council agenda - 26-04-17 - hauraki district · paeroa skate and leisure centre (2194245) 139. 3...

- Will do now.

A G E N D A

Date: Wednesday, 26 April 2017 Time: 9.00am

Venue: Council Chambers William Street Paeroa L D Cavers Chief Executive Members: J P Tregidga (His Worship the Mayor) Cr D A Adams Cr P D Buckthought Cr C Daley Cr R Harris Cr G R Leonard Cr M McLean Cr P A Milner Cr A Rattray Cr D Smeaton Cr A M Spicer Cr D H Swales Cr J H Thorp

Distribution: Elected Members: (His Worship the Mayor) Cr D A Adams Cr P D Buckthought Cr C Daley Cr R Harris Cr G R Leonard Cr M McLean Cr P A Milner Cr A Rattray Cr D Smeaton Cr A M Spicer Cr D H Swales Cr J H Thorp

Staff: L Cavers A de Laborde P Thom S Fabish D Peddie M Buttimore Council Secretary

Public copies: Paeroa Office Plains Area Office Waihi Area Office

1 Council Agenda- 26-04-17 Doc Ref: 2194488

HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL COUNCIL AGENDA Wednesday, 26 April 2017 – 9.00am – Council Office, William Street, Paeroa 10.00am Presentation Keitha Pokiha Subject: Update from recipient of Mayoral Task Force for Jobs – Rangatahi Project 10.30am Presentation: Walter Clarke (Rationale) – refer Item 15 Subject: Projections for the 2018 Long Term Plan Process Order of Business Pages

1. Apologies

2. Declarations of Late Items

3. Declarations of Interests

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES 4. Council Minutes - 29-03-17 (2189068)

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE MINUTES 5

5. Audit and Risk Committee Minutes - 04-04-17 (2190057) 256. Conflicts of Interest Guidelines (2186180) 317. Social Strategy Briefing Paper (2181341) 378. Report on review of Walking and Cycling Strategy 2017 (2181336) 47

Appendix A - Walking and Cycling Strategy (F546044) (under separate cover)

9. LED Street Lighting Funding Report 2017 (2194128, F1330314) 52

10. District Drainage and Stormwater Activity Report to 31 March 2017 (2193070) 5511. Supplementary Drainage Activity Report to 31 March 2017 (2193237)

12. WPDD Minutes - 30-03-17 (2189059) 5962

13. PRDD Minutes - 30-03-17 (2194431) 6414. Report for Adoption of 2017-18 Annual Plan (2179456) 66

Appendix A - Draft Annual Plan Document (2193842) (under separate cover)


15. Report on Projections for the 2018 Long Term Planning Process (2193987) 69Appendix A - Report on HDC Growth Projections 2048 April 2017 (2194118)

71

16. CEO Monthly report for April 2017 (2193639) 10117. Corporate Services Update - April 2017 (2187875) 10218. Council Financial Report 2017-03-31 (219384, 2191404) 10419. Financial Quick Facts for Council (2193273) 11220. Report Waikato Plan Joint Committee Minutes and Budget (2194185) 117

Appendix A - Waikato Plan Revised Implementation Budget 2017 (2194171)

119

Appendix B - Minutes of Waikato Plan Joint Committee 27-02-17 (2193315)

120

21. Transportation Report - March 2017 (2192873) 13022. Water Services Report to Council - March 2017 (2192487) 135

Public Excluded

23. Paeroa Skate and Leisure Centre (2194245) 139


MATTERS TO BE TAKEN WITH THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED The public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this 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: Item No.

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) Under Section 48(1) for the Passing of this Resolution

1

Paeroa Skate and Leisure Centre

Section 7(2)(i) Prejudice to Commercial Position/Negotiations To enable the local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations.

Section 48(1)(a) That the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist.

1 Council Minutes - 29-03-17 Doc Ref: 2189068

HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, WILLIAM STREET, PAEROA ON WEDNESDAY 29 MARCH 2017 COMMENCING AT 9.00 AM

PRESENT J P Tregidga (His Worship the Mayor), Cr D A Adams (Deputy Mayor), Cr P D Buckthought, Cr C Daley (9.00am-2.55pm), Cr R Harris, Cr G R Leonard (9.00am-2.55pm), Cr M McLean, Cr P A Milner (9.00am-2.55pm), Cr A Rattray, Cr D Smeaton, Cr A M Spicer (9.00am – 2.35pm) and Cr J H Thorp (9.00am-1.25pm)

IN ATTENDANCE Messrs L D Cavers (Chief Executive), A de Laborde (Group Manager -

Engineering Services), D Peddie (Group Manager - Corporate Services), P Thom (Group Manager - Planning & Environmental Services), S B Fabish (Group Manager - Community Services), M Buttimore (Strategic Planning Projects Manager), Ms C Mischewski (Policy Analyst), Ms K Hurd (Policy Analyst), Ms T Nevin (Strategic Planner), G Thomsen (Roading Manager), G van Eeden (Technical Services Business Unit Manager), E J Wenzlick (Water Services Manager), I McLeod (Drainage Manager) and Ms C Black (Council Secretary)

APOLOGIES RESOLVED

THAT the apology of Cr D H Swales be received and sustained. C17/92 Leonard/Milner CARRIED LATE ITEM Pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the Chairperson called for late items to be accepted. RESOLVED THAT pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the following late items be accepted for discussion. - Oceana Gold – Application for Twin Exploration Drives

The item was not on the agenda because the item was unavailable at the time of the agenda deadline. Discussion on the item could not be delayed because the matter for discussion was subject to a regulatory timeframe that needed to be met prior to the scheduled April meeting of Council. C17/93 Adams/Leonard CARRIED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Crs Milner, Leonard and Daley declared a conflict of interest in Item 32 (4).

Council Agenda - 26-04-17


CONFIRMATION OF COUNCIL MINUTES – 22-02-17 (2176358) The Mayor presented the minutes. RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hauraki District Council held on Wednesday 22 February 2017 are confirmed and are a true and correct record. C17/94 Smeaton/Adams CARRIED CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE MINUTES

AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE MINUTES – 14-02-17 (2170637

The Mayor presented the minutes. RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Audit & Risk Minutes held on Tuesday 14 February 2017 are received and the recommendations contained therein be adopted. C17/95 Leonard/Adams CARRIED HEARINGS AND JUDICIAL COMMITTEE MINUTES - 19-12-16 (2146924) Cr Milner, Chair of the Hearings and Judicial Committee presented the minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2016 and 8 March 2017. RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings and Judicial Committee held on Monday 19 December 2016 be received. C17/96 Milner/McLean CARRIED HEARINGS AND JUDICIAL COMMITTEE MINUTES - 08-03-17 (2181347) RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings and Judicial Committee held on Monday 8 March 2017 be received. C17/97 Milner/Spicer CARRIED APPOINTMENT OF DAVID TAIPARI TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE (2185498)

The Group Manager- Community Services and Development sought approval for the appointment of David Taipari to the Economic Development Sub-Committee as an independent Māori advisor.

RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/98 Rattray/McLean CARRIED



RESOLVED

THAT David Taipari be appointed to the Economic Development Sub-Committee, and THAT the Economic Development Sub-Committee Terms of Reference be amended accordingly. C17/99 Adams/Harris CARRIED CORPORATE SERVICES UPDATE – MARCH 2017 (2186440) The Group Manager – Corporate Services updated on activities of Corporate Services department for the month of March 2017 RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/100 Buckthought/Thorp CARRIED RATES INSTALMENTS (2184999) The Group Manager - Corporate Services advised of the Audit and Risk Committee’s recommendations regarding rates instalments and for Council to consider the changing of instalment frequency and what is considered an appropriate level of further community engagement on the decision. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/101 Tregidga/Leonard CARRIED RESOLVED THAT the rates instalment schedule be increased from three times per year to four times per annum to be effective from 1 July 2017, and THAT water rates be changed to two monthly readings for properties with consumption over 10,000kl, to be enacted from 1st July 2017, and THAT the decision be communicated to ratepayers as outlined in the report. C17/102 Adams/Leonard CARRIED PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONTHLY REPORT – MARCH 2017 (2181120) APPENDIX A – POWER CO SUBMISSION 2183650) The Group Manager – Planning and Environmental Services and Strategic Planning Projects Manager reported on planning and regulatory activities for the month of February 2017. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/103 Smeaton/Spicer CARRIED



MARTHA MINING LICENCE - REHABILITATION AND CLOSURE BONDS As a result of the 2016 negotiations on the new Rehabilitation and Closure Plan, an additional Bond Deed for $8.09m was sought from Oceana Gold and the bond was to cover a three-year period. The new bond is to cover the costs of remediating the north wall in the event that the Company exits the site. The new bond has been signed and is in place. Negotiations on the existing three remaining bonds are complete and it has been agreed that the term of these bonds will be extended until 30 June 2020. The bonds terms will be extended by way of Deeds of Variation. It was recommended that the Mayor and a Councillor be authorised to sign the Bond Deeds of Variation. RESOLVED THAT the Mayor and any one Councillor be delegated authority to sign the Deeds of Variation for the following Bonds that allow for their coverage to be extended to 1 July 2020:

• BNP Paribus $24,800,000 • Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation $$8,345,000 • Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation $10,400,000

C17/104 McLean/Thorp CARRIED LATE ITEM OCEANA GOLD – APPLICATION FOR TWIN EXPLORATION DRIVES (2188175) The Strategic Planning Project Manager reported that Oceana Gold Waihi (the Company) has lodged a resource consent application for two new underground exploration tunnels (drives) located under the south wall of the Martha Pit and Resource Management Act timeframes require the appointment of a Commissioner prior to the next Council meeting of 26 April 2017. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/105 McLean/Rattray CARRIED It was recommended that Mr Alan Watson be appointed as a commissioner to hear and decide on the application for the project. Mr Watson’s curriculum vitae was attached for the member’s consideration. RESOLVED THAT pursuant to section 34A (1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 Mr Alan Watson be appointed as Commissioner to consider and decide on the Section 95 notification report for the proposed Martha Drill Drives project (MDDP); and THAT pursuant to section 34A (1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 Mr Alan Watson be appointed as Commissioner to consider and decide on the application for the proposed Martha Drill Drives project; and THAT pursuant to section 34A (1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 the Mayor and the Chairperson of the Judicial Committee be delegated authority to appoint a technical Commissioner to consider and decide on the application for the proposed Martha Drill Drives project, if required. C17/106 McLean/Rattray CARRIED



DOG REGISTRATION AND IMPOUNDING FEES – 2017/18 (2185314) The Group Manager Planning and Environmental Services sought Council approval for the Dog Registration and Impounding Fees for the 2017/18 dog registration year.

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received.

C17/107 Smeaton/McLean CARRIED

RESOLVED THAT pursuant to Section 37 and Section 68 of the Dog Control Act 1996 the Fees and Charges is adopted as the scale of fees for Dog Registration and Impounding Fees for the 2017/18 dog registration year. C17/108 Milner/Rattray CARRIED The meeting adjourned for morning tea at 10.15am The meeting reconvened at 10.35am. ADOPTION OF DRAFT EASTERN WAIKATO WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION PLAN (WMMP) AND STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL (2186055) APPENDIX A - DRAFT EASTERN WMMP STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL - WMMP 20-3-17 (2186366) APPENDIX B – DRAFT EASTERN WMMP (2186367) The Policy Analyst sought Councils adoption of the Draft Eastern Waikato Waste Management and Minimisation Plan and associated Statement of Proposal for public consultation and also sought the approval of the approach to community engagement. David Lindsay – Solid Waste Manager (Thames-Coromandel District Council) was in attendance to provide Council with an informed overview of the waste minimisation plan and to answer any questions they had on the development of the plan, its purpose and the outcomes hoped to be achieved. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/109 Spicer/Adams CARRIED RESOLVED THAT in accordance with section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 the Council adopt the Draft Eastern Waikato Waste Management and Minimisation Plan for public consultation, and THAT in accordance with section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002 the Council adopt the Draft Eastern Waikato Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Statement of Proposal for public consultation, and THAT a summary of the information contained in the Draft Eastern Waikato Waste Management and Minimisation Plan Statement of Proposal is not necessary for the purpose of the special consultative procedure, and THAT the written public feedback period will run from 9am on Friday 7 April 2017 to 4pm on Monday 8 May 2017, and



THAT the Eastern Waikato Solid Waste Joint Committee will hold a hearing of feedback and deliberations meeting in the Paeroa Council Chambers on Thursday 1 June 2017. C17/110 Milner/Smeaton CARRIED LOCAL BILL - MANGROVE MANAGEMENT (2180370) The Strategic Planning Projects Manager presented a report which advised of the development of a plan by the Thames Coromandel District Council (TCDC) as an approach to controlling mangroves in its district. A draft bill was prepared for TCDC consideration. Subsequently interest in the Local Bill approach has also been expressed by the Auckland Council (AC), Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBoPDC) and the WRC.

The Mayor of TCDC has approached His worship the Mayor requesting the support of the Hauraki District Council to co-sponsoring or supporting the development of a (redrafted) Local Bill that includes Auckland Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council and the Waikato Regional Council. The Mayor recommends that Council agree in principle to co-sponsor the Local Bill.

RESOLVED


C17/111 Tregidga/Leonard CARRIED

RESOLVED THAT the Hauraki District Council support in principle the co-sponsoring of a Local Bill that will define the process and procedure for territorial authorities to control mangroves within their Districts, and THAT the Thames Coromandel District Council be advised accordingly. C17/112 Leonard/Buckthought CARRIED COUNCIL REPORT - DRAFT LOCAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT 2017 (2181119) APPENDIX B - DRAFT LOCAL GOVERNANCE STATEMENT 2017 (2169689) The Policy Analyst reported on the reviewed and updated Local Governance Statement 2017 (statement) for adoption. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/113 Adams/Rattray CARRIED Previously, a six monthly review was undertaken by the Policy Analyst and approved by the Chief Executive as an appropriate method to ensure the governance statement complies with the Act. It was recommended that this is continued. Council would be notified if significant amendments take place. RESOLVED THAT pursuant to Section 40 of the Local Government Act, 2002 the draft Triennial Local Governance Statement 2017 be adopted and made publicly available; and THAT the Local Governance Statement is reviewed by staff on a six monthly cycle, and



THAT authority is given to the Chief Executive to update the Statement for the purposes of currency. C17/114 Tregidga/McLean CARRIED

2018 LTP REVISED WORKSHOP SCHEDULE REPORT (2186631)

The Senior Strategic Planner sought Councils approval of a revised long term planning process workshop schedule for the 2017 year.

RESOLVED


C17/115 Spicer/Leonard CARRIED

RESOLVED

THAT the revised workshop schedule for the development of the 2018-28 long term planning process is approved as follows:

Date Forum Topic

Wednesday 12 April Council workshop following CS&D Committee

• Our services in more detail – part 1

Wednesday 19 April Council workshop • Our services in more detail – part 2

Wednesday 26 April Ordinary Council meeting • Forecasting assumptions

Thursday 27 April District Drainage Committee workshop (following meeting)

• Land drainage services and projects for 2018-2048

Tuesday 2 May Economic Development Sub-Committee workshop (following meeting)

• Community growth services and projects for 2018-2028

Wednesday 3 May Council workshop (on usual ward working party meeting day) • Revenue and financing policy

Tuesday 1 August Economic Development Sub-Committee workshop (following meeting)

• Draft community growth budgets

Tuesday 8 August Council workshop • First review of activity budgets

including ward breakout sessions

Thursday 31 August District Drainage Committee workshop (following meeting) • Draft land drainage budgets

Wednesday 18 October Council workshop

• Forming a draft LTP position including revised draft proposals and budgets and financial and funding implications

Wednesday 15 November Council workshop • Community engagement

options Additional issue specific workshops may be scheduled on an as-needed basis.

C17/116 Milner/McLean CARRIED



REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CONSULTATION (2179379) The Group Manager – Engineering Services updated the members on progress with the Regional Infrastructure Technical Specification work stream and sought approval to start the process of formally consulting on the document. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/117 Adams/Thorp CARRIED The Waikato Mayoral Forum identified the development of a regional Infrastructure Technical Specification (ITS) under its Regulatory Bylaws and Policies work stream. The Regional Infrastructure Technical Specification manual/code is intended to give guidance to developers and their consultants and contractors to the requirements that the Council will accept in meeting the resource consent conditions of development. It becomes a means of compliance also to the District Plan requirements. RESOLVED

THAT the Council through the Waikato Local Authority Shared Service releases the Regional Infrastructure Technical Specification for public consultation, and

THAT the consultation process is undertaken by the Waikato Local Authority Shared Service (LASS) and any feedback (including submissions) is addressed by the LASS.

C17/118 Tregidga/Spicer CARRIED

CHIEF EXECUTIVE MONTHLY REPORT - MARCH 2017 (2178906) APPENDIX A - WAIKATO MAYORAL FORUM SUMMARY REPORT FOR MARCH 2017 (2178952) The Chief Executive presented his monthly report for February 2017. The report focussed on recent staff changes within the organisation. For the member’s information attached was a copy of the Waikato Mayoral Forum summary report for February which summarised the main discussions and outcomes of the forums first meeting of for 2017 held in Hamilton. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/118 Tregidga/Harris CARRIED

WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES 2017 (2185568), APPENDIX A – WRC STRATEGIC DIRECTION SUMMARY (2186462) APPENDIX B – WRC STRATEGIC DIRECTION DOCUMENT (2186464) The Policy Analyst reported on the Waikato Regional Council (WRC) ‘2016-2019 Our Strategic Direction’ document and summary document for the information of the Council.



RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/119 Leonard/Daley CARRIED The Policy Analyst emphasised the importance that Council is aware of the Regional Council strategic direction and priorities so it is informed of the strategic context for regional decision making. The document makes it clear that the Region has a focus on Iwi/Māori relations, fresh water quality and associated land use, better planning for natural hazards and the predicted impacts of climate change, and the management of the coastal and marine areas. MID-SIZED TOURISM FACILITIES GRANT FUND (2187724) The Chief Executive reported on the Regional Mid-Sized Tourism Facilities Grant Fund (MFF), administered by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE). RESOLVED


C17/120 Adams/Spicer CARRIED The fund is intended to support territorial authorities to respond to the demands of projected visitor numbers and contribute to a higher quality visitor experiences by providing co-funding for mid-sized infrastructure projects. CLEAN WATER PACKAGE (2185900) The Senior Strategic Planner presented a report on central government’s new Clean Water Package as part of its ongoing water reform programme. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/121 Thorp/Buckthought CARRIED The poor and intermittent status of a number of waterways in the Hauraki District is of significant concern. The Government’s assessment will likely have major implications for the Council (as a point discharge provider) and the primary sector, as has already been signalled by the proposed Waikato Regional Plan Change 1. The Government is now seeking feedback on the proposed amendments to the NPS-FM (including the swimmable water targets) and its policy proposals for excluding stock from waterways. Feedback closes on 28 April 2017. At the same time the Government is also inviting applications for the $100 million Freshwater Improvement Fund until 13 April 2017. Regional councils will be expected to have discussions with communities, including tāngata whenua in preparing freshwater objectives. It is reasonable to assume that this would occur via Plan Change 2 for the Hauraki District area.



MATTERS TO BE TAKEN WITH THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED

RESOLVED

THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this 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:

Item No. General subject of each matter to be considered



2

Future of Wastewater Treatment Plants in Hauraki District Council



C17/122 Adams/Daley CARRIED



RESOLVED

THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting and that the business in committee discussed be confirmed. C17/124 Milner/McLean CARRIED

The meeting adjourned for lunch at 12.35pm.

Council Agenda - 26-04-17 Page 16


The meeting reconvened at 1.05pm

The Chief Executive and council staff left the Chamber at 1.05pm to allow for the Mayor and elected members to consider the Chief Executive recruitment process.


RESOLVED THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this 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:

Item No. General subject of each matter to be considered



5

Chief Executive Recruitment

Section 7(2)(a) – Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons.


C17/125 Tregidga/Harris CARRIED



RESOLVED THAT the public be re-admitted to the meeting and that the business in committee discussed be confirmed. C17/128 Adams/Harris CARRIED

2016-17 SECOND QUARTER NON-FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE RESULTS (2181786) The Strategic Planner presented the Non-Financial Performance Results or the second quarter. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/127 Milner/McLean CARRIED COUNCIL OWNED PROPERTIES AT WAIHI BEACH (2186188) The Community Services – Facilities and Administration Manager presented a report on the conclusion of sales of all leasehold properties owned by the Hauraki District Council at Waihi Beach. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/128 Tregidga/Leonard CARRIED TRANSPORTATION REPORT - FEBRUARY 2017 (2170261) The Transportation Manager and Technical Services Business Unit Manager presented the monthly activity report for February 2017. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/129 Adams/Rattray CARRIED WATER SERVICES REPORT - FEBRUARY 2017 (2183838) The Water Services Manager presented the monthly activity report on water utilities for February 2017. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/130 Smeaton/Harris CARRIED DISTRICT DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER ACTIVITY REPORT TO 28 FEBRUARY 2017 (2185795) The Drainage and Stormwater Manager presented the monthly activity report to 28 February 2017.



RESOLVED THAT the report be received. C17/131 Tregidga/Buckthought CARRIED The Drainage and Stormwater Manager presented the Eastern and Western Drainage District Committee minutes for the meetings held on Thursday, 23 February 2017. EPDD Minutes - 23-02-17 (2187147) RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the Eastern Plains Drainage District meeting held on Thursday 23 February 2017 be received and the recommendations therein adopted. C17/132 Buckthought/Rattray CARRIED WPDD Minutes - 23-02-17 (2187004) RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the Western Plains Drainage District meeting held on Thursday 23 February 2017 be received and the recommendations therein adopted. C17/133 Buckthought/Rattray CARRIED




RESOLVED THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this 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:

Item No. General subject of

each matter to be considered



1

Closeout Report Kaiaua Historic Landfill



3

Water Rates Dates

Section 7(2)(f)(i) – Maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through: (i) The free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to members or officers or employees of any local authority, or any persons to whom section 2(5) of this Act applies, in the course of their duty.


4

Liquor Licence Application Possible Objection 2017

Section 7(2)(b)(i) - Protect information where the making available of the information: (1) Would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information, and Section 7(2)(a) – Protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons.


C17/134 Leonard/Spicer CARRIED


1 Audit & Risk Committee Minutes - 04-04-17 Doc Ref: 2190057

HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL

AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE HELD IN THE HAURAKI ROOM, COUNCIL OFFICE, WILLIAM STREET, PAEROA ON TUESDAY 4 APRIL 2017 COMMENCING AT 9.00AM PRESENT Mr P Bennett (In the Chair), His Worship the Mayor Mr J P Tregidga, G R Leonard, P A Milner and D Smeaton (9.20am – 12.45pm) IN ATTENDANCE Mrs M Procter - Audit NZ, M D Sutton and Ms B Nand (KPMG), Cr R Harris,

Messrs L D Cavers (Chief Executive), D Peddie (Group Manager – Corporate Services), Mrs K Vatselias (Finance Manager), Mrs J Nicholls (Health & Safety Advisor), Mrs J Sweeney (HR Advisor) and Ms C Black (Council Secretary)

APOLOGIES RESOLVED THAT the apologies for absence of Cr Adams and for the lateness of Cr Smeaton be received and sustained. ARC17/22 Milner/Leonard CARRIED LATE ITEMS Pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the Chairperson called for late items to be accepted. RESOLVED THAT pursuant to Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the following late items be accepted for discussion.

- Fixed Assets Review – Internal Audit Report - KPMG - Audit Arrangements Letter and Audit Engagement Letter – Audit NZ

The items were not on the agenda because the items were unavailable at the time of the agenda deadline. Discussion on the item could not be delayed as KPMG and Audit NZ representatives were in attendance, and it was an opportune time to have them present on the items to the Audit and Risk Committee. ARC17/23 Leonard/Milner CARRIED

DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS There were no interests declared. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES: AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE MINUTES - 14.02.17 (2170637) RESOLVED THAT the minutes of the Audit & Risk Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 14 February 2017 be confirmed and are a true and correct record. ARC17/24 Leonard/Smeaton CARRIED



LATE ITEM FIXED ASSETS REVIEW – INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT - KPMG (Docs. # 2194357 and 2194368) KPMG Partner, Mr David Sutton and Director, Ms Bineeta Nand were in attendance. The KPMG representatives spoke on the internal audit review which had been undertaken to assess Councils processes in relation to asset management. A copy of the internal audit report (dated March 2017) was tabled and distributed along with a document showing common areas of focus for all councils both current and emerging. Cr Smeaton attended the meeting at 9.20am Mr Sutton and Ms Nand left the meeting at 9.40am RESOLVED THAT staff prepare a report for the next Audit and Risk Committee meeting recommending further areas for internal audit, and THAT the report is not released to the public. ARC17/25 Bennett/Tregidga CARRIED LATE ITEM AUDIT ARRANGEMENTS LETTER AND AUDIT ENGAGEMENT LETTER – AUDIT NZ (Doc. # 2187744) Maree Procter of Audit NZ introduced herself to the Committee. She advised that should will be taking over the Audit Manager role from Mr Naude Kotze. Maree presented the audit arrangement and engagements letters. RESOLVED THAT Audit and Risk Committee approve the audit arrangements, and audit engagement letters for signing by the Mayor. ARC17/26 Bennett/Tregidga CARRIED AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE FINANCIAL QUICK FACTS (2167883) The Group Manager – Corporate Services, for the information of the Committee, presented a report which provided them with quick financial facts reference guides for the current year. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. ARC17/27 Leonard/Milner CARRIED INFORMATION REPORT - PROGRESS AGAINST AUDIT NZ RECOMMENDATIONS (2186674, 2187056) APPENDIX A: PROGRESS ON MATTERS RAISED BY AUDIT NZ (2187056) For the information of the Committee, the Finance Manager presented the progress report against the matters raised by Audit New Zealand as a result of the 2015/16 audit.



RESOLVED THAT the report be received. ARC17/28 Bennett/Milner CARRIED FORECAST INTERNAL DEBT AT 30 JUNE 2017 (2187054) The Group Manager – Corporate Services provided an update on Council’s internal debt position.

RESOLVED THAT the report be received. ARC17/29 Bennett/Tregidga CARRIED HEALTH AND SAFETY REPORT TO AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE - 4 APRIL 2017 (2187030 Human Resources Advisor Julie Sweeney and Health & Safety Advisor, Judy Nicholls were in attendance as part of their regular reporting to the Committee on key health and safety matters to ensure Council continues to meet its health and safety responsibilities under the Act. RESOLVED THAT the report be received. ARC17/30 Leonard/Milner CARRIED Maree Procter left the meeting at 11.12am.



MATTERS TO BE TAKEN WITH THE PUBLIC EXCLUDED RESOLVED THAT the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this 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: Item No.

General subject of each matter to be considered



1

KPMG Internal Audit Reviews Progress report - March 2017

Section 7(2)(f)(i) – Maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through: (i) The free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to members or officers or employees of any local authority, or any persons to whom section 2(5) of this Act applies, in the course of their duty.


2

Rates in arrears – (various ratepayers) 4 April 2017



3

Rates in arrears – (individual ratepayer) 4 April 2017



ARC17/31 Milner/Leonard CARRIED



RESOLVED THAT the public be readmitted to the meeting and that the business in committee discussed is confirmed. ARC17/37 Bennett/Tregidga CARRIED AUDIT AND RISK COMMITTEE TREASURY REPORT AS AT 28 FEBRUARY 2017 (2186670)

The Group Manager - Corporate Services provided an update on the current position of the loan/debt status, against the parameters outlined in the Council’s Financial Strategy and Liability Management Policy.

Representatives from Price Waterhouse Coopers, Mr Brett Johansen and Mr Alex Wondergem were in attendance at 11.30am to provide a presentation on the Treasury function.

RESOLVED THAT the report be received. ARC17/38 Bennett/Milner CARRIED Cr Harris left the meeting at 12.06pm and returned at 12.28pm. Acknowledgement of Katina Conomos (Contracted Strategic Planner) The Chairperson acknowledged and thanked Katina Conomos for her expertise in assisting with the formation of the Audit & Risk Committee and her valued input over her time as Strategic Planner supporting staff and the Audit & Risk Committee. Due to time constraints, it was agreed that the risk and work programme reports be deferred until the next meeting in June. The meeting closed at 12.45pm. CONFIRMED P Bennett Chairperson 13 June 2017


of 6

Decision Report

To: Mayor and Councillors

From: Group Manager – Community Services & Development

Date: Thursday, 13 April 2017

File reference:

Document: 2186180

Meeting date: Wednesday, 26 April 2017

Subject: Conflicts of Interest Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT elected members raise with the Mayor or Chief Executive future potential situations of conflicts of interest so that members are able to manage those situations effectively.

Purpose The purpose of this report is to provide elected members with information about the two types of conflicts of interest that members will encounter. The report provides a range of information to members to enable them to effectively manage potential or actual conflicts of interest. It also clarifies the process for identifying a potential conflict of interest and how to manage that conflict. The two types of conflicts of interest are:

• Financial conflicts of interest; and • Non-financial conflicts of interest

The matter or suggested decision does not involve a new activity, service, programme, project, expenditure or other deliverable. Background Elected members are expected by the community to act in accordance with legislation and commonly accepted principles of good governance. When members are sworn into office following the local government elections they make the following declaration: “I, AB, declare that I will faithfully and impartially, and according to the best of my skill and judgment, execute and perform, in the best interests of [region or district], the powers, authorities, and duties vested in, or imposed upon, me as [mayor or chairperson or member] of the [local authority] by virtue of the Local Government Act 2002, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, or any other Act.


of 6

To perform in the best interest of the district, members must comply with the law in relation to financial interests and the common law in relation to non-financial interests. Ethical considerations apply to local government. Public business ought to be conducted with a spirit of:

• integrity; • honesty; • transparency; • openness; • independence; • good faith; and • service to the public1.

Members are required to comply with the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1987 which sets out that members cannot discuss or vote on a matter in which they have a pecuniary (financial) interest other than an interest in common with the public. For example, a member that owns a dog can participate in setting the fees for dog registration because that interest is in common with the public. The situation changes if a member owns 20 dogs because that interest is greater than the ordinary public i.e. not many people own more than a few dogs. There is a risk to council decision making if members participate in a matter in which they have a conflict of interest. It raises two questions being:

1. Can the public have trust and confidence in the Council? 2. Can the public have trust and confidence in you?

For the Council the risks are:

• Judicial review of decision-making process (especially if split vote / casting vote needed) • Reputation risks • Loss of public confidence and trust

For the member:

• In cases of financial interest, potential criminal liability and disqualification from office. • Loss of public confidence and trust • Personal reputation negatively viewed • Loss of confidence and trust from other members

The effects of the above risks can be summed up in the following statement: Is there a real danger of bias on the part of a member of the decision-making body, in the sense that they might unfairly regard with favour (or disfavour) the case of a party to the issue under consideration? The Councils Standing Orders refer to conflicts of interest. Standing Order 19.7 addresses financial conflicts of interest and states: Every member present at a meeting must declare any direct or indirect financial interest that they hold in any matter being discussed at the meeting, other than an interest that they hold in common with the public.

1 Managing Conflicts of Interest: Guidance for Public Entities. Office of the Auditor General June 2007


of 6

No member may vote on, or take part in, a discussion about any matter in which they have a direct or indirect financial interest unless an exception set out in s.6 LAMIA applies to them, or the Auditor-General has granted them an exemption or declaration under s.6. Members with a financial interest should physically withdraw themselves from the table unless the meeting is in public excluded in which case they should leave the room. Neither the Chairperson nor the meeting may rule on whether a member has a financial interest in the matter being discussed. The minutes must record any declarations of financial interests and the member’s abstention from any discussion and voting on the matter. Standing Order 19.8 relates to non-financial conflicts of interest as follows: Non-financial interests always involve questions of judgement and degree about whether the responsibility of a member of a local authority (or local or community board) could be affected by some other separate interest or duty of that member in relation to a particular matter. If a member considers that they have a non-financial conflict of interest in a matter they must not take part in the discussions about that matter or any subsequent vote. The member must leave the table when the matter is considered, but does not need to leave the room. The minutes must record the declaration and member’s subsequent abstention from discussion and voting. Neither the Chairperson nor the meeting may rule on whether a member has a non-financial interest in the matter being discussed. Issues and options The following are examples of situations where members may encounter issues in respect to conflicts of interest:

• Holding another public office • Being an employee, advisor, director, or partner of another business or organisation; • Pursuing a business opportunity; • Being a member of a club, society, or association; • Having a professional or legal obligation to someone else (such as being a trustee); • Owning a beneficial interest in a trust; • Owning or occupying a piece of land; • Owning shares or some other investment or asset; • Having received a gift, hospitality, or other benefit from someone; • Owing a debt to someone; • Holding or expressing strong political or personal views that may indicate prejudice or

predetermination for or against a person or issue Members will need to assess whether they are conflicted on matters appearing on agendas from time to time. The following figure is useful to consider when thinking about whether a member has a conflict of interest:


of 6

To assist members, identify whether they might have a conflict of interest the following assessment table has been developed. Member can use this table to note areas where there may be a conflict of interest that needs to be managed. Assessing Whether to Declare a Conflict of Interest

Members are reminded that the Mayor, Chief Executive and the Office of the Auditor General are available to discuss with members and actual or perceived conflict of interest that they may have.

Yes No Maybe On balance is there a conflict of interest - why or why not?

Do I have a financial interest in this issue? If so how much is involved?

Is the interest in common with the public? Should I seek an exemption from the Auditor General to participate (LAMIA)

Do I own land near the agenda item? Do I own shares in a company that is involved in the topic?

Do I have any business relationship with any party?

Is the topic a significant matter with potentially high risk?

Before a meeting should I make sure I am not given information if it is confidential and I have a COI?

Do I have a family connection with the topic? What public statements have I made – do they indicate I have a set mind?

Have I received a gift or hospitality from any party?

Have I made a private submission or helped another entity in their submission on the topic?

Am I a member of an organisation involved with this issue?

If so am I just an “ordinary member” or do I have some influencing role with it e.g. on the executive committee?

Are my personal beliefs so strong that I won’t consider any other option?

Is it too late for me to withdraw from an organisation that is involved in the issue?

Would a reasonably informed member of the community think it is right for me to participate?

Am I declaring a COI to get out of making a hard decision?

Would the public have confidence in the decision if I participate?


of 6

Elected Members and Community Organisations One specific area that has arisen in the Hauraki District Council in the past, and has arisen in a number of communities in New Zealand since the 2016 elections is that of members belonging to community originations and the potential for a conflict of interest when members make a decision in relation to that organisation. This interest may be better described as a conflict of role. This type of conflict is almost inevitable in a community the size of the Hauraki District Council where members are well known in their communities, have strong and often intergenerational connections and are involved actively in supporting community organisations. Managing actual / perception of undue influence / bias is critical to retaining community confidence in the member and the council. You are likely to be conflicted to a point you cannot discuss or vote on an item relating to that organisation where:

• You are a member of its executive • A matter is about to appear on a council / committee agenda and you have made public

statements about your support for that organisation before the meeting • You have a close relative or business partner involved with the organisation • You have written or assisted the organisation to prepare a submission / funding application

to council Councillor Appointments and Appointments to Community Committees Councillors are appointed onto a number of community communities for various reasons including Trust or Constitutional requirements. Where Council make a decision in relation to that organisation, the appointed member may be perceived to have a conflict of interest if they take part in the Council decision making process relating to that committee. An example of this is Community Committee A wishes to apply to Council for a grant of $5,000 for a project the committee is involved in. In this case the Councillor is advised to inform the community committee that it wishes to take no part in committee discussion or voting on the matter and wishes to have this conflict of interest recorded in the committee minutes. This will then allow the Councillor to participate in the Council decision making process when considering the grant application. It is also recommended that the Councillor ask that it also be recorded that they took no part in the committee discussion or voting on the matter. New deliverable The Local Government Act 2002 now requires that all local government deliverables (whether it be an activity, service, project, programme, grant or involve any other form of expenditure) must align to the purpose of local government as outlined in Section 10 of the Local Government Act. For Council’s information, the decision in respect to this item does not relate to infrastructure, regulatory activities or public services. It relates to the manner in which elected members operate under the rules of managing conflicts of interest. Significance and Engagement Assessment This decision does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment Tool and therefore is not considered significant under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014.


of 6

The level of engagement considered appropriate for this matter, at this point in time, is to inform (i.e. one-way communication disseminating information) the community by the publication of this report. Budget Implications There are no budget implications resulting from this report. Recommendation THAT the report be received, and THAT elected members raise with the Mayor or Chief Executive future potential situations of conflicts of interest so that members are able to manage those situations effectively. Steve Fabish Group Manager Community Services and Development


of 10

Decision Report


From: Policy Analyst

Date: Wednesday, 8 March 2017

File reference: Document: 2181341 Appendix A: Social Policy Review Appendix B: Example Social Strategy Pillars

Portfolio holder: Councillor Spicer – Community Initiatives Portfolio Mayor Tregidga – Policy Portfolio


Subject: Briefing Paper – Proposed Social Strategy Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT Council resolves to draft a Social Strategy as scoped by a working party, for implementation starting 2017/18; and THAT Councillors Spicer, Leonard and Daley be appointed to the working party with the Mayor (in his capacity of ex-officio) to develop a draft social well-being strategy; and THAT the working party be authorised to discuss with key stakeholders’ areas of key interest for inclusion in a social well-being strategy.

Purpose A number of the Hauraki District Council’s social policies and strategies are overdue or due for review. With this in mind and with the recent election of a new Council it is considered timely to conduct a first principles approach to the review of the Council’s policies on social well-being matters. Background What is Council’s current position on social policy, and where did it come from? The majority of Council’s core social policies (see ‘how does Council contribute to social well-being below) were formed or created as a result of the Local Government Acts ‘community outcomes’ process undertaken in 2005/6. This process involved the Council working with its communities to establish aspirations and directions or ‘outcomes’ they wished to see. It involved a collaborative framework of the community, social, health and education professionals, iwi and other non-government organisations coming together to create shared visions for the community.


of 10

However, in 2012 the Local Government Act was amended and the ‘community outcomes’ became ‘council outcomes’. This in effect gave less emphasis to communities and organisations working collaboratively with Council. Being a Council who has steered towards social initiatives historically, the Hauraki District Council continued to provide a variety of social initiatives through policies, resources and grants. The 2012 LGA reform also put more emphasis on ‘core business’ and this has put a strain on collaborative relationships in recent years. It has now been recognised that there is some concern that the Council’s key social policies are either not being actively implemented, are out of date or had been developed in response to such specific issues that they do not have a connected focus on the bigger picture for social well-beings in our community. The Mayor has requested that we consider ways in which we can re-focus resources and energy in the ‘social well-being space’ to ensure the best value for both expenditure and outcomes. Whilst this report is not assessing the effectiveness of the current policies to any length, a brief high level review of the current core social policies is attached as Appendix A. During initial discussions with the Mayor and portfolio holder it was agreed that this briefing paper should be prepared as the first step in reviewing the various social well-being policies and strategies. The Mayor noted that with the success of the Economic Development Strategy model he believed that a review of the social policies could well be undertaken with that model in mind. What is social well-being? The Council has in the past used the Ministry of Social Developments definition of well-being to define societal social well-being. That is covering those aspects of life that society collectively agrees are important for a person’s happiness, quality of life and welfare through physical and mental well-being. For the purposes of this report, this definition is also applied. How does local government contribute to social well-being? By its very nature everything that local government does contributes in some way towards social well-being; it is one of the key reasons why local government exists. Local government contributes through the provision of infrastructure; ensuring the community is able to live healthily (e.g. water, wastewater, solid waste, roading). It also provides amenities such as parks and reserves, libraries, street lighting and swimming pools that assist in increasing people’s quality of life, mental well-being and health. It also has the option to provide discretionary initiatives that are tailored by Councils to suit the needs of their communities; these vary throughout the country. How does Hauraki District Council contribute to social well-being? As described above the Council provides infrastructure and amenities. Infrastructure is classified as a core business and the amenities that the Council provides are of a similar nature to those provided from other territorial authorities of this size. Outside of the core infrastructure contributions to social well-being the Council has an active Community Development Activity. This activity is split into Community Growth and Community Initiatives, both of which are then split into sub-activities. These activities promote social well-being through a variety of non-regulatory methods including strategies, policies, grants, donations and awards, social initiatives and economic development. Currently the Community Development activity is split into the activities and sub-activities shown in Table 1. These activities are discretionary activities of Council and are funded from a range of Uniform Annual General rate, Ward and Business rates and interest raised from investments.


of 10

Table 1 Current Activities for Community Services and Community Development Group Community Services Group Community Development Group Community Recreation Community GrowthLibraries Swimming Pools Waihi Events Centre Sports Fields and Recreation Reserves District Sports Co-ordinator

Economic Development Visitor Information Centres Town Promotion Hauraki Rail Trail Destination Coromandel Development Assistance/Grants

Community Facilities Community Initiatives Halls Pensioner Housing Public Toilets Cemeteries Non-Recreation Reserves

Social Initiatives Sister Cities Grants, Donations and Awards Other initiatives

The Council has a number of policies, plans and strategies of an infrastructural, community and financial nature that contribute towards social well-being and need to take into consideration. These include:

• Financial Strategy • The Infrastructure Strategy • Rates Remission policies • Various Asset and Activity Management Plans • Reserves Management Plans • Walking and Cycling Strategy • Economic Development Strategy; Toward 2025

The following policies and strategies of the Council are considered to be the core social well-being strategic documents. Three of the four are past their review date and are due for review.

• Youth Policy 2006 • Arts and Culture Policy 2012 • Domestic Violence Policy 2011 • Positive Ageing Strategy 2010

In addition to the documents above there are also other Council policies, plans and strategies that have direct influences on social well-being, which include the following:

• Class 4 Gambling venue and New Zealand Racing Board Gambling Policy 2014 • Local Alcohol Policy 2016 • Local Approved Products Policy 2014 • Graffiti Management Plan • Sustainability Policy 2010 • Accessibility Audits

Two draft or concept strategies currently in the pipeline that would also contribute to social well-being are:

• Pensioner Housing Strategy • Active and Leisure Strategy


of 10

Issues and options With the majority of the current core social policies and strategies up for review or overdue a review it is recommended that an in depth review be undertaken to ascertain where Council wants to focus its attention and resources in the future. The Council could undertake this review in two ways:

1. Review each individual policy or strategy and amend and re-adopt or revoke each one as required.

2. Take a holistic approach and: a. combine the appropriate objectives from the Councils current policies and strategies

in one document; b. scan the Council’s other strategic documents and determine the need for additional

inclusions (such as the accessibility audit outcomes or walking and cycling objectives);

c. do a stocktake of known social well-being issues in the District and include additional objectives for Council to focus on;

in order to draft an overarching social strategy with appropriate action plans. Option One – Review each policy or strategy individually Council could choose to review its current policies and strategies individually based on their effectiveness and either re-adopt, revoke, or amend them accordingly. Depending on the scale of the review, if the Council was to choose this option it could involve a range of consultation approaches from informing the community to fully empowering them to make policy decisions alongside Council. Appendix A provides a very high level review of current social policies. The review indicates that while there are some valid and current actions held within the policies and strategies. However, in recent years there has been little action or appetite to progress them and therefore they are not as effective as would have been expected when they were adopted. It is noted that there is minimal budget provision to implement the actions or intent of the policies and strategies other than overheads for an officer. With respect to the current officer, (again in recent times), his time spent implementing the policies has reduced in order for it to be spent on additional activities outside of community development activity. Additionally, at the outset of the adoption of the polices there was some assistance from strategic planning which is no longer available. Due to this lack of resource some key policies and strategies such as youth and older persons have lacked committed implementation. Therefore, during a review, it is recommended that a fundamental overview of staff resources that could be made available would need to be considered. Alongside any policy/strategy review a review of the grant and funding allocations is also recommended. Staff continue to hear frustration from Councillors that the mix of grant allocation and discretionary funding does not show tangible social improvements and this is a matter that could be addressed in the review. Whilst it is good practice to update the policies it is suggested that this type of review would most likely result in a similar outcome to the current delivery of social initiatives and ultimately continue to provide social well-being in a disjointed manner. This option is not recommended. Option Two – Create a Social Strategy (Or a similar strategy title) In 2013 Council adopted it’s renewed Economic Development Strategy (this Strategy was later updated in 2016). The strategy includes a single vision for economic development supported by five pillars (or goals) under which a number of programmes and actions have been identified. By


of 10

doing this the strategy was able to focus on what the Hauraki Districts key economic challenges were and enabled it to really identify actions that would achieve outcomes across the range of the five pillars. The format of the strategy has seen some successes especially in focusing the efforts of resources around economic development in the Hauraki District. With this in mind initial discussions with the Mayor has led to this approach being discussed as a suitable model/option for reviewing Council’s social well-being policy and direction setting. A Hauraki District Council Social Strategy would result in one document focusing holistically on the social well-being outcomes for the District and driving the accomplishment of a shared vision by a set of agreed objectives. By doing this the Council could achieve a whole of Council approach to decision-making in this area. The proposed strategy would look to encompass those policies and strategies identified above as key social well-being documents, along with providing direction to compliment projects in network infrastructure and community infrastructure plans. The pillars would filter down into the decisions made by elected members, activity and asset managers and flow down into the day to day running of our assets. A very brief mock-up1 of what the pillars could entail is attached as appendix B. This includes, as an example, some goals which may be indicative of the type of goals Council would set. It also shows how current objectives from the positive ageing strategy would transition (see writing in green) as an example of using current Council objectives moving forward. Due to the current lack of perceived outcomes from discretionary fund allocation a clear strategy could result in the provision of a renewed direction. A connected social strategy would assist elected members, community and social agencies to be able to identify where they could focus their discretionary funds and potentially partnerships with projects accordingly. In order to ensure that the new strategy is supported and resourced effectively, consideration of budget and staff resourcing would be required. In the case of the Economic Development Strategy two full time staff and an Economic Development Sub-Committee oversee its implementation. A social strategy is the recommended approach by the Mayor, portfolio holder and policy staff. It is considered that the direction provided by a single document encompassing Councils priorities for social well-being outcomes within the District will drive decision-making for all of Council assets and activities. This option would address the current issues identified (lack of a consistent approach, lack or resources for implementation, perceived lack of outcomes achieved from social grants currently). How would a social strategy be drafted? It is recommended that a Councillor working party be appointed to work with staff to research and draft a Social Strategy on behalf of the Council and liaise with the community in order to inform this delegation. The Mayor has recommended that Councillors Spicer, Leonard and Daley be the Councillor representatives on this working party with the Mayor in attendance in the capacity of ex-officio. Upon convening, the working party would be asked to review the current social policies, scope any other Council documents and/or aspirations that the Council saw fit to include, and draft the pillars and objectives. It would then be prudent to touch base with the social sector and other key stakeholders such as policy and health agencies (as required).

1 Please note this has been provided for discussion purposes and has not been discussed with Council.


of 10

Once a draft was in place then it would be brought back to the Council for adoption before being consulted on with a wider targeted audience and/or the whole community (as appropriate). It is recommended that this approach for the review may take around three months and that a draft document would be available for Council at its July meeting. Significance and Engagement Assessment This decision does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment Tool and therefore is not considered significant under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014. The level of engagement considered appropriate for this matter, at this point in time, is to involve (i.e. a participatory process to identify aspirations prior to decision-making) key stakeholders once a working party draft has been prepared, in order to attain feedback on areas in which to focus social well-being initiatives. Budget Implications There are no current budget implications of this recommendation. Recommendation Council should make its decision on which option to choose based on that option being the most cost effective, and good quality option for the Hauraki District (s10 of the Local Government Act 2002). It is recommended that in reviewing its involvement in social policy the Council takes a holistic approach and drafts a Social Strategy. In order to do this, it is recommended that a Councillor working party be set up to draft this Strategy and that this working party consist of Councillors Spicer, Leonard and Daley with the Mayor as ex-officio. Katy Hurd Policy Analyst


of 10

Appendix A– High Level Review of Current Social Policy Name Review by

Date High level assessment

Youth Policy 2006

1 Jun 2013

An initial review of this policy shows that it is in need of a complete review as it is outdated and currently not being actioned in many areas. It is suggested that the policy would be more suited to a strategy style than that of a policy as it currently contains a vision, purpose, principles and an objective. The policy itself is lengthy and not to the point and the statistics are out of date. The action plan has not been updated or implemented in recent times and it is considered that there is room to improve Councils current interaction and advocacy for youth in the District. One of the key purposes of the policy was to encourage the youth of Hauraki to have a voice when it comes to local government decision-making and this is something that is currently lacking. On a positive note the objectives of the policy are still relevant today and would be a good starting point for review ensuring that sufficient resources were provided.

Sustainability Policy 2010

1 Aug 2013

An initial review of this policy indicates very little has been achieved in the application of its action plan. There is however a number of actions that could still be accomplished if a dedicated resource was available. It is clear that this policy has lacked an implementation team, and therefore its effectiveness has been limited.

Domestic Violence Policy 2011

1 Aug 2016

This policy is more of a positon statement of Council determining its stance to have an active role in advocacy against domestic violence. It’s action plan is supported and actioned by the Mayor and Councillors and is considered to be effective in its purpose which is to advocate against domestic violence in the District. It is due for review currently.

Positive Ageing Strategy 2010

1 Nov 2016

This document is in need of a complete review as it is outdated with regards to statistics. The action plan has a number of items listed that are not being implemented although Council does undertake an annual celebration of older people in accordance with the international celebrations. The objectives of the strategy are perceived to be still relevant today and would be a good starting point for review and inclusion into future policies or strategies of Council. It is noted that the NZ Positive Ageing strategy was written in 2001 and is due for ‘refreshing’ in 20172. Councils own strategy was based on the NZ Strategy when it was first written.

2http://superseniors.msd.govt.nz/age-friendly-communities/positive-ageing/positive-ageing-strategy-refresh.html


of 10

Name Review by Date

High level assessment

Arts and Culture Policy 2012

1 Aug 2018

The objective of this policy is that Council supports the development and maintenance of arts and crafts in the District. This is well supported by the Mayor and Ward Councillors, and currently predominantly resourced where necessary by the Community Development Officer. The actions of the policy are consistently achieved. This policy provides good rationale for funding decisions to incorporate arts and culture.


of 10

Appendix B Vision Sustainable and vibrant communities where people want to live and stay

Strategic Direction

Connected Communities

Safe and healthy Communities

Built for the Community

Affordable and Healthy Homes

Art, Identity and Culture

Goals • We are hearing our communities and identifying their needs

• We engage with our community and they understand our decisions

• Our communities feel appreciated

• We remember our past

• Our communities feel safe

• Our communities have the opportunity to be active

• Our communities have access to recreational assets

• Our older people feel that they can positively age at home

• Our infrastructure is accessible for all

• Our infrastructure is safe• Our public spaces are

accessible and free

• Subdivision planning policy assists in the creation of affordable housing

• We leverage on all opportunities to provide healthy homes

• Cultural diversity is acknowledged and embraced

Our plan to achieve this

• Increase the opportunities for community participation in a form that ensures all stakeholders are targeted

• Provide infrastructure that enables people to initiate their own groups and activities e.g. halls and swimming pools

• Advocate for and enhance opportunities for social activities in the community

• Enable and support older people to access information and communication

• Continue to develop and enforce policies that facilitate a safe environment

• Promotion of healthy and positive ageing throughout the Hauraki District

• Council will take an active role in advocating that Domestic Violence in not acceptable in the Hauraki District

• Continue to provide affordable pensioner housing for Hauraki District

• A District which encourages private development of housing for the elderly

• Provide a safe pedestrian environment

• Provide effective and tailored urban design to help older peoples remain active and to enhance general CBD accessibility

• To provide parks and reserves – free, clean and tidy open spaces with seating

• •


of 10


of 5

Decision Report

To: The Mayor and Councillors


Date: Tuesday, 28 March 2017

File reference: Document: 2181336 Appendix A: F546044 - Walking and Cycling Strategy 2009

Portfolio holder: Deputy Mayor Adams – Roading Portfolio Mayor Tregidga – Policy Portfolio


Subject: Revocation of the Walking and Cycling Strategy 2009 Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT in accordance with option two the Council revoke the Walking and Cycling Strategy 2009 attached as Appendix A, and discuss its strategic commitment to walking and cycling during the development of the Social Strategy, and THAT the level of engagement appropriate for this decision is to inform the community of the revocation of the Walking and Cycling Strategy 2009 through the Council’s Hauraki Herald news page in conjunction with the development and adoption of the Social Strategy.

Purpose This report presents options to the Council in relation to the revocation or review of its Walking and Cycling Strategy 2009. The matter or suggested decision does not involve a new activity, service, programme, project, expenditure or other deliverable. Background Walking and Cycling and the Council The Council is involved in walking and cycling in various ways inlcuding:

• as part of the Roading and Footpaths activity of the Council e.g. the provision of footpaths, lighting, kerb and channel, street and road signs, and

• the development and maintenance of the Hauraki Rail Trail for walking and cycling, and • the ownership and maintenance of several parks and reserves in the District which are

used by the community for walking and cycling.


of 5

The Roads and Footpaths activity provides essential infrastructure that supports safety and community cohesion. A key aspect of providing this infrastructure is to ensure people have access to, and can contribute to, a healthy and connected community.1 If a council provides accessible and enabling infrastructure this can encourage people to choose active modes of transport (e.g. walking and cycling) instead of using vehicles, which has obvious benefits for the environment and people’s health. If infrastructure is accessible it also means people with mobility and other impairments are more likely to remain in the District, than move to other areas. The Hauraki Rail Trail (HRT) is used predominantly for recreational purposes, but is also used by some people to travel to shops or work in urban areas where the HRT links outlying villages/suburbs. The HRT provides economic benefits for the District through increased local and tourist spend. Council’s Walking and Cycling Strategy 2009 The Council’s Walking and Cycling Strategy 2009, attached as Appendix A, was adopted in 2009 and in accordance with a resolution of the Council should be reviewed every six years. It is overdue for review. There is no legislation in place that states a council must have a walking and cycling strategy, but in 2009 the Council needed a walking and cycling strategy to access funding from the National Land Transport Fund for walking and cycling work categories.2 This was a requirement of the New Zealand Land Transport Authority (NZTA) which administers the National Land Transport Fund. In keeping with the NZTA’s funding criteria at that point in time, the focus of the Strategy is on walking and cycling as an active mode of transport (to get to the shops/work/school), not for recreational purposes. Walking and cycling for recreational purposes was seen as being outside the scope of the Strategy because pedestrian or cycling facilities used purely for recreational purposes are not subsidised as part of the National Land Transport Fund. Economic Development and Walking and Cycling The Council’s Economic Development Strategy, Toward 2025, includes the following strategic statements in relation to the HRT;

• the Council will facilitate business development along the HRT to encourage business growth that attracts domestic and international tourists.

• the Council will create public spaces that attract people to visit and live in the District, such as pedestrian focused urban spaces (this also relates to the HRT and linking it to attractive town centre spaces).

• The Council will complete the build of the HRT and support the development of other cycleways that link to the District.

There is also a full page in the Economic Development Strategy dedicated to the HRT which outlines the economic advantages of the HRT and includes a brief story of a business that opened as a result of the volume of people using the Trail. The Economic Development Strategy also notes;

• the Council will continue to upgrade community infrastructure to improve accessibility3 for our community members.

1 Hauraki District Council’s 2015 – 2025 Long Term Plan, p E-34 2 E.g. new or improved footpaths, including kerb crossings, kerb protrusions, central refuges and pedestrian platforms, cycling facilities and road safety promotion. 3 In 2014 accessibility audits were undertaken in Paeroa, Ngatea, Waihi resulting in an improvement programme of the Council’s footpaths and associated infrastructure.


of 5

Providing accessible infrastructure reflects the importance of catering for people with varying mobility levels so people can ‘age in place’ regardless of mobility, visual or other impairments. Issues and options Since the 2009 Walking and Cycling Strategy was developed the NZTA has changed its criteria for funding walking and cycling work categories.4 The Council can still access funding from the National Land Transport Fund for walking and cycling work categories, but there is no longer a requirement for that work to be identified in, or linked to a walking and cycling strategy. Instead the work categories need to be supported by a ‘Strategic Case’ or ‘Programme of Business Case’ in a format prescribed by NZTA. This means one of the key reasons for the Council developing its Walking and Cycling Strategy is no longer relevant. After speaking with staff from NZTA it is clear there is no expectation that councils retain walking and cycling strategies if there is no clear organisational benefit in doing so. Much of the strategic context that NZTA requires to be included in the strategic/business cases could sit in the Roading and Footpath Asset Management Plan and other strategic documents of the Council e.g. the Council’s Economic Development Strategy and the soon to be developed Social Strategy (or otherwise named). Below are three options for the Council to consider when deciding whether to revoke the Strategy or review it. Option One – Review the Strategy There is no legal requirement or funding requirement for the Council to have a walking and cycling strategy, but the Council could choose to retain one. Several councils in New Zealand have walking and cycling strategies but most of these strategies were developed over six years ago and are based on the pre-existing funding criteria model. Other councils do not have separate walking and cycling strategies but have included their strategic approach to this work in other planning documents such as town strategies, community board plans and activity management plans. This approach has been taken by Thames-Coromandel and Matamata-Piako District Councils which do not have specific walking and cycling strategies. If the Council were to retain and review the Strategy the scope could be expanded from its current focus on ‘active modes of transport’ to include information on recreational walking and cycling such as the HRT and ancillary tracks and activities, e.g. mountain biking in the Karangahake Gorge and Department of Conservation walks. This would provide a more strategic and integrated approach to the various aspects of walking and cycling in the District. A review would involve a recommendation to form a Councillor working party to work with staff. This group would need to determine the draft scope of the Strategy and the review process, including the extent of stakeholder and community consultation. It would take several months to undertake a review and depending on the preferred review process, could cost up to $5,000 in addition of staff time. Option one is not the recommended option because as mentioned above there is no legal requirement or funding requirement for the Council to have a walking and cycling strategy, and the Council’s commitment to the HRT is already articulated in the Economic Development Strategy. Council’s strategic intent for other walking and cycling initiatives could be included in other strategies/plans of the Council. This is outlined further in the option two below.

4 www.pikb.co.nz/activity-classes-for-2015-18/walking-and-cycling-activity-class-overview/


of 5

Option Two – Revoke the Strategy (and potentially include key strategic statements in the Social Strategy) The Council could revoke its Walking and Cycling Strategy and include strategic information related to the delivery of walking and cycling in the soon to be developed Social Strategy and in the Roading and Footpath Asset Management Plan. As stated in the Council’s 2015-2025 Long Term Plan the Roads and Footpaths activity provides essential infrastructure that supports safety and community cohesion and a key aspect of providing this infrastructure is to ensure people have access to, and can contribute to, a healthy and connected community. With clear links between walking and cycling and social wellbeing5 it would be appropriate to have a conversation about the Council’s approach to walking and cycling initiatives as part of the development of the Social Strategy. Aspects to be discussed might include:

• physically improving walking and cycling environments to make walking and cycling desirable (including improved accessibility, wider footpaths, more footpaths, the use of shared footpaths or roads for both walking and cycling and the use of other design techniques)

• educating both the public and decision makers on the benefits of using active modes as a part of their transport mix (including the Council’s involvement in the delivery of road safety programmes and kids on bikes)

• improving the safety of walking and cycling (e.g. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design; including the provision of lighting)

• supporting walking and cycling when policies and bylaws are reviewed • future urban connections to the Hauraki Rail Trail.

There is a separate report on this Council agenda about the development of a Social Strategy. Option Two is the recommended option, as it is considered to be the most efficient and strategic for the Council’s future decision making. As mentioned above the Council’s commitment to the HRT is already articulated in the Economic Development Strategy and the Council’s strategic intent for other walking and cycling initiatives could be included as part of the development of the Social Strategy. Option Three – Revoke the Strategy The Strategy could be revoked and the Council does not have to include a conversation on its commitment to walking and cycling as part of the development of the Social Strategy. The Council could use the Roading and Footpath Asset Management Plan to set the strategic context for Council’s involvement in walking and cycling. Given the direct links to walking and cycling and social wellbeing, and the fact a social strategy will be designed in a public friendly format (more than an Asset Management Plan), this is not the recommended option. Significance and Engagement Assessment The decision to revoke or review the Walking and Cycling Strategy 2009 does not trigger the Significance and Engagement Policy Assessment Tool and therefore is not considered significant under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014. If the Strategy is revoked a conversation about Council’s involvement in walking and cycling ‘work categories’ could be had through the development of the Social Strategy and community engagement would be addressed through that process. 5 Social wellbeing is defined by the Ministry of Social Development as ‘covering those aspects of life that society collectively agrees are important for a person’s happiness, quality of life and welfare through physical and mental wellbeing’.


of 5

The level of engagement considered appropriate for this matter, at this point in time, is to inform (i.e. one-way communication disseminating information) the public through the Council’s Hauraki Herald newspaper page about the revocation of the Strategy once the Social Strategy has been developed. If the Council decides to review the Strategy instead of revoking it, community engagement will be considered in a separate report to the Council. Budget Implications There are no budget implications for the revocation of the Walking and Cycling Strategy. Recommendation The Council should make its decision on which option to choose based on that option being the most cost effective, and good quality option for the Hauraki District (s10 of the Local Government Act 2002). It is recommended that the Council revoke the 2009 Walking and Cycling Strategy. In addition, it is recommended that the Council’s strategic intent about various aspects of walking and cycling is considered during the development of the Social Strategy. Charan Mischewski Policy Analyst


1 Doc. Ref: 2194128

Decision Report


From: Transport Manager

Date: Tuesday, 18 April 2017

File reference: Document: 2194128 Appendix A: F1330314

Portfolio holder: Councillor Toby Adams


Subject: LED Street Lighting Funding Report 2017 Recommendation: THAT the report be received, THAT the NZTA offer of an increased FAR 85% be accepted, and THAT the replacement of conventional Street Lights with high energy efficient LED Street Lights be approved for accelerating the current HDC 5 year programme to the end of June 2018 and, THAT for expediency, variations to the scope of work that do not vary the approved budgets are evaluated and approved by the Group Manager Engineering Services.

Purpose This report provides a background to the opportunity for accelerating the installation of new high efficiency LED street lighting within the Hauraki DC network. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) have recently announced the approval of an increased Financial Assistance Rate (FAR) of 85% for this purpose. This opportunity has a limited time frame for acceptance along with ensuring the installation is completed by the end of June 2018. Discussion The NZTA have offered an elevated FAR of 85% which represents a significant saving HDC of 28% when compared with our current FAR of 57% To take advantage of this offer our funding application to NZTA will be based on detailing the procurement process, physical work programme with an overall process ensuring that the work is completed to budget and programme. We plan to use our existing Business Case Report that was developed for our 5year street light replacement programme. The executive summary for this document is attached below as appendix 1


2

Conclusion This proposal will allow HDC to:

1. Accelerate our current renewal programme by approximately 30% 2. Realise energy savings earlier 3. Improve the level of service with no budget increase 4. The lighting quality will improve 5. Reduction in light pollution

As the detailed proposal is not finalised it is recommended that the Group Manager Engineering Services (GMES) is authorised to accept the NZTA offer on behalf of Council. And that variations to the scope of work that do not vary the approved budgets are evaluated accordingly. Recommendation That the NZTA offer of an increased FAR 85% be accepted and that the replacement of conventional Street Lights with high efficiency LED Street Lights be approved accelerating the current HDC 5 year programme to the end of June 2018 if possible. Also that for expediency, variations to the scope of work that do not vary the approved budgets are evaluated and approved by the GMES. Gene Thomsen Transport Manager


3

APPENDIX A Doc Ref: 1330314 HDC LED Street Light Business Case Report - Feb 2015 1. Executive Summary 1.1 Introduction Hauraki District Council are exploring the merits of replacing their aging street light network with superior modern Light Emitting Diode (LED) luminaires to realise the many benefits that this technology offers such as significant energy and maintenance savings, improved control possibilities, improved lighting, reliability and safety and reduced carbon emissions. This Business Case Report provides the background and information relating to the existing street lighting network and technology, the benefits that a change to LED luminaires will provide and the associated financial analysis to allow HDC to make an informed decision. 1.2 What is Proposed The proposed project is to replace all existing street lights owned by HDC that have lamp wattages between 80W and 35W over a proposed project term of five years. This includes 1,318 luminaires (72%) of the 1,831 in the total street light network. Excluded are the higher and lower wattage luminaires and any that are not owned by HDC e.g. those owned by the New Zealand Transport Agency. The total investment required is projected to be $735k. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) are likely to fund 55% of this upgrade leaving the remaining $331k to be funded by HDC. It is proposed that this portion, split over the project period, can be directly funded through the existing street light renewals and capital budget without the need for additional finance. Selection of the actual LED street light luminaire has not been part of the scope of this report. HDC is unlikely to choose to allow for the new LED luminaires to be controlled by a Central Management System (CMS) and have control modules installed for communication. A section on CMS has been included in this report for information purposes only. The process for implementation of the installation programme is to be determined. As it is proposed to use existing street light budget funding, this will need to be reprioritised. It is suggested that the 80W Mercury Vapour and 70W High Pressure Sodium luminaires be targeted first for replacement followed then by the Metal Halide luminaires at the latter stages of the programme. The higher wattage luminaires i.e. >100W have been excluded from this proposal as currently the LED options for the higher wattages are expensive. These can be considered after the completion of this initial programme whereby the technology should be more advanced and cost effective for the V Category roading. 1.3 What are the Benefits This evaluation shows that changing to LED technology over the estimated 20-year life will:

• Require estimated total investment of $735,000 over 5 years. • 55% is likely to be funded by NZTA. • $331k investment required by HDC. • Provide cost savings of $1.565M over the 20-year life through

o $471k in electricity costs o $486k in reduced street light maintenance and o $608k reduction in street light maintenance renewals

• Provide an overall saving to HDC of $1.234M after 20 years. • Reduce network electricity consumption by 4,375,000kWh. • Save 599tonnes of CO2-e. • Provide improved lighting and system reliability.


Decision Report


From: Drainage Manager


Portfolio Holder: Councillor James Thorp

Document M219 3070


Subject: District Drainage and Stormwater Activity Reportto 31 March 2017

Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT Council confirm the appointment of the Drainage Committee members as scheduled

Summary This report summarises the Land Drainage and Stormwater activities for the period ending 31 March 2017. March rainfalls were well above average in Ngatea, Paeroa and Waihi (548%, 372%, and 532% respectively). Year to date totals are between 122% and 145% of average. The storm events in March/April are covered later in the report.

LAND DRAINAGE Operations Notebook

• 404.1km of drains have been sprayed in the current year, and 34.5km have been machine

cleaned.

• Minor maintenance has been undertaken in all districts.

• Routine floodgate and pump station inspections have been completed. Floodgates and

culverts have been cleared as required. Council’s floodgate outlets at Waitakaruru and in

the Miranda area have had the outlets de-silted.

• Pump running in the three drainage districts in March was 8.9 times the March average.

Pump hours totalled 5,076. The total pumping hours for the year to date are at 134% of the

average annual total. 240 man-hours have been spent on pump screen cleaning in the

month.


Capital Works No capital works have been undertaken in the land drainage districts.

DRAINAGE COMMITTEE ELECTIONS Nominations for the Triennial committee elections closed on 31 March. Candidates in the three committees are tabulated below.

Drainage District Area Nominee Western Plains 1 (Waitakaruru Miranda) Harry van Eyk 2 (Pipiroa) Brian Keane 3A (Rawerawe) Gavin Laurich 3B (Ngatea Puhunga) Peter Johnstone 4 (Pouarua Waikumete) Brian Pirie 5 Kaihere Torehape) Pat Leonard 6 Patetonga Mangawhero) Peter Paterson Ross Young 7 (Pouarua Maukoro) Brian Carter Eastern Plains 1 (Orongo) Roger Hunter 2 (Horahia) Richard Webster 3A (Huirau) Andy Green 3B (Wharepoa) Ted Nicholson 4A (Kerepehi West) 4B (Kerepehi East) Peter Schouten 5A (Netherton West) 5B (Netherton East) Kim Reid Paeroa Rural 1 (Komata) Peter Casey Kyle Morrison 2 (Opukeko) 3 (Tirohia Rotokohu) Mike Peters Kevin Gillingham

The committees will elect their respective Chairs and Deputies at their next scheduled meetings. It is recommended that Council confirm the appointment of the above members to the committees, and that the vacant positions be filled by secondment of qualifying ratepayers.


STORMWATER

Operations Notebook

• Catchpits and culverts have been cleared as required. Minor maintenance items have

been attended to.

• Rubbish was removed from the Paeroa Main Drain, and Taylor Avenue Drain.

• In Kaiaua all the beach front outfalls were cleared as a consequence of the flood events. • The Paeroa Main Drain pumps ran for 127 hours and the Criterion pump ran for 9 hours.

The total hours for the year are 261 which is 142% of the average annual total. The

Whiritoa pumps at Dolphin Drive ran intermittently for most of the period of the event.

Capital Works Reticulation Construction

• A length of open drain was piped in Roberts Street in Waihi, and a connection to the

reticulation was made in Bradford Street.

• Replacement of an open concrete lined channel in Hill Street with piped reticulation was

started, but had to be abandoned due to the weather events

FLOOD EVENTS MARCH 2017

Two significant rainfall events were recorded in March. The daily rainfalls (in mm) from Council’s regular stations are tabled below.

Date Ngatea Paeroa Waihi7 Mar 104 20 59 8 Mar 40 83 213 9 Mar 2 2 8 10 Mar 66 85 74 11 Mar 28 34 12 Mar 12 18 25 TOTAL 212 236 413 26 Mar 24 4 8 27 Mar 23 94 28 Mar 42 1 6 29 Mar 46 67 68 TOTAL 112 95 176


The approximate Annual Recurrence Interval (ARI) for the greatest 24, 48 and 72 hour totals are tabulated below for both the March events.

Duration Ngatea Paeroa Waihi24 hr 10 yr 1 yr 6 yr 48 hr 20 yr 3 yr 8 yr 72 hr 10 yr 1.5 yr 5 yr 24 hr 1 yr <1 yr <1 yr 48 hr 2 yr <1 yr <1 yr 72 hr <1 yr <1 yr <1 yr

In April to date both Ngatea and Waihi have recorded a further 48 hr 20 year ARI event. Reliable records for Kaiaua and Whiritoa are unavailable to date, but both towns experienced significant events. Widespread flooding in Kaiaua flooded eight houses and the store, and emergency outlets were constructed to release ponded floodwaters to the sea. The highest 24 hour rainfall recorded at Mangatangi in the Hunua catchment, 8km west of Kaiaua was 208mm. This is rated as a 50 year event. It is interesting to note that at the Pinnacles site in the Coromandel Range, 45km east of Mangatangi, 200mm in 24 hours is less than an annual event. In the same 24 hour period, 500 mm was recorded at the Pinnacles which is a 20 year rainfall. In Whiritoa the stream alongside the sewer treatment pond became dammed and released a large flow which swamped the ponds and carried a large amount of silt into the Mako Avenue area. The unfinished Dolphin Drive development area discharged to the detention area at the end of the cul-de-sac. Some problems were experienced with the pumps resulting in a longer period of road ponding than designed for. In Paeroa, the mid reach ponding areas (Centennial Park) had some water lying in the early event, but no other problems were recorded. The Criterion pump ran for 9 hours, and the Main Drain pumps ran for a total of 127 hours. As the rainfall was reasonably steady for long periods there were no high intensity short duration events which tax the urban stormwater reticulation. In the rural drainage areas a number of issues with electrical faults and issues with the Regional Council’s diesel generators caused some pump outages Mobile pumps were deployed to the residential area of Waitakaruru to ensure that no houses flooded as the Waitakaruru Stream peak passed through in the second event. High water levels in the Kopuatai peat dome resulted in ponding in the Carter block, west of the Awaiti Canal south to the Tee Head Canal. Low areas in the proposed Muggeridge pump catchment ponded for extended periods. This report will be updated as more information is available from Waikato Regional Council, and the April events can be included. Ian McLeod Drainage Manager


Decision Report


From: Drainage Manager


Portfolio Holder: Councillor James Thorp

Document M219 3237


Subject: District Drainage Supplementary Report to 31 March 2017

Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT Council consider whether to support the amended outlet meander configuration of the proposed Muggeridge pump, and if so, whether to include the increased value of the land required as part of the capital contribution. THAT Council accepts the petition from McPherson Farms, and proceed to take the required steps to incorporate the property into the Taramaire Drainage District.

This report contains two separate recommendations for Council’s consideration. 1 Land for WRC Muggeridge Pump outlet canal, 246 Kaihere Road, Ngatea Background Some 20 years ago Council bought the property at 246 Kaihere Road as a possible site for the proposed Muggeridge pump station and associated feeder drains and outlet to the Piako River. The property is located approximately 300m south of the existing Muggeridge Drain and floodgate under Kaihere Road. It has an area of 40ha. At the time the pump was a component of the southern stage of the proposed Pouarua Maukoro drainage scheme, which was initially the responsibility of Council through the Western Plains Drainage Committee. The northern stage of the scheme was completed by Council in 2001 following demand for pumping in the Hopai Road area. The southern stage was to be constructed later, as ground levels lowered due to peat settlement. In time the area will not be able to discharge runoff by gravity means, and drainage pumping will be required. This pumping requirement will be exacerbated by the predicted sea level rise due to climate change effects. As the pump will discharge through Piako Scheme flood protection assets directly to the Piako River, it was agreed between WPDD, Council and the Waikato Regional Council that the pump should be constructed as an extension to the Piako River Scheme. The financial model developed for funding the project was agreed between Councils and landowners. The local share was reduced from the standard 75% to 37%, with contributions from


the Piako Scheme and both Councils. Hauraki District Council’s 5% share was to be funded from asset sales. Pump location and outlet configuration Various options for the location of the pump between the road and the low ground to the west have been investigated. The current proposal is to site the pump towards the western edge of the clay terrace, and to discharge to the river via a stopbanked canal, and a bridge or culvert structure under Kaihere Road. The minimum footprint of the outlet canal would be a straight channel along the northern boundary of the property, taking about 50m of the 250m width of the farm for the channel, berms and access. This would amount to about one fifth of the farm (8 of the 40ha), leaving 32 ha to be disposed of. The current proposal for the outlet canal is for a meandering channel, designed to provide shade and habitat enhancement, and possibly to nullify possible submissions to the consent for the project. The result of this design change is to require more land for the outlet, with subsequent reduction in the area of the residual land to dispose of. Issues The farm was originally purchased by Council to site the pump and ancillary structures. It was expected that 80% of the land could be disposed of. The capital contribution of 5% is in addition to the value of any land to be made available for the project. Any increase in the footprint of the outlet channel will reduce the return to Council of the residual area. Council has long supported the project and has agreed to a capital contribution to the extension to the Piako Scheme. The question is whether the increase in land required for the project is to be considered an increase in the capital contribution, or to be offset against the agreed 5%. Recommendation That Council consider whether to support the amended outlet meander configuration, and if so, whether to include the increased value of the land required as part of the capital contribution.

Council farm at 246 Kaihere Road, Ngatea

Proposed pump location


2 Extension to the Taramaire Drainage District, Kaiaua Background The Taramaire Drainage District is located in the Kaiaua area, between East Coast Road and the hill country to the west. The southern boundary is at the Shorebird Trust Centre and the northern boundary about 2.7km north towards Kaiaua village. It comprises 720ha, of which approximately half is rated for drainage and a lesser area for flood protection. The assets comprise 5.3km of stopbanks and 15 floodgates centred on the Taramaire Stream, and 6.3km of drains. There are 14 properties rated for services. Proposal A petition has been received from the owners of the property immediately to the north (McPherson Farms Ltd) to apply to join the Taramaire Drainage District. This extension to a drainage district is provided for in the Land Drainage Act 1908. There has been a history of concern from McPhersons regarding the inflow of water from the drainage district which discharges to the sea on the boundary of the two properties either side of the current northern extent of the drainage district, plus the claim that water from uphill which flows through both properties, but mostly in McPherson’s, should be dealt with within the drainage district. The Chair of the Taramaire committee has indicated there would be no objection to extending the district to include McPherson Farms. The additional area is 128ha, of which about 47 ha would be subject to the drainage rate. The property currently pays the Kaiaua stormwater rate, which would be stopped as the TDD ratepayers only pay the drainage rate, and flood protection rate if applicable. An extension to the northernmost drain to service the property will be required. Recommendation It is recommended that Council accept the petition from McPherson Farms, and proceed to take the required steps to incorporate the property into the Taramaire Drainage District.

Ian McLeod Drainage Manager

Property to be included

Taramaire Drainage District


1 WPDD Minutes – 30-03-17 Doc. Ref: 2189059


WESTERN PLAINS DRAINAGE DISTRICT MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE WESTERN PLAINS DRAINAGE DISTRICT COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, WILLIAM STREET, PAEROA ON THURSDAY 30 MARCH 2017 COMMENCING AT 10.30 AM PRESENT Messrs B A Carter (Chairperson), H van Eyk, R D Young (from 10.40am),

B Pirie (from 10.40am), P Paterson and Cr J Thorp (Alternative Council Rep for Cr D H Swales)

IN ATTENDANCE Mr I D McLeod (Drainage Manager), B Stephens (Drainage Overseer) and

Ms C Black (Council Secretary) APOLOGIES

RESOLVED THAT the apology for absence of B Keane, P Johnstone, Laurich and Cr D H Swales and for the lateness of B Pirie and R Young be received and sustained.

WPDD17/05 Paterson/van Eyk CARRIED LATE ITEMS There were no late items. B Pirie and R Young attended the meeting at 10.40am CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 23 FEBRUARY 2017 (2187004) RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Western Plains Drainage District Committee held on Thursday 23 February 2017 be taken as read and confirmed.

WPDD17/06 Paterson/van Eyk CARRIED DRAINAGE REPORT – MARCH 2017 (2187520)

The Drainage Manager’s monthly report and financial report on the operations of the Western Plains District Drainage Committee for March 2017 and the financial report for the 8 months to 28 February 2017 were presented. RESOLVED

THAT the report be received. WPDD17/07 Thorp/Paterson CARRIED


2 WPDD Minutes – 30-03-17 Doc. Ref: 2189059

Proposed Muggeridge Pump Station

The Drainage Manager presented an update on the status of the project. The next steps are:

• Gain responses from Pouarua Farms and DOC • Finalise consent application and lodge • Send a letter to landowners updating them on the project and providing a copy of the

Revised Economic Evaluation • Confirm detailed design proposal with AECOM • Hold PSG meeting – set for 18 May, 9.00-10.30am in Paeroa (meeting invite to follow)

Duffin Detention Dam, Back Miranda Road

Council’s Corporate Services Manager has advised that Council will need to get the dam entered into the asset register, and get it valued to include in the next valuation round. This will require a survey to determine its dimensions and volume.

The Drainage Manager has initiated the process for securing protection for the dam, spillway and pond on the three titles that they cover. The legal mechanism may be by way of easements, or some other means of registration on the separate titles.

Consultation with the three landowners involved has been initiated.

Drainage Committee Elections

Members were advised that nominations for Drainage Committee candidates will close at 4pm on Friday, 31 March. In the event of there being more candidates than required in any area, a ratepayer election may be held.

The meeting closed at midday. CONFIRMED B A Carter Chairperson 27 April 2017


1 PRDD Minutes – 30-03-17 Doc Ref: 2194431


PAEROA RURAL DRAINAGE DISTRICT MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PAEROA RURAL DRAINAGE DISTRICT COMMITTEE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, WILLIAM STREET, PAEROA ON THURSDAY, 30 MARCH 2017 COMMENCING AT 1.30PM PRESENT Messrs M Peters, (Chairperson), P Casey, K Morrison, K Gillingham

and Cr J Thorp IN ATTENDANCE Messrs I McLeod (Drainage Manager), Mr B Stephens (Drainage

Overseer) and Ms C Black (Council Secretary) APOLOGIES There were no apologies. LATE ITEMS There were no late items. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY 29 NOVEMBER 2016 (2169981) RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Paeroa Rural Drainage District Committee held on Tuesday 29 November 2016 be confirmed and are a true and correct record.

PRDD17/01 Casey/Peters CARRIED PRDD DRAINAGE MANAGERS REPORT – MARCH 2017 (2187312)

The Drainage Manager presented the monthly report on drainage activities to March 2017 and the financial report for the 8 months to 28 February 2017.

RESOLVED THAT the report be received.

PRDD17/02 Morrison/Gillingham CARRIED Drainage Bylaw Review

The review will be undertaken in mid-2017.

Committee members were requested to consider the current bylaw and to provide input into the review.

Drainage Committee Elections

Nominations for Drainage Committee candidates will close on Friday 31 March 2017.


2 PRDD Minutes – 30-03-17 Doc Ref: 2194431

Flood Event Early March

A significant event comprising two periods of heavy rain between 7 and 13 March has resulted in high pump running in all drainage districts. A full report is in preparation and will be presented to the next meeting September 2017.

Long Term Plan Budgets and Capital Projects

Council’s Strategic Planning team have advised the timetable for the LTP budget preparation. The Drainage Committees’ sign-off, previously near the end of November, has been brought forward to 31 August.

It is probable the September meeting will be re-scheduled to meet this deadline.

The Committee was requested to consider any capital projects that will need to be included in the LTP 10 year planning cycle. The meeting closed at 2.30pm CONFIRMED M Peters Chairperson 28 September 2017


of 3

Decision Report


From: Finance Manager

Date: Thursday, 2 March 2017

File reference: Document: 2179456 Appendix A: 2193842 – Draft 2017/18 Annual Plan

Portfolio holder Mayor


Subject: Adoption of the 2017/18 Annual Plan

Recommendation: THAT the report be received, and THAT pursuant to section 95(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, the 2017/18 Annual Plan as attached in Appendix A be adopted to be effective from 1 July 2017, and THAT staff be given delegation to make minor formatting, reference, grammatical and readability amendments prior to publication, and THAT the Council confirms that it will not provide for public consultation on the 2017/18 Annual Plan, but rather will inform the public of the adoption of the 2017/18 Annual Plan and its contents; and THAT pursuant to section 95(7) the Annual Plan be made publicly available before 26 May 2017 (one month following adoption).

Purpose The purpose of this report is to present the Council with the proposed 2017/18 Annual Plan for adoption. The matter or suggested decision does involve new expenditure. Refer to the New Deliverables section later in this report.

Background Over the last year the Council has been preparing its 2017/18 Annual Plan. The Annual Plan is now in a proposed state that reflects all Council decisions made to date. As noted in previous reports to the Council, the purpose of an annual plan is to- a) contain the proposed annual budget and funding impact statement for the year to which the

annual plan relates b) identify any variation from the financial statements and funding impact statement included in the

Council’s Long Term Plan in respect of that year


of 3

c) provide integrated decision making and co-ordination of the resources of the Council, and d) contribute to the accountability of the Council to the community (Local Government Act 2002,

s.95). Unless major changes are warranted, the Annual Plan in essence provides for a refinement and update of that planned for in the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan (LTP) for the 2017/18 year. Any changes that are considered to be material or significant require the Council to consult on a draft annual plan. At its meeting on 22 February 2017 the Council considered: 1. the changes that had been proposed to year three of the Council’s 2015-25 Long Term Plan

(LTP) up to that meeting 2. the financial impact of the annual plan proposals, including the impact on rates 3. changes to fees and charges (these are not described in the annual plan but align to the funding

decisions contained in the LTP) 4. an assessment of the materialness and significance of the decisions made. At that meeting the Council resolved1 that the changes and financial implications could be included in an annual plan document, and that the changes were not considered to be significant or material and did not warrant public consultation. The Council also resolved that a change would be made to increase the standard LIM application fee from $200.00 to a total of $215.00. In addition to the change to the standard LIM fee, it was discussed that in response to feedback from the building sector, that a change be made to the wording in the ‘pre-approved proprietary brand domestic garages & outbuildings’ building consent fee to alter the value of the buildings from $20,000 to $40,000. Feedback received has indicated that the value of these buildings has increased and that $40,000 is a more appropriate upper value limit for these garages and outbuildings.

Issues and options A proposed Annual Plan has been prepared accordingly and is attached as Appendix A. Rating implications The overall rates increases forecast is shown on Table 1 and reflected in the Annual Plan attached as Appendix A. Table 1: Forecast Rating Increases in the LTP and Proposed Annual Plan

Rate type Increase Forecast in LTP

Increase proposed 17/18 Annual Plan

Rates cap

Non-Water Rates 4.20% 3.69% 4.40% (within limit)

Water Rates 2.00% 2.00% 5.90% (within limit)

The options available to the Council include: 1. adopting the 2017/18 Annual Plan, or 2. instructing staff to further revise the proposed changes. There is no preferred option.

New deliverable The Local Government Act 2002 now requires that all local government deliverables (whether it be an activity, service, project, programme, grant or involve any other form of expenditure) must align to the purpose of local government as outlined in Section 10 of the Local Government Act.

122 February 2017 Council minutes - resolution C17/63.


of 3

The decision to proceed with the changes proposed to year three of the LTP involves new expenditure and projects as outlined in the Annual Plan document in Appendix A. These are considered to be aligned with the purpose of local government as they each provide for at least one of the following:

local infrastructure

local public service.

Significance and Engagement Assessment At its February meeting, the Council resolved that the 2017/18 annual plan proposals as drafted to date did not constitute a significant or material change from the 2015-25 Long Term Plan. Minor administrative changes have been made to the proposals since the Council’s February meeting and are not considered to change the significance and materialness assessment. Staff recommend that the Council confirm its decision to not provide for public consultation on a draft annual plan but rather inform the public of the annual plan adoption and its content. This communication would involve:

publishing, distributing and making these documents available

informing the public on the adoption of the annual plan

informing the public of other means where the they may still provide feedback on Council matters e.g. customer services requests

preparing a summary of variations from the Long Term Plan for 2017/18

informing the public on the proposed funding impacts for the year (what rates will look like)

informing the public where additional information can be found (for example, the levels of service for the year as noted in Long Term Plan).

Budget Implications The implications of the 2017/18 Annual Plan as drafted were presented at the Council’s February meeting and are summarised in the proposed 2017/18 Annual Plan itself (Appendix A).

Recommendation The Council should make its decision on which option to choose based on that option being the most cost effective, and good quality option for the Hauraki District (s10 of the Local Government Act 2002). The Council is being asked to decide whether to adopt the proposed 2017/18 Annual Plan which will become effective on 1 July 2017. Following the adoption of the 2017/18 Annual Plan staff will organise the publishing of the documents and communication of the decisions as indicated above. The Council will be asked to adopt a draft schedule of fees and charges for 2017/18 at its 31 May 2017 Council meeting, and will be asked to make a decision on rates, debt and balanced budget resolutions at its meeting on 28 June 2017. Sarah Holmes Kelly Vatselias STRATEGIC POLICY PLANNER FINANCE MANAGER


of 2

Information Report




File reference: Document: 2193987 Appendix A: 2194118

Portfolio holder: Mayor Tregidga


Subject: Demographic Projections for the 2018 Long Term Planning Process

Recommendation: THAT the report be received.

Purpose The Hauraki District Projections for Resident Population, Dwellings and Rating Units to 2048 report (the projections report) is presented to the Council for its information. At the Council meeting there will be a presentation on the methodology used, and results contained in the report, by Walter Clarke of Rationale, the company contracted to prepare the projections report. A decision on the application of these projections to the Council’s long term planning process will be sought at a later date. The matter or suggested decision does not involve a new activity, service, programme, project, expenditure or other deliverable, however the future application of projections to Council decision-making will likely involve the consideration of changes to programmes, projects and/or expenditure. Background As part of the long term planning process all local authorities are required to identify their significant forecasting assumptions in their long term plans.1 These assumptions include population and development growth projections, which are significant in determining the expected future demand for services and, therefore, a local authority's spending. The projections developed by Rationale include population, rating unit and dwelling projections out to 2048. The projections cover a 30-year period so they can inform the 10-year period of a long term plan but also the required 30-year period of the infrastructure strategy. Changes to the population and the number of dwellings in a district are obviously major drivers for change in future demand for services and the two do not necessarily follow the same growth patterns, making it important to develop projections for both. For example, a district’s usually resident population may be projected to remain static over a 30-year period but there may be projected growth in dwellings because less people will be living in one dwelling and/or more holiday homes are projected to be 1 Schedule 10, Clause 17, Local Government Act 2002.


of 2

built. Rating unit projections must also be included for each year in a long term plan.2 This information is required for local authorities’ long term planning processes and in particular is essential for financial decision making. Please note that projections are an indication of the future characteristics of a population, and are based on an assessment of past trends and assumptions (e.g. fertility, mortality, migration). Projections are models based on input data, available knowledge and expert assumptions. The projections represent only one possible, albeit plausible, future. Demographics and economies are complex systems characterised by multi-scale dynamic feedbacks which cannot be predicted. For this reason, it is not possible to fully quantify the uncertainty associated with the projections. The Rationale report The report is attached as Appendix A and outlines three scenarios for the consideration of the Council (high, medium and low). Rationale recommend the Council approve the medium scenario for use in its long term planning. The Council’s guidance on which scenario will not be sought at this meeting, but rather its May meeting. The medium scenario shows growth in the District population between 2013 and 2033 of nearly 2,400 people, before declining by approximately 1,130 people between 2033 and 2048. The projected dwelling and rating unit growth rate is higher than the population growth due to the population structure and on-going growth in holiday homes/unoccupied dwellings. Factors that influence population change and rating unit and dwelling growth include: • Higher than previously projected net migration (more people moving to the District than

leaving) over the past two years3 and projected in the next ten years. • In 2013 the proportion of people aged 65+ made up around 22% of the total population. The

proportion of people aged 65+ in the district is projected to increase to over 40% by 2048. This means that eventually (projected to be 2033) net migration will not offset the natural death/birth rate and the population begins to decline.

• The aging population contributes to a decline in the average household size, decreasing from around 2.4 residents per household in 2013 to around 2.05 in 2048. This factor, combined with projected growth in holiday homes means while the population may start to decline, there is still projected growth in dwellings and rating units.

• Any additional dwellings result in an increase in residential rating units. The business related rating unit growth is a combination of multiple factors including the assumption more services will be required, there will be a greater number of visitors to the District (e.g. more tourism) and there will be growth in local industry.

At the time of writing, staff intend that the projections included in the report will be workshopped with the Council in May. Budget Implications The cost of the projections work undertaken by rationale was included in the strategic planning budget as part of the long term plan work. The cost was $13,000. Conclusion The projections report includes forecasted demographic information for the consideration of the Council. The report will be supported by a presentation to the Council. Charan Mischewski POLICY ANALYST

2 Schedule 10, Clause 15A of the Local Government Act 2002. 3 Statistics New Zealand show the District annual population change at June 2016 as an increase of 450 people. Net migration accounts for 400 people with a natural increase of 50 people (more births than deaths). At June 2015 the annual population change was an increase of 250 people in the District.


Hauraki District

Projections for Resident Population, Dwellings and Rating Units to 2048

April 2017


carol

Typewritten Text

carol

Typewritten Text

carol

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX A

Document Title:

HDC Growth Projections to 2048

Prepared for:


Quality Assurance Statement

Rationale Limited Project Manager: Walter Clarke

5 Arrow Lane Prepared by: Sam Maynard

PO Box 226 Reviewed by: Walter Clarke

Arrowtown 9351 Approved for issue by: Walter Clarke

Phone: +64 3 442 1156 Job number: J000667

Document Control History

Rev No. Date Revision Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

1.0 18 Apr /2017 Draft for client SM WC WC

Current Version

Rev No. Date Revision Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

1.0 18 Apr 2017 Draft for client SM WC WC

File path: https://rationaleltd.sharepoint.com/Shared Documents1/Clients/HDC/J000667 - HDC 2018 to 2048 Growth

Projections/5 Draft Report/HDC Growth Projections 2048.docx


Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3

2 Scenarios ............................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Scenario Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Projected Population Structure ............................................................................................................... 8

3 Recommended Scenario .................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Detailed Results .................................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Available Capacity ................................................................................................................................ 14

3.3 Comparison with Previous Projections ................................................................................................. 15

4 Methodology Summary ...................................................................................................................... 17

4.1 Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 17

4.2 Population ............................................................................................................................................. 19

4.3 Dwellings .............................................................................................................................................. 20

4.4 Rating Units .......................................................................................................................................... 20

4.5 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................. 21

Appendix A – Rating Unit Definitions ....................................................................................................... 22

Appendix B – Ward and Census Area Unit Maps ..................................................................................... 23

Appendix C – Historical Growth ................................................................................................................ 24

Appendix D – District, Ward and Settlement Projections ....................................................................... 26



HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL Draft for client 18 Apr 2017 REV 1.0 Page 1

Executive Summary

Rationale Limited has been engaged to review and develop growth projections for the Hauraki District

Council.

The main purpose of the review is to provide population, dwelling and rating unit projections out to 2048, for

the district and its three ward areas and nine settlement areas1. Further detail is provided on the population

structure (age demographics and average household size), dwelling types (occupied, unoccupied and under

construction) and for each of the Council’s six rating unit categories.

The underlying philosophy of Rationale’s Model is that people drive the growth in dwellings and rating units.

An increase in people living, working or holidaying in the district will also result in an increase in both dwellings

and rating units. However, resident population growth is only one of three factors that can drive an increase

in dwellings. The other two factors are declining household size, and holiday home demand. The latter is of

lesser relevance in comparison to districts such as Thames-Coromandel, but is still considered a factor based

largely on recent growth rate of unoccupied dwellings in the district (3.5% per year between 2006 and 2013).

These contributing factors, along with the high number of visitors and the employment opportunities they

create, all have a flow on effect to the rating unit growth.

A growth model has been built to allow multiple scenarios to be considered. The intention of the approach

used is to provide a tool to help council officers and elected members decide on an appropriate set of growth

projections that balance the funding risk of over projecting with the planning and infrastructure risks of under

projecting.

The three scenarios included in this review are developed from three baseline resident population growth

rates considered appropriate for Hauraki District - low growth (declining population), medium growth (slight

increase in population) and high growth (significant population growth).

The medium growth scenario is considered the most appropriate for the purpose of the Hauraki District

Council’s long term planning. The reasons for this view are presented in Section 3 of this report.

A summary of the key results is shown below for the recommended medium growth scenario. The change to

2048, average annual change and average annual growth rate is included. These cover the period from 2013

to 2048 for resident population and dwellings. For total rating units, these cover the period from 2018 to 2048.

This table shows that the population is projected to grow steadily until 2033, before a long term decline. The

projected dwelling and rating unit growth rate is higher than the population growth due to the population

structure and on-going growth in holiday homes/unoccupied dwellings. This is consistent with recent trends.

Table 1 : Key Results – Recommended medium growth scenario

Output 2013 2018 2028 2038 2048 Change (to

2048)

Average annual change

Annual average growth

rate

Resident Population 18,600 20,270 20,910 20,690 19,850 1,250 36 0.2%

Total Dwellings 8,809 10,199 10,785 11,063 11,307 2,498 71 0.7%

Total Rating Units n/a 11,399 12,049 12,392 12,700 1,301 43 0.4%

Regarding the population structure, the district has a large elderly population and the population overall is

ageing. In 2013 the proportion of people aged 65+ made up around 22% of the total population. This is above

the national average of 14%. This trend is projected to continue, with the proportion of people aged 65+ in

1 The nine ‘settlement areas’ are based on the eight Statistics New Zealand Census Area Units that make up the Hauraki district and Whiritoa which, for the purposes of this work, has been separated out from the Ohinemuri Census Area Unit and is included as a separate settlement.




the district increasing to over 40% by 2048. The number of people aged between 15 and 64 years of age is

projected to decrease. This may have a flow-on effect to the make-up of the work force in the district.

Factors such as the aging population contribute to a decline in the average household size, decreasing from

around 2.4 residents per household in 2013 to around 2.05 in 2048.

In terms of geographic spread of growth, the Paeroa Ward is projected to experience the highest growth. The

population in all three wards is forecast to increase and the dwelling and rating unit growth is also positive.

Over 40% of the dwelling growth is projected to occur in the settlements outside of the three main towns of

Paeroa, Ngatea and Waihi.

The dwelling growth and on-going demand for employment opportunities flows through to rating units. The

district rating units are predominately Residential and Residential Lifestyle, with more than three-quarters of

all rating units falling under these categories. Therefore any rating unit growth is heavily dependent on

dwelling growth. However the Industrial and Commercial rating units are projected to grow strongly, mostly

in the three main towns, in part due to job opportunities not directly related to the resident population.

The recommended scenario has been compared to the previous scenario adopted for the Hauraki District

Council 2015 Long Term Plan. The key differences include:

• The growth in population, dwellings and rating units is higher than previously forecast.

• The growth is now projected to be more evenly spread across the three wards, with the highest

growth forecast to occur in the Paeroa Ward.

• A higher proportion of the growth is now projected to occur in the three main towns.

The projections Model and outputs for the medium growth scenario are considered appropriate for providing

a sound basis for Council’s long term planning. The accompanying Draft Rationale Hauraki District Growth

Projections to 2048 Data Model provides summary and detailed projections data for population, dwellings

and rating units. The data is shown for the district, each of the wards and each settlement.




1 Introduction

Rationale Limited has been engaged to review and develop growth projections for the Hauraki District

Council. This work was commissioned as a collaborative project with Matamata-Piako District Council and

Thames-Coromandel District Council, with similar deliverables across the three Councils. This work is a

continuation of the initial growth projections developed by Rationale Limited in 2014.

The main purpose of the review is to provide population, dwelling and rating unit projections out to 2048, for

the Council’s relevant geographic areas. The projections take into account elements such as historic and

current trends, relevant land-use policies, and relevant national, regional and local level drivers.

The growth projections outputs are listed below:

• Resident population, by five year age groups and average household size.

• Dwellings by type – occupied, unoccupied and under construction.

• Rating units by type – according to the Council’s current rating categories:

o Residential

o Residential Lifestyle

o Rural Industry

o Commercial and Industrial

o Mineral Related

o Other

Definitions of the Council's above rating unit categories can be found in Appendix A.

The above outputs have been produced for the district, and the district’s wards and settlement areas, as

outlined below. The Ohinemuri and Hauraki Plains settlements are spread across two wards. The areas

below have been defined by the Council for this review, and how the ward and settlement data has been

determined is explained in the Methodology Summary – Section 4. A map of the Statistics New Zealand

Census Area Units that make up the Hauraki District can be found in Appendix B.

Table 2 : Hauraki District’s wards and settlements

Plains Ward Paeroa Ward Waihi Ward

Ngatea Paeroa Waihi

Kaiaua Whiritoa

Kerepehi

Turua

Ohinemuri

Hauraki Plains

A growth model has been built to allow multiple scenarios to be considered. The intention of the approach

used is to provide a tool to help council officers and elected members decide on an appropriate set of growth

projections that balance the funding risk of over projecting growth with the planning and infrastructure risks

of under projecting.

Scenario development is discussed briefly in Section 2, along with results analysis for each scenario (low,

medium, high) and the opportunity for a further modified scenario. The recommended scenario is presented

in Section 3. Section 4 provides a summary of the methodology used for this review.

The accompanying Draft Rationale Hauraki District Growth Projections to 2048 Data Model provides

summary and detailed projections data for population, dwellings and rating units for the district and each of

the wards and settlements.




2 Scenarios

2.1 Overview

The underlying philosophy of Rationale’s Model is that people drive the growth in dwellings and rating units.

An increase in people living, working or holidaying in the district will also result in an increase in both dwellings

and rating units.

The scenarios included in this review are a range of resident population growth rates, both positive and

negative. The change in population is based on the migration of people into or out of the district and the birth

rates and mortality (death) rates. The birth and death rates differ for areas within the district (and wider)

depending on the existing age structure. Although the resident population provides the base inputs, the

approach still accounts for non-resident population drivers that can influence dwelling and rating unit growth.

The results for each scenario show the flow-on effect for dwelling and rating unit growth. The scenarios are:

• Low population growth, typically a declining resident population

• Medium population growth, a slowly increasing resident population

• High population growth, a strong increase in resident population.

The underlying assumptions required to convert population growth to dwelling and rating unit growth are

maintained for each of the above scenarios. A fourth modified scenario is also available, however this would

need clear assumption directions from Council. This scenario can include additional adjustments for any of

the following factors, as considered relevant for the district:

• Population growth

• Household size

• Employment opportunities

• Holiday home/unoccupied dwelling growth (of lesser relevance to Hauraki district, but still a factor to

consider).

The following sections discuss the projected growth (2013-2048) under the three main scenarios, and the

opportunity for a modified scenario. The starting point for the growth projections is 2013 which is when the

last census was held. The exception is the rating unit data which was provided as at June 2016 by the

Council. For simplicity, the projected changes in rating units in the following section are shown between 2018

and 2048.

Change in population structure (size of age groups) and average household size under each scenario is

discussed in a sub-section following the scenario analysis.

Analysis of historic growth trends is a key component of this review and has informed likely growth trends

going forward. For example, decreasing household size and holiday home/unoccupied dwelling growth. This

is explained briefly below.

Historic Overview

All outputs in this review are projected as at 30 June of each year. This aligns with Council’s financial year.

Therefore the population figures in this review are not census usually resident population, they are 30 June

estimates (at each year), referred to as resident population estimates.

This approach is consistent with Statistics New Zealand methodology where a 30 June resident population

estimate is derived using the census usually resident population count. The adjustments include net census

undercount due to non-response, residents overseas on census night, and demographic adjustments

including to account for births, deaths and net migration between census night and 30 June. This report uses

the term resident population to describe the estimated number of people residing in the district at 30 June of

each year.

As a high level district overview of historic growth - the resident population of the district on 30 June 2013 is

estimated to be around 18,600 people. This has grown by over 600 people (0.3% per year) in the 12 years




ending 2013. Over the same period, more than 1,100 new dwellings have been built - an increase of around

1.1% or 92 dwellings per year.

A more detailed overview of historic growth in the district is provided in Appendix C.

2.2 Scenario Analysis

This section reviews the main outputs under the three scenarios, and discusses the opportunity for a fourth

scenario that would need to be based on defined Council assumptions. For reporting purposes discussion is

built around district and ward trends. More in depth analysis at the settlement level is provided in discussion

on the recommended scenario in Section 3.

The overall change to 2048, average annual change and average annual growth rate is provided for resident

population, total dwellings and total rating units for each scenario. These cover the period from 2013 to 2048

for resident population and total dwellings. For total rating units, these cover the period from 2018 to 2048.

2.2.1 Scenario 1 – Low Growth

The low growth scenario assumes low fertility and high mortality which results in a net decrease in population.

This scenario assumes a net migration of people into the district however. The combined impact is a

decreasing resident population. Despite this, a small amount of dwelling and rating unit growth is evident.

The high level outputs for the low growth scenario are summarised in the following table.

Table 3 : Key results - low growth scenario

Output 2013 2018 2028 2038 2048 Change (to

2048)



rate

Resident Population 18,600 19,750 19,535 18,275 16,595 -2,005 -57 -0.3%

Total Dwellings 8,809 9,879 10,254 10,272 10,272 1,463 42 0.4%

Total Rating Units n/a 11,267 11,678 11,718 11,737 470 16 0.1%

Population

Under this scenario, after an initial increase in population, the population in the district declines significantly

at a rate of nearly 60 people per year, or -0.3% per year. The population in all wards is projected to decline,

most noticeably in the Plains and Waihi Wards, both at a rate of -0.4% per year. The decrease in population

in the Paeroa Ward is not as significant, with a decline of around -0.2%, or 10 people per year.

Dwellings

The dwelling growth that flows from the population decrease is still positive, however the annual increase is

less than 50% of the historical trend, increasing by only 42 dwellings per year. To put this in perspective, the

increase in dwellings over the 12 years ending 2013 would take over 25 years to achieve under this low

growth scenario.

The slow growth in dwellings is driven by a small increase in holiday homes/unoccupied dwellings, but at a

lower rate than the previous 12 years. The proportion of occupied dwellings reduces from 88% to around

80%.

The dwelling growth is reasonably well spread between the three wards ranging between 0.4% and 0.5% per

year.

Rating Units

The growth in rating units is also relatively minor. The growth in dwellings results in an increase in Residential

and Residential Lifestyle rating units. The Commercial and Industrial rating units are also projected to grow

slowly from 622 to around 690 rating units between 2018 and 2048 – an increase of between two and three

Commercial and Industrial rating units per year. This increase is due to the job opportunities for services and

products that are not directly linked to the resident population.




Overall

This scenario represents the worst case scenario. It is unlikely that the decline in population would be as

severe as shown above, therefore this scenario is not recommended. It does however highlight that even

with a declining population, there can still be an increase (albeit small) in dwellings and rating units.

2.2.2 Scenario 2 – Medium Growth

Under the medium scenario fertility and mortality rates result in a slight natural decrease in population. Net

migration into the district is significant however, resulting in an overall increase in population. In this scenario

population peaks in 2033 before declining towards 2048. This overall increase in population flows through to

a steady growth in dwellings and rating units. The high level outputs for the medium scenario are summarised

in the table below.

Table 4 : Key results - medium growth scenario

Output 2013 2018 2028 2038 2048 Change (to

2048)



rate


Total Dwellings 8,809 10,199 10,785 11,063 11,307 2,498 71 0.7%


Population

Under this scenario the population in the district increases by around 36 people per year. This is slightly lower

than the average annual change over 12 years ending 2013. However the overall population change is made

up of strong population growth until 2033, followed by a slow decline in the population to 2048.

The population in the Paeroa Ward increases by around 650 people, or 0.3% per year. The population in the

other wards is projected to grow also but at a lower rate; the Plains Ward by 0.2% or 11 people per year and

the Waihi Ward by 0.1% or 7 people per year.

Dwellings

The dwelling growth that flows from the above population is 70% higher than the dwelling growth under the

low scenario. However it is only around 80% of the historical rate of growth. The proportion of occupied

dwellings remains relatively stable, reducing from 88% in 2013 to around 85% in 2048.

The dwellings in all wards are projected to increase. The dwellings in the Paeroa and Plains Wards increase

by 24 and 21 dwellings per year respectively. The average annual dwelling growth in the Waihi Ward is the

highest at around 27 additional dwellings per year.

Rating units

The impact on the rating units is slightly lower than the dwelling growth, around 0.4% per year. While most

of the growth is due to residential and residential lifestyle related rating unit growth, the Commercial and

Industrial rating units increase by around 205 units by 2048, at a rate of over 6 units or 0.9% per year. Almost

half of this Commercial and Industrial rating unit growth occurs in the Plains Ward. The remainder is spread

fairly evenly across the other two wards.

Overall

This scenario is the closest to recent trends and is therefore considered to be the most realistic. It provides

a conservatively optimistic midpoint between the construction boom of the early to mid 2000s and the general

economic uncertainty following the global financial crisis. Although the dwelling growth of around 70 dwellings

per year is still lower than that previously experienced, it should be noted that residential building consents

have declined significantly since the mid 2000s peak. The number of building consents peaked at 142 in

2007 and declined consistently though to 2014. The number of building consents has increased over the past

two years but is still significantly below the mid 2000s peak.




2.2.3 Scenario 3 – High Growth

Under the high growth scenario, the fertility and mortality rates result in a natural population increase while

the net migration into the district is also positive. This results in positive population growth and higher dwelling

and rating unit growth than under the lower growth scenarios. The key outputs for the high scenario are

summarised in the table below.

Table 5 : Key results - high growth scenario

Output 2013 2018 2028 2038 2048 Change (to

2048)



rate


Total Dwellings 8,809 10,320 11,457 12,182 13,024 4,215 120 1.1%


Population

Under this scenario the population in the district increases by almost 5,100 people, or around 145 people per

year. The rate of growth is highest over the first fifteen years before slowing down towards 2048. The

population in the Paeroa Ward increases by 48 people per year. The populations in the other areas also

increase, although less so – the Plains Ward by 38 people or 0.5% per year and the Waihi Ward by 35 people

or 0.4% per year.

Dwellings

The dwelling growth that flows from the above population is 120 dwellings per year. This is above the growth

seen over the 12 years ending 2013, but considering the construction boom of the early to mid 2000s, it may

be unrealistic to sustain this out until 2048.

The proportion of occupied dwellings remains relatively stable, reducing from 88% in 2013 to around 85% in

2048.

As expected, the dwellings in all wards increase relatively significantly, between 35 and 50 dwellings per

year. The rate of dwelling growth in the Plains Ward and Waihi Ward is projected to be similar at 1.1% per

year. The rate of dwelling growth is slightly higher in the Paeroa Ward at 1.2%. For all wards this is higher

than that experienced between 2001 and 2013.

Rating units

The impact on the rating units is lower than the dwelling growth, 0.9% per year. Like the other scenarios, a

majority of the rating unit increase is in the Residential and Residential Lifestyle rating unit categories.

However the flow-on effect from the higher population and dwelling growth also results in a significant

increase in Commercial and Industrial rating units of over 11 units or 1.4% per year. The distribution of the

Commercial and Industrial rating units across the wards is similar to the medium scenario.

Overall

The rate of growth projected under this scenario is unlikely to continue consistently for over 30 years. It does

provide good aspirational targets, and also enables Council to understand the impact of achieving desired

outcomes such as a resident population increase. However, the objective of this review is to provide a realistic

series of projections, not aspirational targets.

2.2.4 Scenario 4 – Option for Modified Version

A modified scenario could be used to adopt a set of projections above or below the recommended scenario.

This can be done with clear and transparent guidance from Council in a number of ways:

• Include more or less population change in certain areas. This can be done by firstly selecting the

baseline population of any of the three scenarios. Then additional people can be simply added to or

subtracted from the underlying baseline.




• Retain the underlying population growth, but adjust the assumptions regarding household size. For

example, a more significant decline in the average household size will result in higher dwelling

growth.

• Retain the underlying population growth and household size assumptions but forecast different

holiday home/unoccupied dwelling growth.

These modifications can be done standalone, or in conjunction with others. They can be at the district level

or targeted to specific wards or settlements.

Caution should be exercised to ensure that the projections remain evidence based and retain their

creditability.

2.3 Projected Population Structure

This section provides additional detail about the projected population structure under each scenario. This

includes the population by five year age groups and average household size.

2.3.1 Age Demographics

The following age pyramids show the district’s resident population in five year age groups, for both 2001 and

2013 in relation to the age distribution of New Zealand. 0-4 year olds are at the base of the pyramid and the

over 85 year olds are at the top. Typically, age pyramids show the male/female population split but that level

of detail is not necessary for the purpose of this review. To calculate the total proportion in an age group, the

two sides of the vertical axis need to be added together ignoring the negative sign.




Figure 1 : 2001 Age pyramid

The district compared with New Zealand

• The pyramids show that the district

had a similar age profile to the rest

of New Zealand in 2001. The

exception being the proportion in the

20-34 year old age groups which

were noticeably lower in the district.

The proportion of the district’s under

15 year old population was also

slightly higher than the national

average.

• The 2013 pyramid shows the impact

of the aging population. The

proportion of the population aged

65+ in the district is around 22% in

2013. This is above the national

average of 14%. The aging

population is evident between 2001

and 2013. At the younger ages there

is now a lower proportion in the 0-9

year age group compared to the

national average, and this will likely

flow-on as the population cohorts

move through the age groups.

• Figures 3, 4 and 5 below show the

projected change in the district’s age

demographics under each scenario

and have been overlaid for ease of

comparison. The light blue bars

show the low growth scenario, navy

blue the medium growth scenario

and dull blue the high growth

scenario (the widest bars). These

pyramids show the actual population

numbers in each age bracket, rather

than a percentage of the total

population.

Figure 2 : 2013 Age pyramid

The district compared with New Zealand

-6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0%

0-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

85+

- NZ - Hauraki District

-6.0% -4.0% -2.0% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0%

0-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

85+

- NZ - Hauraki District




Figure 3 : District wide age pyramid in 2018



The key points are:

• The age pyramids show a similar

distribution of age groups for each

scenario, with only the projected

total population differing.

• The trend toward an aging

population continues under all

scenarios. The number of people

aged 65+ is forecast to increase to

over 40% by 2048.

• The proportion of the population

under 15 years of age is forecast to

decline from around 20% in 2013 to

between 13% and 17% in 2048.

• The result of this changing profile of

the population is that people aged

between 15 and 64 years of age are

forecast to decline from 59% to

around 44%. This results in a net

decrease in the number of people in

this age bracket under all scenarios.

This may have a flow-on effect to the

make-up of the work force in the

district.

-1,250 -1,000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250

0-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

85+

- Low - Medium - High

-1,250 -1,000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250

0-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

85+


-1,250 -1,000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1,000 1,250

0-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

85+





2.3.2 Average Household Size

The average household size of a given area is the total resident population divided by the total number of

households. A household can be one person who usually resides alone, or two or more people who usually

reside together and share facilities in a dwelling. There may be more than one family in a household.

The average household size for the district is projected to decline. This is a continuation of historical trends,

however the rate of decline is forecast to slow down in the future.

Table 6 : Average household size for the district

2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048

2.29 2.26 2.24 2.20 2.18 2.11 2.05

The following graph shows that the average household size is also forecast to decline in all wards. Note the

scale on the vertical axis is between 1.90 and 2.50 residents per household. This smaller scale better displays

the difference between the wards.

Figure 6 : Household size for the wards

There is variation across each ward, similarly there is a degree of variation across the settlements (not

shown). The Plains Ward has the largest average household size, with the Waihi Ward having the smallest.

Overall, the average household size in each ward is projected to decline at a similar rate. This is based on

historical trends and is most likely due to a number of factors such as age demographics and a reduction in

multiple families living as one household.

As with the age demographics, these trends are consistent for all scenarios and are simply applied to a

smaller or larger population size.




3 Recommended Scenario

As discussed in Section 2, the medium growth scenario is considered the most appropriate for the purpose

of the Hauraki District Council’s long term planning. The key reasons are:

• The medium growth scenario provides realistic projections that are conservatively optimistic. It is

considered to best reflect historical trends and the current economic climate.

• The population growth projected under the medium series is consistent with historical trends of a

relatively stable, or steadily growing population.

• The medium scenario is informed by SNZ’s medium population series. SNZ consider their medium

series to be the most appropriate to assess future population changes. This is based on

comprehensive demographic analysis.

• The high growth scenario is considered to be too aspirational, and may lead to overstating the

growth. Similarly the low growth scenario is more of a worst case scenario. While this provides a

useful perspective, it is not considered appropriate for long term planning purposes.

3.1 Detailed Results

This section provides further discussion on the recommended medium growth scenario, including growth in

the main towns (Ngatea, Paeroa and Waihi), along with further analysis of the detailed outputs for dwellings

and rating units.

Population

The district population is projected to grow by nearly 2,400 people between 2013 and 2033, before decline

by around 1,130 people between 2033 and 2048. This equates to a long-term net increase in the district

population of 1,250.

The population growth in the ward areas is shown below, and the total area reflects total district population

growth. This shows that population growth is projected to be highest between 2013 and 2018 and the

population is forecast to peak in 2033 in all wards.

Figure 7 : Resident population growth by ward

6,631 6,847 6,761 6,478

6,268 6,532 6,540 6,380

7,3727,531 7,389

6,992

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048

Re

sid

en

t Po

pu

latio

n

Plains Ward Paeroa Ward Waihi Ward




Over three-quarters of the population growth is projected to occur in the main towns of Paeroa, Ngatea and

Waihi. Paeroa is projected to grow significantly, 18 people per year or 0.4%, with lower growth rates in Ngatea

and Waihi, 4 and 5 people per year, or 0.3% and 0.1% per year respectively. The population in each of the

other smaller settlements in the district is projected to increase by up to 2 people per year.

Dwellings

The projected dwelling growth by type is shown below for the district. This shows that dwelling growth, like

population growth, is projected to be highest between 2013 and 2018. The proportion of occupied dwellings

is projected to remain relatively stable.

Figure 8 : Dwelling growth by type

An increase in dwellings is projected in all three main towns. Paeroa is projected to experience the greatest

dwelling growth, 0.9% per year. Ngatea and Waihi are also projected to have dwelling growth, although at a

slightly lower rate, 0.8% and 0.6% per year respectively.

The dwelling growth in the remaining settlements is projected to be between 0.6% and 1.0% per year. The

smaller settlement with the highest dwelling growth rate is Whiritoa. Most of the Whiritoa dwelling growth is

in holiday homes where there is projected to be an increase of nearly 170 unoccupied dwellings by 2048.

Rating Units

The projected district-wide growth in rating units by type is shown in the following graph. This shows the

district’s reliance on Residential rating units. More than three-quarters of the total rating units are Residential

or Residential Lifestyle, with most the remaining rating units being in the Rural Industry category.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048

To

tal D

we

llin

gs

Occupied Unoccupied Under Construction




Figure 9 : Rating unit growth by category

The total rating unit growth for each area relies predominately on dwelling growth. Therefore the forecast

dwellings for each settlement (discussed in the above dwelling section) are reflected in the rating unit

forecasts.

The number of Commercial and Industrial rating units are projected to increase in all three main towns, with

the rate of growth ranging from 0.5% per year in Paeroa to 1.2% in Ngatea. Demand for additional Industrial

and Commercial rating units is also projected in the smaller settlements, most noticeably in Kerepehi, Hauraki

Plains, Ohinemuri and Turua. These are likely to be linked to the continuation of strong dwelling growth in

these areas and employment opportunities.

The Rural Industry and Mineral Related rating units are projected to remain at 1,196 and 32 rating units

respectively.

Further Detail

The high level outputs for the recommended scenario (resident population, residential dwellings and total

rating units) are summarised in Appendix D at the district, ward and settlement level.

3.2 Available Capacity

Hauraki District Council engaged Aecom to prepare a Proposed Hauraki District Plan - Land Development

Capacity for HDC (February 2010). The findings for the main urban areas, and comparison with the projected

dwelling growth are summarised below.

Table 7 : Residual dwelling capacity compared with projected dwelling growth

Settlement 2010 Dwelling Capacity

(Vacant + Infill)

Dwelling Growth 2010-2013

Dwelling Growth 2013-2048

Residual Dwelling Capacity in 2048

Ngatea 36 + 414 = 450 40 198 212

Paeroa 550 + 300 = 850 45 662 143

Waihi 800 + 150 = 950 74 552 324

Kerepehi 34 + 93 = 127 1 52 74

Turua 21 + 204 = 225 -2 140 87

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043 2048

To

tal R

atin

g U

nits

Residential Residential Lifestyle Rural Industry Commercial and Industrial Mineral Related Other




The study includes assessment of dwelling capacity at the district level and for several settlement areas. At

the district level there appears to be more than sufficient capacity for the growth under the recommended

medium scenario to occur, and all the settlements included will still have a sufficient residual dwelling capacity

in 2048.

It is likely that work done to meet the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development

Capacity 2016 will be inform these types of considerations.

3.3 Comparison with Previous Projections

Rationale also provided projections for Hauraki in 2014 (Hauraki District, Projections for Resident Population,

Dwellings and Rating Units to 2045 April 2014). These were adopted for 2015 Long Term Plan. These were

based on the SNZ medium series released in October 2012. These projections were not informed by the

findings of the 2013 Census.

A comparison of the previously adopted scenario, with the recommended scenario in this study is shown in

the following three tables. In order to compare like with like, the 2013 to 2045 period has been used for

population and dwellings. In the 2014 study the population in 2013 was an estimate so the starting point is

slightly different.

For comparison of rating unit growth in the two studies, 2018 has been used as a starting point as the way

the rating units were obtained and grouped was not the same in both studies so the starting points are also

different.

The most significant change in the SNZ medium population projections used for the two studies is the

assumptions about net migration into the Hauraki district. While the natural change is similar in both sets of

projections, the forecast migration into the district under the latest projections is more than 2,000 people

higher.

The tables show that the latest recommended scenario forecasts higher population and dwelling growth. The

2045 population is over 2,000 people higher than under the adopted scenario, albeit from a slightly higher

starting point. This is conjunction with a slightly smaller household size results in an increase in dwelling over

two times greater than previously forecast.

The change in rating units is similar however as noted above the starting points are different. The total number

of rating units forecast in 2045 is noticeably higher than the 2045 figure under the adopted scenario.

At the ward level, the projected growth in both the Paeroa Ward and Waihi Ward is noticeable higher than

the previous forecast. Compared to the previous projections, a larger portion of the growth is now projected

to occur in the three main towns.

Table 8 : Comparison – resident population

Resident Population 2013 2015 2025 2035 2045 Change (2013 to

2045)



rate

Adopted 2014 18,281 18,340 18,341 18,101 18,051 -230 -7 -0.04%

Recommended 2017 18,600 19,268 20,760 20,867 20,102 1,502 47 0.2%

Table 9 : Comparison – total dwellings

Total Dwellings 2013 2015 2025 2035 2045 Change (2013 to

2045)



rate

Adopted 2014 8,809 8,902 9,270 9,542 9,932 1,123 35 0.38%

Recommended 2017 8,809 9,365 10,633 11,051 11,238 2,429 76 0.8%




Table 10 : Comparison – total rating units

Total Rating Units 2018 2025 2035 2045 Change (2018 to

2045)



rate

Adopted 2014 10,771 11,047 11,374 11,819 1,048 39 0.3%

Recommended 2017 11,399 11,878 12,360 12,612 1,213 45 0.4%




4 Methodology Summary

An overview of the methodology used to develop the growth projections is shown below. This is followed by

explanation of methodology components.

4.1 Overview

The basic underlying philosophy is that people drive the growth in dwellings and rating units. An increase in

people living, working or holidaying in the district will result in an increase in both dwellings and rating units.

An overview of the methodology is shown below.

Figure 10 : Method overview

Resident population growth is only one of three factors that can drive an increase in dwellings. The other two

factors are:

• Declining household size - if the historical trend of smaller families continues, then additional

dwellings will be required to house the same number of people.

• Demand for holiday homes - out of district demand for holiday homes may drive dwelling growth,

independent of the resident population.

Changes in the above variables then flow on to rating units. Any additional dwellings result in an increase in

residential rating units. The business related rating unit growth is again a combination of multiple factors:

• A higher population and/or more dwellings, resulting in more services required

• A greater number of visitors to the district, resulting in more tourism related job opportunities

• Local industry creating more jobs that provide services or products external to the district

• An increase in the number of people commuting into the district for work.

The key point is that growth in dwellings and/or rating units may still occur with a stable or declining

population. However rather than attempt to quantify the standalone impact of the above factors, the approach

relies on trends to estimate the overall effect on dwelling growth. This is explained further in Section 4.3.




As a guiding start point Statistics New Zealand (SNZ) population projections have been used. These are

released as a low, medium, high series and are discussed in more detail in Section 4.2. Previously these

projections were only until 2031, however the recent projections released by SNZ now extend out to 2043.

While the SNZ projections provide robust population and household projections, they do not project dwelling

or rating unit growth. The key requirement of the Model is to convert the population growth for each settlement

into dwelling and rating unit growth.

To deliver the required outputs for this review the following key processes have been undertaken:

• A ‘start’ point is based on the findings of the 2013 Census data. The 30 June 2013 resident

population estimate is compared against the three SNZ series of projections. The projections are

then realigned with the new starting point. The SNZ population projections series extend to 2043,

then linear extrapolation is applied out to 2048. These projections were released by SNZ in March

2017 and are informed by the findings of the 2013 Census and recent relevant information.

• Historic and current data is inputted and analysed to set base trends for each type of projections

(population by age, dwellings by type and rating units by type). The collation, analysis and projection

of the Census data in the Model is done at the settlement level and aggregated up to provide ward

and district outputs. This data includes 2001, 2006, and 2013 Census data for population and

dwellings, and Council rating unit data as at June 2016.

• Validation of the outputs include comparison with Council’s previous projections, plans/strategies

and building consent information. Assessment of supply and demand is also undertaken to compare

the projected demand with available zoned land.

All outputs are projected as at 30 June of each year. This aligns with Council’s financial year and ensures

the outputs can be compared with SNZ estimates moving forward.

A more detailed model structure is shown in Figure 11 below. This shows the information flow through the

Model.




Figure 11 : Detailed Model Structure

The following sections summarise the method in each part of the Model, for population, dwellings and rating

units.

4.2 Population

The population growth in the main three scenarios are based on SNZ population projections. These include

a low, medium and high series based on births, deaths and migration. The reasons for using the SNZ

projections are as follows:

1. They provide a robust births and deaths model which flows through to the age demographic

projections. This involves complex analysis of the birth and death rates, and also the impact on an

area’s age structure from migration into and out of the district.

2. By basing the scenarios purely on an overall population change, the standalone impact of any local

growth drivers, and other existing trends in the district do not need to be quantified. The SNZ

projections provide a broad range of projections. Local knowledge can be used to select the most

appropriate set of projections.

3. The net migration analysis is continually being improved and updated based on the most recent

information. We have previously attempted to improve these with little success. We have found that

linking migration to other drivers increases the complexity of a model but not always the accuracy.




4. The SNZ projections are updated every two to three years to maintain their relevance and

usefulness, by incorporating new information about demographic trends and development in

methods. The Model is easy to update as and when this new information becomes available.

The SNZ projections are provided for each Census Area Unit. The Census Area Units for Hauraki district are

largely consistent with Council defined settlement areas, with the exception of the Ohinemuri Census Area

Unit which encompasses both Ohinemuri and Whiritoa settlements. To accommodate this, the SNZ

projections for the Ohinemuri Census Area Unit have been allocated between the Ohinemuri and Whiritoa

settlements based on 2013 Census usually resident population ratios.

Settlement sub-totals have been aggregated to ward level, with allocation of the Ohinemuri and Hauraki

Plains settlements which span two wards. This allocation has been based on the 2013 Census usually

resident population.

It should also be noted that the Kaiaua Census Area Unit was reallocated to the Hauraki district in 2010 when

the Auckland Super City was created. Therefore some of the earlier census data and SNZ outputs (such as

population projections) for the Hauraki district do not include Kaiaua as a Census Area Unit. To accommodate

this, where required data from the previous Franklin district figures have been used for the Kaiaua Census

Area Unit.

4.3 Dwellings

As discussed in the overview above, while the SNZ projections provide robust population and household

projections, they do not project the impact the changes in population structure will have on the overall dwelling

growth. The total dwellings are also further broken down into occupied, unoccupied and under construction.

The link between resident population and dwelling growth is a household. There can be none, one or multiple

households in a dwelling. The population growth is converted to dwelling growth based on the forecast trend

for two key variables:

• Household size – this ratio has been decreasing due to an aging population and a move to smaller

families. This trend is projected to continue, resulting in more dwellings being required to house the

same number of people.

• Households to dwelling ratio – this ratio accounts for dwellings not occupied by the resident

population, e.g. holiday homes, other unoccupied dwellings. The forecast ratio for each settlement

is based on historical data. Where this ratio declines, more dwelling growth occurs, typically driven

by holiday home growth. If this ratio increases, less dwelling growth occurs, indicating a shift to

residents using more of the dwelling stock.

Once the total dwellings have been forecast they are broken down by type. The number of unoccupied

dwellings is based on the census night empty dwelling figures. This figure is not 100% accurate as it may

exclude holiday homes that have visitors to the district staying in them on census night. However, the

discrepancy is likely to be minor considering the census occurred mid-week in March.

The dwellings under construction are also based on the census night figures. These are projected to increase

in proportion with dwelling growth.

The remaining dwellings are assumed to be occupied by the resident population.

4.4 Rating Units

The final purpose of the Model is to convert the population and dwelling growth into rating units. The approach

differs for each type of rating unit. These are discussed in turn below.

Residential and Residential Lifestyle Rating Units

For both residential rating unit categories, the assumption is that each new dwelling creates a new Residential

or Residential Lifestyle rating unit. The split between Residential and Residential Lifestyle rating unit growth

is based on the 2016 proportion of Residential and Residential Lifestyle rating units. This means that in the

long term, the current provision of vacant properties will be replenished as they are utilised.




Commercial and Industrial Rating Units

The future demand for Commercial and Industrial rating units is based on the projected number of people

working within these sectors. This is done at the district level based on 12 years of employment data across

a range of industry sectors. The allocation of growth from district level to settlements is based on a

combination of historical local employment growth and the existing proportion of Commercial and Industrial

rating units in each settlement.

The historical data shows that the number of people working in commercial and industrial jobs in the district

has increased by 330 jobs or 1.0% per year. The data represents the workplace address, and not the place

of residence of the working population. The workplace address of the jobs make it more relevant to the

demand for Commercial and Industrial rating units in the district.

The historical employment growth rate is greater than the resident population growth rate over this time

(indicating that people are commuting into the district for work, who usually live elsewhere). Therefore it is

not considered appropriate to simply align the growth in Commercial and Industrial rating units to the resident

population.

Our approach assumes this employment growth will continue and represents the medium scenario. For the

other scenarios the change in resident population is used to decrease or increase the projected number of

people working in the district.

This is considered the simplest and most appropriate way to project future demand for business related land

within the district. A ‘sense check’ is included to ensure that projected employment demand can be serviced

by the labour force in the district. This includes consideration of factors such as the working age population

and people commuting into the district for work from elsewhere.

Mineral Related Rating Units

There are only 32 Mineral Related rating units in the district. Discussion with Council staff indicates that it

would be appropriate to assume that these rating units will remain the same.

Rural Industry and Other Rating Units

For simplicity, these rating units are assumed to remain the same. There is a possibility that the number of

Rural Industry rating units will decrease if contiguous properties are merged following farm sales.

4.5 Limitations

The SNZ projections extend only to 2043 so linear extrapolation has been used past this point to 2048. This

means the projections are less robust beyond 2043, specifically the age demographic projections. The next

series of SNZ projections may be extended to 2048 or 2051. Any extension can be easily updated in the

Model.

The Model relies on historical trends from the 2001, 2006 and 2013 Censuses, specifically household sizes

and the household to dwelling ratio. While in most cases the trends are reasonably evident, in some

settlements there is significant variation over the last three censuses. In these cases national and district

level trends, and trends in neighbouring or similar settlements have been considered in order to forecast

future trends.

Despite these limitations, the projections are considered appropriate for providing a sound basis for Council’s

long term planning.




Appendix A – Rating Unit Definitions

The Council’s current land use descriptions have been used to group the rating unit categories used for this

review, and are defined below.

Residential - all rating units used primarily for residential purposes.

Residential Lifestyle Land Use - all rating units used primarily for residential purposes, located in Lifestyle

zoned areas.

Rural Industry Land Use– all rating units used primarily or predominately for the purposes of agriculture,

viticulture, horticulture or silviculture.

Commercial and Industrial Land Use - all rating units used for commercial or industrial purposes.

Mining Land Use - all mineral value rating units that are used in gold mining.

Other – all rating units used for community services, recreational, cultural and utility purposes.




Appendix B – Ward and Census Area Unit Maps




Appendix C – Historical Growth

Analysis of historical growth trends is a key component of this review and has informed likely growth trends

going forward. Given this relationship, an overview of historical growth is discussed below.

Most of the analysis is of growth in population and dwellings, as consistent historical rating unit data is not

readily available. Analysis undertaken has looked at data over 12 years, based on information from the 2001,

2006 and 2013 censuses. Note the period between the censuses is inconsistent, five and seven years, due

to the delay from the Canterbury earthquakes. For reporting purposes, the analysis is at the district and ward

level.

The population and dwelling growth at sub-ward level has occurred in both the main towns and the rural

areas. Most of the urban population growth has been in Ngatea, with the dwelling growth more evenly spread

across the three main towns and surrounding rural areas.

Table 11 : Historical population and dwelling growth (30 June estimate)

2001 2006 2013 Change

(2001 - 2013)



rate

District

Resident Population 17,970 18,310 18,600 630 53 0.3%

Total Dwellings 7,705 8,163 8,809 1,104 92 1.1%

Occupied 6,955 7,330 7,709 755 63 0.9%

Unoccupied 705 769 1,066 361 30 3.5%

Under Construction 45 64 33 -12 -1 -2.6%

Plains Ward


Total Dwellings 2,340 2,424 2,667 327 27 1.1%

Occupied 2,155 2,258 2,403 247 21 0.9%

Unoccupied 169 148 251 82 7 3.4%

Under Construction 16 18 13 -3 0 -1.7%

Paeroa Ward


Total Dwellings 2,266 2,400 2,548 282 23 1.0%

Occupied 2,133 2,284 2,373 240 20 0.9%

Unoccupied 126 96 171 44 4 2.5%

Under Construction 7 20 4 -2 0 -3.6%

Waihi Ward


Total Dwellings 3,099 3,340 3,594 495 41 1.2%

Occupied 2,667 2,789 2,934 267 22 0.8%

Unoccupied 410 524 645 235 20 3.8%

Under Construction 22 26 16 -7 -1 -2.9%




The resident population of the district on 30 June 2013 is estimated to be around 18,600 people. Table 7

shows that the district resident population has grown by over 600 people (0.3% per year) in the 12 years

ending 2013.

The populations in all ward areas have grown, most noticeably the Plains Ward which has grown by 340

people (0.5% per year) to over 6,100 people. The Paeroa and Waihi wards have remained more stable, with

159 and 132 additional people over the 12 years respectively.

Over the same period, more than 1,100 new dwellings have been built - an increase of around 1.1% or 92

dwellings per year. The highest rate of growth has been in unoccupied dwellings, which have grown in

number from around 700 to 1,060 dwellings, an increased at a rate of 3.5% per year.

Unlike the population growth, the dwelling growth is more evenly spread across the wards. The dwellings in

all three wards have grown by between 1.0% and 1.2% per year, or by 280 to 485 dwellings. All three ward

areas have experienced a much higher rate of dwelling growth compared to the population growth rate. A

majority of the unoccupied dwelling growth has occurred in the Waihi Ward.

Although the period encompasses 12 years, there are likely to be peaks and troughs between the census

years that are not captured in the historical data. The building consents for new residential dwellings over

this period provides useful data for each year. The difference between building consents and dwelling growth

is to be expected as not all building consents result in a new dwelling and some may be counted twice if

design/construction is changed midway through the consenting process.

Table 12 : Historical Building Consents for New Residential Dwellings

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

56 65 57 112 134 102 142 138 82 73 65 52 60 46 78 99

The average number of new residential building consents over the period is 85 per year, similar to the dwelling

growth. However during the construction boom in the mid 2000s, before the global financial crisis, the

average number was over 125 per year. The average over the past five years is around 65 consents per

year. The number declined steadily since the peak in 2007, but has started increasing again in the past two

years.




Appendix D – District, Ward and Settlement Projections

Table 13 : District, Ward and Settlement Key Results – Recommended medium growth scenario

Output 2013 2018 2028 2038 2048 Change (to

2048)



rate

District


Total Dwellings 8,809 10,199 10,785 11,063 11,307 2,498 71 0.7%


Plains Ward

Resident Population 6,107 6,631 6,847 6,761 6,478 372 11 0.2%

Total Dwellings 2,667 3,075 3,251 3,316 3,394 728 21 0.7%


Paeroa Ward


Total Dwellings 2,548 2,959 3,155 3,254 3,383 835 24 0.8%


Waihi Ward


Total Dwellings 3,594 4,165 4,379 4,493 4,530 936 27 0.7%


Paeroa


Total Dwellings 1,829 2,133 2,284 2,362 2,491 662 19 0.9%


Ngatea


Total Dwellings 583 680 723 749 781 198 6 0.8%

Total Rating Units n/a 671 724 759 801 130 4 0.6%

Waihi


Total Dwellings 2,285 2,675 2,784 2,837 2,837 552 16 0.6%


Kaiaua

Resident Population 820 920 945 910 860 40 1 0.1%

Total Dwellings 524 607 638 643 643 119 3 0.6%





Output 2013 2018 2028 2038 2048 Change (to

2048)



rate

Kerepehi


Total Dwellings 192 200 217 225 244 52 1 0.7%


Hauraki Plains


Total Dwellings 1,026 1,211 1,273 1,289 1,289 263 8 0.7%


Ohinemuri


Total Dwellings 1,378 1,570 1,657 1,703 1,703 325 9 0.6%


Turua


Total Dwellings 516 583 616 629 656 140 4 0.7%


Whiritoa


Total Dwellings 476 540 593 626 663 187 5 1.0%



2193639 Page 1 of 1

Information Report


From: Chief Executive

Date: Thursday, 13 April 2017

File reference: Document: 2193639

Meeting date: 26 April 2017

Subject: Chief Executives Monthly Report – April 2017 Recommendation: THAT the report be received

1.0 Staff Raylene Bane has been appointed to the Rates Officer role following the promotion of Jessica Hughes into Barry O’Neil’s team leader position. Both Barry O’Neil and Ian McLeod will leave this month after extremely long service for well deserved retirement. We have 2 further retirements coming up with both Linda Rasmussen (Information Officer) and Murray Rasmussen (Labourer/Mower) indicating they would like to retire in June. Both these positions will be advertised soon. In Technical Services we have managed to recruit an engineer from Namibia to fill the Transport Team Leader role. His name is Lukas de Haast and he will be moving to NZ in June to take this role. It has been a real challenge to find suitably qualified engineers but we think Lukas will be a good team and organisational fit. We have offered 2 students positions using the Paeroa College Gateway programme where they come and work 1 day per week for 12 weeks to gain realistic work experience. Renee Paley and Josh Hanna are working in admin roles. We are working on another 1 or 2 in the C&M team. Langley Cavers Chief Executive


of 2

Information Report


From: Group Manager Corporate Services

Date: Tuesday, 21 March 2017


Portfolio holder: Various


Subject: Corporate Services Update: April 2017


Summary This report is to update Council on activities of interest in the Corporate Services department. Civica Authority The bug in Council’s financial software that meant we were unable to present a Financial Report to Council last month has been corrected. The Financial Report is included elsewhere in the agenda. Getting this corrected in a timely manner required some pushing of Civica from Council staff. We are currently testing the latest patch before installing it. CCTV The first two cameras for the Paeroa CCTV upgrade have been installed. These are located on Hauraki House so were the easiest to upgrade. Pre cabling work at the old Post Office building has been completed which will speed up the process when the actual cameras are being installed. The site specific mounting hardware is being fabricated and the timing of the installation is being discussed with the contractor. Suitable locations at the southern end of Paeroa have been identified and we will be approaching the building owners to explore the possibility of using them for the cameras/radios Staff are meeting with the Waihi Police on Friday 21 April to run through our initial plans for the Waihi CBD upgrade and to get their feedback. After this meeting plans should be able to be finalised and the various building owners approached for permission to utilise their buildings for mounting cameras.


of 2

Councillor PC’s The replacement computers for councillors have all arrived and are being configured by the IT department. Rates Instalments Civica have given staff the process for changing Authority to use four instalments rather than three. We are now just waiting for the end of the rates year before making the changes in our Live environment. Duncan Peddie Group Manager Corporate Services


Information ReportTo: Council


Date: Friday, 14 April 2017

File reference: Document: 2193840Appendix A: 2191404


Subject: Financial Report for the period to 31 March 2017

Recommendation:


Summary

The 2017/18 Annual Plan document has been completed and is awaiting adoption from council.

The Finance Department’s role related to the LTP preparation is well underway. Preparations are almost complete for the Asset Manager budgeting process.

Planning for the Annual Report process has begun.

The attached report shows the results of Council’s activities for the nine months to 31 March 2017. Detailed summaries together with explanations of significant variances are included in Appendix A.


Summary for the 9 months ending 31/03/2017

YTD ($ 000's)

BTD ($ 000's)

% of YTD

Budget

YTD Variance ($ 000's)

Annual Budget ($ 000's)

Expenditure Leadership 1,679 1,790 93.8% 111 2,553Networks 13,895 13,717 101.3% (178) 19,761Community Services 4,394 4,271 102.9% (123) 5,658Community Development 1,289 1,253 102.9% (36) 1,966Regulatory 2,398 2,295 104.5% (103) 3,167Total Cost of Service 23,655 23,326 101.4% (329) 33,105

Less Revenue Leadership (1) 0 0.0% 1 0Networks (1,872) (2,017) 92.8% (145) (5,256)Community Services (406) (446) 91.0% (40) (588)Community Development 0 0 0.0% 0 0Regulatory (1,327) (942) 140.9% 385 (1,183)Total Revenue (3,606) (3,405) 105.9% 201 (7,027)

Net Cost of Service 20,049 19,921 100.6% (128) 26,078

Activity Expenditure v. Budget ($000’s) Nine months to March 2017


Operating Overview:

The Net Cost of Service for the period to 31 March 2017 is $128,000 greater than budget. This is a combination of Expenses that were greater than budget by $329,000 and income exceedingexpectations by $201,000. The bulk of the additional income is a result of increased activity around LIMs, Resource and Land consents.

Details of the various activities is shown in Appendix A

Balance Sheet Overview

Following are some Key Financial Indicators as at 31 March 2017:

Cash on hand Feb Mar BNZ $3.6m $ 0.2mWestpac $1.0m $ 3.2m

Available Credit Facility

BNZ $7.0m $ 7.0mTotal Available Funds $11.6m $10.4m Borrowing

LGFA (long term borrowing) $38.0m $38.0mLGFA (short term borrowing) $ 0.0m $ 0.0mBNZ (short term borrowing) $ 0.0m $ 0.0mTotal $38.0m $38.0m

To ensure we maintain liquidity targets, during February, we borrowed an additional $4m from LGFAwith maturity in April 2024. With an existing loan ($3m) maturing in December 2017, we may need to roll this later in the year as well.

Debtors Water Rates Property Rates Feb Mar Feb Mar Current $0.5m $1.1m $1.0m $0.7mArrears $0.5m $0.5m $1.2m $1.2mTotal $1.0m $1.6m $2.2m $1.9m Water rates increased by $600k as a result of billings in March.

Property rates have decreased during March with $300k as a result of collections that were due at the end of February.

Duncan PeddieGROUP MANAGER CORPORATE SERVICES


Appendix A:

Summary of Leadership for the 9 months ending 31/03/2017 YTD

($ 000's) BTD

($ 000's) % of YTD

Budget



Leadership Expenditure Democracy 1 1,235 1,286 96.1% 51 1,764Iwi Liaison 2 19 54 34.9% 35 72Policy Development 3 425 450 94.3% 25 717Total Cost of Service 1,679 1,790 93.8% 111 2,553

Less Revenue Democracy 0 0 0% 0 0Policy Development (1) 0 0% 1 0Total Revenue (1) 0 0.0% 1 0

NET COST OF SERVICE 1,678 1,790 93.7% 112 2,553

Notes to Report:1 While there is an overall underspend in this activity it is noted that the

recruitment of the CE has costs of $27k against a $5k budget. The budget available during 2014/15 was not used and sufficiently covers this.

2 Forum and partnership meetings have been deferred due to Iwi focus on their Treaty of Waitangi settlement processes.

3 LTP process is just commencing and increased expenditure is due as the project develops. Some expenses may only be in the next financial period.


Summary of Networks for the 9 months ending 31/03/2017 YTD

($ 000's) BTD

($ 000's) % of YTD

Budget



Networks Expenditure Land Drainage 4 653 666 98.0% 14 1,042Roading 5 5,712 5,614 101.8% (99) 8,244Solid Waste 6 677 403 168.0% (274) 544Stormwater 7 523 547 95.5% 24 809Wastewater 8 2,078 2,285 90.9% 207 3,208Water 9 4,252 4,202 101.2% (50) 5,914Total Cost of Service 13,895 13,717 101.3% (178) 19,761

Less Revenue Roading 10 (1,795) (1,928) 93.1% (133) (3,423)Solid Waste (55) (63) 87.2% (8) (83)Storm water 0 0 0.0% 0 0Wastewater (19) (23) 81.9% (4) (291)Water (3) (4) 83.0% (1) (1,459)Total Revenue (1,872) (2,017) 92.8% (146) (5,256)

NET COST OF SERVICE 12,024 11,699 102.8% (324) 14,504

Notes to Report:4 No significant weather events for the period resulted in lower than

expected costs.5 The transition from an external to internal professional services provider

caused initial delays in the roll out of Roading projects (Amenity Maintenance, Non-Subsidised works and Pavement Maintenance)) but these are now under way. Professional services is over budget by $125k due to the delay in moving to internal provider.

6 This includes unbudgeted Land Use Consent and Technical Services costs for the Management Plan for Kaiaua Landfill. These costs were included in last year’s budget ($260k) and were unused for that period. Compounding this is also the larger volume of waste than originally expected and costs expected to be over $500k.

7 Charges lower than budgeted as less work performed than budgeted due to inclement weather.

8 The resignation of the Utilities Manager has meant that some works have been deferred to later in the year. Also, The Allied Faxi plant at Kerepehi is not yet fully operating. It is not expected to commence operating in the next month.

9 Additional chemicals were used due to increased turbidity in the rivers resulting in overspend on treatment. There has, however, been savings due to works deferred to later in the year as a result in the vacant Utilities Manager position.

10 NZTA subsidy claims are expected to be lower than budget due to the reduced spending for the Year to Date. The expenditure for the balance of the year should increase and this should equalise the result.


Summary of Community Services for the 9 months ending 31/03/2017

YTD ($ 000's)

BTD ($ 000's)

% of YTD

Budget



Community Services Expenditure Community Facilities 11 1,262 1,239 101.9% (23) 1,734Recreation 12 3,132 3,032 103.3% (100) 3,924Total Cost of Service 4,394 4,271 102.9% (123) 5,658

Less Revenue Community Facilities 13 (316) (341) 92.7% (25) (453)Recreation 14 (91) (106) 85.8% (15) (134)Total Revenue (406) (446) 91.1% (40) (588)


Notes to Report:11 Increased burials have resulted in additional burial charges.

12 Additional spending related to the Sports field line painting (Hugh Hayward Domain) and the repainting of the Waihi Pool were not budgeted for. The Kotui license fee for 2016 year was also only processed in current year.

13 An error was made in the billing of Pensioner Housing rentals in 2015 and this has been reversed. Two units have also been empty while they are being renovated. This will result in income to be under-recovered this year.

14 Library income is under budget and is likely to be under budget for the full year.


Summary of Community Development for the 9 months ending 31/03/2017

YTD ($ 000's)

BTD ($ 000's)

% of YTD

Budget



Community Development Expenditure Community Growth 15 673 654 103.0% (20) 935Community Initiatives 16 616 599 102.8% (17) 1,031Total Cost of Service 1,289 1,253 102.9% (36) 1,966

Less Revenue Community Growth 0 0 0.0% 0 0Community Initiatives 0 0 0.0% 0 0Total Revenue 0 0 0.0% 0 0


Notes to Report:15 $50k of over-expenditure relates to the Waihi i-Site that has been

approved previously by Council. This is partly offset by savings in salaries while the Economic Development Assistant role was vacant and some projects not carried out by Positively Promoting the Plains.

16 Sister cities had 18 students instead of the 12 budgeted.


Summary of Regulatory for the 9 months ending 31/03/2017

YTD ($ 000's)

BTD ($ 000's)

% of YTD

Budget



Regulatory Expenditure Animal Control 361 360 100.3% (1) 478Building Services 17 818 766 106.8% (52) 1,031Community Protection 563 570 98.9% 6 860RMA Implementation 18 655 599 109.5% (57) 797Total Cost of Service 2,398 2,295 104.5% (104) 3,167

Less Revenue Animal Control (271) (275) 98.6% (4) (287)Building Services 19 (608) (348) 174.7% 260 (465)Community Protection (82) (76) 108.2% 6 (106)RMA Implementation 20 (365) (243) 150.1% 122 (325)Total Revenue (1,327) (942) 140.8% 384 (1,183)

NET COST OF SERVICE 1,072 1,352 79.2% 281 1,984

Notes to Report:17 The extended use of an external Building Consent Officer due to extra

demand was not budgeted for. This additional cost is offset by additional revenue.

18 Due to increased activity there has been greater use of contract planners.19 Increased Building Consent demand has led to increased revenue.20 Increased activity related to LIMS, Resource and Land consents has

resulted in increased revenue.


of 5

Information Report



Date: 12 April 2017


Portfolio holder: Mayor

Meeting date: 26 April 2017

Subject: Financial Quick Facts


Purpose To present the Council with a quick financial facts reference document. Background The purpose of this paper is to provide the Council a quick financial facts reference guide. Appendix A outlines a handful of facts about the Council’s business. Charts have been included, to provide further analysis of plant, property and equipment, revenue and expenditure. A previous version of this report was distributed to Council in the past and this revised version has been previously presented to the Audit and Risk Committee, with some additional information included as a result of feedback from the Committee members. Content Staff will talk through this information at the Council meeting and staff would be happy to receive feedback regarding the usefulness of this information. Duncan Peddie Group Manager Corporate Services


of 5

Appendix A: Quick Facts These quick facts are intended to be a quick reference tool for the Elected Members. Unless otherwise stated, they are drawn from the 2016/17 Annual Plan.

Total number of properties 12,000

Total number of rateable properties 10,300

Total population (as at 2013 Census) 17,808

Total population projected for 2018 (Statistics NZ – medium projection)

20,200

Total rates revenue (includes water) $26.6 million

Total revenue $34.5 million

Median residential rate (incl. water) $2,575

Total external debt $42 million

Debt per rateable property $2,873

Total assets $562 million

Total capital expenditure $13.3 million

Total operating expenditure $32.6 million

Equity $509.4 million

Number of full time employees as at 30 June 2016

103

Number of full-time equivalent part-time employees as at 30 June 2016

21 (29 x part-timers)

Employee costs $10.3 million, (32% of total operating expenditure).


of 5

Appendix B: Rating Impact Rating impact of $10k increase in OPEX or $100k increase in CAPEX All figures exclude GST

Forecast Rates ($000's) Ann Plan 2016/17 % increase

from $10k

increase

$ Increase per property

General Rates 8,993,000 0.1% 1 *Targeted Rates - Roading 3,581,000 0.3% Targeted Rates - Paeroa Comm Facilities 793,000 1.3% 4 Targeted Rates - Paeroa Comm Fac Business 189,000 5.3% 47 Targeted Rates - Plains Comm Facilities 595,000 1.7% 4 Targeted Rates - Plains Comm Fac Business 30,000 33.3% 71 Targeted Rates - Waihi Comm Facilities 1,082,000 0.9% 2 Targeted Rates - Waihi Comm Fac Business 150,000 6.7% 53 Targeted Rates - Wastewater 3,183,000 0.3% 2 *Targeted Rates - Western Plains 'D' 394,000 2.5% 17 *Targeted Rates - Eastern Plains 'D' 266,000 3.8% 13 *Targeted Rates - Komata North 'D' 51,000 19.6% 161 *Targeted Rates - Opukeko 'D' 26,000 38.5% 227 *Targeted Rates - Tirohia-Rotokohu 'D' 105,000 9.5% 60 *Targeted Rates - Taramaire 'D' 10,000 100.0% 667 *Targeted Rates - Western Plains 'F1' 56,000 17.9% 115 *Targeted Rates - Western Plains 'F2' 5,400 185.2% 244 *Targeted Rates - Paeroa Stormwater 244,000 4.1% 5 *Targeted Rates - Ngatea Stormwater 104,000 9.6% 17 *Targeted Rates - Kerepehi Stormwater 35,000 28.6% 43 *Targeted Rates - Turua Stormwater 36,000 27.8% 61 *Targeted Rates - Waihi Stormwater 206,000 4.9% 4 *Targeted Rates - Whiritoa Stormwater 27,000 37.0% 17 *Targeted Rates - Kaiaua Stormwater 45,300 22.1% 38 *Targeted Rates - Waste Coll'n/Recycling 182,000 5.5% 2 Targeted Rates - Western Plain "P" 32,650 30.6% 6 Targeted Rates - Halls 34,000 29.4% 263

Rates excluding water 20,455,350

Water Rates 6,013,280 0.2%

Rates including water 26,468,630 * These rates are charged on the basis of Capital value and therefore the $ increase per property is based on average Rates above excludes penalties and excludes internal charges For CAPEX we have assumed a 25-year asset life and 6% finance charges. These are significant assumptions and as such, the impact from Capital is just a very broad estimate.


of 5

Appendix C: Financial Graphs Property plant and Equipment: As at 30 June 2016, the value of Council’s Plant, Property and Equipment was $532,949,000. The chart below shows the split between asset classes.

Revenue: As per the 2016/17 Annual Plan, total revenue is budgeted to be $36,316,000. The chart below shows the apportionment across Council’s main revenue streams.

Land, 39,604,7%

Buildings & Structures, 19,677,

4%

Equipment, vehicles and other, 13,601,

3%

Wastewater System, 38,209,

7%

Water System, 65,002,

12%

Drainage Network, 39,549,

7%

Roading Network, 227,168,

43%

Land under Roads, 88,792,

17%

2016 PPE Assets ($'000)

General Rates, 9,099 , 26%

Targeted Rates (excl. Water Rates), 11,870 , 35%

Targeted Rates for Water Supplies,

5,590 , 16%

Subsidies and Grants, 4,941 , 14%

Other Revenue, 2,996 , 9%

Revenue ($'000) per 2017 AP


of 5

Operating expenses: As per the 2016/17 Annual Plan, expenses of $32,646,000 are budgeted. The first chart below shows the apportionment across Council’s activities, with the second chart demonstrating the types of expenditure.

Regulatory, 3,166 , 9%

Leadership, 2,553 , 8%

Community Development, 1,966 ,

6%

Land Drainage, 1,042 , 3%

Stormwater, 810 , 2%

Solid Waste, 546 , 2%

Water, 5,914 , 18%Waste Water, 3,208 ,

10%

Roading, 8,244 , 25%

Community Services, 5,653 , 17%

Operating Expenditure ($'000) per activity 2017 AP

Employee Benefit Expenses, 10,283,

32%

Depreciation and Amortisation, 7,555,

23%Finance Costs, 2,327,

7%

Other Expenses, 12,546, 38%

Operating Expenditure ($'000) per type 2017 AP


of 2

Information Report

To: The Mayor and Councillors



File reference:

Document: 2194185 Appendix A: Draft Waikato Plan Implementation support budget - 2194171 Appendix B: Minutes of the Waikato Plan Joint Committee meeting of February 2017 - 2193315

Portfolio holder: Mayor Tregidga


Subject: Minutes of the Waikato Plan Joint Committee meeting of 27 February 2017


Summary The purpose of including the Waikato Plan Joint Committee minutes on the Council’s agenda is to ensure it is informed on a regular basis of the decisions made by the Joint Committee and the progress of the draft Waikato Plan. Background The Joint Committee normally meets on a bi-monthly basis but has not met since June 2016 because of the timing of the local government elections. The Mayor is the Hauraki District Council representative on the Joint Committee and Deputy Mayor Adams is the alternate. Content Attached as Appendix B are the minutes of the Joint Committee meeting held at the Waikato Regional Council office in Hamilton on 27 February 2017. The Mayor and Deputy Mayor were in attendance. At the meeting the representation on the Joint Committee was confirmed and Mayor Jim Mylchreest was re-elected as deputy chairperson of the Joint Committee. Margaret Devlin remains the Chairperson.


of 2

The Joint Committee agreed on the preferred governance structure for the implementation phase of the Waikato Plan. The ‘Leadership Group’ will be a formally constituted Joint Committee under the Local Government Act 2002 with the proposed following membership:

• Local Government representatives: 5 members, open to all elected members and not confined to mayors or the regional chair. The Waikato Regional Council, and Hamilton City Council will nominate one member each and three are to be nominated by the Mayoral Forum.

• Iwi representatives: 6 members to be selected in a manner determined by Iwi. • Business / Community representatives: 4 members with representation to be publicly

advertised and expressions of interest called. • Government / Regional Agencies: 4 members from NZ Transport Authority and Waikato

District Health Board, with agreed representation of two from Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, National Infrastructure Unit, Ministry of Social Development, Te Puni Kokiri, Education and any others.

• Independent Chair: It is proposed an independent chair be either appointed from the business / community members or as a separate appointment outside of any committee membership. It is likely that the role will be an executive type chair.

The Draft Waikato Plan and summary document were approved for consultation. The consultation period has now closed and the hearing of feedback is scheduled for Friday 21 April 2017. The Mayor will be speaking in support of the Council submission at the hearing. Budget Implications The Council’s contribution to the implementation of the Waikato Plan is $16,810 for the 2017/18 year which is 4% of the total implementation budget totalling $466,672. The first year of implementation is fully funded by local government, but it is expected that by 2019/2020 only 50% of the yearly budget will be funded by local government. The draft Implementation support budget for the Waikato Plan is attached as Appendix A. The Council’s contribution to implementation for the 2017/18 year will be met from existing budgets and any decision to fund the implementation of the Waikato Plan after that will form part of the 2018-28 long term planning process. Conclusion The information provided on the draft Waikato Plan is for the information of the Council. Charan Mischewski Policy Analyst


Section 1

WAIKATO PLANDRAFT Implementation Support Budget 2017/18 - 2019/20

Budget

Joint Committee Renumeration (incl Independent Chair) 66,667 80,000 80,000

Support for Iwi engagement - including setting up an Iwi/Maori Forum 33,334 40,000 40,000

Implementation Advice 125,000 150,000 150,000

Senior Technical Support 58,334 70,000 70,000

Development of an Implementation Plan 12,500 10,000

Implementation of the 10 Priority Actions 62,500 50,000 50,000

Aligned Planning Priority - continued implementation of this project 8,334 5,000

Other implementation actions 29,167 30,000 25,000

Submissions / input into national approaches or documents 12,500 15,000 15,000

Alignment with Waikato Means Business 4,167 5,000

Monitoring and reporting (annual report on progress) 8,334 10,000 10,000

Branding/Website maintenance 16,667 20,000 20,000

Project comms and engagement 8,334 10,000 10,000

Contingency 20,834 25,000 25,000

Total Project Expenditure 466,672 520,000 495,000

Revenue Contributions2 3 4

Hamilton City Council5

99,124 21%

Hauraki District 16,810 4%

Matamata-Piako District 35,873 8%

Otorohanga 11,213 2%

South Waikato District 17,445 4%

Taupo District 0 0%

Waikato District 66,100 14%

Waikato Regional Council 168,190 36%

Waipa District 44,017 9%

Waitomo District 7,901 2%

Total Funding Contributions 466,672 - 100%

Notes 1. 2017/18 budget is for a period of 10 months as implementation will begin once the Waikato Plan is adopted.

2. 2017/18 calculation based on current fundng formulas. These will need to be revisited.

3. 2018/19 funding will be 75% Local Government contribution, 25% external

4. 2019/20 funding will be 50% Local Government contribution, 50% external

5. The funding contribution of Hamilton City Council includes $58,000 (Yr 1, 70k pa Yr2 onwards) of senior technical support as included in budget above.

As a result HCC cash contribution will be the full contribution shown less the cost of the senior technical support HCC will pay directly themselves.

The budget and funding contributions do not anticipate any internal resources or 'in kind' contributions from any of the other Waikato Plan partners.

6. Any external funding received will be used in the first instance to reduce the WRC contribution reflecting that WRC is currently funding some of the implementation

actions in the Waikato Plan eg. WMB, Waters Centre of Excellence.

7. Taupo District Council wishes to abstain from contributing to the implementation phase. The Chief Executive's forum on 24 March 2017 have agreed to meet

Taupo's allocation on a pro-rata basis through a reallocation of contributions between the remaining Councils in proportion to their original percentage allocation.

Proposed Budget

2017/181

Proposed Budget

2018/19

Proposed Budget

2019/20


carol

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX A

WAIKATO PLAN JOINT COMMITTEE Minutes of the Waikato Plan Joint Committee of the Waikato Regional Council held in the Council Chamber, Waikato Regional Council Office, 401 Grey Street Hamilton East at 9.30 am on 27 February 2017.

PRESENT: Ten (10) local government members from the following constituent local

authorities within the Waikato region. Chairperson: M Devlin Waikato Regional Council: Chair A Livingston Hamilton City Council: Mayor A King, Cr M Gallagher Hauraki District Council: Mayor J Tregidga Matamata District Council: Mayor J Barnes Otorohanga District Council: Mayor M Baxter Taupō District Council: Cr A Park Waikato District Council: Mayor A Sanson Waipa District Council: Mayor J Mylchreest, Cr C St Pierre Waitomo District Council: Mayor B Hanna Non‐local government members: B Gatenby, M Ingle OBSERVERS New Zealand Transport Agency, P McLean District Health Board, B Simcock National Infrastructure Unit, R Ward ADVISORS/STAFF:

K Tremaine (Project Advisor), B Wasley (Governance Advisor), R McMillan (Project Team), B Bowcott (Chief Executive, Hamilton City Council), D McLeod (Chief Executive, Matamata Piako District Council), N Baker (Matamata Piako District Council), N Carroll (Taupō District Council), G Ion (Chief Executive, Waikato District Council), V Payne (Chief Executive, Waikato Regional Council), Stephen Ward (Communications, Waikato Regional Council), M Ahipene, T Deane (Democracy Services, Waikato Regional Council), G Dyet (Chief Executive, Waipa District Council), C Ryan (Chief Executive, Waitomo District Council)

APOLOGIES: South Waikato District Council – Mayor J Shattock Non‐local Government Member – S Wilson

Accepted The Chair formally received the resignation of Michael Spaans, and acknowledged Michael’s contribution. She also extended the committee’s best wishes for a speedy recovery.

Confirmation of Agenda WPJC17/1 RESOLVED

THAT the agenda of the Waikato Plan Joint Committee of 27 February 2017 be confirmed as the business for the meeting.

Mayor Mylchreest moved/ Mayor Barnes seconded

The motion was put and carried (WPJC17/1)


carol

Typewritten Text

APPENDIX B

Report of Waikato Plan Joint Committee Meeting – 27 February 2017 2

Confirmation of Minutes 20 June 2016 File: 03 04 32 Doc # 8793442

The Chair noted that the minutes of the meeting held on 20 June 2016 and the briefing held on 29 September 2016 had been circulated to members. The minutes of 20 June 2016 require amendment to the section “Welcome to the Waikato Iwi Trust Board Chairs” (Agenda item 4), to read as follows: “Gina Rangi, Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum”

This confirmation and amendment were noted.

Disclosures of Interest There were no disclosures of interest.

Waikato Plan Joint Committee Appointments File: 03 04 32 Doc # 9957802 (Agenda Item 1)

Presented by Bill Wasley, Governance Advisor. The report was supported by a PowerPoint presentation. (Doc # 10029826).

The Governance Advisor clarified that the existing Committee and today’s recommended appointments would continue until the plan is adopted. The implementation stage would be overseen by a new Committee with new representation.

There were no questions. WPJC17/2 RESOLVED

1. THAT the report “Waikato Plan Joint Committee Appointments” (Doc #9957802 dated 27 February 2017) be received; and

2. THAT the Waikato Plan Joint Committee: 1. Confirms the membership of the Waikato Plan Joint Committee as

shown in the report # 9957802 table. 2. Confirms that the independent member vacancy created through Mr

Spaans resignation not be filled. 3. That the contribution of Mr Spaans is acknowledged by the Joint

Committee and extends its best wishes to him in respect of his recovery.

4. Note the progress being made to appoint further tāngata whenua representation to the Waikato Plan Joint Committee.

Mayor Hanna moved/ Mayor Sanson seconded




Election of Deputy Chair File: 03 04 32 Doc # 9957802 (Agenda Item 2)

Presented by Bill Wasley, Governance Advisor.

The Governance Advisor asked the Committee to decide whether to appoint the Deputy Chair with System A or System B. There were no questions. System B was selected.

WPJC17/3 RESOLVED

1. THAT the Waikato Plan Joint Committee receive the “Election of Deputy Chair” report (Doc #9957802 dated 27 February 2017) and

2. THAT System B be adopted to elect a deputy chairperson

M Ingle moved/ Councillor Livingston seconded


The Governance Advisor confirmed that the previous Deputy was Mayor Jim Mylchreest and that Mayor Mylchreest had confirmed his availability to continue in the role.

WPJC17/4 RESOLVED

1. THAT Councillor Jim Mylchreest be elected as deputy chairperson of the Waikato Plan Joint Committee.

Mayor Barnes moved/ Chair Livingston seconded


Waikato Plan Bi‐Monthly Report File: 03 04 32 Doc # 9957802 (Agenda Item 3)

This report provided the Waikato Plan Joint Committee with an update on and sought input into key areas of the Waikato Plan project (presentation Doc #10029826). The linkages from the Waikato Plan to Waikato Means Business and the work of the project team on engaging with Iwi to date were outlined. The team have met with Tainui Waka Alliance. Thanks was extended to Parekawhia McLean for her assistance with this process. The Project Team is working to receive input from the Tainui Waka Alliance as well as Hauraki and Tuwharetoa to formally critique the plan. The project team will meet with the Tainui Waka Alliance twice through the year and will then also request for representation on the implementation Joint Committee. The Committee discussed the following points on the bi‐monthly report:

Investment logic mapping was clarified as a business case methodology, set up by Treasury and adopted by New Zealand Transport Agency, for analysing problems.



A member noted that they had received feedback from business forums that there is confusion over the role of the Waikato Plan as opposed to Waikato Means Business. It was suggested that when presenting to the business forum there be a focus on the four well‐beings so that the business community note that the Waikato Plan is not just an economic development strategy but has a far broader mandate.

The Project team noted that there are up to six Iwi positions for the Implementation Joint Committee if required.

The Project Advisor stated that the project team drafted the Iwi section as a foundation for Iwi input. Blair Bowcott stated that Iwi are not bound to the consultation period and will have the opportunity to change the plan up to the final plan deadline.

WPJC17/5 RESOLVED

THAT the report “Waikato Plan Bi‐Monthly Report” (Doc # 9957802 dated 31 January 2017) be received for information.

M Ingle moved/Chair Livingston seconded


Approval to Consult – Draft Waikato Plan and Draft Summary Document File: 03 04 32 Doc # 9957802, 9959701 (Agenda Item 4)

This report provided the Committee with an overview of the draft Waikato Plan. The draft Plan has reached the point where it is important to receive feedback from parties outside of the plan process. It will be valuable to get public engagement at this point with the consultation process. The following matters were discussed:

A member noted that it is important to show in the documentation that we have done our best to include the public through strategic partnerships throughout the process to date. The Chair reminded the committee that a ‘bottom up’ evidence base was received over 18 months, and a ‘top down’ Karapiro Summit occurred where we agreed the priorities from that information. The Waikato Plan is a living, breathing document – over time the ‘evidence’ may change so it needs regular review, focus and adoption.

The Project team noted that the implementation budget is to cover governance, administration, reporting and monitoring. Individual actions will require their own funding.

The Project team noted that the Plan will be subject to an annual engagement forum with a three year review.

Taupō District Council requested amendment to Great Lake Taupō on the plan summary document map. This was noted and amended.

Mayor Tregidga congratulated the Project team on the plan. He noted that it would be important to communicate the scope and focus on the plan due to resource constraints during the consultation phase.

The risk of underfunding initiatives during implementation was raised and the need for funding for research and due diligence on projects. The project team will put some thought into this. The Chair agreed it would be good to have a threshold and it is worth considering.



It was noted that while Figure 1 described the relationship between Waikato Means Business and the Waikato Plan there was no mention in the diagram of Waikato Story although the heading referred to this. The project team will look into this.

It was noted that priority 4 was not consistent in the document.

Member Steven Wilson has sent through comments which are attached (Appendix 1) to these minutes for consideration.

A member asked whether the people story had been adequately framed. The project team replied that the section does adequately cover the people story.

A member asked what sort of feedback is being asked for on the plan. The project team is looking for feedback on all aspects of the plan.

A member noted that some of the projects call for funding beyond local government. It is important to capture education and health to show that the plan is broader than economic development. We need to be asking the right questions on these two points as there is a significant amount of work to be done around this which is not generally funded by local government. Pressure will then move to central government and funding will happen if the group asks the right questions to trigger the reaction in all appropriate agencies. This point was agreed.

WPJC17/6 RESOLVED

1. THAT the report “Approval to Consult – Draft Waikato Plan and Draft Summary Document” (Doc # 9957802 and 9959701 dated 26 January 2017) be received; and

2. THAT subject to any amendments, approves for consultation both the full draft Waikato Plan (attached to the Agenda as appendix 1) and the draft Summary of the Waikato Plan.

Mayor Mylchreest moved/Mayor Barnes seconded


The Chair took a moment to acknowledge the significance of this milestone.

The Proposed Consultation Process File: 03 04 32 # 9957802 (Agenda Item 5)

This report, presented by Project Advisor, Ken Tremaine, provided the Waikato Plan Joint Committee with an outline of the consultation process (Agenda pages 34‐35). Waikato Regional Council was acknowledged for supporting the Waikato Plan project team with democracy support and additional support during this phase of the plan development.

The following matters were discussed:

The Project team noted that Iwi engagement has been part of the entire process. There is documentation that clearly shows iwi inclusion throughout the process.

The Project team stated that it will note all those who were included in the consultation process and add others that are raised, such as Community Waikato, Waikato Environment Centre, Volunteering Waikato, the various networks, the gathering of Chairs, the CEO’s of philanthropic funders and others.



Taupō respectfully requested that deliberations not occur on a Tuesday. The Chair reiterated that the time frames and budgets are tight on this process and the team is reluctant to move the dates.

WPJC17/7 RESOLVED

1. THAT the report “The Proposed Consultation Process” (Doc # 9957802 dated 31 January 2017) be received; and

2. THAT the Committee approves consultation on the draft Waikato Plan and draft summary of the Plan under section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002; and

3. THAT the Committee agrees to the streamlined SCP consultation process as

outlined in section 5 of this report; and

4. THAT the Committee approves the consultation period under S83(1)(b)(iii) as 10 March to 10 April 2017, with verbal presentations from submitters to be heard by the Joint committee on 21 April 2017 (and on a further provisional date of 11 May 2017 if required); and

5. THAT the Committee approves the date for deliberations (30 May 2017) and

plan approval (19 June 2017).

Mayor Sanson moved/ B Gatenby seconded


Proposed Waikato Plan Implementation Arrangements: A Transitional Approach File: 03 04 32 Doc # 9957802 (Agenda Item 6)

This report, presented by the Governance Advisor (Bill Wasley), provided the Waikato Plan Joint Committee with the details of the implementation arrangements. A transitional approach to implementation was proposed. The Joint Committee is proposed to be reshaped for implementation. The proposal lays a foundation, for Waikato Means Business and Future Proof to join in the future. It also allows for local government, business, iwi, central government and regional agencies. The Governance Advisor noted that the Mayoral Forum meeting discussed the Implementation Joint Committee membership. The Mayoral Forum supported a resolution recommending to the Joint Committee that the number of local government representatives on the Implementation Joint Committee be reduced to five (5) and will be based on sub‐regional groupings.

The following matters were discussed:

A member asked whether the Mayoral Forum has a view as to whether the local government members should be Mayors? The Governance Advisor confirmed that the local government membership was not restricted to Mayors. This was a matter for the Mayoral Forum.

Concern was raised that the plan is not left behind with a reduction in local government membership. The Governance Advisor stated that reporting mechanisms will be the key to success so that all partners are communicated



with and involved. An elected member representing a group of councils must report back through the Mayoral Forum.

There was a wide ranging discussion on whether the structure of governance group as opposed to a working group was best for maintaining momentum during implementation. A member raised a point of view that Mayors should be in the governance group and not involved in implementation. The Governance Advisor said the implementation group will be high level, and the CE and Technical Advisory group would deal with the detail. It must have good mechanisms as part of the plan: monitoring, reviewing and report back to the Mayoral Forum.

Mayor Barnes stated that the Mayoral Forum was keen to include Thames Coromandel District Council. South Waikato District Council was encouraged to come along or at least send their alternate. This was reiterated for all members. Taupō and Matamata Piako had offered venues for sub‐regional meetings. From today they will be invited to the next stage of the process and will have the opportunity to reengage. The Project Advisor confirmed that they have been approached. Mayor Tregidga offered to talk with the Thames Coromandel Mayor as a number of Members felt sure they would want to be involved.

Mayor Sanson stated that the project deserves representation by Mayors – it must be kept at that level to give it the mana it deserves. He is happy with the current recommendations.

Mayor King asked that the recommendation be amended to specify “Mayor” as the representative. The need for this level to assist any processes was asserted, due to situations where changes were required at RMA and policy statement level.

There was confirmation of the need for iwi to be included on the Committee and the Project Advisor reiterated that Iwi will make appointments and are working through what their role could be and what skill sets the Plan needs that they can offer. They will come back with a proposition which they need some time to form.

Concerns were raised about the size of the Implementation Committee. The Governance Advisor reiterated that reporting mechanisms will be the key to success so that all partners are communicated with and involved.

A member raised the question about how delegation would work in the Implementation Committee. For example: if another Mayor is representing a group of councils, what decisions can be made? The Governance Advisor stated there are no protocols or terms of reference in place at this time. These could be developed, potentially in the Mayoral Forum. The group would be implementing a plan which had already been agreed, and would only have the power to recommend back to here. There would be clear action plans around budgets. Reporting will be important especially if a council is not directly represented in the Committee.

A member noted that the diagram on agenda page 41 should be amended with the name Community Funders Forum.

A member suggested that the CE forum could extend to include the four well beings with key representatives from business and community. The Project team stated that under Future Proof arrangements all CE’s of Future Proof Councils meet together as well as with tāngata whenua, New Zealand Transport Authority, etc for different purposes. They focus on key issues for key purposes.

A member noted that the Mayoral Forum was astute in recognising the Waikato Means Business Forum needed to be business lead with a focus on business development and attraction. They should remain focused separate from, but able to contribute to, Waikato Plan.



A member noted that there is confusion around Waikato Plan, Waikato Story,Waikato Means Business, and Agenda for Waikato. There is a possibility WaikatoMeans Business could narrow its focus and other aspects could be dealt with inthis group.

The Chair acknowledged that the proposed Implementation Joint Committee is a large group however as it is in transition it is unlikely to remain this size.

The Governance Advisor noted that once the plan has gone through submissions the final draft will come back to the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee will then recommend the plan for adoption back to the respective councils for ratification.

WPJC17/8 RESOLVED 1. THAT the report “Proposed Waikato Plan Implementation Arrangements: A

Transitional Approach” (Doc # 9957802 dated 26 January 2017) be received; and

2. THAT the Waikato Plan Joint Committee confirms the proposed implementationarrangements being Option 1 variation 2, and the chapter on implementationarrangements be included in the draft Waikato Plan that is to be notified forsubmissions; and

3. THAT there be reduced local government representation that reflects sharedresponsibility for implementation; by way of

4. FIVE (5) Local Government representatives as agreed by the Mayoral Forum asfollows: One (1) Waikato Regional Council representative, One (1) Hamilton CityCouncil representative, One (1) Future Proof Group, One (1) Eastern WaikatoGroup (Hauraki and Matamata Piako District Councils, and Thames CoromandelDistrict Council if it chooses in future to be involved), One (1) Southern WaikatoGroup (Waitomo, Otorohanga, South Waikato, and Taupō District Councils, andRotorua Lakes Council if it chooses in future to be involved); and

5. THAT a meeting be arranged of relevant government agencies to discuss andagree representation of the Joint Committee and how those representatives willengage across agencies, to provide joined up input; and

6. THAT the general approach to collaboration and implementation; protocols foradvocacy, communication and co‐ordination; assumptions and principlesregarding implementation arrangements be confirmed; and

7. THAT formal reporting on plan implementation occur on a 4‐6 monthly basis topartners, mayoral Forum and other entities as agreed, against plan KPI’s; and

8. TO note that the Waikato Means Business executive has joined the Waikato PlanCE Steering Group.

Mayor Mylchreest moved/Mayor Barnes seconded


Meeting closed at 11.06 am

Doc #10021192


MEMO TO: Margaret Devlin, Chair, Joint Committee – Waikato Plan

COPIED TO: Ken Tremaine, Bill Wasley, Tracey Deane

FROM: Steven Wilson

SUBJECT: Comment on Joint Committee – Waikato Plan Agenda

DATE: 27 February, 2017

1. BACKGROUND

I am unavailable for the Joint Committee meeting on Monday, 27 February, 2017. Please tender my apologies and table the comments below for the Joint Committee’s consideration.

2. COMMENT ON AGENDA

AGENDA ITEM COMMENT

Minutes of 20 June, 2016 No comments

Minutes of 29 September, 2016

No comment

Waikato Plan Joint Committee Appointments

I hope that this meeting sees the confirmation of iwi mandated appointments to the Joint Committee. If not, I request that Waikato Regional Council, through Tai Ranga Whenua, prioritise this process.

Election of Deputy Chair No comment as I will not be in attendance.

Waikato Plan Bimonthly Report

(f) Iwi engagement: Beyond making some recommendations for process I have not been involved in anyway in iwi engagement. I do hope that the frustration that Hauraki and Tūwharetoa expressed in June, 2016 has been addressed.

Approval to consult – draft Waikato plan and draft consultation document

No comment

The Proposed Consultation Process

Number 5, 8 notes: “Established local government Iwi reference groups or committees receive presentations on the Plan from their local councils, and submission advice is provided to these representatives.”

I would appreciate the minutes recording that each council commits to fully engaging with iwi/mana whenua within their region using, in the case of the five river iwi, the processes established under Joint Management Agreements. I also suggest that councils without such agreements are encouraged to ensure their consultation and engagement proceses are best practice.

Proposed Waikato Plan Implementation Arrangement: A Transitional Approach

1. (p.39 of Agenda, item 4) Whilst agreeing in principle with voluntary andcollaborative partnership across all relevant sectors, some relevant and necessarycommunity and iwi organisations may struggle to participate in the implementationstructure without some form of financial support from better resourced partners. It

Appendix 1: Comment on joint Committee – Waikato Plan Agenda, from Steven Wilson


AGENDA ITEM COMMENT

would be a shame to miss the valuable input of some sectors of the Waikato community due to a lack of capacity to participate. I suggest this requires a case‐by‐case consideration.

2. Waikato Plan Steering Group – suggest that at least one Iwi and one Community Group CEO is a standing member of the Steering Group.

Draft Waikato Plan 1. Acknowledge the excellent work that has been done to date and suggested changes are minor in nature.

2. There needs to be a ‘macron’ check of Māori words in the Plan, including place names and ‘Māori’; also a consistent use of ‘Iwi/Māori’ vs. ‘Māori/Iwi’.

3. Suggest that a mihi be developed for the front of the Independent Chair’s foreword. 4. Given the importance of the plan, is one month enough time to provide feedback?

NOTE the extended period provided for Healthy Rivers Wai Ora feedback. 5. P.58 – the Vision and Strategy for the Waikato River prevails over any NPS and I

wonder if this has been placed accordingly within the diagramme in Figure 1? 6. P.64, Figure 6 – at first glance, it is unclear what the GDP per capita is from this

diagramme – the figure of $45k looks like it could be the average or the measure for the line at midway between ‘Min’ and ‘Average’. The figure seems to hang there without explanatory text.

7. P.71, Key action 8: note that the proposed action ‘increasing numbers of formal co‐governance and co‐management arrangements are agreed in the Waikato’ is an excellent action, but I suggest that there are more actions needed to achieve ‘enduring partnerships that enable Iwi/Māori aspirations to be achieved.’ This is also covered in Section 3 Iwi/Māori and I wonder if Key action 8 is, of the suite of actions suggested in Section 3, the critical action?

8. P.76 The ‘Key actions’ list is incomplete covering only Key focus area 1.1 & 1.2 – this persists throughout the document.

9. P.90, Action Table 1.5 – suggest a Key Partner (TBC) is also ‘Iwi/Māori’ – note, for example, waka ama at Karāpiro.

10. P91, Action 1.6.2 & .3 – excellent to see an issue translated into clear actions, in this case Māori and rural health.

11. P.94 – Focus 1.7 – given the commentary on Māori, Pacifica educational outcomes, should this be accompanied by an action similar to 1.6.2 (addressing Māori health inequalities)?

12. P.95 – while it is admirable to support the Waikato‐Tainui Education Plan, are there additional actions that could be taken? See comment above on p.94.

13. P.102, Key action 2.1.5 – amend ‘Mighty River Power’ to ‘Mercury Energy’ 14. P.111 – Waikato River Authority – if referring to Environmental Management Plans,

there are more than the Maniapoto EMP and so all should be referred to. 15. Additionally, the Maniapoto Environmental Plan is not listed in the references. 16. P.112 – 3.1.2 Key partners – Suggest removing ‘Ngā Karu Atua o te Waka’ as the

groups that make up this group are covered through ‘Iwi Trust Boards’ and Ngā Karu Atua o te Waka has been careful to avoid taking on a persona beyond a reference group for Future Proof.


of 6

Information Report


From: Transport Manager



Portfolio holder: Councillor Adams


Subject: Transport Report - March 2017 Recommendation: THAT the report be received.

1. Introduction This report provides the latest information on the Hauraki District Council’s Roading activities for the period ending 31 March 2017. 2. Discussion 2.1 Capital Projects 2.1.1 Key Capital Project Achievements Table 1 shows the progress on the main capital projects scheduled for the 2016/17 financial year. Table 1: Main Capital Projects

Project and Description Progress % complete Comments / explanations (if off track)

Reseal Contract 100% Completed

Area Wide Treatment – Pipiroa Rd, Plains 100%

Although complete, discussions are continuing with Opus and Downer to resolve the many issues that were identified during and post construction. The contract issues vary between Quality assurance, Project Management and unsatisfactory contract communications leading to substandard delivery of the project.


of 6

Area Wide Treatment – Hauraki Rd, Turua 45%

Design and Tender documents complete. The project has been delayed as the Consultant consistently did not meet delivery targets. This matter has been addressed. The design and tender documents were received late February and a decision was made not to proceed this construction season as, once tendered and awarded the we would have been a position of starting in May at the earliest which is not advisable. The work will be tendered in June / July with the intention of starting as soon as possible in the next construction season (typically from the 1st October 2017 forward).

Road Widening - Bradford St, Waihi 50%

Tender advertised and due to be awarded. The project will be partially weather dependent due the earthwork and seal pavement component and the physical work. Accordingly there will still be a risk of the project being deferred.

Tramline Rd Rehabilitation 100% Completed. Kaiaua Coastal Erosion Control 75% Tenders closed for evaluation. LED Streetlight Renewals Phase 1 100% Completed.

Torehape Rd West Slip 80% Construction work completed and road re-opened. Drainage pipes still to be installed.

Rahu Rd Embankment Failure 20%

Design work in progress and can only be advanced during the summer season when water levels are low. This would allow the earthworks and drainage facilities to be adequately constructed.

Waihi New Footpaths and Kerb & Channel 35% Design work being finalised. The project plan is to construct before the end of June 2017.

Pedestrian Crossings Improvements 60% Work 60% completed Waihi Main St Border Tiles 100% Completed

Silverton Rd Car Park Stage 2 0%

Work on hold pending the outcome of the one-way road decision. The discussions with NZTA are planned to commence during May 2017. Note: if NZTA agree to waive their requirement to remove the access to SH2 from Silverton Rd then this will reduce the required works.

Hopai West Bridge Repair 10%

The Investigations have been completed and a Professional Services brief will be developed to develop the design by May 2017. This will allow the a contract for construction to be tendered and awarded to start in October subject to suitable ground and weather conditions .

Progress Key: ..... = Off track / behind schedule / over budget ..... = Off track but will be back on track soon ..... = On track ... . = Completed


of 6

As can be seen from the Table 1 above, a number of projects are behind schedule. This is due to staffing issues within the Technical Services team. The issues are being addressed, however it is a slow process. A significant step forward will be the arrival of the new Transport Team Leader in June. 2.1.2 Key Capital Projects Planned for April 2017 The work scheduled for April 2017 is shown in Table 2 below. The capital programme for the financial year is shown in Appendix B attached. Table 2: Capital Work Programme for April 2017

Project Ward Comments

Kaiaua Erosion Control Plains The appointment of the Consultant is expected to be in place during April.

LED Streetlight Renewals Phase 2 District Design and tender

Torehape Rd West Slip Plains The final design details for the installation of the sub horizontal drainage pipes is being progressed under the guidance of consultants Tonkin and Taylor in early April

Rahu Rd Embankment Failure Paeroa Finalised design and investigations is progressing on site with the

appointed consultant Pinnacles Civil New Footpaths and Kerb & Channel Waihi Construction work to be completed for 2015/16 projects. Design of

2016/17 projects to be completed with construction to follow. 2.1.3 Key Issues and Risks The following major risks associated with the capital programme have been identified. Table 3 – Capital Programme Risks

Issue or Risk Budget implications Mitigation Measures

Failure of the Hopai West Bridge Major

The bridge structure has been protected by maximum speed limit restrictions and maximum load restrictions. There is also regular inspections to monitor key parts of the structure ensuring the site remains safe and functional

Gene Thomsen Transport Manager


of 6

Appendix A Capital Works Programme

Project July 2016

Aug 2016

Sep 2016

Oct 2016

Nov 2016

Dec 2016

Jan 2017

Feb 2017

March 2017

April 2017

May 2017

June 2017

Reseal

Contract

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Area Wide

Treatment –

Pipiroa Rd,

Plains

xxxx xxxx xxxx

Area Wide

Treatment –

Hauraki Rd,

Turua

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Road

Widening -

Bradford St,

Waihi

xxxx xxxx xxxx

Tramline Rd

Rehabilitation

xxxx xxxx xxxx

Kaiaua

Erosion

Control

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx


of 6

Corroded

NZTA Street

Light Poles

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

LED

Streetlight

Renewals

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Torehape Rd

West Slip

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Rahu Rd

Embankment

Failure

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Waihi New

Footpaths

and Kerb &

Channel

xxxx xxxx xxxx

Pedestrian

Crossings

Improvements

xxxx xxxx xxxx

Waihi Main St

Border Tiles

xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

Silverton Rd

Car Park

Stage 2

Hopai West

Bridge Repair


of 3

Information Report


From: Water Services Manager



Portfolio holder: Ross Harris


Subject: Water Services - Monthly Activity Report – March 2017


Summary This report summarises performance and issues in the Water Services work area. The body of the report refers to the March works.

WATER SUPPLY Operations Notebook

• Kaimanawa WTP – The intake boulder dam got washed away during the March storm event. Some residents had no water for 24 hours. Water was delivered to the affected residence.

• All plants – All treated water reservoirs fell below 50% during the storm event and the Paeroa and Waihi communities were requested to reduce water usage for two days.

• Kerepehi WTP – During and after the storm events the raw water Manganese levels rose to outside the treatment capabilities of the plant. The high manganese levels are also linked to low pH which further complicate the removal of the manganese. The installation of an on-line pH meter at the Waihou intake are being investigated.

• HAZSUBS, a health and safety service provider specialising in the chemical industry, have completed a successful audit to confirm compliance to the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act. Site certificates have been renewed for another year.


of 3

• WTP operators had site training on the UV/Peroxide at both plants. All the operators passed the exam.

Capital Works Karangahake/Mackaytown to Paeroa Connection: The commissioning of the new reticulation pumps have been completed. Mackaytown is now connected to the Paeroa water supply, Karangahake will be changed over in stages in April.

Paeroa / Waihi Taste and Odour

The project to install UV / Peroxide equipment to remove taste and odour issues in the treated water is complete. The installations have created lots of interest and have had site visits from DHB and other councils. Pipiroa Road Pipe renewal The installation of the pipe has been completed. Commissioning will proceed when the demand in the network slows down.

Reactive Renewals

No reactive renewals were carried out during the month.

April/May Planned Works

An update of the water safety plans for Paeroa and Waihi supplies will be progressed during the month. Feedback is awaited from the DHB. Design for the Waitakaruru sludge management and electrical upgrades will be progressed. The Karangahake connection to Paeroa supply will be done.


of 3

WASTEWATER Operations Notebook

• We experienced a rain event that caused problems at our treatment plants. Whiritoa waste water plant was inundated with stormwater when a stream at the northern end of the property burst its bank and filled both ponds. This required us to increase our discharge to the plantation for a period of time. All other treatment plants experienced a major increase in inflow and valuable storage and treatment capacity has been taken up. Most plants run at full capacity to reduce the waterlevels.

• Ngatea WWTP – The shaft at the step screen broke and has since been repaired. • Allied Faxi still have given no indication when they are likely to run the plant full time. • Moore Street and Waitete Road pump stations have had new telemetry installed.

Capital Works

Karagahake to Paeroa Sewer line The design of this line has been finalised. The pumpstation design is to be completed. Reactive Renewals

A replacement pump has been install at Junction Road – Septage station.

April/May Planned Works

Norwood Road pump station – The chamber lids at this pump station will be replaced with air tight safety lids. This will reduce possible odour problems and makes access to the chambers safer for the operators. EJ Wentzel Water Services Manager
