows staff to monitor network flows, but not individual property usage.

INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY FEEDBACK

Thriving Community

David Lewis: “Must be done, no water, no life.”

Shona Crooks: “I feel that it is extremely important for the infrastructure, etc to be brought up to date to ensure that we continue to be a happy, healthy and thriving community.”

Heather-Anne Tidey: “It’s a massive job that needs to be addressed to make us fit for the future. We appreciate the consultation process and then no-one can growl about not being heard! Thank you:-). Kia Kaha”

Diana Hollis: “The sooner this is sorted and the work is started the better”

John McLean: “Strongly feel we must not lose control of our water. Keep it local.”

Officers Response: Officers agree that good infrastructure leads to a happy, healthy and thriving community. It also makes it an attractive region for people to move into.

Safe, healthy water, and effluent disposal is important to our Council, but this needs to be balanced with keeping it affordable. Officers will be interested to see how the 3 Waters Reform plays out over the next 12 months. Regardless of the ownership model at the end, safe drinking water delivery will be at the heart of it.

Priority of Works

Chrissy Malcolm: “I feel that considering the dire need for upgrading of water pipes and waste water repairs that too much money has been set aside for NON PRIORITY infrastructure like the Waipukurau library without consultation. I was definitely not thrilled to read about it in the newspaper and to find that my rates are paying for yet another library, sometimes we just need to share facilities.”

Karen Olsen-Mills: “Maybe all these jobs within council that are being created aren't all necessary and should seriously be considered. As a rate payer seeing many jobs’ advertised for the council I'm starting to wonder how everyone fits into the building. Also how much is going to be spent upgrading the building which is to become the new library, is this one earthquake proof or will that be another waste of rate payer’s money.”

William Irving Peacock: “Please look after rural roads”

Noel Pederson: “Council needs to make sure contractors are doing road sweeping and crate cleaning.”

David Bishop: “I support the principles as detailed here:

· Investment in Infrastructure is driven by information, science and risk;

· Assets are replaced when they are worn out in a manner that does not create a risk burden for future Councils or ratepayers;

· Long-term solutions are implemented rather than quick fixes:

· Compliance with legislation is mandatory but considered in most cases to be a minimum standard when evaluating project benefits”

Kathryn Bayliss: “I agree that the priorities in our infrastructure strategy correctly reflect the need for investment in our community assets today.”

Murray Howarth: “The upgrading of waste water infrastructure should be a priority over water supply. The present supply facilities seem adequate in most months of the year. Moving to land based disposal is an improvement and I have to ask if have you done your homework properly. I assume that the waste water is to be spread on farm land and the farmer is going to continue farming the area. Is that farmer compliant with his N leaching allocation when he is farming with extra nutrients and water?”

Sport NZ: “Councils are an important partner for regional sports trusts, who we invest in significantly and are the regional champions of our strategic vision. The primary ways we see the Central Hawkes Bay Long Term Plan helping to drive physical activity and wellbeing outcomes is through:

· the planning, funding and operation of community facilities and open spaces which enable play, active recreation and sport

· sustained support for spaces, places, and initiatives to encourage more people to be more active

We are encouraged that your Council over the period of the long-term plan wishes to increase its attention and focus on investment in community facilities including its halls, pools and open spaces following the completion of a Community Facilities Strategy for the District.”

Nicole Ellison: “The Plan is a great start to dealing with issues the District is facing. However, whilst considering crumbling infrastructure, I think Council should also look at roading, otherwise before we know it our roads will be falling apart and another huge investment (and corresponding increase in rates) will be needed. In addition, I suspect huge savings could be made if we could get the roading contractors working more efficiently and effectively, not just creating more work for themselves….”

Forest and Bird: “Climate change is already having an impact in Central Hawke’s Bay with hotter, drier weather being most noticeable. Combined with over allocation of ground water, the result for some of our remaining remnants of native forest has been catastrophic. Engineering our way to resilience against the impacts of climate change isn’t going to work”

“CHBDC needs to think about these sorts of ‘natural’ solutions to mitigating the risks of climate change. In the long term they will provide the best economic, environmental, and wellbeing outcomes.”

Officers Response: As part of developing Councils 30-year Asset Management Plan (a key input into developing the Long Term Plan), Officers have assessed the condition and expected remaining life of all of the Councils Assets. From this a program of works is developed and a priority list is developed. This is based partly on the age and condition of the asset, and partly the criticality of the asset (ie the impact on ratepayers if failure were to occur).

Obviously at present (while Council catches up on deferred maintenance from previous years) Council is capital constrained, and is prioritising core infrastructure (roads and water networks) over nice to haves (swimming pools and museums). The exception to this rule is where a third party funder is funding the nice to haves. This is the case with the new Waipukurau library, where MBIE is funding the development of a “digital hub” in Waipukurau. Through the use of this money and a bequest left to the library, Council is able to create a multi-purpose space that will house a Digital Hub, the Library, and AA Services with very little ratepayer funding.

With the wastewater discharge to land, Council will be able to treat the water to remove contaminants before the discharge. In fact, the farmers will be able to determine what nutrients they wish to be included or not included in the water discharge.

Council acknowledges that climate change is real, and when designing new infrastructure, the potential of increased floods, droughts, and sea level rises are factored into designs and proposed solutions.

Recycling

Penny Single: “I believe every time we have a change in the contractor for recycling the rules change. I understand the process of changing contractors. But the rules shouldn’t be changing every time a new contractor comes in. They should adapt to our rules. I also don’t agree with how little we are allowed to recycle. As a council you should be trying to reduce the amount of rubbish that goes into landfill by allowing us to recycle. I wash all my plastic and fold down all my cardboard. I even separate cardboard from plastic/cans and the glass. I have been penalised for doing this by having my 2nd bin taken from me (one of the bigger/older ones). I understand we have the option of going to the recycling bins, but I believe it should be encouraged to recycle as much as possible. Personally if it’s not collected it goes in the rubbish bin.”

Nikau Hill Station: “Never going to be able to kerbside collect all residents. Will need to keep rural recycling centres so you don’t need kerbside in these areas.”

Officers Response: Depending on the outcome of the consultation this will determine the future of centralised recycling drop off centres. If Council does move to additional kerbside recycling, then it does intend to remove the centralised recycling drop off centres in those areas. However, Council is also aware that those drop off centres are utilised by rural ratepayers as well as town ratepayers but the rural ratepayers won’t get kerbside collections. For this reason, Council is planning to introduce smaller, mobile, trailer based, drop off centres that will move around the communities and be placed at local schools on certain days of the week to allow rural recycling collection. It is hoped that by using the schools as Kaitiakis, or guardians, that these smaller mobile units will be subject to less contamination allowing more product to make it to recycling rather than having to be diverted to landfill which is the case currently with contaminated product.

Officers are also planning a further education program to reinforce with ratepayers what can and can’t be recycled, and that recycling needs to be washed and clean.

Other Topics

Ben Douglas: “A couple of little things, but low cost and it all adds up to reduce the infrastructure need- let's subsidise composting toilets and rainwater collection in existing houses and require rainwater collection of new builds.”

Gerrard Pain: “Previous Councils have tried listening to their community’s desire to avoid unaffordable rates – so unfair to classify as rates have been kept artificially low.

I felt it was brave of the Butler-led Council to try the floating wetland approach; that was a better option than the land based discharge being offered by the Regional Council – unfair to describe as “poor”.

Officers Response: Council currently is consulting on a number of proposed water bylaw reforms. One of those includes the requirement of all new builds to include a rainwater tank for the collection of non-potable water to be used for watering gardens and car washing etc. This will provide more resilience during periods of low water flows.

While the Butler led Council was brave introducing the experimental floating wetlands as a method of treating waste water, ultimately this has proved to be a failed experiment and the floating wetlands are now being removed, and more traditional and proven treatment processes are being introduced.

RISK ASSESSMENT and mitigation

Ratepayers have raised several risks:

1. Rate affordability

2. Debt affordability and Interest Rate Rises

3. Selecting appropriate infrastructure solutions

4. 3 Waters Reform Uncertainty

5. Legal Challenges to Rating and Fees and Charges

Throughout the development of the LTP Officers and Councillors have been acutely aware of the impact rate rises will have on the community. It is for this reason that Council is using every mechanism it can to minimise these rates rises – whether this is through the review of the finance and revenue policies, development contribution policy, fees and charges, the use of debt, and the pursuit of external funding. Only when all other avenues have been exhausted has rate rises been used.

Debt servicing and interest rate rises are mitigated through the use of a well written treasury policy, debt caps, external treasury advice from matter experts, the use of fixed interest loans, as well as oversight from Risk and Assurances independent chair.

Council has a number of trusted external advisors, in the form of national and international engineering firms, who are providing advice on infrastructure solutions. Council is also implementing tried and true solutions rather than experimental ones.

While the 3 Water Reform creates uncertainty Council has been reassured by MBIE that any debt held by Council related to 3 Waters Assets will be transferred to the new asset owning entity (along with the assets) if the reform proceeds. For this reason, Officers are confident that any money spent on these assets while continue to benefit the local community beyond Council ownership, and debt incurred, will not be wasted during this period of uncertainty.

Council has sought external advice when developing its LTP and associated policies, and Officers are confident the process undertaken has been robust.

FOUR WELLBEINGS

Officers are confident that the options put forward for consultation under this LTP will create cultural and environmental outcomes that are superior to current practices for the treatment of wastewater and solid waste. The upgrades proposed should also reduce likelihood of public health scares from drinking water contamination.

While these upgrades will come at an economic cost to the community, the health benefits, and the district growth and prosperity will outweigh these economic costs in the long run.

Delegations or authority

Under the Local Government Act, the Council is required to have a Long Term Plan to set the agenda for the future and this is required to be consulted on with the public. As part of this consultation the Council is required to hear submissions on the proposal.

sIGNIFICANCE AND ENGAGEMENT

In accordance with the Council's Significance and Engagement Policy, this matter has been assessed as of significance, and requires public consultation.

OPTIONS Analysis

Council is required to follow a process for establishing the funding of the Council activities. Section 101 (3) requires the Council to consider each of the following items as part of the funding of an activity.

· The community outcomes to which the activity primarily contributes to; and

· The distribution of the benefits between the community as a whole, any identifiable part of the community and individuals; and

· The period in or over which those benefits are expected to occur; and

· The extent to which the actions or inactions of particular individuals or a group contribute to the need to undertake the activity; and

· The costs and benefits, including consequences for transparency and accountability, of funding the activity distinctly from other activities; and

· Overall impact of any allocation of liability for revenue needs on the community.

Therefore, the Council needs to consider the benefits of an activity to the community at different levels. This includes an individual, part of the community and the community as a whole. Following this consideration, Council determines the appropriate funding for each activity. Therefore, rating allocation is not set based on user pays. Council determines the rates allocation based on the allocation of benefit and the overall impact any allocation of liability for revenue needs on the community.

When considering the adoption of the Financial Strategy and Infrastructure Strategy Council is a key component of Council deciding the funding of, and prioritisation of Council Spend.

	Option 1 Adopt the Financial and Infrastructure Strategy Contained in the LTP.	Option 2 Reject the Financial and Infrastructure Strategy Contained in the LTP, and request changes based on consultation feedback.
Financial and Operational Implications	Council by adopting the two strategies is agreeing to the platform on which the LTP was developed. It affirms the condition assessment of infrastructure, the program of works to maintain and improve this infrastructure, and the funding mechanism to pay for it.	Council by rejecting the two strategies is asking for officers to amend capital works prioritisation and/or the funding allocations to this this work. Depending of the magnitude of the changes asked for could materially alter the budgets consulted on in the LTP.
Long Term Plan and Annual Plan Implications	Council by adopting the two strategies is affirming the platform on which the LTP was developed.	Council by rejecting the two strategies is altering the premise on which the LTP, program of works, and the financing/treasury policies were developed.
Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes	Generally, there has been strong community support for this option in completing necessary works and spreading costs as best possible. Will allow for asset upgrades to ensure community vitality and levels of service continue.	This option would be at odds with the over 90% support for option 1. Significant changes to these strategies may not allow for asset upgrades that are required to ensure community vitality and for levels of service continue.
Statutory Requirements	These strategies are required to be prepared, consulted on, and adopted by Council as part of its LTP under the Local Government Act.	These strategies are required to be prepared, consulted on, and adopted by Council as part of its LTP under the Local Government Act.
Consistency with Policies and Plans	This option is consistent with the Asset Management Plan, Treasury Policy, Development Contributions, 3 Waters Bylaws, and the Revenue and Financing Policies.	Depending on the changes required, this option could be consistent with the Asset Management Plan, Treasury Policy, Development Contributions, 3 Waters Bylaws, and the Revenue and Financing Policies.

Recommended Option

This report recommends option number one, adopt the Financial and Infrastructure Strategy as detailed in the LTP Supporting Document for addressing the matter.

NEXT STEPS

Assuming the Financial and Infrastructure Strategy as detailed in the LTP Supporting Document are adopted, then Officers will include them as written into the final LTP Document.

RECOMMENDATION

That having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That the submitters are thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitters.

c) That the Treasury Management Policy (including Investment and Liability Policies) attached to this report be adopted.

Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

7.11 Long Term Plan 2018-2028 Draft Deliberation Reports: Places and Open Spaces

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 Long Term Plan consultation in relation to the Places and Open Spaces Activity. It provides an analysis of the submissions and some options for the Council to consider.

Recommendation for consideration

That, having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That the submitters are thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitters.

b) That Council encourage the clubs of Russell Park to actively participate in Councils Community Facility Plan, intended to commence this calendar year, subject to the confirmation of funding in the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.

c) That Council provide new operational funding of $35,000 in Year 2 and 3 of the Long Term Plan, to provide operational support and resourcing for the development of the Sporthub Project at Russell Park.

d) That Council reconsiders the request for temporary changing rooms, following the completion of the Community Facilities Plan, wider club feedback relating to the timing and scope of any multisport hub project for Russell Park and an assessment of actual demand and need, either in the 2022/23 Annual Plan or as an Officer report.

places and open spaces: Parks, reserves, and urban spaces

Topics for consideration

Topic One	Community Gateways
Topic Two	Improvements to Pourerere Beach
Topic Three	Support for Ōtaia (Lindsay Bush)
Topic Four	Support of Play, Active Recreation & Sport (PARS), Development of Strategies, and Infrastructure that supports PARS
Topic Five	Street Trees in Waipukurau CBD
Topic Six	Support for a Multi-sports facility in Waipukurau
Topic Seven	Temporary Changing Rooms – Russell Park

Topic One: Community Gateways

Submissions:

121 Anthony Clouston

Summary of Submission:

Mr. Clouston identifies issues with entrances to Waipawa and Waipukurau and how these areas discourage people from stopping and enjoying our CBD’s.

Analysis:

The Integrated Spatial Plan completed in 2020 identifies the need for enhancements to town entrances through gateway signage, trees, and CBD development. This has informed the LTP. Within Places and Open Spaces activity area, the LTP identifies funding for entrance improvements for Waipawa, Waipukurau CBD development, and other community enhancements within the district.

Recommendation: That the submitter is thanked for his comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitter.

Topic Two: Improvements to Pourerere Beach

Submissions:

202 Tracey and Andrew Gay

Summary of Submissions:

The Gays discuss ways of improving Pourerere Beach by changes to the freedom camping and explain ways the Gays have taken it upon themselves make improvements to manage the dunes via planting and fencing. They request a sign similar to the one at Kairakau to encourage donations to the iron maiden they have installed.

Analysis:

The Long Term Plan has earmarked funds to develop a strategy to manage camping along the coastlines in the district and the community will be involved in this process.

The hard work by the Gays to improve their community is commended. In the past year and a half Council has removed a number of old signs and erected the Pourerere Beach signage. Council will continue working with the community towards beneficial solutions.

Recommendation:

That the submitters are thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitter.

Topic Three: Support for Ōtaia (Lindsay Bush)

Submissions:

204 Louise Phillips, 215 Forest and Bird, 234 Dr Trevor Le Lievre

Summary of Submissions: Ms. Phillips and Forest and Bird discuss the volunteer work that the organisation puts into maintain and improve the biodiversity of Ōtaia. They note their members are aging and recognise that their funds will need to be supplemented either by increased grant or supporting their external grant applications. Both submitters also request that Council advocate and work with Regional Council to improve the parking area. Similarly, Dr Le Lievre recommends sealing the carpark (as well as Scenic Road to Ōtaia) and improving the amenities such as shelter and picnic facilities at the entrance to the bush. He also commends Council on the partnership model between Council and other government entities to leverage resources such as the extension of cycle trails and the work at Hunter Park. Noting these projects will promote exercise and quality of lifestyle for locals.

Analysis: In June 2020 Forest and Bird shared their Ōtaia Tukituki Scenic Reserve Strategic Plan that outlines work accomplished and a work plan for the next five years. There is a focus on ecological restoration, recreation and community awareness, and education. Based on this work officers recommended a slight increase to the 2021-2022 grant and beyond from the current year of $1,303 to $2,000. Based on the expected increase in community use by not only a growing population, but also the improvements made to the Tukituki Trails that pass right by, the grant amount can be reconsidered in the next LTP cycle.

Council also has identified funding in year three for a replacement of the toilet block. Currently a ‘long drop,’ the new toilet will be a waterless voltaic system. The Tukituki Trail system can also be accessed from the Regional Council administered land and we foresee this as being increasingly used as a carpark not only for Ōtaia and river access, but also for the bike trails. We will continue to work with Regional Council to improve the visitor appeal of this area.

Recommendation: That the submitters are thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitter.

Topic Four: Support of Play, Active Recreation & Sport (PARS), Development of Strategies, and Infrastructure that Supports PARS

Submissions:

205 Sport New Zealand, 219 Sport Hawke’s Bay

Summary of Submissions:

Sport New Zealand (SNZ) recognises the role Council’s play in help recognising the primary goal ensuring more tamariki an rangatahi aged 5-18 have access to quality physical activity options. SNZ achieves their outcomes by aligning investment through partnerships, funds and programmes to our strategic priorities set out in four-year strategic plans. SNZ observes that the best results come from locally led initiatives - those governed, managed and delivered by local communities to meet local needs. True collaboration at a community level brings additional benefits such as connections, capability, and vitality. Working together towards a collective goal will allow the greatest possible impact on wellbeing for all New Zealanders.

The primary ways SNZ see the Central Hawkes Bay Long Term Plan helping to drive physical activity and wellbeing (enabling play, active recreation and sport to take place and provide positive experiences). outcomes is through:

· the planning, funding and operation of community facilities and open spaces which enable play, active recreation and sport.

· sustained support for spaces, places, and initiatives to encourage more people to be more active.

Play is vital for New Zealand's children and young people. Research shows that play has many benefits for children, families and the wider community. It has been taken for granted that play will always be a part of New Zealand childhoods. However, levels of play are in decline due to shifting cultural values, increasingly sedentary behaviours, family circumstances, and fears about children’s safety.

Sport New Zealand supports…

· debt funding the short term to deliver essential renewals and upgrades of PARS assets.

· Those driving and benefitting should pay in regard to development contributions to enable appropriate provision of additional open spaces and play opportunities for a growing community.

· the proposed renewal of playgrounds and amenities that support the use of open spaces but believe this may be an opportunity to rationalise the number of overall assets to provide an enhanced level of service and more affordable maintenance and renewals programme AND recommends that Council “consult widely on future community needs for play activity which may lead to avoiding duplication of effort and rationalisation of provision. This approach may provide the opportunity for better quality experience and longer-term sustainability. Responding to those areas currently with a deficit of provision should be given priority.

· inclusion of funding proposed for a cycling strategy to respond to District growth and providing improved access to the Tukituki trails and other walkways and cycle ways that connect the district.

· the need to further develop Russell Park making it more accessible with amenities and change rooms that are fit for purpose.

Sport Hawke’s Bay (SHB) acknowledges the long standing partnership it has held with the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council. With Council’s support SHB have been able to continue to support the play, active recreation, sport and health sector in the CHB community. Sport Hawke’s Bay proposes to continue the partnership we hold with Central Hawke’s Bay District Council at the current level of investment to support achievement of agreed outcomes that will be of wider benefit to the district. SHB also supports the following proposals in this long term plan:

· Ongoing development of Russell Park proposed in Year 4 which includes pathway accessibility and change room development.

· Nelly Jull Play Space improvements and renewals proposed in Years 2 and 3. We also support further playground improvements and renewals.

· Funding proposed for a cycling strategy around growth of our area and increasing access to Tukituki trails and other walkways and cycleways connectivity throughout the District. Encourages alignment between the proposed cycling strategy and local road safety and national cycle education programs–existing programmes that have been successful across other parts of the region.

· ensuring the correct education programmes are in place to allow young people in our community to benefit from the funding invested into these trails.

Sport Hawke’s Bay is committed to supporting young people; tamariki and rangatahi (aged 5-18) and less active communities; geographic or social communities where there are barriers to engaging in physical activity across the Hawke’s Bay region. SHB see Councils across our region playing a key role in helping us to enhance the health and wellbeing of all residents.

Sport Hawke’s Bay achieves their outcomes by aligning their investment through partnerships, funds and programmes to our strategic priorities set out in our four-year strategic plan. They believe working together towards a collective goal will allow the greatest possible impact on wellbeing for all Hawke’s bay residents.

Analysis: Provision of parks, sportsgrounds, play areas, and active urban spaces is traditionally provided by local governments. Central Hawkes Bay District Council has identified in its Long Term Plan to take better care of its parks and play areas and the assets within them through increased operational funding, funding for renewals and upgrades, and an open space network plan to improve management and decision making.

Through Council’s participation in Sport New Zealand Territorial Authority Forums and both local and regional connections with Sport Hawke’s Bay, Central Hawkes Bay benefits from knowledge, partnerships, and funding for the provision of play, active recreation and sport opportunities leading to best practice and a more active district. With these organisations national and local focus on young people, tamariki through rangatahi, and Balance is Better programmes, the young of our district have a better chance of developing habits that lead to lifelong physical activity that is rewarding and improves well-being.

Some of the specific items in the Long Term Plan relating to this submission are:

· Upgrades of playgrounds and other park amenities to increase play value, inclusivity, and opportunities for those most in need. Nelly Jull in years 2 and 3 with other communities following.

· Specific funding for improvements to Russell Park (in years 3 & 4) as well as support for fit-for purpose change rooms at the Centralines Sports park.

· A cycle strategy and funding for greenbelts, connectors and pathways to increase walking and cycling networks also supported by the Integrated Spatial Plan.

The operational grant to Sport Hawke’s Bay is still identified within the Long Term Plan and special project initiatives funding is also available to deliver activities that meet community objectives such as cycling education programmes.

Recommendation: That the submitters are thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitter.

Topic Five: Street Trees Waipukurau CBD

Submission:

234 Dr Trevor Le Lievre

Summary of Submission:

The submitter notes that the trees down the Main Street of Waipukurau are due to be trimmed. He notes that there were last trimmed when he requested Council do something about it three years ago.

Analysis:

A number of smaller trees have been trimmed within the three year period. A large trim was proposed for the current financial year, however, has been deferred to the 21/22 due to budget constraints relating to increased vandalism on Councils assets this financial year.

Recommendation:

That the submitter is thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitter.

Topic Six: Support for a Multi-sports facility in Waipukurau

Submission:

237 Central Hawke’s Bay Rugby and Sports Club

Summary of Submission:

The submitter has identified the growing need for sporting facilities with the growth of a number of sports that currently use Russell Park and vicinity. With our growing population they expect this to grow even more.

Specifically they are seeking support in principal for a Multi-sports facility that would not be limited to the club, but extend to other clubs. The submitter is open to collaboration and notes many have aging building assets that are no longer fit for purpose.

Others have no facilities at all and discussed at the hearings is the trek to the changing rooms from the new Centralines hockey turf and netball courts. They are wanting a facility with changing rooms, storage, and area to socialise and note that the rugby clubrooms cannot cater for more than 200 people. The submitter along with other groups they get on board plan to apply to Lottery Grants Board for a feasibility study including a high-level funding scope in their June/July funding round and request a letter of support from Council

Analysis:

Due to the growing population, we expect a corresponding growth in sports and a demand on facilities within the district. Russell Park, Central Park (rugby), the tennis club, and bowling club are a centralised hub in our district – almost a sports precinct or Sportsville Model. This type of development has been well considered in locations throughout New Zealand for over 30 years, with a number of successful models in place.

A key reflection on where successful hubs and sportsville models exist, is that the time from planning to the development and operation of a hub is at least generally ten years. Asset provision and the concept of constructing new assets is only part of the solution, with most funders requiring proof of a substantial shift in operating models before confirming funding. To this end, successful hubs focus must be long-term, seeking to address operational shortfalls and to achieve efficiencies amongst clubs. This is the body of work that takes considerably longer, is more complex and ultimately where Sports hubs succeed or fail. There are also considerable case studies provided by Sport NZ, with best practice approaches available.

The Club seek a letter of support from Council to apply for funds for a feasibility study for the project to the Lottery Grants Board.

The club should be implored for their enthusiasm and endeavours to proceed with the project. The scope of the work ahead should not however be underestimated and requires a considered and co-ordinated enduring approach, usually supported and guided by a resourced project lead, and well supported by the District Council. It is possibly too early for the project to be testing its feasibility, with a wider, more inclusive and holistic view of other users’ needs required to be captured and considered at a conceptual scale.

With sports hubs now also widely known and understood by funders, their thresholds for the quality and extent of collaboration and engagement and testing of proof of concept before feasibility funding is granted, is much higher than it was even five years ago.

Funds have been identified in the Long Term Plan for a Community Facilities Plan that will help determine the Districts longer term sporting asset needs. It is also imperative that a Russell Park Master Plan be reviewed so that facilities are not developed without consideration of a long term vision of the ‘sports precinct’, including the Central Hawke’s Bay District Community Trust assets and other users of the park, including Kennel Club, A&P and other clubs that do not necessarily associate or directly link as a club with either the Trust or Sports Club.

Funds have also been included in Year 4 of the Long Term Plan of $217,909 as a capital grant towards Russell Park Changing Rooms, part funded by development contributions – noting the Trust and other club’s ambitions for the future in early Russell Park User group meeting in January 2020.

There is limited external funding for support to assist in the development of Sportsville/Hub projects, with Sport NZ have limited funding and most funders providing funding for proof of concept or feasibility - rather than concept, which is really where the club are.

Officers recommend that Council provide their support to the club and support their intent in principle, however it would be unwise at this time to be supporting the club to be testing the feasibility of a concept and seeking funding, when there isn’t clear and wider understanding of the concept and the risk that essential parties get left behind.

As a way forward Officers propose the following steps:

· Allow for the Community Facilities Plan completion, with all clubs being key participants in this document to help guide need, demand and future investment requirements.

· On the completion of the Community Facilities Plan, Council contemplate providing funding in Year 2 and Year 3 of the Long Term Plan, recognising the project will logically likely result from the Community Facilities Plan, however will require resource not anticipated in the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan currently. This base funding will also provide a co-funding contribution for Council and clubs to leverage to seek other operational funding as the project progresses, to support the progress of the overall project.

· That based on achievements in Year 2 and 3 of the Long Term Plan, any subsequent projects are confirmed in the 2024 Long Term Plan review, noting that funding is provided in Year 4 of the Long Term Plan for a capital contribution towards a change room facility at Russell Park.

Council would reasonably need to include operational funding of at least $35,000 in Year 2 and Year 3 of the Long Term Plan to support the clubs to shift confidentially into a position of having a strong project co-ordination structure and be confidently working towards concept or developed concept. This funding could be leveraged by the clubs overall to seek further operational funding for concept design, however would ultimately provide resource to support the delivery of the project to see its success, not available within current resourcing.

This approach would not prevent, nor should it discourage the clubs from continuing to engage and scope opportunities out amongst themselves, nor does it mean that Council Officers are seeking to take over. What it should signal however, is that Council is serious about supporting the wider club’s and community’s ambitions and aspirations, while also needing to ensure in the longer-term, any facilities are fit for purpose and meet future need and that a pathway for their sustainable management and operation is identified - supporting not just assets but community outcomes and long term club sustainability.

Recommendation:

That the submitters are thanked for their submission.

That Council encourage the clubs of Russell Park to actively participate in Councils Community Facility Plan, intended to commence this calendar year, subject to the confirmation of funding in the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.

That Council provide new operational funding of $35,000 in Year 2 and 3 of the Long Term Plan, to provide operational support and resourcing for the development of the Sporthub Project at Russell Park.

Topic Seven: Temporary Changing Rooms – Russell Park

Summary of Issues

Submission 237 from the Central Hawke’s Bay Rugby and Sports Club notes in their verbal submission the challenges with a lack of change rooms associated with the Centralines Sports Turf, including creating unsafe conditions for players.

The Central Hawke’s Bay District Community Trust, have also verbally raised concerns about a temporary changing room solution until a longer term solution is identified for changerooms for the Centralines Turf Complex.

Analysis:

The development of the Centralines multisport Turf has been a major achievement for the Central Hawke’s Bay Community, providing an outstanding playing surface to the community.

As with any community funded project, there are challenges in relation to the full range of works able to be achieved within the envelope of available funds. For the Central Hawke’s Bay District Community Trust, the addition of toilets and changing rooms is one of those items that while aspired to in the future, will require wide reaching community engagement, feasibility testing and fundraising for.

Issue Seven – notes proposed opportunities for a multisport development at Russell Park featuring changing rooms. Funds have also been included in Year 4 of the Long Term Plan of $217,909 as a capital grant towards Russell Park Changing Rooms, part funded by development contributions – noting the Trust and other club’s ambitions for the future in early Russell Park User group meeting in January 2020. Even if prioritised by Council as a key project, it would still realistically be at least five years from having any facility open to the public.

A potential short term solution that Council may wish to entertain is funding to support the provision of temporary changing rooms.

This approach would see the requirement to purchase or lease a combination of changing rooms, showers and toilets, including an accessible provision. Based on a duration of at least five years, it would be unwise to lease these and purchase outright would be required.

The units would require electrical connections, plumbing and possibly stormwater and while temporary would need to fully consented under the Building Act 2004. The changing rooms may also attract new rates, that would not be able to be fully remitted under the Rating Act.

At this time, there is not information at hand to provide a clear and full picture of demand and use, nor the lost potential as a result of not having changing facilities associated with the turf.

Based on initial estimates, capital costs could be upwards of $200,000. At the time of writing, we are awaiting on additional pricing to be received to guide an estimate.

The issue for Council to consider is whether the capital outlay in temporary facilities for up to potentially five years or longer is critical at this time, or whether it should be delayed and assessed in the context of having further information and providing for collaborative conversations between users and clubs.

Some options for Council to consider include:

· Based on Councils direction on Topic Six, deferring the decision to 2022/23 Annual Plan to allow users to give clarity on the requirements, the completion of the Community Facilities Plan and for Officers to effectively scope out the cost of a potential development with more confidence and the relevant timing of any advancing project identified in Topic Six.

· Bring forward and re-purpose the Loan Funded Grant in Year 4 to the first year of the LTP to purchase and provide temporary changing rooms, subject to further cost testing.

· Note the request and take no action.

It is Officers recommended approach that Council takes the time to consider this matter in the context of the Community Facilities Plan, a fuller understand of demand, Councils approach to Topic six and the relative timing and findings. To this end, Officers provide the following recommendations.

Recommendation

That the submitters are thanked for their feedback.

That Council reconsiders the request for temporary changing rooms, following the completion of the Community Facilities Plan, wider club feedback relating to the timing and scope of any multisport hub project for Russell Park and an assessment of actual demand and need, either in the 2022/23 Annual Plan or as an Officer report.

places and open spaces: community facilites & swimming pools

Topics for consideration

Topic One	Support for Museum and Visitor Centre in Le Quesnoy, France memorialising fallen Kiwis of the World Wars
Topic Two	Supports a community facilities strategy for the District and funds to earthquake strengthen key active community facilities including Waipukurau aquatic centre. It also supports a family friendly area within the Waipawa Pool
Topic Three	Support for Central Hawke’s Bay District Community Trust to replace ceiling tiles.
Topic Four	Renew CHB Museum Toilets
Topic Five	Build a Hydroslide in Waipukurau, Russell Park Activity

Topic One: Support for Museum and Visitor Centre in Le Quesnoy, France memorialising fallen Kiwis of the World Wars

Submissions:

180 New Zealand Memorial Museum Trust

Summary of Submissions:

The request is that Central Hawke’s Bay District Council supports the project to build a Museum and Visitor Centre in Le Quesnoy, France with a donation equivalent to $1 per resident of your district, to remember those who gave their lives in the World Wars to give us freedom. The funds are not required immediately and can be paid over the next three years. They are seeking a commitment from Council towards the project at this point in time.

The Trust have raised $8 million to date towards the $15 million total. Most of this has come from private individuals and businesses, who are on board with the vision of establishing “a Kiwi place in France where memory and relationships are alive”.

Analysis: If Council were to support this project it would be a commitment of $1 per resident of Central Hawke’s Bay District. This would be $14,142 if using the 2018 census data for Usually Resident Population. Another way to look at it is a contribution of approximately $2-$3/dwelling (proxy for number of ratepayers). There are no immediate reserve or other funds available with new rates funding the only like source.

Recommendation:

That the submitters are thanked for their submission and further that Council provides a letter of support for the project, however, is unable to commit any funding at this time.

Topic Two: Supports a Community Facilities Strategy for the District and Funding of Recreational Facilities

Submissions:

205 Sport New Zealand, 219 Sport Hawke’s Bay

Summary of Submissions:

Sport New Zealand are encouraged that Council, over the period of the long-term plan, wishes to increase its attention and focus on investment in community facilities including its halls, pools and open spaces following the completion of a Community Facilities Strategy for the District. At Sport NZ, we know the best results come from locally led initiatives – those governed, managed and delivered by local communities to meet local needs. True collaboration at a community level brings additional benefits such as connections, capability and vitality. Key support focus within community facilities and swimming pools include:

· Councils stated desire for a greater focus and investment in its community facilities over the period of the Long-Term Plan. Sport NZ welcomes the opportunity support the completion of a Community Facilities Strategy for the District through its regional sports trust partner, Sport Hawkes Bay.

· The need for making safe and more accessible through earthquake strengthening, existing assets including the Waipukurau Hall, Central Lines Swimming Pool providing future capacity to meet the demand of Learn to Swim there and

· Future family activity space at Waipawa Pool.

Similarly, Sport Hawke’s Bay achieve their outcomes by aligning their investment through partnerships, funds and programmes to their strategic priorities set out in their four-year strategic plan. Sport Hawke’s Bay believe working together towards a collective goal will allow the greatest possible impact on wellbeing for all Hawke’s bay residents. They identify in their submission support for:

· Contribution to the Centralines Indoor Heated Pool to assist with earthquake strengthening.

· Ongoing development, including a family activity area at Waipawa Pool.

Analysis:

Council and Officers work closely alongside both organisations, with Sport NZ expected to shortly confirm funding towards Councils Community Facilities Plan, to enable play and wider sport benefits.

Council is mandated in the delivery of recreation activities, supporting the effective achievement of the four-wellbeings of the Local Government Act 2002.

Recommendation:

That the submitters are thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitter.

Topic Four: Renew Central Hawke’s Bay Museum Toilets

Submissions:

233 Hans J. Dresel President of CHB Museum

Summary of Submissions:

The toilets in the museum are used primarily by visitors to the museum including tourists as well as by volunteers, employees, and the Museum Committee. They look as if they had last been refurbished before the bank was closed. Any improvement would not be a waste of money and would be appreciated by those mentioned. Suggested improvements are then listed for each toilet.

Analysis:

Council in the first year of the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan is completing a community facilities strategy that will help shape future investment in facilities such as the Central Hawke’s Bay Museum. There is no funding specifically set aside for the toilet upgrade currently in the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.

The museum have no lease agreement for the museum with a service agreement loosely outlining occupation of the building and responsibilities of each party. This has been an arrangement of sometime, which comes to an end in 2023.

Recommendation:

That the submitters are thanked for their submission and further that the upgrade of the toilets and the wider Central Hawke’s Bay museum facility is delayed until the completion of the community facilities strategy.

Topic Five: Build a Hydroslide in Waipukurau, Russell Park Activity

Submissions:

58 Kaylah Ferguson and Lyric Lewis

Summary of Submissions:

The submitters think Council should upgrade the pool in Waipukurau ~ a hydro slide would be cool. They discuss things for young people to do at Russell parks, events like children’s day and think a trampoline would be cool.

Analysis:

The Waipukurau Pool is owned by the Central Hawke’s Bay Community Trust, not Council. While a hydroslide would be cool, the Trust have other priorities they are focussing on the current operation of the park.

Other events will continue to be run at Russell Park and other venues and community funding and support is available.

Recommendation:

That the submitters are thanked for her comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitter.

places and open spaces: libraries

Topics for consideration

Topic One

Waipukurau Library

Topic One: Waipukurau Library

Submissions:

37 Chrissy Malcolm, 212 Karen Olsen-Mills

Summary of Submissions: Ms. Malcolm has a major issue with the investment Council has decided to make with turning the old Bucks building into a library and concern there was lack of consultation over this. Ms. Olsen-Mills questions how much will be spent on upgrading the building.

Analysis:

The Library is temporarily going into the Digital Business Hub that was the former Buck’s Green Grocers. CHBDC has received $400,000 from Central Government to create the Digital Business Hub that includes leasing and other costs. This will serve as a community facility/meeting space as well as house books and a range of community programmes. Council’s total contribution of funding from loans towards the capital fit out of the facility is less than $150,000.

The replacement of the Waipukurau Library has been postponed until year 8 and 9 of the LTP. Prior to that Council will have a more definitive answer on the seismic investigation. Council will also have completed a Community Facility and Civics Strategy that will be consulted on with the community prior to finalising plans the future Waipukurau Library plans.

Recommendation: That the submitters are thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitter.

places and open spaces: retirement housing

Topics for consideration

Topic One	Do Not Sell Retirement Housing
Topic Two	Do Not Increase Retirement Housing Rents

Topic One: Do Not Sell Retirement Housing

Submissions:

223 Terry Kingston, 226 Trish Giddens

Summary of Submissions:

Both submitters have a view that Council is preparing to sell its retirement housing as part of the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.

Analysis:

Council completed a Section 17a of the Local Government Act 2002 Review of the Retirement Housing activity in August 2020 as required by legislation. As part of this review, Council must consider all of the options available to it in the management of its portfolio, including sale. As part of this review, Council quickly ruled out the sale of its housing portfolio and is focussed on a programme of increased renewal through the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.

Recommendation:

That the submitters are thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitters.

Topic Two: Do Not increase Retirement Housing Rents

Submissions:

231 Shelley Burne-Field

Summary of Submissions:

The submitter notes that rents should not be increased and believes that the values associated with the required upgrades are flawed and that operational overheads should be cut.

Analysis:

Council completed a Section 17a of the Local Government Act 2002 Review of the Retirement Housing activity in August 2020 as required by legislation. As part of this review, Council identified that it was not sustainably providing for the renewal and upgrade of the assets, to ensure the stock remains of a quality standard as well as to meet new government standards for heating, ventilation and insulation. These are predominantly the basis of required increases, not overhead allocations.

Councillors requested a further update during hearings on the number of current applicants able to receive the accommodation supplement. This information has not been forthcoming at the time of writing and officers are still actively pursuing this.

Recommendation:

That the submitter is thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitter.

places and open spaces: PROPERTY AND BUILDINGS

Topics for consideration

Topic One

Property Purchased / Sold

Topic One: Past property purchased / sold

Submissions:

165 Bob Kerins

Summary of Submission: Mr Kerins is trying to understand where past ratepayer dollars have gone and what properties and/or capital were purchased that can now be sold to help fund the water issues.

Analysis:

Council has not purchased any property that can be readily sold. Central Hawke’s Bay District Council has few ‘freehold’ properties in their ownership.

Recommendation: That the submitter is thanked for his comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitter.

Recommendation for consideration

That, having considered all matters raised in the report:

a) That the submitters are thanked for their comments which are acknowledged and further that the information contained in this report is provided to the submitters.

Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

7.14 Management Submission to the Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Deliberations

File Number: COU1-1400

Author: Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Authoriser: Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments: 1. 2019/20 Annual Plan Submission - Hawke's Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust ⇩

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to make a management submission on the Long Term Plan (LTP) 2021-2031 deliberations.

Recommendation for consideration

That having considered all the matters raised in the report:

a) That Council note the Management submission presented to Council, outlining recommended changes to the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 budgets, since draft budgets were initially adopted.

b) That Council retain the funding in Year 1 of the Long Term Plan identified to support the upgrades required of the Central Hawke’s Bay District Community Trust Assets.

c) The Council repurposes up to $160,000 of funding in Year 1 of the Long Term Plan, in order for a full and comprehensive review of the Trust’s assets and future maintenance and renewal liabilities to be identified for the Pool Complex, Gymnasium and Stadium and Sports Turf Complex.

d) That Council acknowledges that the Trust will require financial support for the implementation of any short-term works to remediate and make safe the ceiling of the indoor pool complex and that remaining funds retained in Year 1 of the Long Term Plan set aside for this purpose, with a further report to Council being made, prior to the release of any funds.

e) That The Trust and Council work collaboratively as part of the Central Hawke’s Bay Community Facilities Plan Review, to understand the role and opportunities for the Trust now, and into the future.

f) That Council provide funding of $37,813 in Year 1 of the Long Term Plan, funded through debt for covers of the Waipawa Centennial Memorial Pool.

g) That Council loan fund a $30,000 contribution to the Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust, funded over three years through loans.

h) That Council note and endorse the $15,000 of Interest be allocated to Special Funds, rather than general funds, thus increasing general rates by$15,000.

i) That Council note and endorse the recommendation that Asset Life Expectancy of new Assets be reviewed which will impact depreciation charges, but have no rating impact.

j) That Council note and endorse the increase in budget allowances for electricity budgets in light of the recent Electricity Contract Renewal increases, increasing general rates by $15,000, and Targeted Water Rates by $10,000

k) That Council note and endorse the reallocation of Kiwisaver costs to be allocated as a direct cost rather than an overhead in line with NZTA audit recommendations. This will increase general rates by $37,335, decrease land transport rates by $31,325, and decrease 3 Waters Targeted Rates by $8,403.

significance and engagement

This report is providing details of minor improvements/changes to the LTP, but the proposals are not considered material or having significant impacts on the LTP process.

BACKGROUND

The LTP budgets were set in late 2020, and several pieces of information have come to light since this time which either could be included in the LTP budget, or suggest a change in the LTP might be appropriate.

DISCUSSION

Management make eight specific submissions to the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 deliberations.

Issue One	Central Hawke’s Bay Community Trust
Issue Two	Waipawa and District Centennial Memorial Pool Covers
Issue Three	Request to provide funding – Regional Sports Park
Issue Four	Rural Travel Fund
Issue Five	Interest Allocation to Special Funds
Issue Six	Asset Life Expectancy of new Assets and Depreciation Allocation
Issue Seven	Electricity Contract Renewal
Issue Eight	Kiwisaver Cost Allocation

Issue One: Central Hawke’s Bay District Community Trust

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

The Central Hawke’s Bay District Community Trust (“The Trust”) have a lease for the ground under the Trusts Gymnasium and Pool and a service agreement with Council that comes to an end on 30 June 2022.

The Trust are facing major future investment in the next ten years, as well as some shorter term challenges the Trust require funding support with. The Trust rely significantly on Council funding through the service agreement for the renewal of its assets and seek to work collaboratively to identify a sustainable approach for the future of recreation facilities and services in the District beyond the end of the lease and service agreement in June 2022.

There are opportunities to work collaboratively through the proposed community facilities plan in the first year of the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan, to identify the long term strategic opportunities between Council and Trust.

This report developed with the Trust, identifies a possible way forward.

BACKGROUND

Council have a lease with the Central Hawke’s Bay District Community Trust dated 25 March 1996 in accordance with Section 54 and pursuant to the requirements of Schedule 1 of the Reserves Act 1977, for the area of Russell Park the Trust occupies for the gymnasium and pool complex. This lease comes to an end on 30 June 2022.

Council also have a service agreement with the Central Hawke's Bay District Community Trust dated 8 November 1996 for the provision of a swimming pool in Central Hawke’s Bay, with the Trust covenanting “to provide the residents of Central Hawke’s Bay and visitors with access to a modern recreational swimming and fitness facility”. In consideration of the provision of the pool, Council makes an annual payment. This service agreement also comes to an end on 30 June 2022. The service agreement has had minor variations since 1996, mainly extending the agreement or formalising increases above and beyond inflation due to costs outside of the Trusts control.

All costs relating to the operation of the facility are the responsibility of the Trust, noting however that they are limited in their ability to generate operational revenue - outside of sponsorship and Council funding. Most pools throughout New Zealand run at significant operational deficits, funded by Local Government recognising the community good portion of the services.

As with many Trusts, the Trust have had a number of successes sourcing external funding for new capital projects, however as the spectrum of available significant funding begins to narrow and the Trust’s assets begin to reach an age of significant replacement, funding for major replacement ahead is not as forthcoming.

In November 2020, the Trust approached Council for support to assist with the replacement of failing ceiling tiles in the swimming pool complex. The Trust sought nearly $300,000 to assist in the replacement of the tiles with an alternate product, recognising that the tiles were an increasing risk to health and safety of the public. At this time, Officers sought further independent advice on the background and priority of the replacement ceiling tiles in agreement with the Trust, recognising that the facility is reaching 25 years old and there maybe other major renewal and investment priorities ahead for the facility. The Trust undertook short term repairs making the remaining ceiling tiles safe, including the installation of netting of the tiles to catch any tiles that may potentially fall.

The independent advice took the form of a report from pool specialists, who were asked to make general observations across the entire complex. The report has identified a number of steps that should be prioritised for action ahead of the immediate replacement of the ceiling tiles. We discuss the detail of the independent report further into this report.

Growth

Like Council, the Trust find themselves in a tenuous position, where they are experiencing increasing community expectations with requests for the expansion of new services like learn to swim and improved accessibility to other services and tools that would be expected from Council operated pool services throughout the Country.

The growth the District is currently experiencing is most notable for the centre in the availability of learn to swim and pool tank space generally, where the centre is unable to provide sufficient lessons to cope with the demand, particularly in weekends and other times of convenience to the community due to the single pool tank.

Already increasing school programmes have been affected by the inability for many sports groups to use the Waipukurau Memorial Hall due to its seismic rating, placing pressure on the adjoining gymnasium in peak times.

As the District continues to experience unprecedented growth, the Trust look to Council for guidance and direction on the implications of this growth and what a future service agreement and service provision could look like for the District in the long term.

Trust Management and Funding

The Trust have done well, managing and expanding their complexes and assets for the community in relative isolation to Council. The assets are tidy and generally have well cared for with the financial contexts they operate in. It should be recognised however the Pool alone is nearly 25 years old and in many cases relies on older inefficient technology or has assets that will substantially reach the end of their economic life in the next ten years.

In many Districts, the services the Trust provide are services and assets the community own and expect of their District Councils. To this end, the Council and wider community has been relatively sheltered from the burden of these costs thanks to the Trust.

The Trust have a relatively simplistic renewal programme, substantially focussing on the key components of plant and equipment. The plan looks out twenty years, however is not a comprehensive renewal programme.

Like Council, the Trust have not been able to fully fund depreciation due to affordability, with funding set aside from Councils grant, substantially endeavouring to fund the simplistic renewal programme and other unexpected costs the Trust incur.

The Trust currently have just over $120,000 in reserves for all of their assets, with the renewal programme having some $320,000 of basic renewal work forecast over the first ten years of their plan, with the annual budget providing for between $25-$40,000 in each year being set aside to fund the renewal work programme, subject to any unplanned major renewals. The renewal programme just focusses on the pool complex and does not take into account renewal or upgrade requirements for the turf or gymnasium such as potential seismic upgrades.

In July 2019, Council adjusted its base annual payment in the service agreement with the Trust from $209,146 to $226,783 plus GST and compounding inflation, to address major increases in the cost of insurance that were unsustainable for the Trust on the previous payment.

Legal and Trust operating Environmental Changes

In a modern environment for the Trust - 25 years on from its inception, the operating environment is much more complex than that in its establishment

Today, the Trust finds themselves in a position not dissimilar to many trusts of their tenure and age. During the early 1990’s many communities established Trusts for the ownership and establishment of facilities, when there was low or no appetite for Councils to be involved in the provision of the assets and access to significant capital funding was easier and less complex like in Central Hawke’s Bay.

Access to significant funding is now much more stringent and tougher and overall less, with an overall decline in the volume of Lotteries and other gambling Trust funding. Capital and operational funding (where available) now comes associated with considerable tags and conditions, making single large drops of simple grant funding considerably more challenging. The extent and value of corporate funding agreements are also considerably lower, recognising changing corporate organisational funding capacity. Seeking substantial grant funding for operational costs and renewals or upgrades such as seismic strengthening to an extent that support the financial viability of the Trust outside of Council are generally non-existent.

Changes to the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) make the pool operating environment more complex, and Council can and should expect more from the Trust in relation to Health and Safety requirements of the operation in the future. While the Trustee’s are limited in their liability under the HSWA like Councillors, they still have responsibilities and Council more so as a ‘person conducting a business or undertaking’ (PCBU) with the Trust, in relation to the operational service agreement.

The new Trusts Act 2019 (the Act) also applies new requirements for the Trust, with the changes that took effect on 30 January 2021, being the first updates and improvements in the law governing trusts for the first time in more than 60 years. The law change applies to all existing trusts in New Zealand, as well as any trust created on or after 30 January 2021. Most notably, the law change increases the expectations and liabilities placed on Trustees. As the new law is implemented and regulatory processes catch up, while this will place further operational burden on the Trust in the short term complying with the changes, in the longer term this could place additional pressure on the existing Trustees and become increasingly challenging for the Trust to attract and/or retain Trustees.

The Trust acknowledge that they would like to do more, however find themselves in a challenging position, unable to significantly raise new funds for replacement or operational challenges due to the changing funding environments.

While not posed at this time, there is always a present risk that the Trust note that the operating environment is too tough as voluntary Trustees, and seek to wind the Trust up and gift the assets to Council. For clarity, the Trust have not signalled this however it is a real risk for Council to consider. Council could not operate the facilities or services with the required diligence, either within existing resourcing and operating budgets or the grant funding provided to the Trust to meet the operating and health and safety thresholds expected of Local Government.

Future Lease and Service Agreement

An opportunity exists for Council to reconsider the role of the Trust and the role of Council in the future service agreement.

Historically, Council has had a very ‘hands-off’ approach with the Trust, providing little or no clarity in the service agreement for the services growth or direction. Council has no ability within its service agreement to guide or direct the Trust for even minor changes in the delivery of services, including health and safety, changes in operating hours or additional services the community may seek. This approach will not be sustainable in the longer term for the success of the Trust, particularly as the operating environment continues to become increasingly complex, and a more holistic and integrated approach will be required to respond to the pressures the community are experiencing – in particular growth and demand for modern and new services.

In other situations, where Trusts exist and remain in this approach to services, they are generally Council Controlled Organisations (CCO), and as such have clear intent and direction guided by Council on a three yearly or annual basis through their Statement of Intent. Establishing a CCO would require significant community consultation and changes to the Trusts existing Trust Deed. Ultimately Council would be liable for the Trust, including any debt held – being a CCO. The nature of the relationship of the Trust will be something Council will need to carefully consider in the consideration of any future service agreement.

Any new service agreement will require more stringent and clear outcomes to support Health and Safety outcomes including industry best practice and an ability to more articulately respond to change and growth. In Year 2 of the Long Term Plan, Officers have made provision for any new agreement to require the Trust to operate as a ‘Pool Safe’ Pool, recognised as industry best practice for ensuring adequate safety and lifeguarding policies and practices are in place. This requirement will see a step change in funding required.

Recognising the pool and gymnasium are on Recreation Reserve under the Reserves Act 1977, Council will be required to publicly notify any intent to grant a new lease to the Trust for the occupation of the land the buildings occupy. At this time, the new turf will need to be included in a new lease area for the Trust.

Community Facilities Review

Council have identified in the first year of the Long Term Plan a significant project to holistically consider the future need of its community facilities and services. This project will seek to understand future needs and strategically position Council to respond to the range of challenges and opportunities ahead of it in relation to the strengthening of its facilities and how future services and facilities will need to respond to ensure a thriving Central Hawke’s Bay of the future.

There is a natural and logical synergy for the Trust’s assets and the future arrangements of the Trust – in particular the service agreement to be holistically considered in the Facilities Plan

Funding in the Long Term Plan 2021-2031

In the preparation of the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 Officers were able to identify two particular renewal projects for the pool complex with the Trust.

Included in the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 is $300,000 described in Project 5437C001 for Earthquake Strengthening of the Heated Pool Complex and a further $150,000 described in Project 5347C500 Heated Pool Complex – Ceiling Tile Replacement Contribution (a total of $450,000). Both projects are included in the first year of the Long Term Plan with both projects being 100% loan funded over 30 years and 20 years respectively.

The Independent report

The independent report commissioned by Council identified a number of priority actions that should be undertaken to confidently assess all of the future maintenance, renewal and upgrade requirements of the facility.

The facility is nearly 25 years old, with most pool complexes of a similar age requiring substantial upgrade or replacement by at least 35 years of age. The Central Hawke’s Bay Complex is no different and requires a longer term holistic view to consider upgrade and replacement for the future.

The report recommends that immediate repairs to the interior ceiling tiles are delayed, and other pressing investigative reports including seismic assessment of the facilities is completed initially to determine other potential pressing renewal requirements. The Trust are in agreement in this approach and see the work to the pool hall, essential to be extended to the adjoining gymnasium and stadium and turf complex to understand the full extent of renewal liability the Trust and wider community may face for the future.

The intent of this work is to ensure the Trust, Council and Community are as fully informed as possible to consider a strategic repositioning of the Trust, to ensure the sustainable and long-term provision of these essential recreational assets for the District, now and into the future.

DISCUSSION

The Trust currently finds themselves in a unique position - not dissimilar from Council, in the respect that they seek to move forward positively into the future to grasp a number of opportunities, including a growing Central Hawke’s Bay – however face a number of challenges, including major asset renewal and funding challenges.

The Trust acknowledge that they cannot sustainably proceed into the future with confidence, without the support of Council and seek a ‘reset’ of the historic relationship between the parties.

The Trust seek to work collaboratively with Council to understand a holistic and long-term view of the demand, opportunities and future funding requirements of the Trusts facilities and what opportunities for sustainable long-term partnership with Council as their key strategic partner looks like. A key focus remains on understanding and developing a future approach beyond the expiration of the service agreement and lease on 30 June 2022, to ensure the current and future recreational needs of the people of Central Hawke’s Bay are met is a major focus.

With the support of Officers and the Trust, the following way forward is proposed:

· That Council retain the funding in Years 1 of the Long Term Plan identified to support the upgrades required of the Central Hawke’s Bay District Community Trust Assets.

· The Council repurposes up to $160,000 of funding in Year 1 of the Long Term Plan, in order for a full and comprehensive review of the Trust’s assets and future maintenance and renewal liabilities to be identified for the Pool Complex, Gymnasium and Stadium and Sports Turf Complex.

· That Council acknowledges that the Trust will require financial support for the implementation of any short-term works to remediate and make safe the ceiling of the indoor pool complex and that remaining funds retained in Year 1 of the Long Term Plan set aside for this purpose, with a further report to Council being made, prior to the release of any funds.

· That The Trust and Council work collaboratively as part of the Central Hawke’s Bay Community Facilities Plan Review, to understand the role and opportunities for the Trust now, and into the future.

Options

Council has few practical options available to it to address the issue. Possible options available include:

· Option 1 – Adopt the Proposed Way Forward

This option would see Council adopt the proposed way forward identified by the Trust and Officers and provide a sustainable and long term strategic approach for Council and the Trust to consider the future needs of the community collaboratively through the community facilities review.

This approach provides a transparent view of the future needs for the facilities and what future funding requirements will need to be for the facilities and services to be sustainable in the Long Term.

· Option 2 – Reject the Proposed way forward and do not provide funding

This option would see Council rejecting any funding to the Trust for any works on the Trust’s assets.

While this approach would have short-term benefits in terms of a reduction in funding in the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan, this reduction would likely be short-lived for the first year of the Long Term Plan only.

The lease for the grounds and the service agreement both expire on 30 June 2022. In the event the Trust were unable to secure sustainable funding or the service agreement could not successfully be negotiated, the Trust could seek to wind up and in accordance with the Trust Deed gift the assets to Council. Any potential savings – both operational or capital, would be very short term in nature with Council unable to operate the facilities at the equivalent operational costs that the Trust currently incurs.

RECOMMENDATION

Officers recommend Option 1 being ‘Adopt the Proposed Way forward’ as the most sustainable and responsible approach for the future of Central Hawke’s Bay.

This approach seeks:

a) That Council retain the funding in Years 1 of the Long Term Plan identified to support the upgrades required of the Central Hawke’s Bay District Community Trust Assets.

b) The Council repurposes up to $160,000 of funding in Year 1 of the Long Term Plan, in order for a full and comprehensive review of the Trust’s assets and future maintenance and renewal liabilities to be identified for the Pool Complex, Gymnasium and Stadium and Sports Turf Complex.

c) That Council acknowledges that the Trust will require financial support for the implementation of any short-term works to remediate and make safe the ceiling of the indoor pool complex and that remaining funds retained in Year 1 of the Long Term Plan set aside for this purpose, with a further report to Council being made, prior to the release of any funds.

d) That The Trust and Council work collaboratively as part of the Central Hawke’s Bay Community Facilities Plan Review, to understand the role and opportunities for the Trust now, and into the future.

Issue 2: Request to investigate Cost to install Pool Covers – Waipawa Centennial Memorial Pool

SUMMARY OF ISSUE

Elected members sought to understand the cost of pool covers for the Waipawa and Districts Centennial Memorial Pool during hearings on the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031.

BACKGROUND

Pool covers were not in scope during the 2018/2019 Waipawa and Districts Centennial Memorial Pool upgrade. In the 2020/21 season despite an average summer, the pools struggled to reach a temperature considered by industry as safe to swim in. The complex has no pool heating and while opportunities exist in Stage 2 of the project for the heating of the complex, there is no immediate funds available for covers.

Covers would support the pool temperatures dropping significantly overnight, particularly in the shoulder seasons, however can also be a barrier to the pools gaining temperature from solar gain when the pools are not manned. In high wind event the covers would need to be also be removed. They would be removed for the winter periods. Covers will do both pools.

Pool covers in an outdoor environment generally have a life expectancy of 7-10 years, so Council would need to reasonably consider their replacement in a least Year 10 of the Long Term Plan.

Pricing has been sought for the supply installation of covers, reels and a suitable retraction tool. The price is $37,813 excluding GST. It is unlikely that Council could attract external funding for the covers without at least 40 -50% co-funding. Even then, funding is not as forthcoming with pool covers considered a basic operational addition, that most funding organisations will not consider.

If Council sought to fund these, the purchase would be loan funded over 10 Years and funded by the General Ratepayer. At an interest rate of 1.8% assumed over the life of the LTP, this would see annual repayment requirements of $4,128 per annum for ten years.

Recognising that there are benefits to the complex with the addition of pool covers, it is Officers recommendation that pool covers are added. These will add benefit, particularly to the cooler nights the District can experience. The addition of pool covers will support any longer term heating of the facility as well.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council provide funding of $37,813 in Year 1 of the Long Term Plan, funded through debt for covers of the Waipawa Centennial Memorial Pool.

Issue Three: Request to provide funding – Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust

SUMMARY OF ISSUE

Officers have been in conversation with Sir Graeme Avery in relation to a contribution of capital funding and operational support for Central Hawke’s Bay residents to participate in programmes and activities associated with the EIT Institute of Sport and Health at the Hawke’s Bay Regional Sports Park, operated by the Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust.

DISCUSSION

Sir Graeme Avery has been a strong and visionary leader in the development of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Sports Park and in particular the EIT Institute of Sport and Health, being led by the Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust. Sir Graeme has unsuccessfully presented to the last four Council annual or long term plan opportunities, seeking opportunities for Central Hawke’s Bay to support the cause financially. His latest presentation from the 2020/21 Annual Plan is attached to this report for Councillors information and context.

The wider community are already receiving the benefit of the Trust’s assets and services, however this may not be widely recognised or communicated by participants across the District.

As the assets and operational arms of the services begin to gain greater traction, the services seek to expand into the wider Hawke’s Bay region, including Central Hawke’s Bay. Wairoa are seeing the benefits of this and have committed funding to the project in the 2019/20 year, with youth in particular gaining the benefits of programmes, travel and training associated with the complex.

Officers have guided Sir Graeme out of respect to not make a further submission to this years Long Term Plan, with Officers recognising the positive persistence of Sir Graeme to see Central Hawke’s Bay recognised as a founding and contributing partner to the assets, over the last four years.

Central Hawke’s Bay is the only Council to have not provided funding for the project. Funding will go towards the overall project as outlined in the 2020/21 Annual Plan Submission.

This report seeks to have Council contribute a total of $30,000 of capital grant to the Project, funding through loans at $10,000 per year.

There are two possible options for Council to consider to fund this:

1. Loan fund the $30,000

Over three years, funding the $30,000 in three $10,000 payments. When fully drawn down, Council would pay $3,300 over the ten years to repay the debt.

2. Rate Fund the $30,000

Fund the $30,000 over three years in three $10,000 payments, funded by rates only.

This would impact the general rate by $10,000 each year for the three years.

A third option is that Council reject Officers recommendations and do not fund the Sports Park.

RECOMMENDATION

Officers recommend to Council that they loan fund a $30,000 contribution to the Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust, funded over three years through loans.

Issue Three: Additional Rural Travel Fund Funding

SUMMARY OF ISSUE

Submission 237 from their Central Hawke’s Bay Rugby and Sports Club Incorporated raised in their verbal submission the costs of travel for sports participants

Sir Graeme Avery has raised with officers the cost of the travel for those attending regional sports events, particularly specialist training and support at the Regional Sports Park.

Submission 219 from Sports Hawke’s Bay highlighted in their verbal submission that the amount of rural travel funding for Sport Hawke’s Bay did not reflect the full volume of travel participants in sport have to undertaken.

DISCUSSION

The District receives just under $10,000 from Sport New Zealand, which the Council distributes through the Rural Travel Fund. The fund is always oversubscribed, recognising the volume of travel required for clubs to compete and train within the District and Regionally, not even considering inter-regional or national travel.

There has been no indication from Sport NZ of their intention to consider increasing the Rural Travel Fund, with current funding for Sport NZ focussed specifically outside of traditional sport support.

Recognising the importance of this funding to the community and discussion raised by Councillors on opportunities to increase the funding to the rural travel fund, Officers are recommending an increase to the fund is made.

Officers suggest that an increase of $3,000 could be sustained from internal Places and Open Spaces budgets without a major impact.

An alternate approach could be that Council chooses to rate fund a Council contribution of $3,000.

A further approach is that Council reallocated $3,000 from Places and Open Spaces budgets and Council rates funds a further $2,000 to bring the total additional funding that could be provided to the fund by Council to $5,000.

RECOMMENDATION

There is no recommended option for this decision.

Issue Five: Interest Allocation to Special Funds

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

When the LTP budgets were set up, interest revenue was used 100% to offset rates. However due to the simplistic nature of this assumption, special funds were not being topped up with this interest revenue. This is only an issue where those special funds are expecting to give away those interest earnings, but due to the lack of allocation to these funds were being eroded in the original LTP budget.

Discussion

This erosion of special funds impacted the Mayors Relief Fund, Eric Tate Scholarship Trust, and Waipawa Building Society Scholarship Trust in the original LTP. To fix this issue $15k pa of interest revenue needs to be diverted from Ratepayer Interest Revenue to Special Funds Interest Revenue.

OPTIONS

Council has two practical options:

· Option 1 – Amend the interest revenue allocation to provide revenue to Special Funds

This option would see the original bequest/scholarship funds balances remain intact, allowing for future interest income to be earnt and given away rather than depleting the funds capital. This approach is in alignment with the understanding when the funds were originally established.

This approach will see general rates increase by $15k pa due to the diversion of interest revenue.

· Option 2 – Reject the proposed budget change, and retain the original interest revenue allocation

This option would see the original bequest/scholarship funds balances eroded over time, which would mean that future generations would not have the benefit of scholarships being available to them.

RECOMMENDATION

Option One, to amend the interest allocations to provide revenue to special funds due to this approach being in alignment with the settlors of the scholarship funds wishes.

Issue Six: Asset Life Expectancy of new Assets and Depreciation Allocation:

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Currently Council has an unbalanced budget at a comprehensive income level (ie after depreciation). Officers can influence the level of this deficit by reviewing depreciation rates.

BACKGROUND

For historical assets, depreciation is set by a three yearly revaluation process, but for assets created during the current LTP, officers set the expected life expectancy and therefore depreciation rates. Officers have a chance to review these.

Discussion

Council is entering into a significant asset replacement program as well as building new growth assets and waste water treatment plants.

The default position in the LTP has been to match asset life expectancies to the length of the asset loans (typically 30 years for water assets). However the true life expectancy of these assets are more likely to be between 50-75 years.

Since Council doesn’t fully rate for depreciation, any changes in life expectancies will not impact future rates, but will help the balanced budget when considering the budgets at a comprehensive income approach.

OPTIONS

Council has two practical options:

· Option 1 – Review asset life expectancies for newly created assets (particularly 3 waters)

This option have no impact on rates, but would bring Council closer to be presenting a balanced budget.

· Option 2 – Reject the proposed budget change, and retain the original asset life expectancies for newly created assets

This option is status quo. There would be no rating impact, or improvement in the balanced budget benchmark.

RECOMMENDATION

Option One, to review asset life expectancies for newly created assets (particularly 3 waters), due to this having no rating impact, but will see an improvement in Council’s balanced budget benchmark.

Issue Seven: Electricity Contract Renewal

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Council has just signed a new 3 year electricity supply contract. The contracted price is significantly higher than the previous contract entered into during 2018.

BACKGROUND

Council is due to finish a three contract for its electricity supply in May 2021, and has recently signed a new All of Government Contract for a further three years however prices have significantly increased over the preceding three years. Some, but not all of this has been factored into Councils LTP budgets.

Discussion

Officers have reviewed its current electricity usage and charges and overlaid budget assumptions and expected service changes (such as new treatment plants and bore fields).

Based on this work, officers have identified three areas that they wish to adjust electricity budgets for the LTP.

Recreation and Community Facilities – Officers have identified that the reopening of the Waipawa Pool, bringing back in house the Municipal Theatre, and the new pricing structure has meant that budgets need to be increased by $13k pa. This will increase general rates.

Solid Waste - Officers have identified that the new pricing structure will impact the transfer stations and has meant that budgets need to be increased by $2k pa. This will increase general rates.

3 Waters - Officers have identified that due demand changes and pricing changes wastewater budgets are understated by $15k pa, while drinking water budgets are overstated by $5k pa. The net impact is a $10k pa increase for connected residents. This will increase water targeted rates.

All up, the impact will be an increase in rates of $25k pa, but this will impact different rate payers differently.

OPTIONS

Council has two practical options:

· Option 1 – Amend the electricity budgets to better reflect price and service demand changes

This option would see the electricity budget better reflect recent usage demands and recent price changes.

This approach will see general and water targeted rates increase by $25k pa.

· Option 2 – Reject the proposed budget change, and retain the current electricity budgets

This option would see the original budgets retained, however it is likely to see unfavourable budget variances at year end.

RECOMMENDATION

Option One, to amend the electricity budgets to better reflect price and service demand changes.

Issue Eight: Kiwisaver Cost Allocation

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

Council contributes towards the Kiwisaver schemes of its employees that have registered kiwisaver accounts. Currently this cost isn’t allocated to the different activities, but is worn as an overhead.

BACKGROUND

At the recent NZTA audit, the auditor suggested that one improvement Central Hawkes Bay District Council could make to its accounting practices is the allocation of kiwisaver costs out to the activities incurring the cost, rather than treating it as an overhead. This would then allow NZTA to reimburse the Land Transport share of kiwisaver through its FAR contribution.

Discussion

This discussion with the NZTA auditor got officers thinking, that with the establishment of Project Management Team (whose wages get capitalised) and positions funded by MBIE (such as Tuki Trails and Digital Hub staff) that there are other areas of Council not fully recovering their direct costs due to historical accounting practices.

It is proposed that Kiwisaver Costs be charged directly to the cost centre that the staff sit in, rather than charging them to an overhead cost centre and then allocating it as part of overheads.

However, this direct allocation method gives a slightly different spread to the way overheads are allocated. The table below gives the impact for year one of the LTP:

OPTIONS

Council has two practical options:

· Option 1 – Allocate Kiwisaver Costs in the same manner as staff wages are allocated

This option would see kiwisaver costs follow the wages budgets they relate to. This would allow officers to recover some kiwisaver costs from third parties or to capitalise their costs into the projects they relate to.

This approach will see general rates increase by $37k pa, the land transport rate to decrease by $31k pa, and 3 waters targeted rates decrease by $8k pa.

· Option 2 – Reject the proposed budget change, and continue to allocate kiwisaver costs as an overhead

This option would see the original budgets retained, however it is likely to see unfavourable budget variances at year end.

RECOMMENDATION

Option One, to allocate Kiwisaver Costs in the same manner as staff wages are allocated.

RECOMMENDATION for consideration

That having considered all the matters raised in the report:

a) That Council note the Management submission presented to Council, outlining recommended changes to the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 budgets, since draft budgets were initially adopted.

b) That Council retain the funding in Year 1 of the Long Term Plan identified to support the upgrades required of the Central Hawke’s Bay District Community Trust Assets.

f) That Council provide funding of $37,813 in Year 1 of the Long Term Plan, funded through debt for covers of the Waipawa Centennial Memorial Pool.

g) That Council loan fund a $30,000 contribution to the Hawke’s Bay Community Fitness Centre Trust, funded over three years through loans.

h) That Council note and endorse the $15,000 of Interest be allocated to Special Funds, rather than general funds, thus increasing general rates by$15,000.

i) That Council note and endorse the recommendation that Asset Life Expectancy of new Assets be reviewed which will impact depreciation charges, but have no rating impact.

Council	Residential/Urban Fee	Rural/Working Dog Fee
Central Hawke’s Bay District Council	$112.00	$56.00
Hastings District Council	$110.00	$48.00
Tararua District Council	$95.00	$40.00

Residential/Urban Dog Fee	$108.00
Rural/Working Dog Fee	$51.00

Topic One	Porangahau Road Strategy
Topic Two	Heavy Vehicle contribution via NZTA to road maintenance
Topic Three	Maintenance on road
Topic Four	Broken Footpaths
Topic Five	Rural Roads
Topic Six	Missing Sign
Topic Seven	Use of Fingerpost Road to haul Logs
Topic Eight	Request for Zebra Crossing
Topic Nine	Concern over road neglect causing huge investment in the future
Topic Ten	Sealing Unsealed Roads

Topic One	Product Stewardship and waste education
Topic Two	Is Council in a position to effectively and efficiently manage the extended collection service?
Topic Three	Drop Off Centres are the hub of our rural villages
Topic Four	Crates with wheels
Topic Five	Wheelie bins – not effective for recycling
Topic Six	The issue with bags
Topic Seven	Solid Waste from outside the district
Topic Eight	Recycling made easy

	Option 1 To adopt the revised Revenue and Finance Policy, and adopt the Fees and Charges for the financial year dated 2021/22 as set out in Attachment 1.	Option 2 Retain Current Fee Structure.	Option 3 Request Rework on Proposed Fees and Charges.
Financial and Operational Implications	This option ensures that Council is able to meet the budgets within the Annual Plan.	This option will see Council under recover costs in some areas, and is likely to result in an overall deficit at year end.	This option ensures that Council is able to meet the budgets within the Annual Plan, but will require additional officer time.
Long Term Plan and Annual Plan Implications	This is consistent with the Long Term Plan 2021/22.	This is unlikely to meet the Long Term Plan 2021/22.	This is consistent with the Long Term Plan 2021/22.
Promotion or Achievement of Community Outcomes	This aligns with the Council’s Community Outcomes.	This aligns with the Council’s Community Outcomes.	This aligns with the Council’s Community Outcomes.
Statutory Requirements	Council is required to adopt the Fees and Charges prior to charging the fees based on the legislative requirements that the Fees and Charges are set under.	Council is required to adopt the Fees and Charges prior to charging the fees based on the legislative requirements that the Fees and Charges are set under.	Council is required to adopt the Fees and Charges prior to charging the fees based on the legislative requirements that the Fees and Charges are set under.
Consistency with Policies and Plans	This aligns with the Council’s Community Outcomes and Central Government’s Policies.	This could cause breaches of Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy, and won’t be consistent with Central Government’s messaging.	This aligns with the Council’s Community Outcomes and Central Government’s Policies.

Name	Submission number
Clint Deckard	211
Charles M Nairn	183
Forest and Bird (Clint Deckard)	215
Robbie Christiansen	201
David Bishop	122
Federated Farmers (Rhea Dasent)	216
Mike Harrison	103
Tim Gilbertson	113
Anthony Clouston	121
Sport Hawkes Bay (Mark Aspden)	219
Rob McLean	170
Neen Kennedy	208
Gary Newnham	144
David William Cooke	227
CHB Rugby and Sports Club (Sami Arlidge, John Kilmister)	237
Terry Kingston	223
Trevor Le Lievre	234
Medallion (Alastair Haliburton)	28 - Bylaws
Forest and Bird (Tom Kay)	19 – Bylaws
Stephenson Transport (Bruce Stephenson, Hugh Hamilton)	21- Bylaws
Dianne Smith – Mataweka Marae	25 Bylaws

1 - Zara Mackey	2 - Haley Webster	4 - Jemma Nesbit
6 - Courtney Green	7 - Ben Waugh	8 - Ihipera Rua
9 - Greta Minehan	11 - Danielle Hemi	12 - Rita Simiona
13 - Lydia Bucknell	14 - Lachie Kirk	15 - Ollie Wichman
16 - Eden Lambert	17 - Mitchell Thompson	18 - Amalia Stevenson
20 - Jackson Baylis	21 - Emma Giddens	22 - Emma Thomsen
23 - Ramona Lively-Masters	24 - Haylee Gray	25 - Isaac Marshall
26 - Blair Hamilton	29 - Stuart William Davies	31 - Helen Burgi
32 - Wendy Milne,	33 - Erina Sciascia-Bland	34 - Ruth and Bruce Parker
35 - Benjamin Hall	36 - Gordon O'Neale	37 - Chrissy Malcolm
38 - JT and LD Jansen	39 - Nathan Mckenzie	40 - David Dicks
41 - Jessica Draper	42 - Peter Seligman	43 - Hayden Berryman
44 - Bruce McGechan	45 - Kaye Harrison	46 - Sandy Gilbert
47 - Ben Clist	48 - Bob Alkema	49 - Christopher Bath
50 - Peter Watson (1)	51 - Peter Watson (2)	52 - Rex Pickering
53 - Robyn McLeod	54 - David Taylor	55 - Gary Leach
56 - Tim Witton	57 - Stephen Thomas	59 - Elaine Helen Guthrie
60 - Chad Bauer	61 - Jamara Dhull	62 - Emma Mason-Smith
63 - Marcia Mackrell	64 - Sean Jackson Power	65 - Liam Worsford
66 - Kevin Rowell	67 - Leslie Peni	68 - Glenda Houston
69 - Ron King	70 - Stacey Thomas	71 - Marjon Greenwood
72 - Ian Hawkes	73 - Valerie Norris	74 - Callum Slavin
75 - Jo-Ann Hardwick-Smith	76 - Tina Keeling	77 - Maria Lincoln
78 - William Irving Peacock	79 - David Lewis	80 - Renee O'Sullivan
81 - Gina Prosser	82 - Lyn Horspool	83 - L Guy and R Bell
82 - Gina Prosser	83 - L Guy and R Bell	85 - Noel Pederson
86 - Robin Horder	87 - Meg Mackenzie	88 - Jan Wroe
89 - Baty	90 - Sally Harding	91 - Sandra Fleming
92 - Jensen	93 - V Leach	94 - DE and HM Whitney
95 - Brian and Marion Peterson	96 - Jude Grant	97 - Lisa
98 - Penny Single	99 - Barry Middleton	100 - Melissa Price
101 - AK Hansen	102 - Ben Douglas	103 - Mike Harrison
104 - Serena Ann Spencer	105 - Rebecca Jane Watt	106 - Jacqueline Naylor
107 - Shona Thompson	108 - Patricia Ann Price	109 - James Pretty
110 - Nikau Hill Station	111 - Danielle O'Shaughnessy	112 - Vaughn Thomson
113 - Tim Gilbertson	114 - Shona Crooks	115 - Patricia Sellers
116 - Peter Robson	117 - Maurice Groot	118 - David Bane
119 - Reuben George	120 - Aimee Congreve	122 - David Bishop
123 - Deborah Mason	124 - Donna Hossack	125 - Di Petersen
126 - Lorelei Hennessy	127 - Teresa Makris	128 - Wendy Gough
129 - Peter Hallagan	130 - Sue Kaan	131 - Betina Barber
132 - J & D Curtice	133 - C Pedersen & T Ward	134 - N & K Bedogni
135 - P Nissen &W Yambaki	136 - Jim Burne	137 - Lorraine Watson
138 - Martin Lord	139 - Frances & Stephen Ulyatt	140 - Cornelia van Falier
141 - Keri Rophia	142 - Forrest Ropiha	144 - Gary Newnham
145 - Donna Dahm	146 - Phyllis Tichinin	147 - Elliot Peacock
148 - Gerard Pain	149 - Ian Franklin	151 - Sjoerd Gorter
152 - Andrea Thomson	153 - Sue McLeod	154 - Warren Bayliss & Cecylia Rymarczyk
155 - Margaret Isabella Fletcher	156 - Alan Keate	157 - Phillip Knight
158 - Graeme J E Pedersen & Kathleen A Pedersen	159 - D & H Repko	160 - Jesse Palmer
161 - Kingston	162 - Haamiora Nukunuku	163 - Zoey
164 - Rapata Te Pania	165 - Bob Kerins	166 - Kristin Yoldash
167 - Terry Hare	168 - Heather-Anne Tidey	169 - Dora Player
170 - Robert Mclean	171 - Neil Bayliss	173 - Tony Robson
174 - Louise Field	175 - Lynnette Dewes	176 - Vicky Harding
177 - Miriam Howarth	178 - Graham McHardy	179 - Simone Tang
181 - Kathryn Bayliss	183 - Charles M Nairn	184 - Murray Howarth
185 - Andrea Mooney	186 - Dean Hyde	187 - Rea Arona
188 - Ross & Margaret Munro	189 - Jensen	190 - Adam Allington
191 - Jackie Scannell	192 - Tania Arona	193 - S Johnston
194 - Rachel Hornblow	195 - A M Banks	196 - Jenny and Tony Feather
197 - Bill Hale	198 - Geert Gelling	199 - Sara and Stephen Ellis
200 - Peter and Viv Paton	201 - Robbie Christiansen	202 - Tracy and Andrew Gay
206 - James Leigh	207 - Benita	208 - Neen Kennedy
209 - Nicole Ellison	210 - Marti Eller, Gillian Eller, Mark Eller	211 - Clint Deckard
212 - Karen Olsen-Mills	213 - Alice Bellamy	214 - Lathan Wroe
215 - Forest and Bird	217 - Sarah Giddens and Espen Kristensen	218 - Elsa Ironside
220 - John Kyle	221 - Graeme and Margaret Black	223 - Terry Kingston
224 - Mike Shivnan	226 - Trish Giddens	228 - Diana Hollis
229 - Anne Wallace	230 - D J Williams	238 - N Malcolm
239 - J Mclean

Topic One	Water Tanks and Composting Toilets
Topic Two	Growth Opportunities
Topic Three	Biodiversity
Topic Four	Climate Change

Topic One	Encouraging travellers to visit and stop and developing Waipawa’s hospitality and shopping
Topic Two	Addressing logging opportunities and suggested sawmill for Waipukurau