APOLOGIES
Mayor Basil Morrison, Barry Maughan, Doreen McLeod; Clare Mewse, Kathy Mason, Sel Baker, John McIver, Youth team.

OTHER ATTENDEES
Langley Cavers, Roger Pearce, Mike Hayden, Kit Wilson, Natalie Leach, Keith Brodie, Donna Fisher, Linda Willoughby, Malcolm Lane, Jason Sandford, Helen Stirling, Dennis Crequer, Pieter Fransen, Ian Verrall, Sharlene Van Leeuwen.

MEETING OPEN
Meeting opened at 7:15 pm.

1. Report back on presentation to HDC and NWG 24 June 2004.
The WCCC had not met since the presentation to HDC on 24 June 2004. While that was some time ago we spent a short period of time reviewing how that had gone and the feedback that had been received. It was agreed by all that the presentation and feedback were very positive. Examples of statements made were:

• Councillors were impressed. Comments were made that it was a slick and professional presentation. The ideas presented impressed Council. Councillors took on board what they saw.
• Response was that the presentation was stunning. Mayor Basil Morrison said it was the most positive presentation in his time as Mayor. His Worship commented if he had known what was to be presented, he might not have stood down as Mayor.
  

2. Council progress report – Langley Cavers.
Response to WCCC proposals:
Langley Cavers provided an interim report on the presentation and the process now being applied by HDC as it reviews the proposals made. His report is interim feedback as HDC will not have the opportunity to formally respond until the monthly Council meeting on 26 August.

Langley advised that the presentation on the 24 June 2004 was very enthusiastically received. He said it was not that often that such a strong positive reaction is given to a submission made to the Council. After the presentation Council formally resolved:

“THAT Council instruct the Chief Executive and his team to put together a proposal based on the opportunities that Council can determine from the group’s 2020 Vision and present a report to the August 2004 Ordinary meeting of Council”

Langley explained that Council officers are currently working on a proposal to take to the Council meeting on 26 August 2004. He acknowledged that the WCCC are probably champing at the bit to get works underway. He also noted that it is important now for both the WCCC group and the community to see some results for the considerable effort and sacrifice in terms of time and resources that has been put into the project so far.

Without pre-empting the final staff report for the Council meeting, or Council’s resolution, Langley indicated that Council will be positively endorsing the WCCC vision. However, he explained that the Council process will take time.

Langley said that in recognition of the desire of the WCCC to get underway, HDC have been working with Newmont to identify what projects or parts of projects could be implemented sooner rather than later. Newmont are more able to advance projects than Council is in short time frames as the company is not constrained by the same decision making processes as Council.

Community Outcomes
Langley explained the new requirements on Council under the Local Government Act 2002 which requires that Local Authorities (such as HDC) carry out a process to identify community outcomes for the intermediate and long term planning of its district.

He said that HDC have to do this every 6 years. The first process for determining these is about to start for inclusion in their long term planning document for the 2006 to 2016 planning period. While this sounds a long way out he said that HDC anticipate that the process of identifying community outcomes will take up to 12 months i.e. most of 2005.

Community Outcomes are the strategic priorities that the community has collectively identified and wants the Council, and other individuals and agencies, to actively pursue. “Other agencies” includes Central Government organisations.

The Act states that the outcomes should be in terms of the present and future:

• social,
• economic,
• environmental and
• cultural
• well-being of the community.

Langley explained that these community outcomes should be prioritised by the community if possible. He said that this is one area that HDC are likely to seek further information from the community about, possibly through this group, by asking the WCCC what it sees as its priorities.

Once the community outcomes have been identified the Council has to provide the scope to measure progress towards achieving community outcomes, and to also promote the better co-ordination and application of community resources to achieve them.

Decision Making
Langley also explained that another extremely important part of the Local Government Act 2002 relates to decision making by a Local Authority. The legislation has determined what is required for a Local Authority to be shown to be undertaking good decision making.
A Local Authority must, in the course of the decision making process, seek to identify all reasonable practicable options for achieving the objective of any particular decision.

It must assess these options by considering:

• The benefits and costs of each option in terms of the present and future social, economic, environmental and cultural well being – known as the 4 well-beings.
• How each option will meet the community outcomes that have been identified
• The impact the decision will have on the Local Authority’s capacity to meet the present and future needs of its community in relation to any statutory responsibility of the Local Authority.
  

The Council must also give consideration to the community’s views in relation to the decision that it might be making. For significant decisions the Council will need to seek the community’s views by way of a special consultative procedure.

Langley said, ‘you will appreciate that the above processes are going to take time’. However, as part of HDC staff reporting back to the Council on the Golden Legacy Vision, they will be identifying those things that the Council will be able to support immediately or undertake immediately. They will also be making recommendations on how they feel it best to be involved with the WCCC in establishing priorities and assessing the benefits and costs of the proposals in terms of the 4 well-beings.

Langley made the point that the Waihi Golden Legacy 2020 Vision is a long term community strategy for Waihi. In many ways the Council’s involvement will be in the more formal planning processes such as the District Plan and the Council’s Long Term Council Community Plan (LTCCP).

Risk assessment report update
In conclusion Langley gave an update on the risk assessment report. He said that the draft report will be presented to Council officers tomorrow. As he understands it the report concludes, as HDC have previously indicated, that the individual or societal risk for passive recreation use in the high or medium hazard zones, is within normally accepted limits.
This is important as it will allow, with appropriate risk management, access to the important areas around the pit such as the Pumphouse.
The risk assessment report has considered most of the proposals that have been included in the Golden Legacy Proposals.

Questions:
WCCC and the public were then given the opportunity to ask questions.

(i) Ian Verrall asked – ‘to what extent does Council accept that the proposals of the WCCC are relevant to their LTCCP’?

Langley said that the proposals are all in front of us and they are a good set of common outcomes. We have a duty to communicate with the community at large. We are fortunate we have got the information here from the WCCC, it doesn’t need to be found. We don’t need to re-explore unless a change in priorities is required.

(ii) Rod Lawrence asked, ‘is the Council happy with some of the proposals moving forward if they are paid for by other sources? Is the Council happy to have less control over those outcomes (the ones they aren’t directly involved in)? Who will be in control if there is conflict between proposals?

Langley said we need to get away from the idea that there is split between HDC and the community. HDC represents the community. There would be no issue if private investors were interested in initiatives, for example AJ Hackett and the bungy. The Council’s role would be to make sure that the proposed activity fits with the plan and meets Council’s required criteria. If a planning change is required, then a proposal would need to be made to make that change and allow the activity to take place. Council’s response will be clear after its meeting on 26 August 2004.

3. NWG Progress Report
Adriaan van Kersen provided an update on NWG’s response to the WCCC proposals including a progress report on the steps NWG has taken since the 24 June presentation to HDC and NWG. The report was illustrated by way of a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which can be collected at the next WCCC meeting.

Adrian explained that:

• Newmont want to demonstrate their commitment to Waihi’s 2020 vision in the short, medium and long term by
  • Appointing a Golden Legacy Manager.
    Adriaan announced that Keith Brodie has been appointed as Golden Legacy manager.
  • Initiating some projects ASAP:
    1. Moresby Avenue Carpark.
    2. Pit Rim Walkway.
    3. Pumphouse area – clearing / access.
    4. Clearing parts of Union Hill and mapping Waihi’s mining heritage.
    5. Initiating discussions re Pou Pou.
  • Being involved in a working party.
  • Supporting the formation of a tripartite working party with a view to:
    1. Scoping projects.
    2. Economic evaluation of projects.
    3. Exploring funding opportunities.
    4. Exploring legal entity (Trust?) viability.
    5. Investigating project management options.
    

Questions:
(i) Mike Hayden asked whether people were aware that LINZ had approached DOC over whether DOC was prepared to purchase and take over management of Union Hill.

A suggestion was made that we need to do a presentation to DOC to demonstrate that the ownership of Union Hill should be vested in an agency that supports the goals of the WCCC.

People are nervous about what LINZ may do with Union Hill if they are not aware of the WCCC perspective of what needs to happen.

4. WCCC thoughts on the HDC (interim) and NWG feedback.
The WCCC was asked about its thoughts on the response given by Hauraki District Council (via Langley) and NWG (via Adriaan). Comments were:

• Rod said it was exciting and positive.
• Ian Verrall said it is great to see something happening and to see that we have the support of HDC and NWG.
• Councillor Mike Hayden said it is fantastic that things are moving. It is great to be heading towards the Golden Legacy 2020 vision.
• Councillor Keith Trembath said so often HDC get hammered and are struggling to answer concerns and provide essential services. It was exciting and refreshing to receive such a positive presentation. We feel like we have made a large step ahead already. It is fantastic to be part of a team pulling together. He said, ‘together with God there is nothing we cannot do’. Keith said that there may be some issues to work through with elections coming up and new councillors being appointed. The WCCC presentation was huge. Keith says we will have positive support for the work of the WCCC as long as he is on Council.
  

Questions:
(i) Rod asked whether, in light of the steps being taken to put some short term initiatives into place, what will happen with proposals that are not so easily defined? Is there is a risk that they will not be included in specific action plans?

Adriaan said we need to get something in place and the more detailed projects can be considered in the medium term. Adriaan said that NWG’s purpose was to show progress right away, not to take over.

(ii) Tim asked if the plans are definitely going to be put into place.

Langley said, “Yes. Now that the proposals are before Council, there is an obligation on Council to make decisions about how to implement them, providing they are in accord with general policy”.

Langley said that this doesn’t just apply to Hauraki District Council but that Central Government departments also have an obligation to accept and act upon community initiatives in this way. Langley gave an example of the social development group’s proposals and the fact that government departments such as WINZ would also need to come to the table and address those collectively. Langley said that this statutory imperative to act is new for HDC.

(iii) The comment was made that in light of the imperatives on Local and Central Government to respond, it is important that everybody works in the same direction. There is the risk that there might be other submissions from those who have not been involved in the WCCC process who are either not aware of, or might be against, the recommendations made. It would be an impediment to the WCCC objectives if contrary or conflicting proposals were to compete with, rather than complement, the plans being developed by the WCCC. We need to make sure that we have got everyone on board.

(iv) Tessa asked about the idea of the tripartite working group. She queried where the proposal came from and how it would work in real terms. (This was discussed later in the agenda).

(v) Rex congratulated Mark and Kit. He said that 6 months ago he was feeling quite negative and wondered where WCCC were heading. He said:
“At the meeting tonight it is very clear that things are moving positively for the first time in 15 months. There appears to be a light at the end of the tunnel. It is great to be making a start on making things happen.”

(vi) Tui said that she takes great heart from the WCCC proposals being incorporated in Council community outcomes. She said that the WCCC faced lots of challenges: distrust of NWG for the first 5 or 6 months; issues between tangata whenua involvement and that of the community marae; challenges that came from those who sit in the anti-mining camp; and, the risk that the WCCC could became a talk fest with nothing coming out of it. Tui said that it was positive to see the progress made, and that a short term plan was a good interim answer. Tui also congratulated Kit and Mark for the work they have done with the presentations they have made. Tui said that she thought for a long time we were treading water but now it is obvious that significant progress has been made. Tui went on to say that people can’t believe how so many groups, with such divergent views, made it this far. “There were no black eyes”. We should congratulate ourselves collectively. She said, “It is heartening to hear the response from HDC and NWG.”

5. Update - what has happened since our last meeting (contributions from all).
(i) Sport and Recreation – the next stage. (Steve Moore):
Steve reported back on the meeting of sporting organisations held on 26 July 2004. The meeting was organised by Steve, Mark Samson, Julie Stephenson of Sport Waikato, and Tim and Sharon. The purpose of the meeting was to explore the possibility of a combined sporting facility for Waihi. Steve reported:

• There was a good turn out.
• The meeting started with the WCCC presentation which demonstrated some of the potential for the exercise and got people motivated and inspired to participate in a collective process.
• Sport Waikato also gave a presentation about combined sporting facilities.
• The meeting went on to discuss the problems that each of the sporting groups in the Waihi area were experiencing such as; low volunteer numbers; high demands for volunteer input and dropping levels of participation because of the number of sporting opportunities that are available for people today; and of course, finance and sponsorship.
• It was clear that very similar problems were facing most sporting groups.
• Sport Waikato made the point that if each sporting organisation requires 10 volunteers, it would require 250 volunteers to run the majority of the major sporting groups in Waihi. The idea of a combined sports facility creates an opportunity for sporting groups to work together and prevent duplication. The discussion then went on to look at issues and how to solve them.
• Sport Waikato talked about combined sporting facilities being developed in Te Awamutu and in Hamilton.
• Steve talked about the need for dominant sports to give away some of their power to make this happen but said that it would be in the long term interests of all the sporting groups, including those of the dominant sports.
• Two possibilities began to emerge from the discussions:
  • A collective face/single contact point for sports facilities in Waihi, where people could come and collect a key and make bookings etc. This would help to increase utilisation of facilities and take the pressure off volunteers by reducing duplication.
  • The development of a combined sports facility that catered for a wide range of sports and interests.
• The representatives of the various sporting codes that were at the meeting on 26 June decided to:
  • Go back to their sporting groups and talk to them to get a mandate to participate in the discussion process on a representative basis.
  • Meet again on 30 August 2004 to start looking at the possibilities.
• Mark Samson said he thought that because of the ability to demonstrate the benefits of the hard work already done by the WCCC, the meeting skipped through about 12 months of WCCC progress in half an hour. It was very heartening to see people like-minded and looking for progress.
• Donna Fisher said that she was surprised that the bigger clubs, who have their own facilities, could also see the advantages and were willing to be involved.

(ii) Social Impact (Collette Spalding)
Collette reported back on the social impact survey conducted over the last few months. Her summary of the results was:

• Of the surveys sent out or delivered 109 were returned. (It is uncertain how many were delivered).
• 7 people said that either they were comfortable, or there was an improvement in the effects of the mining.
• 14 refused to participate.
• 5 said that they had not been there long enough to be able to comment.
• Forty-eight people said that they had complained about the effects of mining at some time.
• Collette said that the main reasons that people said they had not complained before is that:
  • a few thought Council was going to prescribe what should happen;
  • people were unaware of the process by which they could complain.
• Collette said that they specifically surveyed houses around the pit area and the area expected to be affected by Favona.
• She and her team left survey forms with some, and stayed and filled out the forms with others.
• Collette said that there was scepticism regarding whether there would be an end to the mining and doubt as to whether the pit lake would be filled in the near future.

Question
Councillor Don Lockwood asked whether any of the participants in the survey had recently moved into Waihi, for example the immigrant from Mt Isa that had visited the museum recently.

Collette explained that the newcomers they had spoken to hadn’t looked into the question of the effects of the mine in any great detail. She said that there wasn’t a trend, that there were two newcomers on the same street with divergent views on the effects. One thought that the effects were significant and a problem and the other said that there was no issue.

(iii) Progress on the swimming pool proposal

(iv) .You will recall that at our meeting on 14 June, Sylvia and Colin Francis spoke about their interest in promoting the construction of a swimming complex in Waihi.

Because this was the first WCCC meeting since the idea was initially talked about, we put the matter on the agenda for discussion. Sylvia and Colin did not attend but Ollie Richardson, who had attended the public meeting about the swimming pool on 15 June, advised that the resolution of that meeting was to draft a letter to the HDC Works and Services committee. Ollie said the letter had been considered by that committee at its regular monthly meeting.

The decision by the Council was to further investigate the proposed swimming complex. Evidently Ngatea are also looking at the viability of a swimming pool complex. Council are going to look at what’s happening in Te Awamutu and Hamilton, two examples of similar developments.

(iv) Centenary of Pumphouse.
Clare Mewse had suggested that 2004 may be the 100 year anniversary of the Pumphouse. She said if that was so, it would be a great cause for celebration. Eric was asked if this was the case and he replied that there is documentation to show that construction of the Pumphouse occurred somewhere between 1903 and 1905. Eric suggested that depending on what exact progress point was being referred to, it was legitimate to state that the Pumphouse had been in existence for 100 years since 1904 or 1905.

We discussed the idea of having a centenary celebration for the Pumphouse. There was considerable support for the idea. People asked questions about whether opening up access and lighting the Pumphouse could be done in time for a centenary this year or early next year.

Further discussion is required on this point.

(v) New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Tim (in Clare’s absence) talked abut the great work that Clare had done in attracting the interest of Trade and Enterprise to the work done by the WCCC and to the potential of Waihi in general. Steve Tritt of the Waikato office had discussed possibilities with various parties in Waihi, including NWG. Clare and Steve told Tim that there were significant possibilities for Trade and Enterprise support of the WCCC ideas The way to access that support would be to make a proposal to the Hauraki Development Group.

6. Kit and Mark – feedback on presentations made
We asked Kit and Mark to talk about the groups to whom they had given the WCCC presentation. They said they had made presentations to:

• Waihi Connections group.
• Real estate agents in Waihi.
• The contractors group.
• Rotary
• Sporting groups
• Tourism Group
• HDC/ Newmont Waihi Gold
• Waihi Vol firemen

Mark also explained that, in the course of working with the presentation, they had decided it would be helpful to develop a new slide. This slide depicts a graph representing the economic benefits to Waihi of the WCCC proposals in terms of “Waihi Gross Town Product”.
(The WCCC acknowledged the benefit of having the type of explanation that was afforded by the slide, especially when it came down to considering the proposals in economic terms.)

7. Proposal Booklets at Golden Legacy Centre?
We discussed whether it was a good idea to make the WCCC proposal booklets available to the general public.

• You, as WCCC committee and supporters, agreed that it was a good idea to have some form of documentation available so that potential investors, members of the community and other interested parties could have access to the work that has been already done.
• We discussed what type of information should be supplied. It was decided not to simply circulate the booklet that is currently in existence.
• A decision was made that Mark and Kit would develop a specially designed booklet that would incorporate the descriptions of the proposals with the various slides, on the same page.
• Tessa asked whether she could have input into the words used to describe the social development proposals from her perspective. The general reply was given that it would be helpful for all interest groups to have input into the words that are put around the description and encapsulated in the slides that relate to their proposals.
• It would be beneficial to have copies available at the Golden Legacy Centre, the Museum, the Information Centre, and Schools.
• The comment was made that it would be helpful if the booklet was dated and contained a statement that it is a work in progress as opposed to a finished product.
• We agreed that it would be better if the focus was more eye-catching i.e. less text/more graphics.
• It was suggested that the booklet contain contact details for the WCCC and perhaps the coordinators of the various WCCC interest groups.
• We agreed that Mark and Kit will produce a mock up of the new booklet by the next WCCC meeting on 13 September 2004.
• Mark and Kit are keen to receive suggestions for wording of the text to go with the various pictures/slides that represent the proposals.

8. What future shape of the WCCC?
We talked briefly about the future shape of the WCCC. This is a subject that we will need to revisit at our next meeting. The outline of the discussion was that:

• Tessa asked why a tripartite working group was being considered, not a separate Trust. (Tessa meant a Trust set up by the WCCC to work alongside Hauraki District Council and NWG.)
• Tessa made the point that the community will continue to be here long after mining and it will be useful to establish an independent body to allow continuation of care for the WCCC initiatives by a community based Trust.
• Comment was made that it was anticipated a tripartite working group would prioritise proposals; initiate feasibility studies; initiate the employment of a project manager; seek funding; consider what mechanism the future of the WCCC proposals would be best moved forward under.
• It was expressed that a Trust or a working group would need to incorporate skills and a mechanism for making progress and getting to where we (the WCCC) need to go.
• The advantages of a focussed working group were suggested as being a smaller group that is able to:
  • Undertake specific tasks on behalf of the WCCC.
  • Progress matters faster/more efficiently.
  • Meet more regularly.
  • Report back to the WCCC.
• Adriaan said that he agrees that NWG needs to work with the community. At this stage he believes the WCCC needs to work through some options. He says that we need to work out how to get to the point where a Trust is a viable option and what shape and purpose that Trust would take.
• We then had a wide ranging discussion about the potential role of the proposed working group. We talked about equality between HDC, NWG and the general community; the nature of the entity; the relationship between the three parties in the proposed tripartite working group; the process of packaging (putting proposals together to target funding to the appropriate agencies); and the prioritising of proposals.
• It was suggested that we think about this matter some more and bring our ideas to next meeting of the WCCC.

9. Public meeting
We discussed whether it is time to hold a public meeting. It was unanimously agreed that we should. We agreed that timing-wise it would be better to hold the meeting after the final HDC decision on 26 August 2004.

We set the date of the meeting as Monday 4 October 2004 (venue and time to be advised).

10. Next Meeting
The next WCCC meeting was set for 13 September 2004.

Meeting closed at 9:45 pm

Tim and Sharon