Council Meeting Long Term Plan Deliberations Agenda

Thursday, 13 May 2021

9.00am

Council Chamber, 28-32 Ruataniwha Street, Waipawa

 


Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

 

Order Of Business

1          Karakia. 3

2          Apologies. 3

3          Declarations of Conflicts of Interest 3

4          Standing Orders. 3

5          Confirmation of Minutes. 3

6          Reports from Committees. 8

Nil

7          Report Section. 9

7.1            Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Scene Setting - Overview Report 9

7.2            Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Draft Deliberations Report: Drinking Water, Stormwater and Wastewater Bylaws. 20

7.3            Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Draft Deliberations Report: Challenge 1 - Planning and Funding our Wastewater Upgrades. 146

7.4            Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Draft Deliberations Report: Trade Waste Bylaw.. 193

7.5            Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Draft Deliberations Report: Challenge 2 - Funding Replacement of our Assets. 266

7.6            Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Draft Deliberations Report: Challenge 3 - Creating a Waste Free CHB.. 278

7.7            Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Draft Deliberations Report: Challenge 4 - How we pay for growth. 297

7.8            Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Draft Deliberations Report: Financial and Infrastructure Strategy. 379

7.9            Long Term Plan 2021-2031 Draft Deliberation Reports: Planning and Regulatory Services. 424

7.10          Long Term Plan 2018-2028 Draft Deliberation Reports: Land Transport 430

7.11          Long Term Plan 2018-2028 Draft Deliberation Reports: Places and Open Spaces. 436

7.12          Long Term Plan 2018-2028 Draft Deliberation Reports: Community Leadership. 450

7.13          Long Term Plan 2018-2028 Draft Deliberation Reports: Solid Waste. 452

7.14          Management Submission to the Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Deliberations. 459

7.15          Revenue and Financing Policy, and Fees and Charges 2021/22. 543

8          Chief Executive Report 622

Nil

9          Public Excluded Business. 622

Nil

10       Date of Next Meeting. 622

11       Time of Closure. 622

 

 


1            Karakia

2            Apologies

3            Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

4            Standing Orders

RECOMMENDATION

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

21.2 Time limits on speakers

21.5 Members may speak only once

21.6 Limits on number of speakers

And that Option C under section 22 General Procedures for Speaking and Moving Motions be used for the meeting.

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

 

5            Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Council Meeting - 13 April 2021

 

Recommendation

That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 13 April 2021 as circulated, be confirmed as true and correct.

 

 


Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

 

   MINUTES OF Central Hawkes Bay District Council
Council Meeting, Long term plan hearings
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, 28-32 Ruataniwha Street, Waipawa
ON Tuesday, 13 April 2021 AT 9.00am

 

PRESENT:              Mayor Alex Walker

Deputy Mayor Kelly Annand

Cr Brent Muggeridge

Cr Tim Aitken

Cr Gerard Minehan

Cr Jerry Greer

Cr Kate Taylor

Cr Exham Wichman (Apology)

Cr Pip Burne

 

IN ATTENDANCE: Monique Davidson (Chief Executive)

Nicola Bousfield (Group Manager – People and Business Enablement)

Joshua Lloyd (Group Manager, Community Infrastructure and Development)

Doug Tate (Group Manager, Customer and Community Partnerships)

Brent Chamberlain (Chief Financial Officer)

Darren de Klerk (Director Projects & Programmes)

 

1            Prayer

Mayor Alex Walker led the prayer.

 

2            Apologies

Moved:       Cr Gerard Minehan

Seconded:  Cr Jerry GreerCr

Exham Wichman – Late apology

Dr Maaka – Apology noted

CARRIED

3            Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

nil

5            Report Section

5.1         Submissions on the Long Term Plan 2021-2031

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to present submissions to the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 to Council for their consideration. 

 

Resolved:  21.49

Moved:       Cr Kate Taylor

Seconded:  Cr Pip Burne

1.       That the submissions on the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 be received.

2.       That the submissions on the Trade Waste, Stormwater, Drinking Water and Wastewater Bylaws be received.

3.       That Late Submissions referred to in Attachment 4, Pack 2 be received.

4.       That Council thank submitters for taking the time to provide feedback to the Long Term Plan process, and thank them for their submissions.

Carried

 Mrs Davidson presented this report. Following the introduction of the report, the remainder of the meeting included verbal submissions to the written submissions received.

 

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

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 9.53 for a morning tea break

 

The meeting resumed at 10.11

 

The meeting adjourned for a lunch break at 11.50

 

The meeting resumed at 1.14

 

The meeting adjourned at 3.00 for an afternoon tea break

 

The meeting resumed at 3.15

 

 6          Date of Next Meeting

Recommendation

THAT the next meeting of the Central Hawke's Bay District Council be held on 14 April 2021.

 

7            Time of Closure

Mataweka Marae helped close the meeting with a prayer.

The Meeting closed at 4.14pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Council Meeting held on 13 May 2021.

 

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

CHAIRPERSON


Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

 

6            Reports from Committees

Nil


Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

 

7            Report Section

7.1         Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Scene Setting - Overview Report

File Number:           COU1-1400

Author:                    Brent Chamberlain, Chief Financial Officer

Authoriser:             Monique Davidson, Chief Executive

Attachments:          Nil

 

Recommendation for consideration

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

 

PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary on the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 process, and the matters still be deliberated on.

significance and engagement

This report is provided for information purposes only and has been assessed as not significant, however it should be noted that the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 does trigger significance, and when Officers present a report for the adoption of the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2031 in June 2021, the item will be identified as significant.

BACKGROUND

All Councils are required by section 93 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to adopt a Long Term Plan (LTP) and review it every three years.

Local government exists to meet community needs and wants effectively, efficiently and in a way that meets those needs and wants now and in the future. If done properly, long-term planning helps make the present and future consequences of decisions and trade-offs clear to all – for example that this decision to defer maintenance reduces the rate requirement now, but at a loss of service potential long-term.

The LTP pairs the Council’s vision and ambition for the future and the status quo, and articulates how we bridge the gap in between. This is done by setting out Council’s assets, activities, plans, budgets and policies. It must be adopted before the beginning of the first year it relates to and continues in force until the close of the third consecutive year to which it relates.

Central Hawke’s Bay District Council has an already established vision that was first articulated through Project Thrive in 2017. This vision formed the basis of the 2018-2028 LTP and its direction (formed through comprehensive community engagement and feedback) materially informed the formulation of that plan. Council through its Elected Member priorities and strategic vision of Thrive have informed the basis of the Long Term Plan 2021 – 2023.

DISCUSSION

Preparing for the adoption of a LTP is a long and complex process, and for Central Hawke’s Bay District Council preparation for the Long Term Plan began in early 2019. Successful delivery of a LTP relies on many moving parts working together and lining up to tell a coherent story to the community about how Council is going to deliver its vision for the future.

These building blocks broadly fit into the following categories:

·    Strategic Inputs: Council Direction setting, Environmental Scan, Integrated Spatial Planning, Strategy Review (e.g. Financial Strategy, Infrastructure Strategy, Asset Management Policy, Significance and Engagement Policy, Māori Contribution to Decision Making Policy), Significant Assumptions.

·    Tactical Inputs: Infrastructure Strategy, Asset Management Plans and Activity Management Plans (e.g. Animal Services, Compliance and Monitoring), LTP Inputs (e.g. Community Outcomes, Levels of Service, Performance Measures, Groups of Activities), Policy review (e.g. Rates Review, Revenue and Finance Policy, Development Contributions, Trade Waste Contributions).

·    Communication and Consultation: Engagement Plan for the Consultation on the LTP, Pre-Consultation activities #ourthrivingfuture.

The Long Term Plan has already hit the following milestones:

·    January-September 2020 – Undertake S17a reviews of activities, prepare asset and financial management plans, undertake a rating review, review financial policies

·    August 2020 - Pre-Engagement with our community to help set priorities

·    October-November - Develop Draft LTP Budgets and consultation Documents

·    December 2020 – January 2021 – Audit of Consultation Document

·    March 2021 – Formal Public Consultation on LTP and issues

·    April 2021 – Hearing of Public Feedback

 

Which bring us to today, where Councillors will weigh up written and verbal submissions and make final LTP directional decisions.

The any decisions made today that amend the draft LTP consulted on will impact the final rates strike. Not all decisions will impact all rate payers equally, and decisions made today shouldn’t be made in isolation as every change will have a cumulative impact on rates.

The purpose of this report is not to pre-empt Councillors decisions, but try to give a summary of proposed recommendations, and how they impact rates, and summarise the cumulative impacts adoption of the proposals might have.


 


 

Challenge / Issue

Consultation Assumption

Recommended Assumption

Item Number

Further Rating Impact Year 1 if recommendations adopted.

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.

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.

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

 

SAMPLE RATEPAYERS IMPACT

 

 

 

 

Implications ASSESSMENT

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

·        Council staff have delegated authority for any decisions made;

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

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

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

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

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

Next Steps

The next steps are for Councillors to deliberate, and select their preferred options for the finalisation of the Long Term Plan and budgets. The paper can be used as a reference point for Elected Members as they go throughout deliberations.

 

RECOMMENDATION 

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

 

 


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 

Peter Seligman 

Not Stated 

Anonymous 1 

Not Stated 

Kaye [surname unknown] 

Not Stated 

Anonymous 2 

Not Stated 

Kathryn Bayliss 

Not Stated 

Dean Hyde 

Not Stated 

Keri Ropiha 

No 

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 17th June 2021.

 

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

 


Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Council Meeting Long Term Plan Agenda

13 May 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 


Council Meeting 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 22nd 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 22nd 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.

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 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.

 

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.

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).

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 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

 

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

Trade Waste Volumetric Operational Fees (B1-B6)

 

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

 

1.0

Trade Waste Volumetric Capital Contribution Fees (B13-B20)

 

0.33

 

0.37

 

0.75

 

1.0

 

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.

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.

 


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.

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 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. 

 

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 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 

Peter Seligman 

Not Stated 

Anonymous 1 

Not Stated 

Kaye [surname unknown] 

Not Stated 

Anonymous 2 

Not Stated 

Kathryn Bayliss 

Not Stated 

Dean Hyde 

Not Stated 

Keri Ropiha 

No 

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 

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

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 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.

 

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 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. 

 

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 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

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 17th June 2021.

 

RECOMMENDATION

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

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 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

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 


Council Meeting 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.

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. Regular and routine audit processes are a key part of this with a high level of scrutiny placed on infrastructure planning.

 

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

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.

 

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.