Waikato Regional Council

Waikato Regional Council Council Agenda

Date: Thursday, 26 September, 2019

Time: 10:30 am

Location: Council Chamber

Waikato Regional Council

401 Grey Street, Hamilton East

Members: Cr A Livingston - ChairmanCr T Mahuta - Deputy ChairCr J HaymanCr J HennebryCr K HodgeCr S HusbandCr S KneeboneCr F LichtwarkCr D MinogueCr B QuayleCr R RimmingtonCr B SimcockCr H VercoeCr K White

Notice of Meeting:I hereby give notice that an ordinary Meeting of the Council will be held as detailed above.

VRJ PayneChief Executive Officer

Pages

1. Apologies

2. Confirmation of Agenda

3. Disclosures of Interest

4. Confirmation of Minutes

4.1 Council Minutes - 29 August 2019 8

5. Committees Reporting to Council

5.1 Future Proof Implementation Committee - 15 August 2019 79

5.2 Hamilton Public Transport Joint Committee - 16 August 2019 88

5.3 Hauraki Gulf Forum - 19 August 2019 95

Minute Item Attachments found here:https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2019/08/HGF_20190819_MAT_8390_WEB.htm

5.4 Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019 102

5.5 Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee - Notes 20 August 2019 117

5.6 Regional Transport Committee - 2 September 2019 123

5.7 Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Joint Committee - 2September 2019

133

5.8 Waikato Plan Leadership Committee - 3 September 2019 143

5.9 Hearings Appointment Subcommittee - 10 September 2019 150

5.10 Strategy and Policy - 10 September 2019 155

5.11 Finance Committee - 11 September 2019 166

5.12 Environmental and Services Performance Committee - 12 September 2019 175

6. Ordinary Business

6.1 Health and Safety Council Report – August 2019 183

Report on the monthly health and safety council dashboard and any other topicsregarding health and safety of relevance to council.

https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2019/08/HGF_20190819_MAT_8390_WEB.htm

https://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/Open/2019/08/HGF_20190819_MAT_8390_WEB.htm

6.2 Adoption of the 2018/19 Annual Report and Annual Report Summary 187

Report to enable the council to adopt the final 2018/19 Annual Report and AnnualReport Summary.

To View click here - Link to 2018/19 Annual Report.

To View click here - Link to Annual Report Summary.

6.3 Waikato Local Authority Share Services Limited Audited Annual Report to 30 June2019

191

Report to present the Waikato Local Authority Share Services Limited AuditedAnnual Report to 30 June 2019 to council.

6.4 Endorsement of WRC submissions on the Proposed National Policy Statements onUrban Development and Highly Productive Land

237

Report to allow the Council the opportunity to review and endorse the finalsubmissions on the National Policy Statements (NPS) on Urban Development andHighly Productive Land to ensure that the points raised at the Strategy and PolicyCommittee 10 September 2019 meeting have been adequately included in thesubmissions.

6.5 Action for our healthy waterways – A discussion document on national directionfor our essential freshwater

262

Report to familiarise Council with the regional sector position paper on theSeptember 2019 proposed freshwater management proposals, and to seekendorsement from Council for the lodgement of a submission that aligns with theregional sector position.

6.6 Proposal to use Streamlined Planning Process for the Proposed Waikato RegionalPlan Change 2 - Taupō Overseer

273

Report to recommend a Streamlined Planning Process (SPP) to progress a planchange to the Waikato Regional Plan. The Plan Change is to allow new versions ofOverseer to be used to manage Taupō nitrogen leaching.

6.7 Delegated authority during the interim 2019 local election period 284

Report to seek from council, delegation to the Chief Executive during the period5pm Friday 11 October 2019 until the triennial meeting of the incoming council.

6.8 Hamilton to Auckland Start-Up Passenger Rail Project 290

Report to provide the Waikato Regional Council (WRC) with a progress update onthe Hamilton to Auckland Start-Up Passenger Rail Project, outline the New ZealandTransport Agency’s (NZTA) Board conditions on funding and explain how WRC plansto manage the financial risks associated with these conditions.

7. Presentation - The Shift in Communications this Triennium

8. Reasons to Exclude the Public

https://waikatorc-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/jennie_cox_waikatoregion_govt_nz/EX0wlVjUWplAkHp8PZtOpTwBZOuUo7pPwdbYlPT7-F0qfQ?e=R6UVWL

https://waikatorc-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/jennie_cox_waikatoregion_govt_nz/EcWwGb8vqdtGvisF7il-jUcB1HC1HaZtBsddtmxvB54sFg?e=nwSG1o

9. Public Excluded Section

10. Return to Open meeting

THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the meeting set out below on the grounds that the public conduct of those parts of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (the Act).

The particular interests protected by section 6 or 7 of the Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:

Report Title : Minutes of Council Meeting 29 August 2019 Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons (section

7(2)(a) of the Act) Avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and

detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial (section 6(a) of the Act) Protect information where the making available of the information would disclose a trade secret;

o would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information (section 7(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act)

In the case only of an application for a resource consent, or water conservation order, or a requirement for a designation or heritage order, under the Resource Management Act 1991, to avoid serious offence to Tikanga Maori, or to avoid the disclosure of the location of waahi tapu (Section 7(2)(ba) of the Act).

Protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information -

o would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied (section 7(2)(c)(i) of the Act); or

o would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest (section 7(2)(c)(ii) of the Act) Avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public (section

7(2)(d) of the Act) Maintain legal professional privilege (section 7(2)(g) of the Act) Enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or

disadvantage, commercial activities (section 7(2)(h) of the Act) Enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or

disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) (section 7(2)(i) of the Act)

Prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage (section 7(2)(j) of the Act)

Report Title : Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019

Protect information where the making available of the information would disclose a trade secret;


Maintain legal professional privilege (section 7(2)(g) of the Act) Enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or




Report Title : Strategy and Policy Committee 10 September 2019

Protect information where the making available of the information would disclose a trade secret;


Report Title: Finance Committee 11 September 2019




Report Title: Environmental and Services Performance Committee 12 September 2019

Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons (section 7(2)(a) of the Act)

Maintain legal professional privilege (section 7(2)(g) of the Act) Avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and

detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial (section 6(a) of the Act)

Report Title: Section 33 Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) Transfer of functions project

would disclose a trade secret; o would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who

supplied or who is the subject of the information (section 7(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act) Enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or



Report Title: Privatisation of Tickles Flood Scheme




Report Title: New Building Fittings, Furniture and Equipment Request for Proposal

would disclose a trade secret;


Enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities (section 7(2)(h) of the Act)

Enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) (section 7(2)(i) of the Act)

Report Title: Approval to procure audio-visual equipment for Tristram Street

would disclose a trade secret; o would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who

supplied or who is the subject of the information (section 7(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act) Enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or




Council

OPEN MINUTES Date: Location:

Thursday, 29 August, 2019, 10:30 am Council Chamber Waikato Regional Council 401 Grey Street, Hamilton East

Members Present: Cr A Livingston - Chairman

Cr J Hayman Cr J Hennebry Cr S Kneebone Cr F Lichtwark Cr D Minogue Cr B Quayle Cr R Rimmington Cr B Simcock Cr H Vercoe Cr K White

Staff Present: V Payne - Chief Executive Officer C McLay - Director Resource Use C Crickett - Director Integrated Catchment Management T May - Director Science and Strategy J Becker – Chief Financial Officer

J Cox - Team Leader Democracy Services

Open minutes of Council 29 August 2019

15057341 P a g e | 2

1. Apologies

Apologies were received from Crs Hodge, Husband and Mahuta for absence.

WRC19/173 Moved by: Cr R Rimmington Seconded by: Cr K White

THAT the apologies of Crs Hodge, Husband and Mahuta (for absence) be accepted.

The motion was put and carried


The agenda of the meeting was confirmed without alteration.

WRC19/174 Moved by: Cr R Rimmington Seconded by: Cr B Simcock

THAT the agenda of the meeting of the Waikato Regional Council of 29 August 2019, as circulated, be confirmed as the business for the meeting.



There were no disclosures of interest.


4.1 Council Minutes - 27 July 2019

Minutes from the meeting of Council held 25 July 2019.

The minutes were confirmed as true and correct.

A member noted for clarification a matter arising from the minutes.

Appendix 1 page 4 - Regional Plan Review Committee - third bullet relating to provision for working parties regarding matauranga maori.

The member asked where the funding would come from to pay for the working parties and working groups. In response members were advised that the work for the review of the regional plan was provided for in the set Long Term Plan budget and the work and proposed working parties and working groups related to a community expectation for effective engagement. Council was keen to ensure the work was undertaken in the most efficient way.

WRC19/175 Moved by: Cr J Hennebry Seconded by: Cr B Quayle

THAT the Minutes of the Council Meeting of 25 July 2019 be approved as a true and correct record.



15057341 P a g e | 3

5. Committees Reporting to Council

5.1 Waikato Plan Leadership Committee

Minutes of the meeting of the Waikato Plan Leadership Committee held 22 July 2019.

Cr Livingston spoke to the minutes of the meeting.

A member noted that Mayor King had voted against the decision to provide for all members of the committee to be voting members in the 2019-2022 triennium. In discussion it was noted that the concern behind the decision had always been the size of the committee. The committee had worked to encourage and support other government departments in becoming part of the conversation about the Waikato. If there had been an issue around central government having a say in a local government forum, this had not been presented as an issue within any meetings.

The group was responsible for addressing matters and work across the region, and projects that were supported and endorsed by the mayoral forum. The purpose behind considering issues and projects on a regional scale is to ensure there is no duplication of work occurring. There were overall efficiencies and cost savings with this regional approach.

A member raised their concern that the group would be making decision that would impact on the councils, however it was noted for council that members would take recommendations back to their councils and organisations to seek commitment to decisions, rather than decisions being made on their behalf.

A member noted that the Triennial Agreement would likely include the need to be looking at what was going on with the Waikato Plan. Members were advised that the committee had sought an update for elected members through a regional forum meeting after the election so that elected members could be appraised of all the work streams. The update would be separate from the Triennial Agreement. There would be value for the regional forum to be appraised of the role of the regional council and the regulation involved in flood and drainage schemes.

A member noted that it had been critical for the region to have a forum to come together to form a common response to economic matters and education in the region. As a result of the forum and the work undertaken, there had been better attention and response from central government for the region.

The minutes (Doc# 14770568) attached at Appendix 1.

WRC19/176 Moved by: Cr A Livingston Seconded by: Cr S Kneebone

1. That the minutes of the meeting of the Waikato Plan Leadership Committee held 22 July 2019 be received.

2. That the decisions made under Section A be noted.

3. That the recommendations made under Section B be approved:

WPLC19/34


15057341 P a g e | 4

That all members of the Waikato Plan Leadership Committee are voting members during the 2019-2022 triennium, and that a consequential change is made to the Terms of Reference.


5.2 Strategy and Policy

Minutes of the meeting of the Strategy and Policy Committee held 30 July 2019.

Cr Simcock presented the minutes. There were no questions or matters for correctness noted.

The minutes (Doc # 14826246) attached as Appendix 2.

WRC19/177 Moved by: Cr B Simcock Seconded by: Cr J Hennebry

1. That the minutes of the meeting of the Strategy and Policy Committee held 30 July 2019 be confirmed as a true and correct record.



5.3 Integrated Catchment Management Committee

Minutes of the meeting of the Integrated Catchment Management Committee held 7 August 2019.

Cr Kneebone presented the minutes on behalf of the Chair of the meeting Cr Husband.

He noted that the committee had recommended to council the adoption of the Land Drainage Management Plan.

Members were advised that the policy was operational and had not included a review. The review was looking at periodic and timing efficiencies in regard to drainage in the region.

The minutes (Doc #14890488) attached as Appendix 3.

WRC19/178 Moved by: Cr S Kneebone Seconded by: Cr F Lichtwark

1. That the minutes of the meeting of the Integrated Catchment Management Committee be received.


3. That the recommendations made under Section B be adopted:


15057341 P a g e | 5

ICM Agenda item and resolutions

Item 9. National kauri dieback programme update, National Pest Management Plan

ICM19/78

2. That the Integrated Catchment Management Committee endorse the following recommendations from the 30 July 2019 Strategy and Policy Committee:

a. That a watching brief is maintained of central government funding of the National Kauri Dieback Programme and National Pest Management Plan and Management Agency.

b. That Council, in response to the news of an absence of previously indicated funding from government in regard to an integrated Kauri dieback response, supports an active public advocacy campaign that focusses on securing government funding to recognize kauri as a regional and national taonga.

3. That this campaign shall include engaging and inviting support from:

c. Auckland Council, Northland Regional Council, and relevant Territorial Authorities

i. Iwi

ii. Hauraki Gulf Forum; and other

iii. Strategic stakeholders

d. That Council is kept updated on the development and implementation of the public advocacy programme.

Item 12. Land Drainage Management Plan

ICM19/82That the Land Drainage Management Plan, (Waikato Regional Council Policy Series 2019/14, Document #13380473), be adopted with the following amendments:

Section 7.9.4 Action - Support indigenous biodiversity initiatives (page 57) - Table 2nd item “Consider ecological enhancement”, 2nd bullet point to read “Consider remedial options when upgrades or replacement is undertaken.”; and: Inclusion of the definition of “land drainage”.

Item 13.1 Waihou Piako Catchment Committee 27 May 2019


15057341 P a g e | 6

ICM19/83

That the following recommendations contained in Section B of the minutes be endorsed:

Item 10: Zone Status Report

That the Waihou Piako Catchment Committee request a report from staff on the practicality of using a construction team over the last season with a view to formalising this arrangement including a comparison of all external works over the last five (5) years.

Item 11: Puriri River Scheme Service Level Review

1. That the Puriri River Scheme design standard is approved as follows:

a) 0m level is adopted as the 100 year ARI tide level for the purposes of design;

b) The current design freeboard of 0.50m be retained for the tidal river stopbanks;

c) For the stopbanks designed to withstand river flooding, a ten (10) year ARI design standard with 0.60m freeboard be retained; and

2. That the two originally proposed spillways be deleted from the scheme; and

3. That where the stopbanks performance grades are four (4) or five (5) it is recommended that a more detailed survey is undertaken and works programmed to upgrade these sections.

Item 14: Muggeridge’s Pump Station Peat Soil Management Protocols

That the Waihou Piako Catchment Committee request draft protocols for the management of peat soils that can implemented for the Muggeridge drainage area only rather than regional wide protocols/policies.

Item 13.3 Waipa Catchment Committee 19 June 2019


15057341 P a g e | 7

ICM19/85

3. That the following recommendations contained in Section B of the minutes be endorsed:

Item 9: Management of the Waipa Zone Operating Reserve June 2019

1. That the Waipa Operating Reserve be proactively drawn down to fund planned or accelerated operational activities to a balance being approximately ten percent of the total operating budget and in the range of $400,000 to $600,000, over the next three (3) to six (6) years.

2. That the Waipa Operating Reserve be used to balance year to year expenditure timing fluctuations across the whole range of operational work undertaken.

3. That the Waipa Operating Reserve be used to spread the funding of planned ‘non-routine’ activities (e.g. ten yearly river channel surveys, five yearly zone and catchment plan reviews). Unplanned non-routine activities to be brought back to the Committee for consideration and ratification.

Item 13.5 Aka Aka Otaua Drainage Advisory Subcommittee 5 July 2019

ICM19/87

3. That the following recommendations contained in Section B of the minutes be endorsed:

Item 9: Other Business (a) Proposed Waikato District Council Plan

1. That the further submission be received and adopted and recorded in the minutes; and

2. That the actions of the Deputy Chairman and the Secretary in lodging a further submission be approved and confirmed.


5.4 Finance Committee

Minutes of the meeting of the Finance Committee held 8 August 2019.

Cr Hennebry presented the minutes.

For correctness it was noted that the 8 August meeting referred to Subcommittee not Committee. It was confirmed the correction would be make.

There had been discussion around future costs for plan changes if things were appealed and went to the environment court and how the legal expense would be funded in the future. Part of this discussion related to what the government were doing with the Resource Management Act review and appeals. The theme of the proposals coming through from central government was that they wanted plans to be done faster and faster results for implementation on the ground. The speed of change was the big signal. The impact of these changes for council was that there wouldn't be the luxury to enter into early collaboration for a plan change and using the slower pace of change to bring the community with us.


15057341 P a g e | 8

There was a view that the collaborative approach was more expensive but there were gains at the end of the process, with a view that you were more likely to have less adversarial and appeal type processes at the other end.

A member noted that in the Resource Management space the landscape changes were occurring faster than the way we could manage those changes. An up-front preparatory process was good, but a question was how did you involve the communities and ensure there was the diverse range of the communities being engaged with.

The decisions of the committee were moved as one.


Minutes of the meeting of the Finance Committee held 13 August 2019.

Cr Hennebry presented the minutes of the Finance committee of the 13th of August 2019.

She noted that members of the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust had provided their yearly update to the committee.

Recommendations 1 and 2 were put and carried.

Members turned to the Section B recommendation from the Committee.

The motion was moved by Cr Livingston and seconded by Cr Lichtwark.

In talking to the motion, the staff report to the committee was acknowledged and the $30,000 that was awarded did reflect the staff recommendation. The member noted the request was unique in that these grants were usually for smaller groups doing work on a voluntary basis. It was acknowledged that this was an area within the Proposed Plan Change 1 area and they were the next catchment within the priorities. The King Country group had shown initiative in commencing the work for themselves. They were approaching the work on a catchment basis and the group (comprised of farmers within the area) had sought to employ a person to facilitate all of the work the landowners had been doing. The group were working closely with regional council and the farm advisory staff and weren't waiting around for plans and policies. They were getting on and picking up good farming practices. As a council we should be getting behind this group. Members were advised that one of the reasons that the reduced amount was recommended to the committee had been that the request to fund a facilitator had not been appropriate for this type of fund. The value for council was obvious from a cost perspective. Council had found a problem in that too many people were wanting to attend field days and workshops and the efforts of this group could be spread out through the Proposed Plan Change 1 area and through the region.

A member acknowledged that supporting groups like this could mean that council would not have to employ more staff to take on that demand. The individual has the skills of a catchment management officer.

The West coast had an operational budget of $1.8 million for catchment management enhancement where as in the Waipa catchment the operational budget was in the vicinity of $5 million with access to income from the Waikato River Authority. Lower and Central Waikato also had access to funds from the vision and strategy


15057341 P a g e | 9

funding. The King Country had arguably more work than any other catchment to address the impacts of the historical government land clearance.

It was noted for members that any work that was undertaken to improve water quality and from a farmer led initiative was of benefit to council.

A member noted that the concern should not be what the hourly rate of funding would be but what the benefit to council would be. In response it was noted for members that the staff assessment of applications took in to account the purpose of the Environmental Initiatives Fund and why it was set up. Often an hourly rate is included within the application and the assessment to review what the costs were per person. One of the questions from the committee had been would council be setting a precedent for the fund by agreeing to fund the full amount requested in the application.

Members sought further information with regard to the policy guidelines and whether there was a need for any application regarding wages or work to specify that they should not exceed a rate of $30 per hour. Within this report members asked that staff indicate commentary around precedents and or impacts of what could happen if the policy was not reviewed and applied to applications such as this one.

Members noted that the recommendation to approve the additional $10,000 would require the funds to be sourced from funding other than the Environmental Initiatives Fund.

The minutes (Doc #14907326) attached as Appendix 5.

WRC19/179 Moved by: Cr J Hennebry Seconded by: Cr B Quayle

1. That the minutes of the meeting of Finance Committee held 8 August 2019 be confirmed as true and correct.



FC19/36

That the committee recommends Council approves budget carry over and adjustment requests of:

a. $5.421 million carry over of operating expenditure

b. $1.509 million of budget adjustments for reserve-funded activities

c. $7.234 million of operating capital expenditure carry overs

d. $7.466 million of infrastructure capital expenditure carry overs

FC19/37

That the Finance Committee recommends Council approves the 2018/19 end of year non-financial performance results for inclusion in the draft Annual Report subject to audit review.

FC19/42


15057341 P a g e | 10

2. That the committee recommends Council approve the updated Statement of Investment Policy and Objectives (July 2019) to Council for approval

3. That the Committee recommends to Council that staff work with Mercer to undertake a fund health review and that it report back to the new Council in early 2020 (prior to Annual Plan process).

4. That the Committee recommends to Council that an induction session be held with Mercer for the new triennium members.


WRC19/180 Moved by: Cr J Hennebry Seconded by: Cr S Kneebone

1. That the minutes of the meeting of the Finance Committee held 13 August 2019 be confirmed as true and correct.



WRC19/181 Moved by: Cr A Livingston Seconded by: Cr F Lichtwark


Item 5 Environmental Initiatives Fund – 2019/20 Grant Allocation

FC19/64

That the Finance Committee request Council to consider financial options to fund the $10,000 shortfall between Environmental Initiatives grant and cost of co-ordinator wages for 1 year for the King Country River Care project for promoting nationally required farm management and freshwater practices. (EIF Summary to be included).


5.5 Hearings Appointment Subcommittee

Minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Appointment Subcommittee held 13 August 2019 and members report from Cr Hayman regarding discussion held at Hearings Appointment Subcommittee.

Cr Hayman spoke to the minutes and her accompanying report to members following discussions held at the meeting of the Hearings Appointment Subcommittee on 13 August 2019.

There was a nationwide concern around the aging commissioner pool. It was important to futureproof the pool of commissioners that council held to bring in younger commissioners to enable them to gain the experience by working alongside the experienced commissioners and apply their relevant skills.


15057341 P a g e | 11

Additional to the concern that the commissioners were aging was the elected members’ introduction to the Resource Management Act and the role that the elected members had in both plan development and plan decision making. It was felt that this was important that this was delivered early on in the triennium and then followed up. The early introduction of this information would be important to the new council in that there will be plan change decisions to be made early in the new triennium. The role council had working with river iwi and the treaty settlement pathway may be different to other councils, and this would need to be highlighted for members.

Programmes such as the Ministry for the Environment's Making Good Decisions was something that could be offered to member, either those involved in the development of plans or in the regulatory process like the Hearings Appointment Subcommittee where potential hearings and proposed commissioners were discussed and decided. The programme provided members with the skills to apply more attention to the detail and to ensure processes all happened appropriately. It was proposed that the course would support members in their governing role rather than for them to commence working as commissioners on hearings panels.

Members noted that the funding for the course was provided as part of the individuals training budget. Any decision to change that would need to be discussed with the incoming council.


WRC19/182 Moved by: Cr J Hayman Seconded by: Cr A Livingston

1. That the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Appointment Subcommittee held 13 August 2019 be confirmed as a true and correct record.



HAS19/08 That the Hearings Appointment SubCommittee recommends that Council develops a plan to expand the pool of commissioners with diverse skills and create a pathway for the development of new commissioner chairs.

HAS19/09 That the Hearings Appointment Subcommittee recommends to Council that the new Council Induction process include a thorough introduction of the Resource Management Act and decision making processes.


6. Ordinary Business

6.1 Health and Safety Council Report - July 2019

Report on the monthly health and safety council dashboard and any other topics regarding health and safety of relevance to council.


15057341 P a g e | 12

The report was presented by the Manager People and Capabilities (N Ollington). Mr Ollington noted for members that the increase in sick leave usage was a community wide issue and council was in line with other employers in the levels we are reporting.

A member noted a recent fire alarm that occurred at 4.30pm and asked what checks were under taken when alarms happened at that time of day and many people are leaving work. Members were assured that there were evacuation processes and there was a register that could be accessed and contact made with employees through their smart phone.

A member asked whether warning was given when fire drills were going to occur. In response members were advised that the floor wardens were given a general idea that a fire drill may occur, but details of when were not provided. The 4.30pm incident was not a drill and was a genuine alert. When drills are set, contact is made with the fire service to confirm that it is a drill and response is not required.

A member enquired whether there was anything that could be learned from recent bus driver assaults. Members were advised that the matter was being adequately addressed through the operator and Police had attended the latest incident. In terms of council's responsibility for safety there is CCTV on the buses which is proving to be valuable. Staff were working with operators and Hamilton City Council to consider safety within the operating environment such as lighting within shelters to ensure safety for passengers as well as drivers.

A member sought information regarding contractor urine samples following a 1080 drop and whether there was a record of what the results of the test were. The member noted similar information had been requested of OSPRI and DOC, and the information had been supplied by OSPRI. Mr Ollington undertook to respond to this request.

WRC19/183 Moved by: Cr R Rimmington Seconded by: Cr K White

That the “Health and Safety Council Report – July 2019” report (Doc# 14836624) dated 9 August 2019 be received.


6.2 Appointment of Regional On-Scene Commander – Derek Hartley

Report to seek approval of Derek Hartley, Senior Emergency Management Officer, as a Regional On-Scene Commander (ROSC) for Waikato Regional Council’s marine oil spill response function.

The report was taken as read and members noted that the appointment related to Council's operational obligations.


15057341 P a g e | 13

WRC19/184 Moved by: Cr H Vercoe Seconded by: Cr B Quayle

1. That the report “Approval for Appointment as a Regional On-Scene Commander” dated 31 July 2019 (Doc #14833300, also attached as a supporting document) be received, and

2. That Derek Hartley (Senior Emergency Management Officer, Waikato Regional Council), be appointed as Regional On-Scene Commander for the Waikato region under section 318 (1) (b) of the Maritime Transport Act 1994.


6.3 Approval of funding for proposed Partnering Agreement Amendment

Report to seek approval from Council for funding for the proposed amendment to the Partnering Agreement with Go Bus Ltd that puts in place a mechanism to begin addressing bus driver wages.

The report was presented by the Chief Financial Officer (J Becker). She noted this was a modification to the agreement adopted at the end of 2018 in response to the industrial action taken. The figures provided indicated council’s share only.

Members noted this was a pragmatic approach to addressing the living wage concern with the operator, who don't have the funding themselves to meet the full impact. The agreement would see the funding met by Waikato Regional Council with support from Hamilton City Council.

WRC19/185 Moved by: Cr R Rimmington Seconded by: Cr H Vercoe

1. That the report That the report Approval of funding for proposed Partnering Agreement Amendment (Council 29 August 2019) be received, and

2. That Council approve funding for the proposed amendment to the Partnering Agreement with Go Bus Ltd that will put in place a mechanism to begin addressing bus driver wages, noting that funding for this agreement is contained within the 2019/20 Annual Plan budget.


6.4 Strategic Direction review - Strategic trends and implications: Waikato region 2019

Report to provide Council with a foundation piece of work, the ‘Strategic trends and implications: Waikato region 2019’ report that will inform the review of the 2019-2022 Strategic direction.

The report was presented by the Director Science and Strategy (T May) and she responded to questions of clarification from the members.

Matters raised by Members included the following:


15057341 P a g e | 14

• There are inherent tensions and contradictions in the document, such as the need to encourage growth at the same time as managing and protecting highly productive soils

• The report was well crafted and stated issues well without jumping to solutions • There are a wider number of influences to be considered, noting that each will

compete for priority attention with council • Some members felt as though the report could be perceived to be ideological

without any pragmatism • The mention in the report of large scale relocation was not disputed, however

there needs to be recognition that this would only be achieved if there was recognition of the transition that communities will need to progress through

• People may find this report confronting, it would be useful for the report to reference alternatives and the work that is going into looking at viable land use alternatives

• A key discussion point will be approaching each matter in an integrated fashion, where each of the well beings will need to be balanced

• Discussions will need to be had on priorities such as coastlines and infrastructure, where will the urgent attention be needed and how will this be funded

• Balancing well beings and increased community expectations will be a key challenge for the new council

• Council needs to provide information in a way that people are making their own decisions – the provision of information in a community friendly way is critical to Councils ongoing relevance

• The community needs to understand the risk associated with their land use, and understand that council and the ratepayer will not continue to subsidise or fund high risk land use, such as coastal residential activity

• Report omits reference to stopbanks and flooding infrastructure and how this will be impacted going forward, and in turn how this will impact communities

• The trends while not insignificant can also be viewed as opportunities to capitalise on, to enable a strategic approach to be undertaken

• The increased use of technology and the role that this can play in addressing this issues is a significant opportunity

• Councils role will increase to one of an information facilitator – putting the knowledge in the hands of landowners so that they are better informed about the impacts of their decisions

• Reiteration that the regions ratepayers will no longer ‘collectively rescue’ individual ratepayers from their problems

• Given what the report is telling us, is the existing Local Government Act fit for purpose, this is likely to be a key question for the incoming council

It was noted that the report will be an integral building block for the 2019-2022 Council, and will provide useful input for the review of Council’s strategic direction. Council was supportive of the document being circulated to other interested agencies in the region as a useful strategic resource.


15057341 P a g e | 15

WRC19/186 Moved by: Cr B Quayle Seconded by: Cr A Livingston

That the report ‘Strategic Direction review – Strategic trends and implications: Waikato region 2019’ (Council 29 August 2019) be received


6.5 Strategic Direction priority measures for 2018/19 Annual Report

Report to inform Council of the 2018/19 end of year Strategic Direction priority measure results.

The report was presented by the Director Science and Strategy (T May) who also responded to members questions and points of clarification.

The draft Annual Report in its entirety would be coming to the 11 September 2019 Finance Committee meeting and September Council meeting.

A member requested that the significance of the coastal/flood inundation tool be referenced or specifically highlighted for communities.

The reference to the 228km of fencing seemed to be low and members asked that this be rechecked, taking into account where Council partners with landowners.

The measures being reported were the agreed measures set by councillors when setting the Annual Plan.

A member noted their interest in seeing council work to support and mentor community groups, as this would support those groups to build their resilience.

A key message for next term was to take a look at the measures when they are set to ensure that they make sense when we report on them each year.

The measures will be revisited as a part of the strategic direction refresh with the new council.

WRC19/187 Moved by: Cr R Rimmington Seconded by: Cr A Livingston

1. That the report ‘Strategic Direction priority measures for 2018/19 Annual Report’ (Council 29 August 2019) be received.

2. That Council approves the results for inclusion in the draft 2018/2019 Annual Report subject to audit review.


The meeting adjourned at 1.02pm for a lunch break.


15057341 P a g e | 16


The meeting reconvened at 1.43pm.

WRC19/188 Moved by: Cr R Rimmington Seconded by: Cr B Simcock

THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the meeting set out below on the grounds that the public conduct of those parts of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (the Act).

The particular interests protected by section 6 or 7 of the Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:

Report Title : Minutes of Council Meeting 25 July 2019

• Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons (section 7(2)(a) of the Act)

• Avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial (section 6(a) of the Act)

• Protect information where the making available of the information

o would disclose a trade secret;


• In the case only of an application for a resource consent, or water conservation order, or a requirement for a designation or heritage order, under the Resource Management Act 1991, to avoid serious offence to Tikanga Maori, or to avoid the disclosure of the location of waahi tapu (Section 7(2)(ba) of the Act).

• Protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information -

o would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied (section 7(2)(c)(i) of the Act); or

o would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest (section 7(2)(c)(ii) of the Act)

• Avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public (section 7(2)(d) of the Act)

• Maintain legal professional privilege (section 7(2)(g) of the Act)

• Enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities (section 7(2)(h) of the Act)


15057341 P a g e | 17

• Enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) (section 7(2)(i) of the Act)

• Prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage (section 7(2)(j) of the Act)

Report Title : Minutes of Integrated Catchment Management Committee 7 August 2019


• Enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) (section 7(2)(i) of the Act)

Report Title : Finance Committee 8 August 2019

• Protect information where the making available of the information




• Enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities (section 7(2)(h) of the Act)

Report Title : Communications and Customer Schedule 2019-2020


Report Title : Regional Development Fund Update

• Maintain legal professional privilege (section 7(2)(g) of the Act)


9. Return to Open meeting

The meeting returned to open session at 2.24pm. The meeting closed at 2.24pm.

_________________________

Chair


Waikato Plan Leadership Committee

MINUTES

Date:

Location:

Monday, 22 July, 2019, 10:00 am

Council Chamber



Members Present: Dr B Gatenby ‐ Co‐Chair (Business/Community Representative)

Mayor B Hanna ‐ Deputy Co‐Chair (Southern Sub‐region)

W Maag ‐ Deputy Co‐Chair (Maniapoto)

Cr A Livingston (Waikato Regional Council)

Mayor A King (Hamilton City Council)

Cr T Adams (Eastern Sub‐region)

Mayor A Sanson (Futureproof Sub‐region)

L Ieremia (Business/Community Representative)

D Fisher (Business/Community Representative)

Non‐Voting Members

Present

T Papesch ‐ non‐voting (Ministry of Social Development)

R I'Anson ‐ non‐voting (New Zealand Transport Agency)

P Rawiri ‐ non‐voting (Ministry of Education)

D Abraham ‐ non‐voting (Ministry of Business, Innovation and

Employment)

B Takairi‐Brame – non‐voting alternate for R Jones (Te Puna Kokiri)

Others Present: M Nepia (Waikato Tainui)

V Payne (Waikato Regional Council)

T May (Waikato Regional Council) S McLeay (Democracy Advisor)

APPENDIX 1

Minutes of the Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 22 July 2019

Doc # 14770568 2

1. Call to Order and Apologies

The meeting was opened at 10.02am. Apologies were received from E Berryman‐Kamp, R

Schaafhausen and R Jones. Welcomes were extended to the newly appointed

representatives for the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (D Abraham) and

Waikato DHB (M Wilson). B Takiari‐Brame was welcomed in place of R Jones.

P Rawiri joined the meeting at 9:51 am.

WPLC19/21

Moved by: W Maag

Seconded by: Cr A Livingston

RESOLVED (SECTION A)

That the apologies of E Berryman‐Kamp, R Schaafhausen and R Jones be accepted.



WPLC19/22

Moved by: D Fisher

Seconded by: Cr T Adams


That the agenda of the meeting as circulated, be confirmed as the business of the meeting,

subject to the change in order of items to reflect the order recorded in the minutes of the

meeting.




4. Minutes from the Previous Meeting

WPLC19/23

Moved by: L Ieremia

Seconded by: W Maag


That the minutes of the meeting of the Waikato Plan Leadership Committee held on 20

May 2019 be received.


APPENDIX 1


Doc # 14770568 3

5. Waikato Plan advocacy

Report to provide an update on advocacy associated with the Waikato Plan. The report was

presented by the Manager Strategy (E McKenzie‐Norton) and Waikato Plan Project Manager

(A Hema). The following was noted:

The report had been deferred from the previous meeting.

The process for approval of advocacy letters must allow finalization in a timely fashion.

The Waikato plan's Central Government Advocacy Strategy (Central Government

Strategy) was to be reviewed to reflect, amongst other things, multiple voices delivering

one message.

A workshop would be arranged before the next meeting to allow members time to work

through the review of the Central Government Strategy and to put in place a plan for

the new triennium.

Climate change was suggested as a topic for inclusion in the Waikato Plan.

A request was made that region's carbon footprint was measured and broken down by

territorial authority.

A report on climate change would be submitted to the Committee at the September

meeting.

It was suggested that Government Departments have a link to the Waikato Plan on their

websites to assist raising its community profile.

WPLC19/24

Moved by: L Ieremia

Seconded by: Mayor B Hanna


That the report Waikato Plan advocacy (Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 22 July 2019

as deferred from the meeting of 20 May 2019) be received.

WPLC19/25

Moved by: L Ieremia

Seconded by: Cr T Adams


1. That draft advocacy letters from the Waikato Plan Leadership Committee be circulated

to members by email for feedback. Final letters, taking account of feedback, may be

authorized by the Co‐Chairs.

2. That the Waikato Plan Central Government Engagement Strategy (January 2018) be

reviewed as a priority action.


APPENDIX 1


Doc # 14770568 4

13. Waikato Plan advocacy – July 2019

Report to provide an update on advocacy undertaken in the interceding Committee period.

WPLC19/26

Moved by: Cr T Adams



That the report Waikato Plan advocacy ‐ July 2019 (Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 22

July 2019) be received.


6. Waikato Plan achievements

Report to provide a proposed process for communicating the achievements of the Waikato

Plan. The report was presented by the Manager Strategy (E McKenzie‐Norton). The

following was noted:

The report had been deferred from the previous meeting.

There would be a focused effort to communicate Waikato Plan achievements to the

public.

Feedback on intended communications would be sought from members by email.

WPLC19/27


Seconded by: D Fisher


That the report Waikato Plan achievements (Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 22 July

2019 as deferred from the meeting of 20 May 2019) be received.


7. Priority action update – Waikato Region Housing Initiative

Report to provide an update on the progress of the Waikato Region Housing Initiative, and

an overview the establishment of the Waikato Community Lands Trust. The report was

presented by Principal Advisor (J Bromley) and Waikato Plan Implementation Advisor (K

Tremaine). The following was noted:

This action had been supported by the Committee's connections.

The achievements of the working group was acknowledged.

The data was being reviewed independently by Deloitte.

APPENDIX 1


Doc # 14770568 5

The data resulting from this action had allowed a case to be made where the need was

greatest.

Four or five practical target areas were now required to plan action and seek funding.

WEL Energy Trust was thanked for its funding contribution to the project.

WPLC19/28

Moved by: Cr A Livingston



That the report Priority action update – Waikato Region Housing Initiative (Waikato Plan

Leadership Committee 22 July 2019) be received.


WPLC19/29

Moved by: W Maag



That a submission be made on the Draft Report from the New Zealand Productivity

Commission “Local government funding and financing” dated July 2019, noting amongst

other things:

1. That there are areas in the region that are very deprived and the challenges inherent

in funding low growth areas.

2. The cost of land and social equity.

3. The rates rebate legislation as a means of addressing the social equity issue.

Feedback on a submission would be obtained from members by email with final approval

given by the Co‐Chairs.


8. Priority action update – Mental health and wellbeing

Report to provide an update on progress against the Mental Health and Wellbeing priority

action. The report was presented by Manager Strategy (E McKenzie‐Norton) and Waikato

Plan Project Manager (A Hema). The following was noted:

A stakeholder matrix had been developed. Waikato DHB had a leadership role.

APPENDIX 1


Doc # 14770568 6

Areas of priority had been identified as including access to services, especially prior to

the need for crisis intervention (prevention and early intervention via multiple

agencies), community understanding of mental health first aid, and sustaining support.

It was recognised that employers were well positioned to make a significant positive

contribution to their employees’ mental wellbeing.

Correct allocation of available funding was paramount.

There was an opportunity in the education sector to build on a collective health and

wellbeing focus. Education leaders are concerned about wellbeing in young people.

A request was made to change the name of the report to 'Mental Health, Addiction and

Wellbeing' to address a concern that addiction should be expressly stated rather than

only included as one of the group of mental health issues.

WPLC19/30

Moved by: Mayor A King



1. That the report Priority action update ‐ Mental health and wellbeing (Waikato Plan


2. That the name of the report be changed to Priority action update ‐ Mental health,

addiction and wellbeing.


9. Priority action update – Youth and employment

Report to provide an update on progress against the youth and employment priority action.

The report was presented by Manager Strategy (E McKenzie‐Norton). The following was

noted:

It was suggested that the priority action be renamed 'Youth' to reflect youth in all

respects, not just employment.

Networks in the education sector would be useful in the priority area.

Useful information was available through Intersect Waikato.

Applications for funding could be made to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and

Employment.

There was a drive to use sport as a vehicle to increase youth resilience.

WPLC19/31



APPENDIX 1


Doc # 14770568 7


That the report Priority action update ‐ Youth and employment (Waikato Plan Leadership

Committee 22 July 2019) be received.


10. Priority action update – Waikato Wellbeing Project (SDG)

Report to provide an update on the Waikato Wellbeing Project. The report was presented

by the Chief Executive WEL Energy Trust (R Jones) and Manager Chief Executive's Office (K

Bennett). The following was noted:

Work was being undertaken to engage with iwi and rangatahi.

The development of a climate inventory had been scoped and work would be

undertaken with Territorial Authorities ensuring there was no duplication of effort

across organisations and projects. There was a regional base line of information already

available to work from.

Project information would be provided through the Chief Executive and Mayoral Forum.

The Committee resolved in March 2019 to provide governance for the project. The

project would now benefit from a review of what had been achieved to date and the

focus moving forward as part of Waikato Plan activities.

The project was a tool to enable Waikato agencies to work together better to meet

Sustainable Development Goals. It provided a rational way to bring together and apply

the large amount of information already available and to prevent duplication of effort.

It would be important to include all relevant iwi in project branding.

The project would be added to an upcoming workshop to enable the Committee to

better understand its direction and position as part of the overall Waikato Plan.

The Wellbeing project sat across all Waikato Plan activity and was distinct from the

refresh of the Waikato Plan projects.

The presentation would be emailed to members.

WPLC19/32


Seconded by: L Ieremia


That the report Priority action update ‐ Waikato Wellbeing Project (SDG) (Waikato Plan



APPENDIX 1


Doc # 14770568 8

12. Waikato Plan Leadership Committee membership

Report to provide an update and review of membership of the Waikato Plan Leadership

Committee, the standing process for selecting Committee members and the rationale for

voting and non‐voting members. The report was presented by Manager Strategy (E

McKenzie‐Norton). The following was noted:

It was felt that current members all played an important role in the Committee. The

Committee's impact rather than numbers of members was important.

Non‐voting members could be given voting rights to reflect their importance.

WPLC19/33

Moved by: Mayor A Sanson



That the report Waikato Plan Leadership Committee membership (Waikato Plan



WPLC19/34

Moved by: Mayor A Sanson


RECOMMENDED (SECTION B)

That all members of the Waikato Plan Leadership Committee are voting members

during the 2019‐2022 triennium, and that a consequential change is made to the Terms of

Reference.


Mayor A King voted against.

M Wilson left the meeting at 11.52am

11. Te Waka Annual Report

The Te Waka Annual Report detailing performance against KPIs and an overview of the work

programme for the next 12 months was provided. The report was presented by the Te Waka

Chair (D Fisher) and Chief Executive (M Barrett‐Foss). The following was noted.

Waikato Tainui would appoint an iwi representative to the Te Waka board in due course.

The work undertaken by Te Waka on the Hamilton to Auckland project and the Southern

Waikato Economic Action Plan was acknowledged.

The first annual report and achievements to date were acknowledged.

The presentation would be emailed to members.

APPENDIX 1


Doc # 14770568 9

WPLC19/35

Moved by: L Ieremia



That the Te Waka Annual Report (Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 22 July 2019) be

received.


Cr A Livingston left the meeting at 12.40pm.

R I’Anson left the meeting at 1pm. Mayor A Sanson left the meeting at 1.09pm.

14. Waikato Plan, Waikato Regional Council staff roles

Report responding to the Co‐Chairs’ request to provide clarity of staff support to the

Waikato Plan. The report was taken as read.

WPLC19/36

Moved by: Dr B Gatenby

Seconded by: W Maag


That the report Waikato Plan, Waikato Regional Council staff roles (Waikato Plan



15. Upcoming elections impact on Waikato Plan Leadership Committee

Report to provide an overview of the implications of the upcoming local government

elections on the work of the Committee. The report was taken as read.

WPLC19/37


Seconded by: W Maag


That the report Upcoming elections impact on Waikato Plan Leadership Committee

(Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 22 July 2019) be received.


The meeting closed at 1.11pm

APPENDIX 1


Strategy and Policy Committee

Date:

Location:

Tuesday, 30 July, 2019, 10:00 am

Council Chamber



Members Present: Cr B Simcock ‐ Chair

Cr T Mahuta ‐ Deputy Chair

Cr J Hennebry

Cr K Hodge

Cr S Husband

Cr F Lichtwark

Cr D Minogue

Cr B Quayle

Cr K White

Others Present: T May ‐ Director Science and Strategy S McLeay – Democracy Advisor

APPENDIX 2

Minutes of the Strategy and Policy Committee meeting of 30 July 2019

Doc # 14826246 2


The meeting commenced at 10.04am. Apologies were received from Crs H Vercoe, S

Kneebone, A Livingston, R Rimmington and J Hayman, and T Mahuta (for lateness).

SPC19/23

Moved by: Cr J Hennebry

Seconded by: Cr F Lichtwark


That the apologies of Crs H Vercoe, S Kneebone, A Livingston, R Rimmington, J Hayman;

and T Mahuta (for lateness), be accepted.



SPC19/24

Moved by: Cr S Husband

Seconded by: Cr J Hennebry


That the agenda of the meeting as circulated, be confirmed as the business of the meeting

subject to any changes of item order to reflect the order in these minutes.




Cr T Mahuta joined the meeting at 10:17 am.

4. Digital Communications Report

The verbal report was presented by the Director Community and Services (N Williams). The


In respect to the upcoming elections, a digital campaign was underway that would run

until the end of August 2019. Nationally there was a voter participation gap in people 18‐

35 years of age. There would be specific targeting of this age group in communications

collateral.

There was concern that an emphasis on digital media may be ageist or amount to unfair

campaign targeting of one cohort.

There was a general approach across local government to use media strategies in an

attempt to address information receipt inequities.

APPENDIX 2


Doc # 14826246 3

A member made the comment that as many young people were not ratepayers, they may

not have the same interest in local government relative to the older age group. It was

important to local government that young people were as engaged as possible. It was

hoped that young people would have the confidence that they could use local

government to make positive change.

One member noted that campaigns were mainly in English and that there would be

benefit in equal use of Te Reo which was an official language along with English.

Staff undertook to provide further information on the election related media campaigns

later in the meeting. This item would be readdressed at that time.

The meeting moved back to this item at 12.20pm following item 8. The following was noted:

Broad channels of communication had been used to inform the public about elections,

not just youth. This would continue.

Other means of engagement included candidate drop in sessions throughout the region

in person (including in co‐operation with territorial authorities). These were promoted in

print media via local newspapers and digitally via Facebook.

During July there had been half page advertisements published in local newspapers

including the Waikato Times.

Other websites were also being utilized including TVNZ and Stuff, alongside social media.

There was an election promotion on the Waikato Regional Council website.

The pre‐election report from the Chief Executive was due to be released to the public in

August 2019. This would be made available in both digital and print formats.

Concern was expressed that there was no duplication of the national campaign to

promote the upcoming local government election.

It was important to maintain a neutral approach to publicity.

Staff were asked to present the communications report in a written format in future.

SPC19/25

Moved by: Cr D Minogue

Seconded by: Cr B Simcock


That the verbal "Digital Communications report" (Strategy and Policy Committee 30 July

2019) be received.


5. Beyond 2020 – Information Services Strategic Direction 2019‐2021

The report was presented by the Chief Information Officer (J Crane). The following was

noted:

APPENDIX 2


Doc # 14826246 4

Change in this area was exponential. It was important that Waikato Regional Council was

proactive and remained current.

Adjustment to changing technologies was required in all areas of the organization to

ensure effective utilization at least cost.

Efficiency in technological delivery across local government was also

considered. Opportunities were available through Waikato Local Authority Shared

Services.

5G was a type of enhanced mobile connectivity. There were no current plans to

utilize 5G, although it may be considered in the future. One member made a request for

a future presentation about 5G and its effect on human health.

Risk was carefully managed in the digital space. A balance was sought between taking,

controlling and mitigating risk.

SPC19/26

Moved by: Cr B Quayle

Seconded by: Cr S Husband


That the report "Beyond 2020 – Information Services Strategic Direction 2019‐2021"

(Strategy and Policy Committee 30 July 2019) be received.


6. Waikato Regional Pest Management Plan Review – Consultation approach

The report was presented by the Manager Integrated Catchment Services (P Whaley) and

Consultant (A McKenzie). The following was noted:

The Pest Management Plan was a rule book that sat alongside the Pathway Management

Plan and the Biosecurity Strategy.

The Pest Management Plan review process was flexible and currently at the stage

of stakeholder consultation.

Members would be involved in workshops as part of the process in early 2020.

Consultation with a broad group of stakeholders was required including Iwi. The wider

public had been consulted via the last Long Term Plan. There was the option to have public

drop in sessions.

Concern was voiced that consultation didn't become protracted to the point that the pest

population was left unchecked, and to be cognisant that Catchment committees provided

an invaluable landowner perspective.

The territorial authorities in the region were included in the list of stakeholders to be

consulted. Elected members and chief executives would be involved.

APPENDIX 2


Doc # 14826246 5

This wasn't a full review but a process to create consistency with national documents.

This stage was about process, content would be debated later.

Unless Council decided otherwise, it was anticipated that there would be full consultation

and public notification.

SPC19/27


Seconded by: Cr D Minogue


1. That the report "Waikato Regional Pest Management Plan Review – Consultation

approach" (Strategy and Policy Committee 30 July 2019) be received.

2. That the proposed approach to engagement and consultation set out in the report be

endorsed.


Cr K White voted against.

7. Feedback from discussion document ‘Better ways to stop marine pests?’ and next steps

The report was presented by the Manager Integrated Catchment Services (P Whaley) and

Principal Strategic Advisor (H Bevan). The following was noted:

Significant consultation had been undertaken, with a general indication that change was

desired.

Concern was raised that not all key stakeholders had been consulted. There had been

a low number of submitters relative to numbers of those participating in the marine

environment.

Central government was the lead agency in this area and was the main fund holder.

A request was made for a legal opinion on the extent of regional council responsibility in

this area. It would be beneficial if there was consistency across the region. Members

noted that the approach needed to be practical and supported by a cost benefit analysis.

The Marine Mate application could be used to support better behaviour by the public.

Cr T Mahuta left the meeting at 11:20 am.

Cr T Mahuta joined the meeting at 11:36 am.

SPC19/28

Moved by: Cr F Lichtwark

Seconded by: Cr B Quayle

APPENDIX 2


Doc # 14826246 6


That the report "Feedback from discussion document ‘Better ways to stop marine pests?’

and next steps” (Strategy and Policy Committee 30 July 2019) be received.


SPC19/29




That an options analysis is undertaken in collaboration with the Top of the North Biosecurity

Group to identify a preferred option (where the supporting evidence would include cost

benefit analyses) for marine pest management.


SPC19/30

Moved by: Cr T Mahuta

Seconded by: Cr K White


That a preferred option for the management of marine pests across the four partner regions,

Biosecurity New Zealand and Department of Conservation be presented to Strategy and

Policy Committee in early 2020.


8. National kauri dieback programme update, National Pest Management Plan

The report was presented by the Manager integrated Catchment Services (P Whaley) and

Biosecurity Officer (K Parker). The following was noted:

Members believed Waikato Regional Council needed to be more public in the non‐funding

of this programme from central government.

A number of well attended public meetings had been held in the region. Inferences of

funding by government were given at those meetings. Those messages provided by

government had created an expectation that funding would be available and it was likely

that there would be a number of dissatisfied community members.

Members believed Waikato Regional Council needed to be stronger in its public

messaging, and that there was an opportunity to be proactive including Iwi, other

councils, and strategic stakeholders in sending a letter to Ministers voicing concern about

lack of funding.

SPC19/31


Seconded by: Cr T Mahuta

APPENDIX 2


Doc # 14826246 7


1. That the report "National kauri dieback programme update, National Pest Management

Plan" (Strategy and Policy Committee 30 July 2019) be received.

2. That a watching brief is maintained of central government funding of the National Kauri

Dieback Programme and National Pest Management Plan and Management Agency.


SPC19/32




That Council, in response to the news of an absence of previously indicated funding from

government in regard to an integrated Kauri dieback response, supports an active public

advocacy campaign that focusses on securing government funding to recognize kauri as a

regional and national taonga. That this campaign include engaging and inviting support from

Auckland Council, Northland Regional Council, relevant Territorial Authorities, Iwi, the

Hauraki Gulf Forum; and other strategic stakeholders.

The motion was put and carried SPC19/33


Seconded by: Cr J Hennebry


That Council is kept updated on the development and implementation of the public

advocacy programme.


The meeting returned to item 4 "Digital Communications Report" at 12.20pm following this

item following which the meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.39pm and reconvened at 1.05pm.

9. Submission to Hauraki District Council on the proposed Drainage Bylaw

The report was presented by the Acting Team Leader Environmental Compliance in person (K

Healy), and the Manager Hauraki Coromandel Integrated Catchment Management (A Munro)

by Skype telephone link.

SPC19/34



APPENDIX 2


Doc # 14826246 8


1. That the report "Submission to Hauraki District Council on the proposed Drainage

Bylaw" (Strategy and Policy Committee 30 July 2019) be received.

2. That the Waikato Regional Council Submission to Hauraki District Council’s proposed

Drainage Bylaw is approved for lodgement with Hauraki District Council.


10. 2019 ‘Your Environment – What matters?’ Survey Results

The report was presented by the Manager Social and Economic Science (R Buckingham). The


Concern was raised that this survey may not be sufficiently focused on the impact of the

economy on the environment. A request was made that future surveys seek the public's

perception of what was as economic priority.

The results indicated a desire for individual and community driven action, enabling public

funding to be allocated elsewhere. One member requested to be informed of the number

of responders who mentioned pesticides in their response. Staff undertook to look into

the data more deeply and provide a response.

The media had a significant influence on public concerns and this may have influenced

the completion of the survey.

The question was raised, did the survey represent value for money? How would the

information be used? Staff undertook to respond to these questions more fully in

the next few months.

SPC19/35




1. That the report "2019 'Your Environment – What matters?' Survey Results" (Strategy

and Policy Committee 30 July 2019) be received.

2. That a communications strategy is developed for the release of

the report that incorporates release to key stakeholders.

3. That the report is released in accordance with the communications strategy.


11. Update on the Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan

The report was presented by the Manager Integration and Infrastructure (M Tamura). The


APPENDIX 2


Doc # 14826246 9

Concern about connections to other areas such as Raglan was raised.

The direct players were the three territorial authorities. Waikato Regional Council took a

whole of region view ensuring that there was integration between land use and

infrastructure.

Inadequate planning and cross boundary drift was to be avoided.

There was concern that all development would affect the River. There were multiple

private plan changes in progress and the question was how to respond from a regional

perspective. Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato, the Vision and Strategy for the

Waikato and Waipa River must be considered in the process.

SPC19/36


Seconded by: Cr T Mahuta


That the report "Update on the Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan" (Strategy and Policy

Committee 30 July 2019) be received.


12. Submission to Consultation on Protecting Hector’s and Maui Dolphin

The report was presented by Senior Policy Advisor (V Carruthers). The following was noted:

A co‐ordinated approach to protection was proposed.

Net setting would need to be further regulated. A total ban on recreational net setting

was required but not on commercial net setting in upper harbour reaches where these

dolphins weren't found. No trawling was currently undertaken in the region's harbours.

A total net setting ban was required in rivers.

There were problems created by motor boat racing in Raglan's dolphin nursery. That

could be managed through the coastal plan as it managed noise, amongst other things.

There was a need to signal that Crown and existing permit holder exceptions

were unacceptable.

SPC19/37


Seconded by: Cr K White


1. That the report "Submission to Consultation on Protecting Hector’s and Maui Dolphin"

(Strategy and Policy Committee 30 July 2019) be received.

APPENDIX 2


Doc # 14826246 10

2. That the "Waikato Regional Council submission on the Consultation on proposals for an

updated Threat Management Plan for protecting Hector’s and Maui Dolphin" be

approved for lodgement with the Department of Conservation with the addition of

points raised, and the word 'significantly' to paragraph 3 of the Introduction on page 2

before the word 'extend' in the first line.


13. Submissions summary and WRC role responsibilities with district council

The report was presented by the Team Leader Policy Implementation (L Balsom) and Senior

Policy Advisor (G Read). The following was noted:

The Waikato Regional Council Natural Hazards Portal was a key tool for the public to

identify the risk they take in developing certain land.

Members reiterated their previous concern in respect of non‐aligned planning, and

extensive processes with long time frames for plan changes leading to increased risk from

inappropriately zoned land use.

A greater level of proactivity in this area was requested recognizing that changes to the

Resource Management Act 1991 were necessary.

SPC19/38




That the report "Council’s role in resource management at district level and submissions

summary" (Strategy and Policy Committee 30 July 2019) be received.


14. Te Waka Annual Report 2018/2019 and Te Waka Partnership Agreement Schedule of

Function and Services for 2019/2020

SPC19/39




That the report "Te Waka Annual Report 2018/2019 and Te Waka Partnership Agreement

Schedule of Function and Services for 2019/2020" (Strategy and Policy Committee 30 July

2019) be received.


The meeting was closed at 2.46pm.

APPENDIX 2


Integrated Catchment Management Committee

OPEN MINUTES

Date:

Location:

Wednesday, 7 August 2019, 10:05 am

Council Chamber



Members Present: Cr S Husband (Joint‐Chair Integrated Catchment Management Committee

North)

Cr S Kneebone (Joint‐Chair Integrated Catchment Management Committee

South)

Cr D Minogue

Cr J Hayman

Cr K Hodge

K Holmes (Chair ‐ Lower Waikato Catchment Committee)

W Maag (Chair ‐ West Coast Catchment/Deputy Chair – Waipa Catchment

Committees)

R Barton (Chair ‐ Waipa Catchment Committee)

R Hicks (Chair ‐ Waihou‐Piako Catchment Committee)

J Sanford (Chair ‐ Coromandel Catchment Committee)

Cr A Livingston ‐ ex‐officio

Cr T Mahuta ‐ alternate ex‐officio (from 11.35 am)

In Attendance: (for Item 12) ‐ Drainage Advisory Subcommittee Chairpersons

Staff Present:

M Dean (Franklin Waikato)

S Goodwright (Aka Aka Otaua)

P Le Heron (Thames Valley)

N Smith (Waikato Central)

C Crickett (Director Integrated Catchment Management)

G Ryan (Manager Business and Technical Services)

A Munro (Manager Hauraki Coromandel Catchments)

B Toohey (Manager Lower Waikato/Waipa/West Coast Catchments)

M Gasguoine (Team Leader Land Management and Advisory Services)

D Embling (Team Leader Biosecurity ‐ Plant Pests)

K Neilson (Principal Advisor)

K Parker (Biosecurity Officer)

M Poole (Democracy Advisor)

L Van Veen (Democracy Advisor)

APPENDIX 3

Open Minutes of Integrated Catchment Management Committee 7 August 2019

Doc # 14890488 Page 2

1. Terms of Reference

2. Apologies

Apologies were received from Sue Yerex (Chair Lake Taupo Catchment Committee), Natalie Haines (Deputy Chair Lake Taupo Catchment Committee), M Moana‐Tuwhangai (Chair ‐ Central Waikato Catchment Committee), Cr F Lichtwark and Cr K White. ICM19/72

Moved by: Cr S Kneebone

Seconded by: J Sanford

RESOLVED (Section A)

That the apologies of S Yerex, N Haines, Cr F Lichtwark, Cr K White and M Moana‐Tuwhangai

be accepted.



ICM19/73

Moved by: W Maag

Seconded by: Cr K Hodge


That the agenda for the meeting of the 7 August 2019 Integrated Catchment Management

Committee, as circulated, be confirmed as the business for the meeting.



W Maag ‐ appointed as a Hearing Commissioner to the Hearing Committee for the Waikato

District Council District Plan Review.


Confirmation of minutes of previous meeting (11 June 2019)

Minutes of the previous Integrated Catchment Management Committee (ICMC) meeting held

on 11 June 2019; and Extract from the Council meeting held on 27 June 2019.

The minutes were accepted with a correction/clarification on page 11, Item 8 ‐ Flood campaign

update, with the first point within the questions, responses and discussion paragraph to read

“Cr D Minogue requested clarification on Council’s funding policy on seawalls.”

ICM19/74



APPENDIX 3


Doc # 14890488 Page 3


That the Minutes of the Integrated Catchment Management Meeting of 11 June 2019, be

approved as a true and correct record, with a correction on page 11, Item 8 ‐ Flood campaign

update, first point within the questions, responses and discussion paragraph, first sentence

to read “Cr D Minogue requested clarification on Council’s funding policy on seawalls.”


With respect to the Extract from the 27 June 2019 Council meeting the following matters

arising questions, responses and discussion were noted:

Koi carp herpes virus update (p27 ‐ ICM19/67)

‐ efforts to date to recruit for the Pest Fish Co‐ordinator position have not been successful.

The current contractor (M Archer) is providing part‐time support, and it is acknowledged

that the size/scope of the issue requires a full‐time dedicated resource.

‐ this topic/the issues are a status “green” ‐ work in progress topic in the Issues/Actions

schedule (refer p30).

‐ requested that the Lower Waikato Catchment Committee be kept updated.

Red Eared Slider Turtle (p27 ‐ ICM19/60)

‐ Council has conveyed the issues and its views to Minister O’Connor around the risk/threat

that this ‘pet’ pest species poses as outlined in the resolution.

‐ this topic/the issues are a status “green” ‐ work in progress topic in the Issues/Actions

schedule (refer p30).

6. Issues/Actions from Integrated Catchment Management Meetings

The Director of Integrated Catchment Management (C Crickett) presented the Issues and

Actions update report and requested that it be taken as read.

During questions, answers and related discussion the following was noted:

‐ the correction made to the Flood campaign update in the confirmation of the 11 June

2019 ICMC minutes to read “Cr D Minogue requested clarification on Council’s funding

policy on seawalls.” also be made to the Issues/Actions schedule (page 29).

‐ a third meeting is planned to discuss the consent condition review regulatory process

(page 30). Queried why status is shown as ‘completed’ when actions are ongoing.

‐ acknowledged that some issues may not be completed in full/resolved for a number of

years. The related action however may be completed as requested. As previously noted

the purpose of the Issues/Actions schedule is to ensure that specific tasks/actions

requested of staff (in this case to arrange/hold the meeting) are recorded and undertaken.

‐ view expressed that there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that ongoing issue topics

do not ‘fall off the radar’ as part of reporting, acknowledging that a specific task requested

has been completed. Suggested that a ‘bring up’ system (e.g. six‐monthly, annually) to

track progress/provide updates may be an option.

‐ as part of the dam safety next steps update (page 31) the purpose of the enquiry was to

assess if the lack of maintenance has eroded the design benefits over time and the

cost/benefit analysis identifies that the cost of upgrades outweighs the expected benefits,

does that lead to a proposal/option to decommission that structure? It was noted this

APPENDIX 3


Doc # 14890488 Page 4

this was a potential scenario depending on all the relevant factors and considerations for

each structure/location.

ICM19/75


Seconded by: Cr J Hayman


That the report 'Issues/Actions from Integrated Catchment Management Meetings' (Doc#

13573283 dated 7 August 2019) be received for information, noting the edits as follows:

(page 29) ‐ Flood Campaign update the first sentence to read “Cr D Minogue requested

clarification on Council’s funding policy on seawalls.”; and

(page 30) ‐ Consent condition review ‐ the regulatory process to change the status to “green”

work in progress.


7. Integrated Catchment Management Financial Status Report

Presented by the Manager Business and Technical Services (G Ryan) to report on the financial

status of programmes and activities that fall within the scope of the committee for the

2018/2019 financial year, noting that:

‐ the overall end of financial year status for operational expenditure was one percent

favourable against the forecast position.

‐ in general terms all capital asset works planned to be undertaken in the 2018/19 financial

year have been completed, with only a small number of minor tasks outstanding and

carried over for specific projects to be completed in the 2019/20 year, as outlined in the

report.

‐ the total integrated catchment management budget is $50.017M, noting not all funds are

sourced from rates. There is a component of funding received from a range of external

sources (for example the Hill Country Erosion Control Fund, and the Waikato River

Authority ‐ within the Waikato and Waipa River catchments).

The key issues and considerations arising out of the discussion centred around:

‐ the affordability of flood protection schemes, both infrastructure (capital) and

maintenance work programmes (operational expenditure) from a rating perspective and

the economic value/benefits received;

‐ sustainability of the schemes into the future;

‐ achieving operational efficiencies to maximise the ‘on the ground’ spend, and managing

year to year work programme expenditure fluctuations; and

‐ ensuring that the funding policies and application of rates is fair and equitable across all

parties who benefit from the flood protection schemes.

Out of meeting Cr S Husband 10.28am

APPENDIX 3


Doc # 14890488 Page 5

‐ requested that the external revenue figures be included/shown as a separate line in the

financial reporting.

‐ need to undertake an economic evaluation of the cost of flood protection versus the

benefits accruing/value added.

‐ need to ensure that funding policies clearly identify ‘who benefits’ to ensure that this is

aligned with ‘who pays’. Many provincial/small towns benefit from flood protection

schemes as does the SH1 transport corridor and other roading/rail networks. Auckland‐

Hamilton corridor growth can only occur because flood protection is in place.

‐ how will the ‘hard conversations’ around working more efficiently be progressed? Need

to ensure that the amount of work able to be done as a percentage of the rate take is

maximised to achieve best value for money.

‐ how will Council benchmark/compare its capital and operational works expenditure

performance with other organisations?

ICM19/76

Moved by: Cr K Hodge

Seconded by: W Maag


That the report Integrated Catchment Management Financial Status Report (Integrated

Catchment Management Committee 7 August 2019) be received.


8. Overview of Management of Integrated Catchment Management capital programme

The Manager Business and Technical Services (G Ryan) requested that the report providing an

overview of the approach used to develop and manage the annual work programme to renew

flood protection assets be taken as read, noting that a summary of the processes involved in

(a) the development and (b) the management of zone‐specific asset renewal programmes was

set out in the report (page 38)

Arising out of questions, responses and discussion the following points were noted:

‐ the processes are based on the best available information, have the flexibility to deal with

unplanned/unexpected issues that arise, factor in risk elements and evaluate options and

alternatives on a case by case basis.

‐ the programme control groups meet monthly to review the programme, the budget

position and actions required, including any ‘triggers’ to escalate risks/issues that arise.

‐ budgets can be adjusted within Zones _ via existing financial management processes,

which include catchment committee recommendations.

‐ project scoping looks at the issues involved and the ‘smartest’ way to resolve them to

achieve the required outcomes in the most efficient way. On the ground observations

and advice can assist in the design process.

‐ the consent process is a key element and while the ICM Group prepare/make the

application, it is a separate statutory process. There is a comprehensive consent in place

APPENDIX 3


Doc # 14890488 Page 6

for the Lower Piako with a 35 year term (circa 30 years to ‘run’) that provides certainty for

projects within the scope and terms of that consent. Before full compliance can be

achieved habitat enhancement plans must be completed.

‐ for projects in other areas, or outside the scope of existing consents, then individual

applications have to be made. If the application needs to be publicly notified and receives

submissions in opposition, this will impact on the time and costs involved. ICM has input

into proposed conditions, as do the other submitter parties which can result in conditions

being imposed that are not always optimal from a consent holder’s perspective. Unless

the landowners concerned have lodged submissions, they do not have separate rights in

the RMA consent process.

ICM19/77


Seconded by: J Sanford


That the report Overview of management of Integrated Catchment Management capital

programme (Integrated Catchment Management Committee, 7 August 2019) be received

for information.


9. National kauri dieback programme update, National Pest Management Plan

The report to update and inform the Committee of the Budget 2019 announcements and how

these impact on the Kauri Dieback National Programme; the proposed development of the

National Pest Management Plan (NPMP) for kauri dieback; and provide a brief on how

potential changes to the national programme and the NPMP may impact the Waikato region

was taken as read, noting that this paper was presented to/considered by Council’s Strategy

& Policy Committee 30 July 2019 meeting and will be circulated to the Catchment Committees

for their information.

ICM19/78

Moved by: W Maag



1. That the report ‘National kauri dieback programme update, National Pest Management

Plan’ (dated 16 July 2019) be received; and

RECOMMENDED (Section B)

2. That the Integrated Catchment Management Committee endorse the following

recommendations from the 30 July 2019 Strategy and Policy Committee:

APPENDIX 3


Doc # 14890488 Page 7

a. That a watching brief is maintained of central government funding of the National

Kauri Dieback Programme and National Pest Management Plan and Management

Agency.

b. That Council, in response to the news of an absence of previously indicated funding

from government in regard to an integrated Kauri dieback response, supports an

active public advocacy campaign that focusses on securing government funding to

recognize kauri as a regional and national taonga. That this campaign shall include

engaging and inviting support from:

c. Auckland Council, Northland Regional Council, and relevant Territorial Authorities

i. Iwi

ii. Hauraki Gulf Forum; and other

iii. Strategic stakeholders

d. That Council is kept updated on the development and implementation of the public

advocacy programme.


Return to meeting Cr S Husband 11.02am

10. Biocontrol Programme Update

Team Leader Biosecurity ‐ Plant Pests (D Embling) provided an overview of Waikato Regional

Council's involvement with biocontrol noting that:

‐ biocontrol is not a pest eradication tool, rather a control mechanism to manage the

impacts of each targeted pest.

‐ Council contributes $60,000 annually to the National Biocontrol Collective (NBC) for weed

biocontrol research. The NBC is a consortium of Regional and Unity Councils and the

Department of Conservation (DoC) who work collaboratively to implement a national

programme to identify, test and establish suitable host specific biological control agenda

for agreed priority weeds.

‐ Manaaki Whenua (Landcare Research) support the programme by providing research and

technical input to identify suitable biocontrol agents and get them approved for release

in New Zealand. As the process to get a new biocontrol agent approved is lengthy and

expensive, New Zealand keeps abreast of international biocontrol research and

developments.

With respect to the koi carp pest fish issue, DoC has been identified as the agency to initiate

investigations into potential biocontrol mechanisms. This process is at the very early stages

and efforts will be co‐ordinated by DoC.

ICM19/79



RESOLVED (Section A):

APPENDIX 3


Doc # 14890488 Page 8

That the report Biocontrol Programme Update (Integrated Catchment Management

Committee 7 August 2019) be received for information.


11. Review of Catchment Funding to Align with Proposed Plan Change One

The Principal Advisor, Integrated Catchment Management (K Neilson) presented the report to

provide the ICM Committee with the outcomes of review of catchment funding to align with

proposed Plan Change 1 (PC1), noting that:

‐ the outcomes of the review, including minimum standards for funding are set out in

Appendix 1 and clarify that Council funds are not paying for works likely to be required

through PC1.

‐ the proposed standards, for the most part, match those currently being applied by

catchment management staff in the Waikato and Waipa River catchments.

‐ the proposed standards also align with the expectations of major co‐funders ‐ the Waikato

River Clean‐up Trust and the MPI Hill Country Erosion Fund.

‐ some assumptions have had to made as PC1 is still working through the Resource

Management Act Schedule One process, with decisions not anticipated until early 2020.

Given this, and the yet to be released national freshwater regulations it is proposed to

review the funding criteria/standards in twelve months time.


‐ support the continued use of funding ‘incentives’ for catchment works that contribute to

the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato and Waipa Rivers.

‐ it is about focussing on priority works in priority areas ‐ linked to the Waikato Waipa

Restoration Strategy (WWRS) and matching funding against the identified priorities. In

some areas the WWRS has been incorporated into relevant Zone Plans.

‐ the subcatchment focus is an evolving area and it is intended to create opportunities for

subcatchment groups to get together to confirm that their goals/work programmes align

and are complementary.

‐ there have only been two ‘large scale’ Manuka planting projects funded (via WRA) to date

that both ‘protect’ at risk land and create a land use change that potentially will provide

future economic return.

‐ view expressed that it is unlikely that other River catchments subject to future settlements

and Plan Change processes in the Waikato region will receive the level of funding support

that the WRA provides in the Waikato and Waipa River catchments. However, there are

likely to be other opportunities and mixed funding models to provide incentives to

landowners in those areas.

APPENDIX 3


Doc # 14890488 Page 9

ICM19/80




That the report Review of Catchment Funding to Align with Proposed Plan Change One

(Integrated Catchment Management Committee 7 August 2019) be received for

information.


Arrive Cr T Mahuta 11.35am

12. Land Drainage Management Plan

The Operations Technical Advisor (G Russell) presented the updated Land Drainage

Management Plan (LDM Plan) which has compiled all drainage related information into one

document and provides direction for the implementation of Council’s ICM Drainage service

within the defined Drainage areas, and noting that the LDM Plan has been:

‐ developed/compiled internally;

‐ workshopped with each of the four (4) Land Drainage Advisory Subcommittees with

feedback provided/amendments made; and

‐ subsequently reviewed by the Chairs of the Drainage Subcommittees.

The last Land Drainage review was undertaken in 2004 and since then the number of separate

drainage areas has increased from 26 to 84. The Land Drainage programme has an

expenditure of $2.6M, covering 2,063 kms of drains and providing benefit to 172,000 hectares

of land ‐ approximately seven percent of the Waikato region’s rateable area and 27 percent

of the capital value of rural land within the region, and is funded entirely by a targeted rate.

The Land Drainage programme can only be achieved via a strong partnership between Council

staff and the landowners as the entire programme is carried out on private land. Each

drainage area has its own funding system, and some areas overlap; and each drainage area

has local representation.

The LDM Plan has been modelled on Zone Plans and sets out:

‐ how the Drainage programme fits within the other regional activities and with the

territorial authorities Drainage programmes within the region.

‐ the purpose of land drainage to allow landowners to manage water tables, and clear

ponded water; and its vision of “effective and affordable rural drainage networks”.

The LMD Plan includes the following matters that are relevant to today’s operating context:

‐ maintenance and increasing costs (affordability);

‐ community partnerships;

‐ managing and preventing the adverse effects of urban expansion;

‐ intensification of land use;

‐ peat soil and land consolidation;

APPENDIX 3


Doc # 14890488 Page 10

‐ climate change;

‐ water quality and quantity;

‐ biosecurity;

‐ biodiversity;

‐ additional drainage responsibilities; and

‐ the actions required to manage those issues.

The Central Waikato Drainage Advisory Subcommittee Chair (N Smith) indicated support for

the LDM Plan and noted the key issue of maintenance and increasing costs (affordability).

Important to review costs and the percentage of overheads to ‘on the ground’ work achieved.

How do we do better, more effectively and deliver savings over time. He also noted the issue

of funding ‘silos’ with a need to better integrate rivers and drainage as rivers result from the

total rainfall received from drainage systems and networks.

The Thames Valley Drainage Advisory Subcommittee Chair (P Le Heron) indicated support for

the LDM Plan and endorsed the affordability comments made by N Smith. He noted that many

roads in the Thames Valley area only exist due to the ongoing drainage programme works.

The Aka Aka Otaua Land Drainage Subcommittee Chair (S Goodwright) indicated support for

the LDM Plan and endorsed the comments made by the previous two speakers. He noted that

partnership and communication between staff and landowners is critical and must be two‐

way.

The Franklin Waikato Drainage Advisory Subcommittee Chair (M Dean) indicated support for

the LDM Plan and endorsed the comments made by the previous speakers.


‐ with respect to Section 7.9 ‐ Indigenous biodiversity (pages 56‐57) and the issue of fish

passage, view expressed that specifying “fish friendly pumps” was too prescriptive.

Requested that the wording be amended to read “Consider remedial options when

upgrades or replacement is undertaken.”

‐ acknowledged that fish passage is an issue and that the LDM Plan recognises that we need

to ‘do better’ and identify ways to minimise impacts on fish.

‐ the drainage programme works benefit transport infrastructure and urban areas as well

as private land, need to ensure that these other beneficiaries contribute to the costs.

‐ while supporting the overall LDM Plan, there are still a number of issues to be addressed/

resolved going forward ‐ including the “silos” situation and needing to better integrate

between Zone and Drainage Committees and some border ‘dispute’ issues between

territorial authorities and drainage districts.

‐ need to ‘future proof’ the urban expansion expectations and address the impacts.

‐ need to ensure that local ‘on the ground’ knowledge is incorporated into the working

efficiencies objective.

APPENDIX 3


Doc # 14890488 Page 11

‐ the expected outcomes from PC1 and the catchment management works being

undertaken should have a positive impact on drainage maintenance requirements over

time with a decrease in nutrient and sediment loads entering drains, resulting in reduced

frequency of drain spraying and cleaning.

‐ requested that the definition of land drainage be included in the LDM Plan.

‐ queried why the term “pastoral” land drainage has been used, given the dynamic land use

changes being experienced. Advised that the standards and levels of service and

therefore costs are based around “pastoral” land use activities and that people need to

understand that this standard may not meet the expectations/needs of other land

uses/activities.

‐ The Director undertook to revise wording relating to Hauraki Collective’s settlement

implications for drainage to ensure a general comment, given legislation has yet to be

delivered

The meeting acknowledged Guy Russell’s contribution to the development of the LDM Plan,

including his extensive knowledge and consultation with other staff and the Land Drainage

Subcommittees to deliver the document.

The finalised LDM Plan will be included on the agenda for the next meeting of each of the Land

Drainage Subcommittees for their information.

ICM19/81

Moved by: R Hicks

Seconded by: Cr S Kneebone


That the report Land Drainage Management Plan for Adoption (Integrated Catchment

Management Committee 7 August 2019) be received.


ICM19/82

Moved by: Cr J Hayman

Seconded by: K Holmes


That the Land Drainage Management Plan, (Waikato Regional Council Policy Series 2019/14,

Document #13380473), be adopted with the following amendments:

: Section 7.9.4 Action ‐ Support indigenous biodiversity initiatives (page 57) ‐ Table 2nd item

“Consider ecological enhancement”, 2nd bullet point to read “Consider remedial options

when upgrades or replacement is undertaken.”; and

: Inclusion of the definition of “land drainage”.


APPENDIX 3


Doc # 14890488 Page 12

Depart from meeting 12.23pm Drainage Subcommittee Chairs M Dean (Franklin Waikato),

S Goodwright (Aka Aka Otaua), P Le Heron (Thames Valley), N Smith (Waikato Central)

13. Catchment Committee Meetings

13.1 Waihou Piako Catchment Committee 27 May 2019

The minutes of the Waihou Piako Catchment Committee meeting of 27 May 2019

were presented by Chair R Hicks.


‐ important to keep identifying and evaluating ‘better’ (cost, time and resource)

ways to deliver completed/fit for purpose outcomes, in particular for the bigger

capital infrastructure and operational works projects.

‐ flood infrastructure is a specialist field of work and there can be serious

consequences if mistakes are made. Concern expressed that external contractors

do not necessarily have sufficient specialist experience and are learning ‘on the

job’ at Council’s cost.

‐ the proposed report will look at the feasibility of using inhouse resources and

expertise and will include a cost benefit analysis. While this proposal has been

brought forward by the Waihou Piako Catchment Committee, the intention is that

the inhouse team/expertise would be a shared resource with the Lower Waikato

zone and relevant Drainage areas to achieve continuity and economies of scale.

‐ there was a positive discussion with DoC staff at the meeting with a particular

focus on the Kopuatai Peat Dome and the wider flood protection scheme.

ICM19/83

Moved by: R Hicks



1. That the minutes of the Waihou Piako Catchment Committee meeting held on

27 May 2019 be received; and

2. That the decisions in Section A of the minutes be noted; and


3. That the following recommendations contained in Section B of the minutes be

endorsed:

Item 10: Zone Status Report

That the Waihou Piako Catchment Committee request a report from staff on the

practicality of using a construction team over the last season with a view to

formalising this arrangement including a comparison of all external works over

the last five (5) years.

Item 11: Puriri River Scheme Service Level Review

1. That the Puriri River Scheme design standard is approved as follows:

APPENDIX 3


Doc # 14890488 Page 13

a) 0m level is adopted as the 100 year ARI tide level for the purposes of

design;

b) The current design freeboard of 0.50m be retained for the tidal river

stopbanks;

c) For the stopbanks designed to withstand river flooding, a ten (10) year

ARI design standard with 0.60m freeboard be retained; and

2. That the two originally proposed spillways be deleted from the scheme; and

3. That where the stopbanks performance grades are four (4) or five (5) it is

recommended that a more detailed survey is undertaken and works

programmed to upgrade these sections.

Item 14: Muggeridge’s Pump Station Peat Soil Management Protocols

That the Waihou Piako Catchment Committee request draft protocols for the

management of peat soils that can implemented for the Muggeridge drainage

area only rather than regional wide protocols/policies.


13.2 Thames Valley Drainage Advisory Subcommittee 4 June 2019

The minutes of Thames Valley Drainage Advisory Subcommittee meeting of 4 June

2019 were taken as read.

ICM19/84




1. That the minutes of the Thames Valley Drainage Advisory Subcommittee

meeting held on 4 June 2019 be received; and

2. That the decisions in Section A of the minutes be noted.


13.3 Waipa Catchment Committee 19 June 2019

The minutes of the Waipa Catchment Committee meeting of 19 June 2019 were

presented by Chair R Barton, noting that the Waipa Operating Reserve balance

recommendation has been expressed in both percentage and financial range terms.

ICM19/85

Moved by: R Barton



1. That the minutes of the Waipa Catchment Committee meeting held on 19 June

2019 be received; and

APPENDIX 3


Doc # 14890488 Page 14

2. That the decisions in Section A of the minutes be noted; and



endorsed:

Item 9: Management of the Waipa Zone Operating Reserve June 2019

1. That the Waipa Operating Reserve be proactively drawn down to fund

planned or accelerated operational activities to a balance being

approximately ten percent of the total operating budget and in the range of

$400,000 to $600,000, over the next three (3) to six (6) years.

2. That the Waipa Operating Reserve be used to balance year to year

expenditure timing fluctuations across the whole range of operational work

undertaken.

3. That the Waipa Operating Reserve be used to spread the funding of planned

‘non‐routine’ activities (e.g. ten yearly river channel surveys, five yearly

zone and catchment plan reviews). Unplanned non‐routine activities to be

brought back to the Committee for consideration and ratification.


13.4 Waikato Central Drainage Advisory Subcommittee 28 June 2019

The minutes of Waikato Central Drainage Advisory Subcommittee meeting of 28 June

2019 were taken as read.

ICM19/86




1. That the minutes of the Waikato Central Drainage Advisory Subcommittee

meeting held on 28 June 2019 be received; and



13.5 Aka Aka Otaua Drainage Advisory Subcommittee 5 July 2019

The minutes of Aka Aka Otaua Drainage Advisory Subcommittee meeting of 5 July

2019 were taken as read, noting the further submission from the Subcommittee to

the Proposed Waikato District Plan.

With respect to the Holmes Canal drain cleaning noted that the existing consent is

being used for the works/placement of the ‘cleanings’.

APPENDIX 3


Doc # 14890488 Page 15

ICM19/87

Moved by: Cr J Hayman



1. That the minutes of the Aka Aka Otaua Drainage Subcommittee meeting held

on 5 July 2019 be received; and




endorsed:

Item 9: Other Business (a) Proposed Waikato District Council Plan

1. That the further submission be received and adopted and recorded in the

minutes; and

2. That the actions of the Deputy Chairman and the Secretary in lodging a

further submission be approved and confirmed.


14. Public Excluded Section ICM19/88




That the public be excluded from the following part/s of the meeting:

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason

for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section

48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing

of this resolution are as follows:

Good reason to withhold exists under Section 7.

That the public conduct of the relevant parts of the proceedings of the meeting would be

likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists.

Section 48(1)(a)

This resolution is made in reliance on sections 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official

Information and Meetings Act 1987 (the Act), and the particular interests protected by

section 6 or 7 of the Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the relevant part of

the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:

APPENDIX 3


Doc # 14890488 Page 16

Confirmation of Public Excluded Minutes of previous (11 June 2019) Integrated Catchment

Management Committee meeting and extract from Public Excluded minutes from 25 July

2019 Council meeting:

Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

(section 7(2)(a) of the Act)

Enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or

disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) (section

7(2)(i) of the Act)

Public Excluded Waihou Piako Catchment Committee 27 May 2019:





7(2)(i) of the Act)

Public Excluded Issues/Actions from Integrated Catchment Management Meetings

To protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

(section 7(2)(a));



7(2)(i)).


The meeting returned to open session at 12.42pm

W Maag advised that he has been appointed as a Hearing Commissioner to the Hearing Committee

panel for the Waikato District Council District Plan Review and noting that the submission/further

submission periods have closed (record in Disclosures of Interest ‐ Item 4)

The meeting closed at 12.43pm

APPENDIX 3

Doc # 14913488


Finance Committee

OPEN MINUTES

Date:

Location:

Thursday, 8 August, 2019, 10:00 am

Council Chamber



Members Present: Cr J Hennebry ‐ Chair

Cr H Vercoe ‐ Deputy Chair

Cr D Minogue

Cr S Kneebone

Cr B Quayle

Staff Present: J Becker ‐ Chief Financial Officer

L Bartley – Democracy Advisor

APPENDIX 4

Minutes Finance Committee 8 August 2019

Doc # 14913488 Page 2

1. Apologies

Apologies were received from Cr Livingstone for lateness.

FC19/32

Moved by: Cr Kneebone

Seconded by: Cr Quayle


That the apologies of Cr Livingstone for lateness be accepted.



FC19/33

Moved by: Cr Vercoe

Seconded by: Cr Hennebry


That the agenda of the meeting of the Finance Committee, as circulated, be confirmed as

the business for the meeting.




4. Matters Arising from Previous Meetings Minutes

CFO J Becker presented the report and spoke to 2 matters:

retrospective application of uncollectible rates policy which staff are reviewing and

a review of the process of queries received has been undertaken so that staff

respond to the initial query with an acknowledgement of the query and a contact person

who is dealing with the query within 2 days of receipt of query.

FC19/34




That the report Matters Arising from Previous Minutes (Finance Committee 8 May 2019) be

received.


APPENDIX 4


Doc # 14913488 Page 3

5. Confirmation of Minutes of Contracts Sub‐Committee

That the Open Minutes of the Contracts Sub Committee's meeting held on 26 June 2019 be

received.

FC19/35


Seconded by: Cr Minogue


That the minutes of the Contracts Sub Committee meeting held on 26 June 2019 be received.


6. 2018/19 Rates Information to 30 June 2019

CFO presented the report and noted that the collection of current year rates is in line with last

year at 97%. Overall the percentage of current year rates paid remains consistent with

previous year.

She also noted that current net arrears for the year is 1.64% which is slightly up on 2018. A

breakdown was provided on how we are tracking with direct debit authorities over the last 4

years. There are currently 42,000 users which equates to 20% of total properties paying via

direct debit.

10.15 am Cr Kneebone left the meeting.

Members queried the impact on cashflow if all properties went to monthly direct debits. No

modelling has been done on this but Mrs Becker doesn't foresee this to be a problem in light

of the council’s expenditure pattern.

10.17am Cr Kneebone re‐entered the meeting.

FC19/35

Moved by: Cr Vercoe

Seconded by: Cr Kneebone


That the report “2018/2019 Rates Information to 30 June 2019” (Finance committee 8

August 2019) be received.


7. Financial Performance as at 30 June 2019

CFO J Becker presented the report and noted to members that the accounts are still being

finalised. Auditors are due in in approximately 1 week to review.

The last report presented to the Committee was forecasting an operational deficit of

$500K. As at 30 June 2019, we are now projecting a $4.6M positive position.

APPENDIX 4


Doc # 14913488 Page 4

Carry over requests have increased slightly from $4 million to $5.1 million ‐ this is primarily

due to Project Reboot and the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora implementation project. All carry over

requests are able to be accommodated within the surplus available for the current year.

Staff have identified items that may require funding from the remaining surplus, once this is

confirmed following the completion of the audit process. Items may include funding for PC1

Environment Court costs; community representative participation training to build

capabilities in supporting Council meet its objectives and responding to central government

policy direction.

Members discussed the rationale behind potentially building a reserve fund to cover any

environment court costs associated with plan changes. Further work would need to be

undertaken to determine the level of the fund. The matter could be considered as part of the

development of the 2021 Long Term Plan.

FC19/36




1. That the report Draft financial performance at 30 June 2019 and requests for budget

carry over (Finance Committee 8 August 2019) be received for information.


2. That the committee recommends Council approves budget carry over and adjustment

requests of:

a. $5.421 million carry over of operating expenditure

b. $1.509 million of budget adjustments for reserve‐funded activities

c. $7.234 million of operating capital expenditure carry overs

d. $7.466 million of infrastructure capital expenditure carry overs

The motion was carried

8. Non‐Financial Performance as at 30 June 2019

Manager Corporate Planning, N Hubbard presented the report to members. She noted to

members that the results will be incorporated into the annual report. She presented each of

the key performance indicators (KPI) measurements and noted that of the 51 KPI's, 36 were

achieved; 10 are not achieved and 5 are not applicable. She then presented a breakdown of

each of the KPI's that were not achieved and the reasons why they were not achieved.

FC19/37

Moved by: Cr Quayle



APPENDIX 4


Doc # 14913488 Page 5

1. That the report 2018/19 end of year non‐financial performance results (Finance

Committee 8 August 2019) be received, and


2. That the Finance Committee recommends Council approves the 2018/19 end of year non‐

financial performance results for inclusion in the draft Annual Report subject to audit

review.


9. Tender Board Contracts Quarterly Report

CFO J Becker presented the report.

FC19/38

Moved by: Cr Vercoe



That the report Tenders Board Contracts for the period 1 April to 30 June 2019 (Finance

Committee 8 August 2019) be received.


10. CE and Councillor expenses to 30 June 2019

CFOJ Becker presented the report. Staff had noted in the report the total of the training spend

by the Chief Executive compared to budget for the last three years. Staff noted that

consideration could be given to monitoring the Chief Executive’s training expenditure over

their contract term, rather than for the current financial year only.

FC19/39

Moved by: Cr Minogue



That the report Councillor and Chief Executive Expenses for the quarter and year ended 30

June 2019 (Finance Committee 8 August 2019) be received for information.


11. Update on Pathways to the Sea : Regional Infrastructure Fish Passage Strategy

Principle Advisor K Neilson presented the paper. This project had been partly funded through

the LTP with $750,000 funding provided via the investment fund, with a further $750,000

APPENDIX 4


Doc # 14913488 Page 6

external funding required to proceed. Currently $650,000 in grants has been secured with

staff confident that the balance will be received.

Project plan has been approved and now moving into implementation stages.

Members noted that the project had adopted an excellent methodology which involved other

entities/partners and showed good collaboration with the interested parties.

FC19/40

Moved by: Cr Quayle



That the report Update on Pathways to the Sea: Regional Infrastructure Fish Passage

Strategy (Finance Committee 8 August 2019) be received.


12. Treasury Management & Monitoring report to 30 June 2019

CFO J Becker presented the report.

Despite some volatility in returns over the first 6 months of the year, the year result has seen

a return of $6.3 million compared to a budgeted return of $5.142 million. Total value of funds

invested is $101 million ‐ $96 million in the diversified portfolio and $5 million in a low risk

portfolio. Of the total amount, $9.4 million is managed internally and balance with external

fund managers.

The equalisation fund has $12.5 million of which a further $1.5 million has been committed to

expenditure approved through the 2018 LTP. The balance equates to 6.5 years of rates

subsidy.

Borrowing levels are lower than forecast ‐ currently sitting at $22 million as opposed to

forecast of $30.2 million. The lower current borrowing reflects timing of project costs for

Project Reboot, the Healthy Rivers implementation project, and infrastructure capital works.

Members queried whether there are any strategies in place for reinvesting on call funds as

they mature given the current financial climate with the recent drop in the official cash rate. J

Becker acknowledged that it is currently a challenging environment in which to get significant

returns, however processes utilised by staff sought to maximise the return on any funds held.

FC19/41

Moved by: Cr Vercoe


RESOLVED (SECTION A) That the report Treasury Management and Monitoring Report to 30 June 2019 (Finance



APPENDIX 4


Doc # 14913488 Page 7

13. Approval of Statement of Investment Policy and Objectives (July 2019)

Brian Kearney and Joseph Foster, Investment Advisors from Mercer presented the report to

the Committee.

B Kearney introduced J Foster to the Committee. A comprehensive review of the Statement

of Investment Policy and Objectives (SIPO) was undertaken last year and as a result only a light

review was required this year.

As part of the review, 3 changes would be required:

updating date of SIPO to 1 July 2019

updating Appendix B to reflect AMP Capital Investor's revised outperformance target of

0.5%

Updating Appendix B to include the Harbour Short Duration mandate.

B Kearney also discussed the impact of the recent official cash rate drop and how to best

manage the impact of how funds are invested. He discussed whether we should be reviewing

the internal management of investment funds and whether those funds should revert back to

external management.

He noted that he has no concerns in relation to in‐house cash management ‐ the function is

operating well. With the latest OCR drop, cash is becoming a more important part of the

portfolio. No trigger has been activated to change how the portfolio is managed.

He discussed that a review of strategy may be triggered (currently due for review in 2021) by

the dropping of the OCR. Advice with respect to the fund is consistent with that previously

given by Mercer over the last 18 months with respect to challenges in meeting current return

objectives. At some stage, the council will need to consider lowering it’s spend targets to

reflect likely fund returns. The alternative is for the investment fund to take on more risk. It is

felt that this is not a good time to increase risk when some volatility is expected, and where

the council has funds available to manage through volatility given the current balance in the

investment equalisation reserve.

It was suggested that a "fund health check" be done. Once this undertaken, the council can

determine whether a full strategy review is required.

Recommended process is to do a "fund health check" over the next couple of months, with

this reported to the new council as part of the development of the 2020/21 annual plan in

February 2020. It is felt that the existing strategy remains appropriate for the short term but

ongoing monitoring of medium/long term return expectations is prudent. Mercer staff also

confirmed their availability to provide training as part of the induction programme for new

councillors.

APPENDIX 4


Doc # 14913488 Page 8

FC19/42

Moved by: Cr Quayle



1. That the report Approval of Statement of Investment Policy and Objectives (July 2019)

(Finance Committee 8 August 2019) be received, and

RECOMMENDS (SECTION B)

2. That the committee recommends Council approve the updated Statement of Investment

Policy and Objectives (July 2019) to Council for approval

3. That the Committee recommends to Council that staff work with Mercer to undertake a

fund health review and that it report back to the new Council in early 2020 (prior to Annual

Plan process).

4. That the Committee recommends to Council that an induction session be held with

Mercer for the new triennium members.

The motion was carried


FC19/43




THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the meeting set out below on the

grounds that the public conduct of those parts of the proceedings of the meeting would be

likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists

under section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

(the Act).

The particular interests protected by section 6 or 7 of the Act which would be prejudiced by

the holding of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows:

Report title: Mercer Annual Fund Review

Protect information where the making available of the information


o would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person

who supplied or who is the subject of the information (section 7(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of

the Act)

THAT Brian Kearney and Joseph Foster be permitted to remain at this meeting, after the

public has been excluded, because of their knowledge of as authors of the report. This

APPENDIX 4


Doc # 14913488 Page 9

knowledge, which will be of assistance in relation to the matter to be discussed, is relevant

to that matter because of its financial nature.

Report Title : Non‐Rates Debtors



Report Title : Public Excluded Minutes ‐ Contracts SubCommittee 26 June 2019

Protect information where the making available of the information would be likely

unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who

is the subject of the information (section 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Act)

Enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or

disadvantage, commercial activities (section 7(2)(h) of the Act)


11.57am The meeting went into public excluded session.

12.29 pm The meeting returned to open session.

12.30 pm The meeting closed

APPENDIX 4

Doc # 14907326


Finance Committee

OPEN MINUTES

Date:

Location:

Tuesday, 13 August, 2019, 10:05 am

Council Chamber



Members Present: Cr J Hennebry ‐ Chair

Cr D Minogue

Cr S Kneebone

Cr B Quayle

Cr A Livingston ‐ Ex Officio

In Attendance Cr F Lichtwark

Staff Present: C Crickett ‐ Director Integrated Catchment Management

J van Rossem – Biodiversity Project Manager


APPENDIX 5


Doc # 14907326 Page 2

1. Apologies

Apologies were received from Cr Vercoe.

FC19/48 Moved by: Cr Livingston Seconded by: Cr Kneebone

RESOLVED (SECTION A) That the apologies of Cr Vercoe be accepted.



FC19/49 Moved by: Cr Hennebry Seconded by: Cr Quayle







4. Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust ‐ Annual Report to 30 June 2019

Biodiversity Project Manager, J van Rossem introduced Phil Lyons, CEO and Dan Howie,

Ranger from Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust.

Mr Lyons presented the Trust's first annual report against the new 4 year grant. It has been a

relatively successful year with an operating surplus, new funding streams, new sponsorship

deals, and an increase in numbers visiting the mountain. There have been some challenges

including breaches of the fence due in part to weather episodes. The Kiwi for Kiwi programme

together with the Kokako programme are both progressing well.

10.35am ‐ Cr Lichtwark left the meeting.

Members congratulated the team/management to the commitment shown for the ongoing

development and success of the sanctuary.

10.37am ‐Cr Lichtwark returned to the meeting.

Members discussed whether the funding mechanism for the Trust should be reviewed

through the long term plan ‐ possibly as a separate regional rate to ensure longevity of funding

for this asset.

Staff noted that the Natural Heritage Fund could be reviewed as a vehicle to support this.

There was discussion around Council's policy in relation to funding multi‐year projects and

members requested that a draft Policy on funding heritage/regionally significant conservation

APPENDIX 5


Doc # 14907326 Page 3

projects be presented to a future meeting. Any asset of natural significance and with

environmental sustainability/responsibility needs to have some surety of funding to ensure

long term viability of project.

FC19/50 Moved by: Cr Quayle Seconded by: Cr Livingston


That the report "Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust ‐ Annual Report to 30 June 2019"

(Finance Committee 13 August 2019) be received.


5. Natural Heritage Fund Proposal ‐ Re‐establishing North Island Kokako to Pirongia Forest

Park ‐ Stage 2

Biodiversity Project Manager, J van Rossem introduced the report and introduced Claire St

Pierre, Chairperson of the Pirongia Te Aroaro O Kahu Restoration Society.

In 2017 a grant was provided to the Society for the commencement of the re‐introduction of

Kokako to Pirongia Mountain. The Society has made another application for further funding

across 4 years to continue the programme and the Chairperson of the Society spoke to

members in support of the application. She updated members on the progress of the project

including the accomplishments of national award recognition. The latest funding application

will, in part, allow the Society to employ a project co‐ordinator to drive the project ahead.

Members extended a vote of thanks/appreciation to the volunteers and Society for their

excellent work.



1. That the report Natural Heritage Fund proposal ‐ Re‐establishing North Island

Kokako to Pirongia Forest Park ‐ Stage 2 (Finance Committee 13 August 2019) be

received, and

2. That the Finance Committee approve a Natural Heritage Fund grant of $299,600

over four years to the Pirongia Te Aroaro O Kahu Restoration Society for kokako re‐

establishment and management, subject to the following conditions:

i. the preparation of a funding deed approved by Council's legal services team;

and

ii. the grant will be paid in four instalments (Year 1: $83,700; Year 2 : $74,400; Year

3 : $78,750; Year 4 : $62,750). Each instalment will be conditional upon

satisfactory evaluation of annual progress reports by staff.


APPENDIX 5


Doc # 14907326 Page 4

6. Environmental Initiatives Fund ‐ 2019/20 Grant Allocation

Biodiversity Project Manager, J van Rossem presented the report to members providing a brief

overview of this year's Environmental Initiatives Fund round. Fewer applications were

received this year ‐ potentially due to the number of multi‐year applications previously

approved. The overall quality of this year's applications is much higher.

J van Rossem provided a summary of each of the applications received and explained the

assessment criteria against each application.

King Country River Care application sought funding to support the project co‐ordinator

salary. It is a one‐off, one year funding application to support a community initiative to help

King Country farmers develop farm management plans through their area which supports the

work of plan changes around fresh water.

Members raised concerns around how this project met the objectives of the Fund but were

reassured by staff that the application was a multi‐faceted application of the highest quality

that strongly met a number of the assessment criteria. Some members spoke in support of

the application and felt that it deserved to receive the full amount sought rather than the

reduced amount recommended by staff. They felt that the project was a flagship in leading

this region with regard to fresh water.

Moved by: Cr Quayle Seconded by: Cr Minogue

1. That the report “Environmental Initiatives Fund – 2018/19 Grant Allocations” (Finance


2. That the Finance Committee approve an Environmental Initiatives Fund grant of $30,000.00 to King Country River Care for project coordination and farmer/community engagement.

Amendment: Moved by: Cr Livingston Seconded by: Cr Kneebone

That the Finance Committee approve an Environmental Initiatives Fund grant of $40,000 to

King Country River Care for project coordination and farmer/community engagement.

The motion was put and lost

The committee then returned to the original motion:

FC19/52 Moved by: Cr Quayle Seconded by: Cr Minogue


1. That the report “Environmental Initiatives Fund – 2019/20 Grant Allocations” (Finance


APPENDIX 5


Doc # 14907326 Page 5

2. That the Finance Committee approve an Environmental Initiatives Fund grant of

$30,000.00 to King Country River Care for project coordination and farmer/community

engagement.


J van Rossem presented each of the remaining applications providing an overview of each

proposal and how it met the fund’s objectives and reasons for recommendations to changes

of the level of funding.

FC19/53 Moved by: Cr Minogue Seconded by: Cr Quayle


That the Finance Committee approve an Environmental Initiatives Fund grant of $39,715.00

to the Colville Social Service Collective for pest control contracted services, project

management and some materials for the Colville Harbourcare project.


FC19/54 Moved by: Cr Kneebone Seconded by: Cr Minogue


That the Finance Committee approve an Environmental Initiatives Fund grant of $22,875.86 to Aotea Kawhia Ocean Beach Care for fuel costs, rubbish disposal and predator control costs.


FC19/55 Moved by: Cr Kneebone Seconded by: Cr Quayle


That the Finance Committee approve an Environmental Initiatives Fund grant of $39,000.00

to the Waikato Environment Centre Trust for coordination of Predator Free Hamilton and

Predator Free Cambridge.




That the Finance Committee approve an Environmental Initiatives Fund grant of $39,999.99 to the Tongariro Natural History Society for project coordination of Kids Greening Taupo.


APPENDIX 5


Doc # 14907326 Page 6



That the Finance Committee approve an Environmental Initiatives Fund grant of $30,000.00 to the Whaingaroa Environment Centre Society for project coordination and the employment of summer Project Advocates for the Marine Matters community engagement programme.


FC19/58 Moved by: Cr Quayle Seconded by: Cr Kneebone


That the Finance Committee approve an Environmental Initiatives Fund grant of $37,723.00 to the Riverlea Environment Society for project coordination and native plants for the Hammond Park and gully restoration project.




That the Finance Committee approve an Environmental Initiatives Fund grant of $39,935.00 to Xtreme Zero Waste for project coordination and weed disposal costs for the Whaingaroa Weed Action project.


FC19/60 Moved by: Cr Kneebone Seconded by: Cr Minogue


That the Finance Committee approve an Environmental Initiatives Fund grant of $23,800 to the Habitat Enhancement and Landcare Project (H.E.L.P.) Waihi to engage contract labour to prepare sites for planting and to purchase plants for the Waitete Stream Riparian Extension project.




That the Finance Committee approve an Environmental Initiatives Fund grant of $20,261 to the Kinloch Community Association to engage contract labour for site preparation, maintenance and plants.


APPENDIX 5


Doc # 14907326 Page 7

FC19/62 Moved by: Cr Quayle Seconded by: Cr Kneebone


That the Finance Committee approve an Environmental Initiatives Fund grant of $5,555.00 to the Pam Fergusson Charitable Trust for the establishment of a predator trap network and monitoring equipment at the InAwe education centre site in Raglan.


J van Rossem explained that the application from The Friends of the Otahu Catchment area was not sufficiently robust to meet the criteria for funding but that staff would work with the Group to help them prepare for the next round of funding.

FC19/63 Moved by: Cr Kneebone Seconded by: Cr Livingston


That the Finance Committee decline the Environmental Initiatives Fund application for a grant of $39,629.00 from The Friends of the Otahu Catchment Area for a predator control project in the Otahu catchment.


FC19/64 Moved by: Cr Livingston Seconded by: Cr Quayle

RECOMMMENDED (SECTION B)

That the Finance Committee request Council to consider financial options to fund the $10,000 shortfall between Environmental Initiatives grant and cost of co‐ordinator wages for 1 year for the King Country River Care project for promoting nationally required farm management and freshwater practices. (EIF Summary to be included).


12.30 PM The meeting closed.

APPENDIX 5

Doc # 14906679


Hearings Appointment Subcommittee

OPEN MINUTES

Date: Location:

Tuesday, 13 August, 2019, 9:30 am Council Chamber Waikato Regional Council 401 Grey Street, Hamilton East

Members Present: Cr A Livingston ‐ Chair Cr R Simcock Cr J Hayman

Staff Present: D Stagg Team Leader ‐ Industry S McLeay – Democracy Advisor Lyndal Bartley ‐ Democracy Advisor

APPENDIX 6

Minutes Hearings Appointment Sub‐Committee 13 August 2019

Doc # 14906679 Page 2

1. Apologies

There were no apologies recorded.


That the agenda, as circulated, be received and confirmed as business of the meeting.

HAS19/06 Moved by: Cr Livingston Seconded by: Cr Simcock


That the agenda, as circulated, be confirmed as business of the meeting.



Cr Hayman noted that the hearing relates to the Pukekawa area which she resides in.

4. Resource Consent Hearing for Mercer Assets Limited

The Chairperson and members noted their disappointment with the report as presented and felt that more information should be included in these reports enabling deliberation and a more informed decision. Members discussed the need for greater transparency to enable better decision making.

Members expressed concern at limited number of resource management commissioners. A number would be retiring in the near future and that there appeared to be a lack of experienced professionals to fill the void.

HAS19/07 Moved by: Cr Livingston Seconded by: Cr Simcock


1. That the report (Hearings Appointment Subcommittee 15 August 2019) be received, and

2. That a hearing committee be established in terms of the Resource Management Act 1991 to hear and decide an application for resource consent with all the relevant ancillary powers under the Act from Mercer Assets Limited (Application No. APP140567) to:

o discharge odour

o discharge domestic wastewater to land.

3. That Independent Commissioners David Hill (Chair) and Bruce Graham be appointed to the Hearing committee.


HAS19/08 Moved by: Cr Simcock Seconded by: Cr Hayman

APPENDIX 6

Minutes Hearings Appointment Sub‐Committee 13 August 2019

Doc # 14906679 Page 3


That the Hearings Appointment SubCommittee recommends that Council develops a plan to expand the pool of commissioners with diverse skills and create a pathway for the development of new commissioner chairs.


HAS19/09 Moved by: Cr Livingston Seconded by: Cr Hayman


That the Hearings Appointment Subcommittee recommends to Council that the new Council Induction process include a thorough introduction of the Resource Management Act and decision making processes.


10.02 am ‐ The meeting closed.

APPENDIX 6

1

Implementation Committee – Minutes – Open

Time and Date 1.10pm 15 August 2019

Venue Hampton Downs Event Centre, 20 Hampton Downs Road, Te Kauwhata

Members All Future Proof matters: Hamilton-Auckland Corridor matters:

Bill Wasley Allan Sanson Dynes Fulton Dave Macpherson Martin Gallagher Parekawhia McLean Rangipipi Bennett Rukumoana Schaafhausen Jim Mylchreest Liz Stolwyk Bob Simcock Alan Livingston Hon Phil Twyford Hon Nanaia Mahuta Bill Cashmore Angela Fulljames Gavin Anderson

Independent Chair, Future Proof Mayor, Waikato District Council / Deputy Chair Deputy Mayor, Waikato District Council Councillor, Hamilton City Council Deputy Mayor, Hamilton City Council Tainui Waka Alliance Ngā Karu Atua o te Waka Waikato-Tainui Mayor, Waipa District Council Councillor, Waipa District Council Councillor, Waikato Regional Council Chairperson, Waikato Regional Council Minister for Economic Development, Urban Development & Transport Minister for Māori Development & Local Government Deputy Mayor, Auckland Council Chairperson, Franklin Local Board Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum

Presenters

Ken Tremaine Ernst Zollner Blair Bowcott Luke O'Dwyer Andrew Parsons Jackie Colliar Vishal Ramduny Clive Morgan Mark Tamura David Shepherd

Future Proof Ministry of Housing and Urban Development Hamilton City Council Hamilton City Council Hamilton City Council Hamilton City Council Waikato District Council Waikato District Council Waikato Regional Council KiwiRail

Committee Advisor Michelle White Future Proof

Apologies Andrew King Ross I'Anson Ngarimu Blair Karen Wilson

Mayor, Hamilton City Council Regional Relationships Director, NZ Transport Agency Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum

2

1. Welcome and Introduction Sam Toka, Waikato-Tainui, formally welcomed participants to the meeting. The Independent Future Proof Chair, Bill Wasley, welcomed and acknowledged the members seated around the table, and in particular the new members, Minister Twyford, Minister Mahuta, Deputy Mayor Cashmore, Chairperson Fulljames, and Gavin Anderson. Waikato-Tainui was acknowledged and thanked for making the mihimihi / whakatau. The Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Steering Group and technical groups were acknowledged for their efforts and work on the Corridor Plan. This meeting marks a significant milestone for the partnership. It is ten years on from the launch of the Future Proof Strategy in 2009. This arrangement is unique, where the Crown is a key part of the partnership. There is efficiency on building what already exists and to expand the Future Proof partnership for Corridor Plan matters. Members and participants seated around the table introduced themselves. The apologies were accepted. Resolved: (Councillor Macpherson/Rukumoana Schaafhausen) That the apologies be received.

2. Future Proof Implementation Committee Agreement and Appointments

The report was taken as read and the recommendations were approved. Resolved: (Mayor Mylchreest/Deputy Mayor Fulton) That the Future Proof Implementation Committee:

1. Receives this report. 2. Endorses the updated FPIC Agreement. 3. Appoints the following members to the expanded FPIC for Hamilton to Auckland

Corridor matters:

Central Government Representatives – Ministers of the Crown

Minister Phil Twyford Minister Nanaia Mahuta

Auckland Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum Ngarimu Blair Karen Wilson Gavin Anderson

Auckland Council Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore Franklin Local Board Chair Angela Fulljames

4. Appoints Rukumoana Schaafhausen as the Waikato-Tainui representative on the FPIC.

3

3. Introduction to Future Proof Deputy Chair of the Future Proof Implementation Committee, Mayor Sanson, introduced Future Proof. The Future Proof Strategy was launched nearly ten years ago, in September 2009, by Prime Minister John Key and Kingi Tuheitia. The partnership was originally set up to provide certainty around land use, in order to secure funding for the Waikato Expressway. The partnership has built a good working relationship and has learnt to speak with once sub-regional voice. The founding partners include the Waikato Regional Council, Waikato District Council, Waipa District Council, Hamilton City Council, tāngata whenua, with input from the NZ Transport Agency. The new partners were acknowledged. Resolved: (Mayor Sanson/Councillor Macpherson) That the Future Proof Implementation Committee:

1. Receives this report. 2. Notes the background information on Future Proof.

4. National Policy, Tools and Framework Updates Minister Twyford acknowledged Future Proof and the work that has taken place during the past year. This is a special opportunity which starts and finishes with the river. It is about all lives, people, history, the natural environment, and transport connections coming together. New Zealand has growth pressures, which can be challenging, but challenges can also create opportunities. This is an opportunity to do things differently, taking a collaborative and joined-up approach. We need to make room for growth, but also accommodate and plan for it. Prosperous, happy and healthy wellbeing is central. Minister Mahuta noted that she was present at the launch of Future Proof in 2009. A lot has happened during the last ten years. Parekawhia McLean was acknowledged for bringing iwi into the conversation. Communities have their own identify and this needs to be preserved. We need to preserve what is unique to the Waikato. Wellbeing is central to these discussions. Minister Mahuta outlined some national policy updates, including the RMA reforms and three waters review.

5. Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan Ken Tremaine introduced the presentation on the Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan and acknowledged Natalie van Rossen (NZ Transport Agency) and Kim Jonson (Waikato Regional Council) for their work on the Corridor Plan. A video on the Corridor Plan was viewed. The video can be found on the Future Proof website: http://www.futureproof.org.nz/corridor-plan/ The focus areas for the Corridor Plan include:

• New focus area: waters

• Focus area 1: stronger corridor connections

• Focus area 2: Papakura-Pokeno sub-region

http://www.futureproof.org.nz/corridor-plan/

4

• Focus area 3: river communities

• Focus area 4: Hamilton-Waikato sub-region

• Focus area 5: new tools and options to unlock full potential The layers for the Corridor Plan include the environment, connections, and places to live and work. The technical workstreams, under these layers, include:

• Papakura-Pokeno sub-region

• River communities

• Hamilton-Waikato Metro Spatial Plan

• Mass Transit Plan

• Start-up and rapid rail business cases

• Sub-regional three waters investigation

• Blue-green network planning

a. New focus area: Waters Andrew Parsons (Future Proof Water Policy Group Chair) and Jackie Colliar (Sub-Regional Three Waters Study project lead, Hamilton City Council) presented the Waikato Sub-Regional Three Waters Study and Mark Tamura (Waikato Regional Council) presented on flooding and drainage infrastructure.

Andrew acknowledged the partnership for its support, including iwi, councils, and crown agencies (in particular Richard Ward), and Jackie for her work on this project. Andrew reiterated Minister Twyford's comment, that everything starts and finishes with the river. Challenges around three waters management were outlined, including water allocation, wastewater non-compliance, and very large financial cost to meet current and future needs. This study is an opportunity to: take an integrated catchment approach to achieve Te Ture Whaimana; unlock the economic potential of the corridor; take a boundaryless and collaborative approach; and, enable the other Hamilton-Auckland Corridor Plan initiatives. This project is fundamental to achieving the Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan and Vision and Strategy. Phase 1 has been funded by the Waikato Regional Council, Waipa District Council, Hamilton City Council, Waikato District Council and Watercare. There has been significant collaboration and a high degree of support. Phase 2 is not yet funded. Funding support will be sought from the partners. Some communities have more pressing issues than others. Comments on the initiative include:

• Minister Mahuta acknowledged the project and noted that collaboration is required. She asked if there had been thought to broaden the scope of Phase 2 to focus on elements of implementation. Jackie replied that thinking has evolved since the start of the project. It has become apparent that implementation needs to be addressed, for example, how do we deliver a shared wastewater treatment plant.

5

• The Vision and Strategy was discussed. The Vision and Strategy is unique to the Waikato region. In order to achieve the Vision and Strategy we will need to think differently, take a boundaryless approach, and look at the catchment as a whole.

• Rukumoana Schaafhausen reiterated the comments above and supported the addition of waters as a new focus area. This project is fundamental to achieving the Vision and Strategy.

• The importance of waters was noted, and that funding is required for Phase 2.

• Minister Mahuta urged councils to look at service delivery and how Government would contribute towards that. She noted that this study is positioned very well in terms of the waters reform. The business case method to follow includes - planning, procurement, and funding and financing for a 10-30 year period.

• Parekawhia McLean agreed that implementation needs to be included in the study and noted that waters should be a number one priority for all.

• Waikato Regional Council commented that the Vision and Strategy is the Waikato region's priority, and that Auckland region and Watercare will have other priorities. How will the Auckland lens be taken into account? Jackie replied that the scope of the project is the Waikato River catchment, but with an initial focus on the Future Proof sub-region. Watercare is a partner in the project.

• Watercare's 30-year plan was noted.

• Scale gives procurement opportunities.

• There is opportunity for ongoing conversations through the Future Proof Water Policy Group.

Mark outlined the slide on drainage and flood protection. Flood and drainage infrastructure keeps the land useable. The management of this systems starts at the Lake Taupo control gates and includes the land south of the Bombay hills.

b. Focus area 1: Stronger corridor connections Gareth Fairweather (NZ Transport Agency) and David Shepherd (KiwiRail) presented focus area 1. The key benefit is a long-term consistent and system-wide view. There are exciting opportunities to: create vibrant, well connected places; improve access to jobs and opportunities; make room for growth; increase choice and deliver mode shift (public transport, walking and cycling); reduce emissions and congestion; improve health and active lifestyle. An integrated and multi-layered approach includes: rapid intercity rail; mass transit corridors connecting key hubs; enhanced local public transport networks; and excellent walking, cycling and urban realm. A phased approach is being taken towards better intercity connectivity:

• Phase 1: Hamilton-Auckland start up service

• Phase 2: start-up next steps

• Phase 3: rapid intercity rail - indicative business case In terms of Phase 3, consultants will be engaged soon, and a scope prepared. An integrated approach is key to delivering stronger corridor connections. Working as a partnership allows us to explore opportunities that could exist.

6

Comments on focus area 1 include:

• Hamilton City Council is supportive of the start-up and rapid rail.

• Regional rail connections with Hamilton were raised.

• Hamilton City Council would like to see connections from Auckland airport to Waikato built into the Puhinui upgrade.

• It was noted that Phase 1 won't deliver what the customers want i.e., a frequent and on time service; this falls into Phase 2.

• Hamilton City Council noted that we need to be given guidance on funding priorities.

• Urban centres don’t work without good mobility. The worst the mobility, the smaller the employment market. There has been good investment in roads, but unless we integrate rapid transit, we will simply hand chronic congestion to the next generation. We must move towards multi modal. The intention is that the start-up rail will evolve into a good and efficient milk run. Rapid rail will effectively unit labour markets, which will result in a huge economic uplift.

• Parekawhia supported the presentation and focus.

c. Focus area 2: Papakura-Pokeno sub-region Deputy Mayor Cashmore (Auckland Council) presented focus area 2. Penny Pirrit was acknowledged for the work she has done for Auckland Council. Seventy percent of growth is expected inside the urban area. The area has already experienced significant population growth, and more is expected. Many Waikato residents are coming into Auckland for employment. The creation of employment is important - housing and employment growth go hand in hand. Five private businesses in the Franklin area are spending a significant amount of money on growing their businesses. Chair Fulljames reiterated that employment is a priority. Fifty percent of the population in the Pukekohe area migrate daily for employment (in 2010 the figure was 70%). Drury-Opāheke Structure Plan: there are a number of key challenges, including a legacy deficit in the transport networks, the current transport network being at or over capacity, and transport infrastructure funding shortfall (of at least $2 billion). Due to these challenges, the approach being taken is to pause rezoning from future urban to urban. Comments on focus area 2 include:

• Waikato Regional Council welcomed Auckland Council to the partnership.

• A lot of the demand that Waikato is experiencing is due to the overflow from Auckland. The fundamental question is - rather than allowing the flow over to the Waikato, how do you fix Auckland's land supply issue? Deputy Mayor Cashmore replied that Auckland has more than adequate land for growth; however, the challenge is the value of land.

• There was discussion on the number of dwellings currently enabled.

• The cost of land needs to come down and the City must be allowed to grow up.

• Southern Auckland is part of the challenge and opportunity.

• We have a different set of challenges facing us today. Water, soil and the environment need to be kept in front and centre.

d. Focus area 3: River communities

Clive Morgan and Vishal Ramduny (Waikato District Council) presented focus area 3.

7

The strong presence of wāhi tiotū and wāhi toiora have directed and shaped future development options. The following have informed thinking: rivers, lakes, mountains, access to the Expressway, east-west road connections, rail access options, public transport services, major assets that can be redeveloped, and high-quality soils. Meremere: TGH has lodged a Provincial Growth Fund application for a feasibility study. Te Kauwhata: Waikato District has already undertaken a lot of planning work in Te Kauwhata. Pokeno: there is ongoing and strong market interest in Pokeno, given its strategic location. A key priority for Pokeno is the central area. The areas shown by yellow stripes on the map show where Pokeno could grow, subject to infrastructure. Huntly: a key priority for Huntly is to revitalize the town centre. The purple stars on the map indicate opportunities with Housing NZ. There are also iwi aspirations in Huntly. Ohinewai and Taupiri: new residential development options are indicated in Ohinewai and Taupiri. Comments on focus area 3 include:

• Concerns were raised on the impact developing Ohinewai would have on aspirations to rejuvenate Huntly. Vishal replied that there is room for residential growth in Huntly; however, there is little industrial land. The connection between Ohinewai and Huntly is important. The Ohinewai proposal would bring social and economic benefits to Huntly.

e. Focus area 4: Hamilton-Waikato Metro Spatial Plan

Luke O'Dwyer (Metro Spatial Plan project lead, Hamilton City Council) presented focus area 4. This project represents an opportunity to see how the Metro Plan area can grow differently. This is the fastest growing area in New Zealand. The project is about - an alternative future, productivity, prosperity, not business as usual, and a boundaryless approach. Waters is fundamental for the success of this project. The outputs on the maps represent thinking to date, from various organisations. The preferred form is a mixture of city densification and nodal development, underpinned by a mass transit network. There are a number of areas for further testing, including north west, Taupiri/Hopuhopu, Ruakura east, Airport south, Hamilton CBD, and areas for significant regeneration. Mass transit is fundamental and a game changer. There is a unique opportunity to create a mass transit network that aligns with the Metro Plan work. Comments on focus area 4 include:

• Zoning reform is another key enabler to enable intensification within the rapid transit corridor.

8

f. Focus area 5: New tools and options to unlock full potential Blair Bowcott (Hamilton City Council) presented focus area 5. There are a range of opportunities through the 20 key initiatives - how do we realise the potential benefits from the initiatives. Existing and new tools need to be applied in innovative and effective ways. We require a new way of working that is agile, transformative and solution focused. Business as usual sits at one end of the spectrum and legislative reform and Central Government mandate sits at the other end. There are increasing conversations around 'city deal'. An implementation package for the Corridor Plan could comprise a 'partnership deal' which might:

• Be based on a geographic area.

• Require a firm commitment from the partners to deliver outcomes.

• Clarify funding arrangements.

• Take a 30-year view. How bold are we willing to be to deliver transformational change? Comments on focus area 5 include:

• Population projections were raised and if we are basing our planning on accurate statistics. At some point growth will stabilise. Blair replied that our planning is based on the best information available. We need to be game ready in order to respond - lead in infrastructure and clarity on work programme. The sub-region sits at the heart of the golden triangle with good connections to Auckland. The fundamentals are present for further growth.

• There is a history of councils consistently underestimating growth. Migration is a key driver and this doesn't appear to be slowing down. There is a risk of underestimating growth.

g. Next key milestones

Ernst Zollner (Ministry of Housing and Urban Development) outlined some of the next key milestones. Some of the initiatives e.g. Sub-Regional Three Waters Study and Metro Plan, will be moving into phase 2. The river community spatial plans will move into implementation in 2020.

Resolved: (Parekawhia McLean/Councillor Macpherson) That the Future Proof Implementation Committee:

1. Receives this report. 2. Notes the interconnected nature of the 20 Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan

initiatives. 3. Notes the update on the initiatives provided in this report and the associated

presentation, and that they are still a work in progress. 4. Supports the overall direction of the initiatives and agree to move to Phase 2 of these

workstreams on the basis that progress is reported on to the next meeting. 5. Agrees to include ‘waters’ as an additional focus area.

9

6. General Business Three current Future Proof Implementation Committee members will not be returning next triennium. The Chair acknowledged Chair Livingston, Councillor Simcock and Deputy Mayor Fulton for their support and contribution to Future Proof. Chair Livingston and Councillor Simcock have been involved with Future Proof since it was first adopted in 2009. All three members have taken a strategic view, provided considered and wise advice, and have understood and valued the partnership approach. Their valuable contribution is acknowledged. He extended best wishes to those standing in the forthcoming local government elections.

7. Close The Deputy Chair of the Future Proof Implementation Committee provided some closing thoughts. He acknowledged Chair Livingston, Councillor Simcock and Deputy Mayor Fulton for their valuable contribution. Minister Twyford and Minister Mahuta were acknowledged for their participation and membership on the Future Proof Implementation Committee. Auckland Council was also acknowledged for their participation and membership. Minister Twyford provided some closing thoughts. Having listened to all the presentations today, it is clear that there is a lot to play for, and a high level of collaboration. We have to collectively commit to work in a different way. We need early wins to demonstrate value. There is much more to gain than to lose. It is better to be in the partnership, than to be out. We now have to start telling the story of what we are doing. Minister Twyford thanked the public servants for their outstanding work. Minister Mahuta acknowledged Chair Livingston, Councillor Simcock and Deputy Mayor Fulton for their contribution. We need to continue into the next phase of the Corridor Plan. The next phase will/must give clearer visibility of staging/timing and the people element. Minister Mahuta thanked the group for the opportunity to be part of the conversation. The Chair then invited relevant partner members to sign the Future Proof Implementation Agreement that had earlier been approved by the Committee. The Chair closed the meeting.

The meeting was closed at 3:45pm

Decisions of Hamilton Public Transport Committee

Meeting date: 16 August 2019

Section A – Decisions made under delegation

Agenda item and resolutions

Item 6 Hamilton Public Transport Update

That the report Hamilton Public Transport Update (Hamilton Public Transport Joint Committee 5 August 2019) be received.


Hamilton Public Transport Joint Committee

OPEN MINUTES

Date: Location:

Friday, 16 August, 2019, 10:00 am Council Chamber Waikato Regional Council 401 Grey Street, Hamilton East

Members Present: Cr D Macpherson - Chair (Hamilton City Council)

Cr J Hennebry (Waikato Regional Council) Cr L Tooman (Hamilton City Council) Cr G Webber (Waipa District Council) Cr D Fulton (Waikato District Council) M Flynn (Access and Mobility Representative - non-voter)

Staff Present: J Becker -Chief Financial Officer (Waikato Regional Council) A Wilson – Manager Public Transport (Waikato Regional Council)

L Van Veen - Democracy Advisor (Waikato Regional Council)

Hamilton Public Transport Joint Committee 16 August 2019

Doc # 14919196 Page 2


Noting the absence of the Chairman Cr Rimmington, Deputy Chair Cr McPherson assumed the Chair.

2. Apologies

The apology from Cr R Rimmington for absence was noted.

HPTJC19/11 Moved by: Cr G Webber Seconded by: Cr J Hennebry


That the apologies of Cr R Rimmington be accepted.



It was agreed that the New Electronic Ticketing System discussion would occur first under item 6 to accommodate availability of presenters.

HPTJC19/12 Moved by: Cr D Macpherson Seconded by: Cr J Hennebry


That the agenda of the meeting of the Hamilton Public Transport Joint Committee of 16 August 2019, as circulated, be confirmed as the business for the meeting.



There were no disclosures of interest as it related to the agenda.


The minutes from the meeting of 7 June 2019, presented for approval.

HPTJC19/13 Moved by: Cr D Macpherson Seconded by: Cr L Tooman


That the Minutes of the Hamilton Public Transport Joint Committee of 7 June 2019, be approved as a true and correct record.


6. Hamilton Public Transport Update


Doc # 14919196 Page 3

Report to provide the Hamilton Public Transport Joint Committee with information on matters relevant to the implementation and monitoring of the Waikato Regional Public Transport Plan 2018-28.

The Manager Public Transport (A Wilson) presented the report along with a presentation doc# 14913978.

With respect to the "New Electronic Ticketing System" update, the following points were noted:

• A change to the implementation approach had been introduced and a new project manager had been appointed to manage roll out of the project.

• Northland was to lead the roll out with live testing scheduled to start in a week’s time. • The Waikato region was identified as a high priority for roll out, with an anticipated start

date of December 2019. This was pending a successful outcome from the Northland pilot. • In response to a member’s query regarding the reason why roll out had been delayed

further, staff advised that this was due to challenges around managing the project as a consortium. Staff emphasised that this wasn’t a reflection on the capability of the system. Staff assured members that they were confident that the system would be fit for purpose once it was implemented. The delay in implementation had resulted in only a minor effect on budgets, mostly associated with the additional time required for project management.

• It was acknowledged that the inclusion of intra-operability into the system had added complexity to the project. It was noted however that significant learnings had been gained from the project, particularly with respect to the opportunity that greater standardisation of fare structures may provide.

• The effect on the roll out of other initiatives such as the Hamilton inner city fare structure was highlighted.

• It was noted that there was a “black out” period resulting from the rollout, when any network changes would need to be undertaken manually.

• A member highlighted the timing of the new ticketing system being over university and school holidays and sought assurance that students would be provided notice of the rollout ahead of them going on holiday. Staff advised that communication of the rollout would occur six to seven weeks prior to commencement date and that this would ensure students were advised prior to holidays, enabling them to be equipped for use of the new system when they returned from holiday.

With respect to the "Regional Public Transport Plan" update, the following points were noted:

• Staff advised on the status of the rapid and frequent bus corridor project work, noting that Cambridge to Hamilton was the highest priority area. This area was partly reliant on the Waipa Service Review which fell within NZTA's portfolio of work. Members highlighted that an update was needed with regards to where NZTA were at with its component of the work, especially given the NZTA bypass work was nearly complete and oversight by all parties was needed to ensure good connections can be made in a timely fashion.

• Members highlighted the need for consistent and appropriate representation of NZTA on the committee. Staff undertook to write to NZTA advising them of the need and requesting they provide representation at all committee meetings.


Doc # 14919196 Page 4

• A member highlighted requests received from the community for the Tokoroa/Matamata to Hamilton bus services and asked whether these services could be implemented in March 2020 to accommodate the university year commencing. Staff undertook to investigate this, with a target date of March 2020, noting the implications that the delay of the new ticketing system had on implementing regional network services earlier than this date.

With respect to the "Driver Remuneration" update, the following points were noted:

• Members were updated on the rollout of the living wage package for bus drivers under a joint funding agreement made by Waikato Regional Council and Hamilton City Council. An MOU had been developed in response to recent employment law changes which included an intent to work towards a living wage as a minimum for all bus drivers. This MOU had been signed by councils, bus operators, the Minister of Transport and the Council of Trade Unions. In light of the MOU, staff have also worked to simplify the terms of the original funding agreement that is targeted at moving towards the living wage.

• Staff advised that they had not yet been successful in securing the dedicated funding from NZTA for the living wage package. It was highlighted that NZTA’s signing of the MOU provided some weight towards securing funding for this purpose.

• Staff highlighted that ongoing negotiations were occurring between First Union and GoBus with respect to the uplift of funding that is currently available. A report to the Waikato Regional Council later this month would provide the delegated authority to release the local funding share which would be backdated to 1 January 2019.

With respect to the "Patronage Update", the following points were noted:

• Staff highlighted that Huntly patronage had continued to trend upwards since the last committee meeting. This gave confidence that the changes made to the service in April had had a positive impact. Staff noted that a portion of the route was still confusing for customers and that work to resolve this would be undertaken.

• Members highlighted that the strong patronage increase for Hamilton over the past year had largely occurred during the 2019 period. The lower trend during 2018 was attributed to the industrial action in November 2018.

• The strong patronage increase for Morrinsville/Paeroa was also noted, with recognition of the rebranded bus to heighten awareness of this service which occurred in April.

• The new contract to service Huntly, Paeroa and Raglan commenced in April last year which resulted in a boost of patronage for these services. Increased patronage for these services will be a challenge going forward unless work is undertaken to develop a pipeline of significant improvements to boost capacity.

• Staff highlighted that the contract for the Waipa services had been repeatedly extended and that if patronage were to increase then there would be capacity issues

• The long term trend of bus patronage compared to the 2012 peak appeared either flat or in decline. Staff assured members that data could be relied upon for future trend prediction.

• Staff highlighted the positive growth in patronage for the Thames service.

With respect to the "Accessibility Concession" update, the following points were noted:

• Members were advised that the concession was launched on 1 August. So far 420 applications had been received and 250 ID cards had been issued.

• The concession had been well supported by GPs and the disability community.


Doc # 14919196 Page 5

• The cost incurred was $150,000 with funding from NZTA offsetting this cost in line with the FAR rating. Ongoing costs had been provided for within Waikato Regional Council’s Long Term Plan.

• In response to a member’s query regarding whether caregivers would also be covered under the concession, staff advised that this would be reviewed as part of the next Regional Public Transport Plan review. Staff noted that provision for caregivers was perceived as difficult to manage, particularly given current ambiguity around what constitutes a caregiver. Members requested that staff liaise with the disability community to determine an appropriate definition for caregiver and also potential options for them to be included under the concession initiative. This work could then be used to inform the next Regional Public Transport Plan review.

With respect to the "Electric Bus Strategy Development" update, the following points were noted:

• Work had commenced to trial the use of electric vehicles within the contracted vehicle fleet. Options for consideration were Hybrid Electric Bus, Fuel Cell Electric Bus and Battery Electric Bus. A review of the infrastructure to support these options was being undertaken.

• An assessment of the performance indicators of electric buses compared to diesel was presented to the committee.

• In response to a member’s query regarding whether a future tax on electric bus use had been factored into long term costings, staff advised this had.

With respect to the "Youth Concession" update, the following points were noted:

• In response to the resolution made at the May 2019 committee meeting, a one year trial of free travel for youth on weekends and public holidays had commenced on 1 July. The purpose of this initiative was to shift youth towards public transport as a mode of choice. The data from the one year trial would be used to determine viability of a youth concession going forward, and if successful would inform the development of a business case seeking NZTA funding.

• A member queried the possibility of rolling out a free school holiday trial in September 2019. Staff advised that they were currently assessing the cost of doing this. It was noted that agreement from both councils would be difficult given the timing constraints. Staff undertook to provide Hamilton City Council with the necessary figures based on the July results so that consideration could be given to funding ahead of the September holiday. Staff undertook to provide this within a week.

• Staff advised that there had been a 106% increase in youth patronage during the weekends since the youth concession had commenced. These results had been benchmarked against figures from July 2018.

• In response to a member’s request to extend the youth concession to a 24/7 or peak evening timeframe, staff undertook to consider this option as part of the Regional Public Transport review work.

With respect to the "Employment Relations Act Changes" update, the following points were noted:

• Staff had undertaken a review of potential changes to the network to accommodate driver breaks that were required under the amendment to the Act and which must


Doc # 14919196 Page 6

be implemented by May 2020. The options excluded changes to peak services and the 15 minute frequency along core routes.

• Driver stopovers were to be near available rest facilities. • Members were presented with potential changes to the western services and endorsed

public consultation for 12 Fitzroy, Temple View and Bremworth.

With respect to the "City Public Transport Infrastructure" update, the following points were noted:

• Jason Harrison (City Transportation Unit Manager, Hamilton City Council) presented this item.

• Staff provided a summary of the matters outlined within the agenda package. • Staff emphasized that the focus of proposed changes to the Comet route was to

rationalize stops and transition points to ensure a premier corridor for servicing the city.

With respect to the "District Services" update, the following points were noted:

• A Wilson (Public Transport Manager, Waikato Regional Council) presented this item. • Staff provided a summary of the matters outlined within the agenda package. • Feedback was sought from members regarding options for enabling increased capacity

for the Raglan service. Staff aimed to consult directly with Waikato District Council on this matter.

• Staff advised that Matamata-Piako District Council had resolved that the new Matamata route would not be used to service Cambridge. Staff advised that other options could assist with servicing Cambridge.

HPTJC19/14 Moved by: Cr D Macpherson Seconded by: Cr J Hennebry


That the report Hamilton Public Transport Update (Hamilton Public Transport Joint Committee 5 August 2019) be received.


Hauraki Gulf Forum

OPEN MINUTES

Minutes of a meeting of the Hauraki Gulf Forum held in the Reception Lounge, Auckland Town Hall, 301-305 Queen Street, Auckland on Monday, 19 August 2019 at 1:05pm.

PRESENT Chairperson Mr John Meeuwsen Waiheke Local Board (Auckland Council) Deputy Chairperson Ms Moana Tamaariki-Pohe Tangata Whenua Members Mr Andrew Baucke Department of Conservation Ms Izzy Fordham (Alt) Great Barrier Local Board (Auckland Council) Mayor Sandra Goudie Thames-Coromandel District Council – until

3.15pm Item 13 Mr Steve Halley Ministry for Primary Industries Cr Richard Hills Auckland Council Cr Mike Lee Auckland Council – until 2.10pm Item 10 Ms Nicola MacDonald Tangata Whenua – from 2.28pm Item 11 Mr Paul Majurey Tangata Whenua – until 3.13pm Item 13 Mr Martin Mariassouce Te Puni Kōkiri Cr Rob McGuire Waikato District Council Cr Dal Minogue Waikato Regional Council Ms Liane Ngamane Tangata Whenua – until 3.15pm Item 13 Mr Dean Ogilvie Tangata Whenua

ABSENT Mr Jeff Cleave Great Barrier Local Board (Auckland

Council)

Cr Paul Cronin Matamata-Piako District Council Cr Christine Fletcher Auckland Council Mr Terrence Hohneck Tangata Whenua Mayor John Tregidga Hauraki District Council Cr Wayne Walker Auckland Council Cr John Watson Auckland Council

ALSO PRESENT Cr Jennie Hayman (Alt) Waikato Regional Council

Hauraki Gulf Forum

19 August 2019

Minutes Page 3

Mr Martin Mariassouce opened the meeting with a karakia. 1 Apologies

Resolution number HGF/2019/28

MOVED by Chairperson J Meeuwsen, seconded by Deputy Chairperson M Tamaariki-Pohe:

That the Hauraki Gulf Forum:

a) accept the apologies from Mr J Cleave, Cr P Cronin, Mr T Hohneck, Mayor J Tregidga, Cr W Walker and Cr J Watson for absence.

CARRIED Note: Speaking rights were granted to Cr Jennie Hayman (Alt), Waikato Regional Council. 2 Declaration of Interest

There were no declarations of interest. 3 Confirmation of Minutes


MOVED by Chairperson J Meeuwsen, seconded by Cr M Lee:


a) confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Monday, 20 May 2019, as a true and correct record.

CARRIED 4 Public Forum

There was no public forum. 5 Extraordinary Business

There was no extraordinary business. 6 Southern Cross NEXT Cable

Mike McGrath and Justin Rae from Spark New Zealand provided a presentation regarding the Southern Cross NEXT Cable. A copy of the presentation has been placed on the official minutes and is available on the Auckland Council website as a minutes attachment.


MOVED by Chairperson J Meeuwsen, seconded by Cr M Lee:


a) note the presentation by Spark New Zealand and thank the presenters for their attendance.

CARRIED Attachments

A 19 August 2019 - Hauraki Gulf Forum - Item 6 - Southern Cross NEXT Cable - presentation

Hauraki Gulf Forum

19 August 2019

Minutes Page 4

7 Chairperson's Report

The Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson spoke to the report and answered questions from members.


MOVED by Cr M Lee, seconded by Mayor S Goudie:


a) note the report.

b) thank John Meeuwsen for his service and leadership as Chairperson of the Hauraki Gulf Forum and wish him well for the future.

CARRIED 8 Transition Plan

Note changes to the original recommendations were made with the agreement of the meeting.


MOVED by Mayor S Goudie, seconded by Cr D Minogue:


a) agree to extend Ms Moana Tamaariki-Pohe’s tenure as Deputy Chairperson for the period between 12 October 2019 and the first Forum meeting of 2020.

b) agree to hold elections for the positions of Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson during the first Forum meeting of 2020.

c) agree that the term for the next Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson be until the next Local Body elections, i.e. late-2022, or the conclusion of their individual term, whichever is earlier.

CARRIED 9 2020 Meeting Dates, Venues and Forward Work Programme




a) agree the 2020 meeting schedule outlined in this report.

b) note the potential forward work programme.

CARRIED

Hauraki Gulf Forum

19 August 2019

Minutes Page 5

10 Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari

Member Andrew Baucke, Department of Conservation provided an oral presentation regarding the recently established Ministerial Advisory Committee which will provide expert advice to central government on its Government Response Strategy to Sea Change.

Cr Penny Hulse, Cr Alf Filipaina and Dave Allen from Auckland Council provided a presentation on Auckland Council’s Sea Change Political Reference Group and tabled a handout showing Auckland Council’s implementation through existing and new work programmes up to August 2019. Copies of the presentation and the handout have been placed on the official minutes and are available on the Auckland Council website as minutes attachments.

Ben Bunting from Waikato Regional Council provided a Sea Change implementation presentation. A copy of the presentation has been placed on the official minutes and is available on the Auckland Council website as a minutes attachment.


MOVED by Chairperson J Meeuwsen, seconded by Ms I Fordham:


a) note the presentations received and thank the presenters for their attendance.

CARRIED Note: Pursuant to Standing Order 3.14.5, Ms L Ngamane requested her abstention from

voting be recorded. Attachments

A 19 August 2019 - Hauraki Gulf Forum - Item 10 - Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari - presentation from Auckland Council

B 19 August 2019 - Hauraki Gulf Forum - Item 10 - Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari - handout from Auckland Council

C 19 August 2019 - Hauraki Gulf Forum - Item 10 - Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari - presentation from Waikato Regional Council

Cr Mike Lee retired from the meeting at 2.10pm. 11 Big Goals Follow-Up


MOVED by Chairperson J Meeuwsen, seconded by Cr D Minogue:


a) request that the Ministers of Conservation and Fisheries provide regular updates on progress towards the Government’s Response Strategy to Sea Change, including through presentations at Forum meetings by the Ministerial Advisory Committee Co-Chairs.

b) request that the Shellfish Restoration Coordination Group provide regular updates on progress, including through presentations at Forum meetings.

CARRIED

Note: Pursuant to Standing Order 3.14.5, Ms L Ngamane requested her abstention from voting be recorded.

Ms Nicola MacDonald entered the meeting at 2.28pm.

Hauraki Gulf Forum

19 August 2019

Minutes Page 6

12 Communications Strategy Follow-Up


MOVED by Chairperson J Meeuwsen, seconded by Cr R Hills:


a) agree to the suggested responses to the recommendations contained within the recently completed Communications Strategy.

b) request that the Executive Officer and Communications Advisor proceed to implement the recommendations in accordance with the suggested responses.

CARRIED

Note: Pursuant to Standing Order 3.14.5, Ms L Ngamane requested her abstention from voting be recorded.

13 Constituent Party Reports

Ms Moana Tamaariki-Pohe spoke to her written report – Attachment A.

Member Andrew Baucke, Department of Conservation provided an oral report to the meeting.

Alicia Bullock, Strategic Partnerships Specialist and Liz Brooks, Senior Regional Biosecurity Advisor – Hauraki Gulf, from Auckland Council provided a presentation on America’s Cup legacy. A copy of the presentation has been placed on the official minutes and is available on the Auckland Council website as a minutes attachment.

Angela Fulljames, Chairperson of the Franklin Local Board provided a presentation regarding a proposed Hunua Trail. A copy of the presentation has been placed on the official minutes and is available on the Auckland Council website as a minutes attachment.

Kim Parker, Biosecurity Officer, Waikato Regional Council spoke to the written report on the National Kauri Dieback Programme – Attachment E.


MOVED by Chairperson J Meeuwsen, seconded by Ms I Fordham:


a) thank Moana Tamaariki-Pohe, Waikato Regional Council, Auckland Council and the Department of Conservation for their reports.

b) note the presentations and thank the presenters for their attendance.

CARRIED Resolution number HGF/2019/38

MOVED by Chairperson J Meeuwsen, seconded by Cr D Minogue:


c) alongside Waikato Regional Council request additional central government support for a comprehensive approach to managing kauri dieback, increasing its funding, capability and capacity to systematically arrest this disease.

CARRIED Attachments

A 19 August 2019 - Hauraki Gulf Forum - Item 13 - Constituent Party Reports - America's Cup presentation

B 19 August 2019 - Hauraki Gulf Forum - Item 13 - Constituent Party Reports - Hunua Trail presentation

Hauraki Gulf Forum

19 August 2019

Minutes Page 7

Mr Paul Majurey retired from the meeting at 3.13pm. Mayor Sandra Goudie retired from the meeting at 3.15pm. Ms Liane Ngamane retired from the meeting at 3.15pm. 14 Executive Officer's Report




a) note the report.

CARRIED 15 Consideration of Extraordinary Items

There was no consideration of extraordinary items. Mr Martin Mariassouce closed the meeting with a whakawatea.

3.42pm The Chairperson thanked Members for their attendance and attention to business and declared the meeting closed.

CONFIRMED AS TRUE AND CORRECT BY THE CHAIRPERSON AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE UNDER STANDING ORDER 3.18.2 ON DATE:................................................................... CHAIRPERSON:.................................................. LEAD OFFICER:…………………………………..

Decisions of the Audit and Risk Committee – OPEN

Meeting date: 20 August 2019



Item 6 Risk Management Activity - Update

That the report Risk Management Activity – Update (Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019) be received

Item 7 Coastal and riverine landfills and contaminated land risk

That the report ‘Coastal and riverine landfills and contaminated land risks’ (Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019) be received.

Item 8 Insurance programme update

That the report Insurance programme update (Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019) be received.

Item 9 Policy Review Schedule Update

That the report Policy Review Schedule Update (Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019) be received.

Item 10 Business Continuity Activity - Update

That the report Business Continuity Activity - Update (Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019) be received.

Item 11 Annual Leave, Wellbeing and Health & Safety Indicators

That the report Annual Leave, Wellbeing and Health & Safety Indicators (Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019) be received.

Item 12 External audit update

That the report External Audit Update (Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019) be received.

Item 13 Annual tax update

That the report Annual Tax Update 2019 (Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019) be received.

Item 14 Key accounting estimates and assumptions for the year ended 30 June 2019

1. That the report Key Account Estimates and Assumptions for the year end 30 June 2019 (Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019) be received; and 2. That the Audit and Risk Committee confirm and endorse the appropriateness of the key accounting estimates and assumptions for incorporation into the 2018/19 Annual Report.

Section B – Recommended to Council

Agenda Item and recommendations

Item 6 Risk Management Activity - Update

That the Risk Management Framework be approved.

Item 9 Policy Review Schedule Update

That the Sensitive Expenditure Policy be endorsed by the Committee and recommended to Council for approval.

Item 13 Annual tax update

That the committee approves the proposed future tax strategy as set out in the report from PricewaterhouseCoopers as the basis for the council’s ongoing tax strategy.


Audit and Risk Committee

OPEN MINUTES

Date:

Location:

Tuesday, 20 August, 2019, 9 am

Council Chamber



Members Present: H Stevens – Chair

Cr J Hennebry - Deputy Chair

G Naylor

Cr H Vercoe

Cr B Simcock

Cr A Livingston - Ex Officio (Chair Waikato Regional Council)

In Attendance: Cr F Lichtwark

Staff Present: J Becker - Chief Financial Officer

V Payne - Chief Executive Officer

K Bennett - Manager Chief Executive's Office

L Van Veen - Democracy Advisor

Open Audit and Risk Committee Meeting Minutes 20 August 2019

Doc # 14971541 Page 1


2. Apologies

There were no apologies received.


The agenda of the meeting was accepted.

AR19/37

Moved by: G Naylor



That the agenda of the Audit and Risk Committee of 20 August 2019 as circulated be

confirmed as the business for the meeting.




5. Matters arising from previous meeting minutes

Report to receive the minutes of the open session of the previous meeting and review the

actions and matters arising.

Chief Financial Officer (J Becker) presented to the report.

During questions, answers and related discussion the following points were noted:

With respect to point eight of the actions and matters arising, it was noted that staff had recommended to Council that surplus funds from the 2018/19 financial year be held to fund potential costs associated with upcoming national policy direction from central government. It was also noted that proposed policy on freshwater and also on high productivity land presented potentially conflicting provisions and therefore consideration of these matters in tandem was vital to ensure effective and efficient ways of addressing these, particularly given a majority of the region's soils were perceived as "high quality".

With respect to point 1 of the actions and matters arising, a member sought clarification for the delay in the completion of the Officer of the Auditor General’s (OAG) report on Freshwater. The Chief Executive (V Payne) advised that the delay was a result of staff turnover at OAG and that recent conversations held with OAG had signalled that a draft report was expected to be provided to Council shortly. David Walker (Audit NZ) undertook to follow this up with the OAG and provide an update to members.

With respect to point 12 of the actions and matters arising, a member queried if Council had adequate insurance cover in relation to its modified vehicles. Staff undertook to investigate this and report back to the committee.

A member referred to a point made in the previous meeting minutes of the pre-election report being "politically neutral". Staff assured members that advice was sought with regards to ensuring best practice was followed in the development and release of this report.


Doc # 14971541 Page 2

Matters noted for correctness in the minutes were:

David Walker (Audit NZ) requested that the words "for some areas" be included at the end of the sentence on page 2 to clarify materiality levels set for sensitive expenditure. This was to clarify that materiality was determined based on the specifics of the expenditure on a case by case basis, and that a zero tolerance applied specifically to expenditure incurred by the Chief Executive.

AR19/38

Moved by: Cr H Vercoe



That the report Matters arising from previous meetings minutes (May 2019) (Audit and

Risk Committee 20 August 2019) be received.


That the minutes of the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 13 May 2019 with the

noted corrections to page 2, be confirmed as a true and correct record.


6. Risk Management Activity - Update

Report to update the Audit and Risk Committee on Waikato Regional Council’s risk

management activities.

Manager Chief Executive's Office (K Bennett) presented to the report.


Staff confirmed that KPMG had reviewed the revised Risk Management Framework.

It was noted that post-control risk consequences were understated as they did not reflect the consequences of risks developing over time. Staff undertook to revise the Framework to suit.

Discussion was had regarding the level of risk within the iwi relationships space (Corporate Risk 03). Comments raised during the previous committee meeting were reemphasized, in that controls were in place to manage those aspects that Council had control over, however risks associated with external factors were outside its control. It was highlighted that as Council operated within a political environment, the high risk assigned to this was expected and unavoidable. This was further complicated by the level of service Council were expected to provide, based on its mandate from central government, versus expectations from iwi.

The relativity of risk from fraud was noted as an aspect to consider across a number of corporate risks. It was highlighted that fraud risks were substantially qualitative, for example, reputation, organisation culture, staff morale.

Members highlighted the difference between acute events caused by extreme weather conditions versus the effects of climate change over time. It was noted that the specific effects of extreme weather conditions should be clearly addressed within the framework and that climate change was best managed by way of long term policy and adaptation mechanisms. The need for increased collaboration between Council and the community


Doc # 14971541 Page 3

was emphasised as a priority where trending of climate change effects was evident. It was noted that this approach to climate change could benefit future design and implementation of flood control assets, specifically for those which were due for replacement.

The Chief Executive (V Payne) highlighted the recently developed hazards portal as a good example of where Council had worked collaboratively with the community to address climate change effects. This type of approach placed the onus on members of the public to take responsibility for their own decisions as to whether or not to carry out their activity within a specific location, taking into account past accounts of identified hazards.

Staff advised that they would be looking to work with the National Climate Change Risk Assessment to better plan for ways of raising public awareness and inform adaptation actions, ensuring joint responsibility was held between Council, central Government and the community in the management of climatic effects.

Members emphasized the need to be aware of key high level initiatives already in place to address climate change before establishing new forums. An example was the Waikato Plan which currently held a key mandate in addressing climate change effects for the region.

A member highlighted that health and safety legislation required that all practicable means needed to be undertaken by Council in order to provide a safe and healthy work environment and that this needed to be reflected in the Framework.

A member noted that assessment of appropriate levels of insurance held by Council needed to be incorporated into the Framework.

It was noted that risk created through innovation or improvements to business should be encouraged. Not all risk was considered negative.

Staff assured members that communications from top down and bottom up and regular audit of processes and systems ensured Council held a robust way of addressing its risk.

AR19/39




1. That the report Risk Management Activity – Update (Audit and Risk Committee 20

August 2019) be received; and


AR19/40




That the Risk Management Framework be approved.


7. Coastal and riverine landfills and contaminated land risk


Doc # 14971541 Page 4

Report to inform the committee of the Fox Landfill situation and risks posed by landfills and

other types of contaminated land vulnerable to climate change. This report gives an overview

of traditional and modern risk assessment in the contaminated land sector, and the critical

differences between risk perception and effective risk assessment. It informs the committee

of regional council functions with respect to contaminated land and what projects staff are

working on in this area.

The report was taken as read.


Staff assured members that Council held a comprehensive register of coastal/riverine landfill sites and also contaminated sites located within the region.

A member emphasized that it was important to recognize that adverse extreme weather events which cause landfill failure such as the Fox Landfill situation are not always the result of climate change - any extreme weather event could cause these effects. Given this it was noted as critical for Council to plan for these types of "acute" failures occurring in future by a schedule of at risk sites, with ownership of these sites identified.

David Walker (Audit NZ) advised that the Council keep in mind litigation which might arise from such events and that key decisions were made with this in mind. Consenting was an area of Council where this should particularly be considered.

A meeting was scheduled for September between contaminated site experts across New Zealand to discuss next steps. Staff undertook to provide a report at the next committee meeting to provide an update on the next steps.

AR19/41

Moved by: G Naylor



That the report ‘Coastal and riverine landfills and contaminated land risks’ (Audit and Risk



8. Insurance programme update

Report to provide the committee with an update on the Council’s insurance programme,

including professional indemnity / public liability insurance renewal, market indications that

will affect the November 2019 renewal for and claims notified since the last committee

meeting.



There had been a significant increase to professional indemnity/public liability insurance premiums for this financial year.

Staff had anticipated increases to premiums next year and had made provision within the 2019/20 annual plan budget for this.


Doc # 14971541 Page 5

AR19/42

Moved by: Cr H Vercoe

Seconded by: G Naylor


That the report Insurance programme update (Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019)

be received.


9. Policy Review Schedule Update

Report to provide an update on the Waikato Regional Council policies that are due for

review/renewal this quarter and to get the Committee’s endorsement of the updated

Sensitive Expenditure Policy.



Staff highlighted that the policy did not contain significant changes to the current policy relating to sensitive expenditure, however it did provide clearer direction to staff on Council's position on the purchase of alcohol. The main purpose of the updated policy was to provide staff with a more streamlined and clearer tool for determining Council policy around sensitive expenditure.

AR19/43


Seconded by: Cr H Vercoe


That the report Policy Review Schedule Update (Audit and Risk Committee 20 August

2019) be received.


AR19/44



RECOMMENDED (Section B):

That the Sensitive Expenditure Policy be endorsed by the Committee and recommended to

Council for approval.



Doc # 14971541 Page 6

10. Business Continuity Activity - Update

To update the Audit and Risk Committee on Waikato Regional Council’s business continuity

activities.



Staff noted that two exercises had been undertaken since the inaugural table-top exercise in February. The two exercises had been undertaken to address recommendations from the inaugural exercise; the first addressed IT functionality and the second addressed loss of facilities. A third exercise was scheduled to occur within the next few months and would cover "loss of people". It was noted that staff involved in the exercises were displaying greater confidence with their role requirements and expectations.

Staff advised members that a regional council forum was being established to enable knowledge sharing and assist with facilitation of exercises being arranged across regional councils.

AR19/45

Moved by: Cr Hennebry



That the report Business Continuity Activity - Update (Audit and Risk Committee 20 August

2019) be received.


11. Annual Leave, Wellbeing and Health & Safety Indicators

Report to update the Audit and Risk Committee on management of annual leave balances,

staff wellbeing and key health and safety indictors.



Members raised concern regarding the progress of reducing staff leave balances. Staff undertook to review this in more detail and develop a revised approach to manage this.

The committee requested that future reports on leave balances identified the staff with the 10 highest balances, together with commentary on the actions that are being taken to address this.

A member highlighted that fatigue is a key risk factor for council staff, especially for those who use vehicles on a regular basis. Members endorsed the inclusion of this as a key wellbeing measure to manage under the newly developed Health and Wellbeing Plan.

AR19/46

Moved by: H Stevens



Doc # 14971541 Page 7


That the report Annual Leave, Wellbeing and Health & Safety Indicators (Audit and Risk

Committee 20 August 2019) be received


The meeting adjourned for morning tea at 10.30am and reconvened at 10.46am.

12. External audit update

To provide the committee with an update on matters arising following the completion of the

2018/19 Annual Report interim audit.



D Walker (Audit NZ) advised that from Audit NZ's perspective Council's controls to manage financials were an appropriate foundation for an organization of its size. It was noted however that controls did not guarantee prevention of inaccuracies.

Staff advised that leave variances reflected differences between Council’s time sheeting and payroll systems. Organisations that did not have similar time recording systems in place were not likely to be able to identify these temporary differences.

AR19/47

Moved by: Cr Livingston



That the report External Audit Update (Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019) be

received.


13. Annual tax update

Report to present the Annual Tax Update report prepared by PwC for the year to 30 June

2019.

Refer following link for the Waikato Regional Council Annual Tax Update - Year to 30 June

2019:

https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/assets/WRC-annual-tax-update-from-PWC.pdf




Doc # 14971541 Page 8

A member advised that the four year frequency for Council GST reviews was too long,

irrespective of the high performing results that these reviews had consistently provided

over previous years. Staff undertook to revise the frequency of the tax reviews to every

three years. It was noted that interim reviews could be used as a "check in" exercise

between the scheduled in-depth reviews. It was also noted that more frequent reviews

would provide greater evidence of compliance for Council.

AR19/48

Moved by: G Naylor



That the report Annual Tax Update 2019 (Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019) be

received.


That the committee approves the proposed future tax strategy as set out in the report

from PricewaterhouseCoopers as the basis for the council’s ongoing tax strategy.


14. Key accounting estimates and assumptions for the year ended 30 June 2019

Report to present the remaining key accounting estimates and assumptions to be

incorporated into the 2018/19 Annual Report for the consideration and approval of the

committee.



Members discussed the status of Council as an investor in Regional Software Holdings Ltd (RSHL). Staff undertook to arrange an independent technical opinion to determine whether RSHL was to be treated as an associate given the level of investment held by Council compared to the degree of influence that this enables the Council to have over decision making. It was noted that the RSHL board determined the value of the assets owned and that the value hadn't changed since the entity was established. This value is what determines the value ascribed to the investment held by the Council.

In response to a member’s query regarding the two forestry blocks owned by Council and what the primary purpose of these were, staff advised that these were gazetted for soil conservation purposes. It was noted that forestry was a secondary function of the blocks and that this was reflected in the valuation of these assets.

D Walker (Audit NZ) advised that Audit NZ were not comfortable with the opinion statements made on their behalf within the agenda reports for the committee, noting that these were based on an early assessment of the issues only and needed to be confirmed through the final audit process. Staff undertook to work closely with Audit NZ to ensure appropriate opinion statements were included in reports for committee meetings going forward.


Doc # 14971541 Page 9

It was confirmed that the agreement for funding of the Hamilton to Auckland commuter rail project ensured that Council’s responsibility for funding was determined through the approval of an enhanced funding assistance rate (TEFAR) from NZTA. AR19/49 Moved by: H Stevens Seconded by: G Naylor


1. That the report Key Account Estimates and Assumptions for the year end 30 June 2019

(Audit and Risk Committee 20 August 2019) be received; and

2. That the Audit and Risk Committee confirm and endorse the appropriateness of the key

accounting estimates and assumptions for incorporation into the 2018/19 Annual

Report.


15. Public Excluded Section

ARC19/50




That the public be excluded from the following parts of the meeting set out below on the




(the Act).



Internal Audit Activity - Update


Fraud Risk Management Framework Activity – Update



Potential Liability Claims

Would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information (section 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Act)


Doc # 14971541 Page 10


Maintain legal professional privilege (section 7(2)(g) of the Act) Key Projects Update



Public Excluded Minutes of the 13 May 2019 Audit and Risk Committee

To protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information (7(2)(b)(ii)).

To enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) (7(2)(i)).

To maintain legal professional privilege, Section 7(2)(g)

To enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities, Section 7(2)(h).

To prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage 7(2)(j).

THAT David Walker (Director, Audit NZ), Naude Kotze (Manager, Audit NZ), David Sutton (Partner, KPMG) and Cushla Parish (Director – Technology Risk, KPMG) be permitted to remain at this meeting, after the public has been excluded, because of their knowledge of the agenda items. This knowledge, which will be of assistance in relation to the matter to be discussed, is relevant to that matter because of their position as auditors for Council.


Meeting returned to open at 12.34pm

Meeting closed at 12.34pm

Doc # 15085304

Report to the Waikato Regional Council

From Hamish Stevens, Chair, Audit and Risk Committee

6 September 2019

Dear Councillors

This report sets out the material items arising from the Audit and Risk Committee meeting held on 20 August 2019. This report should be read in conjunction with the minutes of that meeting.

1. Risk Management The Committee received the risk activity report from management, including an update on specific key risks. Key points were:

• The Committee approved an updated risk management framework which sets out the obligations and responsibilities around risk oversight and management at its last meeting. This has been further revised to incorporate specific risk consequence levels and to include feedback from KPMG’s review of the framework.

• The Committee will review a selection of the strategic risks at each meeting to ensure full coverage over a 12 month period. At this meeting the Committee reviewed the controls relating to Emergency response failure, Health and safety, Fraud, and Climate change.

• In respect to the risk relating to climate change, the Committee noted that controls are likely to be best seen in terms of long term policy and adaption mechanisms rather than short term responses to extreme weather events. The Committee emphasised the need for Council to be aware of the various high level initiatives already underway in response to climate change response and to avoid duplication of resources.

• The Committee received a report on coastal and riverine landfills and contaminated land risks. This report is a response to the recent Fox river landfill situation on the South Island West Coast following heavy rainfall. The Committee endorsed the work being undertaken to identify and evaluate the risk associated with landfill sites in the Waikato region and requested a follow-up report to be presented at its next meeting.

• The Committee received an update on Business Continuity activity following the table-top exercise carried out in February 2019 by Resilient IT. The Committee was comfortable with the progress on various recommendations. A further exercise is due to be carried out within the next few months that would include specifically a ‘loss of people availability’ scenario.

• During a public excluded section of the meeting the Committee received project status reports in respect of current key Council projects: Connect 2020, Reboot, Health Rivers Wai Ora, and the Hamilton to Auckland commuter rail initiative. The Committee’s comments are included within the public excluded section minutes.

Doc # 15085304 Page 2

2. Policy update The Committee received the draft Sensitive Expenditure policy. This is a key policy for Council particularly given recent reputational issues around sensitive expenditure in other publicly accountable organisations. The new policy combines procedures and controls from individual polices into one overriding policy on sensitive expenditure. The draft policy was endorsed by the Committee and recommended to Council for approval.

3. External Audit Audit New Zealand has recently completed its interim audit of the Council for the year ended 30 June 2019. Audit New Zealand’s report was received by the Committee which showed that:

• The review of the control environment indicated controls are design effective and have been operating effectively throughout the year.

• Issues raised in previous audits are being appropriately progressed.

The Chair of the Committee had spoken with the Audit New Zealand auditor David Walker privately prior to the meeting and no material audit issues had been raised.

4. Annual financial reporting

The Committee received a key accounting and estimates paper from management. This is an important report and allows the Committee input to the significant judgements and estimates being used to prepare the annual financial report. The Committee endorsed the appropriateness of the key estimates and judgements subject to further discussion with Audit New Zealand and the receipt of technical advice in respect of the accounting for Council’s investment in Regional Software Holdings Ltd.

5. Internal Audit Council’s internal auditor KPMG presented their findings of the cyber security systems penetration testing undertaken recently. While there were a number of findings, KPMG advised that these were in line with similar organisations, and none of the findings were rated as high. Council IT management will work through each of the recommendations. KPMG has also undertaken a data analytics (or suspicious transactions) review and the findings will be reported to the next Committee meeting. The Committee received a summary of the findings of a recent review of tax matters by PwC. This showed that Council continues to have a proactive approach to tax risk management and that all tax returns have been filed on time without any concerns being raised. PwC has also prepared a further 3 year programme for tax risk reviews which was endorsed by the Committee subject to the inclusion of an earlier review of GST processes and management.

Doc # 15085304 Page 3

6. Insurance The Committee received an update on the insurance renewal process. Council’s professional indemnity and public liability insurances were renewed on 1 July 2019 (at a 64% increase in premiums) and other insurances (including natural disaster and material damage) are due to be renewed in November 2019. While there is upward pressure on insurance premiums, the Waikato region’s risk profile in terms of storm events and earthquakes is considered lower than many other regions in New Zealand, and this may help to mitigate any significant premium increase. Council staff were comfortable that the 2019/20 annual plan has allowed for potential insurance premium increases.

7. Overall work plan I am overall satisfied that the Committee is currently on track with its work plan.

8. Final meeting As this was the final meeting of the Audit and Risk Committee for this triennium, I would like to formally record my appreciation and thanks to Councillors Hennebry, Livingston, Vercoe, and Simcock for their valuable participation and contribution over the past three years, as well as the strong support provided by fellow independent member Graham Naylor. Hamish Stevens Chair, Audit & Risk Committee Waikato Regional Council

Doc # 14948590


Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee

MEETING NOTES

Meeting lapsed for want of a Quorum

Date: Location:

Tuesday, 20 August, 2019, 2:00 pm Council Chamber Waikato Regional Council 401 Grey Street, Hamilton East

Members Present: Cr S Kneebone - Co-Chair (Waikato Regional Council)

Cr K Hodge - Deputy Co-Chair (Waikato Regional Council) Cr T Mahuta (Waikato Regional Council) V Eparaima (Raukawa Charitable Trust) D Loughlin (Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board)

Apologies: Cr B Quayle (Waikato Regional Council) Cr B Simcock (Waikato Regional Council) J Kaati (Maniapoto Maori Trust Board) E Forrest (Te Arawa River Iwi Trust) R Schaafhausen (Waikato Raupatu River Trust)

Staff Present: Cr J Hayman T May (Director Science and Strategy) Chris McLay (Director Resource Use) V Payne (Chief Executive Officer) Billy Brough (River Iwi Technical Advisor) Grant Kettle (Raukawa Charitable Trust Bruce McAuliffe (WRC – Project Business Owner) Angus McKenzie (PPC1 – Policy Project Manager) Maggie Sullivan (PPC1 – Implementation Project Manager) Gannin Ormsby (Maniapoto Māori Trust Board) Eugene Berryman-Kamp (Te Arawa River Iwi Trust) Ngaa Rauuira Puumanawawhiti (Waikato Raupatu River Trust) Manaaki Nepia (Waikato Raupatu River Trust) Bevan Jenkins (WRC - Team Leader, Water Science) Wendy Valois (WRC – Communications Advisor)

Jenni Somerville (Democracy Advisor)

Meeting Notes of the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee 20 August 2019 – meeting lapsed for want of a Quorum

Doc # 14948590 Page 2

1. Apologies Apologies were received from, Evelyn Forrest, Rukumoana Schaafhausen, John Kaati, Cr Bob Simcock and Cr Barry Quayle and Cr Kathy White.

The meeting recognised that there was no quorum and decided to proceed where the recommendations and decisions of discussions will be noted (but not as formal recommendations of the Committee).




Agenda was confirmed.

4. Update on Proposed Plan Change 1 Hearings process and proposed next steps

Report to update the Committee on the progress of Proposed Waikato Regional Plan Change 1: Waikato and Waipā River Catchments (PPC1). Project Manager (Angus McKenzie) and Project Sponsor/Director, Science and Strategy (Tracey May) presented the report. During questions, answers and related discussion the following was noted:

• The Proposed Plan Change 1 (PC1) Hearings are currently in the third and last block of Hearings.

• Block 3 is forecast to be completed on 19 September. After that point submitters will have the opportunity to present closing statements and Council will have the right of reply. Hearings Closings will conclude on 11 October.

• Noted it is important for iwi to be a part of Hearing Closing as they were an important part of the Hearings Opening in setting the scene and putting forward how important this plan change is.

• Following Hearings Closing, the Hearings Panel will then go into Deliberations. It is planned that the Hearings Panel recommendations will be received by the new Council at their February or March meeting.

• Noted there is a possibility that as a result of local body elections in October, there may be new councillors. As a part of the new Council induction process new Councillors will be provided with the background on the Healthy Rivers process and importance of the plan change in giving effect to Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato - the Vision and Strategy. There will also likely be a number of workshops on the Hearings Recommendations report prior to the Council meeting.

• In relation to the structure of the Hearings being arranged into blocks there was a question on whether the Hearings Panel deliberations on certain aspects could be advanced earlier. It was noted that the Blocks are based on topics and that as most topics are closely


Doc # 14948590 Page 3

interconnected all topics need to be heard before the Hearings panel can begin deliberations and make its final recommendations. The timeframes were noted as reasonable based on Council’s previous experience with Hearings processes for similar projects.

• It was noted that the completed Hearings Panel Recommendation report will undergo a legal review prior to the Panel’s recommendation being placed before Council for consideration.

• In regard to the planned release of the Essential Freshwater Programme (including NPS-FM amendments and new National Environmental Standards) from central government (signalled to be in September), there was a question on how the Hearings Commissioners/Councillors will view the Plan Change and in relation to the Essential Freshwater Programme. It was raised if there is a misalignment between the policy instruments in the Programme and the Plan Change, Council may have to reconsider portions of the plan change.

• In response to this question it was noted staff have given this matter a considerable amount of thought and this is something that will be canvassed thoroughly as a part of the legal review (including looking at options to address any misalignment). It was acknowledged the Waikato River Legislation and Te Ture Whaimana (Vision and Strategy) will still apply.

• It was noted that given the time and cost of the current Plan Change it would be useful for the Committee to have a conversation on how, as a partnership, this potential issue is best addressed. The Committee would need to first understand what avenues are available legally and then also look at what can be done from an advocacy/partnership approach. As an example, one of the options may be requesting that the relevant policy instruments include provisions to enable direct changes to the plan outside a Schedule 1 process or to seek exemptions for PC1.

• Suggestions that the exploration of the options involve River Iwi Managers as well Committee members asked as an action that following the legal review of the Hearings Panel recommendations, involve River Iwi Managers in discussions around options for addressing any misalignment between the Plan Change and the Essential Freshwater policy instruments.

• River iwi representatives made an offer to be involved in new councillor inductions on the project to assist with understanding of the importance of the project and Te Ture Whaimana - the ‘why and how’ story.

• In addition, the suggestion was made to ask iwi to assist with co-designing the induction to understand iwi partnership and co-management in a wider context as well Committee members asked as an action that River Iwi partners are involved in the induction process of new councillors on the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora project and on co-governance in general

• Also need to consider both Council and iwi are also submitters in the Schedule 1 process so this means that inductions for Committees need to be carefully planned out to any avoid potential for legal challenge.

• In response to a question on whether the Hearings Panel recommendations report goes through the HRWO committee to Council, it was noted the HRWO Committee appointed the Hearings Panel and they would provide their recommendations directly to Council as Council is the only body delegated to make a decision on the approval of a plan under the RMA.

• It was noted the Hearings Panel is the delegated authority to hear submissions and read through all the information provided and make recommendations based on the submissions and evidence to support submissions. When the Hearings Panel was appointed it was made very clear what the Council’s role would be in making the final decision, upon receipt of the


Doc # 14948590 Page 4

recommendation from the Hearings Panel. Should the Council decide to reject or accept in part the Hearings Panel recommendations it will have significant impacts.

• Noted it will be important to set out the potential consequences for Council of not accepting the Hearings Panel recommendations. Advice to Council will also need to consider the potential impact of the Essential Freshwater policy instruments on the Plan Change.

• Preference noted by Committee for Council to accept the Hearings Panel recommendations and suggestion a letter be forwarded from the Co-Chairs of the committee to the incoming council stressing the process to develop the proposed plan change and importance of the plan change in giving effect to the Waikato River Legislation and the Vision and Strategy. Committee members asked as an action that a letter from the Co-Chairs of Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee to the incoming Council noting the support of the Committee for accepting the Hearings Panel recommendations.

• Suggestion to also have a committee workshop in conjunction with council following a legal review of the panel recommendations (noting this will be in the new year).Committee members asked as an action that a committee workshop is scheduled in conjunction with council in the new year on the panel recommendations (following the legal review).

Recommendation to receive report was noted.

5. Update on Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Implementation project

Report to update the Committee on the progress of the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora (HRWO) Implementation project. Senior Project Manager, Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Implementation (Maggie Sullivan) and Team Leader, Water Science (Bevan Jenkins) presented to the report. During questions, answers and related discussion the following was noted:

• Director Resource Use, Chris McLay introduced the item noting the Implementation Plan previously put before the committee is being progressed.

• The timelines of the Schedule 1 process and the difficulties this involves for the dates in the implementation project, as well as the uncertainty around what the final rules in the Hearings Panel’s recommendation report would be, were noted.

• While the status of Te Ture Whaimana takes precedence, the Essential Freshwater programme adds another layer of complexity and is another uncertainty for the project. It will mean changes for the rest of the region and concern there is not the resourcing to address this in addition to Healthy Rivers Wai Ora.

• By 30 April 2020 the project team will have the portal (based on the current Plan Change) ready. The project’s Regulatory Workstream is also developing processes in anticipation of the plan change.

• Noted it is important to help the rural community prepare for implementation. The project team are also working on a pop-up call centre for decision notification which will answer queries and also help assist with implementation aspects such as farm registrations etc. Regular communications are ongoing with farmers to help them get ready.


Doc # 14948590 Page 5

• In addition, extra funding has been provided for more monitoring of lakes and rivers. Bevan Jenkins (Team Leader Water Science) was introduced to the Committee to talk about changes in lake monitoring and river monitoring networks.

• The Regional lakes monitoring network has increased from 13 to 38 lakes and the frequency has increased from two monthly to monthly. Monitoring started in July 2019 so in five years’ time will be able to report on the “current state” for the new sites.

• The 10 sub-catchments (river water quality) that were unmonitored in the catchment are now being monitored.

• Trends in river water quality in the Waikato Region report by Bill Vant was noted and some examples of the report outputs for the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora monitoring sites were shown in the presentation (to be circulated to the committee).

• Question on what the sub-catchment reporting regime will be noting it might be useful for iwi to service iwi taiao plans. It was agreed there could be efficiency gains and that smaller community sub-catchments group will also likely use the monitoring reports.

• In regard to reporting on whether it is safe to take food from various parts of the rivers or swim without getting sick, over summer there is weekly sampling which is reported publicly.

• The importance of this monitoring to the project was noted. Will need to see results to understand whether the Plan Change is having the desired impact.


6. Future Role of Te Rōpū Hautū

Report to recommend that the Terms of Reference for the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora joint project steering group (Te Rōpū Hautū) be revised following the conclusion of the Proposed Plan Change 1 (PPC1) hearings process. An amended draft Terms of Reference for the group is provided for feedback from the Committee.

Project Manager (Angus McKenzie) and Project Sponsor/Director, Science and Strategy (Tracey May) presented the report which was co-drafted by Angus and Billy Brough, the River Iwi Technical Advisor. During questions, answers and related discussion the following was noted:

• Noted the change to Terms of Reference for the committee was changed following notification to reflect the change in focus to be more around implementation and monitoring of the Plan Change. Now looking to make similar changes to the Terms of reference for Te Rōpū Hautū (TRH).

• In addition to implementation and monitoring TRH also need to be across plan effectiveness and the management of the appeals process.

• Noted these draft changes have been agreed by River Iwi managers and council staff. It is considered practical to wait for the release of the plan change recommendations before confirming a final Terms of Reference to ensure all relevant matters have been captured.

• Te Rōpū Hautū will agree on the final decision and wording and then the Terms of Reference will come back to this Committee.


Doc # 14948590 Page 6

• Noted that the same people on TRH are often called upon for other projects. The question was raised as to whether this steering group could be utilised for other partnership projects going forward. This may assist with iwi resourcing issues as well.

• From a governance level we have the individual Joint Management Committees but there may also be an opportunity to utilise this committee to be across other projects in the same way. Suggestion for this to be looked at in this light in the new triennium. Committee members asked as an action that the scope of both TRH and the committee be considered in light of work being undertaken in regard to other joint council/iwi projects in the new triennium. Noting that the use of TRH would be an efficient solution for all involved.

• In regard to a question on Alternate members, it was noted throughout the process it was considered preferable not to have Alternates given the complexities in developing the plan change however suggestion that this can be looked at as a part of the triennium. Committee members asked as an action that the Healthy Rivers Wai Ora Committee Terms of Reference be amended to allow for Alternate Members


Decisions of Regional Transport Committee Meeting date: 2 September 2019



Item 5 New Zealand Transport Agency – Quarterly report

That the report ‘New Zealand Transport Agency – Quarterly report’ (Regional Transport Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

Item 7 Regional road safety monitor report

That the report ‘Regional road safety monitor report’ (Regional Transport Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

Item 8 Regional Public Transport Projects update

That the report ‘Regional Public Transport Projects update’ (Regional Transport Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

Item 9 Variations to the 2018 Update to the Waikato Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2045

1. That the report ‘Variations to the 2018 Update to the Waikato Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2045’ (Regional Transport Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

2. That the Committee vary the operative 2018 Update to the Waikato Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2045 to include two new activities being:

Maintenance and operation of Stock Truck Effluent Disposal Facilities (WRC)

Hamilton-Waikato Metro Spatial Plan Programme Business Case (HCC)

Item 10 Waikato Stock Truck Effluent Disposal Programme

That the report ‘Waikato Stock Truck Effluent Disposal Programme’ (Regional Transport Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

Item 11 Regional Speed Management update

That the report ‘Regional Speed Management update’ (Regional Transport Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

Item 12 Transport planning and projects report and update

That the report ‘Transport planning and projects report update’ (Regional Transport Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

Item 13 Regional transport issues forum

That the report ‘Regional transport issues forum’ (Regional Transport Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

Item 6 Ministry of Transport update

That the report ‘Ministry of Transport update’ (Regional Transport Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

Minutes of the Regional Transport Committee 2 September 2019

Doc # 15077413 Page 1


Regional Transport Committee

OPEN MINUTES

Date:

Location:

Monday, 2 September, 2019, 9:30 am

Council Chamber



Members Present: Cr H Vercoe - Chair (Waikato Regional Council)

Cr R Rimmington - Deputy Chair (Waikato Regional Council)

Cr D Macpherson (Hamilton City Council)

Cr T Adams (Hauraki District Council)

Mayor Barnes (Matamata-Piako District Council)

Mayor Baxter (Otorohanga District Council)

Cr A Park (Taupo District Council)

Cr S Christie (Thames Coromandel District Council)

Cr D Fulton (Waikato District Council)

Cr G Webber (Waipa District Council)

Mayor B Hanna (Waitomo District Council)

R I'Anson (New Zealand Transport Agency)

Inspector M Lynam (Waikato Police) - Non Voting

Staff Present: M Tamura - Manager Integration and Infrastructure

N King - Team Leader Transport and Infrastructure

J Cox - Team Leader Democracy Services


Doc # 15077413 Page 2

1. Apologies

Apologies were received from Cr Bill Machen and Mayor Shattock (absence), and Mayor

Baxter for early departure.

RTC19/44

Moved by: Cr Webber

Seconded by: Cr Rimmington


That the apologies of Cr Bill Machen and Mayor Shattock (absence), and Mayor Baxter for

early departure, be accepted.



RTC19/45

Moved by: Cr Vercoe



That the agenda of the meeting of the Regional Transport Committee of 2 September 2019,

as circulated, be confirmed as the business for the meeting, noting that Item 6 will be

considered later in the meeting when the presenter from the Ministry of Transport is

available.





Confirmation of minutes for previous meeting held 1 July 2019

The minutes were taken as read and confirmed by the members.

RTC19/46

Moved by: Cr Fulton

Seconded by: Cr Webber


That the minutes of the Regional Transport Committee meeting held 1 July 2019 be

confirmed as a true and correct record.



Doc # 15077413 Page 3

5. New Zealand Transport Agency – Quarterly report

Report to provide the committee with New Zealand Transport Agency's Quarterly report to 2

September 2019.

Ross I’Anson took the report as read, and provided members with a presentation.

Mayor Hanna out of the meeting at 9.40am.

A member noted that the Taupo to Waiouru business cases seemed to be back on the list of

things to be considered by NZTA. It was noted for members that there was a need to complete

the design phase and detailed business case. There had not been funding for the projects

within the National Land Transport Plan (NLTP).

A member noted concern over the Coulter bridge with regard to safety. Mr I’Anson advised

he would follow up on the work being done, or planned to be done and advise the member

of time frames.

Mayor Barnes out of the meeting at 9.45am.

Mayor Hanna in the meeting at 9.45am.

A member noted a meeting that had occurred in Wellington with the intention to meet with

the Chair and the CE of the NZTA board. At that time he had been told that he was unable to

meet with any of the board members as they were yet to be appointed. By way of explanation

it was noted that the CE was an interim CE and the recruitment process was underway, but it

could be some time before the CE is appointed. The board remain in place until the new board

is appointed which will happen later this year.

Mayor Barnes in the meeting at 9.47am.

The NZTA do need to complete the process they were in with regard to business cases, even

if there was no money for design structure in the NLTP. It was acknowledged that the NLTP

was 80% committed in every activity class and over-committed in safety improvements.

A member noted that any of the councils could have a number of business cases ready to go,

however if there wasn’t any action from those plans it makes it harder to argue that

improvements were needed when making Long Term Plans. It was acknowledged that while

this may be the case it was still important each council completed the business cases and from

a regional perspective the committee and NZTA could work together to see what could be

achieved.

A member noted concern that the focus was described as safety and yet NZTA was not seen

as supporting the needs of local government with small projects such as speed restriction

lights and signs near rural schools.


Doc # 15077413 Page 4

RTC19/47

Moved by: Cr Park



That the report ‘New Zealand Transport Agency – Quarterly report’ (Regional Transport

Committee 2 September 2019) be received.


7. Regional road safety monitor report

Report to update the committee on road safety issues and trends, and on regional progress

towards the actions outlined in the national and regional road safety strategies.

The report was taken as read and the Team Leader Transport and Infrastructure (N King) and

Inspector Lynam were present to respond to questions of the committee. A presentation was

provided to members.

The new drug testing legislation was not specific to road policing but provided a clearer

direction in legislated form. There was direction to take a health approach to the use of drugs,

relating to the personal use of drugs. There was a business case being prepared in relation to

drug testing in the road policing space.

A member asked for the vehicle/crash statistics to include scooters.

Members noted that there had been an error in the figures within the agenda and pages 33

to 50 were replaced for members. With regard to fatalities, the figures nationally were

recorded as 232 and for Waikato 55 in the year to date. Over the previous 12 months to the

day there had been 357 nationally and 74 within the Waikato. Over the past two years the

number of fatalities had been trending downwards, by 4% in the year 17-18, and by 5% in the

year 18-19. This could be attributed in part to the number of safety improvements with

improvements in median barriers and rumble strips.

RTC19/48

Moved by: Mayor Baxter

Seconded by: Cr Adams


That the report ‘Regional road safety monitor report’ (Regional Transport Committee 2

September 2019) be received.


8. Regional Public Transport Projects update

Report to provide the committee with an update on the implementation of the Waikato

Regional Public Transport Plan 2018-28 and key regional public transport projects.


Doc # 15077413 Page 5

The report was taken as read and the Team Leader Transport and Infrastructure (N King) and

Senior Policy Advisor (V Kuo) were present to respond to questions of the committee. A

presentation was provided to members.

A member noted the increase in public transport patronage figures following the youth

concession. Members were pointed to the figures provided within the report noting that the

patronage figures were available up to July. They showed there had been an increase by 142%

on the first weekend. The figures remained steady and still double what they had been over

the same period in 2018 over weeks two and three. On the fourth weekend there had been a

163% increase over the previous year. The service was off peak so there was no capacity

concern.

A member asked whether the living wage formed part of the tender conditions when council

seek to tender for a contract and staff undertook to confirm whether it formed part of the

conditions.

A member asked whether the final plan change decision had been made by Hamilton City

Council with regard to the proposal to close the road at Tasman Road for the installation of a

transport hub. In response members were advised that the hearings panel had voted to adopt

the proposal. The council were working with the transport operators affected by the plan

change to make sure that the diversion roads were sufficiently built and corner/turning radius

was appropriate for the vehicles.

RTC19/49

Moved by: Cr Christie

Seconded by: Cr Park


That the report ‘Regional Public Transport Projects update’ (Regional Transport Committee

2 September 2019) be received.


9. Variations to the 2018 Update to the Waikato Regional Land Transport Plan 2015-2045

Report to the committee to consider and approve a request from Waikato Regional Council

and Hamilton City Council to vary the 2018 operative update to the Waikato Regional Land

Transport Plan 201-2045.

The report was taken as read and the Team Leader Transport and Infrastructure (N King) was

present to respond to questions of the committee.

There were no questions from the committee however a member assured the committee that

within the Mass Transit Plan consideration has been given to the Eastern Waikato, and the

plan will extend from the boundary currently shown.


Doc # 15077413 Page 6

RTC19/50

Moved by: Cr Fulton



1. That the report ‘Variations to the 2018 Update to the Waikato Regional Land Transport

Plan 2015-2045’ (Regional Transport Committee 2 September 2019) be received

2. That the Committee vary the operative 2018 Update to the Waikato Regional Land

Transport Plan 2015-2045 to include two new activities being:

Maintenance and operation of Stock Truck Effluent Disposal Facilities (WRC)

Hamilton-Waikato Metro Spatial Plan Programme Business Case (HCC)


10. Waikato Stock Truck Effluent Disposal Programme

Report to provide the committee with information on the progress towards the

implementation of new stock truck effluent disposal facilities in the Waikato Region

The report was taken as read and the Principal Advisor (I Ageel) was present to respond to

questions of the committee.

A member noted that engagement had meant that Waitomo seemed to be at the bottom of

the list. In response members were advised that sites had been investigated around 8 Mile

Junction, and it was acknowledged between Waikato Regional Council and Taranaki Regional

Council that a site was needed within that locality.

Staff will return to the ranking and priorities of projects, and the safety considerations

matrix. With respect to the 8 Mile Junction site, there were constraints around the

intersection, a nearby stream and land available. Further sites have been considered at least

200m north of the intersection.

A member noted there was a disused weighbridge site. In response members were advised

by New Zealand Police Commercial Vehicles Investigation Unit that the weighbridge was a

working one and not disused.

Members noted that the committee was able to provide a regional approach to looking at the

installation and prioritisation of stock truck effluent sites, for the benefit of the region.

RTC19/51

Moved by: Cr Rimmington

Seconded by: Cr Macpherson


That the report ‘Waikato Stock Truck Effluent Disposal Programme’ (Regional Transport



Doc # 15077413 Page 7


11. Regional Speed Management update

Report to provide the committee with an update on regional speed management activities

and outline the next steps for progressing speed management in the region.

The report was taken as read and there were no questions from the members.

RTC19/52

Moved by: Cr Park

Seconded by: Cr Christie


That the report ‘Regional Speed Management update’ (Regional Transport Committee 2



12. Transport planning and projects report and update

Report to update the committee on current regional transport plans and projects as at 14

August 2019.


present to respond to questions of the members. A presentation was provided to members.

The members of the committee acknowledged the work of the staff with regard to the

information and guidance they had been provided over the past triennium.

RTC19/53

Moved by: Cr Christie

Seconded by: M Lynam


That the report ‘Transport planning and projects report update’ (Regional Transport

Committee 2 September 2019) be received


13. Regional transport issues forum

Report to provide the committee with an opportunity to raise and discuss regionally

significant transport issues in an open forum


present to respond to questions of the members.


Doc # 15077413 Page 8

A member noted a concern they had following interactions their council had been having with

the Ministry of Education with regard to bus services and the safety of children in rural

areas. They noted that in this day and age children were not safe walking to school regardless

of where the school is and it was problematic for councils and schools if parents were expected

to drive.

A member suggested that next triennium it would be good to ensure that this safety discussion

was elevated appropriately at the national level, and that the discussion to support rural

schools should be led by Waikato and not by Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch.

Abandoned vehicles were a concern on SH1, it appears they were not monitored and if they

were being monitored it was not working. In response members were advised that whether

crashed or abandoned there was a legislative requirement that vehicles needed to be left for

a period of time (up to 10 days). The timeframes were recently reviewed and if the vehicles

were not being removed within those prescribed time frames then NZTA would seek to follow

up with the contractors who held the responsibility for picking up the vehicles.

RTC19/54

Moved by: Mayor Hanna



That the report ‘Regional transport issues forum’ (Regional Transport Committee 2



The chair noted his thanks to the members who would not be returning next triennium

including Cr Dynes Fulton of Waikato District Council who was not standing for re-election and

Inspector Marcus Lynam who is taking up a new role at the Waikato District Police.

The meeting adjourned at 11.16am and reconvened at 11.33am.

Mayor Baxter, Mayor Barnes and Cr Christie left the meeting during the adjournment.

6. Ministry of Transport update

Report to provide the committee with information on the development of the 2021

Government Policy Statement on Land Transport and other related activities.

Principal Advisor David Eyre of the Ministry of Transport provided a presentation to the

committee. (Refer Doc # for the presentation.)

A member asked how the region could access some funding towards the rail that the

government had set aside for NZTA. In response members were advised that the funds had

already been allocated, including towards the Hamilton to Auckland corridor network.


Doc # 15077413 Page 9

A member noted concern that the Government Policy Statement had prioritised a focus on

safety and public transport and as a result, councils had confirmed within their Long Term

Plans spending more in those areas. However, when time came to begin implementing these

projects there was a funding shortfall with NZTA and there was no money to do the

improvements in the areas. In response members were advised if there were examples of

completed business cases and projects ready with local share available, they could be

presented to the minister as an example of the demand for funding.

A member indicated that regional towns that feed in to the employment for a centre like

Hamilton have local share available to feed in to public transport routes however there is no

funding available to enable these services to happen.

A member asked whether there was a list to show the members where the funding had gone,

as it seemed as though every council was being advised there was no money

available. Members were advised they would need to ask that question of NZTA. In terms of

the rail project, funding had been provided due to the classification of the project as being

transitional. The demand for funding is higher than planned for.

With regard to the consultation period occurring through January 2020 members asked

whether there was an opportunity for councils to respond to the draft when it came out, as

all local government organisations would be in the same position with new members following

the triennial election. The concern was councils may not have an opportunity to brief their

members fully before making a submission. In response members were advised that there

may be an opportunity however this may affect the process at the other end.

RTC19/55

Moved by: Cr Rimmington

Seconded by: Cr Macpherson


That the report ‘Ministry of Transport update’ (Regional Transport Committee 2 September

2019) be received.


Meeting closed at 12.09pm.

Decisions of Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Joint Committee OPEN Meeting date: 2 September 2019



Item 4 Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Joint Committee dated 24 June 2019 were received and accepted as a true and accurate record.

Item 5 Appointment of Local Recovery Manager – Waipa District Council

1. That the report (Waikato CDEM Group Joint Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

2. That Debbie Lascelles be appointed as Local Recovery Manager for the Waipa District Council territorial area.

Item 6 Information Communications Technology (ICT) Business Case

That the report (Waikato CDEM Group Joint Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

Item 7 Group Work Plan

That the report Group Work Plan – Progress towards completion of priority 1 actions (Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

Item 8 GEMO – End of Year Performance – Financial Year 2018/19

That the report GEMO – end of year performance – financial year 2018/2019 (Waikato CDEM Group Joint Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

Item 9 Group CDEM Delivery Arrangements

That the report Group CDEM Delivery Arrangements (Waikato CDEM Group Joint Committee 23 August 2019) be received.

Item 10 Inter Group Collaborations

That the report Inter Group Collaboration – Taranaki CDEM Group (Waikato CDEM Group Joint Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

Item 11 Update on the Status of Public Education and Public Engagement

That the report, Update on the status of public education and public engagement, (Waikato CDEM Group Joint Committee 02nd September 2019) be received.

Item 12 Summarised CEG Minutes

That the report Summarised CEG Minutes – 8 August 2019 (Waikato CDEM Group Joint Committee 2 September 2019) be received.

Item 13 Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management (MCDEM) Update

That the report Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management Update (CDEM Joint Committee 2 September 2019) be received.



Item 6 Information Communications Technology (ICT) Business Case

That the use of financial reserves, to a maximum of $110,000 plus GST, for purchase and installation of increased ICT capability in the Group ECC and Hamilton EOC, be approved.

Doc # 15058829

Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group Joint

Committee

MINUTES

Date:

Location:

Monday, 2 September, 2019, 1:00 pm

Te Puia Room, Genesis Building

Bryce Street

Hamilton

Members Present: Cr H Vercoe - Chair (Waikato Regional Council)

Cr L Tooman - Deputy Chair (Hamilton City Council)

Cr A Goddard (Waitomo District Council)

Cr T Lee (South Waikato District Council)

Cr A Park (Taupō District Council)

Cr J Bannon (Waipa District Council)

Mayor J Barnes (Matamata Piako District Council)

Cr A Williams (Otorohanga District Council)

Also Present Suzanne Vowles – Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency and Management

Staff Present: J Snowball - Group Manager/Controller

J Baird – Hamilton City Council


Minutes Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management 2 September 2019

Doc # 15058829 Page 2

1. Apologies

Apologies were received from Cr Rex Simpson, Mayor S Goudie from Thames-Coromandel

District Council.

CD19/25

Moved by: Cr T Lee

Seconded by: Mayor J Barnes


THAT the apologies of Cr R Simpson and Mayor S Goudie from Thames-Coromandel District

Council be accepted.



CD19/26

Moved by: Cr A Park

Seconded by: Cr J Bannon


THAT the agenda of the meeting of the Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management

Group, as circulated, be confirmed as the business of the meeting subject to any change or

order to reflect the order set out in the minutes of that meeting.





CD19/27

Moved by: Cr L Tooman



THAT the minutes of the previous meeting of the Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency

Management Joint Committee dated 24 June 2019 were received and accepted as a true

and accurate record.


5. Appointment of Local Recovery Manager - Waipa District Council

Group Manager/Controller (J Snowball) presented the report to members to appoint a local

recovery officer for Waipa District Council. The appointee is a staff member of Waipa District

Council and the role of Recovery Manager will be additional to their permanent position. The

Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management have recently released a director's


Doc # 15058829 Page 3

guideline. The Director’s Guideline will assist the GEMO in providing information to all

territorial authorities on the scope of the position, proposed job description, estimation of

hours required along with the skill set required to undertake the position. This is work in

progress for the Statutory Roles Advisory and Appointment Committee.

CD19/28

Moved by: Cr A Park




2. That Debbie Lascelles be appointed as Local Recovery Manager for the Waipa District

Council territorial area.


6. Information Communications Technology (ICT) Business Case

Group Manager / Controller (J Snowball) presented the report. He noted to members that

whilst the building is state of art and meets the needs as an Emergency Coordination Centre,

the facility needs further updates in relation to communications technology in order to meet

the needs of all partners in an emergency.

1.07 pm - Cr A Williams entered the meeting.

A review of the ICT equipment has been reviewed and the following areas were found to be

needing improvements:

Printer technology - current have 2 separate printers each linked to a server that has

limited access beyond Council staff. Need to buy one standalone printer which can be

used by anyone.

Computer Suite - insufficient computers currently available - need to increase from the 6

desktops and purchase 21 additional laptops and appropriate docking and storage.

TV's screens + Hardware to connect to these - mobile tv screens

Bluetooth speakers - to cover 3 offices once opened up

Mobile phones - to replace existing stock. Will be used by staff on shift so that critical

information is not lost by them using their own phones

Security door look so that swipe access is required.

Members expressed surprise at the report - thought this would have been dealt with through

the initial kitout. They were also concerned whether the budget identified would be sufficient

or was it just enough. Group Manager/Controller (J Snowball) felt that a 10% increase as a

contingency would be helpful.

CD19/29

Moved by: Mayor J Barnes

Seconded by: Cr A Williams


Doc # 15058829 Page 4



RECOMMENDS (SECTION B)

2. That the use of financial reserves, to a maximum of $110,000 plus GST, for purchase and

installation of increased ICT capability in the Group ECC and Hamilton EOC, be approved.


7. Group Work Plan

Group Manager/Controller (J Snowball) presented the report. All priority one action points

are on target with exception of one. The one that is off target is due to one Council stating

that they do not have a recovery plan. An ongoing independent audit of regional CDEM shows

that other Council's recovery plans could also be improved. The new Directors guide for

Recovery will assist all Council's.

A brief update was given by the Group Manager/Controller regarding the independent audit.

It was noted that all draft reports are due in by 14 September. 2 reports are fully signed off,

5 are in draft format and 4 are not yet received. Members felt that a press release should be

issued to reassure public that all Council's have reviewed their audit reports and the region is

in a good position to respond to an emergency.

CD19/30

Moved by: Cr A Williams

Seconded by: Cr T Lee

That the report Group Work Plan – Progress towards completion of priority 1 actions

(Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Joint Committee 2 September 2019)

be received.


8. GEMO - End of Year Performance - Financial Year 2018/2019

Group Manager/Controller (J Snowball) presented the report. The end of year financials show

that the GEMO came in slightly under budget - this was due to staff vacancies throughout the

year. The office is now fully resourced.

There is a slight overspend of $35,000 of allocated costs - this is predominantly due to

corporate costs and outside of the control of the office.

Members discussed the targeted rate set by Waikato Regional Council - members believe that

the targeted rate should be set against the number of properties each year rather than

reducing due to increases in population. This would future proof the budget without having

to revisit how funds are gathered. The Chair, Cr H Vercoe is to address with Waikato Regional

Council.

Surplus funds are carried over into the reserves fund for future year's expenditure.


Doc # 15058829 Page 5

CD19/31

Moved by: Cr A Goodard

Seconded by: Cr L Tooman

That the report GEMO – end of year performance – financial year 2018/2019 (Waikato CDEM

Group Joint Committee 2 September 2019) be received.


9. Group CDEM Delivery Arrangements

Group Manager/Controller (J Snowball) presented the report. Service level agreements with

Matamata-Piako and Hauraki District Council's have been signed. Matamata-Piako have filled

their staff vacancy for a full-time civil defence officer and Hauraki is at interview stage.

The Civil Defence audit reports will provide the new staff with a start of a business plan/work

programme to commence their activities.

CD19/32

Moved by: Cr A Park


That the report Group CDEM Delivery Arrangements (Waikato CDEM Group Joint



10. Inter Group Collaborations

Group Manager/Controller (J Snowball) presented the report which outlined an application

for resilience funding made by Taranaki CDEM Group, for the development of an Eruption

Response and Recovery North Island Plan (TERRNIP). The application for funding is to scope

out what the impact of an explosion would be. It is estimated that there is a 50% chance that

Mt Taranaki will erupt within the next 50 years.

The Taranaki Group have asked for support from Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency

Management as its neighbour. It was recognised that any potential eruption would likely

impact the lower western and southern reaches of the Waikato region.

There is a need for CDEM Groups to establish working relationships with their neighbours and

to engage in establishing a framework of response, roles of each entity for our shared hazards

and risks

J Snowball highlighted that any support of the application, could mean that we are committing

to supporting the Taranaki group, even if they are unsuccessful in their funding

application. This could lead to an expectation of financial support in the future.

Members discussed the benefits to be gained from establishing a better working relationship

with the group and felt there was much to be gained through a better working relationship.


Doc # 15058829 Page 6

CD19/33

Moved by: Cr A Goddard

Seconded by: Cr A Park

That the report Inter Group Collaboration – Taranaki CDEM Group (Waikato CDEM Group

Joint Committee 2 September 2019) be received.


11. Update on the Status of Public Education and Public Engagement

Group Manager/Controller (J Snowball) presented the report.

The public education and public engagement is one of the Group Plan action plan points that

is currently off track. He doesn't believe that being off track is a bad point as having reviewed

the requirements, he does not believe that the current programme of work provides the best

possible public engagement for those most vulnerable in our communities.

One of our Group plan goals is that our communities are ready - this is currently achieved by

communities being prepared and aware of risk. One of the main activities used to deliver our

goal is community response planning with community groups. Experience shows us that the

most vulnerable people in communities are those that are not engaged through community

response planning. There is no way to measure that we are reaching our most vulnerable

communities.

Prioritisation of targeted community engagement needs to happen in a wider way. It is

recommended that the action plan be updated so that the action point focusses on vulnerable

communities. Need to have greater communication on warning systems, what hazards exist

in each community. Some will have risk of tsunami, other will have great risk of flooding. So

more individualised engagement is required depending on risk involved. This may require an

increase in resources, including staff time, to achieve this. Also need to do further

engagement with iwi. Some of the extra work will be achieved by the staff at the territorial

authorities but the refocus needed to get staff to target most vulnerable communities.

The role of community engagement and education is probably one of the highest

requirements of Civil Defence and Emergency Management - one of the most fundamental

responsibilities.

Members discussed timing and the mechanism of delivery which are operational

issues. However, it was felt that any decision of change will go beyond operational and into

governance and strategy. Some outcomes will be identified by November however any

increase in funding won't make this year's annual plan funding round.

The purpose of the report was to make committee aware and seek input from the committee.

Members discussed that there were difficulties in keeping people engaged when no

emergency had occurred. Until something actually happens, it is hard to keep community

focussed and engaged. Member also discussed that the most vulnerable (homeless and those

in poverty) will always rely on community to help them recover and get through an


Doc # 15058829 Page 7

emergency. These pockets of communities live day to day - pay packet to pay packet - and

simply are unable to become prepared due to circumstances.

CD19/34

Moved by: Cr A Williams

Seconded by: Cr L Tooman

That the report, Update on the status of public education and public engagement, (Waikato

CDEM Group Joint Committee 02nd September 2019) be received.


12. Summarised CEG Minutes

The report was presented by J Baird, Hamilton City Council. J Baird outlined:

the results of the CEG meeting and minutes. Legal opinion discussed with regard to group

plan standing with respect to Resource Management Act planning documents. It was

noted that it was a very useful piece of work. Members requested a copy of the legal

opinion.

GIS - update on programme of work being undertaken. A significant update to spatial

understanding of area and ensuring there is the right mix of people/skills in place to be

effective.

Waikato Lifelines Utility Group - hotspots where multiple lifeline utilities, core

infrastructure, and hazards collide - what if something happened in that space. Work is

progressing with external/commercial partners

The Chairperson also noted to members that he had attended the joint meeting of the

Waikato/BOP Lifeline Utilities meeting recently and was good to see the

collaboration/networking happening.

CD19/35

Moved by: Cr A Park



That the report Summarised CEG Minutes – 8 August 2019 (Waikato CDEM Group Joint



13. Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management (MCDEM) Update


Doc # 15058829 Page 8

The Regional Emergency Management Advisor, Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency

Management, Suzanne Vowles presented a report, updating the work programme being

undertaken:

There are 2 plans out for consultation

o Risk Assessment and how it relates to group plan

o Recovery Preparedness Guidelines - need to discuss and provide feedback on how the

guidelines will impact operations

Also, recently released CIMS which explains how agencies work together. EMAT teams -

Ministry have recently completed another part of the selection process. Members to be

announced shortly.

Legislation about new entity (NEMA) due out in early December - a number of regulations

will be attached to the legislation. The regulations will be item specific. A project

manager has been appointed to create the entity (NEMA) to do the work to enable change

but project manager won't do change work.

Members queried what the opinion of Central Govt was - S Vowles noted that central

government is closely watching and will be providing feedback. Group

Manager/Controller J Snowball is going to Wellington and should have more information

to provide after that visit.

Members queried whether there was any progress on warning devices. It was noted that the

number of communication tools and methods being relied on will depend on hazard and area

affected. A tsunami warning must include sirens. It was noted that under legislation warning

is the number one requirement. How to alert is part of a regional/national

discussion. MCDEM only have ability to issue an ultra-short national message telling people

of the emergency and directing them to seek further information locally.

CD19/36

Moved by: Mayor J Barnes

Seconded by: Cr A Park


That the report Ministry of Civil Defence Emergency Management Update (CDEM Joint



14. Items for Next Meeting

Members noted the following item for next meeting:

Update on Hikurangi

Budgets


Doc # 15058829 Page 9

The Chairperson thanked members for their hard work over the last 3 years and looked

forward to welcoming back members, if successful, to the new triennium.

2.40 pm The meeting closed.

Decisions of Waikato Plan Leadership Committee Meeting date: 3 September 2019



Item 5: Waikato Plan General Update

1. That the report ‘Waikato Plan - General update’ (Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 3 September 2019) be received.

2. That the Enabling Good Lives initiative be endorsed by the Waikato Plan Leadership Committee. 3. That the Waikato Plan Leadership Committee provide relevant Ministers a letter recording its

support for the Enabling Good Lives initiative.

Item 6: Priority action update - Waikato Region Housing Initiative

1. That the report ‘Priority action update – Waikato Region Housing Initiative’ (Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 3 September 2019) be received.

2. That the ‘Waikato Region Housing Initiative – 2018 Housing Stocktake Report’ and attached communications support documentation be received.

3. That the ‘Waikato Region Housing Initiative – 2018 Housing Stocktake Report’ be released to the public by 6 September 2019.

4. That a plan for implementation of ‘Waikato Region Housing Initiative – 2018 Housing Stocktake Report’ be put in place as a matter of urgency.

Item 7: Priority action update – Mental health and wellbeing

1. That the report ‘Priority action update - Mental health and wellbeing’ (Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 3 September 2019) be received.

2. That M Wilson be appointed the project sponsor of a stock take of mental health in the region.

Item 8: Priority action update – Youth and employment

1. That the report ‘Priority action update - Youth and employment’ (Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 3 September 2019) be received.

2. That T Papesch and Cr T Adams be appointed project sponsors.

Item 9: Priority action update – Waikato Wellbeing Project (SDG)

1. That the report ‘Priority action update - Waikato Wellbeing Project (SDG)’ (Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 3 September 2019) be received.

2. That E Berryman-Kamp be appointed the project sponsor.

Item 10: Climate Change Information and Opportunities

1 That the report ‘Climate Change Information and Opportunities’ (Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 3 September 2019) be received.

3. That the Chief Executive (V Payne) be appointed the sponsor in this area of work.

Item 11: Te Waka Update

That the report ‘Te Waka update’ (Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 3 September 2019) be received.



Item 9: Priority action update – Waikato Wellbeing Project (SDG)

That pursuant to sub-clause 30(7) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Waikato Plan Leadership Committee is not discharged on the coming into office of the members of Waikato Regional Council following the triennial general election of members in October 2019.

1


Waikato Plan Leadership Committee

MINUTES

Date:

Location:

Tuesday, 3 September, 2019, 1:00 pm

Council Chamber



Members Present: Dr B Gatenby - Co-Chair (Business/Community Representative)

R Schaafhausen - Co-Chair (Waikato-Tainui)

W Maag - Deputy Co-Chair (Maniapoto)

Cr A Livingston (Waikato Regional Council)

Cr T Adams (Eastern Sub-region)

L Ieremia (Business/Community Representative)

E Berryman-Kamp (Te Arawa)

D Fisher (Business/Community Representative)

Non-Voting Members

Present

R I'Anson - non-voting (New Zealand Transport Agency)

P Rawiri - non-voting (Ministry of Education)

D Abraham - non-voting (Ministry of Business, Innovation and

Employment)

R Jones - non-voting (Te Puni Kokiri)

M Wilson - non-voting (Waikato DHB)

Others Present: V Payne (Chief Executive)

T May (Director Science and Strategy)

K Bennett (Manager Office of the CE)

S McLeay (Democracy Advisor)

2


The meeting was opened at 1.05pm. It was noted that this was the last meeting prior to the

local body elections.

WPLC19/38

Moved by: R Schaafhausen

Seconded by: W Maag


That the apologies of V Eparaima , T Papesch and Mayors A King, B Hanna and A Sanson

be accepted.



WPLC19/39

Moved by: W Maag



That the agenda of the meeting as circulated, be confirmed as the business of the meeting.




4. Confirmation of Minutes from the Previous Meeting

WPLC19/40

Moved by: E Berryman-Kamp



That the minutes of the meeting of the Waikato Plan Leadership Committee held on 22

July 2019 be received.


5. Waikato Plan - General update

Presented by Senior Project Manager (A Hema). The following was noted:

3

1. The Director Enabling Good Lives (K Cosgriff) delivered a presentation on the Enabling

Good Lives initiative and how the Waikato Plan Leadership Committee could provide

support.

2. The members noted their support for further roll out of Enabling Good Lives and a

willingness to provide letters of support to the relevant Ministers.

3. B Gatenby noted that she was the facilitator of meetings of the Enabling Good Lives

Waikato Leadership Group.

WPLC19/41


Seconded by: Dr B Gatenby


1. That the report ‘Waikato Plan - General update’ (Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 3


2. That the Enabling Good Lives initiative be endorsed by the Waikato Plan Leadership

Committee.

3. That the Waikato Plan Leadership Committee provide relevant Ministers a letter

recording its support for the Enabling Good Lives initiative.


6. Priority action update - Waikato Region Housing Initiative

The presentation of the report by the Waikato Region Housing Initiative Team was facilitated

by L Brame (Consultant). The following was noted:

1. The Team thanked all its supporters.

2. The report provided a ‘one version of the truth’, delivering clarity on the regional

situation. The report identified the need for housing in the region, and was a solid

foundation on which to make requests to central government for assistance.

3. Public private partnerships could be utilized to reduce development cost.

4. The initiative had highlighted issues created by land zoning. There was a need to

undertake a review of zoning to open up new areas for development and to change some

areas to high density.

5. The current construction contract model required review with a view to being more cost

effective.

6. Advocacy for social housing was an important part of moving forward.

7. A coordinated strategic approach across the region was required.

8. The Chair thanked the Team, acknowledging all members.

4

WPLC19/42

Moved by: D Fisher

Seconded by: Dr B Gatenby


1. That the report ‘Priority action update – Waikato Region Housing Initiative’ (Waikato

Plan Leadership Committee 3 September 2019) be received.

2. That the ‘Waikato Region Housing Initiative – 2018 Housing Stocktake Report’ and

attached communications support documentation be received.

3. That the ‘Waikato Region Housing Initiative – 2018 Housing Stocktake Report’ be

released to the public by 6 September 2019.

4. That a plan for implementation of ‘Waikato Region Housing Initiative – 2018 Housing

Stocktake Report’ be put in place as a matter of urgency.


7. Priority action update – Mental health and wellbeing

Presented by Senior Project Manager (A Hema). The following was noted:

1. A current stock take of mental health service provision in the region would identify the

areas that needed support. This could then link to the housing initiative.

2. A coordinated approach was required to ensure new funding was used in the most

effective manner.

3. A project to deliver a stock take would require the same type of networks and resources

as the housing initiative.

4. The importance of drawing together preventative and early intervention initiatives

delivered by community agencies under existing contracts into a stock take was noted.

5. The importance of mental health literacy was emphasised.

6. One of the important features of the Waikato Plan was its power to coordinate across

the whole region and the agencies in it.

WPLC19/43

Moved by: E Berryman-Kamp



1. That the report ‘Priority action update - Mental health and wellbeing’ (Waikato Plan

Leadership Committee 3 September 2019) be received.

2. That M Wilson be appointed the project sponsor of a stock take of mental health in

the region.

5


8. Priority action update – Youth and employment

Presented by Amanda Hema. The following was noted:

1. A stock take had been undertaken that is out with strategic partners for feedback

including from youth.

2. Planning resulting action was the next step.

WPLC19/44




1. That the report ‘Priority action update - Youth and employment’ (Waikato Plan


2. That T Papesch and Cr T Adams be appointed project sponsors.


9. Priority action update – Waikato Wellbeing Project (SDG)

Presented by the Manager Office of the Chief Executive (K Bennett) and the Chief Executive

WEL Energy Trust (R Jones). The following was noted:

1. More information was requested by the Committee to be fully across the project. This

would be provided in the report currently being drafted.

2. Concern was raised about continuity of the project over the election period. If the

Waikato Plan Leadership Committee continued operating over the election period the

time frames for the Project may be achievable.

3. Timeframes were noted to be tight. However, the members indicated a commitment to

the project and meeting its time frames to the extent practically possible.

WPLC19/45




1. That the report ‘Priority action update - Waikato Wellbeing Project (SDG)’ (Waikato

Plan Leadership Committee 3 September 2019) be received.

2. That E Berryman-Kamp be appointed the project sponsor.


6

WPLC19/46


Seconded by: R Schaafhausen


That pursuant to sub-clause 30(7) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, the

Waikato Plan Leadership Committee is not discharged on the coming into office of the

members of Waikato Regional Council following the triennial general election of members

in October 2019.


10. Climate Change Information and Opportunities

Presented by Principal Strategic Advisor (B Dickie). The following was noted:

1. Part of the presentation was deferred to the next meeting due to time constraints.

2. It was important that the Waikato Plan Leadership Committee understand its role in the

provision of leadership and coordination in this important area. There was support for the

Waikato Regional Council CE (V Payne) to be the sponsor for the project.

WPLC19/46


Seconded by: E Berryman-Kamp


1. That the report ‘Climate Change Information and Opportunities’ (Waikato Plan


2. That the Chief Executive (V Payne) be appointed the sponsor in this area of work.


11. Te Waka Update

Presented by the Te Waka Chair (D Fisher) and its Chief Executive (M Bassett-Foss). It was

noted that Waikato Plan Leadership Committee's letter of support had had a positive impact

on Te Waka's successful application for funding from the Provincial Growth Fund.

WPLC19/47

Moved by: L Ieremia

Seconded by: W Maag


That the report ‘Te Waka update’ (Waikato Plan Leadership Committee 3 September 2019)

be received.


The meeting was closed at 4.03pm.

Decisions of HEARINGS SUBCOMMITTEE OPEN Meeting date: 10 September 2019



Item 4 Proposed Resource Consent Hearing – Mercury Bay Spat Farm

That the report Proposed Resource Consent Hearing – Mercury Bay Spat Farm (Hearings Appointment Subcommittee 10 September 2019) be received, and

That a hearing committee be established in terms of the Resource Management Act 1991 to hear and decide an application for resource consent with all the relevant ancillary powers under the Act, from Ngati Hei (Application No APP139219) to erect, use and occupy CMA space with spat catching structures for a spat catching farm in Mercury Bay.

That independent commissioners Antoine Coffin and Gavin Kemble (as Chair), be appointed to the hearing committee.

Item 5 Proposed Resource Consent Hearing – Kotuku Corporation Limited

That the report (Hearings Appointment Subcommittee 10 September 2019) be received.

That a hearing committee be established in terms of the Resource Management Act 1991 to hear and decide an application for resource consent with all the relevant ancillary powers under the Act, from Kotuku Corporation Limited (Application No. APP139848) to discharge dust and odour from a broiler farm.

That Independent Commissioners Murray Kivell (Jointly appointed Chair) and Louise Wickham be appointed to the hearing committee.

Item 6 Proposed Resource Consent Hearing – Open Country Dairy Limited

That the report Proposed Resource Consent hearing – Open Country Dairy (Hearings appointment Subcommittee 10 September 2019) be received, and

That a hearing committee be established in terms of the Resource Management Act 1991 to hear and decide an application for resource consent with all the relevant ancillary powers under the Act, from Open Country Dairy Limited (Application No. APP140518) to:

Discharge treated wastewater to water

Discharge to air from a wastewater treatment plant.

That Independent Commissioners Jim Cooke (Chair) and Steven Wilson be appointed to the hearing committee.



Doc # 15089876


Hearings Appointment Subcommittee

OPEN MINUTES

Date: Location:

Tuesday, 10 September, 2019, 9:36 am Council Chamber Waikato Regional Council 401 Grey Street, Hamilton East

Members Present: Cr A Livingston - Chair

Cr R Simcock Cr J Hayman

Staff Present: B Sinclair – Manager Infrastructure and Industry

J Cox – Team Leader Democracy Services L Bartley - Democracy Advisor

Minutes Hearings Appointment SubCommittee 10 September 2019

Doc # 15089876 Page 2

1. Apologies

There were no apologies.


HASC19/10 Moved by: Cr Simcock Seconded by: Cr Hayman


That the agenda, of the meeting of the Hearings Appointment SubCommittee on 10 September 2019, as circulated, be confirmed as the business of the meeting.




4. Proposed Resource Consent Hearing - Mercury Bay Spat Farm

Team Leader Democracy Services (J Cox) presented the report. The consent hearing relates to an application to erect, use and occupy CMA space with structures for a spat farm in Mercury Bay. There are 198 submissions with majority wanting to be heard.

It is proposed that a five day hearing be convened for the purposes of hearing submissions.

Staff are recommending a two commissioner panel with G Kemble as the Chair of the panel. Both commissioners are experienced in both chairing, coastal development and matters of significance to Maori.

Members queried what proportion of submitters were for/against. The majority were against the proposed activity. Members then queried whether a three commissioner panel would be more appropriate or whether the Chair would have a casting vote and if so, had it been delegated to the Commissioner to be appointed as Chair.

Manager, Infrastructure and Industry (B Sinclair) reassured members that the Commissioners were very experienced and able to discuss all matters and come to a joint decision. The issue of delegations had never been needed in the past but staff would consider this issue for any future potentially contentious hearings. It was also pointed out that it was a requirement of Commissioners to ensure they have the right delegations to do their job.

Members queried what CMA land was - it was explained that this was the area that is seaward of the mean high water mark and up to the 12 mile mark away from shore.

The Chairperson thanked the report writers for more in depth reports but would like to see the verbal updates provided at the meeting included in the written report. This will provide members with full information to enable their deliberations of the report’s recommendations.

HASC19/11 Moved by: Cr Hayman Seconded by: Cr Simcock


1. That the report Proposed Resource Consent Hearing – Mercury Bay Spat Farm (Hearings Appointment Subcommittee 10 September 2019) be received, and


Doc # 15089876 Page 3

2. That a hearing committee be established in terms of the Resource Management Act 1991 to hear and decide an application for resource consent with all the relevant ancillary powers under the Act, from Ngati Hei (Application No APP139219) to erect, use and occupy CMA space with spat catching structures for a spat catching farm in Mercury Bay.

3. That independent commissioners Antoine Coffin and Gavin Kemble (as Chair), be appointed to the hearing committee.


5. Proposed Resource Consent Hearing - Kotuku Corporation Limited

Team Leader Democracy Services (J Cox) presented the report. This is a joint hearing with Matamata-Piako District Council. The hearing relates to a consent to discharge dust and odour from a broiler farm at Wiseman Road Springdale.

The recommended Commissioners have experience in air quality and pollution matters. Matamata-Piako District Council have agreed to the appointment of Murray Kivell as Chairperson.

The recommended second Commissioner, Louise Wickham is an experienced Commissioner from the Auckland region who is available to attend this hearing. She has extensive experience from Ministry of the Environment and most recently as a member of a company providing independent speciality air quality expertise.

HASC19/12 Moved by: Cr Livingston Seconded by: Cr Hayman


1. That the report (Hearings Appointment Subcommittee 10 September 2019) be received.

2. That a hearing committee be established in terms of the Resource Management Act 1991 to hear and decide an application for resource consent with all the relevant ancillary powers under the Act, from Kotuku Corporation Limited (Application No. APP139848) to discharge dust and odour from a broiler farm.

3. That Independent Commissioners Murray Kivell (Jointly appointed Chair) and Louise Wickham be appointed to the hearing committee.


6. Proposed Resource Consent Hearing - Open Country Dairy Limited

Team Leader Democracy (J Cox) presented the report. The hearing relates to the discharge of treated wastewater to water and to discharge to air from a wastewater treatment plant at Waharoa.

Members queried if this was likely to be a contentious hearing. Manager Infrastructure and Industry (B Sinclair) noted that the issue was sensitive for the immediate community but not indicated to be contentious. There were 10 submitters in total to be heard.


Doc # 15089876 Page 4

The recommended Commissioners are very experienced and knowledgeable of the issues including water quality and matters of significant to Maori.

HASC19/13 Moved by: Cr Simcock Seconded by: Cr Hayman


1. That the report Proposed Resource Consent hearing – Open Country Dairy (Hearings appointment Subcommittee 10 September 2019) be received, and

2. That a hearing committee be established in terms of the Resource Management Act

1991 to hear and decide an application for resource consent with all the relevant ancillary powers under the Act, from Open Country Dairy Limited (Application No. APP140518) to:

Discharge treated wastewater to water

Discharge to air from a wastewater treatment plant.

3. That Independent Commissioners Jim Cooke (Chair) and Steven Wilson be appointed to the hearing committee.


9.55 am The meeting closed.

Decisions of Strategy and Policy Committee - OPEN

Meeting date: 10 September 2019



Item 5: Update on Kaiaua Coast 2120 (Kaiaua, Pūkorokoro-Miranda Community Plan)

That the report Update on Kaiaua Coast 2120 (Kaiaua, Pūkorokoro-Miranda Community Plan) (dated 10 September 2019) be received.

Item 6: Update on comprehensive review of the resource management system

That the report Update on the comprehensive review of the resource management system (Strategy and Policy Committee 10 September 2019) be received.

Item 7: Submission on the proposal for New Zealand’s next Biodiversity Strategy

1. That the report Submission on the proposal for New Zealand’s next Biodiversity Strategy (dated 10 September 2019) be received; and

2. That the Strategy & Policy Committee approve the ‘Submission from Waikato Regional Council on the proposal for New Zealand’s next Biodiversity Strategy’ (Doc # 14919276) for lodgement with the Department of Conservation.

Item 8: Submissions on the proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development and proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land

1. That the report Submissions on the proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development and proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land (dated 2 September 2019) be received.

2. That the Committee endorse in principle the intent of the draft submissions on the proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development and the proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land, noting the issues raised and matters of amendment that need to be addressed in the draft submissions; and

3. That the revised/amended draft submissions on the proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development and the proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land be reported back to Council at its September 2019 for consideration and sign-off.

1


Strategy and Policy Committee

OPEN MINUTES

Date:

Location:

Tuesday, 10 September 2019, 10:00 am

Council Chamber



Members Present: Cr B Simcock - Chair

Cr T Mahuta - Deputy Chair (from 10.34am)

Cr J Hayman

Cr K Hodge

Cr S Husband

Cr F Lichtwark

Cr A Livingston

Cr S Kneebone

Cr B Quayle

Cr R Rimmington

Cr H Vercoe

Cr K White

Staff Present

T May - Director Science and Strategy

A Cifuentes - Policy Advisor, Policy Implementation

G Read - Senior Policy Advisor, Policy Implementation

M Foley - Senior Policy Advisor, Policy Implementation

M Poole - Democracy Advisor

2

1. Apologies

Apologies were received from Cr J Hennebry and Cr D Minogue.

SPC19/40


Seconded by: Cr R Rimmington


That the apologies from Cr J Hennebry and Cr D Minogue be accepted.



Cr Lichtwark requested that the Strategy and Policy Committee agenda include a wider

discussion on the RMA S33 - Transfer of Powers issue, to cover the likely implications for all

Directorates within Council of ‘shared services’ with other public authorities.

The Director Science & Strategy (T May) advised that staff are currently drafting a report for

the next (September) Council meeting and she will brief the report writer to see if it is possible

within the short timeframe to include information and advice on the matters raised by Cr

Lichtwark.

SPC19/41




That the agenda of the meeting as circulated, be amended by a change of order to take Item

4 - Minutes of the Submissions Subcommittee as the final item of open meeting business,

and that the agenda as amended be confirmed as the business for the meeting.




5. Update on Kaiaua Coast 2120 (Kaiaua, Pūkorokoro-Miranda Community Plan)

Policy Advisor, Policy Implementation (A Cifuentes) briefed the Committee on the work

Hauraki District Council (HDC) has carried out to date to develop a community plan for Kaiaua

and Pūkorokoro-Miranda, noting Council is partnering with HDC on this project and that:

- a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) comprising staff from HDC, Waikato District Council

(WDC) and Council was formed in late 2018 to undertake work required.

- the TAG will report to a joint working party (JWP) comprising Councillors from HDC,

Council and iwi representatives. Council will need to confirm its representatives on the

JWP following the October 2019 elections.

3

- the Kaiaua Coast Plan development is HDC’s initiative; and depending on what comes out

of the work they may need to complete a District Plan change process.

Arising out of questions and discussion the following points were noted:

- there is funding in the current LTP for Council’s involvement in this project. Council’s

contribution covers the natural hazard identification and risk assessment aspects. Any

proposal to do work beyond those tasks/the available funding will need to be referred

back to Council for consideration.

- the work being undertaken will provide Council and HDC with useful information to better

understand the hazards and risks in that area, and therefore to identify options to best

manage/mitigate the risks into the future.

- coastal processes and flood management/mitigation have been discussed with this

community on a number of occasions in the past, with the community having indicated

that there are comfortable paying general rates but they do not wish to ‘go down the

route’ of having/paying of targeted rates for a Waikato Regional Council

provided/managed flood scheme.

- the existing stopbank is owned by HDC. It is understood that the crest of the stopbank

was lowered to create the Hauraki Rail Trails cycle path and it may not have been

reinstated to its previous height. Members requested that staff confirm the ownership,

consent status and flood protection height parameters (consented and actual) for the

stopbank and advise Councillors.

- It was acknowledged that the community has a combination of environmental factors and

risks to deal with, and that there is no ‘quick fix’ solution. Potential management and

mitigation options will need to be worked through collaboratively between HDC, Council

and the community over time.

- the project is still in the information gathering stage, and no decisions have been made.

Staff will provide future progress reports to the Committee.

SPC19/42


Seconded by: Cr R Rimmington


That the report Update on Kaiaua Coast 2120 (Kaiaua, Pūkorokoro-Miranda Community

Plan) (dated 10 September 2019) be received.


6. Update on comprehensive review of the resource management system

The Director Science and Strategy (T May) noted that:

- several policy review announcements and proposals have recently come from central

Government, with more ‘in the pipeline’.

- staff are continuing to work to prepare feedback documents and submissions to meet

the various deadlines, however the timing of the 2019 local government elections may

4

mean that not all of these papers will have been finalised/signed-off by Council before

the end of the triennium.

Senior Policy Advisor, Policy Implementation (G Read) provided an update on the

comprehensive review of the resource management system noting that:

- as previously reported to the Committee (December 2018) - the first stage, comprising a

series of discrete changes, is to be delivered via the Resource Management Act

Amendment Bill 2019 and several national directions are also being progressed - the

proposed National Policy Statements on Freshwater, Urban Development and Highly

Productive Land and the next NZ Indigenous Biodiversity Strategy.

- the stated aim of the second stage is to remove complexity and better enable urban

development, while working within environmental limits. It has also be indicated that the

reform may separate the statutory provision for land use planning and environmental

protection. There is also an intention to review the functionality and alignment of the

RMA with other relevant key legislation.


- there will be implications for regional council roles and functions as well as those of

various government departments, agencies and other affected entities, including the

Ministry for the Environment, the Department of Conservation, territorial authorities and

the Environment Court. However, at this stage the extent and scope is not known.

- given that the RMA’s current ability to respond to climate change is ‘uncertain’, queried

whether this issue may become a Part 2 Matter of National Importance.

- queried whether the review is an opportunity to change the processes around

‘negotiated’ resource consent outcomes that are currently conducted/completed outside

the official and public parts of the consenting process.

- Central Government intends to establish an expert advisory group to develop the reform

proposals for public consultation by May 2020. Once the proposals are released, Council

will be able scrutinise and evaluate what is being proposed and make submissions.

SPC19/43


Seconded by: Cr J Hayman


That the report Update on the comprehensive review of the resource management system

(Strategy and Policy Committee 10 September 2019) be received.


7. Submission on the proposal for New Zealand’s next Biodiversity Strategy

Senior Policy Advisor, Policy Implementation (G Read) presented the report seeking approval

on the content, and subsequent lodgement, of the Waikato Regional Council’s submission on

the proposal for New Zealand’s next Biodiversity Strategy, noting that:

5

- making a submission to a ‘draft’ proposal will assist to inform and potentially influence

Central Government’s next Biodiversity Strategy and the National Policy Statement on

Indigenous Biodiversity.

Arrive Cr T Mahuta 10.34am

- the submission is generally supportive of the main aspects of the proposal, being the

creation of a strategic vision and framework that interweaves Te Ao Maori and science,

sets long-term outcomes to provide a pathway to achieve the vision, and establishes five

system ‘shifts’ to support change in how the challenge of biodiversity loss is approached.


- important to have clarity around the purpose(s) of and what to monitor, by whom and

timeframes, together with a consistent and integrated approach across agencies to avoid

‘gaps’, duplications and incompatible methodologies, so results can be compared and/or

aggregated to give reliable information on positive and/or adverse effects over time.

- Implementation, prioritising and adequate resourcing are key challenges as has been seen

in the case of the Kauri dieback issues and responses.

- important to clarify roles, responsibilities and resources. Concern expressed that the

policy direction may ‘push’ the responsibility to undertake and fund the function to

regional councils/their ratepayers. Need to be clear about how national, regional and

local roles and responsibilities will dovetail.

- currently both regional councils and territorial authorities have responsibilities for

biodiversity, respectively freshwater/coastal marine area and land use/subdivision.

Important to build/maintain good working relationships between local authorities and be

clear how we will work together/integrate.

- capacity varies between local authorities and each council makes decisions on the

priorities and level of resourcing (staff/funding) to carry out the function. Examples

include whether or not there are staff with ecological expertise and what information is

held and/or shared (Significant Natural areas - SNAs).

SPC19/44




1. THAT the report Submission on the proposal for New Zealand’s next Biodiversity

Strategy (dated 10 September 2019) be received; and

2. THAT the Strategy & Policy Committee approve the ‘Submission from Waikato Regional

Council on the proposal for New Zealand’s next Biodiversity Strategy’ (Doc # 14919276)

for lodgement with the Department of Conservation.


6

8. Submissions on the proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development and

proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land

Senior Policy Advisor, Policy Implementation (M Foley) presented the report seeking approval

on the content, and subsequent lodgement, of the Waikato Regional Council submissions on

the proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development and proposed National Policy

Statement on Highly Productive Land.

Agreed to discuss each draft submission separately and view expressed that the two NPS

proposals could be complementary or contradictory.

Proposed NPS on Urban Development

In summary this NPS proposes to retain several existing concepts, such as the requirement to

prepare a future development strategy, and the monitoring of urban development capacity

and to broaden its scope to cover matters including intensification of housing in certain

locations. The NPS proposes the removal of minimum car parking requirements in district

plans and proposes to remove the concepts of high, medium and low growth areas and

instead identifies six ‘major urban areas’ (being Auckland, Tauranga, Hamilton, Wellington,

Christchurch, Queenstown).

Arising out of discussion the following points were noted:

- given the importance of providing flood management infrastructure, should reference be

made to the Waikato Stormwater Guidelines? Stormwater quality and quantity from

urban environments need to be factored into development decision-making.

- urban developments along the Hamilton to Auckland (H2A) ‘corridor’ will impact on the

provision and location of national, regional and local services including health and

education. These agencies will have to keep reviewing where their facilities need to be

located to respond to urban growth and population movement.

- how does H2A ‘fit’ within the Future Proof Strategy and have the areas of highly

productive land been identified?

- need to be careful that the removal of rules around car parking does not disadvantage

people where no public transport or other connectivity services exist. Another approach

would be that if the requirement to provide car parking was reduced that provision would

need to be made for options like park and ride.

- view expressed that developers do not have an interest in providing services as they seek

to minimise costs and maximise profit. Local authorities invariably end up having to pick-

up/’fix’ and pay for via their ratepayers, any service provision short-comings. Observed

that it is not just limited to the initial provision and cost of services infrastructure, but the

ongoing costs of operating and maintaining the infrastructure. There are also ‘bigger

picture’ issues of integrating on-site infrastructure with wider network infrastructure and

associated impacts. This is a large and complex issue that both developers and local

authorities will need to work through (refer Question 9 and response Nos. 43-45 on page 8 of

the submission Doc #15007604).

7

- concern expressed that the NPS has an urban “Auckland-centric” focus and some of the

objectives may not be appropriate in other areas around New Zealand where a greater

urban/rural interface exists.

- in locations with flood management infrastructure, urban growth typically results in

increased volumes of water having to be managed through those systems. View

expressed that currently the urban areas are not paying their fair share of the costs

associated with the resulting impacts.

- regional councils have to deal with a range of water related impacts and cumulative

effects from urban areas including stormwater, wastewater, roading network run-off and

the capacity of existing drainage and flood management infrastructure to cope so that the

receiving environments do not suffer increased adverse events/effects. The submission

needs to strongly signal the flood management and drainage implications of urban

‘growth’ as this is an area of ongoing “tension” (refer Questions 17 and 18 and response No.

57 on page 11 of the submission Doc #15007604).

- concern expressed that proposals that seek to ‘free up’ housing and urban development

may risk ‘dismantling’ all the long term strategic planning work, for example Future Proof

that has been undertaken via a collaborative approach by local authorities region-wide.

- integrated transport planning and implementation is critical to get an appropriate balance

between private transport/roading networks and public transport (buses, commuter rail)

with the level of services and connectivity between urban centres and rural and urban

communities.

- queried how the Future Proof strategic approach will be reflected in either this

submission, or submissions from other participating local authorities within the Waikato

region.

Proposed NPS on Highly Productive Land (HPL)

In summary this new NPS aims to protect HPL from the encroachment of urban development

and ad-hoc rural subdivision. However, it does not completely exclude urban development

on HPL, but requires a more strategic approach to decision making.

Arising out of discussion the following points were noted:

- queried how the adverse effects of climate change will be managed and who will pay for

that “protection”. There are a range of factors and ‘threats’ that will impact on urban and

rural communities and environments.

- it is understood that work is underway on another NPS relating to soil quality issues.

Concern if the Highly Productive Land NPS and a Soil Quality NPS only focus on Class 1, 2

and 3 land. Class 4 and 5 land can also be very productive and is subject to the same

conversion, fragmentation, reverse sensitivity and loss of availability for productive uses

‘threats’. Also, with the loss of Class 1, 2 and 3 soils to urban expansion, the Class 4 and 5

soils become more productively important. Advised that the current Policy default

position covers Class 1, 2 and 3 soils. Making provision to protect the productive capacity/

economic base of soils is a district planning matter.

- observed that many/most urban areas have been built on and are surrounded by highly

productive soils. Development has nearly always occurred in locations with good

8

transport (historically navigable waterways) and where food could be grown. There are a

range of ‘tensions’ not just urban/rural but between different agricultural/productive uses

and for biodiversity/habitat values.

- view expressed that there are plenty of examples where the rules around the protection

of highly productive soils have been ‘over-ridden’ or worked around in favour of

development for urban, industrial and roading network uses.

- not sure how reverse sensitivity issues at the rural-urban interface can actually be

effectively ‘managed’ (refer response No. 26 on page 6 of the submission Doc #15008519).

- view expressed that urban intensification should be encouraged, rather than expansion

on to the surrounding highly productive soils.

- should the focus be on identifying ‘no go’ areas for urban development/expansion and

where the ‘trade-off’ areas/locations will be? Need a future development strategy to

make those decisions in a strategic way, not an ad hoc piece-meal approach.

- do not have confidence that Councils will be strongly ‘backed’ by central Government on

this issue, as recent examples show a preference to support development wherever it is

proposed, regardless of what the relevant policies/rules are.

- if the policy direction/focus is on urban intensification, then expectations around

transport amenity and availability of services increase. Intensification via ‘infill’ and ‘up’

has implications for the local authority for example access to and the capacity of

underground pipes providing services like water supply and wastewater collection.

With respect to the proposed recommendations and the ‘where to from here’, the Committee

noted the ‘tight’ timeframe available to further consider the draft submissions. Given the

importance of the issues being addressed in the proposals and the number of changes and

amendments raised during the discussions, the revised submissions should be further

considered by full Council before the end of the triennium to meet the deadline for lodgement

(being 10 October 2019).

Given that advice, the Director Science and Strategy (T May) proposed that:

- staff make amendments and revise the draft submissions based on the minutes being

taken of the discussion and notes made by the Policy Advisors present

- the revised draft submissions be included on the 26 September 2019 Council agenda for

further consideration, with a focus on those matters where the draft submissions have

been changed for full Council sign-off.

SPC19/45




1. THAT the report Submissions on the proposed National Policy Statement on Urban

Development and proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land (dated


9

2. THAT the Committee endorse in principle the intent of the draft submissions on the

proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development and the proposed National

Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land, noting the issues raised and matters of

amendment that need to be addressed in the draft submissions; and

3. THAT the revised/amended draft submissions on the proposed National Policy

Statement on Urban Development and the proposed National Policy Statement on

Highly Productive Land be reported back to Council at its September 2019 for

consideration and sign-off.


4. Minutes of the Submissions Subcommittee

The minutes of the Submissions Subcommittee meeting held 27 August 2019 were tabled for

receipt and confirmation.

SPC19/46




THAT the minutes of the Submissions Subcommittee meeting held 27 August 2019 be

confirmed as true and correct, and the Section A decisions be noted.


9. Public Excluded Reports

SPC19/47

Moved by: Cr F Lichtwark



THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the meeting set out below on the




(the Act).



Report title: Potential Rezoning Requests (Item 9.1)

Protect information where the making available of the information

1. would disclose a trade secret; or

10

2. would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person

who supplied or who is the subject of the information (section 7(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of

the Act)


Return to Open Meeting 12.30pm

Meeting Closed 12.31pm

Decisions of FINANCE COMMITTEE – OPEN/CLOSED Meeting date: 11 SEPTEMBER 2019



Item 4 Matters Arising From Previous Meetings Minutes – September 2019

That the report Matters arising from previous meetings minutes – September 2019 (Finance Committee 11 September 2019) be received

Item 5 Annual Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2019

That the report Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2019 (Finance Committee 11 September 2019) be received

Item 6 Capital New Works Request – Managawara Flood Protection Scheme

That the report ‘Capital New Works Request – Mangawara Catchment’ (Finance Committee 11 September 2019) be received.

Item 7 Mercer Investment Montoring Report to 30 June 2019

That the report Mercer Investment Monitoring Report to 30 June 2019 (Finance Committee 11 September 2019) be received

Item 8.1 Open Minutes Contracts Subcommittee 28 August 2019

That the minutes of the Contracts Subcommittee of 28 August be received and confirmed as a true and correct record



Item 5 Annual Report for the Year Ended 30 June 2019

1. That the committee approve the 2018/19 Annual Report and Annual Report Summary as presented with minor comments included,

2. That the committee recommends the adoption of the 2018/19 Annual Report and Annual Report Summary to the council.

Item 6 Capital New Works Request – Managawara Flood Protection Scheme

1. That the Finance Committee supports a recommendation to Council for :

i. replacement of the existing floodgate asset

ii. capital new works funding to an estimated value of $169,375, with 25% of the costs being met by Council and the remaining 75% being met by the landowners

iii. drainage upgrade funding to an estimated value of $7,500 with 100% of the costs being met by the landowners

iv. Provision of ongoing maintenance of the drainage and flood protection assets, with these costs being met through the operational budget.

Doc # 15101526


Finance Committee

OPEN MINUTES

Date:

Location:

Wednesday, 11 September, 2019, 10:00 am

Council Chamber



Members Present: Cr J Hennebry - Chair

Cr H Vercoe - Deputy Chair

Cr D Minogue

Cr S Kneebone

Cr B Quayle

Cr A Livingston - Ex Officio

Also Present Cr F Lichtwark

Staff Present: J Becker - Chief Financial Officer

N Hubbard – Manager Corporate Planning

B Murphy – Manager Finance

N Tunnell – Team Leader Accounting Services

S Lealand – Lower Waikato Zone Manager


Minutes Finance Committee 11 September 2019

Doc # 15101526 Page 2

1. Apologies

There were no apologies presented at the meeting.


FC19/65

Moved by: Cr Quayle

Seconded by: Cr Vercoe





4. Matters Arising From Previous Meetings Minutes - September 2019

Chief Financial Officer (J Becker) presented the report. There are two matters arising:

1. Retrospective application of rates remission policy - still being review by staff.

2. Investment fund - health check by Mercer - as agreed a health check of the Investment

Fund will be initiated and reported to the new Council early in 2020.

FC19/66




That the report Matters arising from previous meetings minutes – September 2019 (Finance



5. Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2019

Chief Financial Officer (J Becker) presented the report. The Chairperson welcomed Hamish

Stevens, Chair of the Audit and Risk Subcommittee and Auditors David Walker and Naude

Kotze to the meeting.

A copy of the draft annual report plus annual report summary had been provided for review,

approval and recommendation to Council for adoption at the end of September.

J Becker highlighted key changes to the financial and non-financial results since the meeting

of 8 August 2019.

It was reported in August that there was an operating surplus of $942,000 with additional

costs of $240,000 leaving a net overall surplus of $702,000. The annual report is now

reporting a net operating surplus of $11,000. The difference is due to corrections to the


Doc # 15101526 Page 3

treatment of revaluations and other minor corrections within the accounts. An unallocated

surplus of $785,000 remains available to council. Staff recommend that this is held to offset

any potential costs in relation to implementing central government policy changes around

fresh water.

Members queried a number of items including

additional revenue from flood schemes in catchment works. This related to land owner

contributions for catchment works that had been undertaken over the year.

bus back revenue. Staff noted that a policy on this matter is under development, with an

expectation that it is finalised soon.

whether it was appropriate for this Committee to make a formal recommendation to the

incoming Council with regard to the operating surplus. Chair A Livingston advised that

this is a matter for the incoming Council to determine what the carry over gets allocated

to.

Members queried with staff whether there was any cost built into budget for proposed

Plan Change One for anticipated environment court costs. Staff advised that no, it had

been made very clear that the proposed Plan Change One budget did not provide for any

environment court costs. This would need to be addressed by the new Council early in

the new triennium.

How this Council can provide direction to the new Council about strategic direction so

that we keep a balanced approach rather than focus on environment only. Staff advised

that setting the objectives of the new Council with happen during the strategic

engagement/induction process that will follow the election.

The Annual Report Summary contains a statement that rail funding has been allocated

from Government. It was requested that this be amended to note that the funding was

coming from NZTA.

The Annual Report summary advises that Waikato Civil Defence Emergency Management

has met only 2 of the 3 performance measures. It was noted that the non financial

performance measure that was not met was the review of the Group’s operative plan.

This measure has been noted as “not applicable” as no assessment was required in

2018/19. Members requested that this be clarified in the summary and annual report.

Capital value of rateable properties should be $160,108 million not $106,108

million. Members also queried the figures provided for rateable hectares - the figures

show that rateable hectares has decreased. Staff will check these figures and if necessary

provide an explanatory note for the change.

The Chairperson's statement notes that staff are moving into headquarters in CBD - for

clarification it should be that these premises will be leased.

Protection of kauri - members felt this could be reworded to reflect central government

involvement and the need to secure funding in order to proceed.


Doc # 15101526 Page 4

Reducing carbon footprint - targets wording needs to be checked against strategy to

ensure consistency.

Regional emissions offset by forestry – clarification of what forestry is included within this

metric.

Sea Change – members requested that this note that work towards Sea Change be noted

as business as usual activities by the council.

The Chair then welcomed Auditors David Walker and Naude Kotze for their comments on the

Annual Report.

The audit is divided into 2 reports - financial and non-financial.

Verbal clearance for financials was given yesterday.

Auditors have been unable to sign off the non-financial report due to further work being

undertaken in relation 2 performance measures:

Public transport – percentage of scheduled trips that depart timing points on time

compared to the public timetable

Resource use – percentage of resource consent processed in accordance with RMA

timeframe discount regulations. Further work was being undertaken in relation to

decisions advised via letter.

A legal opinion from the Office of the Auditor General has been sought to clarify what date

should be used to establish notification to the consent applicant - the date the consent was

approved, the date the letter was created or the date that the letter was mailed. Current

systems do not record the date that the letter is posted. The statutory requirement for

consents to comply with the discount regulations is 21 days. Proof of postage is the key date.

Auditors are working closely with council staff to try and determine the dates concerned.

These 2 items may need to be reported in the Audit opinion but both staff and auditors are

working towards achieving an unmodified audit opinion.

Chief Financial Officer J Becker advised members that whilst a new process has been put in

place to track bus timeliness we don't have complete data for the last financial year. As an

alternative it is suggested that we use the passenger survey results that shows that 87% of

respondents are either satisfied or very satisfied with the timeliness of the services. This

measure will be reported as “no result”. Staff can also provide Auditors with access to other

information such as feedback and complaints to further evidence performance in relation to

this matter.

11.12 - Cr Kneebone left the meeting

11.15 - Cr Kneebone re-entered the meeting.

Chair Livingston acknowledged the staff for the huge amount of work undertaken, noting that

these 2 minor matters are the only issues still to be resolved. He queried whether it was worth


Doc # 15101526 Page 5

the work to achieve a clean audit or is it better to acknowledge the issues and that new

systems have been put in place to avoid this happening again.

J Becker acknowledged that a significant amount of work had been to date. Now that staff

understood the information requirements and processes that Audit NZ would apply to confirm

compliance, systems and processes could be modified to ensure that the same issues did not

arise in the future.

The Auditors acknowledged that there are substantial standards in place for financial

measures but that non-financial performance monitoring is newer and processes not as well

established.

H Stevens, noted that on one level these are trivial matters, however also noted that the

measures are key as they reflect how well we are serving our customers. The risk is low if they

cannot be achieved this year but going forward need to be able to be measured. He further

noted that Council needs to be confident in its ability to report on measures before they are

set as the basis of assessing performance.

FC19/67

Moved by: Cr Livingston



1. That the report Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2019 (Finance Committee 11

September 2019) be received, and


2. That the committee approve the 2018/19 Annual Report and Annual Report Summary

as presented with minor comments included, and

3. That the committee recommends the adoption of the 2018/19 Annual Report and

Annual Report Summary to the council.


6. Capital New Works Request - Mangawara Flood Protection Scheme

Lower Waikato Zone Manager, S Lealand presented the report requesting capital new works

funding for a new drainage asset and upgrade of an existing floodgate within Mangawara

Compartment 9, which benefits two land owners.

The proposed improvements have been investigated and designed resulting in a

recommendation for new drainage assets and upgrade of an existing floodgate to improve

drainage and flood protection at two properties.

Because the work to be undertaken isn't a like for like replacement and provides an

improved level of service it is treated as new works funding.


Doc # 15101526 Page 6

Both LWCC and Central Waikato Drainage have supported the recommendation for the

proposed works. Both landowners are aware that the paper is being presented to the

Finance Committee and Council for approval.

Staff met with the landowners to discuss the proposal and draft legal agreement. Both

landowners support in principle the proposal and draft legal agreement provided, however

one landowner felt it should be a capital renewal, not capital new works.

2 options were discussed:

1. Put project on hold and go through investigative process or

2. Go forward with the project. Landowners keen to progress the project but asked if

there was any opportunity for the project to be reassessed as it is being implemented as

a capital renewal.

The project is to be funded 75% landowner/25% Waikato Regional Council. The 25% would

be split 10% general rate, 15% from Lower Waikato Zone rate.

The creation of the new drainage asset would be 100% funded by the landowners, in

line with the existing drainage policy.

FC19/68




1. That the report ‘Capital New Works Request – Mangawara Catchment’ (Finance



2. That the Finance Committee supports a recommendation to Council for :

i. replacement of the existing floodgate asset

ii. capital new works funding to an estimated value of $169,375, with 25% of the costs

being met by Council and the remaining 75% being met by the landowners

iii. drainage upgrade funding to an estimated value of $7,500 with 100% of the costs

being met by the landowners

iv. Provision of ongoing maintenance of the drainage and flood protection assets,

with these costs being met through the operational budget.


7. Mercer Investment Monitoring Report to 30 June 2019

11.54am The Chair adjourned the meeting for a 2 minute break.

11.55 am - meeting reconvened. Cr Minogue was not present.


Doc # 15101526 Page 7

Mr Brian Kearney, Investment Advisor from Mercer joined the meeting via telephone

conference to present the report.

Mr Kearney outlined the quarterly report including the performance of the fund since the last

report. He noted that the performance was positive despite the challenging environment

which had changed significantly with the official cash rate dropping.

11.57am Cr Minogue returned to the meeting.

Mr Kearney overviewed the various markets in which the fund is invested and outlined the

returns for each market. NZ markets have had a very good run over the quarter - this is in

part due to low interest rates which means investors have searched for higher returns through

capital markets. The unhedged portion of the fund has added value to the returns in light of

the weakening NZ dollar.

Mr Kearney then explained the Attribution Effects - graph showed how returns for the quarter

had been achieved. Top performers were global equities and NZ cash, offset by trans-tasman

equities.

Current fund assets when compared to the target Asset Allocation are currently sitting very

close to the mid point of the target range. Planned fund withdrawals will provide the

opportunity to rebalance the portfolio. Overall the equalisation reserve position remains

healthy with a balance of $12.5 million.

Since the end of the quarter the fund has continued to see fairly strong returns. Volatility is

still being evidenced but helped by drop in the Official Cash Rate.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Kearney for his report and noted the good relationship that has

been developed with Mercer over the years. Cr Hennebry noted that this would be the last

meeting she was chairing as she was retiring at the end of this triennium.

FC19/69

Moved by: Cr Vercoe



That the report Mercer Investment Monitoring Report to 30 June 2019 (Finance Committee



8. Committees Reporting to Finance Committee

8.1 Open Minutes Contracts Subcommittee 28 August 2019

FC19/70

Moved by: Cr Vercoe




Doc # 15101526 Page 8

That the minutes of the Contracts Subcommittee of 28 August be received and confirmed

as a true and correct record.


9. Reasons To Exclude the Public

FC19/71




That the public be excluded from the following parts of the meeting set out below on the




(the Act).



Report Title : Public Excluded Minutes Contracts SubCommittee Meetng 28 August 2019

Maintain legal professional privilege (section 7(2)(g) of the Act)

Enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or

disadvantage, commercial activities (section 7(2)(h) of the Act)



7(2)(i) of the Act).


12.15 pm The meeting excluded the public.

12.18 pm The meeting returned to open session.

The Chairperson acknowledged the excellent working relationship with staff and noted her

appreciation of the hard work always put in to ensure the Committee was able to make well

informed decision.

Cr Hennebry also acknowledged the Committee for their support and hard work in ensuring

that the committee was run efficiently and effectively.

The Committee acknowledged her role as Chairperson and her retirement at the end of this

triennium.

12.19 pm The meeting closed.

Decisions of Environmental and Service Performance Committee OPEN Meeting date: 12 September 2019



Item 2 Confirmation of Agenda

That the agenda, as circulated with the inclusion of the minor verbal report during public excluded, be confirmed as the business of the Environmental and Services Performance Committee meeting on 12 September 2019.

Item 10 Urban Research Programme

That the following reports:

Item 10 - Urban research programme (Environmental and Services Performance Committee 12 September 2019)

Item 8 - Urban Stormwater (Environmental and Services Performance Committee 12 September 2019)

Item 9 - Hamilton City Council Stormwater Management (Environmental and Services Performance Committee 12 September 2019)

be received.

Item 11 – Update on Emerging Organic Contaminants in Groundwater Study

That the report Update on emerging organic contaminants in groundwater study (Environmental and Services Performance Committee 12 September 2019) be received.

Item 12 – Risks from Coastal and Riverline Landfills in Light or Fox River Event

That the report Risks from coastal and riverine landfills in light of the Fox River event (Environmental and Services Performance Committee 12 September 2019) be received.

Item 6 – Incident Response Statistics for the 2018/19 year

That the report Incident Response – facts and figures 2018/19 (Environmental and Services Performance Committee 12 September 2019) be received.

Item 7 – Resource Use Directorate Consent Statistics August 2019

That the report Resource Use Directorate Consent Statistics August 2019 (Environmental and Services and Performance Committee 12 September 2019) be received.



Environmental and Services Performance Committee

OPEN MINUTES

Date: Location:

Thursday, 12 September, 2019, 10:06 am Council Chamber Waikato Regional Council 401 Grey Street, Hamilton East

Members Present: Cr K White - Chair

Cr K Hodge - Deputy Chair Cr F Lichtwark Cr S Husband Cr B Quayle Cr J Hayman Cr A Livingston - Ex Officio

Also Present: Cr S Kneebone Staff Present: C McLay - Director Resource Use

P Lynch – Manager Investigations and Incidents B Sinclair – Manager Infrastructure and Industry L Bartley - Democracy Advisor

Open Minutes Environmental and Services Performance Committee 12 September 2019

Doc # 15125143 Page 2

1. Apologies

Cr Hodge opened the meeting with a karakia.

There were no apologies received.


The Chairperson and Director - Resource Use (C McLay) asked for a minor item to be added to the public excluded section of the agenda. The matter to be discussed relates to an update on discharges from an industrial site. C McLay noted that the agenda may need to be altered due to timing of external presenters.

ESPC19/28 Moved By Cr F Lichtwark Seconded By Cr K Hodge RESOLVED (SECTION A)

That the agenda, as circulated with the inclusion of the minor verbal report during public excluded, be confirmed as the business of the Environmental and Services Performance Committee meeting on 12 September 2019.



No disclosures were received.


ESPC19/29 Moved By Cr K White Seconded By Cr J Hayman RESOLVED (SECTION A)

THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the meeting set out below on the grounds that the public conduct of those parts of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (the Act). The particular interests protected by section 6 or 7 of the Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as follows: Report title: Update on Prosecutions

Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons (section 7(2)(a) of the Act)

Maintain legal professional privilege (section 7(2)(g) of the Act)

Avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation, and detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial (section 6(a) of the Act)


10.15 am – The meeting moved into public excluded session.


Doc # 15125143 Page 3

11.00 am – The meeting resumed open session.

During the public excluded session, it was resolved to defer Items 6 – Incident Response Statistics for the 2018/19 year and Item 7 – Resource Use Directorate Consent Statistics August 2019 until the end of the agenda.

8. Urban Stormwater

The Chair welcomed Sue Clearwater and Lucy McKergow from NIWA and Andrea Phillips from Hamilton City Council.

Manager - Industry and Infrastructure (B Sinclair) presented his report.

It was noted that Waikato Regional Council has been working with territorial authorities over a number of years as each of the respective Councils has sought comprehensive stormwater discharge consents. A copy of the most recently issued resource consent that authorises the discharge of stormwater from Hamilton City was tabled (Appendix 1).

During questions, members queried how existing infrastructure can be upgraded to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff from historically developed urban areas. It was noted that this is a significant challenge.

9. Hamilton City Council Stormwater Management

Andrea Phillips, Infrastructure Engineer at Hamilton City Council, presented the report and a presentation on Hamilton City Council’s Citywide and Catchment Stormwater Planning which outlined the work that Hamilton City Council are doing to drive the management of stormwater across the City's boundaries including existing developments, new urban development and proposed urban/rural developments. One of the key objectives of the work is to restore the health and wellbeing of Waikato River.

She provided an overview of catchment zones and the status of their catchment plans. An overview of the interactive platform for data collated was provided to members. The platform can be used to provide statistical data on flood zones in Hamilton City, and identifies homes at risk due to a single event. This platform will be available in early 2020 on Hamilton City's website.

Members thanked Ms Phillips for her very interesting, informative and interactive presentation.

10. Urban Research Programme

Sue Clearwater and Lucy McKergow from NIWA presented the report detailing the research project currently being undertaken by NIWA. The area being researched is the Mangakotukutuku stream which has two branches, one of which goes through western Melville and the other which heads east through Peacocke Road rural area.

Peacocke's rural zone has been identified as an area to be developed over the next 30 years – it provides a research opportunity for urban management as well as transitional phase from rural to urban.

Mangakotuktuku stream - one branch is already urbanised but another branch is about to become urbanised – which provides an opportunity for comparison between the two branches. The aim of project is to provide a long term data set which can be used nationally. Two main partners are NIWA and HCC but they are looking for other partners including WRC, Waikato Tainui, Waikato River Authority, university and other partners. Ms Clearwater also noted that Nukuhau stream is currently rural and will remain rural. If funding


Doc # 15125143 Page 4

can be sourced, this site could be used as a control site to measure against the Mangakotukutuku locations.

The monitoring sites are powered by solar with radio antenna submitting data direct back to Hamilton City Council / NIWA. Live time recording. 10 minutes collection - telemetered. Flow being measured.

The project provides additional monitoring opportunities which are yet to be funded, including

Biological monitoring (invertebrates / fish)

Sediment monitoring

Water sampling during weather events

Testing and mitigation &/or devices

The catchment modelling will have national relevance.

Members queried the cost of monitoring - $250K for project to date (joint funded Hamilton City Council/NIWA).

Cr Livingston congratulated NIWA/Hamilton City Council on the work they are doing. Will dovetail nicely into what the government is doing. Gratifying to think this work is being established.

ESPC19/34 Moved By Cr F Lichtwark Seconded By Cr B Quayle RESOLVED (SECTION A)

That the following reports:

Item 10 - Urban research programme (Environmental and Services Performance Committee 12 September 2019)

Item 8 - Urban Stormwater (Environmental and Services Performance Committee 12 September 2019)

Item 9 - Hamilton City Council Stormwater Management (Environmental and Services Performance Committee 12 September 2019)

be received. The motion was put and carried

11. Update on Emerging Organic Contaminants in Groundwater Study

The Chair welcomed Dr Magali Moreau and Jonathan Caldwell to the meeting.

Cr Magali Moreau presented her report on the project being undertaken to trace and examine emerging contaminants found in waste effluents; waste water, landfill, septic tanks, animal feeding operations, manure and bio-solids from sewerage processing application to land. Key partners WRC/National Laboratory Services, British Geological Society.

ESPC19/35

Moved By Cr F Lichtwark Seconded By Cr B Quayle RESOLVED (SECTION A)


Doc # 15125143 Page 5

That the report Update on emerging organic contaminants in groundwater study (Environmental and Services Performance Committee 12 September 2019) be received.


1.05 pm Meeting adjourned for lunch until 1.25 pm.

1.30 pm Meeting Reconvened. Cr’s Livingston & Kneebone not presented.

12. Risks from Coastal and Riverline Landfills in Light of Fox River Event

Team Leader, Geothermal & Air, Land Ecology & Contamination (M Begbie) presented the report.

M Begbie provide an overview of the legislative requirements of the Resource Management Act in relation to management of contaminated sites. An overview of the number of sites across the region was provided to members and a breakdown those vulnerable to climate change was also discussed.

The historical national risk assessment tool was acknowledged as being very poor. Staff are now working towards a more interactive risk analytical tool to manage the assessment of landfills. Modern risk assessment is now much broader. Takes into consideration a number of factors including iwi and climate change.

The incident at Fox River landfill was then discussed as a reference point for risk to any of the region’s sites.

Members queried if we have our staff teams are preparing for an event - i.e similar to a civil defence exercise. Yes similar work is being done to manage waste during hazard events.

1.49 pm Cr Livingston entered the meeting.

A member queried whether the old ponds containing wastewater sludge at Raglan were on the HAIL list? Staff indicated they provide a response on this matter to members.

ESPC19/36 Moved By Cr K Hodge Seconded By Cr F Lichtwark RESOLVED (SECTION A) That the report Risks from coastal and riverine landfills in light of the Fox River event (Environmental and Services Performance Committee 12 September 2019) be received.


6. Incident Response Statistics for the 2018/19 year

Manager Investigations and Incident Response (P Lynch) presented the report. He introduced his team members Kent Morrissey - Incident Response Advisor; Eris Mani – Business Support Officer (Temp) and noted the apologies of Wayne Reed - Team Leader, Incident Response (absent).


Doc # 15125143 Page 6

It was noted there has been a significant increase in the number of calls from members of the public relating to environmental incidents, this can be interpreted as an increase in demand for service on council. At the same time there has been a significant increase in the number of calls that have been able to be physically attended by incident response staff. This can be attributed to a number of factors including enhanced admin support and stability of retention within the team.

Despite physically attending more calls, levels of service, at a percentage level, have actually reduced due to the increased demand for service. Maintaining or improving level of service through additional resourcing is an annual plan discussion.

The committee was also reminded of the unusually high number of very significant incidents that had occurred in the last 12 months and that the response to each of these incidents also had to be resourced appropriately.

A brief presentation was made to the committee in respect of the use of Business Intelligence (BI) to analyse various components of incident response to better understand both demands for service and level of service working towards an intelligence driven business. A BI dashboard was used to demonstrate examples of analysis capability. Future aspirations for BI include potentially using it as a reporting tool to council and ultimately a completely public facing dashboard.

2.01 pm Cr Livingston left the meeting.

2.02 pm Cr Kneebone re-entered the meeting.

Members requested that this presentation is made to the incoming council as part of the induction.

Members also noted that if there are resourcing issues, requests should be submitted through the annual plan process.

ESPC19/37 Moved By Cr K White Seconded By Cr B Quayle RESOLVED (SECTION A) That the report Incident Response – facts and figures 2018/19 (Environmental and Services Performance Committee 12 September 2019) be received


7. Resource Use Directorate Consent Statistics August 2019

Director Resource Use (C McLay) took the report as read and responded to queries from members.

Members queried the ongoing matter of waste water treatment plants that seem to be taking a long time to reach resolution. C McLay noted that the team managing these issues is implementing a number of changes in order to ensure resolution of the matters is reached.

ESPC19/38 Moved By Cr K White Seconded By Cr F Lichtwark RESOLVED (SECTION A)


Doc # 15125143 Page 7

That the report Resource Use Directorate Consent Statistics August 2019 (Environmental and Services and Performance Committee 12 September 2019) be received.


2.17 pm - The meeting closed.

Doc # 15041088

Report to Council

Date: 4 September 2019

Author: Nick Ollington, Manager People and Capability

Authoriser: Neville Williams, Director - Community and Services Vaughan Payne, Chief Executive

Subject: Health and Safety Council Report – August 2019

Purpose 1. To report on the monthly health and safety council dashboard and any other topics regarding health

and safety of relevance to council.

Executive Summary 2. There was a total of 9 incidents reported in August. Of this number, 8 were events and 1 was a

near miss.

3. There were no lost time injuries recorded for August. 4. There were no notifications to WorkSafe in August. 5. Events held in the pending file for greater than one week increased slightly; 10.95% in July to

11.61% in August.

Staff Recommendation: 1. That the “Health and Safety Council Report – August 2019” report (Doc# 15012529) dated 4

September 2019 be received.

Background 6. The health and safety dashboard is reported to council each month. It is designed to enable council

to exercise due diligence with regard to health and safety governance and provides a general summary of health and safety risk and activities within council. Additionally, from time to time other topics regarding health and safety of relevance for council will also be included.

Response to Councillor Question (August 2019) 7. The contractors engaged by Waikato Regional Council to conduct 1080 operations, confirm that

their staff are required to have health monitoring following aerial operations, as specified under the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 2016. Evidence of staff monitoring results was requested as part of an audit of the Piopio East operation, where all three staff involved, completed urine testing and returned negative results.

Written Report – Dashboard for August 2019 8. Lost Time Injuries (LTI) – There were no LTI recorded for August.

9. Report to WorkSafe – There were no reports to WorkSafe in August.

10. Critical Risks – The dashboard provides a table showing the organisational critical risks, the raw

(pre control), and residual (post control) risk scoring, and the date that the risk was last reviewed.

Doc # 15041088 Page 2

11. Details of Reports Against Critical Risks –

Aggression; there was one reported incident related to an arranged inspection with the farm owner. The farm owner and an unidentified ‘other’ person suddenly became highly abusive and irritated. The two staff members promptly left the property. Vehicle Use; one incident involved a vehicle carrying a heavy load in wet and slippery conditions, on a road with a bad camber. The vehicle slipped, causing the load to move, and a plastic cage fell off the trailer to the curb side of the road. The second incident occurred as the driver of a WRC vehicle was pulling out of a partially blocked exit on Te Rapa Road. The driver sustained sunstrike while pulling out, was temporarily blinded, and hit another vehicle. There were no injuries requiring medical attention.

12. Health and Safety Summary Chart (pyramid) – In August there were 2 ‘no treatment’ reports, and

1 medical report. The no treatment reports were for strain/sprain and gradual onset of pain with computer work. The medical treatment was for the treatment of pain and discomfort from prolonged computer work.

13. Near Miss Events versus All Other Events – Near-miss reporting continues to fluctuate. There 1

near miss reports in August. 14. Sick Leave Taken – The sick leave chart includes data from 2017 to enable year on year comparison.

After a sustained downward trend in sick leave throughout 2018 and early 2019, in August the sick leave hours absence increased compared to August 2018. This trend has been observable since early winter. There has been a high incident rate for influenza in the community this year. Environment Scientific Research (ESR) statistics show an increase in influenza-positive illness rates in the community from late May through to July. These statistics reflect the WRC sick leave rates during the same period. The rolling average for the previous 12 months is 4.9 hours per employee, this is within the targeted benchmark range of 3.0 to 5.0

15. Pending Events – The events pending greater than 1 week has increased slightly from 10.95% in

July to 11.61% in August. Figures show an ongoing reduction in the number of incidents remaining in ‘pending’ over the last 2 years.

16. Event Corrective Actions (excl. Near Miss Corrective Actions) – In August there were a total of 8

events reported, of which 1 corrective action was assigned, and completed. No corrective actions are overdue for completion.

17. Near Miss Corrective Actions – In August there was 1 near miss report; slipped on wet leaves. No

corrective actions have been assigned. 18. Health and Safety Training FYTD – A range of organisational health and safety training is available

and advertised on the workforce development calendar. In the 2019/20 financial year there is a focus on managers attending accident investigation, and risk management training.

19. Audits FYTD - The ‘overlapping duties of health and safety-systems’ (contractor management)

recommendations have been assigned to responsible owners. There is one outstanding low-risk action yet to be completed (October 2019).

Attachments Appendix 1 - Doc #15012529 Council Dashboard – August 2019

Doc # 15012529

Council Health and Safety Indicators – Monthly Dashboard Reporting Month: August 2019 Lost Time Injuries There were no lost time injuries for August 2019

Organisational Critical Risks – Critical risks with a residual score of ‘High’ Risk Effective Levels – Effectiveness of existing systems and processes, expressed in the following 5 categories; Excellent, Good (strong), Fair (some strength), Poor (weak), and Very Poor (very weak) – Reference information obtained from: Risk Management Framework – Corporate Risk Policy (DM # 2151810).

Critical and High Risks (those with a risk score of 10 or higher)

Raw Risk Score

Residual Risk Score

Risk Effectiveness Levels

Insights Reported incidents

Vehicle use Risk: Personal injury – multiple injuries (self and others), fatality, property damage. Impact: Physical harm, property damage.

25 - Critical 15 - High Good (strong)

Fulfils requirements. Controls are adequate. Risk review completed May 2019. 2

Working in and around water Risk: Drowning, physical harm. Impact: Legal, physical harm, reputation.

20 – Critical 15 – High Good (strong) Controls adequate. Water Working Policy includes competency assessment. Risk review completed January 2019.

Working in geothermal areas Risk: Injury or fatality from drowning, boiling mud/water. Burns from acid pools. Suffocation (H2S). Impact: Death /medical treatment.

20 - Critical 15 - High Good (strong)

Controls adequate and preventative measures in place. Risk under review.

Aggressive people/public Risk: Assault, verbal and physical. Impact: Physical and psychological harm, property damage

20 - Critical 15 - High Good (strong) Controls adequate. Implemented improved systems for security. Risk under review. 1

Struck by moving vehicles / equipment Risk: Harm to workers, others, damage to plant and property due to poor management controls. Impact: Financial, legal, physical harm, reputation, property damage.

20 - Critical 10 – High Good (strong)

Controls adequate. Risk Review completed in May 2018.

Risks are reviewed at least annually or after a system / process change, or after a critical event.

Health and Safety Summary

Injuries/Illnesses ID Injury Category Body Location Event

Status 2690 Medical

treatment Ergonomic - desk Gradual onset of pain. Sought

treatment Underway

2686 No treatment Ergonomic - desk Developed pain in left shoulder Underway

2681 No treatment Sprain/strain Lifting heavy weight and felt pain in Lower back Underway

Health and Safety Summary

Near miss summary ID Category Subject Event Status 2682 Facility/building Slipped on we leaves Underway

All other events ID Category Subject Event Status 2691 Aggression/ antisocial Farm owner became

aggressive during visit Not started

2688 Facility/building Small gas leak detected and repaired Underway

2687 Vehicle Slipped on wet road, cause load to move. Some property damage

Underway

2677 Vehicle Traffic Incident – property damage Underway

2676 Environment Slipped on bank and felling into waist deep water Completed

13 1512

25

11

22

15

24

1115 16

10 8712

5

128 6 4 6 6 8 6 6

105

1015202530

Org wide - Near Miss Events vs All Other Events

Events Near Miss

Doc # 15012529 Page 2

Sick Leave

• In August, sick leave decreased to 6.3, which is slightly higher than the hours recorded in August 2018 (5.6).

• The rolling average for the YTD is 4.9, within the benchmark range of 3.0 to 5.0. • The data excludes sick leave donated, sick leave credited from the sick leave bank

and sick leave taken as a recreation or wellness day.

Pending Events for > 1 week (%)

Events pending >1 week have increased from 10.95% in July to 11.61% in August. Figures show a continued reduction in the number of incidents remaining in the pending section, over the last 2 years.

• In August 2019, a total of 8 events (excluding near misses) were reported. Refer to

red line in previous graph. • Of the 8 events, 1 corrective action has been assigned, and completed. There are

no overdue corrective actions.

• In August 2019, 1 near miss was reported. Refer to green line in above graph. • Of the 1 near miss, no corrective actions have been assigned as yet.

Health & Safety Training Course Duration Dates

Accident Investigation (managers) 1 day August 2019 M-ICAMS (Incident Causation Methodology) 1 day 1 August 2019 Customer Conflict and Awareness 3.5 hours August 2019 Emergency Wardens 6 hours 2018/19 Training – ongoing as required First Aid Training 1 day 2018/19 Training – ongoing as required Vault training for Managers, Team Leaders and Supervisors 1 hr 1:1 Skype training with HR Systems & Reporting Advisor Vault training for Business Support staff 1 hr 1:1 Skype training with HR Systems & Reporting Advisor

Internal / External Audit Auditor Section/

Audit Audit

Classification Date of audit Findings Completion

date Outstanding

Action Comments

Internal Audits External Audit KPMG ICM and

RUD Overlapping duties of health and safety -systems review (contractor management)

15 August 2018

1 item = low risk

September 19

Contracts Working Group to

confirm lead KPI

Actions loaded into Vault and

underway

4.4 4.0

6.7

4.1

7.3 6.97.7 7.2

4.94.2 4.6

3.3

4.93.8 4.1

2.0

3.7

5.56.1 5.7 5.6

4.7 5.04.1

3.22.83.4

4.2 4.1

6.5 6.87.8

6.3

-1.0

1.0

3.0

5.0

7.0

9.0

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC Rolling12

months

Monthly Absent Hours Lost Compared to Target (2017 to CYTD)

2017 2018 2019 TargetZone 3 to 5

05

10152025303540

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2017 2018 2019

05

1015202530

15 15 14

26

10

2418

24

11 14 13 101

21

Event Corrective Actions(excl. Near Miss Corrective Actions)

Completed Corrective Actions Underway Corrective Actions

02468

1012

Aug-

18

Sep-

18

Oct

-18

Nov

-18

Dec-

18

Jan-

19

Feb-

19

Mar

-19

Apr-

19

May

-19

Jun-

19

Jul-1

9

Aug-

19

711

6

118

64

6 7 6 63

1

1

Near Miss Corrective Actions

Completed Corrective Actions Underway Corrective Actions

Docs # 13081856

Report to Council


Author: Anthea Sayer, Corporate Planning Manager Bernard Murphy, Finance Manager

Authoriser: Janine Becker, Chief Financial Officer Vaughan Payne, Chief Executive

Subject: Adoption of the 2018/19 Annual Report and Annual Report Summary Purpose 1. To enable the council to adopt the final 2018/19 Annual Report and Annual Report Summary. Executive Summary 2. Staff have prepared the 2018/19 Annual Report and Annual Report Summary for the year ended

30 June 2019.

3. The Annual Report was presented to the Finance Committee on 11 September 2019 with Audit NZ present advising that verbal clearance of the financial statements had been but there were two non-financial measures that were still being reviewed.

4. Audit NZ has now advised that one of the reviews of the outstanding non-financial measures has

been resolved, however the other is still outstanding and currently with Audit’s review team. The outcome of this could result in an emphasis of matter being included on the Audit opinion. A verbal update will be provided at the Council meeting.

5. This report highlights the changes to the financial and non-financial results since they were reported to the September 2019 Finance Committee meeting, including changes that were requested by councillors at this meeting.

Recommendations:

1. That the report ‘Adoption of the 2018/19 Annual Report and Annual Report Summary’ (Council meeting 26 September 2019) be received for information,

2. That the council adopt the 2018/19 Annual Report and Annual Report Summary as presented, subject to final formatting and minor editorial changes and

3. That the council authorises the Chair and Chief Executive to sign the Audit New Zealand Letter of Representation on behalf of the council.

Background 6. The non-financial performance results for 2018/19 were presented to the Finance Committee at

its meeting on 8 August 2019, along with financial reports showing the draft year end outcome. The draft annual report and annual report summary were subsequently presented to the 11 September 2019 Finance Committee meeting.

7. At the 20 August 2019 Audit and Risk Committee meeting the key accounting estimates and judgements that underpin the financial statements were reviewed and endorsed.

8. Key changes made since the 11 September 2019 Finance Committee meeting are detailed in this

report. Subsequent changes 9. The following changes were requested by the Finance committee, or have been identified by staff

in the final review of the document, and are now included in the documents presented for adoption:

Annual Report – full document

Page Changes made 4 Message from the CE and Chairperson: Updated the paragraph in relation to the new rail

service to note that NZ Transport Agency rather than Government have confirmed funding. Sentence now reads: A key project of this, which the regional council is leading, is the start-up Hamilton-Auckland passenger rail service. NZ Transport Agency has just confirmed the funding of vital rail infrastructure, and we’ll be helping to fund the operating costs of the service.

5 Message from the CE and Chairperson: Updated paragraph in relation to our new premises to note that we will be leasing the new building. Sentence now reads: We have also just sold the last of our Hamilton East properties ahead of our headquarters’ move to new leased site in Hamilton’s CBD next year.

18 Staff numbers: 2019 should be 540 not 498. 62 Public transport performance measure. Updated commentary now reads:

Staff are working through a number of technical issues with the systems which are used to report on this measure. As a result of these issues staff cannot confirm the reliability of the data and therefore cannot determine a result for this measure for the full year. Measures have been implemented with the real time provider to increase tracking rates. The roll out of the hardware updates will be completed in August 2019. In addition to improving tracking rates, Council is working to significantly improve the reliability of bus services across the network with revised timetables programmed to start being deployed in January 2020 and completed by April 2020. In addition to this measure information is collected through our customer satisfaction survey which was undertaken in October 2018. The survey results identify that 87 per cent of passengers are satisfied or very satisfied with the timeliness of bus services.

150 Capital Commitments and Operating Leases

2018/19 Changed to Actual

$000 $000

No later than one year 1,190 1,190 Later than one year no later than five years 1,586 11,603 Later than five years - 30,886 Total non-cancellable operating leases 2,758 43,679

Operating leases includes the value all property leased by council. This note details the commitment to costs over the life of the leases and breaks them down to time bands. A

Page Changes made review of this note revealed that the Tristram street lease had not been included in this disclosure. As the lease will not start until council takes possession of the building in 2020 there is no impact on operating expenditure for the 2018/19 year.

Annual Report Summary 10. The following table outlines the changes made to the Annual Report Summary, noting that changes

made in the full document are replicated in the summary where applicable, but not listed below:

Page Change made 6 Capital value of rateable properties: 2019 has been updated to read $160.108 billion, rather

than $106.108. 7 First paragraph under our mission update. Sentence now reads:

On the ground we are about delivering on the three outcomes of our mission. Everything is interconnected. The work we do in one area cannot be at the expense of another, and so we look to make decisions which deliver multiple benefits for our communities.

13 Protection the mighty Kauri: Additional sentence added to note the challenges we are facing with securing funding for this work. Paragraph now reads: In 2018/19, we worked with Biosecurity New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries to review the National Kauri Dieback Programme. We worked with an Accelerating Protection of Kauri project team to refresh the National Kauri Protection Strategy and developed a Proposed National (Kauri dieback) Pest Management Plan. However, funding will be required to implement the plan and improve the protection of kauri, but no funds have been secured from central government to date. We will continue to advocate for better funding to protect these important taonga.

16 Reducing our carbon footprint: Clarification that Council’s target is to reduced emission by an average of 2% every year, and removed the reference to emissions offset by forestry. Sentence now reads: We have set a target of reducing our emissions by an average of 2 per cent every year.

17 Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari: Updated the first paragraph under this heading to note that much of the work listed below is part of our business as usual which helps to deliver on Sea Change. Sentence now reads: This non-statutory plan outlines a comprehensive range of suggested measures to boost the health of the Hauraki Gulf and make it increasingly productive. Lots of our business as usual work helps us to deliver on the objectives of Sea Change.

20 Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management: Added an additional paragraph under this area noting that one measure was Not applicable and that was outside our control. Additional text: One of the measures for this area was not applicable this year as we were not due to undertake an assessment of the Group CDEM Plan in 2018/19.

27 Capital Commitments and Operating Leases

This Year Changed to Actual

$000 $000

No later than one year 1,190 1,190 Later than one year no later than five years 1,586 11,603 Later than five years - 30,886 Total non-cancellable operating leases 2,758 43,679

As discussed above, this disclosure now includes the Tristram St lease

11. Minor editorial and formatting changes continue to be made to both documents as they undergo

final proof reading. Annual Report Adoption 12. The 2018/19 Annual Report is now presented to council for adoption. A copy of the full report is

available as a separate link on Sharepoint and hard copies will be available in the councillors’ lounge. A copy of the Annual Report Summary is attached to this report.

13. Audit NZ will provide an update on the audit opinion at the council meeting and will be able to answer any questions councillors have.

14. Letters of representation for the Annual Report and Annual Report Summary to be signed by the

Chairperson and CE and provided to Audit for the 2018/19 Annual Report will be circulated at the meeting.

Post adoption 15. Once adopted, the 2018/19 Annual Report and Annual Report Summary will be published. Copies

of the summary will also be sent to our mailing list with copies of the full Annual Report made available on request.

16. The 2018/19 Annual Report and Annual Report Summary will be published on the council’s website as soon as possible after adoption.

Legislative context 17. Staff are of the opinion that the content and recommendations in this report are consistent with

the decision making requirements contained in Part Six of the Local Government Act 2002 and that the decision making requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 have been met.

Policy considerations 18. To the best of the writer’s knowledge, this decision is not significantly inconsistent with nor is

anticipated to have consequences that will be significantly inconsistent with any policy adopted by this local authority or any plan required by the Local Government Act 2002 or any other enactment.

Conclusion 19. The Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2019 and its summary are now finalised and ready

for adoption by the council. Attachments 1. 2018/19 Annual Report (via sharepoint) 2. 2018/19 Annual Report Summary (via sharepoint)

Report to Council Date: 26 September 2019 Author: Neil Tunnell, Team Leader Financial Accounting Authoriser: Janine Becker, Chief Financial Officer Vaughan Payne, Chief Executive Subject: Waikato Local Authority Shared Services Limited Audited Annual Report to 30 June

2019 Purpose 1. To present the Waikato Local Authority Shared Services Limited (WLASS) audited Annual Report to 30 June

2019 to Council. Executive Summary 2. The WLASS audited Annual Report is presented to Council for their information. WLASS made an operating

surplus of $253,152 compared to a budget deficit of $948,982 and met the majority of its performance measures for the 2018/19 financial year.

3. It has been a landmark year for WLASS – following a strategic review the company’s operating model has changed and it now employs staff for the first time as part of its transformation into a service delivery agent.

4. A change was also made to the governance structure which has resulted in a reduction in Board members

from 12 to six including an independent chair. This structure takes effect from 1 July 2019 with the appointment of Peter Stubbs into the Chair role.

Staff Recommendation: That the report Waikato Local Authority Shared Services Limited Audited Annual Report to 30 June 2019 be received for information.

Background 5. Waikato Local Authority Shared Services (WLASS) is a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) owned by the

Waikato Region local authorities. The objective of the company is to provide the Waikato councils with a vehicle to develop shared services that demonstrate a benefit to the ratepayers.

6. The Local Government Act 2002 requires CCOs to report to the shareholders twice yearly. Attached is the audited Annual Report to 30 June 2019.

7. The objectives of WLASS are: • To enable the Waikato councils to collectively be more effective as a region on the national stage • To contribute to building central government’s confidence in the Waikato region, and to encourage

central government investment • To achieve effectiveness and efficiency gains • To reduce duplication of effort and eliminate waste through repetition • To make it easier for customers to engage with councils in the Waikato region • To promote and contribute to the development of best practice • To promote business transformation to improve customers’ experiences.

There are currently eight major initiatives operating under the WLASS umbrella, plus a number of Working Parties investigating new opportunities, and a support role for the collaborative work streams of the Waikato Mayoral Forum.

7.1 Shared Valuation Data Service (SVDS) The SVDS is a council owned database within which contracted valuation service providers can access and maintain valuation data, this service has been operating since 2004/05.

7.2 Road Asset Technical Accord (RATA) RATA provides roading asset management services to enable and facilitate effective, strategic roading investment decision-making. Councils saving as a result of RATA initiatives are estimated at $2.8m across the past five years, through joint procurement, training support, the deferral of physical works due to better data analysis and decision-making processes, and more appropriate asset lives being used in depreciation calculations.

7.3 Waikato Regional Transportation Model (WRTM) This model became fully operational in February 2010. It provides accurate information to Councils and to external users (for a charge) for their transport modelling requirements. The WRTM is the only recognised strategic transport modelling resource in the Waikato Region, and is jointly funded by the NZ Transport Agency. WRTM is making a significant contribution to strategic planning of land use and infrastructure within the region and has been involved in regionally and nationally significant investigations including: the Waikato Expressway Network Plan; the Waikato Regional Land Transport Strategy and Regional Policy Statement; and transport impact assessments in relation to the development of Ruakura.

7.4 Waikato Building Consent Group (WBCG) The WBCG was initially set up by five Waikato local authorities in 2004 to foster co-operation, collaboration and consistency in building functions, legislative interpretation and process documentation across the partnering councils. The Group now comprises nine councils (Hamilton City, Hauraki, Matamata-Piako, Otorohanga, Thames Coromandel, Otorohanga, Waikato, Waipa and Waitomo Districts). The Group has developed a common quality assurance system with associated supporting documentation and media that meet the legislative requirements of the Building Act 2004 and the Building (Accreditation of Building Consent Authorities) Regulations 2006. These regulations cover all aspects of the operational management and compliance of a Building Consent Authority (BCA).

7.5 Futureproof Future Proof has entered a new phase of its evolutionary journey, with a proposed expansion of the partnership and the introduction of a new workstream. In March 2019, the Future Proof Implementation Committee approved a milestone paper on ‘Future Proof Looking Forward’. The paper recommended that the Future Proof framework be adapted to bring in the Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan as a significant workstream, and that Central Government, Auckland Council and Auckland Iwi be invited to join the partnership. Most key initiatives for the Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan are underway with work continuing throughout 2019.

7.6 Energy Management WLASS’s 3-year Collaboration Agreement with EECA to promote the development, implementation and communication of energy efficiency and renewable opportunities across the Waikato councils, and for each of the councils to implement energy management best practice concluded this year. Participating councils have achieved annual savings estimated at $446,000. Under a new initiative WLASS will continue to provide an energy and carbon management programme to nine councils.

7.7 Joint Procurement Initiatives

WLASS is a party to numerous joint procurement contracts between the company, shareholding Councils and suppliers. Some contracts (e.g. insurance brokerage services; various collective insurance policies; courier and postal services) involve all of the shareholding councils. Other joint procurement contracts have been negotiated, but only some of the shareholding councils have chosen to participate (e.g. the Professional Services Panel; computer-generated print, mail house and e-services; IT Professional Services Panel; Internal Audit Services; Laboratory Services).

7.8 Waikato Plan Local authorities in the Waikato hold combined assets of $11 billion and have combined annual operating revenues of over $800 million, mostly funded by ratepayers. Collaborative planning and governance is one way that local authorities can reduce costs to ratepayers and improve service delivery. There are eight councils involved in this project, the implementation of which plans to provide simpler regulatory frameworks and help our community, iwi and key stakeholders engage in business with confidence, reduce regulatory compliance hurdles and achieve and positive environmental outcomes.

WLASS Financial Position 8. Total Income was $4,513,291 compared to a budget of $3,998,079. This variance relates to approximately

$250,000 increased revenue from the RATA high speed data collection, due to Councils asking for additional data to be collected above and beyond the commitments made, $98,000 increased SVDS data sales over that budgeted, and an additional $80,000 being raised for the company transformation.

9. The total operating costs were $4,260,139 compared to a budget of $4,947,061. This variance relates approximately to SVDS expenses being $321,000 under budget, due to the SaaS implementation not being complete in the 2018/19 year, and Waikato Plan expenses being $295,000 under budget due to a delayed start of two key projects and the implementation phase being under budget.

10. Overall, revenue exceeded expenditure by $253,152, compared with a budget deficit of $948,982.

Performance Measures 11. Of the 44 performance measures, there were five performance measures that were not achieved, and

three that were partially achieved: • Not achieved: The timetable and milestones for implementing the long-term provision of SVDS services

are being achieved. The project has begun; however, data load issues and complexities have caused project delays of approximately 6 months. The revised end date is now March 2020.

• Not achieved: Consistency in service delivery for WBCG, measured by customer surveys. No customer survey this year.

• Not achieved: Risk management is visible through regular reviews of the Risk Register for WBCG. A lack of awareness of risk register, this will be in the programme of work for the new Strategic Manager.

• Not achieved: Phase 2 of Future Proof Strategy adopted by the Future Proof Implementation Committee no later than December 2018. The draft Future Proof Strategy (phase 2) was reported to the committee and submitted to MfE in December 2018. However, work has been deferred due to other processes currently underway, namely the Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan, review of NPS on Urban Development Capacity, Waikato Proposed District Plan, and sub-regional industrial land study. The phase 2 Strategy is expected to be completed in 2020.

• Not achieved: The overall Future Proof work programme is delivered within the approved budget. The work programme to the end of 2018/19 ran slightly over budget as a result of the increased scope associated with the Hamilton to Auckland Corridor Plan. The deficit is covered by the cash reserves from the previous year.

• Partially achieved: Successful recruitment and training programme to support the WBCG, measured by compliance with BCA Reg. 8-11. A programme of work has been scoped to approach secondary schools and tertiary students before the end of the 2019/20 year looking at a cadet type scheme.

• Partially achieved: Increased industry compliance and competency in the lift industry. Work has been scoped for a programme to engage industry in 2019/20 year. The Tech Committee will be continuing to work on consistency across councils to enhance a consistent customer experience.

• Partially achieved: Full participation in WBCG projects and programmes. Good participation in the projects when required but could be improved.

12. All other performance measures were achieved.

Conclusion 13. Attached are the signed and audited WLASS accounts to the year ended 30 June 2019. The Council

Controlled Organisation operated within its financial responsibilities and achieved most of the performance measures set for the 2018/19 financial year.

Attachments Waikato Local Authority Shared Services Limited Audited Annual Report to 30 June 2019

Report to Council


Author: Miffy Foley, Senior Policy Advisor, Policy Implementation

Authoriser: Tracey May, Director of Science and Strategy Vaughan Payne, Chief Executive

Subject: Endorsement of WRC submissions on the Proposed National Policy Statements on Urban Development and Highly Productive Land

Purpose 1. To allow the Council the opportunity to review and endorse the final submissions on the National Policy

Statements (NPS) on Urban Development and Highly Productive Land to ensure that the points raised at the Strategy and Policy Committee 10 September 2019 meeting have been adequately included in the submissions.

Executive Summary 2. Central government is consulting on two proposed National Policy Statements (NPS): the NPS Urban

Development (NPSUD), which will replace the NPS Urban Development Capacity (NPSUDC), and a new NPS on Highly Productive Land (NPSHPL).

3. Staff prepared draft submissions on the NPSUD and NPSHPL which were reported to the Strategy and Policy Committee on 10 September 2019. At that meeting, it was resolved that the submissions would be amendment based on discussion at the committee meeting and then reported back to this Council meeting for endorsement.

Staff Recommendation: 1. That the report Endorsement of WRC submissions on the Proposed National Policy Statements on

Urban Development and Highly Productive Land (Council Meeting 26 September 2019) be received. 2. That the Council endorses the attached updated submissions on the proposed National Policy

Statement on Urban Development and on the proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land for lodgement to central government.

Background 4. The Strategy and Policy Committee considered the draft submissions prepared by staff at their meeting on

10 September 2019. As a result of the discussions at that meeting, it was resolved that some additional submission points be included and that the changes to the submissions would be reported back to this Council meeting for endorsement. The final submissions are included as attachments to this report.

Issue NPSUD submission 5. Additional content has been included to:

Strengthen wording around consideration of flood and drainage infrastructure, particularly in relation to the costs of additional or upgrade infrastructure being met by developers

Reference Waikato Region Council Stormwater Guidelines

Note the need for councils to retain some control over regulation of car parking

Note difficulties with requirements around consultation with Maori who reside within a main centre but do not hold mana whenua over the environment where they live.

NPS HPL submission 6. Additional content has been included to:

Note a requirement for thinking beyond Land Use Capability (LUC) 1,2,3 soils. LUC 4 and 5 soils can be very productive and may become more important in the future

Note the need to identify areas for rural residential development to occur to avoid developers targeting HPL via private plan changes for example, using arguments that there is no other available land.

7. All additional content has been highlighted yellow in the submission documents for ease of interpretation.

Assessment of Significance 8. Having regard to the decision making provisions in the LGA 2002 and Councils significance Policy, a decision

in accordance with the recommendations is not considered to have a high degree of significance.

Next Steps 9. Consultation on the proposed NPSs ends on 10 October 2019. Recommendations based on submissions

will be reviewed by an independent technical advisory panel. Officials will seek agreement from Ministers to make the recommended changes, then approve the proposed NPS. If Ministerial and Cabinet approval is given, the proposed NPS is likely to take effect during the first half of 2020.

Legislative context 10. National policy statements are instruments issued under section 52(2) of the Resource Management Act

1991. They state objectives and policies for matters of national significance. S61(a)(da) requires that a regional council must prepare and change its regional policy statement in accordance with national policy statement

Policy Considerations 11. To the best of the writer’s knowledge, this decision is not significantly inconsistent with nor is anticipated

to have consequences that will be significantly inconsistent with any policy adopted by this local authority or any plan required by the Local Government Act 2002 or any other enactment.

Conclusion 12. Making submissions on these NPSs is an important way for Council to indicate its support for the proposed

national direction but to also outline those areas where clarification or amendments would better achieve the intended outcomes for the NPSs. The submissions have been amended to reflect the views of the Strategy and Policy Committee at their meeting on 10 September 2019. Should the council be satisfied with the amendments, the submissions be sent to central government for consideration.

Attachments 1. Submission on the proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2. Submission on the proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land.

References 1. Proposed National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land 2. Proposed National Policy Statement for Urban Development.

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/consultation/proposed-nps-highly-productive-land

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/consultations/nps-urbandevelopment

Doc # 15007604

File No: 25 12 05 Document No: 15007604 Enquiries to: Miffy Foley

10 October 2019 Ministry for the Environment Ministry for Housing and Urban Development [email protected] Dear Sir/Madam Waikato Regional Council Submission to Proposed National Policy Statement for Urban Development Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the Proposed National Policy Statement for Urban Development. Please find attached the Waikato Regional Council’s submission regarding this document. The submission was formally endorsed by the council’s Strategy and Policy Committee on 10 September 2019. Should you have any queries regarding the content of this document please contact Miffy Foley, Final submission - National Policy Statement - NPS - Urban Development - September 2019.docx, Policy Implementation directly on (07) 859 0516 or by email [email protected]. Regards Tracey May Director Science and Strategy

Doc # 15007604 Page 2

Submission from Waikato Regional Council on the Proposed National Policy Statement for Urban Development Introduction

1. We appreciate the opportunity to make a submission on the Proposed National Policy Statement for Urban Development.

2. Waikato Regional Council (the council) recognises the importance of a National Policy Statement

on Urban Development as there is a need for more national guidance on long term strategic issues in urban areas.

3. The council supports the broadened policy scope from the National Policy Statement Urban

Development Capacity to the National Policy Statement Urban Development (NPSUD).

4. The approach of concentrating development around urban centres, with clear parameters around greenfield developments, aligns well with current spatial planning work and recent transport infrastructure investments in the Hamilton to Auckland corridor.

5. The council supports the provisions that enable growth by requiring councils to provide development capacity to meet the diverse demands of communities, address overly restrictive rules, and encourage quality, liveable urban environments. Also the aim of encouraging growth, particularly close to frequent public transport, walking and cycling facilities, community service and urban amenities is supported. However, we do not support the total removal of a local authority’s role to regulate car parking.

6. A stronger link between the Local Government Act, RMA, and Land Transport Management Act plans should be required through the NPSUD. We also note the importance of Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River as the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato and Waipa Rivers and their catchments.

7. Regarding issues of concern to iwi and hapu, further clarity is required to show the relationship with our existing consultation requirements under Joint Management Agreements with iwi partners and iwi membership of the Future Proof partnership, as well as treaty settlement legislation.

8. The council supports requirements for all urban environments to assess demand and supply of development capacity, as this will enable better understanding of current local conditions. However, this is still constrained by the existing time consuming planning framework/processes.

9. We are concerned about the time and expense a number of proposals could add to processes, particularly timing of plan change processes.

10. Greenfield development should be restricted unless certain criteria are met, and costs of

infrastructure, including flood management infrastructure, associated with unplanned greenfield development would need to be met by the developer.

11. The necessary infrastructure to support intensification needs to be planned for and able to be funded. We strongly suggest that the definition of development infrastructure should also include flood management and drainage infrastructure, and better recognition be given of the cumulative effect of increased development on this infrastructure.

12. We look forward to future consultation processes and would welcome the opportunity to comment on any issues explored during their development. The council’s specific comments on the discussion paper are outlined below.

Doc # 15007604 Page 3

Submitter details Waikato Regional Council

Private Bag 3038 Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton 3240

Contact person: Miffy Foley Final submission - National Policy Statement - NPS - Urban Development - September 2019.docx,

Policy Implementation Email: [email protected] Phone: (07) 859 0516

Doc # 15007604 Page 4

Overview of the NPSUD Question 1 Do you support a National Policy Statement on Urban Development that aims to deliver quality urban environments and make room for growth? Why/Why not?

Are there other tools under the RMA, other legislation or non-statutory tools that would be more effective in achieving a quality urban environment and making room for growth?

13. The council supports a National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPSUD) as there is a

need for more national guidance on long term strategic issues in urban areas. The approach of concentrating development around urban centres, with clear parameters around greenfield developments, aligns well with current spatial planning work and recent transport infrastructure investments (e.g. passenger rail) in the Hamilton to Auckland corridor.

14. Enabling growth by requiring councils to provide development capacity to meet the diverse demands of communities, address overly restrictive rules, and encourage quality, liveable urban environments is supported. So too is the aim of encouraging growth, particularly close to frequent public transport, walking and cycling facilities, community service and urban amenities.

15. The council supports a growth model that increases densities of existing urban areas that are

more affordably and definitely serviced by infrastructure and amenities, while providing for well-planned and coordinated greenfield development where necessary and appropriate. We note the consistency of this approach with the Government Policy Statement (GPS) on Land Transport 2018/19 – 2027/28 GPS and draft National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land.

16. Whilst an NPS is supported, it is unclear how this relates to the Government’s goal for strengthened spatial planning- we note that the NPSUD does not make this a requirement. Further, the NPSUD will only meet expectations if the necessary infrastructure to support intensification is planned for and able to be funded – in this respect we note the importance of the Productivity Commission’s inquiry into local government funding and financing. The discussion document states that the NPSUD will be supported by new tools for infrastructure funding and financing and investment in modern transport systems. This is considered crucial to address infrastructural funding constraints we are seeing at the moment and long lead-in times to access funding.

Targeting cities that would benefit most Question 2 Do you support the approach of targeting the most directive policies to our largest and fastest growing urban environments? Why/why not?

Do you support the approach used to determine which local authorities are categorised as major urban centres? Why/why not?

Can you suggest any alternative approaches for targeting the policies in the NPSUD?

17. The council supports targeting the most directive policies to the largest and fastest growing urban environments, as these requirements would be too resource intensive for smaller councils.

18. We seek clarification as to whether major urban centre requirements only relate to areas influenced by the major urban area, or to the whole of the council area – for example, in Waikato and Waipa districts that adjoin Hamilton – are the entirety of the districts included as the major urban centre, or only those areas directly adjoining Hamilton?

19. The council is of the view that the requirements should be limited to areas that share a common land market with the identified urban centres, but that councils retain the discretion to be more expansive if they consider it necessary.

Doc # 15007604 Page 5

20. Careful consideration should also be given to how the requirements for inter-regional coordination under P10A may be affected by the definition of ‘urban environment’. For example, across the Waikato and Auckland boundary where coordination is critical, a narrow reading of ‘urban environment’ could see a lack of coordination across townships that are interdependent.

21. We also note the difficulties for coordination when organisations such as District Health Boards and the Ministry of Education have different boundaries across regional and territorial authority boundaries.

Future Development Strategy Question 3 Do you support the proposed changes to Future Direction Strategies (FDSs) overall? If not, what would you suggest doing differently?

Do you support the approach of only requiring major urban centres to undertake an FDS? Would there be benefits of requiring other local authorities to undertake a strategic planning process?

What impact will the proposed timing of the FDS have on statutory and other planning processes? In what ways could the timing be improved?

22. The council supports the strengthening and clarification of the requirements of FDSs.

23. We note that it is intended for Future Development Strategies (FDSs) to inform Resource

Management Act (RMA) plans as well as Long-term plans (LTPs) and infrastructure strategies required under the Local Government Act 2002 and regional land transport plans (RLTPs) under the Land Transport Management Act 2003. However, the formal link whereby local authorities are ‘encouraged to use their FDS to inform’, these critical plans is weak.

24. Given the acknowledgement that current coordination failures merit wider legislative reform (phase 2 of RMA reform), the council is of the view that, within what is possible given their separate statutes, a stronger link should be required through the NPSUDC, in particular with transport plans.

25. We also note the lack of a direct link between the FDS and policies intended to guide the consideration of plan changes. Without this, district councils when considering plan changes will continue to rely heavily on the Regional Policy Statement to ensure good urban planning and environmental outcomes. Given the nature of the RMA process that RPSs are subject to, it is foreseeable that:

a. There will be a duplication of costs between preparing the FDS and the required plan changes to give effect to it

b. an RPS change to align it with an FDS may be still be incomplete before the next FDS review is required

c. an RPS may end up providing different direction for urban growth from the FDS.

26. To avoid these outcomes, consideration should be given to explicitly providing for a streamlined path for amending Regional Policy Statements to give effect to an FDS that recognises the requirements for public consultation under P1F.

27. The requirement to update the FDS every three years has the potential to create uncertainty in public and private investment and create planning churn. At the three year point a review should be undertaken where shown to be necessary by the most recent HBA, but otherwise no more than every 10 years.

Doc # 15007604 Page 6

Making room for growth Describing quality urban environments Question 4 Do you support the proposed approach of the NPSUD providing national level direction about the features of a quality urban environment? Why/why not?

Do you support the features of a quality urban environment stated in draft objective O2? Why/why not?

What impacts do you think the draft objectives O2–O3 and policies P2A–P2B will have on decision-making? 28. We support the proposed approach to enable a range of housing choices, working environments

and business locations. Enabling density and provision for a range of uses has the potential to create more vibrancy and mixed use.

29. We support the wider description of factors that contribute to quality and seek the addition of:

enabling development in locations and of a form that is resilient to the reasonably foreseeable effects of climate change.

maintaining and protecting the natural and physical resource set out in section 6 of the RMA.

30. We also note that Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato – Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River is the primary direction-setting document for the Waikato and Waipa Rivers and their catchments. The objective of the vision and strategy is to restore and protect of the health and wellbeing of the river for future generations. We note that increasingly, this is the policy direction for freshwater systems more widely.

31. It is particularly challenging to maintain, let alone restore and protect the health and wellbeing of freshwater systems within catchments that are subject to urban development. If these dual objectives are to be met, specific direction that prioritises low impact design and the provision of green infrastructure within new and existing urban environments may also need to be considered.

32. Regarding P2A, we caution that it is likely to be challenging to consider the benefits and costs of urban development at national, inter-regional and regional level scale in consenting, particularly within statutory timeframes for responses to consent applications. This is likely to require considerable assessment at some cost both to the proponent and the council concerned.

33. We also suggest consideration be given to civil defence emergency management in relation to the design or features of a quality urban environment.

Amenity values in urban environments Question 5 Do you support the inclusion of proposals to clarify that amenity values are diverse and change over time? Why/why not?

Do you think these proposals will help to address the use of amenity to protect the status quo?

Can you identify any negative consequences that might result from the proposed objective and policies on amenity?

Can you suggest alternative ways to address urban amenity through a national policy statement?

34. We note the inclusion of amenity goes beyond aesthetic values and is inclusive of “people’s appreciation” and support the intention to be thinking strategically about what future urban environments might look like. However, we are concerned that amenity is dynamic and a very subjective concept which could become open to interpretation and present barriers for provision of essential services– which could be considered ‘unsavoury’, yet they are necessary land uses (e.g. wastewater treatment, refuse collection facilities).

Doc # 15007604 Page 7

Enabling opportunities for development Question 6 Do you support the addition of direction to provide development capacity that is both feasible and likely to be taken up? Will this result in development opportunities that more accurately reflect demand? Why/why not?

35. We note that the definition of development infrastructure, while it includes infrastructure provided by territorial authorities, does not include flood management infrastructure, generally provided by regional councils, including where it enables the use of land of urban purposes. The definition should be expanded to include this.

36. Consistent with P4E, the council has amended the Waikato Regional Policy Statement to incorporate development capacity bottom lines, however the requirement to follow the Schedule 1 process when updating an RPS to give effect to the bottom lines under P4F is burdensome and duplicates consultation requirements associated with preparing an FDS.

37. Provided an RPS is being amended in a manner consistent with the FDS, these changes should be able to be made without the need for a Schedule 1 process.

Ensuring plan content provides for expected levels of development Question 7 Do you support proposals requiring objectives, policies, rules, and assessment criteria to enable the development anticipated by the zone description? Why/why not?

Do you think requiring zone descriptions in district plans will be useful in planning documents for articulating what outcomes communities can expect for their urban environment? Why/why not?

Do you think that amenity values should be articulated in this zone description? Why/why not?

38. We support proposals requiring objectives, policies, rules and assessment criteria to enable the development anticipated by zone description, as it is important to make sure intended development can actually occur.

39. We support the inclusion of zone descriptions including amenity values as they provide useful guidance as to the outcomes intended when considering resource consent applications.

Providing for intensification Question 8 Do you support policies to enable intensification in the locations where its benefits can best be achieved? Why/why not?

What impact will these policies have on achieving higher densities in urban environments?

What option/s do you prefer for prescribing locations for intensification in major urban centres? Why?

If a prescriptive requirement is used, how should the density requirement be stated? (For example, 80 dwellings per hectare, or a minimum floor area per hectare.)

What impact will directly inserting the policy to support intensification in particular locations through consenting decisions have?

40. We support enabling intensification in locations where benefits can best be achieved. This

supports the viability of public transport, and aligns with protecting highly productive land for example, biodiversity values and freshwater systems.

Doc # 15007604 Page 8

41. Proposed policies under Objective O7 rely on existing or planned active transport and public transport networks to enable higher-density development in Policy 6A. The inference is therefore that RLTPs will need to respond as the legal mechanism by which regions will access transport funding through the National Land Transport Plan and National Land Transport Fund. Local share contributions through LTPs will also need to be responsive.

42. P6B should recognise that some RPSs already have policy wording along these lines. If this statement is added alone, it may have an effect on other RPS policies. This may require follow on amendments, potentially through a Schedule 1 process.

43. We note that no input or assessment is currently proposed to be required from Group or Local civil defence emergency management. We suggest a connection should be considered to Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management documents on Risk and Resilience.

Options for directing intensified development

44. Option 1 is preferred. It is sufficiently directive, while providing a degree of flexibility. If the prescription of Option 2 is considered necessary a national environmental standard is the appropriate tool rather than an NPS.

Providing for further greenfield development Question 9 Do you support inclusion of a policy providing for plan changes for out-of-sequence greenfield development and/or greenfield development in locations not currently identified for development?

How could the example policy better enable quality urban development in greenfield areas?

Are the criteria in the example policy sufficiently robust to manage environmental effects to ensure a quality urban environment, while providing for this type of development?

To what extent should developers be required to meet the costs of development, including the costs of infrastructure and wider impacts on network infrastructure, and environmental and social costs (recognising that these are likely to be passed on to future homeowners/beneficiaries of the development)? What impacts will this have on the uptake of development opportunities?

What improvements could be made to this policy to make development more responsive to demand in suitable locations beyond areas already identified for urban development? 45. The importance of well-planned and sequenced urban development to ensuring the efficient use

of new and existing infrastructure should not be understated.

46. The council would strongly recommend that, if advanced in a similar form, the presumption of the example policy on page 39 is reversed, so that a council may only provide land drainage and for development that is not enabled in a plan or provided for in an FDS where the stated criteria are met. Through careful planning and significant investment, we have taken into account impacts of development on infrastructure and we would be opposed to there being a presumption that this planning and investment can be overridden.

47. The council is of the view that the costs of infrastructure, including flood management infrastructure, associated with unplanned greenfield development would need to be met by the developer.

Doc # 15007604 Page 9

48. We emphasise the effects of development on regional councils’ role in providing flood management, stormwater, and drainage infrastructure, and in particular, the cumulative effect of increased development on this infrastructure. The council has a statutory duty under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act 1941 (SCRCA), to minimise and prevent damage to property caused by flooding. One of the actions the council has undertaken is to develop Stormwater Guidelines to assist with developments to ensure effects can be minimised. Nevertheless, we are experiencing significant increases of run off coefficients, for example, around urban subdivisions in our region.

49. We also stress that developers need to take into account these future cumulative effects of developments, and councils need to be able to pass the costs of these effects on when assessing impacts of new development.

Removing minimum car parking requirements Question 10 Do you support limiting the ability for local authorities in major urban centres to regulate the number of car parks required for development? ‒Which proposed option could best contribute to achieving quality urban environments?

What would be the impact of removing minimums in just high-and medium-density, commercial, residential and mixed-use areas, compared with all areas of a major urban centre?

How would the 18 month implementation timeframe impact on your planning processes?

What support should be considered to assist local authorities when removing the requirement to provide car parking to ensure the ongoing management of car parking resources?

50. Removing car parking requirements may not necessarily result in the outcome of the quality urban

development the NPSUD seeks. Intensification along with the corresponding removal of car parking regulations may in fact lead to perverse transport and amenity outcomes.

51. Removing car parking requirements will not necessarily equate to increased public transport use, particularly in major urban centres that do not have particularly good public transport networks, or the funding for this. Car owners will find other ways of parking, shifting on-site parking into surrounding commercial, industrial and residential streets. This will lead to congested streets with adverse amenity and safety issues (e.g residential car owners reversing out of driveways onto congested local roads), with the latter effect potentially counteracting the potential uptake of active transport modes.

52. We agree that current parking regulations do not always support the efficient use of land and that improvement can be made to ensure good quality urban development. But we do not support the total removal of a local authority’s role to regulate car parking. Ultimately, private developers would push for minimums or nothing at all and this would then push the issue into the public space, thus transferring responsibilities from developers.

53. The discussion document states that the parking removal policy does not extend to accessible parking or the provision for electric vehicle charge points or car share services. Local authorities play a key role in ensuring the transport disadvantaged are catered for, so accessible parking provisions are still required. It should be clear in policy that accessible car park requirements are to be retained.

Doc # 15007604 Page 10

More directive intervention to enable quality urban development Question 11 Do you think that central government should consider more directive intervention in local authority plans?

Which rules (or types of rules) are unnecessarily constraining urban development?

Can you identify provisions that are enabling higher-density urban development in local authority plans that could be provided for either nationally or in particular zones or areas?

Should a minimum level of development for an individual site be provided for across urban areas (for example, up to three storeys of development is a permitted activity across all residential zones)?

Given the potential interactions with the range of rules that may exist within any given zone, how could the intent of more directive approaches be achieved?

54. The council is of the view that minimum lot sizes and density controls in urban environments are

unduly constraining. However, we caution that if removed this should be done cautiously so that other development controls and/or design standards such as controls on site coverage, impervious surface, daylight access, privacy, bulk etc. can be included to ensure good urban design and environmental outcomes.

Evidence for good decision making Using market information to make decisions Question 12 Do you support requirements for all urban environments to assess demand and supply of development capacity, and monitor a range of market indicators? Why/why not?

55. We support requirements for all urban environments to assess demand and supply of development capacity, as this will enable better understanding of current local conditions. However, this is still constrained by the existing time consuming planning framework/processes.

56. On the whole, the proposal requires greater evidence to be used for decision-making than before. This should lead to better informed decisions. The new data reporting and publishing requirements should also increase transparency, and the inclusion in section 32 reports codifies best practice.

57. The evidence will help local authorities better understand their local housing and business markets, but the policies as they are written may not yet ensure councils will understand the impact of their planning decisions on these markets. The requirement for Housing and Business Development Capacity Assessments (HBAs) to include scenarios that compare demand to capacity may help this if they are done well, but this is only for major urban centres.

58. There may be some capacity challenges for some local authorities to understand the implications of the information they will now have. Outsourcing this work could be common, which doesn’t increase the local authority’s own capability and capacity, and can restrict its usefulness for decision making.

Engagement on urban planning Taking into account issues of concern to iwi and hapu Question 13 Do you support inclusion of policies to improve how local government works with iwi, hapū and whānau to reflect their values and interests in urban planning?

Do you think the proposals are an appropriate way to ensure urban development occurs in a way that takes into account iwi and hapū concerns?

How do you think local authorities should be directed to engage with Māori who do not hold mana whenua over the urban environment in which they now live?

What impacts do you think the proposed NPSUD will have on iwi, hapū and Māori?

Doc # 15007604 Page 11

59. We are supportive of the intent of these proposals. However, we have already established priorities for engagement in particular with mana whenua: We note in particular our existing consultation requirements under Joint Management Agreements with iwi partners. We also have iwi membership of the Future Proof partnership. The summary and rationale of the NPSUD proposals do not provide clarity around their relationship to these existing arrangements and how this ties in with treaty settlement legislation.

60. We understand the intent to include consultation with Maori who reside within a main centre but do not hold mana whenua over the urban environment where they live. However, we are unsure what would constitute a sufficient method to identify and reach relevant people beyond what would be required for the general population, and are concerned about the time and expense this could add to processes as well as people’s capacity to respond.

61. We also note that consultation methods for liaising with urban Maori differ around the country and need to be taken into account.

Coordinating planning Question 14 Do you support amendments to existing NPSUDC 2016 policies to include working with providers of development and other infrastructure, and local authorities cooperating to work with iwi/hapū? Why/why not?

62. The council supports this proposal and considers that it will lead to better informed and coordinated planning for growth.

Timing Question 15 What impact will the proposed timing for implementation of policies have?

63. There are a number of requirements to be undertaken at once, and we consider an 18 month timeframe for notification of intensification plan changes would be too tight.

Guidance and implementation support Question 16 What kind of guidance or support do you think would help with the successful implementation of the proposed NPSUD?

64. We consider urban and environmental design guidance would help with successful implementation of this NPS– while some territorial authorities are well equipped in this area, others are not. A significant intensification of urban form in some areas will require high quality urban design to maintain amenity and environmental values.

Alignment with other national direction under the RMA Questions 17 and 18 Do you think there are potential areas of tension or confusion between any of these proposals and other national direction? If so, please identify these areas and include any suggestions you have for addressing these issues.

Do you think a national planning standard is needed to support the consistent implementation of proposals in this document? If so, please state which specific provisions you think could be delivered effectively using a national planning standard.

65. We are pleased to see alignment with other national policy proposals and RMA reform proposals. However, an area of potential for misalignment are the essential freshwater reforms, and in the Waikato, Te Ture Whaimana o Te Awa o Waikato – the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River.

Doc # 15007604 Page 12

As set out earlier in this submission, the council is of the view that this is an area that would benefit from specific direction and guidance.

Doc # 15008519

File No: 22 04 87 Document No: 15008519 Enquiries to: Miffy Foley

10 October 2019 Ministry for Primary Industries Ministry for the Environment [email protected] Dear Sir/Madam Waikato Regional Council Submission to Proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the Proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land. Please find attached the Waikato Regional Council’s submission regarding these documents. The submission was formally endorsed by the Council’s Strategy and Policy Committee on 10 September 2019. Should you have any queries regarding the content of this document please contact Miffy Foley, Senior Policy Advisor, Policy Implementation Team directly on (07) 859 0516 or by email [email protected]. Regards Tracey May Director Science and Strategy

Doc # 15008519 Page 2

Submission from Waikato Regional Council on the Proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land Introduction

1. We appreciate the opportunity to make a submission on the Proposed National Policy Statement on Highly Productive Land.

2. Waikato Regional Council (the Council) recognises the importance of protecting highly productive

soils and land from the irreversible effects of uncontrolled urban expansion. The Waikato has a rich supply of high class soils and has experienced considerable loss of highly productive land. Between 2001 and 2017, the area of total residential use on versatile land approximately doubled, an area equivalent to more than 540 hectares (more than four average-sized dairy farms) per year in the Waikato region. However, we note that protecting HPL is not only about urban expansion; we also need to consider effects of flooding and climate change.

3. The council supports the approach of a National Policy Statement which provides a robust, clear

framework for managing highly productive land that provides adequate protection for this nationally significant taonga. Clear, directive policies are critical for enabling decision makers to give appropriate consideration to competing land use values.

4. The council acknowledges the issue is broader than just protecting productive soils; it is about the

effective and efficient use of soils and productivity as a whole. The national direction should also consider focusing on enabling the productive use of high class soils, not just protecting these soils through land use controls, with some level of flexibility. As there is diversity of soils and urban development/rural lifestyle pressures throughout New Zealand, any national direction should provide a strong direction for the protection of highly productive soils and associated productive capacity.

5. The council would also like to see the recognition and protection of other land use capability classes such as LUC 4 and 5 as this land can be relatively productive land and is increasingly under pressure from land fragmentation and reverse sensitivity issues.

6. WRC evidence supports the belief that the current planning framework is insufficient for the

protection of highly productive land resources.

7. The council submits that the proposed national direction must be informed by robust evidence

and a more detailed spatial understanding of the pressures and planning approaches that are resulting in the loss of productive soils across New Zealand.

8. The NPSHPL will require an additional and extensive piece of work to better understand HPL

resources in order to be able to carry out a spatial planning exercise. Council submits this could

be conducted at a national level and informed by individual regions, rather than undertaken

region-by-region.

9. Clarity on the roles of district versus regional councils is requested. Council requests that any

devolution of responsibilities to local authorities is accompanied by substantial resourcing and consideration of inter-regional coordination issues.

10. This submission aligns with the format of the discussion document with responses provided to

the questions posed within the discussion document.

Doc # 15008519 Page 3

Submitter details Waikato Regional Council

Private Bag 3038 Waikato Mail Centre Hamilton 3240

Contact person: Miffy Foley Final Submission - National Policy Statement - NPS - Highly Productive Land - September

2019.docx, Policy Implementation Team Email: [email protected] Phone: (07) 859 0516

Doc # 15008519 Page 4

What are the values and benefits associated with highly productive land? 11. The council is supportive of the approach to define highly productive soils (HPS) as land use

capability (LUC) classes 1-3 from the Land Resource Inventory (LRI) dataset. Highly productive land (HPL) as defined in the NPS–HPL has a broader meaning that may relate to a smaller or larger area than the LUC 1-3 area and is something that needs to be defined within a local context as indicated in the NPS. Within this document, the terms HPS and HPL appear to be used interchangeably, which may lead to confusion.

12. The values of ‘highly productive land’ includes economic values such as the production/provision of food and fibre (particularly in proximity to local markets), income/wealth generation, employment, tourism (landscape amenity), diversity and self-sufficiency, and other associated economic activity and growth; social values such as supporting the viability and vibrancy of rural communities and their way of life; cultural values such as maintaining and sustaining spiritual and ancestral connections between people, their land and its use (enabling a sense of belonging for current and future generations); and the value of other ecosystem services such as (for example) carbon sequestration, attenuation of water flow through the landscape, nutrient attenuation, and biological diversity.

What are the values and benefits associated with existing food growing hubs and how can these be maximised?

13. The values and benefits associated with existing food growing hubs include established economic production near consumer and labour markets which is supported by existing processing and transport infrastructure, and well-established knowledge that the soils and climate are suitable to support the food production. These values and benefits can be maximised by careful sustainable management of existing uses and by protecting these areas from rural subdivision and urban expansion.

Does the RMA framework provide sufficient clarity and direction on how highly productive land should be managed? Why/why not?

14. The importance of highly productive land is not specifically recognised by the RMA. Evidence in the Waikato would also confirm the current planning framework does not provide sufficient direction or clarity for managing highly productive land. Our Waikato Progress Indicator ‘Residential Expansion onto versatile land’ shows that:

a. Residential expansion onto versatile land has been increasing over the four time steps noted in the discussion paper. Between 2001 and 2017, the area of total residential use on versatile land approximately doubled, with an average increase of 542 ha per year – an area equivalent to more than four average-sized (123 ha) dairy farms in the Waikato region.

b. Between 2001 and 2017, rural residential expansion accounted for most of the total residential expansion onto versatile land, with the rate of rural residential expansion (average increase of 407 ha per year) considerably greater than the rate of urban residential expansion (average increase of 135 ha per year).

c. Between 2001 and 2017, residential expansion onto versatile land accounted for the majority (more than 80%) of all residential expansion in the region, and more than half of this expansion was onto the most versatile land (Land Use Capability classes 1-2).

d. In decreasing order, residential expansion onto versatile land has occurred most rapidly in the Waikato district, Waipa district, Hamilton City, and Matamata-Piako district. Lower rates of change were observed for the Hauraki, Taupo, Thames-Coromandel, Otorohanga, South Waikato, and Waitomo districts.

https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/community/waikato-progress-indicators-tupuranga-waikato/report-cards/rural-subdivision/

https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/community/waikato-progress-indicators-tupuranga-waikato/report-cards/rural-subdivision/

Doc # 15008519 Page 5

Does the RMA framework provide sufficient clarity on how highly productive land should be considered alongside competing uses? Why/why not?

15. As outlined in response to Q3, the current planning framework does not provide sufficient clarity to decision makers which has resulted in suboptimal outcomes for versatile land.

How are values and wider benefits of highly productive land being considered in planning and consenting processes?

16. Implementation of the current planning framework has been observed to be hindered by the lack of clear directive guidance from central government. Conflicts between regional councils and territorial authorities has been observed. Territorial authorities are under pressure to allow development of greenfield land to accommodate growth. In addition, when pockets of land have been allowed to be developed for urban uses that are not contiguous to existing urban areas, the land in between is almost invariably subject to fragmentation for urban or rural lifestyle uses, over time, squeezing out rural production activities. Currently there is no efficient mechanism which regional councils might employ to avoid this pattern of growth on highly productive land. The council supports amending the current framework to provide unambiguous direction to consent decision-makers to avoid these cumulative effects.

How is highly productive land currently considered when providing urban expansion? Can you provide examples?

17. Use of highly productive land for urban expansion has been seen as a more acceptable compromise than for other constraints to development such as indigenous biodiversity or natural hazards in the absence of any directive policies around its value. Often highly productive land presents fewer challenges to develop, being flat or rolling, cleared land and is therefore less costly to develop and service.

18. In the Waikato Region, a number of towns are located on highly productive land so any expansion of those towns will impact on this land. Figure 1 is an extract from the council’s Land Resource Inventory map for Matamata which shows that the town is surrounded by LUC 1 and 2 land.

Figure 1: Matamata Land Resource Inventory Map

How should highly productive land be considered when planning for future urban expansion?

19. Improved spatial planning together with national level direction on the importance of protecting highly productive land will assist in the future management of highly productive soils.

MATAMATA

LUC 1

LUC 2

Doc # 15008519 Page 6

20. The council would also like to see the recognition and protection of other land use capability classes such as LUC 4 and 5 as this land can be relatively productive and is increasingly under pressure from land fragmentation and reverse sensitivity issues. These classes of soils need similar sorts of protections to HPL as the land use becomes restricted due to this fragmentations and reverse sensitivity, which then affects its economic basis.

21. Associated to this, it is key that areas are identified for rural residential development to occur to avoid developers targeting HPL via private plan changes for example, using arguments that there is no other available land.

How is highly productive land currently considered when providing for rural-lifestyle development? Can you provide examples?

22. Evidence suggests that if the objective is to maintain the productive potential of highly productive land, this is not given adequate weight in planning decisions (see response to question 3).

23. While a number of district plans do provide for this as a matter of consideration, it is often very

site-centric and does not account for the cumulative effects of land fragmentation and reverse sensitivity.

How should highly productive land be considered when providing for rural-lifestyle development?

24. Rural-lifestyle development should be directed to non-highly productive land. Highly productive land is a valuable non-renewable resource, if following a strategic planning process is to be used for a purpose other than rural production, it should be used efficiently.

25. In some localities fragmentation has already occurred to the extent that the land has very little

productive capacity. There are several examples of this within the Waikato region, such as Tamahere on the south eastern side of Hamilton, and around Cambridge. The council submits that these areas that may be considered highly productive but are already subject to a degree of fragmentation may be one of few examples where rural-lifestyle development may be appropriate, but this should be confirmed through spatial planning processes, rather than be allowed to continue through ad-hoc rural subdivision.

How should the tensions between primary production activities and potentially incompatible activities best be managed?

26. Within rural areas, activities that have a functional need for a rural location because they form an integral part of rural production systems should be provided for, but incompatible activities such as residential, community and other sensitive activities should be avoided.

27. While this is the general direction provided by many third generation RMA plans, the intention is

often not upheld in response to resource consent applications, where it is difficult to adequately give weight to the cumulative effects of individual proposals. Further direction to give weight in resource consent decisions to the potential for cumulative effects to arise, undermining the ability for rural production systems to continue to operate efficiently and effectively, may be useful in this respect.

28. In some other countries, such as in the state of NSW in Australia, governments have a ‘right to

farm’ policy which is intended to support the right of farmers to undertake lawful agricultural practices without conflict or interference arising from complaints from neighbours and other land uses.

How can reverse sensitivity issues at the rural-urban interface best be managed?

29. Rural lifestyle activities can provide a buffer between urban land uses and rural land use, as can other non-residential urban uses and public open space. The council proposes that the rural – urban interface is managed through spatially defined buffer zones.

Doc # 15008519 Page 7

Do you agree that there is a problem? Has it been accurately reflected in this document? 30. Yes, regional authorities and the wider soil science community have recognised the loss of highly

productive land as a problem for more than 20 years now. The problem has been well described in the consultation document. It is clear that the approach to the management of highly productive land varies between regions and districts.

Are you aware of other problems facing highly productive land?

31. Yes, the Waikato Regional Policy Statement identifies issues that can arise which include:

Declining soil quality (e.g. loss of organic carbon and compaction/structural degradation) under intensive use

Nutrient and/or sediment loss from soils under more intensive primary production

The accumulation of diffuse contaminants (e.g. trace elements like cadmium) in soils under intensive use.

32. Within the current planning framework, the benefits to the wider community of maintaining land

for growing food and fibre are often not quantified, meaning that these considerations do not often carry weight when weighed against other, more readily quantifiable costs and benefits of land use and development proposals.

Which option do you think would be the most effective to address the problems identified in Chapter Three? Why?

33. The council supports the proposed national policy statement for highly productive land as the preferred option for addressing the problems identified in Chapter Three.

34. However, wider reforms should also be considered, such as establishing, or charging an existing

national agency, with responsibility for the identification and monitoring of land use on highly productive land (see response to question 23).

Are there other pros and cons of a National Policy Statement that should be considered?

35. No further specific response. Should the focus of the National Policy Statement be on versatile soils or highly productive land more broadly? Why/why not?

36. Soils are a critical, non-renewable, irreplaceable attribute of a rural production systems and strong weight needs to be given to the identification and protection of ‘versatile land’ defined on the basis of inherent characteristics of the soil and land. Notwithstanding this, other factors also need to be taken into account, in particular the degree of existing land fragmentation (see response to question 24) – there should be caution in broadening the factors to be considered too far as this will lead to considerable dispute, uncertainty and costs.

37. We note that the proposed policy 3 (see response to question 29) does provide a ‘pressure release

valve’ that provides some flexibility to allow alternative use of highly productive land where a council needs to meet a long-term shortage of feasible development capacity.

Should the focus of the National Policy Statement be on primary production generally or on certain types of food production activities? Why/why not?

38. Whilst the council does not regard any land use inherently more important than another, it is appropriate that the focus of the NPS is on primary production. This is because highly productive land other than that already under certain types food production are also worthy of protection from residential expansion or rural fragmentation as that land could be used for more intensive food production in the future.

Doc # 15008519 Page 8

Do you support the scope of the proposal to focus on land use planning issues affecting highly productive land? Why/why not?

39. Yes, because better land use planning is needed to achieve greater protection of HPL going forward.

What matters, if any, should be added to or excluded from the scope of the National Policy Statement? Why?

40. The council supports the inclusion of guidance for resolving potential conflict between national level policies which sit at the same level. In the event of unforeseen conflict between the national policy statement for urban development and the national policy statement for highly productive land, it would be preferable for national policy to provide direction to manage such conflicts, such as a weighting exercise.

Should future urban zones and future urban areas be excluded from the scope of the National Policy Statement? What are the potential benefits and costs?

41. The council agrees that land already zoned as urban in a district plan should be excluded from the scope of the NPS and that land not already zoned as urban in a district plan (i.e. future urban areas) should be included in the scope (i.e. be subject to protection under the NPS).

Should the National Policy Statement apply nationally or target areas where the pressures on highly productive land are greater?

42. The NPS should apply nationally because this is a national issue and, the areas of high pressure at the present time may change or expand in the future. However, the NPS should allow regions the flexibility to focus on specific high-pressure areas for more detailed mapping of HPL (if required).

What would an ideal outcome be for the management of highly productive land for current and future generations?

43. The ideal outcome would be that highly productive land is protected from urban expansion and rural fragmentation as much as possible and is preserved for primary production uses into the future.

Policy 1: Identification of highly productive land. If highly productive land is to be identified, how should this be done and by whom?

44. As this is a national issue, the council supports a central government led, nationally consistent approach to highly productive land identification and mapping.

45. There is a lack of information held throughout the country, which could be addressed through a national-level agency. This agency should be informed by qualified soil scientists with the input of universities, crown research institutes and local government representatives. This national level agency should be resourced to define, identify, and map HPL at the appropriate scales across New Zealand.

46. Regional-scale maps could be produced using available national and regional datasets. If the intent is to generate information as a scale of less than 1:50,000 this would likely require new, ‘on the ground’ mapping of LUC and other characteristics. This would ensure a level of national consistency, while also allowing for important regional differences to be accommodated. An ongoing funding commitment from central government would also be needed to maintain and periodically update the ‘National HPL layer’. Periodic updates would be required because some of the proposed criteria for the definition of HPL will likely change over time.

47. If it is intended that this responsibility is to be devolved to local authorities then there are substantial resourcing and inter-regional coordination issues that will need to be investigated further.

Doc # 15008519 Page 9

Are the proposed criteria all relevant and important considerations for identifying highly productive land? Why/why not?

48. The criterion around the capability and versatility of the land to support primary production (based on the LUC) is relevant and important for identifying HPL because this speaks to the inherent biophysical productive potential of the land and is relatively unchanging (i.e. it is an objective and stable criteria that is well defined). The criterion around the size and cohesiveness of the area to support primary production is also relevant and important as a minimum size threshold needs to be applied for practical implementation purposes (again, this criterion is objective and well defined).

49. All other proposed criteria are more problematic as they are less well-defined, more subjective in their implementation, and are likely to change over human time scales. For instance, it is unclear how the climate related criterion would be applied as the climatic characteristics important for crop growth will be specific to a type of crop. Also, climatic limitations are already considered within the LUC classification to some extent.

50. Regional differences in the interpretation and application of the proposed criteria could result in significant cross-boundary issues (i.e. HPL polygons at regional boundaries not aligning with those on the other side of the boundary).

51. The proposed NPS would require regions to undertake the definition and identification of HPL in consultation with their communities. The vague and subjective nature of some of the proposed criteria for defining HPL may make it difficult to reach agreement in terms of which land should be designated HPL and which should not.

Policy 2: Maintaining highly productive land for primary production.

52. The council requests that Policy 2 be amended to clarify the responsibilities of territorial authorities and regional councils.

53. It is noted that c) and d) are noted to be subjective and open to interpretation. We submit that there should be a clear separation of responsibilities borne by regional councils and territorial authorities. Overlaps, or duplication of functions between regional councils and territorial authorities should be avoided.

What are the pro’s and con’s associated with prioritising highly productive land for primary production?

54. We consider the following: a) Pros: clarity for delineation of primary production land use. Adopting a precautionary

approach to managing highly productive land will ensure the longevity and create certainty for productive industries.

b) Cons: locking-out other potentially also ‘highly productive’ (economically) land uses (e.g. retail, business, industrial, residential). Given the future of food (from meat to plant-based, from pasture to laboratory and hydroponically grown produce) land for primary production may become less scarce.

Do you think there are potential areas of tension or confusion between this proposed National Policy Statement and other national direction (either proposed or existing)?

55. The draft NPS comes at a time of heightened uncertainty with a number of other national policy proposals being consulted on in parallel, and along with wider Resource Management Act reform.

Doc # 15008519 Page 10

56. We also note a potential tension between this proposal and the Zero Carbon Bill. In particular, there is a need to allow for carbon farming on peat lands – not just primary production, and to factor in that peat swamps may end up being a significant carbon sink if reinstated as a swamp and removed from primary production. We need to consider how this would this affect the supply of highly productive land if the value of significant areas of peat land for carbon farming exceeded its value for food production and was retired from primary production.

How can the proposed National Policy Statement for Highly Productive Land and the proposed National Policy Statement on Urban Development best work alongside each other to achieve housing objectives and better management of the highly productive land resource?

57. Consideration should be given to combining these documents due to the number of overlaps and the requirement for strategic spatial planning region-wide for urban development and highly productive or versatile land.

Policy 3: New urban development and growth on highly productive land. How should highly productive land be considered when identifying areas for urban development?

58. The council supports an amendment to proposed Policy 3 (a) to refer to ‘long term’ shortage of development capacity.

59. Policy 3 (a) should be amended to refer to a ‘long term’ shortage of development capacity so that

development on highly productive land is not enabled when there is a short term shortage that is able to be resolved in the longer term as for example, development infrastructure is put in places.

60. In the Waikato many urban centres are experiencing growth pressures, leaving few options for lateral urban expansion without encroaching on highly productive land. The council is of the view that the ability to develop on highly productive land where a long-term supply shortage is demonstrated reflects an appropriate balance of these two considerations.

Policy 4: Rural subdivision and fragmentation. How should the National Policy Statement direct the management of rural subdivision and fragmentation on highly productive land?

61. The council supports an amendment to proposed Policy 4 whereby a nationally consistent minimum lot size is set, in lieu of a more detailed understanding of ‘highly productive land’.

62. This should not limit the ability of district councils to set larger minimum lot sizes where they have already done so.

63. This proposed policy is intended to encourage territorial authorities to manage rural resource in a more strategic and considered manner. Whilst it is acknowledged that there are local considerations which should inform land development policy, in lieu of more detailed LUC classification and criteria for land release, a nationally consistent approach to further fragmentation of highly productive land should take precedence. A national approach should also allow for transferable development rights and encourage amalgamation opportunities.

64. An alternative approach may be to disestablish the right to build a dwelling on an individual land parcel and create an alternative framework for dwelling entitlements within rural areas. This would provide a disincentive to subdivide and further fragment land as dwelling rights would be separated from the creation of a new lot.

65. A further alternative could be the setting of a minimum lot size for a rural dwelling to encourage amalgamation of existing smaller parcels to create lots that meet the minimum lot size.

Doc # 15008519 Page 11

Policy 5: Reverse sensitivity. How should the National Policy Statement direct the management of reverse sensitivity effects on and adjacent to highly productive land?

66. See response to questions 10 and 11. Policies 6 and 7: Consideration of private plan changes and resource consent applications on highly productive land

67. The council would prefer that policies three and four are relied upon, rather than policies six and seven which reduces the clarity provided by the proposed Regional Policy Statement.

Should the policies extend beyond rural lifestyle subdivision and urban development to large scale rural industries operations on highly productive land? Why/why not?

68. The council submits that if the policy extends to large scale rural industries operations on highly productive land, the impact on versatile soils should be minimised and that these activities should be subjected to a strict functional need test, akin to what is required for activities locating in the coastal marine area.

69. This is important to avoid the establishment of activities that would be equally able to locate in a

general industrial zone in an urban location, and that are better serviced by transport and other infrastructure, but are seeking to benefit from the generally lower land prices that a rural location offers.

Report to Council


Author: Tracey May, Director Science and Strategy

Authoriser: Vaughan Payne, Chief Executive

Subject: Action for our healthy waterways – A discussion document on national direction for our essential freshwater

Purpose 1. To familiarise Council with the regional sector position paper on the September 2019 proposed freshwater

management proposals, and to seek endorsement from Council for the lodgement of a submission that aligns with the regional sector position.

Executive Summary 2. The central government freshwater management reform package was released in early September.

Previously known as Essential Freshwater, the ‘Action for our healthy waterways’ takes a comprehensive approach to desired improvements and includes a draft national policy statement and a draft national environmental standard.

3. The Regional Sector Water Subgroup (RSWS) was one of four advisory groups assisting the Ministry for the

Environment in the development of proposals. The RSWS has developed a position paper to guide both individual and collective submissions from regional councils.

4. Whilst staff are undertaking a comprehensive review of the proposals in order to inform a Waikato specific

submission, this report seeks support from Council for the Chief Executive to lodge a submission that aligns, and builds on, the regional sector position. It should be noted that in the first instance the Chief Executive will seek to endorse the regional sector’s submission, then highlight issues that may be Waikato specific.

Staff Recommendation: 1. That the report Action for our healthy waterways – A discussion document on national direction for

our essential freshwater (Council 26 September 2019) be received. 2. That the Chief Executive be authorised to lodge a submission to the ‘Action for our healthy waterways

- national direction for essential freshwater’ that: a. aligns with the position paper prepared by the Regional Sector Water Subgroup, and b. that includes matters related to the size, scale, resourcing, and implementation implications of the

proposals on the regions ratepayers and landowners

Background 5. Council has been kept appraised of the central government national direction work programme, including

the significant work programmed focussed on freshwater management. In early September the Minster for the Environment and Minister for Primary Industries released the proposal for freshwater management reform. The proposal included:

Action for healthy waterways – A discussion document on national direction for our essential freshwater

Draft National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (DNPSFM)

Proposed National Environmental Standards for Freshwater (PNESF)

S360 Regulations for stock exclusion.

6. The package of reform is far-reaching, having significant impacts for regional councils individually and

collectively. Overall the package has significant impacts for New Zealand as all sectors are being asked to contribute to improved water quality outcomes: rural sector e.g. extensive stock exclusion and farm planning requirements and urban communities e.g. waste water discharges. A number of advisory groups were established to assist the Ministry for the Environment develop the reform package, these included:

Kahui Wai Maori

Freshwater Leaders Group

Science and Technical Advisory Group

Regional Sector Water Subgroup, council’s Chair and Chief Executive were members of this group.

Regional Sector Water Subgroup position paper 7. The Regional Sector Water Subgroup (RSWS) has prepared a position paper that clearly states the critical

considerations the sector believes should be factored into any freshwater management reform. The position paper supports the need for reform and the desire to improve water quality and ecosystem health, and has the purpose to “stand back and provide a high-level assessment of how we, as New Zealand’s primary water managers, see the challenges ahead and what principles we believe need to be considered when finalising the design and implementation of the reform proposals”.

8. The position paper, included as Attachment 1 provides sector context, highlights the complexity of

freshwater management, and includes principles that should be applied when assessing and design a freshwater management system. These principles include:

Subsidiarity

Values-based decision making

Evidence based policy

Tailored solutions

Leadership

Social durability

Effective intervention options

Adaptive management

Outcomes focus

A systems approach. 9. These principles, the RSWS believe, are relevant to determining whether the proposals are likely to be the

least costly way to meet the reform objectives, and will assist in assessing whether the proposals will be able to be implemented.

10. The RSWS is very aware that the success of the reform will ultimately depend on implementation, noting

that a sizeable proportion of implementation rests with the regional sector. The RSWS position makes a number of observations about implementation:

Implementation of the reform package needs to be understood as involving two distinct phases – plan development and turning the plans into action

Non-regulatory programmes will continue to be critical

Being mindful of the need to avoid under-estimating the disruptive impacts of change on the implementation, over-estimating the ability of existing public and private institutions to implement change, emphasis on the need for the reform to minimise disruption where a detailed examination of the pace of change is recommended coupled with a robust implementation audit, and the critical need to prioritise

A government implementation support package will be critical

That roles and responsibilities of various parties need to be clear and certain

Recognition that implementation will take time.

11. The RSWS makes the critical point that the pace of change required will need to be cognisant of the engagement and evidence requirements required in the proposals. It is the pace and breadth of change that will ultimately determine the ability of the sector to make the effective change that the proposals are seeking.

Waikato Regional Council submission 12. A wide number of staff from across the organisation are working through the documents, gaining an

understanding what the proposals mean for the regional community and for council. Staff are attempting to understand the mass of detail in the package, specifically focussing on how the proposals align, or not, with present work programmes. The proposals have the potential to significantly impact the manner in which council does business. Indications at this stage are that the proposals will:

Place an increased emphasis on engagement with communities and iwi within very tight timeframes

Place an increased onus on the collection and management of environmental monitoring data

Increase the need for additional research in some parts of the region

Require a reconsideration and review of the regional plan review project, including a reprioritising of work-streams

Require a comprehensive analysis of PC1 and how this either complements or conflicts with the proposals

Necessitate a comprehensive review of how the implementation of PC1 and the proposed on-farm requirements will integrate, or not, and the potential impacts on PC1 implementation programmes and timelines

An overall assessment of how the mechanisms outlined in the proposals can be monitored and enforced, and by whom.

13. There are also a number of initiatives, such as fish passage requirements, and the requirements for fencing

next to water bodies (including drains) that will impact council catchment operations. The likelihood of being able to achieve all that the reforms are seeking within the timeframe stated, and the size of the resource needed to further this reform package will be key components of the submission being prepared.

Conclusion 14. Freshwater remains a key priority for central, regional, and local government. Central government has

been working for some time on a freshwater management reform package, a regional sector working group was one of four advisory groups assisting government with this task. Although the sector has been working with central government, the publication of the reform package in early September was the first time that the sector saw the draft national policy statement, national environmental standard, and s360 regulations.

15. The comprehensive nature of the proposals cannot be underestimated and deep analysis is required.

However, the good work undertaken by the RSWS provides some high level principles upon which staff will craft the Council’s submission. As a result of submissions closing during the Election period the report seeks endorsement for the Chief Executive to approve a submission to the Minister for the Environment.

Attachments 1. Regional Sector Water Subgroup, Regional Sector Commentary of Essential Freshwater, September 2019.

Regional Sector Commentary on Essential FreshwaterProposals He Pito Kōrero e pa ana ki Ngā Tūtohu Mō te Waimāori

Prepared by the Regional Sector Water Subgroup

September 2019

RegionalSector

2

Context Horopaki In the early days of the Resource Management Act (1991), New Zealand’s water quality management was strongly focused on point source discharges. By improving technology and resource consent conditions (and consent holders making major investments), point source discharges have improved considerably. For example, 60 years ago the Hamilton section of the Waikato River had 100 times the bacteria contamination it has today. This demonstrates that the current resource management system can work. However, the gains made by improving point source discharges have been largely overshadowed in more recent years by land use intensification and the increased diffuse source contamination that has occurred, to variable degrees, across the country.

The regional sector2 is responding to the challenge of land use intensification but accepts that responses to date have not always been effective or timely enough in the face of rapid change, complex science challenges and lengthy legal and planning processes. In many cases, it is simply too early for the results of recent regional responses to be seen in water quality outcomes or trends. It is also important to recall that successive governments (including recent governments), industry and the economic system in general, encouraged land development and intensification. Through the mid 20th century, in particular, that encouragement included subsidising large-scale land clearance and wetland drainage. We continue to live with the legacy of those changes. This legacy includes accelerated and ongoing contaminant loss (particularly sediment) and less resilience in our hydrological systems generally.

< Over time, our freshwater quality and ecosystems have become more vulnerable to degradation in the face of contemporary land use intensification due, in particular, to the historic loss of wetland function and riparian vegetation. >2 The regional sector comprises 16 regional and unitary councils.

Introduction Kupu whakataki

< The Regional Sector Water Subgroup (RSWS) shares the aspirations of the Government, Māori, and communities to improve freshwater quality and ecosystem health across New Zealand. We recognise that we as a nation must do more to help our vulnerable waterways. >The RSWS appreciates the opportunity it has had to participate in the Essential Freshwater (EFW) reform process to find ways that, as a nation, we can do better. That reform process is both necessary and welcome.

We strongly support the reform objectives and the desire to improve water quality and ecosystem health. In principle, we support building on the Te Mana o te Wai framework, strengthening requirements for holistic reporting and management of freshwater ecosystem health, and national regulation to manage contaminant losses from high risk rural land use practices.

This report does not restate the RSWS’s earlier advice on specific proposals as we currently understand them1. Rather, it takes the opportunity to stand back and provide a high-level assessment of how we, as New Zealand’s primary water managers, see the challenges ahead and what principles we believe need to be considered when finalising the design and implementation of the reform proposals.

1 As detailed in our letter to Ministers Parker and O’Connor dated 26 March.

3Regional Sector Commentary on Essential Freshwater Proposals He Pito Kōrero e pa ana ki Ngā Tūtohu Mō te Waimāori

Improving Water Quality: A partnership opportunity Te Whakapainga Ake o te Kounga Wai: Kei te wātea mai he huarahi hei mahi ngātahi How land is used, whether for urban development, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or native bush has a direct influence on water quality. Improving water quality therefore requires on the ground investments, whether to the quality of a discharge from a pipe, fencing and planting a stream or an erosion prone hillside, or removing animal pests from an area of native bush. While regulation certainly helps it can only get us part of the way to improved water quality – and getting effective regulation in place is slow.

What changes behaviour much quicker are support and incentives for landowners and resource users to change their behaviour, to make on the ground investments to improve water quality. The greater and better designed the support and incentives, the faster voluntary action will be to improve water quality. In this regard a real partnership opportunity exists between central government, local government, and resource users.

Regional councils are already highly active in working with landowners, tangata whenua and community groups to get action on the ground. In the Waikato for example, in the last year alone 720,000 native plants have gone into the ground and 950ha of land has been retired. Fencing has now reached a rate of 230km per year (a 360 percent increase on five years ago).

In Taranaki, the long-standing programme to fence and plant all streams on the ring plain is on target to be largely complete by the end of this decade. The programme is a partnership between the Regional Council and landowners where the Council funds riparian management plans and contracts nurseries to provide plants to landowners at cost. Thus far it has seen 5.6 million plants planted and thousands of kilometres of fences installed. A recent independent study by NIWA found strong improvements in ecological health and reduced E.coli in ring plain water ways.

While those efforts are notable, more could be done (and improvement in water quality achieved more quickly) should the Government be a more active and regular partner in these type practical initiatives around the country. The recent announcement that the Government will provide funding to several groups working in the catchments of in the Kaipara Harbour is a very welcome initiative in that regard.

Commitments to halt decline and secure improvements in water quality and ecosystem health are reflected in the work programmes (and in many cases operative statutory plans) across the regional sector.

Major progress is being made to improve catchment management and tighten regional environmental regulations in different parts of the country.

Despite this progress, improvements based on current and planned responses will take considerable time. In many instances we are trying to turn around the impacts of decades of land use change and intensification.

The desire of the Government to make more rapid progress is understood and accepted. The RSWS supports the Government’s reform objectives and regards itself as uniquely positioned to help characterise the problem(s) that need addressing, the challenges in formulating enduring policy responses, and delivery of those responses through timely cost-effective implementation.

There is no doubt that central government is best placed to resolve many of the outstanding freshwater issues and challenges. The Government has a vital role in providing or improving the management tools and science, reducing existing policy uncertainty, removing unnecessary duplication, and in providing the statutory flexibility that will enable the sector to respond more assertively and quickly as circumstances demand.

In responding to reform proposals we are also conscious of the regional sector’s statutory role and function (in addition to sustainably managing land and water under the RMA) to represent regional communities, and to promote their social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being. Those four ‘well-beings’ are inextricably linked. The design and evaluation of policy options must have regard to all of them. The future of freshwater ecosystems and the health and resilience of communities across New Zealand relies on us getting this reform package right.

4

Declining water quality and ecosystem health – a complex problem Te Hekenga o te Kounga Wai, o te Oranga Pūnaha rauropi hoki – He raru matatinia. Freshwater is critical to economic, environmental, cultural

and social well-being but these outcomes often conflict with each other. In that regard, Te Mana o te Wai is an important framework to guide management and require that the health and well-being of freshwater is at the forefront of all discussions and decisions about freshwater. The health and well-being of water-bodies must come first.

b. Declining water quality is a wicked problem because:

• It is complex, poorly understood and resists clear definition.

• There is considerable variability in environmental conditions throughout the country (and locally between catchments) and accordingly, variable pressures, risks, challenges and required responses exist.

• It has many causes (including both legacy issues and contemporary threats) meaning there is no single solution but rather multiple types of intervention are required.

• It probably cannot be solved by existing means - new technological and policy tools are required.

• The science is often complex and scientific understanding of cause and effect and effectiveness of response is incomplete at national and regional scales.

• It is challenging because it requires changes in practices across a range of agencies, industries and individuals.

• Some interventions (regulatory or non-regulatory) can cause perverse or unwanted outcomes. An example would be the displacement of an activity or practice from one area or catchment to another resulting in a transfer, rather than elimination, of a water quality risk.

• Unwanted actions or practices by individuals are often a result of economically rational decision-making because the costs are not born solely by the individual undertaking the action.

• Reliance on the availability of freshwater for a range of services is pervasive across the economy and communities. Water, and the services it provides, is generally non substitutable.

• It raises issues associated with unresolved Māori rights and interests in water and water governance which can increase the complexity of decision-making and engagement processes.

• It involves many stakeholders across the public and private sector, communities and individuals often with very different priorities and values.

c. The four well-beings are inextricably linked. Improvements in water quality and ecosystem health will have impacts on social, cultural and economic well-being. Sustainability demands that all four well-beings are considered in the design and implementation of any policy and regulatory framework.


Guiding principles to apply to the reform Ngā mātāpono mō te whakahoutangaWe consider that ten inter-related and interdependent principles apply when assessing the design of any resource (including water) management system.

a. Subsidiarity. The principle that decisions are best made closest to community of interest remains critical to effective and responsive resource management.

b. Values-based decision-making. Difficult values-based choices in policy design and implementation are best made within a democratic governance structure where decision-makers are accountable to the electorate.

c. Evidence-based policy. The design of policy and regulatory interventions must be evidence-based (accepting there will always be some uncertainty). The problems to be addressed and the effectiveness of solutions proposed must be understood and assessed with reference to reliable and robust data.

d. Tailored solutions. ‘One size fits all’ policy solutions will often not be appropriate as what may be applicable in one catchment will not necessarily be effective or necessary in another. Catchments differ from each other in many ways - in soils, climate, hydrology and land use, meaning the risks faced and appropriate responses will be highly variable. Policy responses accordingly need to be flexible and able to be tailored to local circumstances.

e. Leadership. Although a ‘one size fits all’ will often not be appropriate for reasons explained in this report, there are issues where a single decisive national intervention is required to avoid the ‘reinventing of wheels’ and to reduce exposing communities to costs associated with region by region litigation.

f. Social durability. Policy solutions to wicked or complex problems must be socially durable - meaning they must be capable of community support over a sustained period. The burdens imposed must be fair and proportionate and the pace of change demanded must reflect the scale of the task and the (at times) intergenerational origins of the problems to be addressed.

g. Effective intervention options. Both regulatory and non-regulatory options to address issues should be seen to be objectively considered. Choice of intervention must be based on an assessment of what will most effectively achieve sustainable practice change (along with questions of public and private affordability). We should learn from international experience where that helps to identify effective and ineffective policy direction. Management tools need to be proven fit for purpose. Science should underpin decision-making wherever possible.

h. Adaptive management. There will always be an element of uncertainty, in our understanding of the problem(s), the effectiveness of policy interventions and in the future pressures on resources that may arise. Adaptive management and the ability of management agencies to respond rapidly to new evidence and in the face of unanticipated events is critical (although it must be balanced against the need to provide a reasonable level of certainty for resource users).

i. Outcomes focus. Because there is great complexity and variability in water quality, and because there is often uncertainty about cause and effect relationships, management responses need to keep a focus on outcomes and trends. Key questions will be “are we seeing what we want in our water bodies? Are we heading in the right direction?”

j. A systems approach. Because of the wicked or complex nature of the problem we need to take a systems approach. That means that, when we think about the policy interventions, we need to also think about the changes needed to support the intervention and make it work in practice. This includes education and training and skills, IT and information management systems, science and technology, institutional structures and capacity. A systems approach necessitates a whole of government approach to policy implementation.

The RSWS regards these ten principles as some of the key considerations for effective and efficient solutions under the RMA. The above principles are relevant to determining whether the proposals are likely to be the least costly way to meet objectives and whether policy proposals will do what they are designed to do, not just in theory, but in practice.

6

Implementation: key messages Whakatinanatanga: Ngā karere matua RSWS is conscious that the success or failure of the reform package will ultimately depend on its implementation. The regional sector is absolutely committed to taking a lead role in that implementation. As discussed earlier, we would welcome working in partnership with the Government on various aspects of implementation.

In that regard we offer the following observations.

a. Implementation of the reform package needs to be understood as involving two distinct phases from a regional sector perspective. First, developing and getting statutory plans in place. Second, turning those plans into action and making them ‘work’ in practice (including putting in place all the systems and processes, decision support tools and non-regulatory measures). Both are hugely time-consuming but the time and resource requirements of the second stage are most frequently underestimated.

b. Non regulatory programmes will continue to be critical even in the more regulated environment the reform package signals. The scale of necessary non regulatory programmes can, however, be daunting. Partnerships with central government would provide an opportunity secure progress at scale, more quickly than could be achieved by regional councils working alone.

c. Based on our experience of past reforms, we are mindful of the need to avoid:

• under-estimating the disruptive impacts of change on the implementation of existing effective programmes and plans. Reforms that require councils to re-prioritise investment to fund new mandatory work or to review recently developed plans could lead to perverse consequences (and significant cost for little added benefit);

• over-estimating the ability of existing public and private institutions to implement change given existing levels of resourcing and capability and/or the absence of the necessary technical and practical tools to implement reform proposals efficiently.

d. We emphasise the need for the reforms to minimise disruption and recommend:

• a detailed examination of the pace of change by considering existing capacity and public and private sector affordability, and impacts on other investment priorities; and

• that the reform proposals be subject to a robust implementation audit and, when finalised, be accompanied by a detailed implementation plan.

e. Prioritisation will be critical to getting the maximum return on society’s investment. Prioritisation will be important because:

• There are limited human and financial resources available and able to be deployed at short notice; and

• The severity and degree of urgency varies across regions and catchments.

< There is a risk that without effective prioritisation resources will be spread too thinly and/or spent in locations (or on issues) that yield low water quality and ecosystem health benefits. The priority catchment work is important in that regard. >f. A Government implementation support package will

be critical. Regional councils have had experience, including with the introduction of the RMA itself, of new national policy being introduced without an implementation package that corresponds to the scale and complexity of the implementation task. The implementation package needs to be broad-based and include a commitment to align science funding to assist councils to, for example, set robust freshwater limits and targets. It should also include clear policy guidance on difficult and contentious matters such as limit setting and/or allocation methodologies.


g. The roles and responsibilities of various parties in the implementation of freshwater policy need to be clear, certain and well understood. In particular, defining a clear role for government agencies in resolving on-going implementation issues (in respect of issues such as national accreditation schemes and building national capability in skills and science) will be critical.

h. Most importantly of all, implementation will take time. The most obvious ways to speed up the first phase of implementation (the process of getting plans to pre-notification stage) involve either:

• reducing engagement with iwi, communities and other affected stakeholders; and/or

• reducing the evidential basis (i.e. the technical, policy and impact assessment) underpinning regional plan proposals.

The regional sector will be reluctant to take either of those steps without clear direction to do so. Consequently, the pace of change required by the reform proposals will need to reflect those engagement and evidence requirements. Alternatively, there may be opportunities to revisit the nature and scale of those obligations. That would be a matter on which the regional sector would welcome further discussion.

Regional sector work to inform the analysis Ngā mahi a te rāngai kaunihera ā-rohe hei ārahi i ngā tātaritangaTo assist with the application of the above principles and considerations the RSWS has initiated two work-streams.

Economic impact

The first work-stream relates to the economic impact of a selection of the EFW proposals as we currently understand them. This is based on the premise that economic impacts will have flow-on impacts for communities. This work-stream has already delivered a preliminary report3 (the Initial Economic Advisory Report) that accompanies, and should be read together with, this report.

We are currently considering a wider range of case studies from across the regional sector to provide a fuller picture. The work is yet to be completed but will be made available to government to support on-going impact assessment. The purpose of the work is to gain a robust understanding of the what the package might mean in terms of all four ‘well-beings’.

Implementation

The second work stream will consider the implications of the package for regional councils’ implementation. That work has not yet been completed. Again, that will be made available to government agencies when it is complete.

It is hoped this work will assist the government to refine its reform proposals and ensure we get the most benefit for the investment made (and in the shortest possible time-frames).

3 Initial Economic Advisory Report on the Essential Freshwater Package, E Moran and B Keenan, August 2019.

8 > PO Box 1214Wellington 6140New Zealand

P. 64 4 924 1200www.lgnz.co.nz

Conclusion Kupu whakatepe The RSWS strongly supports the Government’s intent to improve water quality and ecosystem health. However, we seek to ensure that the likely impacts (positive and negative) of the new proposals on communities are well understood and factored into the pace of change. We believe it will be important to take landowners and communities with us. In the end, water quality will only be improved through enlisting people and communities to do the right things (including making investments on the ground) and having landowners accept that some current practices need to stop. Coercive measures will be important but success will ultimately depend on that message being embraced throughout communities. Fair treatment and reasonable transitions will be critical.

It is also essential that the new proposals can be practically implemented in the stated time-frames, noting that significant capacity and capability issues exist across all sectors. An implementation audit and whole of government implementation plan is highly advisable and the RSWS would welcome the opportunity to work with the Government on these steps.

The ten principles identified in this report, along with the further information that the RSWS is currently gathering, aim to support the Government to refine its proposals. These principles and the further information will be applied by the regional sector as it assesses the reform proposals through the submission process.

If you would like more information please contact:

Clare Wooding Principal Policy Advisor Local Government New Zealand Phone: 04 924 1220 Mobile: 029 924 1220 Email: [email protected]

Regional Sector Water Subgroup (RSWS) members

• Doug Leeder, Chair, Bay of Plenty Regional Council;

• Alan Livingston, Chair, Waikato Regional Council;

• Andrew Robb, Chair, West Coast Regional Council;

• Vaughan Payne, Chief Executive, Waikato Regional Council, Chair of RSWS;

• Bill Bayfield, Chief Executive, Environment Canterbury;

• Rob Phillips, Chief Executive, Environment Southland;

• James Palmer, Chief Executive, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council;

• Fiona McTavish, Chief Executive, Bay of Plenty Regional Council;

• Pat Doughtery, Chief Executive, Nelson City Council;

• Iain Maxwell, Group Manager – Integrated Catchment Management, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council; and

• Mike Scarsbrook, Manager, Science, Science and Strategy, Waikato Regional Council.

Supported by:

• Clare Wooding, Principal Policy Adviser, Local Government New Zealand;

• Nicola Green, Principal Advisor (Policy and Planning), Bay of Plenty Regional Council;

• Katherine Trought, Director, Strategy and Planning, Environment Canterbury;

• Andrew Parrish, Regional Planning Manager, Environment Canterbury;

• Vin Smith, Director Policy Planning and Regulatory Services, Environment Southland;

• Chris McLay, Director of Resource Use, Waikato Regional Council;

• Emma Moran, Senior Policy Analyst / Economist, Environment Southland;

• Blair Keenan, Principal Economist, Waikato Regional Council; and

• Gerard Willis, Consultant, Enfocus Ltd.

Report to Council


Author: Sonia Baker, Team Leader Farming Services

Authoriser: Tracey May, Director Science and Strategy

Vaughan Payne, Chief Executive

Subject: Proposal to use Streamlined Planning Process for the Proposed Waikato Regional Plan Change 2 - Taupō Overseer

Purpose 1. To recommend a Streamlined Planning Process (SPP) to progress a plan change to the Waikato Regional

Plan. The Plan Change is to allow new versions of Overseer to be used to manage Taupō nitrogen leaching. If the Committee recommend and the Council approve the SPP, staff will formally begin the process with the Ministry for the Environment.

Executive Summary 2. Healthy Environments (review of the regional and coastal plans) includes the review of chapter 3.10 of the

Waikato Regional Plan (Lake Taupō).

3. Overseer is the model used to manage nitrogen discharges from farms in the Lake Taupō catchment. The Taupō rules, which became operative in 2011, require the use of Overseer version 5.4.3. This version expires in December 2020.

4. Taupō farming consents and nitrogen trading contracts require farmers to comply with their Nitrogen Discharge Allowance (NDA). If they wish to make changes to farming operations, they need to model the changes through version 5.4.3 to ensure nitrogen leaching does not exceed their NDA. After December 2020 when the version expires, this will not be possible. In effect, consents and nitrogen trading contracts will become unenforceable.

5. The SPP could be used to change the regional plan Taupō provisions to allow use of updated versions of the Overseer model before version 5.4.3 expires.

6. The report seeks approval to proceed with an SPP. This matter was discussed at the Regional Plan Review Committee meeting on 17 September, and those Committee members present indicated their support for pursuing the Streamline Planning Process. The actual proposed plan change will be presented to Council separately if the SPP is approved and accepted by the Minister for the Environment. This is likely to be early next year.

Staff Recommendation: 1. That the report Proposal to use Streamlined Planning Process for the Proposed Waikato Regional Plan

Change 2 - Taupō Overseer (Council 26 September 2019) be received. 2. That Council approves the use of a Streamlined Planning Process to change the Regional Plan Taupō

provisions to allow updated versions of the Overseer model to be used.

Background 7. Chapter 3.10 of the Waikato Regional Plan (WRP) manages nitrogen discharge from land uses into Lake

Taupō. In the late 1990s and early 2000’s, monitoring of Lake Taupō indicated that water quality was starting to deteriorate, largely due to land use intensification. The Variation 5 process was initiated to respond, and this resulted in the Chapter 3.10 provisions. The provisions sought to cap existing nitrogen discharges from land use, primarily through regional plan rules and farming consents. In addition, an $80 million public fund, was set up to buy out nitrogen from the catchment to counter the load to come off nitrogen from past land use practices, where the nitrogen had yet to arrive at the lake through the soil. The fund was administered by the Lake Taupō Protection Trust, and paid for by central government, Waikato Regional Council (WRC) and Taupō District Council.

8. In July 2011, the Environment Court, following consideration of appeals on Regional Plan Variation 5

(RPV5), determined that Overseer version 5.4.3 was the only version that could be used in the Taupō regional plan provisions. The Environment Court considered that a single Overseer version needed to be used so that the total catchment load of nitrogen, and the 20 percent reduction of that load, could be determined. Use of a single version has provided a simple way of ensuring farmers do not increase nitrogen leaching and to facilitate nitrogen trading.

9. Overseer is used to model farm nitrogen leaching, and to model changes to leaching as a result of nitrogen

trading. In this way, Overseer is used to ensure the nitrogen cap set by the Taupō rules is not exceeded. While Overseer is only a tool that models indicative nitrogen discharges based on input information, it is nationally considered the best available tool to model nitrogen discharges from farms.

Issue 10. Overseer version 5.4.3 expires in December 2020 due to an internal timer end date. After this date farm

NDAs become problematic because it will not be possible to know if changes to farm management can occur while maintaining the farm nitrogen cap. Similarly, it will not be possible to know if changes to farm management would be consistent with nitrogen limitations in existing nitrogen trading contracts. It is necessary therefore that farming consents and nitrogen trading contracts be updated to enable use of the latest versions of Overseer. These updates need to be completed before December 2020 when version 5.4.3 expires. The key statutory means available to achieve this is a plan change, and to achieve the changed consents by December 2020, the plan change needs to be notified by the end of March 2020.

11. Chapter 3.10 of the WRP sets out the N cap and trade objectives, policies and rules. The rules require that

Overseer version 5.4.3 is used to establish each farm’s NDA and Nitrogen Management Plan (NMP). Nitrogen trading is also required to use version 5.4.3 to determine how much nitrogen is traded and how this changes each farm’s NDA. The plan change will need to change the rules so that updated versions of Overseer can be used. The plan change will include a requirement for WRC to review all 83 existing farming consents so that they are changed to refer to updated Overseer versions.

12. The latest version of Overseer (Overseer FM) is very different to version 5.4.3, given a number of changes

in Overseer since 2011. Overseer FM is based on updated science and models a greater range of land uses. It uses more accurate climate and soils data. As a result, if the same inputs are modelled by Overseer FM and version 5.4.3, very different nitrogen leaching estimates are made. Because of the differences between the model versions, Overseer FM cannot accurately model the initial farm benchmark data (which was developed for version 5.4.3). This means that farms need to be re-benchmarked in a way that can be modelled by Overseer FM. Version 5.4.3 needs to be used to re-benchmark each farm in the catchment, to ensure that farms are not able to leach more than during the initial benchmark period. This programme of work is scheduled for 2020.

Resolving the Issue 13. A number of options for resolving the Overseer issue have been considered including asking Overseer

Limited to extend the timeframe until version 5.4.3 expires, keeping a copy of the version on a backdated computer, asking farmers to apply for non-complying consents to replace their existing consents, seeking Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) section 128 reviews of consents and asking farmers to apply for RMA section 127 changes to their consents. Most of these options turned out to be unworkable. Farmers can apply for section 127 changes to consents, but this is not an ideal way to address a problem with our regional plan rules, and has not been supported by legal advice as a way to address the problem.

14. Note that legal advice has been provided on two occasions about how Taupō farmers can use updated versions of Overseer. It was noted in 2013, in response to questions that although farmers could apply for a non-complying consent, or a RMA section 127 change to conditions of consent, to allow new Overseer versions to be used, farmers may face “considerable difficulties” given that different Nitrogen Discharge Allowances would result. The advice was that if the plan contents were causing a problem, the appropriate solution was a plan change. In 2019 further legal advice was sought. Key points were that Council could review consents using RMA section 128 provisions once a plan change has been notified, and that the plan change would satisfy the requirements for a Schedule 1 Streamlined Planning Process.

15. A plan change is therefore recommended as the best solution. Staff have started to review all the Chapter 3.10 Taupō provisions. However, this full review cannot be completed in time to allow existing Taupō consents and nitrogen trading contracts to be changed before December 2020. It should also be noted that the pending confirmed in Freshwater National Policy Statement and National Environmental Standard are expected to be early 2020. Further changes to the Taupō rules are likely to be needed in response. However we cannot wait for the Essential Freshwater provisions before addressing the Overseer version issue. It is therefore necessary that a plan change will be progressed which focuses solely on addressing the Overseer issue, and that a second plan change will be progressed at a later date as part of the wider Healthy Environments plan change process.

16. If a plan change is not progressed to address the issue: a. Current NDAs would become meaningless after December 2020 because they relate to an expired

Overseer version. b. Farmers would not be able to change land use practices in any way (such as changing the fertiliser

regime, changing the mix of stock, or changing the area of cropping) as there would be no way to test if such changes would result in additional nitrogen leaching.

c. Consent conditions relating to the NDA or NMP would become unenforceable. d. Farmers may become technically in breach of the existing rules if the rules require the use of a model

version that they can no longer use. Farmers would not have certainty about what is required of them.

e. Nitrogen trading could not occur because the rules require the use of version 5.4.3 to facilitate trading.

f. It would not be possible to determine compliance with existing nitrogen trading contracts which significantly impacts on the work of the Lake Taupō Protection Trust.

g. The Taupō cap and trade scheme is internationally a high-profile scheme to protect an iconic water body. The success of the scheme would be put at risk if Council does not effectively deal with the Overseer version issue.

17. To effectively address the issue, a plan change needs to be in place early enough to allow changes to be

made to the Taupō land use consents and the nitrogen trading contracts before version 5.4.3 expires in December 2020. Legal advice has stated that Council could begin changing consents as soon as a plan change has been notified. We need to take advantage of this ability in order to meet the December 2020 deadline. The Lake Taupō Protection Trust would prefer that new rules become fully operative before they seek to change the nitrogen trading contracts, to ensure certainty of the new provisions.

Options 18. The Lake Taupō Protection Trust has advised that it could take 12 months to change the nitrogen trading

contracts. WRC staff consider that it could take nine months to change the existing consents. It is therefore necessary that the plan change is progressed as quickly as possible.

19. Staff have reviewed a range of options to progress the plan change within the necessary timeframe. Only two options appear to be viable, a standard RMA Schedule 1 process or a Schedule 1 SPP. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are as follows:

Follow a standard Schedule 1 process 20. A Schedule 1 process involves the standard consultation requirements for a plan change, notification of

the plan change, a call for submissions and further submissions, a hearing process and an appeal period. Given the Council election period and the Christmas RMA definition of a working day, it may not be possible to notify a plan change before February 2020. It is possible that no submitters would call for a hearing given that this would be a relatively minor plan change. However it is likely that a short hearing would be required. Under a standard Schedule 1 plan change it may not be possible to achieve a fully operative plan change before perhaps early 2021.

21. Advantages

Allows for existing consents and nitrogen trading contracts to be changed after notification in February 2020.

Council makes the decision (rather than the Ministry for the Environment).

If there are no submissions in opposition, or any requests to be heard, or appeals, then the proposed rules may become fully operative around September 2020.

22. Disadvantages

The provisions may not be fully operative by December 2020 due to the submissions, hearings and appeals process.

A full Schedule 1 process would be required, which could cost in the vicinity of $75,000, plus $30,000-$50,000 staff time, depending on submissions and appeals.

Use the Streamlined Planning Process 23. Under the Schedule 1 SPP, Council has some flexibility to design the plan change process. The RMA does

however state:

Normal plan change consultation under the Schedule 1 process needs to occur

Submissions must be called for

A plan change hearing is not required

The Minister for the Environment makes the decision

There are no appeal rights to the decision.

24. Staff consider that after the submission period, meetings should be arranged with submitters to ensure their concerns are well understood. A hearing would not be held.

25. It is possible that using a SPP, the plan change would be notified in February 2020 and an operative plan

change could be in place by mid to late 2020. 26. Advantages

Allows for existing consents and nitrogen trading contracts to be changed after notification, likely to be February 2020.

Gives more assurance that new rules become fully operative before December 2020, so that new consents, consent changes and nitrogen trading will be possible after December 2020.

Avoids the need for further submissions and hearings/appeal processes, which is estimated to cost at least $75,000 and is currently unbudgeted. Note that the Ministry pays for their own costs in the SPP.

27. Disadvantages

The Minister assumes decision making power instead of Council.

Engagement and application/reporting costs will still accrue to Council – estimated as $30,000-$50,000.

Option Analysis 28. The SPP would likely deliver an operative plan change before a standard Schedule 1 process, and for a

reduced cost to council. Note that implementation costs would likely be similar irrespective of which option was chosen.

29. The Minister for the Environment must agree to a SPP process before it can be initiated, and to qualify,

the plan change must meet the criteria in RMA Section 80C. The SPP was introduced into the RMA in 2017 to provide an expeditious planning process that can be designed so that the process is proportionate to the complexity and significance of the planning issue. One of the Section 80C criteria is that there is some urgency to the issue being addressed. The Overseer plan change would seem to be an ideal plan change for an SPP. Ministry officials and legal advice has confirmed that a plan change to update a reference to an obsolete version of Overseer is likely to meet the criteria for an SPP.

30. Importantly, under an SPP, WRC initiates the process, and if accepted by the Minister, WRC can also

withdraw from the process. WRC is able to withdraw at any point up to a Minister decision on the plan change. This is a significant back-stop that retains full process control with the Council, and enables a switch back to a standard Plan Change Process if this proves to be a better process in terms of allowing earlier changing of consents and nitrogen trading contracts. It is important to note that if the SPP is to meet the required timeframes, the process needs to be started as soon as possible.

31. It is therefore recommended that an SPP be initiated to progress a plan change to address the Overseer

issue. In order to use the SPP, and before applying to the Minister for its use, Council needs to resolve to use the process. It is therefore recommended that the Streamlined Planning Process be recommended to the Council for endorsement.

32. The Streamlined Planning Process was discussed at the Regional Plan Review Committee on 17 September

2019. Those members present were supportive of pursuing the Streamlined Planning Process, noting that the matter that is being progressed through the plan change process is a technical matter with a discrete impact on a selected number of consent holders and landowners. Members were comfortable that the impact of the plan change on the wider management of land within Lake Taupo was minimal, and that any matters beyond the Overseer versioning issue would be addressed within the scope of the wider Lake Taupo section review.

Communication and Engagement 33. Staff have been discussing the review of Chapter 3.10 with key stakeholders since before September 2017.

These stakeholders therefore are aware that the chapter needs to be changed to allow the use of updated Overseer versions. Consultation about what specific changes will be needed to the rules has only recently begun. Consultation about the proposed use of the SPP process is also beginning.

34. The RMA states that during preparation of a plan change, local authorities must consult: a. The Minister for the Environment b. Other Ministers who may be affected – for example, the Ministry for Primary Industries and Ministry

of Corrections c. Affected Local Authorities d. Tangata whenua of the area who may be affected, through iwi authorities.

35. A number of discussions have already occurred with Ministry for the Environment staff. They have expressed support for the use of the SPP to address the Overseer issue as noted above. Staff have also had an initial discussion with the Tūwharetoa Trust Board about the use of the SPP. Initial discussions have also been had with Te Kotahitanga and other iwi.

36. The RMA states that as well as the four above parties that must be consulted, the Council may consult

other parties. As a minimum in the Taupō case, Taupō farmers (including the Taupō Lake Care farmer group) and the Lake Taupō Protection Trust should also be consulted. Meetings have already been held with these two parties about the potential content of the plan change. Both parties were comfortable with initial thinking about the content.

37. Note that under the provisions of the Tūwharetoa Joint Management Agreement, agreement to use a particular plan change process such as the SPP, is not required from Tūwharetoa Maori Trust Board.

Assessment of Significance 38. Having regard to the decision-making provisions in the LGA 2002 and Council’s Significance Policy, a

decision in accordance with the recommendations is not considered to have a high degree of significance.



Conclusion 40. Council adoption of an SPP process to change the reference to Overseer in WRP rules to the updated

version will enable the existing cap and trade provisions to continue to operate as originally intended. The SPP process should ensure new rules are fully operative before the old version of Overseer ceases to function. At the Regional Plan Review Committee meeting of 17 September 2019 those members who were present supported the use of the Streamlined Planning Process tool. Council retains the ability to withdraw from the SPP process should other options prove to be achievable within the timeframe required.

Attachments 1. Discussion notes of Regional Plan Review Committee, 17 September 2019.


Regional Plan Review Committee

Discussion Notes

Date:

Location:

Tuesday, 17 September, 2019, 10:24 am

Council Chamber



Members Present: Cr S Kneebone - Chair

Cr D Minogue

Cr F Lichtwark

Cr B Quayle

Cr A Livingston (as ex officio)

Cr K White

E Berryman-Kamp (Te Arawa River Iwi Trust)

J Kaati (Maniapoto Maori Trust Board)

Staff Present: T May (Director Science and Strategy)

V Payne (Chief Executive)

N Williams (Director Community and Services)

J Cox (Team Leader Democracy Services)

G Ormsby (Maniapoto)

The meeting lapsed for want of a quorum at 10.24am.

Regional Plan Review No Quorum meeting discussion notes 17 September 2019 2

Doc # 15132098 Page | 2

G Ormsby opened the meeting with a karakia.

The Chair noted that as there was no quorum the meeting will discuss the agenda, and no

decisions would be made. The discussion of the items would be provided to council to enable

decisions to be made.

1. Apologies

Apologies were received from, Marae Tukere (Waikato Tainui), Paul Majurey (Hauraki), Cr Stu

Husband and Cr Tipa Mahuta.


There were no disclosures.


Minutes of the previous meeting held on 21 May 2019 were presented.

Matters noted for correctness were nil.

4. Proposal to use Streamlined Planning Process for the Proposed Waikato Regional Plan

Change 2 - Taupō Overseer

To obtain the approval of the Committee to recommend to Council, a Streamlined Planning

Process (SPP) to progress a plan change to the Waikato Regional Plan.

The report was opened by the Director – Science and Strategy (T May) and a presentation was

provided by Principal Strategic Advisor (U Trebilco) and Team Leader Farming Services (S

Baker). (Doc # 15111194).

In discussion the following was noted:

A member noted that while consultation with Tuwharetoa under the Joint Management

Agreement was not required, it would be advisable for council to do so. Members were

advised that ongoing conversations with both Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board and with

Ngati Tuwharetoa through Te Kotahitanga are occurring. The Trust Board had been

instrumental in arranging hui with staff and their many lands trusts.

There were likely to be other matters within chapter 3.11 that will need to be addressed

and staff noted that those more significant matters will be captured in the wider review

of the Lake Taupo chapter, and would likely progress through a schedule one process. It

was only the technical matter relating to the version of Overseer that was recommended

to follow the Streamlined Planning Process that the RMA allows for.

The direct effect of the change and the Streamlined Planning Process was on the 80 plus

landowners in the Taupo area who had contracts with the Lake Taupo Protection Project.

Members noted there was a bigger question around nitrogen allocation and that this

would be progressed through the wider Lake Taupo review and full schedule one process.

It was important the council considered costs for landowners and communities. There

had been a piece of work commissioned looking at the cost of what has been implemented


Doc # 15132098 Page | 3

in the Taupo community, and that this has been presented to the Lake Taupo Protection

Trust Committee.

A member asked whether council had received advice around the likelihood of a judicial

review throughout the streamlined process. Noting that a judicial review could be

undertaken with every decision, staff undertook to seek advice and would respond to

council at the end of the month.

The Streamlined Planning Process had only been used around 2 or 3 times since it was

introduced in 2017. Staff had been seeking advice and had been in discussion with the

Ministry throughout the process and were confident from discussions that proposal met

the requirements.

Members noted that the streamlined planning process was an option that assisted with

the time frame and a schedule one process would take longer and cost more. Council was

able to withdraw from the process at any time if more information came to hand that

would support a longer process.

A member noted that the timeline had taken in to consideration the local government

elections but consideration should be given to the end of the process and the likelihood

of a Central Government Election and the hiatus that would mean for the government.

Staff advised that the timeline had been tested and considered in conjunction with advice

from the ministry. Members asked that a letter be written to the Minister for the

Environment requesting a commitment from the Minister to the timetable that staff had

outlined.

A member sought information to be provided to council that informed council what may

happen if the timeline was not met.

Before moving on to the next report the members present indicated they were comfortable

to support the proposed approach to proceed with the Streamlined Planning Process.

Members noted that the requirements are still to do full iwi consultation as in a schedule one

process.

5. Iwi engagement approach and overview

Report to brief the Committee on the approach to iwi engagement for Healthy Environments.

The report was presented by Senior Policy Advisor (M Graham).


There had been feedback from the previous meeting that there was confusion on the

terminology being used. For clarity members were advised that the meaning of

collaboration was covered within the International Association for Public Participation

(IAP2).

Contact had been made with all authorities and customary marine groups and an

overview of what was happening and timelines for the process had been provided.

Marae and Hapu would be informed throughout the process, and it was acknowledged

that council did not have the resources to extensively engage with all 300 + Marae and

Hapu groups.


Doc # 15132098 Page | 4

In terms of additional iwi engagement members were advised that the committee was at

the “involvement” level of the IAP2. Further contact had been made with the Joint

Management Agreement partners and Pare Hauraki to discuss what council and the

parties wanted to do over and above the “involve” level.

6. Healthy Environments He Taiao Mauriora Project Management Process outline,

incorporating overview of Essential Freshwater package

Report to provide an overview of the project management process and timeline on the

Healthy Environments – He Taiao Mauriora project (Regional Plan and Regional Coastal Plan

Review).

The report was presented by the Director Science and Strategy (T May). The members were

introduced to the Senior Project Management Advisor (K Browne) who was supporting the

project.


Members noted that within paragraph 6, on page 26 of the agenda that the report

provided that the project plan would be refreshed. The project plan would need to take

in to account the many strategies and plans that were coming out of central government,

all of which will impact on the development and review

The proposed NPS and NES on freshwater management were two powerful pieces of work

and would influence council’s ability to deliver across the project. There were key aspects

around engagement that would govern a lot of what council did.

There was a coastal plan due for review, and a regional plan for review. Council would

need to consider advancing both within the resources that we had available.

An updated approach will be presented to the committee in the next triennium.

A member sought the timing of process for the West Coast. In response it was identified

that plans would need to be notified by 2023 with decisions made by 2025.

A member noted that the Coromandel was similar to the West Coast and there was an

option for council to consider the coastal plans for both of these areas. Members were

advised that staff were looking at all of the options and proposals and will seek to find

efficiencies in the processes.

A member noted that the Coromandel had a large non-resident ratepayer population and

January was a likely time to undertake engagement in regard to coastal matters at this

time of the year.

Members acknowledged that council gave a commitment to the Coromandel community

that there would be targeted consultation in regard to aquaculture.

In terms of the Essential Freshwater Package is a proposal currently and has no weight on

the Plan Change 1 proceedings.

The three waters review was another piece of work that council was looking at.

Members were advised that the region had the major challenge of land use rather than

point discharges, and it was important to note that putting a whole lot of investment in

to point source discharge didn’t have the same impact as a focus on land use change. An


Doc # 15132098 Page | 5

important focus to head towards could be building large wetlands in strategic areas that

both farmers and urban ratepayers could contribute to, rather than throwing money at

point source discharges at very little gain.

A member asked whether under the RMA a consent owner could transfer their interest

from for example Hauraki to Kawhia. Members were advised that a consent holder for an

area could not transfer a consent across the region. If they were wanting to establish a

spat farm in a harbour where they do not hold consent, a new application would need to

be submitted and considered.

A member noted a consideration for council for the next Long Term Plan that if council

were to introduce new rules there would need to be additional compliance monitoring.

Members were advised that with the proposed NES on Freshwater, there would be an

increased requirement on council to undertake state of the environment monitoring that

we hadn’t had to undertake before. One of the key tenants of the Regional Sector Water

Group was that it was important for government to know the size of what they were

putting in as it needed to be practical and able to be implemented. Council would use

technology for monitoring.

G Ormsby closed the meeting with a karakia.

The discussion closed at 11.53am.

Report to Council


Author: Jennie Cox, Team Leader, Democracy Services

Authoriser: Neville Williams, Director Community and Services Vaughan Payne, Chief Executive

Subject: Delegated authority during the interim 2019 local election period

Purpose 1. To seek from council, delegation to the Chief Executive during the period 5pm Friday 11 October 2019

until the triennial meeting of the incoming council.

Executive Summary 2. Council is requested to provide delegation to the Chief Executive for the period from 5pm Friday

11 October 2019 until the triennial meeting of council scheduled to be held 29 October 2019.

3. There are a number of matters that may require a decision during the period between the election and councillors coming in to office at the triennial meeting.

4. The requested delegation is for a limited time and the risk of not delegating would be council not being

able to undertake its business during the interim period.

Staff Recommendations: 1. That the report Delegated authority during the interim 2019 local election period (Council

26 September 2019) be received, and

2. That council delegates all of its responsibilities, duties and powers except those set out in paragraphs (a) to (h) of clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 to the Chief Executive for the period 5pm Friday 11 October 2019 until the triennial meeting of the new council following the 2019 local authority elections.

3. That pursuant to sub-clause 30(7) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, the Waikato Plan

Leadership Committee is not discharged on the coming into office of the members of Waikato Regional Council following the triennial general election of members in October 2019.

Background 5. The 2019 local authority election is to occur at noon on Saturday 12 October 2019.

6. A person newly elected to council may not act as a member of the council until they have made the

necessary declaration at the triennial meeting (section 115 Local Electoral Act 2001). Current elected members may continue to act in their capacity up until the day after the declaration of the official electoral result (section 116 Local Electoral Act 2001). Effectively, there is no council in office from the day after the declaration of the official electoral results until the triennial meeting.

7. The meeting on 26 September 2019 is the last scheduled for the current council and whilst the current

elected members may continue to act until the day after the declaration of the official electoral result, it is recommended that council delegate duties and powers to the Chief Executive from 5pm Friday

11 October 2019 until the triennial meeting, to ensure effective and efficient conduct of council’s business.

Discharging committees 8. There are committees that will continue to operate following the election in October.

9. The Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group is a joint committee required by statute

(the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002). In the past the Waikato Civil Defence and Emergency Management Group has required a resolution of all councils to ensure that it is not discharged following a triennial election. Section 12(2) of the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 means that the group is not deemed to be discharged following the triennial election.

10. The Hauraki Gulf Forum is a joint committee required by statute (Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000) and

is a committee that is administered by Auckland Council. As a constituent member, council is required to appoint a member to the Joint Committee following the election.

11. Te Kopū a Kānapanapa is a joint committee of Waikato Regional Council and Taupo District Council

established to give effect to Part 4 and Schedule 6 of the Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Act. Section 171(3) of the act provides that it is a permanent committee and must not be discharged except with the unanimous agreement of all the appointers.

12. Future Proof Implementation Committee and Lake Taupo Protection Project Joint Committee are formal

joint committees. In line with Clause 30(7) of Schedule 7, LGA 2002, the committees will not be discharged at the point of the next election period.

13. The Waikato Plan Leadership Committee was formed as a Committee of Council in July 2018. The work

programme for the Waikato Plan is building momentum and there may be a need for decisions from this Committee over the election period. In line with Clause 30(7) of Schedule 7, LGA 2002, it is proposed that the committee will not be discharged at the point of the next election period.

14. All other committees of council are deemed to be discharged following the triennial election.

Issue 15. Council is asked to consider arrangements to ensure the effective and efficient conduct of council’s

business during the interim election period from 5pm Friday 11 October until the triennial meeting.

16. Decisions during this period will only be made on matters that must be attended to. As far as staff are aware there a number of matters that may need to be addressed during this period; public transport contracts for the South Waikato and Taupo, and north Waikato, an animal pest control contract, possible submissions on statutory documents and hearing committee appointments.

17. Currently the Contracts Subcommittee has the delegation to approve all contracts with a value greater

than $500,000 that have a term of greater than one year.

18. There is potential for the requirement to approve a contract for the Taupo and South Waikato bus services. This is a multi-year contract with a total value above $500,000. The request for tender is expected to go out in September.

19. There is potential for the requirement to approve a contract for service improvements for north Waikato

(connecting Tuakau and Pokeno with Pukekohe). The gross costs for the new services are expected to be in the order of $500,000 per annum. Waikato District Council and NZTA have confirmed funding approval. With a three-year trial contract the total value would be around $1.5 million. The request for tender is expected to go out in September, and it would be optimal to award a contract after tender evaluation is completed to minimise lead in times for service start.

20. There is potential for the requirement to approve a contract for animal pest control. The value of the

contract is approximately $1 million and will run from January to December 2020, crossing two financial years. The tender is currently open for application.

21. There is also the potential for the requirement to approve submissions on statutory documents at short

notice. This is unlikely to be necessary for neighbouring regional council and territorial authority policy documents, however, may arise in relation to central government strategies and proposals. Currently the Strategy and Policy Committee has the delegation to approve submissions on statutory documents, consistent with council policy.

22. There is the potential for the requirement to appoint hearing committees at short notice. This may arise

if a notified resource consent hearing process that was previously anticipated to be processed under delegated authority changes (e.g. a submitter changes their mind and wishes to be heard at a hearing). Currently, the Hearings Appointment Subcommittee has the delegation to establish hearing committees and appoint the membership for all resource consent hearings following a recommendation from the Team Leader - Democracy Services and Director - Resource Use.

Options and analysis 23. Council may delegate all of its responsibilities, duties and powers except those set out in paragraphs (a)

to (h) of clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 (refer to legislative context below) to the Chief Executive.

24. Alternatively, council may wish to limit the delegation to specific functions as follows:

i. To establish hearing committees and appoint the membership for all resource consent hearings upon a recommendation from the Team Leader - Democracy Services and Director - Resource Use; and

ii. To approve submissions on statutory documents, consistent with council policy.

25. For reasons sated in this report, is it not recommended that Council limit its delegations to the Chief

Executive except for those matters listed in paragraphs (a) to (h) of clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 listed below. The delegation is for a limited time period and the Chief Executive will be required to report any decisions, made under delegation, to the new council at the first ordinary meeting. The risk of not delegating would be council not being able to undertake its business during the interim period.

Assessment of Significance 26. Having regard to the decision-making provisions in the LGA 2002 and council’s Significance Policy, a

decision in accordance with the recommendations is not considered to have a high degree of significance.

Legislative context Clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 Local Government Act 2002 27. Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act, or in any other Act, for the purposes of efficiency and

effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority's business, a local authority may delegate to a committee or other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers except— (a) the power to make a rate; or (b) the power to make a bylaw; or (c) the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with

the long-term plan; or (d) the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or (e) the power to appoint a chief executive; or

(f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

(g) [Repealed] (h) the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy.

Preferred Option 28. That council delegates all of its responsibilities, duties and powers except as required, to the Chief

Executive for the period 5pm Friday 11 October 2019 until the triennial meeting of the new council following the 2019 local authority elections



Conclusion 30. Council is asked to consider arrangements to ensure the effective and efficient conduct of council’s

business during the interim election period from 5pm Friday 11 October until the triennial meeting currently scheduled 29 October 2019.

Attachments Relevant legislation

LOCAL ELECTORAL ACT 2001 Section 115 – When members come into office

(1) Candidates at a triennial general election who are declared to be elected come into office on the day after the day on which the official result of the election is declared by public notice under section 86.

Section 116 – When members leave office (1) Every member of a local authority or local board or community board, unless vacating office

sooner, vacates office,—

(a) in a case where the member’s office is the subject of an election, when the members elected at the next election come into office:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2002 Clause 30(7) of Schedule 7 A committee, subcommittee, or other subordinate decision-making body is, unless the local authority resolves otherwise, deemed to be discharged on the coming into office of the members of the local authority elected or appointed at, or following, the triennial general election of members next after the appointment of the committee, subcommittee, or other subordinate decision-making body. Clause 32(1) of Schedule 7 Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Act, or in any other Act, for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local authority's business, a local authority may delegate to a committee or other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member or officer of the local authority any of its responsibilities, duties, or powers except— (a) the power to make a rate; or (b) the power to make a bylaw; or (c) the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the

long-term plan; or (d) the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or (e) the power to appoint a chief executive; or (f) the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association

with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or (g) [Repealed] (h) the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy. CIVIL DEFENCE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ACT 2002 Section 12(2) – Local authorities to establish Civil Defence Emergency Management Groups Clause 30(5) or (7) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 must not be read as permitting, during a term of local government or as a consequence of a local government election, the discharge or reconstitution of a Civil Defence Emergency Management Group established for the purposes of this Act. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 Section 34A Delegation of powers and functions to employees and other persons A local authority may delegate to an employee, or hearings commissioner appointed by the local authority (who may or may not be a member of the local authority), any functions, powers, or duties under this Act except the following:

(a) the approval of a proposed policy statement or plan under clause 17 of Schedule 1. (b) this power of delegation.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0035/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM94704#DLM94704

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0033/25.0/link.aspx?id=DLM175699#DLM175699

HAURAKI GULF MARINE PARK ACT 2000 Part 2 Section 22 Forum to be joint committee (1) Subject to section 28, the Forum is to be treated as a joint committee of the constituent local authorities appointed under clause 30(1)(b) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002. Section 24 Term of representatives (1) Each representative appointed by a constituent party (other than tangata whenua representatives) may serve on the Forum for the period of time determined by the constituent party that appointed the representative. Ngāti Tūwharetoa Claims Settlement Act 2018 Part 4

171 Establishment of Te Kopū a Kānapanapa

(1) This section establishes Te Kopū a Kānapanapa.

(2) Despite the membership of Te Kopū a Kānapanapa as described in section 175, Te Kopū a Kānapanapa is

a joint committee of the Waikato Regional Council and Taupo District Council for the purposes of clause

30(1)(b) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

(3) Despite Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, Te Kopū a Kānapanapa —

(a) is a permanent committee; and

(b) must not be discharged except with the unanimous agreement of all the appointers.

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0001/latest/whole.html?path=act%2fpublic%2f2000%2f0001%2flatest&col=act&fid=whole#DLM53168

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0001/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM175699#DLM175699

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2018/0055/latest/link.aspx?search=qs_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_Ng%c4%81ti+T%c5%abwharetoa+Claims+Settlement+Act.+_resel_25_h&p=1&id=DLM7382205#DLM7382205




Doc # 15096174

Report to Council

Purpose 1. To provide the Waikato Regional Council (WRC) with a progress update on the Hamilton to Auckland Start-

Up Passenger Rail Project, outline the New Zealand Transport Agency’s (NZTA) Board conditions on funding and explain how WRC plans to manage the financial risks associated with these conditions.

2. For council to approve the delegation to the Chief Executive to award contracts and make decisions that

are within approved budgets in our Long-Term Plan (LTP) 2018/28 subject to certain conditions being met.

Executive Summary 3. Since the December NZTA Board approval of the Hamilton to Auckland Start-Up Passenger Rail Project

Single Stage Business case (SSBC) staff have been working through the required conditions to gain approval to move to implementation.

4. As part of this work NZTA engaged an independent rail consultancy firm to review the KiwiRail carriage

refurbishment and maintenance facility programmes to ensure they meet industry standards and represent value for money. This work along with further refinement of cost estimates through the design of the various capital projects has resulted in an overall project cost increase from $78.2m (SSBC) to $92.3m.

5. Costs attributable to WRC have not increased beyond what has been budgeted in the 2018 Long Term

Plan. 6. The August NZTA Board approved the project cost increases, however imposed four conditions on funding

approval. The key condition of concern to WRC is that any cost increases over the approved funding will be 100% at the risk of the accountable council. As WRC is the Approved Organisation for the KiwiRail capital programme this places the funding risk on WRC.

7. The project budgets for KiwiRail’s capital programme are:

Carriage refurbishment $16.19m

Te Rapa maintenance facility $9.7m

Locomotive refurbishment $7.1m.

8. Whilst these project budgets include appropriate contingencies they have been prepared on a “cost plus margin” basis and do not include any “risk premium” allowance.

9. NZTA has approved and KiwiRail has been paid $21.7m for work undertaken and commitments to-date on

the capital programme. These payments have been made under the authority of the Interim Capital Funding Agreement (including cost variations) signed by NZTA, WRC and KiwiRail in December 2018 which ensures there is no residual funding risk to WRC for these capital works.


Author: Jose Gonzalez, Policy Advisor Transport and Infrastructure Mike Garrett, Special Projects Manager

Authoriser: Vaughan Payne, Chief Executive

Subject: Hamilton to Auckland Start-Up Passenger Rail Project

Doc # 15096174 Page 2

10. WRC has since the commencement of this project made it very clear to NZTA that we will not accept any

financial risk on the KiwiRail capital programme which was the basis on which we consulted on the project in the 2018 Long Term Plan.

11. WRC has asked KiwiRail to “fix” their price for the capital work; they have indicated they may do this, but

it would require their Board approval. However, it would need to exclude any additional costs that may be imposed by NZTA as the regulator and any commitment to fix prices would not be able to be made until November 2019 once greater certainty over tender prices is known.

12. WRC has written to NZTA advising that until this matter is resolved to WRC’s satisfaction, we are unable to

commit to the project. This was done after reconfirming council’s position on this matter at the 10 September council workshop. A video conference held with the Board Chair on Thursday September 19 indicated a positive response to a solution addressing WRCs concerns and we are awaiting formal confirmation of this.

13. Delays in resolving this issue will impact the June 2020 service start date as Hamilton City Council (HCC)

and KiwiRail were planning to confirm shortly, tenders for construction projects on the critical path. 14. This report seeks delegation to the CE to approve the KiwiRail Operator Agreement and WiFi and ticketing

contracts subject to a number of conditions. The key ones, being resolution of the above issue and that there are satisfactory contractual agreements in place to ensure WRC does carries no residual financial risk for the KiwiRail capital works programme.

15. The NZTA capped condition would mean WRC has funding risk over the service operating costs and

revenue however the modelling of contingencies in the cost budgets and conservative revenue projections indicates this is an acceptable risk. WRC staff are confident that we have allocated enough funding in council’s 2018 LTP to pay for the financial risk.

16. A key WRC condition in approving the SSBC was that the operating costs are funded by NZTA at an

enhanced FAR of 75.5%.We are still awaiting formal confirmation if this has been approved beyond the current 2021 NLTP period and accordingly any agreement with KiwiRail will have a review clause prior to 30 June 2021 so that if the enhanced FAR does not continue WRC reserves the right to discontinue funding for the service.

17. NZTA are wishing WRC to take over programme management responsibility and approve allocations of the

project contingency budget. As a co-funder of this project with HCC and WDC, we do not see this as an appropriate role for WRC and it should sit with the Rail Project Governance Group.

18. The Governance Project Control Working Group (PCWG) who has oversight of the start-up service has

started considering enhancements to the service to ensure it is sustainable. An issue of immediate focus is the Puhinui station upgrade in Auckland which will become a key interchange for access to Auckland International Airport.

19. HCC has asked the Project Governance Working Group to write to central government and Auckland

Transport, requesting that the Hamilton to Auckland start-up service and other regional rail services are considered in the design of the upgrade. HCC followed up with a letter to the Minister (refer paragraph 75 below). It is likely that a NZTA approved business case (could be a variation to the SSBC) will be required to future proof the design which is currently being investigated. Subject to receiving NZTA funding assistance, WRC’s contribution will be funded from existing budgets.

Doc # 15096174 Page 3

Background 20. The SSBC for the Hamilton to Auckland Start-Up Passenger Rail Service was endorsed by WRC and Waikato

District Council (WDC) in November 2018 and HCC in December 2018. The NZTA approved the SSBC in December 2018 subject to a number of conditions being met.

21. WRC endorsement of the business case at the November 2018 meeting was subject to the following conditions being met:

a. Hamilton City Council and Waikato District Council endorsing the SSBC and confirming capital

funding for the railway stations. b. NZTA’s Board approving the SSBC and confirming the release of funding for the start-up rail

service at their meeting on 14 December 2018. c. NZTA providing an enhanced Financial Assistance Rate of 75.5% for public transport

operations and infrastructure and of 100% for transitional rail activities for the period of the current (2018-2021) National Land Transport Programme.

Staff Recommendations: 1. The report “Hamilton to Auckland Start-Up Passenger Rail Project – Progress Update”

(Doc #15096174 dated 11 September 2019) be received.

2. That council notes the NZTA Board funding conditions and: (a) endorses WRC staff working with NZTA to ensure any capital cost overruns related with

regulatory requirements are funded by NZTA and not WRC, noting that WRC will not provide any funding towards the capital work streams, and

(b) notes the sensitivity analysis undertaken on operating costs and revenue confirmed there are sufficient contingency provisions within the budgeted costs to enable WRC to accept the NZTA condition of capped funding with respect to net operating costs only.

3. That council grants the Chief Executive delegated authority to sign the Rail Services Operations

Agreement with KiwiRail subject to: (a) the term and conditions of this agreement being consistent with the SSBC intent, the level of

service agreed by the investment partners and the operational costs proposed being within the approved LTP 2018/28 budget allocations.

(b) the completion of an operational plan review and an open book cost audit to the satisfaction of the CE and the NZTA.

(c) satisfactory contractual agreements are in place to ensure WRC carries no residual financial risk on KiwiRail’s capital programme.

(d) CE satisfaction of the proposed NZTA process to release any required contingency provision allocations.

(e) Inclusion of a contract review clause which includes provision to cancel the service at council’s election should NZTA not confirm an enhanced Financial Assistance rate beyond 30 June 2021.

(f) Confirmation that the agreement terms and conditions are to the satisfaction of WRC’s legal advisor.

4. That council grants the Chief Executive delegated authority to sign the WiFi Operational Contract

subject to the Project Governance Working Group endorsing the proposed WiFi level of service and to approve the Ticketing system implementation costs subject to them being within the approved LTP 2018/28 budget allocations and the conditions set out in recommendations 3(c) and 3(d) being satisfactorily met.

Doc # 15096174 Page 4

19. Following the endorsement of the SSBC, KiwiRail, WRC and NZTA signed an Interim Capital Funding Agreement (ICFA) in December 2018. This gave KiwiRail funding for $2.4m for carriage refurbishment works. Furthermore, in March 2019, NZTA’s CE approved the release of further funding up to $8m for carriage refurbishment. Also, as part of the pre-implementation sign-off, the NZTA CE approved in June 2019, an additional $6.2m for KiwiRail’s locomotive refurbishment and $515k for the Te Rapa maintenance facility. Lastly, an additional $7m was approved by the NZTA CE in September 2019 for carriage refurbishment works and to fund KiwiRail margin for the locomotives. To date, a total sum of $21.72m has been paid by WRC to KiwiRail for this project following funding approval by NZTA.

20. A council report with updates on project progress to meet the WRC conditions was provided to the March council meeting where it was resolved:

21. Project update and risk reports have been provided to the Audit and Risk Committee during 2019.

22. In March 2019, council delegated authority to the CE to sign the Capital Funding Agreement between KiwiRail, NZTA and WRC. This has been signed by WRC and KiwiRail, and we are awaiting NZTA sign off. A key principle in the agreement is that WRC carries no residual financial risk for the KiwiRail capital works programme.

23. Furthermore, in May 2019, council approved the Annual Plan 2019/2020 budget to fund the set-up and

the operational costs of this project, assuming an April 2020 start date for the service. 24. The Rail Project Governance Working Group, chaired by Councillor Vercoe, has met 6 times since

December to provide governance oversight to the project. Attached as Appendix 1 is an overview of the current status of the project work streams

25. The December the NZTA Board approval set out a number of conditions that needed to be met prior to

the NZTA funding approval to move to implementation, as noted in their resolution below.

d. An open book price audit of KiwiRail costs being carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced person to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive.

e. Finalisation of Client Contract Management arrangements with Auckland Transport to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive.

f. Final resolution of the preferred ticketing option and its costs. g. A review of the project implementation phasing is undertaken and reported back to Council

by March 2019. h. A purchase sales agreement being signed between WRC, NZTA and KiwiRail to protect the

rolling stock investment for future Public Transport usage

1. The report “Hamilton to Auckland Start-Up Passenger Rail Project – Progress Update” (Doc # 13805047 dated 18 February 2018) be received.

2. Council notes the conditions resolved at the 21 November 2018 council meeting relating to the funding for the Hamilton to Auckland Start-Up Passenger Rail Project have been partially resolved.

3. Council approves the proposed project governance structure (Appendix 3 – Doc #13772868) for this project and the Terms of Reference (Appendix 2 – Doc #13670118) of the Project Governance Working Group.

4. Council confirms the appointment of Councillor Vercoe and Councillor Rimmington as council representatives on the Project Governance Working Group.

5. Council notes that staff will work in partnership with NZTA staff to resolve the funding conditions for the project and will report back to subsequent council meetings on progress.

Doc # 15096174 Page 5

‘Endorses the Hamilton to Auckland Passenger Rail start up service Single Stage Business Case, subject to a condition subsequent that independent Stage Gate Reviews are undertaken during Pre-implementation to consider and approve: revised and updated costs (capital and operating), improved demand forecasts, robust Customer Service & Marketing Plan, updated Project Delivery & Assurance Plans, and full operational safety sign off’.

26. Since December the project partners have been working collaboratively to address the conditions set by the NZTA Board and the WRC conditions. As part of meeting the pre implementation conditions NZTA engaged independent professional Rail consultants SNC-Lavalin to undertake a review of the KiwiRail rolling stock refurbishment programme to ensure it meet industry standards and delivers value for money. That review provided a number of recommendations for changes which have resulted in cost increases (refer to paragraph 31).

27. The table below summarises the position with respect to the WRC conditions

WRC Conditions Status update

1. Hamilton City Council and Waikato District Council endorsing the SSBC and confirming capital funding for the railway stations.

Completed

2. NZTA’s Board approving the SSBC and confirming the release of funding for the start-up rail service at their meeting on 14 December 2018.

Completed

3. NZTA providing an enhanced Financial Assistance Rate of 75.5% for public transport operations and infrastructure and of 100% for transitional rail activities for the period of the current (2018-2021) National Land Transport Programme.

Confirmed at 23 August Board meeting

4. An open book price audit of KiwiRail costs being carried out by a suitably qualified and experienced person to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive.

Completed for Capital programme, still to be done for OPEX and needs to be completed prior to executing the Operating agreement

5. Finalisation of Client Contract Management arrangements with Auckland Transport to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive.

WIP

6. Final resolution of the preferred ticketing option and its costs.

WIP, use of RITs system confirmed by Governance Group, detailed design currently being finalised

7. A review of the project implementation phasing is undertaken and reported back to council by March 2019.

Completed

8. A purchase sales agreement being signed between WRC, NZTA and KiwiRail to protect the rolling stock investment for future Public Transport usage.

Completed

Overview of project costs and approved variations 28. As a result of the work undertaken to address the pre-implementation conditions the overall project

funding has increased from $78.25m to $92.35m.

29. The peer review recommendations by international experts (SNC-Lavalin) and the completion of detailed designs and capital programmes for the Te Rapa maintenance facility and the carriage refurbishment programme had a number of changes in scope to improve safety, efficiency, and the overall quality of the

Doc # 15096174 Page 6

service being provided. This resulted in a substantial increase in cost, which was endorsed by the PGWG and the NZTA at their Board meeting on 23 August 2019.

30. It is important to note that WRC’s pre-implementation and implementation capital programme

management costs of $971k, were not included in the SSBC costs figure of $79.2m. These costs were notified to the NZTA in November 2018 and to WRC via the council report that sought endorsement for the SSBC and were included in the LTP budget.

31. The table below outlines the key project cost changes:

Work Stream Reason Increase Saving

Rolling Stock Refurbishment

Additional costs associated with safety and level of service (Safety compliance work identified by SNC-Lavalin, such as replacing windows with safety glass and updating couplings, suspension and brake components)

$1.77m

Additional carriage refurbishment (SNC-Lavalin recommendation approved by NZTA)

$1.00m

Rotokauri PT Hub Additional level of service to form PT hub (Improved bus turning and passenger concourse, reconfiguration of Tasman Road)

$1.31m

Over bridge (Rail Regulator safety preference over originally proposed level crossing)

$7.01m

Deferral of land purchase (HCC holding cost of land for car park expansion to future LTP period)

-$3.30m

Reduction in KiwiRail track costs (Rail network costs at Rotokauri reduced following detail design)

-$3.59m

Huntly Station Additional platform length to future proof station (Extension of 38m to create 140m platform consistent with Rotokauri)

$0.77m

Additional network costs to slew and raise track and replace turn outs (Issue with levels and offset determined during detail design)

$1.50m

Te Rapa Maintenance Facility

Change from modification of locomotive shed to new structure (SNC-Lavalin recommendation following detailed assessment of existing locomotive facility suggested that a shared facility would be inefficient and cost a similar amount due to structural issues)

$2.17m

Track diversion for refuelling safety (SNC-Lavalin recommendation for safety and efficiency within depot)

$1.50m

Poor ground conditions (Discovered during detailed site investigations)

$0.80m

Improved washing and effluent removal (SNC-Lavalin recommendation which improves maintenance efficiency and reduces OPEX costs)

$1.40m

Programme Costs Programme management costs not in original SSBC (but in LTP budgets), additional marketing costs

$1.38m

Doc # 15096174 Page 7

Work Stream Reason Increase Saving

OPEX Indexation of operational costs (not included in SSBC but included in LTP budgets)

$1.01m

Reduction in station maintenance and lease (Frankton, Rotokauri and Huntly following discussions with KiwiRail)

-$1.48m

32. The funding source/impacted organisation of the increased costs are as follows, noting that the WRC

increases were completely allowed for in the 2018 LTP Budget approved by council:

Work Stream Reason Variance NZTA WRC HCC WDC

Rolling stock refurbishment

Additional costs associated with safety and level of service

$1.77m $1.77m

Additional carriage refurbishment

$1.00m $1.00m

Purchase of rolling stock

Cost saving -$0.09m -$0.09m

Rotokauri PT Hub

Additional level of service to form PT hub

$1.31m $0.96m $0.35m

Over bridge $7.01m $5.29m $1.72m

Deferral of land purchase -$3.30m -$2.49m -$0.81m

Reduction in KiwiRail track costs

-$3.59m -$3.59m

Huntly Station Additional platform length $0.77m $0.63m $0.14m

Additional network costs $1.50m $1.50m

Te Rapa Maintenance Facility

Change from modification of locomotive shed to new structure

$2.17m $2.17m

Track diversion for refuelling safety

$1.50m $1.50m

Poor ground conditions $0.80m $0.80m

Improved washing and effluent removal

$1.40m $1.40m

Programme Costs

Programme management costs

$1.38m $1.04m $0.34m

OPEX (over 5 years)

Indexation of operational costs

$1.01m $0.76m $0.25m

Reduction in station maintenance

-$1.48m -$0.74m -$0.49m

-$0.25m

Reallocation of maintenance costs Refer note (1)

n/a -$1.22m $1.22m

Summary $13.17m $10.69m $1.81m $0.77m -0.11m

Note: (1) Reconciliation of maintenance costs is the change in funding class from Transitional Rail at 100% NZTA FAR to Public Transport at 75.5% FAR which was reported to the November 2018 Council meeting and the 24.5% WRC local share is included on the LTP funding envelope.

Doc # 15096174 Page 8

33. Included in the capital project budgets of $63.1m are contingency provisions of $7.67m, refer to Appendix 2 for detailed breakdown of the contingencies by each capital work stream.

34. The work undertaken by the project partners to satisfy the pre implementation conditions and cost

increases were reviewed by a NZTA staff panel and having resolved all the questions raised, the increased project funding request was submitted to the August 23 NZTA Board meeting for approval. Whilst the NZTA Board approved the increased funding for the project at that meeting, there are a number of conditions attached as advised in a letter from the NZTA’s Acting CE on 27 August 2019 (copy attached in Appendix 3):

The funding available from the National Land Transport Fund will be capped for this service and any increase in capital and operational costs must be met in full by the accountable council.

The NZTA will retain contingency allowed for in the implementation funding and will release this as required, on the basis of submissions approved by NZTA.

An independent peer review be undertaken of the operations plan and budgets for the service to identify potential efficiency improvements and cost savings, which is approved by the NZTA Chief Executive prior to launch.

WRC to undertake a full review of the trial service within two years of launch, including patronage, revenue and funding, and for this to identify opportunities for further development or enhancement, to be reported to the NZTA Board.

35. The overall project funding confirmed in the letter from the NZTA CE following the board decision implies that the operational cost will be funded with a 75.5% FAR for the full 5 years of the start-up service. However, this still has to be confirmed by NZTA. Until we have clarity on this matter, WRC will need to retain a review clause in the KiwiRail operator agreement to enable a contract extension review prior to 30 June 2021.

NZTA Board funding conditions implications 36. Following receipt of the letter outlining the Board approval conditions a joint letter from the HCC/WDC

Mayors and WRC Chair was sent to NZTA advising concern with respect to the first condition.

“We however have a significant issue with the first condition which seeks to cap the funding available from the National Land Transport Fund with any increases in capital and operating costs to be met in full by the accountable Council. This is a significant last-minute change in direction that will result in the Waikato councils being unable to support government policy to implement Hamilton to Auckland passenger rail. Waikato Regional Council (WRC) for example has been very clear in all of its inputs to this project that it will not own rolling stock or carry any residual funding liability for rolling stock refurbishment. It was on this basis that it consulted with its community through its Long-Term Plan to gain support for the project, the basis on which the Single Stage Business Case was predicated and the basis on which the capital funding agreement with the Agency is being developed. Following the December 2018 Agency Board decision, an Interim Capital Funding Agreement was signed that indemnified WRC for any costs payable to KiwiRail in relation to refurbishment. This condition, as we understand it, will not allow WRC to proceed with the project”

37. To date we have not received a formal response from NZTA to this letter but in the interim the project partners have been exploring options to manage within the conditions set by the Board. WRC have requested KiwiRail to provide a fixed price for their capital works programme so that WRC carries no residual financial risk. We have received advice from KiwiRail (copy attached in Appendix 4) that they may be able to fix their price but subject to:

In fixing a price KiwiRail will exclude any additional costs which may be imposed by NZTA as the Regulator

Doc # 15096174 Page 9

The additional funds approved for the 12th carriage refurbishment is held back as potential additional contingency

KiwiRail will not be able to commit to fixed funding until November once the tender prices are known for the Te Rapa Maintenance facility upgrade

KiwiRail are wanting a “risk premium” margin for fixing their price, which will offset the current contingency.

Their letter is subject to KiwiRail’s Board approval. 38. Following this advice, the Chief Executive has written to NZTA advising that WRC requires NZTA agreement

to the KiwiRail conditions and in particular that NZTA confirm the funding cap would not apply to any increased costs resulting from the Regulator’s review and that if any such cost increases were required, they would be funded 100% by NZTA At the time of writing we have not had a formal response to this letter but a video conference held with the Board Chair on Thursday September 19 indicated a positive response to a solution addressing WRCs concerns and a letter confirming this will be sent to WRC prior to the Council meeting.

39. In the letter we set out the key reason why WRC is not prepared to take any financial risk on the KiwiRail

capital programme:

WRC has always seen the driver behind this project as implementing Government policy as it was a key election pledge of the new Government

Earlier on in the project WRC submitted to NZTA to allow KiwiRail to become an Approved Organisation to enable them to receive project funding directly, but this request was not approved as we were advised the legislation did not allow for it.

WRC has consistently stated it does not want to have any ownership or financial risk for rolling stock and this was the basis for our consultation with our community on the 2018 Long Term Plan and endorsement by our council in November 2018 of the Single Stage Business Case

The financial basis on which KiwiRail has participated in the project has been on a “cost plus margin” open book pricing with no risk premium pricing factored in

As part of meeting the pre implementation conditions set put by the December NZTA Board decision, NZTA staff engaged SNC-Lavalin to ensure that KiwiRail proposed design and costs for the rolling stock refurbishment were fit for purpose and represented value for money. As an aside approx. $4.5m of the increased project costs have arisen out of recommendations from this review

The Capital Funding agreement that has been negotiated and agreed between NZTA/WRC/KiwiRail over the last four months clearly sets out a key principle that WRC will not have any residual financial risk for the KiwiRail Capital programme

40. We currently do not have details as to how the second NZTA Board condition will operate whereby NZTA

retain the contingency provision allowed for in the implementation funding and will release this as required, on the basis of submissions approved by NZTA. Concern has been expressed that this process will need to be agile to allow councils to manage their contracts effectively.

41. The third and fourth conditions requiring an independent peer review be undertaken of the operations

plan and budgets for the service to identify potential efficiency improvements and cost savings and WRC to undertake a full review of the trial service within two years of launch, including patronage, revenue and funding, and for this to identify opportunities for further development or enhancement are both acceptable to council.

OPEX Sensitivity Assessments and Revenue Projections

Base Operational Expenditure Model 42. Below is the current estimated operational expenditure (OPEX) for the start-up rail service, adjusted for

inflation at 2% per annum. The net cost is after accounting for fare revenue and the funding split is 75.5% NZTA and 24.5% local WRC share.

Doc # 15096174 Page 10

Annual Funding from NZTA and WRC (Annual Cost $000) - Inflated

Year 2019-2020 (part year)

* 2020-2021** 2021-2022*** 2022-2023

2023-2024

Total

Demand Scenario

Base Demand Model (Ramp-up approach and 2.04% growth p.a.)

Total OPEX

$1,862 $7,351 $7,498 $7,648 $8,022 32,380

Total Revenue

$153 $858 $1,072 $1,146 $1,204 4,433

Net Cost $1,709 $6,493 $6,426 $6,502 $6,818

27,948

WRC Share

(24.5%) $419 $1,591 $1,574 $1,593 $1,670

6,847

NZTA Share

(75.5%) $1,290 $4,902 $4,852 $4,909 $5,148

21,101

* Assumes 60% of 2021-2022 base demand numbers. ** Assumes 80% 2021-2022 base demand numbers. *** Base demand year with target demand of 196 one-way from Mon-Fri and 49 one-way for weekends.

43. The total operational expenditure over the 5-year period is $32.38m and when operational revenue is

accounted, the net subsidy (cost) to WRC and NZTA is $27.95m. NZTA will contribute $21.1m of this from the National Land Transport Fund and WRC $6.85m from local share via targeted transport rates.

44. The figures outlined above are within NZTA’s funding envelope and WRC LTP funding envelope. WRC has

allowed $7.325m in the LTP budget so the current net cost estimates are within the LTP funding envelope. 45. Included in the cost budgets are the following contingency provisions:

a general 5% allowance on total OPEX cost

$100,000 p.a. fuel contingency provision

$250,000p.a. for unforeseen events such as breakdowns and component failures. 46. The impact of the NZTA Board capped funding condition is that should net OPEX cost increase over the

approval in the August Board meeting, then the cost/revenue risk sits with WRC. Staff have undertaken sensitivity modelling on both cost and revenue to assess whether this is an acceptable risk to Council.

OPEX Sensitivity Assessment 47. The OPEX budgets have been based on figures provided by KiwiRail which have been based on actual costs

incurred on the Capital Connection rail service (Palmerston North to Wellington) which is considered to be a very comparable service. WRC staff have had discussions with KiwiRail to discuss which cost items from the OPEX model were most likely to be subject to potential unbudgeted cost increases. The three following categories were identified:

a. Carriage maintenance costs b. Labour costs c. Fuel costs.

48. The 3 categories account for 25% of the OPEX budget.

Doc # 15096174 Page 11

49. It is important to note that WRC has already set a fuel contingency of $100k per annum for fuel cost

increases as it was identified early in the process with KiwiRail that we could not hedge fuel prices directly as part of the KiwiRail contract and costs would be subject to price fluctuations. This amount is deemed enough to cover any unforeseen fuel cost increases for the 5-year trial period.

50. With the other two cost categories, we developed three OPEX scenario cases, a low case which has a

medium likelihood of happening, a medium case which has a medium-to-low likelihood of happening and a high case which has a low likelihood of happening based on advice from KiwiRail and their experience with the Capital Connection service. The OPEX increases from the low case to the high case to simulate the worst-case scenario and the funding requirements. Below is a summary of the three scenarios:

OPEX Case Scenarios Low Case Medium Case High Case

Assumptions 2% Increase in Labor Costs 10% Increase Carriage Maintenance Costs

4% Increase in Labor Costs 20% Increase Carriage Maintenance Costs

6% Increase in Labor Costs 30% Increase Carriage Maintenance Costs

Results 51. It is important to note that when completing the OPEX sensitivity assessment, we have kept all other cost

items and the revenue fixed and only variated the costs identified above. The latter was done because: (a) KiwiRail’s other OPEX components aren’t likely subject to cost increases above the agreed 2%

inflation p.a. (b) 9% of the other OPEX relates to allowances made for WIFI, ticketing, contract management and

marketing. These budgets aren’t subject to cost increases as these operational costs will be capped by WRC through contract provisions.

(c) KiwiRail OPEX items already have a $250k Unforeseen Events Contingency p.a. to cover the financial risk related with operating the start-up service.

52. Below is the summary results (over 5 years) from completing the three sensitivity cases compared to the

base case:

Funding Model Base Case (no cost

increase)

Low Case Medium Case

High Case

Total OPEX (excl contingency) $29,674 $29,674 $29,674 $29,674

Fuel Contingency $440 $440 $440 $440

Unforeseen Events Contingency $1,099 $1,099 $1,099 $1,099

Overspend Funded from Contingency $0 $489 $977 $1,466

Residual Contingency $1,167 $679 $190 $0

Contingencies Total $2,706 $2,706 $2,706 $3,005

Operational Revenue $4,433 $4,433 $4,433 $4,433

Net Costs $27,948 $27,948 $27,948 $28,247

NZTA Share $21,101 $21,101 $21,101 $21,101

WRC Share $6,847 $6,847 $6,847 $7,146

LTP 2018 Budget “headroom” $478 $478 $478 $179

53. The low and medium cases have the same operational expenditure as the increase in OPEX in both cases

can be funded from the $1.17m (5% of total OPEX across the 5-years) residual contingency that WRC holds

Doc # 15096174 Page 12

within the LTP 2018/28 budget. To understand how this works, please see below the total overspends by case scenario:

d. Low Case: $489k e. Medium Case: $977k f. High Case: $1.46m.

54. The intention is to fund any unbudgeted cost increase by reallocating the residual contingency budget

allowance. The total residual contingency held under the base case is $1.167m. As the operational costs increases in each scenario (low to high case) the residual contingency held in the OPEX budget decreases substantially and the overspend contingency increases to $1.46m (worst case scenario).

55. The residual contingency (after paying for the unbudgeted cost increases) will decrease to $679k (2.1%)

under the low case and to $190k (0.59%) under the medium case as per the table above.

56. The NZTA share and WRC share under both cases will remain the same as the total OPEX hasn’t changed because under this model, the existing OPEX contingency has been reallocated to pay for the overspends. The NZTA share is fixed regardless of how we model due to the NZTA Board condition regarding overspends subject to reaching an acceptable agreement with NZTA on the release of contingency provisions i.e the second NZTA Board condition.

57. In the high case (worst case scenario), the total OPEX increases above the envelope considered by the

NZTA, and as such, WRC is liable at 100% for the overspend. As we only hold $1.17m in contingency, and the overspend is $1.46m, WRC will have to fund the balance of $299k through local share (LTP 2018 budget “headroom”). The residual contingency is $0 under this case.

58. We have reviewed the LTP 2018/2028 figures and identified that WRC has a total budget of local share for

the 5-year period of $7.325m, which is higher than the $6.847m required under the base OPEX model (paragraph 29). Therefore, we have a surplus of $478k, which can go towards paying for any overspends without increasing WRC’s LTP budgeted rate requirement.

59. A few key assumptions that are worth noting:

(a) KiwiRail has advised that the increase in carriage maintenance costs could happen but has a low likelihood as the carriages have been given additional operational life with the refurbishment so no significant light maintenance should be undertaken in the first 5 years.

(b) The cost increases have been modelled in addition to 2% inflation, and this inflation allowance should be sufficient for the general increase in cost in the rail industry.

60. Please find below a high-level LTP breakdown of the OPEX and contingencies:

L O W C A S E

M E D I U M C A S E

H I G H C A S E

$29,674

$29,674

$29,674

$440

$440

$440

$1,099

$1,099

$1,099

$489

$977

$1,466

$478

$478

$179

$679

$190

LO W , M EDIUM AN D H IG H O P EX C AS ES , 5 - Y EAR S T AR T - UP BR EAKDO W N ($ 0 0 0 )

Total OPEX (no contingency) Fuel Contingency Unforseen Events Contingency

Overspend Contingency WRC LTP 2018-2028 Surplus Residual Contigency

Doc # 15096174 Page 13

61. As you can see above, WRC holds fuel contingency of $440k, an unforeseen events contingency of $1.01m over a 5-year period in addition to the 5% total OPEX contingency. Also, the gross OPEX without the contingencies under all three cases, is $29.7m.

62. What changes from the low to the high case, is the overspend contingency ($ to pay for the unbudgeted

cost increases), the WRC LTP 2018/28 budget “headroom” and the residual contingency. As the overspend contingency increases (yellow rectangle), the residual contingency decreases and under the high case, the WRC surplus does as well.

63. As we explained before, WRC has allocated enough contingencies and local share in the LTP 2018/28 to

fund the worst-case scenario modelled. However, it is important to note that the residual contingency, if we fund the high case, is only $179k.

64. Overall, it can be seen that the OPEX financial risk associated with the NZTA Board condition can be

managed with the existing contingencies and within the LTP 2018/28 budgets approved by WRC, thus indicating the financial exposure is acceptable to WRC.

65. Other factors that need to be taken into account in assessing managing the cost risk to WRC are:

Prior to finalising the operating agreement an open book price audit of costs and key assumptions will be undertaken which we envisage will include benchmarking.

Waikato DC has indicated that they will discuss a local share contribution in their next LTP 2021/31 round to co-fund the start-up rail operations, which could provide additional contingency if required.

If necessary, WRC could choose to reduce levels of service to reduce cost to stay within the LTP funding envelope, for example taking away Saturday service would save approx. $500k p.a.

Patronage and revenue 66. The base demand model was designed internally by WRC staff and peer reviewed by Stantec NZ, a

consultancy firm engaged to complete the SSBC. The updated model follows the modelling requirement and rules outlined in the NZTA Economic Evaluation Manual.

67. However, the NZTA Board raised their reservations regarding the demand model as per one of the

conditions outlined in paragraph 25. The condition requires WRC to complete a full review of the service, including the patronage, revenue and funding model. WRC has drafted a performance measures plan and is committed to closely monitor patronage and the uptake of this service. The proposed ticketing system will enable us to do this cost effectively.

68. The current demand model assumes a ramp-up approach to patronage growth in the first three years to

achieve the base demand model estimate by 2021/22. This was done as way to conservatively estimate farebox recovery and the net subsidy required to fund this service.

69. This will result in:

60% of base demand model in 2019/20 (118-one-way demand)

80% of base demand model in year 2020/21 (157 one-way demand) and

100% of base demand model in year 2021/22 (base demand year-196 one-way demand).

Doc # 15096174 Page 14

70. Please see below the estimated patronage and revenue per annum from 2019/20 to 2023/24:

71. As noted in the column charts for the first two years that we only get 60% and 80% of the base patronage

and revenue estimated for 2021/22. By 2023/24, we expect to collect $1.2m of operational revenue from 110,438 boardings.

72. A key assumption made in this model is a 2% arithmetic patronage growth rate driven by the population

growth rates measured across HCC, WDC and Waipa DC. This is conservative as the interregional traffic growth has been above 3% per annum between Hamilton and Auckland in the last 7 years. This would have a positive impact in revenue estimations. However, NZTA advised WRC to be conservative in their demand model.

73. Therefore, it could be argued that the demand model is overly conservative, and WRC can expect to receive

the revenue presented above. Furthermore, each train can take up to 147 people seated, which means we can cater for growth and increase revenue without incurring an increase in operational expenditure.

Future proofing Puhinui Station 74. The multi-agency Hamilton to Auckland corridor team (WRC is a member) is considering Hamilton to

Auckland passenger rail in 3 phases:

Phase 1; Hamilton to Auckland Start-up Passenger Rail Service

Phase 2; Hamilton to Auckland Start-up Next Steps Passenger Rail service

Phase 3; Hamilton to Auckland Rapid Rail.

75. At HCC’s 8 August 2019 Council meeting, a verbal report was presented on the future proofing of the Puhinui rail station for access by the Hamilton to Auckland Passenger Rail Service and resolved:

“Requests that the Passenger Rail Working Group formally request central government and Auckland Transport consider the Hamilton-Auckland passenger rail service and other regional rail services in the design of the Puhinui Station, including the third main rail track”

76. In giving the verbal update HCC were shown a presentation that included the Auckland Rail Metro Network

and Stage 1 and 2 of the Airport to Botany Rapid Transit project. These slides show the significance of the Puhinui Rail Station being the future link for public transport services to Auckland Airport.

77. It was also noted that the current work proposed for Puhinui Rail Station would future proof for regional

rail but would not enable it. For example, a third platform face would be provided but there is no provision for a third platform that would be required for regional rail.

78. The Mayor of HCC sent a letter to the Minister of Transport informing him of the 8 August 2019 resolution

given that the Phase 3 business case for rapid rail is being led by his officials in the Ministry of Transport.

110,438

$1,204

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24

Rev

enu

e ($

00

0)

Pat

roan

ge (

tho

usa

nd

s)

Year

Patronage and Revenue Projections from 2019/20 to 2023/24*

Total Boardings per annum Revenue

Doc # 15096174 Page 15

79. Access to Puhinui Rail Station for regional rail was raised at the growth corridor launch and was supported

by the Minister of Transport who advised to work with the relevant officials. 80. Access to Puhinui Rail Station for regional rail should be seen as an important Phase 2, Hamilton to

Auckland Start-up Next Steps Passenger Rail service initiative. 81. Stage 1 of the Auckland Transport rapid transit project includes the upgrading of the Puhinui Rail Station.

Stage 2 of the rapid transit project includes the further upgrading of the Puhinui Rail Station, but this will be a number of years away.

82. There was a discussion at the 4 September 2019 Hamilton to Auckland Start-up Passenger Rail Project

Governance Group, informed by information from Auckland Transport, in regard to the current Puhinui Rail Station and associated work and what additional work would be required to understand ay regional rail needs. In particular:

It was noted that while the aspiration for the start-up service to penetrate further into the Auckland Metro Area is a logical next step (part of Phase 2), there has been no robust analysis of the infrastructure and operational requirements necessary for this to happen

It was noted that consideration will need to be given to a number of existing projects including 3rd main, Puhinui Rail Station, Papakura to Pukekohe Electrification and Rapid Rail (Phase 3)

83. A proposed scope of works on the basis of either a new business case or an addendum to the existing Phase 1 business case was discussed and it was agreed that HCC and WRC would work with NZTA to progress a business case to ensure future proofing the Puhinui Rail Station design for regional rail. This work is required now if there is to be a chance that access to Puhinui is to be achieved as part of the Puhinui Rail Station stage 1 works. If this work is not done now the next opportunity will be as part of the Puhinui Rail Station stage 2 work which will be many years away.

Conclusion 84. Work on addressing the December Board conditions has been completed and the NZTA Board approved

the increased project funding

85. However, a condition of capped funding imposed by the NZTA Board is not acceptable to WRC with respect to the KiwiRail capital programme. However he NZTA Board Chair has verbally advised that he does not see WRC being held liable for these costs and will confirm this in writing prior to the Council meeting.

86. The NZTA capped condition would mean WRC has funding risk over the service Operating costs and

revenue however the modelling of contingencies in the cost budgets and conservative revenue projections indicates this is an acceptable risk.

87. Until there is certainty of enhanced Financial Assistance beyond 2021 WRC will require a review clause in

the KiwiRail operating contract prior to 30 June 2021 so that if the enhanced FAR does not continue WRC could determine to discontinue funding the service.

Doc # 15096174 Page 16

Appendix 1

Workstream in progress

Rotokauri Station (HCC)

The main contract for the Rotokauri Transport Hub has been tendered and is ready to award.

HCC have confirmed that they will accept the capped amount of NZTA subsidy funding for the project, noting that they will need all of the allocated contingency to successfully complete the project. The expected completion date is June 2020 subject to award of contract by Friday 20 September 2019.

To award the contract HCC requires assurance that NZTA will provide the allocated funding as a standalone project, while discussions continue about the KiwiRail allocation of risk.

Frankton Station (HCC)

Frankton station was deemed fit for purpose in the SSBC. However, some minor improvement works to the toilets, lighting and road marking were identified as part of the pre-implementation phase.

Progress to design and implement minor works will follow award of tender for Rotokauri. The timing of this is not critical.

Huntly Station (WDC)

Platform detailed design is close to completion with the rail design component sign off due September 2019

WDC remain confident construction will be completed during February/March 2020. WDC are negotiating with Downer, their Roading Alliance Contractor, to price the platform and car park works which will provide efficiency gains and reduce overall costs. WDC have engaged Bond CM to peer review the construction estimate from Downer to ensure value for money and justify the direct appointment.

KiwiRail anticipate track and signaling work will be complete in January/February 2020, allowing platform construction to be complete by March 2020.

Te Rapa Maintenance Facility (KiwiRail)

Tenders for groundworks have returned in early September with the RFT for the building out to market on the second week of September. The challenging ground conditions are likely to delay the completion of the facility until September 2020 although KiwiRail will review this to see if there are any innovations or efficiencies to improve delivery once a contractor has been engaged.

As the service may start before this (June 2020), KiwiRail is investigating interim maintenance options to ensure the service can be maintained and serviced for a period 3 to 4 months.

Rolling Stock (KiwiRail)

First delivery of bogie springs arrived in August 2019 and are undergoing quality testing in KiwiRail’s workshop.

Prototyping of first consist is well progressed (around 50% complete) with an anticipated completion date during December 2019 for the operational testing.

Consist two (30% complete) is anticipated during February 2020, with the spare carriages (9, 10 and 11 carriage) by April 2020.

Locomotives

The refurbishment of the three locomotives has been completed by KiwiRail and the only task left to do is the commissioning works required for this service, which will happen in 2020.

Ticketing (WRC)

Doc # 15096174 Page 17

Workstream in progress

Preferred option confirmed as RITS with station card readers. INIT (ticketing supplier) confirm this is feasible but we are still investigating the option of on train mobile devices which now appears a potential option. Discussions are ongoing with AT on placing infrastructure on Papakura Station (if required).

Regardless if we go with on-platform validators or on-train mobile devices, the system will be installed and delivered prior to service commencement date.

Wi-Fi (WRC)

RFP proposals have been received on the 11 of September 2019 and the evaluation period will take 2 weeks. A successful tenderer will be notified after the Governance Group has endorsed the proposed level of service at their meeting on the 4 of October 2019. WRC and KiwiRail are coordinating carriage infrastructure requirements.

Papakura Ticketing and Access Design (WRC)

Discussions in progress with AT regarding access to Papakura station for installation of equipment. AT have confirmed the station ticketing and gating controls will now be going ahead so WRC is focused on ensuring this design accounts for the ticketing requirements.

Customer Communications & Information (WRC)

Communications planning and roles and responsibilities under discussion with initial concepts for operating structure for customer communication and the cross over between AT, KiwiRail, and WRC. This will take the form of a live document that will changed as issues and actions are resolved throughout the implementation phase.

Operational Plan (WRC)

Operations plan are in development between WRC, KiwiRail and AT (Transdev), which covers whole of service management, operating procedures, contingency planning and lines of communication etc. Anticipate that working document will be completed by the end of October 2019.

Doc # 15096174

Appendix 2 Please find below a summary of the updated capital expenditure as of September 2019:

Work Stream Scope Current Costs Contingencies Indicative

Delivery Date

Carriage Purchase Purchase of 13 SA/SD carriages from Auckland Transport. $878K Completed

Rolling Stock Refurbishment Refurbishment of 11 SA/SD carriages to create 3 carriage types:

• 2 SRV

• 2SRC

• 8 SR.

$16.19m $2.60m Apr-2020

Locomotive Overhaul Complete overhaul of 3 DFB locomotives. $7.1m Completed

Rotokauri Station Construction of an island platform, track/signalling works,

pedestrian overbridge, park and ride facility and public

transport hub.

$22.85m $3.31m Jun-2020

Huntly Station Upgrade and extension of existing side platform, track/ signalling

works, new park and ride facility and station fit outs.

$4.51m $0.56m TBC

Frankton Station Minor upgrade and improvement works on toilet blocks, road

marking and lighting.

$30k 2020

Te Rapa

Maintenance

Facility

Construction of new servicing and maintenance facility, track

signalling works, washing facility and pump out facility.

$9.7m $1.92m Sept-2020

WIFI Provision of a fast, reliable and effective 3G/4G WiFi connection.

Access points, antennas and the required wiring will be installed.

$120k

Apr-2020

Marketing Launch Marketing Campaign to support patronage uptake from

the outset of the service

$160k Feb-2020

Ticketing Extension of the Regional Integrated Ticketing Solution for the

rail service.

$588k Apr-2020

WRC Programme Management Required to provide programme management oversight and risk

management of all the projects.

$971k Ongoing until Launch

date

Total Costs $63.08m $7.67m

Note: Contingency is included within the overall cost.

Doc # 15096174

Appendix 3 NZTA letter – Board Conditions

2

Doc # 15096174 Page 20

Doc # 15096174 Page 21

Appendix 4 Letter from KiwiRail

Doc # 15096174 Page 22

Waikato Regional Council

Documents

Transcript of Waikato Regional Council