Chairperson

Cr Steve Morris

Deputy chairperson

Cr Dawn Kiddie

Members

Mayor Tenby Powell

Cr Jako Abrie

Cr Larry Baldock

Cr Kelvin Clout

Cr Bill Grainger

Cr Andrew Hollis

Cr Heidi Hughes

Cr John Robson

Cr Tina Salisbury

Non-voting members

Tangata Whenua representative

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

2.1         Sally Benning, Manager - Greerton Village Community Association and Terry Molloy

·         Advised committee members that the Association had received eight or nine letters and four pages of signatures in support of keeping the begging and rough sleeping provisions of the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018 (the Bylaw), but emphasised that they had no issues on homelessness, but the conversation/policies around begging needed strengthening.

·         Discussed the Bylaw with respect to begging, which had been flagged as a big issue in Greerton; the Bylaw was considered to be working well in Greerton.

·         The Bylaw had alleviated safety concerns of the stakeholders and encouraged investment and consumer patronage to Greerton.

·         Some groups who came to Greerton Central Business District (CBD) area had been recognised as scammers masquerading as needy and/or vulnerable and would sit in front of shops in large groups.

·         Distinction between genuine homelessness and beggars was problematic because some beggars were not genuinely homeless and had been offered housing opportunities which were not taken up.

·         Concerned that  individuals were scamming people, especially the elderly, by forcefully asking for money.

·         While they were not blocking entrances, the intimidating behaviour deterred consumers from entering shops and forced consumers to go to other areas such as Tauriko or Bayfair.

·         Police had deferred non-vicious and/or violent behaviour to Council but there had not been much enforcement undertaken.

·         Cost of revoking the Bylaw would be costly to retailers and residents; the decision should be based on safety of retailers and safety of Greerton residents and consumers.

·         While the amended wording (including the five metre and nuisance rules) might not change the entrenched perceptions, if a choice was to be made between the bylaw revocation or enacting the amended version, the Association would go with the latter.

2.2         Brian Berry, Chairman – Mainstreet Tauranga

·         Members of Mainstreet Tauranga had opposed revoking and/or amending the begging and rough sleeping provisions of the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018.

·         New Zealand had a proud history of human rights and the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) accorded protection and respect for all members of society regardless of their status.

·         The issue had been overcomplicated because the current begging and rough sleeping provisions of the Bylaw did not ban begging and rough sleeping.

·         The current Bylaw gave retailers respect and allowed them to conduct their business while fostering mutual respect between rough sleepers, retailers, shoppers, and visitors.

·         There were no punitive measures by police or Tauranga City Council (TCC) for those who contravened the Bylaw.

·         Greerton was working because, unlike Tauranga CBD, it had a low retail vacancy factor.

·         The wording “nuisance” and “intimidation” in the Bylaw was subjective and as such did not need to be edited.

·         The effects of the Bylaw had seen a noticeable improvement in the Tauranga CBD in that the message had been heard by rough sleepers and beggars who were complying with the provisions.

Change the Order of Business

Committee Resolution  PO1/19/1

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Policy Committee:

Amends the order of business so the next item of business be Agenda item 7.4

.Carried

7.4         Review of the begging and rough sleeping provisions of the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018

Staff:           Rebecca Gallagher, Policy Analyst

Jeremy Boase, Manager - Strategy & Corporate Planning

Key points

·         Review of the begging and rough sleeping provisions of the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018 (the Bylaw) had been a recommendation of the former Council based on complaints received, challenges around the enforcement approach, and the statutory requirements when making a bylaw.

·         Staff provided a synopsis of making a bylaw under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002) sections 145 and 155 with respect to the Bill of Rights Act 1990 (BORA) and the considerations/reasons that must be taken into account when doing so.

·         The current wording of the Bylaw was new territory for New Zealand due to a lack of precedent case law.

·         Since the Bylaw came into existence, a number of emergency housing providers such as the People's Project and Awhina House had been set up and significant progress had been made in the homelessness space.

·         The decisions and subsequent options were documented in page 31 of the Agenda and would be subject to public consultation.

·         The report also outlined perceived problems of nuisance and other negative effects of begging and rough sleeping in public places. This was contrary to the previous problems which were defined regarding the impacts on businesses and the wider community to ensure better alignment with section 145 of the LGA 2002 by stating that the Bylaw was protecting the public rather than only business interests.

·         If the bylaw was revoked, a consultative process would take place in consideration of all the views presented to explore alternative ways to achieve similar results. 

In response to questions

·         Clarification on Paragraph 25 of Report: the staff member who was involved in the engagement with the homeless and begging community as well as external stakeholders could not continue in the role due to non-allocation of funding for the project in terms of enforcing the Bylaw. The staff member had since left, and the role had not been filled. The implementation and enforcement of general bylaws was carried out by the Regulatory & Compliance team.

·         Data and information were available on the business community and consumers with respect to the Bylaw, but little information was available on consequences to beggars and rough-sleepers in terms of their safety due to the ban; and this gap had a potential impact on decision making.

·         The amended wording for the definition of ‘nuisance’ (Page 107) meant that a beggar or rough sleeper could sit a metre away from a door entrance of retail premises provided they were not causing nuisance, intimidation, noise or alarm.

·         The term ‘nuisance’ was subjective and dependant on circumstances and/or situations.  Some case law was available  around the definition of ‘nuisance’ and the wording used was consistent with a general approach to what defines ‘nuisance’.

·         Apart from the Bylaw, Tauranga City Council (TCC) had a Community Development Advisor and had contracted SociaLink Tauranga Moana to facilitate regular meetings with all homelessness service providers, and the outcome of these meetings was a jointly funded community sector led homelessness strategy which would provide action implementation plans to all stakeholders.

·         Council had been active in the homelessness space for a number of years supporting and funding projects such as the Men’s Nightshelter, People’s Project, and Awhina House.

·         The position of the Tauranga Community Housing Trust had not changed.

·         Since April 2018 a number of complaints and concerns had been raised regarding begging and rough sleeping and it was hard to ascertain if reductions had happened since the inception of the Bylaw. To complicate this further, a number of complaints and concerns were regarding public fighting, drugs and disorder which fell under the jurisdiction of the police. 

·         There may have been confusion between begging and rough-sleeping, and homelessness. To provide clarity, TCC should be leading the strategy, together with other partners and agencies in this space to minimise working in silos, and to provide a holistic service to all concerned. The confusion was causing the process to stagnate rather than move forward.

Discussion points

·         Accelerated socio-economic issues and housing pressures meant that homelessness was bound to increase. The Bylaw was not the answer. Rather than sending the message to the vulnerable that they were not welcomed in the city, the offer to assist them should be paramount.

·         It was important to distinguish who was in genuine need of assistance. If begging was done to support a habit or vice, or beggars were being dropped off by scammers as an organised crime unit, those were separate problems. There was an obligation to the business community, retailers and the public as well as genuine beggars and rough sleepers.

·         The Bill of Rights Act 1990 extended to both retailers and beggars and rough sleepers. Money used to fund the court process could have been better used.

·         The willingness to make compromise was there but it was important to note that TCC should not be doing central government’s job and the Bylaw could not be the only solution to a very complex issue.

·         Given that there were no submissions from the homeless to highlight what the impacts on them were, this gap in data impacted on the ability to factor this into decisions.

·         Wellington City Council had voted against a similar bylaw and had a very informative webpage dedicated to the issue of rough sleeping and begging and provided tools for empowerment.

·         The two issues were not separate. Central government agencies and the police were better set up and financed to deal with complex behavioural issues and/or criminal behaviour which TCC did not have the capacity for.

Committee Resolution  PO1/19/2

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Mayor Tenby Powell

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Resolves that in accordance with section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002, a bylaw was not the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem in relation to begging and rough sleeping, and therefore:

(i)      Adopts the Statement of Proposal to revoke the begging and rough sleeping provisions in the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018 (Attachment D) for community consultation; AND

(ii)                    Delegates to the Chief Executive the ability to make any minor edits or amendments to the Statement of Proposal to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs John Robson, Jako Abrie, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes and Tina Salisbury

Against:           Crs Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout and Bill Grainger

carried 6/5

AND

(c)     Retain Attachment C in the confidential section to maintain legal and professional privilege.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes and Tina Salisbury

Against:           Cr John Robson

carried 10/1

10:23am – Meeting adjourned.

10:35am – Meeting reconvened.

7.1         Council submission - Resource Management Amendment Bill

Staff:           Fiona Nalder, Strategic Advisor

Jeremy Boase,  Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Key points

·         Due to time constraints staff were seeking retrospective approval for the Council submission.

·         Resource Management Amendment Bill 2019 (RMAB) proposed a number of changes to the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991.

·         The Council submission was primarily based around what were seen as increasingly significant costs to ratepayers and impacts on Council.

·         The primary concern was the proposed exception of the Ministry of Education and Ministry of Social Development from paying financial contributions.

·         The Council submission had highlighted that the proposed exception was unjustified, unequitable and unfair and  was not in the spirit of the Resource Management Act as it prevented Council from being able to carry out environmental impact assessments on development entities.

·         The stance of the submission was consistent with Council’s position with central government in terms of equitable cost sharing with respect to the development of Tauranga.

In response to questions

·         Legal interpretation was sought in court by Tauranga City Council and Ministry of Education whether financial contributions could be charged under the RMA and the rationale for that. The legal  advice and interpretations were in the favour of Tauranga City Council. The ruling would set a precedent but if the Resource Management Amendment Bill 2019 proceeded ahead in its current form, then it would override the court decision.

·         The monetary value to Tauranga City Council and the ratepayers with respect to the usage of the financial contributions clause was substantial; for example, a school site being worth potentially over a million dollars in terms of charging development/financial contributions for water, wastewater, and transportation.

·         Given the significant number of projects in terms of schools the Ministry of Education had earmarked for Tauranga, it was only fair that Central Government pays a share of the costs.

Items for staff follow-up

·         ACTION: Staff to provide further figures and costs as requested by Cr. Robson.

Committee Resolution  PO1/19/3

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Policy Committee: 

(a)       Approves Attachment 1 - Tauranga City Council’s submission on the Resource Management Amendment Bill 2019.

Carried

7.2         Policy programme prioritisation

Staff:           Ariell King, Team Leader: Policy

Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Key points

·         The intention of the Policy programme report was to enable the prioritisation of the policy programme by the councillors and provided a tool to give councillors a clearer overview of what policy work were being carried out and in which areas.

·         It was a decision process making framework in a six-monthly cycle so that councillors could prioritise policy work and/or decide whether the pieces of work should be done or not.

·         The aim of the process was to allow for a good project management in the policy space.

In response to questions

·         Executive looked at reviewing the language around focusing on local procurement for large projects within the Procurement Policy with the aim of retaining spending and intellectual property within the region.

·         Speed Limit Bylaw review had not started but the groundwork for the review had started in terms of public engagement.

·         Report on notable trees on Wakefield Drive had been sent prior to Christmas.

·         A Policy Register had been worked on which listed all policies getting worked on, review dates (past and pending), and due dates and the Tauranga City Council website also contained a list of all policies and bylaws.

·         Projects could be tracked via the Projects, Services and Operations Committee.

·         Staff to look at a Housing Policy similar to what Christchurch had and the best forum for this may be with Urban Form and Transport Initiative.

Committee Resolution  PO1/19/4

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Mayor Tenby Powell

That the Policy Committee approves the policy and bylaw programme as set out in Attachment 1, specifically noting the inclusion of reviews of the Protected Disclosures Act policy and the Risk Management policy to be commenced during the next six months as resources allow.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Kelvin Clout, Larry Baldock, Dawn Kiddie, Jako Abrie, Bill Grainger, Tina Salisbury, Steve Morris and Heidi Hughes

Against:           Nil

Abstained:       Crs Andrew Hollis and John Robson

CarrieD 9/0

7.3         Proposed Approach to the Annual Plan 2020-21

Staff:          Joel Peters, Corporate Planner

Tracey Hughes, Manager: Financial Insights and Reporting

Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Key points

·         Purpose of report was to inform councillors on the proposed approach to the Annual Plan 2020-21 with respect to the Local Government Act requirements and framework.

·         Under the legislation, annual plans were required to define and disclose the differences between adopted year three of the Long Term Plan (LTP), and what the Council would be proposing as the direction for the year in terms of the deliverables to the community.

·         It explained the financial and non-financial position of the Council.

·         Staff gave a detailed breakdown of the LTP, a list of priorities, budgets, and benchmarks in the areas of transport, community and resilience which would continue unless councillors gave directive to do otherwise. 

In response to questions

·         Issues and options in December had been similar to previous years with nothing significant forecasted. There had been some issues around kerbside waste collection  and a summary of major shifts would be in the Annual Plan with explanations on why.

·         Transport System Network planning was OPEX and the projects coming out of that were CAPEX. Previous Council had decided that the transport work was to be funded through a loan due to yield benefit over a number of years.

·         For the next Council meeting on 10 December, the average residential rate increase proposal, higher commercial differential, growth figures, and the most up to date inflation figures alongside the Budget would be presented to councillors. 

Committee Resolution  PO1/19/5

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Dawn Kiddie

That the Policy Committee

(a)       Accepts the report; Proposed approach to the Annual Plan 2020-21.

Carried

7.5         Amendments to Elected Members' Expenses and Resources Policy - Issues and Options

Staff:           Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Key points

·         The report had been guided by a determination issued by the Renumeration Authority.

·         The policy had asked which expenses Council would like to claim as set by the Remuneration Authority.

In response to questions

·         The current policy had broad provisions regarding councillors’ carparking; however, these could be further refined to specific sites and whether the carparking at a site was free or not.

·         These policies were not aligned with Tauranga City Council employee policies because contractual obligations regarding renumeration and benefits with an employee were negotiated under New Zealand employment laws either individually or by a collective bargaining agreement via the Union.

·         The Committee had agreed to discuss each option provided under the Options Analysis (page 129 of the Agenda) and subsequently vote in parts.

Committee Resolution  PO1/19/6

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Policy Committee:

(a)       Agrees to amend the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy to:

·   Enable the Mayor and Councillors to claim for childcare expenses as per the determination 

Issue 1: Payment of a childcare allowance

-       Option 1.1 - Amend policy to provide for an allowance for childcare expenses at the maximum amount permitted in the determination.

Carried

Discussion points

·         This amendment to the Policy was a good step towards diversity and inclusivity.

·         It encouraged greater participation during election from candidates who may be single parents.

·         It was noted that the Renumeration Authority did not account for situations where a dependant could be a disabled child over the age of 18.

Committee Resolution  PO1/19/7

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr Dawn Kiddie

That the Policy Committee:

(b)       Agrees a preferred option for mileage to be included in the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy

Issue 2: Mileage allowance

-       Option 2.3 - Pay mileage allowance from the Councillor’s home to work related travel outside of Tauranga City Council territorial authority area.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Kelvin Clout, Larry Baldock, Dawn Kiddie, Jako Abrie, Bill Grainger, Tina Salisbury, and Steve Morris

Against:           Crs John Robson, Andrew Hollis, and Heidi Hughes

Carried

Discussion points

·         City limits were defined as territorial authority area.

·         There were opportunities to claim mileage via the tax returns process which reduced the burden on the ratepayer.

Committee RESOLUTION PO1/19/8

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That the Policy Committee:

(b)       Agrees a preferred option for mileage? travel time? to be included in the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy

Issue 3: Travel time allowance

-       Option 3.3 - No payment for travel time as it was part of Councillors’ overall remuneration.

Carried

Discussion points

·         Councillors were paid a generous salary which had been increased by the Renumeration Authority, so it was fair not claim travel time allowance.

Committee Resolution  PO1/19/9

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That the Policy Committee:

(a)       Agrees to amend the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy to:

·   Allow claims for use of ridesharing services

Issue 4: Use of taxi services

-       Option 4.1 - Amend policy to include ridesharing services as an alternative to taxi services.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Kelvin Clout, Larry Baldock, Dawn Kiddie, Jako Abrie, Bill Grainger, Tina Salisbury, Steve Morris, Crs Andrew Hollis and Heidi Hughes

Against:           Nil

Abstained:       Cr John Robson

Carried

Discussion points

·         It was recommended that councillors check pricing of their journey before engaging a ride-share vendor in order to avoid surge pricing.

·         It was also recommended that councillors check for other modes of public transport so that the best value for money was achieved.  

Committee RESOLUTION PO1/19/10

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That the Policy Committee:

(a)       Agrees to amend the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy to:

·   Allow payment to private accommodation providers 

Issue 5: Accommodation expenses

-       Option 5.1 - Amend policy to allow for a payment of up to $100 to private accommodation provider.

Carried

Discussion points

·         This amendment to the policy would save ratepayers money in terms of councillors being able to choose from private accommodation providers.

Committee RESOLUTION PO1/19/11

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That the Policy Committee:

(a)       Agrees to amend the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy to:

·   Clarify who authorises expense claims and exceptions to the policy

Issue 6: Clarification of delegated authority to approve expense claims and exceptions to the policy

-       Option 6.1 - Approval of Councillor attendance at conferences or professional development and expense claims require approval of Mayor or Chief Executive; and,

-       Option 6.2 - Mayoral attendance at conferences and expense forms require approval of Deputy Mayor or Chief Executive; and,  

-       Option 6.3 - Exceptions to the policy require approval of both Mayor and Chief Executive. If Mayor, then exception dealt with by Chief Executive and Deputy Mayor.

Carried

Discussion points

·         If the professional development and expense claims were funded by the ratepayer, then the delegated authority would be triggered; however, if a Councillor chose to undertake self-funded professional development, then this policy would not apply. 

At 11:50 am, Cr Jako Abrie left the meeting.

At 11:52 am, Cr Jako Abrie returned to the meeting.

Committee RESOLUTION PO1/19/12

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That the Policy Committee:

(a)       Agrees to amend the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy to:

·   Provide for professional development 

Issue 7: Conference attendance and professional development

-       Option 7.1 Amend policy to explicitly note that Elected Members may attend professional development.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Kelvin Clout, Larry Baldock, Dawn Kiddie, Bill Grainger, Tina Salisbury, Steve Morris, Crs Andrew Hollis and Heidi Hughes

Against:           Nil

Abstained:       Crs Jako Abrie and John Robson

Carried

Discussion point

·         The amendment was designed to encourage professional development opportunities beyond just conferences.

Committee RESOLUTION PO1/19/13

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Policy Committee:

(a)       Agrees to amend the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy to:

·   Note that Councillors who participate in resource consent hearings under the Resource Management Act 1991 are entitled to receive payment

Issue 8: Payment for being part of a resource consent hearings panel

-       Option 8.3 There will be no payment for being part of a resource consent hearings panel as it is considered to be part of the role as a full time Councillor.  

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Kelvin Clout, Dawn Kiddie, Jako Abrie, Bill Grainger, Tina Salisbury, Steve Morris, Cr John Robson, Andrew Hollis, and Heidi Hughes

Against:           Cr Larry Baldock

Carried

Discussion point

·         The hearings payment had been an entitlement and hearings are defined in the determination. Whether that determination could be negated or modified had to be investigated by staff. When the policy was returned for deliberation in the next Policy Committee meeting, staff will advise whether Option 8.3 could be achieved or not.

·         It was noted that sitting on a hearings panel was more responsibilities, work and reading in addition to the normal work of a councillor. 

·         Elected members needed to sit on City Plan hearings and this had not been in practice for a number of years due to the timing of the hearings (just before or just after elections). Additionally, there had not been any plan changes in the last six years to the City Plan and as such, there had not been a need for a hearing.

12:03pm     Meeting adjourned

12:06pm     Meeting restarted

Motion

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That the Policy Committee:

Resolves to include in the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy that Councillors are provided with an option of a dedicated parking space, to be paid by the Councillor personally at Market rates.

      (Note: The policy does not include the Mayor, only councillors.)

In Favour:       Crs Jako Abrie, John Robson and Heidi Hughes

Against:           Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Kelvin Clout, Larry Baldock, Dawn Kiddie, Bill Grainger, Tina Salisbury, Andrew Hollis and Steve Morris

lost 3/8

At 12:09 pm, Chief Executive left the meeting.

Discussion points

·         There was a need to be mindful of parking pressures in the city and councillors were remunerated well so paying for car parking would be a principled approach; however it was equally important to recognise each councillor’s financial constraints

·         Another option discussed was that councillors could donate their carparks or use public transport and alternative transport options so that they could better understand parking issues faced by members of the public.  

·         It was important to take into account time commitments of councillors and therefore to look for parking in lieu of a dedicated space may not be conducive to productivity and efficiency.

Items for staff follow-up

ACTION:  To compile a list of professional development opportunities for Councillors.

Committee Resolution  PO1/19/14

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Policy Committee:

(c)          Notes that minor amendments to the mileage provisions in the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy are required to align with the Local Government Members (2019/20) Determination 2019.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Kelvin Clout, Larry Baldock, Dawn Kiddie, Jako Abrie, Bill Grainger, Tina Salisbury, Andrew Hollis, Steve Morris, John Robson and Heidi Hughes

Against:           Nil

Carried

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/1

Moved:       Cr Dawn Kiddie

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That apologies from Dr Wayne Beilby for the meeting and Mayor Tenby Powell for lateness be received and accepted.

Carried

Cr Larry Baldock advised the Chairperson of his possible early departure.

7.1         2020 Appointment of Trustees to Tauranga Art Gallery Trust

Staff:         Anne Blakeway, Manager: CCO Relationships and Governance

Key points

·         The report was taken as read.  Sought approval for the process to appoint two new trustees to the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust and to appoint the members of the Appointment Panel.

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/2

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Receives the 2020 Appointment of Trustees to Tauranga Art Gallery Trust report and attachment.

(b)     Initiates the process to recruit two new trustees to the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust Board for terms of three years, from 1 May 2020 to 30 April 2023.

(c)     Appoints the following to the appointment panel:

(i)      Peter Anderson, Chair for Tauranga Art Gallery Trust, or his nominee.

(ii)     Councillor Kelvin Clout and Councillor Tina Salisbury for Tauranga City Council (TCC).

(d)     Approves the appointment of Jo Bond as the independent appointment panel member.

(e)     Confirms the skills, knowledge and experience required for the two new Tauranga Art Gallery Trust trustee positions.

Carried

7.2         Amendment of Appointment of Directors to Council Organisations Policy

Staff:         Anne Blakeway, Manager: CCO Relationships and Governance

Key points

·         Outlined the recommended changes to the Policy; were generally small changes to make the process more practicable.

In response to questions

·         Clarification was sought regarding the process of identification of a candidate amongst existing Board members for the position of Chairperson.  The process would be based on a recommendation from the Board to appoint a current Board member as Chairperson; would still come to Council for appointment but not through an appointment panel.

·         Clarification was sought around the delegation to the Chief Executive rather than the process being fully managed by the full governance body.  The delegation was more to allow an appointment process to be completed when Council was unavailable e.g. during an election interregnum or a civil defence incident.  Ultimate decision would still come to Council.

·         The delegated process would still be a robust process and provide rigour to the appointment.  The final decision still rested with Council.

Discussion points raised

·         Appointment of an existing Board member as Chairperson would need to be managed carefully in case the recommendation was rejected when it came to Council.

·         Any delegation transferred authority from the governance body to management; was a need to be clear about the limits of the delegation to ensure the organisation was not open to challenge.

·         Highlighted the need to ensure that policy and practice align.

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/3

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Receives the Amendment of Appointment of Directors to Council Organisations Policy Report.

(b)     Adopts the revised Appointment of Directors to Council Organisations Policy (Attachment 1), including amendments to clauses 4.4 and 4.7, with immediate effect.

(c)     Delegates to the Chief Executive the authority to approve the skills, knowledge and experience sought for Council Organisation board appointments, along with the appointment panel composition, subject to consulting with the Mayor.

In Favour:       Cr Dawn Kiddie, Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Heidi Hughes, Steve Morris and Tina Salisbury.

Against:           Crs Andrew Hollis and John Robson.

carried 9/2

7.3         Approval of Elected Members' Expenses and Resources Policy 2020

Staff:         Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst 

Key points

·         A decision was required regarding the amount to include in the Policy for hearings panel member allowances.

·         There would be a further report to Council regarding the composition of the City Plan Hearings Committee.  Hearings would be in 2021. 

·         Hearings payment did not apply to regulatory hearings such as dog hearings; but only to resource management hearing processes.

Discussion points raised

·         Councillors were already paid for a full-time job; a councillor on a hearings panel might have to drop other council duties if the hearings workload became too heavy.

·         It was up to a Hearings Panel member whether a hearings allowance was claimed.

Committee Recommendation 

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Approves councillors who participate in hearings being entitled to claim an allowance at a rate of the minimum wage per hour for being a member of a hearings panel and the minimum wage per hour for Chair of the panel.

(b)     Adopt the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2020 to replace the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2016.

The following amendment was put.

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/4

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That “to claim an allowance at a rate of the minimum wage per hour” be changed to “to claim an allowance at a rate of the current living wage per hour”.

In Favour:       Crs Dawn Kiddie, Mayor Tenby Powell, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes, John Robson and Tina Salisbury

Against:           Crs Steve Morris, Kelvin Clout and Bill Grainger

8/3

Carried

The substantive motion was then put.

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/5

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Approves councillors who participate in hearings being entitled to claim an allowance at a rate of the current living wage per hour for being a member of a hearings panel and the current living wage per hour for Chair of the panel.

carried

(b)     Adopts the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2020 to replace the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2016.

In Favour:       Crs Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris, Mayor Tenby Powell, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes and Tina Salisbury

Against:           Nil

Abstained:       Cr John Robson

Carried

7.4         Standing Orders

Staff:         Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services 

Key points

·         Summarised key conclusions from the Standing Orders training undertaken.

·         Noted areas of meeting process that were discussed and direction given by councillors.

·         Explained the concepts of collective responsibility and collaborative disagreement.

·         Noted key areas for decisions within the proposed Standing Orders before adoption.

·         Noted the differences between voting options.

·         Outlined the change to the definition of “Leave of absence” in the proposed Standing Orders, which aligned with Council’s Elected Members’ Expenses and Allowances Policy.

·         Leave of absence would be recorded as an apology in the meeting minutes.  Meeting minutes would record if a member’s apology for a meeting was due to being on other council business.

·         Noted the inclusion of the delegation to the Chief Executive during an election hiatus.

In response to questions

·         The words  “for clarification” in Standing Order 13.4 could be removed without impact.

·         Considered that a privacy issue was raised if reasons for leave of absence, such as sickness, were required to be recorded in meeting minutes; and advised that a leave of absence should be recorded simply as an apology with no reason needed or noted.

·         Clarification was sought regarding the reading of speeches in Chambers.  Members could read a pre-prepared speech if they wished to do so.

·         Clarification was provided around options available in a meeting to free up speaking restrictions; there was flexibility within Standing Orders to change rules for a debate.

Discussion points raised

·         Emphasised the importance of free speech and respect of the opinions of others.

·         Important to maintain privacy of elected members and to be cautious about publishing personal information.

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/6

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Receives the Standing Orders report;

carried

(b)     Recommends to the Council the adoption of the Standing Orders in Appendix 1 which includes:

(i)      Amended Principle 1.1 to include “Free speech: members will respect the diversity of thought and opinion that are part of a healthy democracy”.

carried

(ii)     Members’ and public deputations right to attend by audio- or audio-visual link (Standing Orders 13.7 to 13.16).

carried

(iii)     Casting vote provision for the Mayor or Chairperson, or any other person presiding at a meeting (Standing Order 19.3)

In Favour:       Crs Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris, Mayor Tenby Powell, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes and Tina Salisbury

Against:           Cr John Robson

carried 10/1

(iv)    Option B (medium) as the default provision for speaking and moving motions. (Standing Order 22.1).

carried

(v)     Delegating to the Mayor the power to grant a leave of absence for Councillors in order to protect a members’ privacy (Standing Order 13.3) and a new definition of leave of absence to read “Leave of absence is a period of time, approved by the Mayor, for which an elected member is on leave from the duties of being an elected member.”

carried

(vi)    Amend Standing Order 13.4 by deleting “For clarification, the acceptance of a member’s apology constitutes a grant of “leave of absence” for that meeting.

carried

(vii)   Amend Standing Order 13.5 to include:

              (i)       the minutes will record if a member is absent from the meeting on Council business.

carried

               (ii)      The minutes will record if the member is absent due to sickness and other relevant reasons beyond the member’s control.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Bill Grainger and Heidi Hughes

Against:           Crs Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris, Kelvin Clout, Andrew Hollis, John Robson and Tina Salisbury

lost 5/6

The wording of Recommendation (vii) (ii) was changed and, with the agreement of the mover and seconder, was then put as reworded:

               (ii)      The minutes may record at the member’s request if the member is absent due to sickness and other relevant reasons beyond the member’s control.

carried

(viii)   Delegating to the Chief Executive during the election interregnum period the authority to make decisions on urgent matters that cannot wait until the first meeting of the new Council. (New Standing Order 6.6).

carried

(ix)    Time limit on movers of motions when speaking to the motion is reduced from 10 minutes to five minutes (Standing Order 21.2)

carried

(x)     Adding that a procedural motion to close or adjourn debate can be taken after two speakers have spoken for the motion and two against or, in the chairperson’s opinion, it is reasonable to accept the closure motion (Standing Order 25.1).

In Favour:       Cr Dawn Kiddie, Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes and Tina Salisbury

Against:           Crs Steve Morris and John Robson

carried 9/2

7.5         Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy

Staff:         Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst

Rob Wickman, Compliance Officer: Building and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms

Key points

·         Four submissions were received and chapter two of the report detailed the issues that had been identified in the submissions.

·         The costs of investigating dangerous and insanitary buildings were not available and were consequent on many factors such as staffing, resources, and funding.

·         There were no buildings in Tauranga City Council’s jurisdiction which fell into the category of dangerous and insanitary buildings.

·         Staff had advised that the issue of chronic hoarders was best dealt with under the Health Act 1956 and relevant bylaws.

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/7

Moved:       Cr Andrew Hollis

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Receives the written submissions to the draft Dangerous and Insanitary Buildings Policy (Attachment One).

(b)     Adopts the Dangerous and Insanitary Building Policy 2020 (Attachment Three) pursuant to section 131 of the Building Act 2004 and for the policy to take effect from 18 February 2020.

(c)     Rescinds the Dangerous, Earthquake-prone and Insanitary Buildings Policy 2011, effective from 18 February 2020.

(d)     Authorises the Chief Executive, or their delegate, to make any typographical changes or to correct minor errors or omissions that may be required before the policy is published.

Carried

1.08pm       Meeting adjourned.

2.00pm       Meeting reconvened.

At 2:00pm, Mayor Tenby Powell left the meeting.

7.6         Hearing of submissions on the draft Coastal Structures Policy

Staff:         Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

Key points

·         Submissions were received and heard in Chambers.

·         Report was taken as read and there was no further discussion on the report.

Committee Resolution  PO3/20/8

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Receives the written and verbal submissions on the draft Coastal Structures Policy.

Carried

Hearings

1.            Sub ID: 13, 48 – Chris Doms

-       PowerPoint Presentation

Key points

·         Discussed excessive encroachment by residents of Forrester Drive esplanade within reserve land.

·         Ratepayers had paid for seawalls which were being used exclusively by private residents because they had concerns about the security of their property; however, there were many houses that had boundaries over the reserves yet did not restrict access.

·         The motivation of those residents who attempted to build fences on reserve land was not known but such structures would contravene Tauranga City Council policies.

·         The submitter had received 295 responses to his post on Facebook on the issue.

·         The waterfront and esplanade would benefit with better usage of walkways and cycle lanes.

2.            Sub ID: 68 – Mike Olsen

-       PowerPoint Presentation

Key points

·         Submitter had agreed to waive his legal privilege when presenting the legal opinion contained in the presentation.

·         There was a gap in the Council’s strategy and policy in protecting seaside reserves because seawall(s) were not included in the building consent process.

·         Structure consenting was a difficult process and had lost credibility because questions that were raised had not been answered effectively. 

·         There were concerns and issues specific to reserves which necessitated a policy to provide guidance.

·         The seawall was unconsented and an offer by residents to maintain it themselves was rejected.

·         There were serious concerns of slips in the area and Tauranga City Council was looking into these.

·         No decisions had been made on whether the walkway remained on the reserve or went across the water supported on pilings.

3.            Sub ID: 38 – Mark Apeldoorn

-       PowerPoint Presentation

Key points

·         The submitter had supported the policy and acknowledged challenges that Tauranga City Council faced.

·         The policy, in its current form, was not collaborative with residents’ wishes because it was defending the esplanade and not the properties.

·         In the observation of the submitter, there had been loss of approximately ten metres of the foreshore area in twenty years (the information was sourced from analysing Google Earth satellite time-lapse images).

·         Some areas of the esplanade in Matua had stone walls or other types of coastal structures while other areas did not because of land ownership limitations. 

·         Considered that a simple and inexpensive coastal structure known as sand sausages could help the harbour recover without causing damage to the natural habitat.

4.            Sub ID: 52 – John Little

·         Submitter had cancelled his appointment.

5.            Sub ID: 73 – Danielle Fong

Key points

·         The policy was confusing and complex; many landowners did not know what the policy meant for them and this had been further complicated due to mixed messages and information from different points of contact in Tauranga City Council (TCC).

·         The submitter had emphasised that sea level rise must be taken into consideration in any discussion regarding coastal structures.

·         For the landowners, the cost of maintaining the seawall including a walkway was untenable.

·         The submitter stated that TCC had to fund the maintenance of any coastal structures and look for innovative ways in doing so as well as provide guidance and support to landowners.

·         The seawall  was being breached during normal high tide with medium winds and this had caused erosion.

·         The submitter believed that constructing a 1.5metre wide walkway in the area would be dangerous due to the seawall breaches which would make the walkway slippery.

·         Considered there would be frequent storm events that would cause significant damage to any coastal structure and therefore the policy had to be futureproofed; otherwise TCC would end up spending money on remedial works regularly.

·         Landowners did not have the funds and knowledge to maintain a seawall or the engineering knowledge required to make resource or building consents for coastal structures.

·         Where an iwi had customary rights, they had the prerogative and right to deny any resource consents.

6.            Sub ID: 37 – Ray Lowe

Key points

·         Sea level rise and climate change were real concerns and the policy had to take these into consideration in order to mitigate any future damages to coastal structures.

·         A hundred years was not long; grandchildren would still be alive, and the decisions made today would have an impact on their future and the future of others.

·         Tidal movements were causing soil erosion and storm surges were breaching the current seawall which had undermined the integrity of the structure.

·         The sewer line and pumping station were important infrastructures and would face inundation damage due to sea level rise. 

·         The submitter offered mitigating options of either a steel sheet wall that could be rammed into the ground with fifty percent being above ground or a three-metre-high dike if 1.59 metres of sea level rise was predicted in a hundred years.

7.            Sub ID: 14 – Neville Nicholson

·         Submitter had cancelled his appointment.

3.09pm       Meeting adjourned.

3.25pm       Meeting reconvened.

8.            Sub ID: 59 – Kate (Cogito Trust)

Key points

·         Implications of the policy in terms of how it affected the landowners had been poorly communicated by Council.

·         Submitted that the cost analysis should have investigated targeted rates to fund Council’s plans for coastal structures.

·         The policy was a one-size-fits-all solution to an issue that required a tailored approach to multiple impacted areas and many landowners.

·         The central government, through the Resource Management Act 1991, outlined the statutory requirements to provide walkways, and local government policy had to operate within that.

·         The council should further investigate what other cities were doing to address similar issues and Tauranga had to take the lead in this area with innovative and collaborative solutions.

3.38pm       Meeting adjourned.

4.04pm       Meeting reconvened.

9.            Sub ID: 57 – Paul Hickson (on behalf of Malibu Hamilton)- Surfbreak Protection Society and Paul Shanks (President - Surfbreak Protection Society)

Tabled item 1.

Key points

·         The Council had failed to adhere to the tenets of the Resource Management Act 1991 where areas of archaeological and cultural significance were concerned.

·         Surfbreak Protection Society had supported the need for public access and walkways in coastal areas.

·         The Society believed that hard coastal structures would impact on swell corridors and hydrological movements.

·         Hard coastal structures also had the potential to impact on the natural landscape of the area due to excavations and dredging.

·         Surf breaks were protected areas and their natural formation should not be tampered with by installing hard structures.

·         Shark Alley and the Kaituna groynes were examples of the dangers of installing unnatural structures, such as a swimming pool, and lessons could be learnt from these examples.

·         The success of the surf break at Wainui Beach in Gisborne was a good example of how surf break protection had been taken into policy consideration of coastal structures and made to work in the favour of everyone.

·         There had been several surf break impact assessments which Council could use as a resource during their deliberations on coastal structures.

1            Apologies

Committee RESOLUTION PO4/20/1

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That the apology for absence received from Cr Bill Grainger and Dr Wayne Beilby be accepted.

Carried

7.1         Bay Venues Limited - Capital and Renewals Expenditure and Pricing Review Proposals for the Draft Annual Plan 2020/2021

Staff:         Anne Blakeway, Manager: CCO Relationships and Governance

External:    Gary Dawson, Chief Executive Officer Bay Venues Limited (BVL)

                  Adam Ellmers, BVL Chief Financial Officer

                  Justine Brennan, BVL Chief Operating Officer

                  Tina Harris-Ririnui, BVL Venues & Programmes Manager

-       PowerPoint Presentation 1

Key points

·         Bay Venues Limited (BVL) was the steward of the Council’s properties and had a responsibility in enhancing their quality and standard. 

·         BVL provided services to the community on behalf of the Council and, while having a commercial focus, it was not a profit generating entity because it was different from a council controlled trading organisation.

·         By being self-sufficient, BVL had wanted to alleviate impacts on ratepayers and only sought an increase in funding from Council based on the current consumer price index increases.

·         The management model in partnership with Council was working and required Council’s support for new initiatives and for asset replacement or upgrades.

·         BVL required the Council’s approval for setting user fees, new capital, and replacing assets through a renewal program.

·         The Capital Request for financial year 2021 had included the University of Waikato’s Adams Centre for High Performance expansion to accommodate high profile clients such as NZ Rugby; the Greerton Aquatic Centre’s rejuvenation project because it was a forty year old asset that required urgent attention to the pool, cladding, and grandstand; the Operations Hub staff at Trustpower Baypark were working out of a storage facility which posed significant workplace health and safety issues and was a loss of space for machine storage; and, modernising Clubfit Baywave and Baypark Events centre.

·         There were significant costs involved in funding these projects so increasing user fees and exploring Council subsidies to minimise impact on rates were some options for revenue generation to fund the projects.

·         It was clarified that decisions on the proposed recommendations in the report were about accepting projects into the draft Annual plan so that significant due diligence and consultations could be carried out rather than approving or not approving projects per se.

In response to questions

·         NZ Rugby tenancy could not be taken for granted because it was a high-end user with significant expectations in terms of requirements so there was a chance that, if these were not fulfilled, it could explore other high performance centres in the country so the expansion work at the Adam’s Centre was important.

·         The Centre was untenable in its current form due to the lack of space and this was impacting on NZ Rugby’s business as usual operations despite them attempting to make it work by conducting meetings in cafes; this was a privacy concern with sportspeople. 

·         Whilst securing another tenant was not an issue if NZ Rugby left, the difficulty lay in securing a sporting entity of national standing for what was a purpose built space. 

·         Futureproofing plans for the Centre had taken four years to finetune and involved developing a purpose built office and training site.

·         In response to a question regarding wages, it was clarified that a high percentage of the staff were paid below the living wage.

·         The impacts of deferment would include the Operations Hub continuing to work in a temporary office space co-sharing with machine storage.

·         Greerton Aquatic Centre and Adams Centre were top priorities which is why they were chosen in terms of prioritisation.

·         Based on demands and the market, appetite for conference venues, concept and feasibility studies had been done which were then fed into the proposal.

·         There was confidence in the figures presented based on the demand for space, the advantage of existing tenants wanting to take up more space if it became available, and new potential tenants such as NZ Cricket looking for space.

·         There were opportunities for cost savings in the project because the Veros report had acknowledged that the business case was potentially under budget and the Cosmopolitan Club project previously was completed under budget as well.

·         Even though the current tenants were specialist or dedicated sports organisations, should they vacate, the nature of the business and space was based on the sports industry in general so other sporting businesses or organisations would take up tenancy.

Committee RESOLUTION PO4/20/2

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Receives Bay Venues Limited’s submission to the draft Annual Plan 2020/2021;

(b)     Agrees to incorporate Option 1b into the capital list for prioritisation in the draft Annual Plan 2020/2021 going to Council in March, prior to community consultation.

This option incorporates some elements of Bay Venues Limited’s capital programme – in addition to other minor new capital projects totalling $346,757 – and their associated budgets, namely:

(i)      the Greerton rejuvenation project ($1,103,666); and

(ii)     the Adams Centre expansion project ($5,351,412).

(c)     Defers the following proposal for consideration in the Long Term Plan 2021-2031:

(i)      Operations Hub at Trustpower Baypark ($2,264,589)

(ii)     Expansion of Clubfit Baywave ($2,403,000); and

(iii)     Baypark Events Centre ($4,900,000).

(d)     If Council approves the capital funding for (b)(i) and/or (b)(ii) above, delegates authority to the Chief Executive to approve an amendment of Bay Venues Limited’s existing loan agreement to reflect the approved capital budget;

(e)     Approves Bay Venues Limited’s total renewals budget of $5,822,826 into the draft Annual Plan 2020/2021 and include for community consultation;

(f)      In relation to Bay Venues Limited’s operating revenue, agrees to incorporate into the draft Annual Plan 2020/2021 and include for community consultation:

 (ii)    Option 2c – the hybrid model proposed by Bay Venues Limited (BVL), along with BVL’s proposed pricing schedule included in Attachment 3. This would enable some increase in user fees and charges ($400,000), with the remainder of the shortfall to be provided through an increase to the rates-funded operating subsidy ($150,000 plus CPI).

Carried

7.2         Annual Plan 2020/21 Update

Staff:         Joel Peters, Corporate Planner

                  Kathryn Sharplin, Manager Finance

                  Tracy Hughes, Financial Insights and Reporting Manager

– PowerPoint Presentation 2

Key points

·         The report summarised changes that had happened to the timeline since December.

·         Staff would come back to Council on March 4th to discuss the refined budget, the expenditure funding issues, options analysis, and to consider the revised capital programme.

In response to questions

·         From March 24^th, consultation would begin and proceed into April.

·         A session had been scheduled for councillors regarding involvement in the consultation process to provide detailed information on the consultation plan and updated budget.

·         The full collateral document would be compiled and written concurrently during the consultation period.

·         The Oropi upgrade would be an increase in abstraction and capacity of intake to utilise the additional capacity on the consent. The increase in capacity would assist in alleviating the water restrictions significantly.

·         The original proposed wharf was not going to deliver what was required in terms of demand or services and the offloading wharf was a product of collaborative work done via an advisory group and the design had the support of stakeholders.

Committee Resolution  PO4/20/3

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Dawn Kiddie

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Receives the report.

(b)     Approves the inclusion in the capital programme prioritisation expenditure to:

(i)      increase the capacity of the Oropi water treatment plant ($2.6 million 2020/21 and $4.4 million 2021/22),

(ii)     construct an offloading wharf at the Marine Precinct ($1.4 million).

(c)     Approves a continuation of funding for Destination Management from the Airport Activity surplus.

(d)     Notes additional requests for funding are being prepared for:

(i)      Tauranga Art Gallery

(ii)     Future engagement costs

Carried

7.3         Draft Fees for the 2020/21 Development Contributions Policy

Staff:         Ana Blackwood, Development Contributions Policy Analyst

                 Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

-       Tabled item 1

Key points

·         Development contributions are a cost recovery tool and fluid in terms of figures so numbers cannot be changed at the time of discovery as would affect the entire report. 

·         The recommendations in the report were to note the above and took into account the potential for future change.

In response to questions

·         The development contributions process did not fully recover costs because some future costs and unforeseen circumstances could not be forecasted or due to legislative requirements.

·         For example, if a project was budgeted at $10million over a ten year period but after completion had cost $12 million, then it was difficult to recover the overrun of $2million; however if the project was completed at  $8million, then the $2million would have to be returned as per legislative requirements.

·         In calculation with developers, project budgets had a built in 10% contingency in an attempt to mitigate any unforeseen costs or circumstances in the project cycle.

·         The significant increases in the Welcome Bay and Waiari projects were because the scope of the projects had changed significantly due to resilience factoring, futureproofing, increase in population growth, and other impacting costs that were identified by the quality audit process.

·         Granted that resilience factors and issues such as geotechnical ones were not something that could be easily identified or controlled; but a project cost increase four times over the original budget meant that Council had to become better at project management and cost planning. 

·         Tendering, risk management, and budgetary controls had tightened and been given extra resourcing so that project management was not carried out in silo, and there was a stringent robust costing regime being followed to get better project estimates in the early stages.

·         These were not only issues of cost fluctuations but of good governance as well and Council was investing more on specialist staff and tools so that it could work prudently in this complex environment.

Committee RESOLUTION PO4/20/4

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Notes the contents of the report and the expected changes to Development Contribution  policy which will be consulted on through the Draft 2020/21 Development Contribution Policy

(b)     Notes that staff will be engaging with the building community with the purpose of providing early notice of a signficant increase to the Citywide Development Contribution levy in the 2021/22 financial year.

Carried

7.4         Draft user fees and charges

Staff:         Tracey Hughes, Financial Insights & Reporting Manager

Joel Peters, Corporate Planner

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Key points

·         The report summarised the proposed fees and charges to be set for the next financial year.

·         The recommended user fees and charges constituted approximately 30% of the operating revenue for Council.

·         The figures were incorporated in the draft budget subject to change after community consultations and deliberations by elected members.

·         User fees and charges were based on consumer price index movements, cost recoveries, and reasonable rates.

·         Not all activities were chosen for a fee or charge increase because a 1.9% increase was not practical given the business model of certain activities.

In response to questions

·         User fees and charges were generally modest and the scope to increase them depended on legislative or policy constraints such as the Building Act or the Revenue and Financing policy framework, cost recovery requirements, and comparable or reasonable charges comparisons to other similar sized local authorities. 

·         Airport landing charges for non-regular light aircraft were reviewed in the last Long Term Plan and the bulk of the charges were collected from the national carrier.

·         The airport and airport parking were undergoing major expansion works and once completed would potentially provide an opportunity to increase fees and charges due to increased capacity and higher levels of service.

Committee RESOLUTION PO4/20/5

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That the Policy Committee:

(a)       Approves the proposed schedule of user fees and charges for 2020/21, outlined in Attachment 1, for future consultation with communities.

In Favour:       Crs Steve Morris, Dawn Kiddie, Tenby Powell, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes and Tina Salisbury

Against:           Nil

Abstained:       Cr John Robson

Carried 9/0

 1           APOLOGIES

Committee RESOLUTION PO5/20/1

Moved:       Cr Andrew Hollis

Seconded:  Cr Dawn Kiddie

That the apologies for absence received from Cr Bill Grainger and Dr. Wayne Beilby be accepted.

Carried

6.1         Minutes of the Policy Committee meeting held on 29 January 2020

Committee RESOLUTION PO5/20/2

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

(a)     That the minutes of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 29 January 2020 be received and confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

8.1         Deliberations on the proposal to remove the begging and rough sleeping provisions from the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018

Staff:         Rebecca Gallagher, Policy Analyst

Ariell King, Team Leader: Policy

Key points

·         Consultations on the proposal to remove the begging and rough sleeping provisions from the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018 had taken place from 20^th November until 20^th December 2019 and hearings had taken place on 29^th January 2019.

·         The report summarised all the submissions received and outlined several themes that originated from the submissions and consultations. 

·         The decision to amend the Bylaw by Council required deliberation on considerations such as what the perceived problem was that required addressing and whether the Bylaw was the best option or not.   

·         Page 29 of the Agenda contained a diagram to map out the two decisions which Council had to consider and the consequential options for each of the decisions.

·         The report contained the advantages and disadvantages of the decisions including recommendations and options.

In response to questions

·         There were approximately 280 submitters who were in support of keeping the Bylaw in its current form.

·         There were approximately 96 submitters who were in support of removing the Bylaw in its current form.

·         This was an untested legal area for the Bylaw and the amended wording had some justified limitations therefore reduced the risk of the Bylaw being inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act.

·         Paragraph 59 Clause 20.3 in the report had no implications under the Bill of Rights Act because the contentious issue was the begging provision and not the rough sleeping.

·         Due to the text of the amended wording being mainly from the Summary Offences Act and the added word ‘nuisance’ to the Bylaw, there was a potential that the legal challenge by the Tauranga Housing Advisory Trust could be withdrawn and any other legal challenges from elsewhere be averted.

·         There had been minimal complaints received under the Bylaw and an even smaller amount of enforcement carried out.

At 1.14pm the meeting adjourned.

At 1.24pm the meeting reconvened.

Motion

Moved:       Cr Andrew Hollis

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Policy Committee recommend to Council:

 (a)    The Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018 with the amendments below is the most appropriate form of bylaw and does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

 (b)    Amend clause 20.2 to cover nuisance or intimidatory begging:

 “No person shall beg within 5 metres of the public entrance to a retail premises within                         defined areas of CBD, Greerton and Mount Maunganui in a manner that is likely to  cause a nuisance, intimidation, harassment, alarm or distress to any reasonable person”

(c)     Amend clause 20.3 to cover rough sleeping which causes an obstruction:

“No person shall rough sleep within 5 meters of a retail premises within defined  areas of CBD, Greerton and Mount Maunganui in such a way as to cause an obstruction of a public way or of an entrance to a retail premises”

(d)     Resolves that the amendments clauses 20.2 and 20.3 shall come into force on 6 March 2020.

(e)     Delegate to staff the authority to make any typographical changes or correct any minor editorial changes for the purposes of correction or clarity before the Bylaw comes into force.

(f)      Action be taken to investigate:

(i)      Ways to continue to support and resource agencies in Tauranga working with people experiencing homelessness in alignment with the Western Bay of Plenty Homelessness Strategy; and

(ii)     Options to resource the need for enforcement of the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw.

In Favour:       Crs Dawn Kiddie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout and Andrew Hollis

Against:           Cr Steve Morris, Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Heidi Hughes, John Robson and Tina Salisbury

lost 4/6

Discusion points 

·         New Zealand was a first world country with a world class social services system and when combined with approximately forty community organisations working within the social service spaces, there should not be a single person out on the street begging or rough sleeping. 

·         The Bylaw was not a silver bullet, but it was a tool in the toolbox; however, it had to be the most appropriate tool to address the issues.

·         Council represented ratepayers and retailers alike, and it was in its best interests to see a resolution to the issues but a punitive measure like the Bylaw was not the way.  

·         Aggressive begging and intimidating or predatory behaviour were criminal activities under the Summary Offences Act making them a police matter; however, the police were failing to prioritise this as such. 

·         The revocation of the Bylaw could send the message that the Council cared more about the homeless and those engaging in illegal activities than the ratepayers and retailers.

·         Central government had to increase their funding to local police and social services organisations so that they have more resources to work effectively.

·         Local government needed to keep central government honest in this because they were failing to provide resources to these front-line agencies working in difficult conditions dealing with mental health issues, drug addictions, homelessness and domestic violence.

Committee Resolution  PO5/20/3

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That the Policy Committee recommend to Council:

(a)     To revoke the begging and rough sleeping provisions (clauses 20.2 and 20.3) in the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018.

(b)     The revocation of clauses 20.2 and 20.3 shall come into force on 6 March 2020.

(c)     Delegate to staff the authority to make any typographical changes or correct any minor editorial changes for the purposes of correction or clarity before the Bylaw comes into force.

(d)     Action be taken to investigate:

(i)      Ways to continue to support and resource agencies in Tauranga working with people experiencing homelessness in alignment with the Western Bay of Plenty Homelessness Strategy; and

(ii)     Options to resource the need for enforcement of the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw.

In Favour:         Cr Steve Morris, Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Heidi Hughes, John Robson and Tina Salisbury

Against:           Crs Dawn Kiddie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout and Andrew Hollis

Carried 6/4

1            Apologies

Committee RESOLUTION PO6/20/1

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That the apologies for lateness from Mayor Tenby Powell and absence received from Dr Wayne Beilby be accepted.

Carried

7.1         Hearing of submissions on the draft Naming Policy

Staff:         Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

Key points:

·         The report was taken as read and there were no questions by councillors to staff.

Committee RESOLUTION PO6/20/2

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Receives written and verbal submissions on the draft Naming Policy.

(b)     Notes the late submissions from Bryan Johnson (86), Reverend John Hebenton (87), and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi te Rangi Iwi Trust (96).

Carried

(1)          Submission ID: 43 - Mary Dillon

·         Cancelled

(2)          Submission ID: 82 - Ngā Pōtiki ā Tamapahore Trust - Colin Reeder (Chairman) and Victoria Kingi (Deputy Chair)

·         The submitter explained what a post-settlement governance entity was and acknowledged the three iwis and four treaty tribes of Tauranga. 

·         In 2013, Ngā Pōtiki had signed a deed of settlement agreement with the Crown to address past excesses of the Crown from the 1860s onwards.

·         The submitter congratulated Council on the draft naming policy because it was seen as a positive step towards acknowledging Te Reo Māori as the first language of the land.

·         However, the draft policy did not go far enough and Section 8 of the Māori Language Act 2016 had principles that could assist in strengthening the draft policy further.

·         Māori was the indigenous language of the country, had inherent enduring mana, and it was the foundation of cultural and national identity.

·         Māori were the stewards of the language and its transmission was generational.

·         Māori was protected under Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi and the Crown had recognised the importance of the language which was why it was the official language of New Zealand.

·         The submitter outlined concerns that were in their written submission on Section 5.3.3 and Schedule 1 of the draft naming policy.

·         Te Reo Māori was not expressed in short words, sentences or phrases and certain criterions in the draft naming policy did not take this into account.

·         It was recommended to have an exception for Te Reo Māori as per the reasons outlined in the submission.

·         The Auckland City’s 2019 naming guidelines were deemed best practice for naming conventions or policies when it came to Te Reo Māori due to its exceptions, comprehensiveness, and inclusivity with Mana Whenua involvement.  

·         Council was also mandated by the Local Government Act Sections 14 and 14.1(d) which stipulated that Māori be given opportunities in local government decision making processes.

·         For new roads and streets, it was important for Council to engage with Mana Whenua from that area to make an informed choice and decision about naming. 

·         The Trust did not advocate that there should be a hundred percent (100%) changeover of road naming to Te Reo but rather that it should be done in a consultative manner.

(3)          Submission ID: 96 - Ngāi te Rangi - Reon Tuanau

·         Cancelled.

(4)          Submission ID: 79 - Richard Prince

-       Presentation 1 and Tabled Item 1

·         The submitter had doubts about the results of Council’s 6 November 2019 ‘Proposed Changes to the policy and why we want them’ survey because he believed that it was not representative of all the views of the wider Tauranga community.

·         The submitter had made a Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act (LGOIMA) request and concluded that the survey was designed inhouse by council staff and promoted to iwi, hapū, the Tauranga Historical Society, and others but not to Citizens Advocacy Tauranga, various ratepayers or residents groups, Mainstreet, Grey Power, Hobson’s Pledge.

·         The submitter considered that the survey process demonstrated a lack of impartiality in the way it was designed, promoted, carried out, and how its information was used for the report

·         Due to these reasons, the submitter believed that the results of the survey had a predetermined bias to mislead councillors and the wider Tauranga community.

·         Descendants of the first settlers also had a history, culture, and heritage that needed to be recognised and acknowledged by the names in the city but be balanced with the interests of the Tangata Whenua as well.  

·         The submitter had requested information on what percentage of Te Reo names existed in Tauranga; Council was unable to provide this information so he had conducted his own research.

·         According to his findings, there were approximately 2000 streets named.

·         Based on his calculations, the submitter stated that there was already a significant number of Te Reo names in Tauranga and believed that the demand for a naming policy was coming from a handful of activists.

·         The submitter urged Council to do another independent survey or hold a referendum to get the view of the majority.

·         Dual naming would go against Land Information New Zealand’s guidelines, cause problems with GPS maps, and hinder emergency services from reaching locations.

·         The submitter was not against dual naming but if a street or park already had a Pakeha name then it should stay there as first and Te Reo should come second as was in the case of Gate Pa Pukehinahina.

·         Dual naming would be an expensive process, at cost to the ratepayers, and it was the councillors’ responsibility to fairly represent Tangata Whenua and Pakeha.

·         It could become a platform to rewrite history by demanding English names to be dropped entirely as was happening in the cases against Cameron Road and Greerton.

·         The notion of dual naming had to be accepted and not imposed so there needed to be a ratio applied to naming for balance. Subdivision developers who had invested money and taken risks would be forced to use names put forward by those who have no expertise in the sector.   

(5)          Submission ID: 94 - Rob Paterson

-       Tabled Item 2

·         98 written submissions were received on the draft naming policy of which 34 supported it, (62 were against it, and two were neutral.

·         There were eight submitters who had wanted to speak to their submissions of which six were supporters of the policy.

·         Out of the approximately 870 submissions that had been canvassed by Council staff, a majority were opposed to the policy.

·         The city had a Māori name (Tauranga), (50%) of suburbs had Māori names, and 25% of street names were of Māori origins.

At 1.34pm, Mayor Tenby Powell entered the meeting.

·         New streets, parks, recreational areas and so forth would get Māori names as had been displayed in The Lakes subdivision development.

·         The submitter questioned the necessity and impetus for the policy, particularly from the standpoint of residents and developers.

·         According to the submitter, the developers had invested significantly into the land they owned and should have the right to name it and residents should be able to have a say in what the name of the street was going to be.  

·         Residents should be given an opportunity to air their thoughts on naming/renaming streets in which they live in.

·         Whilst Council had the final say in naming, that discretion should be measured, fair, unbiased, and done in a collaborative manner rather than along racial lines.

·         The Phoenix Park renaming was strongly opposed by most of the responders during consultations and was now seen as a failure.

·         Due to a lack of due diligence and consultation, the new name for the park was 26 characters long and remedial work had cost $7000 at the expense of ratepayers.   

·         It should not be made mandatory to accept gifted names from any source and dual naming should show the English name first because it was the primary language of New Zealand.

·         Dual naming could cause significant confusion with google earth, GPS applications or LINZ.

·         When the submitter had resided in West Auckland from 1943 to1966, ten out of twelve streets in his suburb had Māori names after native trees or birds, were short and easy to pronounce, and were accepted by residents with pride.

·         Council had bigger issues to focus their attention or resources on rather than the draft naming policy because there was nothing wrong with the existing policy that dealt with naming and in its current form had very little financial impact on the ratepayers.

·         The submitter questioned whether all 43 suburbs, all council assets, facilities, parks, road signs, and so forth would be renamed and if so, who was going pay for it.

·         It was the submitter’s request that existing names be exempt from any renaming and that residents should have a say in any proposed changes.

·         The submitter was of the conviction that the motive of the draft naming policy was to erase the history of Tauranga’s first settlers.

·         The submitter stated that new names for new locations was acceptable based on public benefit, ease of recognition, and when done in a consultative way.

·         The submitter was asked if he was aware that Wales (United Kingdom) had very long names for their towns and whether he had any data on GPS problems where towns and countries had undertaken dual naming to which he answered in the negative.

·         The Chair of the Policy Committee had responded to the submitter’s concern about late submissions accepted after the hearing date by advising him that Council, at its discretion, could accept late submissions after the closing date. 

(6)          Submission ID: 66 - Don Finlayson

·         There was a distinct difference between Wales and New Zealand in that Wales had a very strong policy on promoting their language and most people in Wales were Welsh whereas in New Zealand, most people were not Māori.

·         Most GPS systems in Wales and the United Kingdom worked using the postcodes.

·         The submitter was against changing existing street names to Māori but, where appropriate, new streets could be given suitable Te Reo names.

·         Most Tauranga residents were already familiar with street names and changing them would cause confusion and angst in the community.

·         A vocal minority was pushing for the changes and were determined to live in the past by holding on to grievances for events that happened 200 years ago.

·         The new name for Phoenix Park was unpronounceable, elongated, and even Council had trouble spelling it which was why the signage had to be changed. 

·         Gifting a name was fine but common sense should prevail on accepting it or not. 

·         Several councils in New Zealand had a policy for naming for new streets and subdivisions in Te Reo but the naming was restricted to twelve letters in most cases.

·         The submitter was of the view that there were unelected advisors who sat on Council committees defeating the purpose of democratically elected councillors making decisions.

·         New Zealand was a multiracial country and future generations or newcomers would struggle to pronounce difficult Māori names; however, given that Māori was one of the three recognised languages in New Zealand meant pronunciation was important. 

·         Names would go through transformation and pronunciation would become better due to natural progression and evolution of language like Old English to new English.

·         It was clarified that Council and the policy did not seek to overturn existing names unless there was a significant reason to do so.

(7)          Submission ID: 72 - Irene Walker

·         The submitter had supported the policy because a Te Reo name was the identity and historical knowledge of Tangata Whenua and Mana Whenua, and it protected that knowledge and language for future generations and newcomers alike.

·         The submitter acknowledged the work Tauranga City Council had done in this area and on the draft naming policy itself. 

·         The Tauranga Moana Design Principles were a guidance tool being used in the Te Papa design and it was an example of a consultative, collaborative, and engaging process between stakeholders of getting Te Reo naming and pronunciation correct.

·         With time, effort, and practice the pronunciation would become easier just as Māori over time had learnt English and Pakeha pronunciations.

·         This was a challenge as well as an opportunity for learning institutions to educate on correct pronunciations.

·         Tangata Whenua had to work in partnership with Tauranga City Council to find innovative ways of educating such as artist Mr G’s out-of-the-box style of teaching people on pronouncing ‘Tauranga’ correctly.

·         Whakapapa was essential for naming rights because it gave the genealogy and the history of the area, and subsequently its connection to the people.

·         The submitter supported bilingual naming but stressed that care had to be taken in ensuring the name chosen was correct and appropriate for history of any area.

·         Pyes Pa Road was often mistaken as Māori but was named after Major Pye who was a controversial figure; this was testament to a lack of Māori history taught in schools where history of other countries was prioritised over Māori history.

(8)          Submission ID: 90 - Puhirake Ihaka

·         The submitter spoke on behalf of Te Rangapu and supported the policy.

·         The history of Tauranga city was pre-European and there had always been Tangata Whenua and Mana Whenua names.

·         The names of places, streets, reserves, parks and so forth depicted Māori stories, history, and connection to that area.

·         Dual naming was kotahitanga that fostered togetherness because a Pakeha name also had a Māori history and by recognising that would create a climate of inclusivity.

·         It was the submitter’s view that consideration should be given to Te Reo and dual naming for new streets.

·         The submitter believed it was important that when land or subdivision projects were initiated, Council gave the project a Māori name so that it normalised the process for interactions between developers, Council and Tangata Whenua.

·         Pronunciation was important and would cement the relationship between Māori and non-Māori.

·         Incorrect pronunciation had become embedded because of incorrect and lack of education; however, with time and practice, with a willingness to learn and engaging with Tangata Whenua this could be overcome.

·         Pronunciation and Māori could be learnt because Pakeha who went overseas learnt other more difficult languages relatively quickly.

(9)          Submission ID: 87 - Reverend John Hebenton

·         The submitter was in support of the policy and applauded Council for the bold step of encouraging Māori naming.

·         There were not many Māori named streets, places, reserves, and facilities in Pukehinahina Gate Pa.

·         The lack of Māori names diminished and undermined the significant history of the area as one of the major Māori settlements in Aotearoa before European arrival.

·         Cameron Road was a divisive name due to the person it was named after and some Māori did not drive on it because General Cameron’s actions had left once wealthy Māori landless and poor. 

·         Greerton, Yatton Park, Chadwick Road, Durham Street, Hamilton Street, Mitchell Street and many other streets, roads or places were named after the invading forces and those who led these forces, or after missionaries and early settlers.

·         Information about colonial history and its victories commemorated in names was readily available but it was difficult to locate information on Māori history or about those Māori who fought to defend their lands.

·         However, in a positive step some of the Māori names are being recorded on street names in The Lakes subdivision and the submitter thanked Council for making it happen.  

·         The submitter’s church was on Church Street and they were open to the street name being changed.

·         First to Sixth avenues are examples where better or creative naming could have been done and this was an opportunity to engage with Mana Whenua on it.  

·         There was a need to honour the first peoples of Tauranga Moana as well as honouring all other history so that harmony could begin to happen.