Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

19 May 2020

10.1 Request for public-initiated referendum

File Number: A11478574

Author: Nick Swallow, Manager: Legal & Commercial

Authoriser: Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To decide on the request from a number of ratepayer groups to hold a referendum on certain questions relating to the Annual Plan process, rates levels and kerbside collection proposal.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives this report Request for public-initiated referendum; and

(b) Declines the proposal for a public-initiated referendum on the basis that this gives rise to significant legal and timing issues around adopting an annual plan, and is unnecessary given legislative consultation obligations Council is required to follow.

Executive Summary

2. A request for a referendum (Attachment A) has been made by seven rate-payer groups (the Requesting Groups):

· Citizens Advocacy Tauranga.

· Tauranga Ratepayers Action Network.

· Te Papa Residents Group.

· Greerton Ratepayer Alliance.

· Mount Residents/Ratepayers Association.

· Papamoa Residents/Ratepayers Association.

· Welcome Bay Rating Advocates.

3. The Requesting Groups seek a referendum on five questions (the Five Questions):

(a) Do you agree with Council’s Policy Committee’s decision to recommend an average residential rates increase of 7.6%? Yes / No.

(b) Do you want the average annual residential rate increase, including the 2020/2021 year, to be ZERO%, particularly due to the severe financial hardship caused by Covid-19? Yes/No.

(d) Do you consider the Council’s compulsory kerbside rubbish collection proposal at $400+ GST per annum is unnecessary, too expensive and should be abandoned? Yes/No

(e) Do you require Council to reduce operating expenditure, including inter alia: a reduction of staff and consultant costs, to defer all capital expenditure for 2020/2021 year? Yes/No.

4. The process to manage public-initiated referenda requests is contained in Council’s Referenda Policy (Attachment B). In summary, the steps are:

(a) Council decides at its discretion whether or not to approve the proposed referendum.

(b) If Council approves this, it decides on the wording of the petition as finalised.

(c) The requestor then has up to 90 days to present a valid petition (including with the signatures of 5% of eligible voters) to Council.

(d) If a valid petition is received, Council will hold the referendum. Please note that a public-initiated referendum is not binding on Council.

5. The Council also has a general discretion to determine to hold a referendum. Since no petition is required for a Council-initiated referendum (i.e. it reduces timing issues to a degree), this option is considered in the body of this report.

6. A referendum is not recommended. There are four overlapping considerations why:

(a) A referendum process initiated now would have significant timing implications on the legislative requirements for the delivery of the annual plan and the need to strike rates. A public-initiated referendum would represent a delay of up to four months depending on the time to obtain a petition. A council-initiated referendum would lead to a delay of six to seven weeks.

(b) A referendum cannot supplant the consultation and decision-making process which is required under legislation. Even were a referendum available in a timely way, decision-makers would still be required to keep an open mind to consider submissions and other financial and legislative considerations.

(c) Given that most of the Five Questions are closely linked to core aspects of the Annual Plan – rates and expenditure issues - this raises whether there is any value in holding a referendum, particularly given the cost and timing issues.

(d) There is also a question around whether a referendum, with its “yes / no” questions, is a good fit for annual plan consultation and deliberations which requires assessment of the inter-related community preferences for services levels and the rates levels.

7. A letter outlining costs and timing for a referendum from Warwick Lampp, Council’s electoral officer, is included as Attachment C.

Background

8. Annual plans are required to follow the consultation and decision-making requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). This contains specific requirements around the format and method to consult on annual plans (s 95A). The LGA also requires the views received from the public to be considered with an open mind and for those views to be given due consideration (s 82). An annual plan is also required to be adopted before the commencement of the year to which it relates.

9. At the time of writing, the consultation on Tauranga City Council’s draft 2020/2021 Annual Plan (Draft Annual Plan) has concluded and the hearings and deliberations are on hold owing to the altered financial outlook following COVID-19.

10. The Draft Annual Plan was resolved for public consultation on 24 March 2020, and this included an average annual rates increase of 7.6%.

11. Since the 24 March 2020 Council meeting, the likely financial implications of COVID-19 have increased significantly. Work continues on whether Council needs to reconsider the Draft Annual Plan (refer to Council report “Draft Annual Plan – COVID19 Update” presented to Council on 21 April 2020).

12. Any rethink of the Draft Annual Plan because of COVID-19 will be assessed against the consultation requirements in the LGA but a substantive change would require further consultation.

13. Against this background, there are several considerations when assessing the request.

Timing implications

14. Under the Referenda Policy, a public-initiated referendum will need to allow for the 90-day timeframe to get a petition signed. This may be shorter if signatures can be gathered sooner by the Requesting Groups. It also needs to allow for the referendum process itself, which is approximately six or seven weeks (see below).

15. While Council may not be in a position to adopt this year’s annual plan ahead of the required date of 30 June 2020, Council will seek to adopt as soon as possible after this to enable certainty of planning and delivery, and to allow rates to be struck.

16. Allowing for a public-initiated referendum timeframe would lead to a significant delay. Although a Council-initiated referendum (discussed further below) has less delay, it is still problematic in terms of the legislative requirements noted above.

17. As such, the decision to approve the referendum will need to consider the merits of the request against the possible delay of up to approximately four months, and the other points noted above.

Other legal considerations

18. Apart from timing issues, there are other legal considerations around how to factor in a referendum.

19. The LGA process would still need to be followed, and this would mean there remains the need to weigh up the views of submitters with an open mind. Hearings and deliberations still need to be held.

20. The fact any referendum could only ever be one factor to consider alongside other matters, calls into question the value of this.

Overlap with existing consultation requirements

21. Because of the consultation requirements noted above, the public is entitled to raise a large range of issues. Some of the Five Questions are directly on matters the public has already been asked for feedback on, including the average rates rise percentage.

22. Two of the Five Questions have points worth noting:

(a) In terms of the question around an average annual rates rise of zero percent, if Council was minded to act on this after a referendum, it would trigger further consultation requirements given the extent of the change from the Draft Annual Plan.

(b) In terms of the kerbside collection process, the targeted rate that would be applied once the service is implemented is not included in the 2020 / 2021 Draft Annual Plan. However, the 2020 / 2021 draft Annual Plan has some capital and operational expenditure around, respectively, purchasing of the receptacles (bins/caddies) and setting up the services. It is likely, given the delays COVID has caused, that these will be pushed out to the 2021 / 2022 financial year. Given this, the public has already had a chance to submit on the matter to the extent it is included in the Draft Annual Plan, and will have further opportunity to have a say in future.

23. In addition, Council is already considering potential reviews of capital and operational expenditure.^{^[1]} This will feed into reconsideration of the Draft Annual Plan which in turn may trigger the need for further consultation, assuming the changes are substantive.

24. The duplication between the Five Questions sought to be asked and the current and future consultation requirements is a matter weighing against agreeing to a referendum.

Consultation principles

25. The LGA requirements for consulting on annual plans enable consideration of both the services the community seeks, and also the appropriate rating level to deliver this. These two aspects are inter-related and are complicated matters weigh up.

26. By contrast, a referendum necessarily needs to ask yes / no questions. These do not lend themselves to assessing the complicated balance between services and rates. They are also of limited value to a decision-maker, because only half the picture is present.

27. Assessing core annual plan matters via a referendum again calls into question the value of using a referendum.

Potential for a Council-initiated referendum

28. As noted, the Council can initiate a referendum at any time and there is no petition requirement for this. As such, the timing issues set out above are less problematic. However, the delay in holding the referendum itself, and the other points noted above, means this is not recommended.

29. If the Council were inclined to exercise its discretion to hold a referendum, it is suggested that this issue be work-shopped to enable questions to be developed that add value over and above existing and future consultation.

A note on costs

30. Staff have asked Warwick Lampp, Council’s electoral officer, to estimate the costs of holding a referendum. His response on this is Attachment C. The costs are in the order of $190,000 to $210,000.

31. You will see that the letter sets out the recommended timeframe to hold the referendum, which is some six to seven weeks.

32. Under the Referenda Policy all costs associated with the petition, including its validation by the Electoral Officer, fall on the Requesting Groups. Staff will advise them of the validation costs if the decision is to agree to the referendum proceeding to petition phase.

Options Analysis

Option 1 – Decline the public-initiated referendum

33. Under Option 1 the Council declines to accept the public-initiated referendum. This is provided for in the Referenda Policy as the Council has the discretion to accept or decline a public-initiated referendum.

34. The pros of this option are avoiding additional delay to the annual plan, avoiding duplication of existing consultation and public feedback and avoiding unbudgeted costs. The cons of this option are not having additional information on the specific questions sought by the Requesting Groups to guide decisions on the annual plan.

Option 2 – Agree to the public-initiated referendum

35. Under this option the Council would agree to the request to hold a public-initiated referendum. The pros of this option are that the council would have the additional information on the specific questions sought to guide decisions on the annual plan. The cons of this option are the significant delay to adopting the annual plan, duplication of the existing consultation process and unbudgeted costs.

36. In agreeing to this option the council would undertake the following steps:

· Council approves the proposal for a referendum and the unbudgeted expenditure (conditional on the petition being validated).

· The wording of the petition is determined.

· The proposer presents the completed petition to Council.

· The Electoral Officer validates the petition.

· The wording of the referendum question(s) is determined by Council.

· The referendum then takes place and voting documents are sent to electors.

· The referendum results are provided to the Council to consider when making decisions about the annual plan.

Strategic / Statutory Context

37. The strategic context is noted above. In addition to the LGA provisions noted above, the Local Electoral Act 2001 contains the authority allowing for councils to hold referenda (s 9) along with requirements for how to do this. These will be adhered to if the decision is to proceed.

Financial Considerations

38. The costs of holding a referendum are between $190,000 to $210,000. The costs of a petition to obtain 5% of eligible voters and to have the petition verified by the electoral officer has not been established but can be obtained. Under the Referenda Policy this cost would be met by the organisations proposing the referendum or the Council could resolve to meet this cost.

Legal Implications / Risks

39. Noted above.

Consultation / Engagement

40. Not applicable, but consultation issues are central to this report.

Significance

41. This matter relates to a referendum, and so is a mechanism to understand public views and opinion. This report and decision does not require prior engagement with the public, as such, and is of low significance in accordance with the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

42. Depending on which option is chosen will influence the next steps. If Option 2 is chosen, the wording of the petition or referendum needs to be finalised along with information to go out with the voting documents. A petition of 5% of voters will be required under Option 2. The referendum process would proceed in accordance with the Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Referenda Policy.

Attachments

1. Attachment A - Request for referendum - A11494397 ⇩

2. Attachment B - TCC Referenda Policy - A11494400 ⇩

3. Attachment C - Lampp Referendum Proposal 2020 - A11494399 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

19 May 2020

10.3 Proposed Elizabeth Street Upgrade

File Number: A11458493

Author: Ana Hancock, Urban Spaces Project Lead

Doug Spittle, Team Leader: Urban Spaces

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To report on the community engagement outcomes for the proposed Elizabeth Street upgrade.

2. To approve the scope of works required for the Elizabeth Street Upgrade Project.

3. To approve the required budget for inclusion in the 2020/2021 Annual Plan.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the attached reports summarising the community feedback received during public consultation in March 2020.

(b) Approve Option B – Comprehensive streetscape upgrade with potential for future staging options, to proceed to detailed design for the Elizabeth Street Upgrade Project.

(c) Approve an additional $7,420,000 to be brought forward into the 2020/2021 Annual Plan to enable completion of the Elizabeth Street Upgrade Project.

Executive Summary

4. The Elizabeth Street Upgrade Project is a prioritised City Centre Spatial Framework project that supports a long-term vision for the CBD and complements significant developments including the refurbishment of Regional House, and the Farmers development currently under construction.

5. The concept of a linear park remains the foundation stone for the project, based on the design logic and community engagement undertaken to date. The preferred option has been developed as a reduced scope of works which still provides the potential for the linear park concept to be realised in the future.

6. Project objectives adopted by Council focus on improving the quality of the streets and public spaces, providing safe and accessible slow speed environments, and creating vibrant streets and public places. All three options being presented to Council aim to achieve these project objectives, just to varying extents.

7. Across all options considered, water and wastewater renewal and upgrades are required, along with stormwater improvements.

8. Recent community engagement identified support for a streetscape upgrade occurring on Elizabeth Street and associated improvements to Devonport Road and First Avenue. In terms of the scale of this work, the majority of engagement supported Option B, the ‘do more’ option.

9. Option B is recommended to progress to the next stage of design and will result in significant safety and amenity improvements on Elizabeth Street, with improvements on First Avenue and Devonport Road and an upgrade of the laneway between Elizabeth Street and First Avenue. This option has the highest amount of support from the community (in general), key stakeholders and existing city centre residents. It also best meets the project objectives out of the two options consulted on and if more funding was available in the future, Option B could easily be extended into the Linear Park concept.

10. Following Council approval of an agreed design concept and associated budget, this will proceed to detailed design. The procurement process will commence and will be coordinated with the infrastructure renewals project and Farmers development. Council will continue to work closely with affected businesses throughout the next phase of this project.

Background

Elizabeth Street Upgrade Project

11. The Elizabeth Street Upgrade Project is a prioritised City Centre Spatial Framework project that supports wider city centre objectives. It complements significant developments recently completed and underway including refurbishment of Regional House, and the Farmers development estimated to open in April 2021.

12. The concept of a full linear park upgrade for the length of Elizabeth Street was developed through the initial concept design phase in 2018. Progressing this design was paused for close to a year in 2018–2019, through the time of Council restructuring. In August 2019, Council requested the development of scope and staging options so that delivery of the project could be better aligned to the Farmers opening date.

13. In order to better align with the Farmers opening date, the project team refocused the scope of the upgrade to the area immediately around Farmers. Options prepared in late 2019/early 2020 were considered as a potential first stage to the 2018 linear park concept design. Three options were presented to the Projects, Services and Operations Committee (PSOC) meeting on 18 February 2020. At that time, the ‘roundabouts intersections’ option was put forward as the preferred option.

14. As greater understanding of Councils financial situation was unfolding, and in response to comments made by Councillors at the 18 Feb 2020 meeting, the scope was further reduced, with two options (Options A and B) consulted on with the community. The key scope reductions were removal of intersection upgrades to Elizabeth/Devonport and Devonport/First Ave, and amenity improvements to Devonport Road and First Ave. The concept of the linear park remains the foundation stone for the project, based on the design logic and community engagement undertaken to date. The reduced spatial extent of the works’ scope therefore still accounts for the potential for the linear park concept to be realised in the future.

15. Three options are being presented in this report for Council’s consideration and are provided in Attachment 1. Option B best functions as stage 1 of a longer term linear park design, with a minimal write-off of improvements undertaken in the short term and meeting the project objectives to a high standard (see paragraph 17 below). Option A mostly meets the project objectives, creating a green pedestrian focused section of Elizabeth Street, however the geometries of this option are not in line with the rest of the linear park concept.

16. Following public consultation, and with uncertainties around the financial impact of Covid-19, the project team prepared Option C. Identical to Options A and B with regard to treatment of Devonport Road, First Ave and the Laneway, but with only minor improvements to Elizabeth Street.

17. The Elizabeth Street Upgrade Project objectives adopted by PSOC on 18 February 2020 include:

· Create vibrant streets and public places where people want to live, work and play, and businesses want to invest.

· The quality of the streets and public spaces provides comparable quality to new development (e.g. Regional House and Farmers developments).

· The Elizabeth Street upgrade contributes to the ‘green necklace’ of connected high amenity walkways around the city centre.

· Provide a safe and accessible slow speed environment that prioritises pedestrian access and connection.

· Public spaces reflect local identity and values.

18. These objectives are set in the context of the Farmers development being the most significant CBD development seen to date, and likely to be seen for a generation. An assessment of the three options against these objectives is included in Attachment 2

Alignment with other projects

19. Underground services

Wastewater upgrades on Elizabeth Street, Devonport Road and First Ave are required as the pipes have met the end of their life and need to be upgraded to support future population growth. Water renewals are also required on Elizabeth Street and First Ave as these pipes have also reached the end of their life. The streetscape project team is working with the city waters team to ensure that required upgrades and renewals of underground services are programmed, so that they are completed ahead of the above ground streetscape works and the Farmers opening. This is to ensure that disruption to businesses in the area, including Farmers is minimised.

20. Stormwater quality improvements

Stormwater monitoring in the CBD has identified that there are consistently high levels of heavy metals, predominantly copper and zinc from tyre wear and brake pads. The stormwater treatment programme has budget for works in the CBD over the 2019/20 and 2020/21 financial years of $330,000 for stormwater quality improvements. The streetscape project team is working with the city waters team on integrating the stormwater quality treatment (rain gardens or a Filterra system) into the design.

21. Farmers

The streetscape project team is working closely with Farmers to ensure that the programme for construction of the above ground streetscape works, and the underground services are coordinated and optimised within the relatively short timeframe available. The city waters team and streetscape team are committed to ensuring works do not delay the Farmers construction programme and are completed prior to the Farmers opening in 2021. The intention is to minimise the extent of disruption that will occur if the projects were to be undertaken separately.

Council direction to date

22. The most recent Council direction on this project is:

· PSOC 6 August 2019: PSOC resolved for staff to hold a workshop with key stakeholders and elected members on the project, commence design to the extent necessary to inform potential scope and staging options, and support delivery in collaboration with the Farmers development. The stakeholder workshop was held on 21 August 2019.

· PSOC 3 December 2019: Project update provided in the General Manager – Community Services Report.

· PSOC 18 February 2020: Project update was provided on progress through the concept design phase and seeking direction on project objectives, and the community engagement approach. PSOC approved the project objectives and the community engagement approach.

Transport impacts

23. Objectives for the proposed Elizabeth Street Upgrade Project include the intention to prioritise pedestrians and to slow vehicle speeds. Project objectives approved by PSOC on 18 February 2020 include the following:

· Provide a safe and accessible slow speed environment that prioritises pedestrian access and connection.

· Streets provide a high standard of pedestrian access and connection.

· Design streets for 30km speeds to allow for a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment, and safer for people on bikes to share the road with cars.

24. Traffic modelling was previously undertaken for alternative options that involved more significant changes to the road infrastructure. The changes modelled included conversion of the traffic signals at the intersection of Elizabeth St and Devonport Road to a roundabout intersection, and introduction of a new signalised intersection or roundabout at the First Avenue Devonport Road intersection. At the time the traffic impacts of these earlier options were considered minor.

25. However, due to the rescoping of the project, none of these earlier options were consulted on or are being promoted as current options for adoption.

26. The three options now being considered all retain the current signalised intersection at Devonport Road/Elizabeth Street, the existing intersection at First Avenue/Devonport Road and a version of the existing single lane roundabout at Elizabeth Street/Grey Street. The capacity at each of these intersections is proposed to be retained. The primary changes that all options bring relative to the existing layout with regard to potential traffic effects, is the introduction of additional pedestrian crossings on Elizabeth Street, First Avenue and Devonport Road.

27. Traffic modelling of the three options in this report has not specifically been undertaken. Traffic modelling of zebra crossings is not usually done due to difficulties in getting reliable data for volumes of pedestrians and not having a developed methodology for modelling the effect that the zebra crossings will have on traffic flow. As zebra crossings were effectively the only network changes in the options, it was decided that further modelling of these options was not warranted and would provide limited value if it was done.

Carparking Considerations

28. The proposed upgrade will result in some changes to on-street parking on Elizabeth Street and First Ave.

29. On Devonport Road there will be no changes to on-street parking. On Elizabeth Street the changes to parking will depend on which option is selected. The number of car parks lost is affected by the introduction of the mid-block pedestrian crossing and the extent of the footpath widening. The table below outlines the proposed changes for each option. On First Ave, the additional vehicle entrances into Farmers, and the proposed mid-block crossing will reduce the number of car parks from 76 car parks down to 53 car parks. As a whole, the total reduction of on-street car parks is proposed to be between 32 and 45 car parks.

30. However, Farmers will be providing another 69 car parks on top of the original 66 that were available pre-redevelopment. Overall, depending on which option is selected, there will be a total gain of between 24 and 37 car parks available for public use.

	Pre- development	Option A	Option B	Option C	Total difference
Elizabeth Street	32	12	10	23	Ranges -9 to -22
Devonport Road	10	10	10	10	0
First Ave	76	53	53	53	-23
Farmers site	66	135	135	135	69
Total car parks	184	210	208	221	Ranges +24 to +37

31. It is noted that during the construction of the Farmers Development, 41 on street car parks have been unavailable for use. When combined with the 66 Farmers carparks, there is currently a total of 107 less carparks than in mid-2018.

32. The Farmers redevelopment will provide 135 public car parks with similar conditions to before (time restricted paid car parks but free for Farmers customers with ticket validation). They will also be providing seven car parks for retail staff and 202 car parks for residents.

33. The retail car parks and 28 car parks for town house residents will be accessed from First Ave. The remaining 174 car parks for apartment residents will be accessed from Elizabeth Street.

Consultation / Engagement

Engagement with Mana Whenua

34. The mana whenua for the city centre are Ngāi Tamarāwaho and Ngāti Tapu. The project team have met with representatives from Ngāi Tamarāwaho and Ngāti Tapu and have had early discussions about opportunities for referencing cultural narratives within the design. The project team are committed to upholding the Tauranga Moana design principles in the development of the streetscape design. Ngai Tamarāwaho and Ngāti Tapu look forward to working directly with the designer in the next stage of the project to further develop cultural elements in the design.

Community Engagement

35. Community engagement occurred from 11 March 2020 to 25 March 2020. This involved general community engagement and workshops with businesses, residents and key stakeholders.

36. Two concepts were provided as options to be considered:

· Option A – Do minimum

· Option B – Do more

The two options are similar in all respects except for the proposed treatment of Elizabeth Street. More detail of the two options is described below and is included in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2.

37. Workshops, the public drop-in session and the project webpage also made reference to other potential improvements, including the linear park concept and intersection and safety improvements on Devonport Road, with widened footpaths and tree-lined streets on Devonport Road and First Avenue.

38. Four key stakeholder workshops were held in March with city centre residents, adjacent businesses, Bay of Plenty Regional Council staff and other key stakeholders. Approximately 94 people attended the workshops. Another 50 people attended the public drop-in session. A complete report on the key stakeholder feedback is included in Attachment 3. The below table summarises feedback from the stakeholder workshops.

Summary of feedback from stakeholder workshops

· Workshops for city centre residents, BOP Regional Council staff and other key stakeholders preferred Option B – Do more.

· Participants at the workshop for adjacent businesses preferred Option A – Do minimum.

· Majority support for progressing projects subject to funding along Elizabeth Street to create a linear park and improve First Avenue and Devonport Road.

· Workshop participants identified that the most important elements in the footpath were seating, lawn area, play elements and low-level landscaping.

39. Over 700 people provided feedback through the feedback form, mostly online. A complete report on the community engagement outcomes is included in Attachment 4. A description of consultation and engagement activities and participation statistics is also outlined in that report. A summary of community engagement outcomes is outlined below.

Summary of feedback from public consultation
Question	Community engagement outcomes
Which design option did people prefer for Elizabeth Street and surrounds?	Majority support for Option B – do more. Preferred option from public consultation. Preferred by submitters who work in the city centre, businesses, including adjacent businesses, and city centre residents.
What were the key themes for supporting an upgrade and not supporting an upgrade?	Support: - Create a lovely space to take a break in (Option B) - Prioritise revitalisation of the city centre (Option B) - Make city for people not cars (Option B) - Do it once, do it properly (Option B) - Prefer a more modest upgrade (Option A) Not support: - Proposals over the top - Reject both options - Concerned at cost of proposals - Prefer spend on other projects
What are the key elements identified as most important and not being wanted for footpath design?	In the survey, trees, seating and shade on footpaths identified as top three elements that are important for footpath space. Space for street performers, lawn area and playful or creative elements are top three elements identified as not being wanted.
What was the response to undertaking future upgrades if funds were to be made available for this?	Majority support for more upgrades if funds are available.

40. A number of design changes have been identified as a result of feedback. Some of these changes have already been made to Options A and B. A list of design changes made and additional design changes proposed are included in Attachment 4. This list does not include any design changes that may be required for other reasons – such as a safety audit. While the proposed design changes are relatively minor, the biggest design change is the creation of a new Option C. This design option has been developed partly in response to public consultation outcomes, and partly in response to the Council’s constrained financial situation.

Options Analysis

41. Three options are provided for consideration:

· Option A – Moderate streetscape upgrade (consulted on as ‘do minimum’)

· Option B – Comprehensive streetscape upgrade with potential for future staging options (consulted on as ‘do more’)

· Option C – Minor safety and amenity improvements (not consulted on).

An overview of Options A, B and C is included in Attachment 2. This outlines the consultation feedback relative to each option, project cost, and assessment of each option against the project objectives.

42. The following components are included in all three options:

43. Infrastructure renewals and upgrades (BAU)

· Wastewater upgrades and water renewals will be completed prior to the streetscape project commencing. This work is required within the next 18 months due to the age of the pipes. The project budget for the underground services is not included in the streetscape project budget.

· Stormwater quality improvements will occur as part of the streetscape project and include development of rain gardens on First Ave and Elizabeth Street. This work is required due to mitigate existing non-compliance issues. Project budget is included in the streetscape project budgets as the work will occur at the same time as the streetscape upgrade. If upgrades to Elizabeth Street and First Ave were not going to proceed, the stormwater quality improvements are still scheduled to occur within financial year 2021.

44. Elizabeth Street – First Avenue laneway upgrade

· A commitment has been made to Farmers for Council to fund development of the laneway between Elizabeth Street and First Avenue.

· This project will need to be completed prior to completion of the Farmers development.

· The laneway section is estimated to cost around $1m and is included in streetscape project budgets.

45. Safety and amenity improvements on First Ave and Devonport Road

· Work required to improve pedestrian safety in these areas. Includes installation of pedestrian crossings, raised medians and kerb build outs with minor amenity enhancements.

· Recognises more people will be living and moving around this area as a result of the Farmers redevelopment, both from a commercial and residential perspective.

· Project costs included in streetscape project budgets.

Option A. Moderate streetscape upgrade (consulted on as ‘do minimum’)

46. Elizabeth Street (Devonport Road intersection to Grey Street):

· Pedestrian crossings at the Grey Street roundabout.

· Widening of footpath on south side of Elizabeth Street to a width of approximately 11m.

· Concrete paving (lower spec than Durham or Wharf Street) with feature clay pavers from TCC stockpile.

· Mid-block pedestrian crossing and associated kerb build out with amenity enhancements.

· Generous low-level planting and a number of trees.

· Street furniture such as seating, rubbish bins, bike parking etc.

· Laneway upgrade between Elizabeth Street and First Ave.

47. Devonport Road (Elizabeth Street to First Ave intersection):

· Raised pedestrian crossings at First Ave/Devonport Road intersection.

48. First Ave (Devonport Road intersection to Laneway/carparking building)

· Pedestrian crossings at First Ave/Devonport Road intersection.

· Mid-block pedestrian crossing and associated kerb build out with minor amenity enhancements.

· Raised median to prevent right turns at the Farmers carpark/Council carpark entrances/exits.

· Four new landscaped kerb build outs on north side of First Ave.

49.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Slightly shorter construction duration than Option B.

· Safety and amenity improvements to whole block.

· Creates a green space at the south end of the city centre, providing visual relief and pleasant places to rest.

· Takes advantage of disruption already caused by Farmers redevelopment and service renewals.

· Paving higher quality than Option B or C.

· Laneway to provide an attractive thoroughfare and active interface with the Farmers development.

· Limited disruption to businesses as most work occurs around Farmers redevelopment site.

· Reflects community engagement outcomes where Option A was the preferred option from adjacent businesses.

· Mostly meets the project objectives – score of 35 out of 48.

· Cost to Council and implications on the 2020/2021 Draft Annual Plan budget.

· Not supported by some community engagement responses that did not see this as a priority for Council spending.

· Estimated project capital cost – $7,246,000 (excludes infrastructure renewals, includes stormwater).

· This would require an additional $5,951,000 to be included in the 2020/2021 Annual Plan.

Option B. Comprehensive streetscape upgrade with potential for future staging options (consulted on as ‘do more’)

50. Elizabeth Street (Devonport Road intersection to Grey Street):

· Upgrade to Grey Street roundabout in order to slow speeds (raised table, kerb buildouts, pedestrian crossings etc.).

· Widening of footpath on south side of Elizabeth Street to a width of approximately 15m.

· Asphalt paving with feature steel bands.

· Mid-block pedestrian crossing and associated kerb build out with amenity enhancements.

· Generous low-level planting and a number of trees.

· Street furniture such as seating, rubbish bins, bike parking etc.

· Lawn area.

· Play elements such as stepping stones.

· Laneway upgrade between Elizabeth Street and First Ave.

51. Devonport Road (Elizabeth Street to First Ave intersection):

· Raised pedestrian crossings at First Ave/Devonport Road intersection.

52. First Ave (Devonport Road intersection to Laneway/carparking building)

· Pedestrian crossings at First Ave/Devonport Road intersection.

· Mid-block pedestrian crossing and associated kerb build out with minor amenity enhancements.

· Raised median to prevent right turns at the Farmers carpark/Council carpark entrances/exits.

· Four new landscaped kerb build outs on north side of First Ave.

53. Future staging options allow for the potential to extend this scope of works along the full length of Elizabeth Street, through to Cameron Road intersection. This will create the original linear park concept identified in the City Centre Spatial Framework. The total project cost for the linear park is estimated at $18.2M (not including infrastructure upgrades and renewals) and is subject to Crown Infrastructure Project funds being approved for this purpose.

54.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Creates a green space at the south end of the city centre, providing visual relief and pleasant places to rest and play.

· More room for social interaction, street performers, tables, places to have a break from work or shopping.

· More effective at slowing vehicle speeds and improving safety.

· Greater amenity in street environment.

· Takes advantage of disruption already caused by Farmers redevelopment and service renewals.

· Laneway to provide an attractive thoroughfare and active interface with the Farmers development.

· Reflects community engagement outcomes where Option B was the preferred option from public consultation, city centre residents and key stakeholders.

· Achieves the project objectives to a high standard – score of 42 out of 48.

· Cost to Council and implications on the 2020/2021 Draft Annual Plan budget.

· Not supported by some community engagement responses that did not see this as a priority for Council spending.

· More disruption to some existing businesses as greater scope of works being undertaken and slightly longer construction duration (and Option A was their preferred option).

· Asphalt paving used to keep costs down

· Estimated Project capital cost – $8,715,000 (excludes infrastructure renewals/underground services, includes stormwater).

· This would require an additional $7,420,000 to be included in the 2020/2021 Annual Plan.

Option C: Minor safety and amenity improvements (not consulted on)

55. Elizabeth Street (Devonport Road intersection to Grey Street):

· Pedestrian crossings at the Grey Street roundabout.

· Mid-block pedestrian crossing and associated kerb build out with minor amenity enhancements.

· Laneway upgrade between Elizabeth Street and First Ave.

56. Devonport Road (Elizabeth Street to First Ave intersection):

· Raised pedestrian crossings at First Ave/Devonport Road intersection.

57. First Ave (Devonport Road intersection to Laneway/carparking building)

· Pedestrian crossings at First Ave/Devonport Road intersection.

· Mid-block pedestrian crossing and associated kerb build out with minor amenity enhancements.

· Raised median to prevent right turns at the Farmers carpark/Council carpark entrances/exits.

· Four new landscaped kerb build outs on north side of First Ave.

58.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Least cost option for Council and still achieves basic improvements to pedestrian safety and amenity.

· Responds to some of the community engagement feedback stating that this project is not a priority for Council spending.

· Minimises extent of disruption to businesses along these streets.

· Laneway to provide an attractive thoroughfare and active interface with the Farmers development.

· Limited amenity and safety improvements.

· Inability to take full advantage of disruption already caused by Farmers redevelopment and service renewals.

· Limits ability to undertake a more comprehensive upgrade project in short or medium term as would create further periods of disruption and inefficiencies of undertaking as a separate project to services renewal and Farmers redevelopment.

· Does not reflect community engagement outcomes that supported a streetscape upgrade occurring.

· Only partly meets the project objectives with a score of 15 out of 48.

· Estimated Project capital cost - $6,141,000 (excludes infrastructure renewals, includes stormwater).

· This would require an additional $4,846,000 to be included in the 2020/2021 Annual Plan.

Strategic / Statutory Context

59. The key documents and programmes adopted by Council that have helped shape decision-making and investment in the city centre are:

· City Centre Strategy (2012)

· Civic Space Options Project (2015 – 2017)

· Heart of the City Programme (2018 – 2019)

· City Centre Spatial Framework (2018)

· Tauranga Moana Design Principles (2018)

60. In October 2018, Council adopted the City Centre Spatial Framework as a working document along with prioritisation criteria for the timing of investment. The Framework objectives include putting people first, celebrating culture and heritage, attracting residents to the city centre, and helping businesses to thrive. The Elizabeth Street upgrade was prioritised in this Framework to be delivered in the 2017–2022 time period.

Financial Considerations

61. The 2018-28 Long Term Plan includes $23.65M (City Centre Investment Fund) for delivery of projects aligned to the City Centre Spatial Framework. This is the key source of funding intended to be used for streetscape upgrade projects, in addition to identifying other funding sources where the project objectives align with the purpose of the funding.

62. Funding sources for consideration in the Elizabeth Street upgrade are:

· City Centre Investment Fund

· NZTA funding – minor safety improvements

· CBD water quality improvements - $330,000 included in 2020/2021.

· CIP funding for future staging of Option B.

· Farmers contribution to project.

63. The following budgets are currently in place for the Elizabeth Street Upgrade Project:

	2020	2021	2022-2025
City Centre Investment Fund for streetscape upgrades	$215,000 (estimated to be carried forward)	$750,000	$8,328,000 ($2,082,000 per annum)
Stormwater CBD water quality improvements		$330,000
Total budget for FY 2021		$1,295,000 (including estimated carry forward)

61. As shown in the table above, spend for the City Centre Investment fund is budgeted at $2.08 million per year for the years 2022 through to 2025. Depending on which option is selected, it is requested that some or all of these funds is brought forward to FY 2021. The table below identifies the additional budget required to be brought forward to enable the Elizabeth Street Upgrade Project to be completed in the 2020/2021 financial year.

Option	Streetscape Upgrade Total Future Project Costs	Additional funds required to be brought forward to the 2020/2021 Annual Plan
A	$7,246,000	$5,951,000
B	$8,715,000	$7,420,000
C	$6,141,000	$4,846,000

64. It is also worth noting that the Famers development is likely to pay a tenfold increase in rates due to the increased number of commercial and residential tenancies.

Legal Implications / Risks

65. The key risk facing the project is the ability to ensure there is a solution in place at the time of the Farmers opening, originally planned for April 2021. It is vital that there is a working transport system and a safe and enjoyable public realm for opening day. If any works are required following the opening date, then these will need to be programmed so as not to create unacceptable disruption to the Farmers development, to adjacent businesses, and to the wider CBD. One of the ways that this project has sought to manage this risk is to decouple the infrastructure upgrades so that they can be completed while the streetscape project is still being designed.

Significance

66. Tauranga’s Significance and Engagement Policy determines whether a matter is significant. In making the assessment against this policy, there is no intention to assess the importance of this item to individuals, groups, or agencies within the community and it is acknowledged that all reports have a high degree of importance to those affected by Council decisions. Materiality is defined as being something that would influence the decisions or assessments of those reading or responding to the consultation document.

67. The matters outlined in this report are likely to be of moderate significance and public interest, being they relate to significant investment in the public realm within the CBD. Depending on the preferred option, the transport impacts of the proposal will also be of moderate significance and public interest.

Next Steps

68. Following selection of the preferred concept, the next steps are outlined below:

· 2 June Council meeting to approve procurement approach.

· 5-6 months of detailed design work.

· Project integration with infrastructure upgrades/renewals and Farmers redevelopment.

· Ongoing communication with business and wider community progress updates.

· Construction to commence late 2020 or early 2021.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1: Elizabeth Street upgrade concept design options - A11463613 ⇩

2. Attachment 2: Description of options including assessment against project objectives - A11485724 ⇩

3. Attachment 3: Summary of feedback from workshops - A11485593 ⇩

4. Attachment 4: Summary of feedback from public consultation - A11481496 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

19 May 2020

10.4 Wharf Street - Proposal to declare section of Wharf Street as a Pedestrian Mall

File Number: A11404818

Author: James Jacobs, Urban Spaces Project Lead

Doug Spittle, Team Leader: Urban Spaces

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

Purpose of the Report

1. For Council to adopt the Statement of Proposal to declare part of Wharf Street to be a Pedestrian Mall pursuant to section 336 of the Local Government Act 1974.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receive Report – Wharf Street – Proposal to declare a section of Wharf Street as a Pedestrian Mall.

(b) Adopt the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A for consultation using the special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002.

Background

2. Wharf Street between Willow Street and The Strand (Wharf Street east) has been trialled as a shared space (people and cars) since 2015. This included Wharf Street east becoming one-way (eastbound) with no on-street parking.

3. Council, on 10 September 2019 approved to proceed to tender and construction of the Wharf Street east upgrade project. The contract was awarded to Higgins. Construction has commenced and is scheduled for completion by summer 2020.

4. The Wharf Street east design prioritises pedestrian movement and activity. A central and controlled clearway is in place that is intended for authorised vehicle access only. A vehicle free environment will eliminate noise and pollution from cars and service vehicles, to provide a more inviting space for people to gather, relax and eat. The proposed upgrade is intended to restrict vehicular access through the use of electric bollards but with some exceptions. Loading and delivery areas will be provided at either end of the street.

5. Street level hospitality businesses have made a commitment through Memoranda of Understandings to enter into a License to Occupy (LTO) respective to their outdoor dining areas. For these new areas of LTO to be implemented, a Council resolution is required to include them as part of the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018. It is intended that this will be completed following the consultation on the proposal to declare a section of Wharf Street a Pedestrian Mall.

Community consultation to date

6. There has been previous engagement with the community and direct stakeholders on the future of Wharf Street east, and the design. A key theme from the feedback received was for Wharf Street east to be a place that is pedestrian only with restricted vehicle access. Other key themes included having a focus on outdoor dining, being a place that facilitates events, and for it to be done well.

7. The Wharf Street east design itself has evolved through ongoing discussions and workshops with Wharf Street east business and property owners who support the project.

THE PROPOSAL

8. A range of options were considered to achieve the objective of creating the high amenity pedestrian environment and outdoor dining experience. Having carried out that consideration, Council considers the most appropriate way to meet the objective is to legally restrict vehicular access to authorised persons only. To achieve this, it is proposed to declare Wharf Street east as a Pedestrian Mall pursuant to section 336 of the Local Government Act 1974.

9. The other options that were considered and conclusions reached are set out within the Statement of Proposal in Attachment A. The other options that were considered but did not achieve the intended road function outcome for the Wharf Street east upgrade included; a physical barrier without underlying legal restriction, making a bylaw under the Land Transport Act 1998 or Local Government Act 2002, road stopping, road closure, and a shared zone.

10. Under section 336 of the Local Government Act 1974, the Council may declare any road or part of a specified road to be a Pedestrian Mall. The section provides that in declaring the Pedestrian Mall, the Council may:

(a) prohibit or restrict the driving, riding or parking of any vehicle, on all or any part of the Pedestrian Mall, either generally or during particular hours;

(b) include exemptions and conditions relating to the Pedestrian Mall.

11. The proposed wording of the declaration is set out in the attached Statement of Proposal. It sets out that Council proposes to declare the section of Wharf Street, between Willow Street and The Strand, (Wharf Street east), as a Pedestrian Mall.

12. It is proposed to prohibit at all times the driving, riding, or parking of any vehicle (excluding bicycles along the central lane and access to cycle parking facilities), or the riding of any animal, on all or any portion of Wharf Street east, except by any person approved by the Council as an “Authorised Person” and then only in accordance with any conditions of approval.

13. The criteria to become an Authorised Person, in general terms will relate to those who have a special need to use Wharf Street east, such as;

· Landlords or ground or first floor tenants who will need to gain vehicular access to the street for the purposes that include, but are not limited to, special deliveries, or necessary for certain building works and repairs;

· Landlords or ground or first floor tenants of 105 The Strand, to maintain vehicular access to the private lane way (with entry and egress to Wharf Street from Willow Street end); and

· Persons requiring vehicular access for the likes of a special event, public function or similar.

14. Emergency Services will be classed as Authorised Persons in accordance with this declaration and shall have access to Wharf Street east at all times.

15. While there has been a level of community engagement and support of the design from direct stakeholders, the process under section 336 of the Local Government Act 1974 requires consulting on the proposal using the special consultative procedure under the Local Government Act 2002.

Options Analysis

16. With construction of the Wharf Street east upgrade underway, the legalities of the road function need to be formalised to reflect the intended function of the street upon completion of works.

Option 1: Consult on the proposal to declare a section of Wharf Street as a Pedestrian Mall (Recommended Option)

The option would be to proceed with public consultation to declare Wharf Street east as a Pedestrian Mall which permanently restricts vehicular access to authorised persons only.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Meets the objectives of Wharf Street east design outcomes.

· Supports pedestrian amenity and enhances outdoor dining experience within the street.

· Meets the expectation of the community that provided feedback on how the street should be developed and the property owners and businesses that have been involved and support the design.

· Restricts through vehicle movements to the general public.

Option 2: Maintain status quo – Wharf Street east remains open to traffic one way (eastbound).

This option would require no further public consultation be undertaken, with the status quo of the road remaining one-way.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Maintains the one-way system (eastbound) for public use.

· Wharf Street east design outcomes are not achieved to full extent.

· Reputational risk of not meeting stakeholder expectations.

Significance

17. Under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014, the proposal to declare a road as a Pedestrian Mall pursuant to section 336 of the Local Government Act 1974 is of low significance. Section 336 of the Local Government Act 1974 requires that consultation is undertaken using the Special Consultative Procedure.

Next Steps

18. If Council adopt the Statement of Proposal, consultation period will run for one month, beginning Friday, 22 May 2020 and closing 5pm on Monday, 22 June 2020.

Attachments

1. Attachment A - Statement of Proposal to declare the section of Wharf Street between Willow Street an The Strand as a Pedestrian Mall pursuant to Section 336 of the Local Government Act 1974 - A11485780 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

19 May 2020

Statement of Proposal

To Extend the Operative Period of the 2019/20 Development Contribution Policy

Proposal outline

This proposal being made by Tauranga City Council is to amend the 2019/20 Development Contributions Policy (2019/20 DCP) so that this policy may be applied to developments lodged after 30 June 2020 and will remain in effect until a new Development Contributions Policy is adopted by Council.

This statement of proposal document includes:

· Summary of the reasons for the proposal stated above,

· A summary of options

· Details on how to submit to Council regarding this proposal

The 2019/20 DCP is not attached to this proposal document but is available on Council’s website via the following link www.tauranga.govt.nz/development-contributions. The only proposed amendment to the 2019/20 DCP is the change in date to which it is specified that the policy will apply until.

Reasons for this proposal

Under the Local Government Act 2002 Council may require development contributions. Tauranga City Council has had a Development Contributions Policy (DCP) in place since 1 July 2004. This Policy has been reviewed annually in conjunction with the Council’s Annual Plan or Long-Term Plan process, with an amended Policy becoming operative on 1 July of each subsequent year.

Council’s 2019/20 DCP became operative on 1 July 2019. Council recently prepared and made available for public consultation a draft version of the 2020/21 Development Contributions Policy. Whilst consultation had not been completed on this policy it was expected to be adopted in time to become effective by 1 July 2020.

COVID19 has brought about significant impacts on Council’s financial position. This has created the potential that Council may need to reconsult on the Annual Plan and the Capital Expenditure budgets within it. If this occurs, then it is likely that the Annual Plan documents will not be adopted by 30 June 2020.

The contents of the DCP are directly linked to the capital expenditure budgets contained in the Annual Plan. The adoption of the 2020/21 DCP cannot occur ahead of the adoption of the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

Section 1.1.1 of the 2019/20 DCP states that the fees set out therein are “applicable from 1 July 2019 – 30 June 2020”. Therefore, Council has no ability to charge these fees beyond 30 June 2020 unless it adopts a new policy or amends the 2019/20 DCP. If the Draft 2020/21 DCP is not adopted by Council by 30 June 2020 then there would be a period until the new policy was adopted when we could not charge development contributions.

The table below sets out an analysis of the options that Council has regarding Development Contributions, if the 2020/21 Annual Plan and Development Contributions Policy are not able to be made operative by 1 July 2020. This includes a proposed method of amending the 2019/20 DCP to ensure it can be applied to developments lodged after 30 June 2020.

Analysis of Reasonably Practicable Options

Option	Analysis
Continue to charge Development Contributions under the 2019/20 Development Contributions policy without amendment or consultation	The operative 2019/20 DCP specifically states within the policy that the fees only apply from 1 July 2019 until 30 June 2020. If Council continues to apply the 2019/20 DCP without formally amending it then we put at risk the integrity of the DCP and open Council up to future legal challenges for any development contributions which are required after 30 June 2020 under the basis of the 2019/20 DCP.
Amend the 2019/20 DCP to extend the period to which the policy applies. Recommended option	Section 1.1.1 of the 2019/20 DCP states that the fees set out therein are “applicable from 1 July 2019 – 30 June 2020” therefore Council has no ability to charge these fees beyond 30 June 2020 unless it adopts a new policy or amends this policy. Provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 (Section 102 (4)(b)) allow for Council to amend the DCP but must consult on the proposed amendments in a manner that gives effect to Section 82. The impacts of this option on the development community are likely to be minimal as the fees within the policy are largely equal to or lower than the development contributions fees contained in the draft 2020/21 DCP. The consequence for Council is that the DC fees applied to developments lodged after 1 July 2020 but before a new policy becomes operative will not be able to charge under the higher fees expected to be contained within the 2020/21 DCP. This essentially results in a decreased revenue which will need to be recovered via another funding source – likely to be rates. This revenue loss can not be quantified but will be significantly less than the revenue loss by not charging any development contributions. The proposal is therefore to replace the words in section 1.1.1 “applicable from 1 July 2019-30 June 2020” with the words “applicable from 1 July 2019 until a subsequent Development Contributions Policy becomes operative”.
Not charge development contributions until a new 2020/21 DCP can be adopted.	The Local Government Act 2002 specifically states the development contributions must be consistent with the content of the policy “that was in force at the time that application for a resource consent, building consent, or service connection was submitted…” If no policy is in force, then we cannot charge any development contributions to consents submitted to Council over that period. It is difficult to quantify the financial risk that this poses as it is not known how long the time period could be, the amount of development consents that will be submitted nor the scale of those developments. But in theory if any large-scale developments are lodged with Council over that period then the financial loss could reach into the millions. As with the option above any loss in projected development contribution revenue eventually needs to be funded via another source.

Recommended adoption

Given the consequence of each option discussed above, staff recommended the option to extend the operative period of the 2019/20 Development Contributions Policy.

This is a somewhat burdensome process requiring full consultation with the community but creates low risk to Council and has minimal impacts on the development community.

How to submit on this proposal

Any organisation, group or member of the public may make a submission to Council regarding this proposal.

The proposal will be open for public consultation on Friday 22 May 2020 and all submissions must be received by 5pm Friday 5 June 2020.

To submit to the Council on the proposal you can email us on:

developmentcontributions@tauranga.govt.nz

You may post a written submission to:

Tauranga City Council, Private Bag 12022, Tauranga 3143

You can also phone staff to discuss your submission:

07 577 7000

If you also wish to present your submission in person to the Mayor and Councillors, then please indicate this on your written submission and Council staff will be in touch to discuss.

Full copies of the Statement of Proposal as well as copy of the 2019/20 DCP will be available on Council’s website and distributed to key stakeholders in the development community, as well as those who have already submitted on the contents of the draft 2020/21 DCP. If you wish to have a hardcopy posted to you then please contact our call centre to facilitate this request.

[1] See the agenda for the 5 May 2020 Council meeting.

[2] Explicit statement in section 1.1. Fees, maps and definitions, and implied throughout the rest of the document


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Tuesday, 19 May 2020
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 19 May 2020
Time:	9am
Location:	Tauranga City Council By video conference
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz.
Marty Grenfell Chief Executive

Chairperson	Mayor Tenby Powell
Deputy chairperson	Cr Larry Baldock
Members	Cr Jako Abrie Cr Kelvin Clout Cr Bill Grainger Cr Andrew Hollis Cr Heidi Hughes Cr Dawn Kiddie Cr Steve Morris Cr John Robson Cr Tina Salisbury
Quorum	Half of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.
Meeting frequency	Six weekly or as required for Annual Plan, Long Term Plan and other relevant legislative requirements.

· To ensure the effective and efficient governance of the City

· To enable leadership of the City including advocacy and facilitation on behalf of the community.

· Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

· Exercise all non-delegable and non-delegated functions and powers of the Council.