AGENDA

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

Thursday, 16 July 2020 &

Friday, 17 July 2020

I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held on:

Date:

Thursday, 16 July & Friday, 17 July 2020

Time:

9.30am  (both days)

Location:

Tauranga City Council

Council Chambers

91 Willow Street

Tauranga

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

 


Terms of reference – Council

 

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Mayor Tenby Powell

Deputy chairperson

Cr Tina Salisbury

Members

Cr Jako Abrie

Cr Larry Baldock

Cr Kelvin Clout

Cr Bill Grainger

Cr Andrew Hollis

Cr Heidi Hughes

Cr Dawn Kiddie

Cr Steve Morris

Cr John Robson

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.

Role

·         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.

Scope

·         Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

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

·         The powers Council is legally prohibited from delegating include:

o   Power to make a rate.

o   Power to make a bylaw.

o   Power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan.

o   Power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report

o   Power to appoint a chief executive.

o   Power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement.

o   All final decisions required to be made by resolution of the territorial authority/Council pursuant to relevant legislation (for example: the approval of the City Plan or City Plan changes as per section 34A Resource Management Act 1991).

·         Council has chosen not to delegate the following:

o   Power to compulsorily acquire land under the Public Works Act 1981.

·         Make those decisions which are required by legislation to be made by resolution of the local authority.

·         Authorise all expenditure not delegated to officers, Committees or other subordinate decision-making bodies of Council.

·         Make appointments of members to the CCO Boards of Directors/Trustees and representatives of Council to external organisations.

·         Consider any matters referred from any of the Standing or Special Committees, Joint Committees, Chief Executive or General Managers.

Procedural matters

·         Delegation of Council powers to Council’s committees and other subordinate decision-making bodies.

·         Adoption of Standing Orders.

·         Receipt of Joint Committee minutes.

·         Approval of Special Orders.

·         Employment of Chief Executive.

·         Other Delegations of Council’s powers, duties and responsibilities.

Regulatory matters

Administration, monitoring and enforcement of all regulatory matters that have not otherwise been delegated or that are referred to Council for determination (by a committee, subordinate decision-making body, Chief Executive or relevant General Manager).

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

Order Of Business

1          Apologies. 7

2          Public Forum.. 7

3          Acceptance of Late Items. 7

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 7

5          Change to the Order of Business. 7

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 7

Nil

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 7

8          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 7

Nil

9          Recommendations from Other Committees. 7

Nil

10       Business. 8

10.1          Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations. 8

10.2          Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations - Issues and Options - Other feedback and suggestions. 54

10.3          Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations - User fees and charges and other topics. 106

10.4          Issue and Options- Rating Policy - level of Uniform Annual General Charge and general differential 169

10.5          Submissions on the Draft 2020/21 Development Contributions Policy. 175

11       Discussion of Late Items. 190

12       Public Excluded Session. 190

Nil

 

 


1            Apologies

2            Public Forum  

3            Acceptance of Late Items

4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

5            Change to the Order of Business

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Nil 

7            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

8            Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

9            Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

10          Business

10.1       Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations

File Number:           A11603267

Author:                    Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Tracey Hughes, Financial Insights & Reporting Manager

Authoriser:             Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       This report is presented to Council to deliberate on the issues raised and feedback received throughout the consultation period and hearings.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Note the operating budget per the draft annual plan consultation, with a rate increase of 4.7% after growth, is the base position for the agreed annual plan subject to specific decisions through deliberations.

(b)     Agree as part of the proposed annual plan budgets to loan fund the following operating costs:

(i)      Cycleway development operational portion of costs $600,000 and include a debt retirement charge over a period of 5 years

(ii)     Kerbside collection start-up costs incurred in 2020/21 to be recorded as a reserve and recovered through the kerbside collection levy over the following ten years.

and

(c)     Agree to adjustments to revenue and expenditure budgets as identified in Attachment 1 which results in an overall increase in the rates requirement of 0.2% ($330,000)

(d)     Approve the revised capital programme for 2020/21 as set out in Attachment 2, including carryforward of 2019/20 budget, timing adjustments on the draft capital programme for the LTP and new projects.

(e)     Note the expanded capital budget will increase debt but remain within the agreed debt to revenue ratio limit for 2020/21 of 250%.

(f)      Approve the list of projects and values that can be brought forward under delegated authority from the subsequent future years of the LTP as set out in Attachment 3.

(g)     Confirms the following approach to draft 2020/21 operating expenditure budgets as a result of feedback from consultation:

(i)      The Events Framework Funding budget – Option …

(ii)     The New Year’s Eve event funding budget – Option …

(iii)     The Council-organised events budget – Option …

(iv)    The functions and events budget at the Historic Village – Option …

(v)     The Emergency Management community education budget – Option …

(vi)    The harbour encroachment budget – Option …

(vii)   The tropical display house in Robbins Park – Option …

(viii)   The hanging baskets in the city centre – Option …

(ix)    The budget for the Waterline education programme – Option …

(x)     The budget for options/feasibility analysis and community engagement on the proposed Memorial to CBD waterfront walkway – Option ….

(xi)    The budget for economic development investment – Option …

(xii)   Our Place site – Option ….

(h)     Notes that where expenditure budget reductions are temporary, including putting a hold on the remuneration review and restricting new recruitment or where proposed savings are temporary in the list above, there will be a consequential increase in expenditure budgets in future years (likely in the range of 2-3% rates rise).

(i)      Note decisions about proposed changes to rating structure are the subject of a separate report and will affect the impact on rates on residential and commercial properties.

(j)      Agree to direct any remaining year end rates surplus from the 2019/20 financial year to the risk reserve.

(k)     Agrees that, to enable our rating processes and timeframes to be met, following deliberations, no further changes will be made to Rating Policy or the final budget, prior to the rates resolution on 30 July 2020.

 

Executive Summary

2.       Public consultation and hearings for the revised draft Annual Plan 2020/21 have been undertaken. The consultation document presented five topics for consideration.

1.   Council’s proposed draft Annual Plan 2020/21

2.   Council’s proposed operational budget changes

3.   Council’s proposed capital budget changes

4.   User Fees and Charges, Revenue and Finance Policy and Development Contributions Policy

5.   Other feedback

3.       This report is presented to Council to deliberate on the issues raised and feedback received throughout the consultation period and hearings on topics 1-3. An issues and options report is also presented to Council with staff assessment for Council’s consideration of some items covered in topics two, three and five. Topics four and five are addressed in subsequent reports which include Council staff comments and options presented to Council to consider for requests for additional funding for the Annual Plan 2020/21.

Background

4.       The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on Council’s planning for its 2020/21 Annual Plan.  These impacts have been identified and better understood since the adoption of the draft 2020/21 Annual Plan in March 2020. 

5.       The draft Annual Plan consultation document noted that, before the final Annual Plan is considered and adopted, further work would be undertaken to understand the impact of COVID-19 and Council’s appropriate response in that document. 

6.       On 24 March 2020, following work that started in the third quarter of 2019, Council adopted its draft 2020/21 Annual Plan for the purposes of public consultation.  That date was one day after the government announced the nation had moved into COVID-19 Alert Level 3 and two days before the Alert Level 4 lockdown commenced.

7.       Consultation on the draft Annual Plan commenced on Friday 3 April 2020 and closed on Sunday 3 May 2020. 291 submissions were received from individuals and organisations.  Hearings and deliberations on those submissions were put on hold while Council re-considered the contents of the draft Annual Plan and determined whether a further period of re-consultation was warranted.

8.       On 21 April 2020, Council received a report titled Draft 2020/21 Annual Plan – COVID-19 update. That report identified a potentially significant revenue decline for Council in the 2020/21 year with consequential impacts on Council’s debt-to-revenue ratio and its proposed capital expenditure programme.  The report outlined a potential process that Council could use to work through the many issues that the COVID-19 disruption had created.  

9.       On 5 May 2020, Council received a report titled Annual Plan Review Process.  That report provided a summary of the proposed framework for a revised approach to the 2020/21 Annual Plan taking into account the significantly altered financial scenarios that COVID-19 restrictions have resulted in.

10.     On 12 May 2020, the Finance, Audit & Risk Committee received a report titled Financial Update – COVID-19.  That report updated information on the short-term impacts of COVID-19 (to 30 June 2020) as well as further updates regarding the 2020/21 Annual Plan process. 

11.     On 28 May 2020, Council considered various options to address the current financial situation for 2020/21 in response to social, economic and financial disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and to ensure Council is preparing for future years as it develops the Long-term Plan 2021-31. Council resolved to approve a draft 2020/21 capital programme of $244m and an associated total rate increase of 4.7% after growth.

12.     On 16 June 2020, Council resolved to consult from 17 June to 1 July 2020 on the revised draft Annual Plan with:

·    A total capital budget of $244 million made up of $209 million for new capital (noting that $170 million is planned to be financed in 2020/21 and $39 million unfinanced) and $35 million carried forward from the 2019/20 budget.

·    A total rating increase of 4.7% after growth.

13.     Consultation on the revised draft annual plan commenced on Wednesday 17 June 2020 and closed on Wednesday 1 July 2020. 587 submissions were received from individuals and organisations. 

14.     A total of 85 submitters spoke at hearings between 2-7 July 2020 in support of their submissions covering both rounds of consultation.

Discussion

15.     The revised draft Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Document presented the significant or material differences from Year 3 of the LTP and the original draft Annual Plan 2020/21 prior to the effects of COVID-19.

16.     The consultation document introduced the main issues that Council experiences regarding the funding, financing and deliverability of the capital and operational programme. As part of the consultation, feedback was requested in relation to if people agreed or disagreed with the revised draft annual plan overall rates rise of 4.7%. It also asked for feedback on changes to both operational and capital budgets for 2020/21. Feedback received on these issues is presented further below.

17.     The consultation regarding this issue through this year’s annual plan process introduces the basis of the discussion with the community that is required as Council progresses and plans for the next Long-term Plan (2021-31).

External Submissions

Consultation Period April 3 - 2 May 2020

18.     Consultation on the original draft Annual Plan 2019/20 was undertaken from 3 April to 3 May 2020. 291 submissions were received during this period.

19.     It was noted in the consultation document that in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and likely effects on the economy that the draft plan would need to be reviewed again before adoption.

20.     The five questions presented in the consultation document were:

1.       Which infrastructure investments are most important to you, and why?

2.       What is your view on the proposed rates increase for 2020/21?

(i)      What is your view on the 3.9% increase to overall general rates relating to business as usual activities?

(ii)     What is your view on the 2.1% increase to overall general rates relating to water and wastewater infrastructure?

(iii)     What is your view on the 1.5% increase to overall general rates relating to growth and transport planning?

(iv)    If you consider the rates increases are too high, what projects (from the capital expenditure list in the supporting documents) or services do you recommend reducing to lessen the rates increase?

3.       What is your view on reducing the Uniform Annual General Charge to 10%? This reduces the total rates bill for lower-value properties, but will increase the cost for higher-value properties?

4.       What is your view on the commercial differential increasing to 1:1.2?

5.       Is there anything else you would like to tell us about this annual plan (including Development Contributions Policy, Revenue and Finance Policy and User Fees and Charges)?

21.     As discussed above Council considered various options to address the current financial situation for 2020/21 in response to social, economic and financial disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and to ensure Council is preparing for future years as it develops the Long-term Plan 2021-31. Due to the revision of the annual plan it meant that a number of the questions consulted on in the first round were no longer valid as the overall rates rise differed in the revised plan

22.     For Council’s information a detailed summary of the results from the first round of consultation is provided in Attachment 5.

23.     Of the questions asked in the first round of consultation the following two questions on the UAGC and the commercial differential are still relevant under the revised annual plan and a summary of the results are presented in a report titled “Issue and Options- Rating Policy - level of Uniform Annual General Charge and general differential.”

24.     The topics covered in question five from the first round of consultation will be dealt with in subsequent reports included in these deliberations.

 

Consultation Period 17 June - 1 July 2020

25.     Consultation on the draft Annual Plan 2020/21 was undertaken from 17 June to 1 July 2020. 587 submissions were received, with 85 submitters speaking at hearings.

26.     From the 587 submissions received, 424 provided comment regarding their view on how strongly they agreed or disagreed with an overall rates rise of 4.7%. These submissions have been categorised as presenting the following positions:

Strongly Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Strongly Agree

132

64

60

107

61

 

27.     From the 587 submissions received, 408 provided comment regarding their view on how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the proposed changes to operational budgets. These submissions have been categorised as presenting the following positions:

Strongly Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Strongly Agree

93

73

44

105

93

 

28.     From the 587 submissions received, 368 provided comment regarding their view on how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the proposed list of capital projects for 2020/21. These submissions have been categorised as presenting the following positions:

Strongly Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Strongly Agree

52

47

140

97

32

 

29.     For Council’s information a detailed summary of the results from the second round of consultation is provided in Attachment 6

30.     From the 587 submissions received, the following sections considered each of the proposed operational budget reductions in more detail and provides a further recommendation on the options presented for each.

 

opertational budget issues and options

 

Events Funding Framework budget

Issue:

31.     The Event Funding Framework (EFF) supports approximately 70 events per annum.

32.     Financial support from local government and the sponsorship market will be essential to allow the events industry to restart/reinvent itself now that mass-gathering restrictions have been lifted. Events are expected to play a key role in the post-COVID recovery and in particular, in the success of regional tourism. In addition to economic and tourism factors, events can also help to improve social cohesion and build community spirit.

33.     After a $200,000 reduction, the total EFF budget would be $875,281 for FY 20/21. Based on existing funding commitments for the financial year, approximately $290,981 will be available to support future events that meet the EFF criteria.

Options:

Option 1

Option 2

·    Confirm the reduction of the Event Funding Framework budget by $200,000.

·    Add $200,000 back to the Event Funding Framework budget.

Original Executive Recommendation:

34.     Option 1: Reduce the Event Funding Framework budget by $200,000.

Council’s proposal in the revised draft Annual Plan:

35.     Option 1: Reduce the Event Funding Framework budget by $200,000.

Submissions received on topic

Agree with reducing the Event Funding Framework budget by $200,000.

Disagree with reducing the Event Funding Framework budget by $200,000.

272

116

Analysis:

36.     Impacts of reducing this budget would include:

·    Reputational impact on relationships built with local and national events industry, impact of multi-year contracts, and the role of events in the community’s recovery all to be weighed against significant financial input.

·    Reduction in the number of events that can be supported via the EFF, which could lead to KPI targets not being met for the year.

·    Reduced capacity to respond to short-lead event opportunities.

·    A total of only two events in FY 20/21 that were funded through the EFF have cancelled due to the impacts of COVID-19. This means that the vast majority of events requiring funding this year are still operating therefore, there will be the same demand on our funds as years, if not more.

 

New Year’s Eve event funding

Issue:

37.     New Year’s Eve (NYE) is planned to be made up of five early evening community events across the city with firework displays at both 9.30pm and midnight. 

38.     A range of safety measures, such as traffic management, fencing, lighting, and increased security in the CBD and Mount Maunganui is also part of what is required on NYE.

39.     In 2019, events were held at four venues (Matua, Papamoa, City Centre, Greerton) and an estimated 9,500 attended. In 2020, a fifth venue is planned (Mount Maunganui) and total projected numbers across all events are 14,500.  

40.     Staff are unaware of any planned privately organised NYE events in Tauranga at this point in time. Based on what traditionally takes place on NYE, licensed venues in Mainstreet areas are likely to host “private” parties or ticketed events and apply for liquor licences that extend their trading for NYE.

Options:

Option 1

Option 2

·    Confirm the full budget ($494,000) for New Year’s Eve event funding

·    Permanently cease funding New Year’s Eve celebrations.

·    Reduction of $444,000 from the budget.

·    A $50,000 budget would be retained for safety management only.

 

41.     Note: Some safety measures to support NZ Police will still be required. Risk and potential implications include that a lack of management of NYE could impact negatively on the community, public safety and Police resources.

Original Executive Recommendation:

42.     Option 2: Reduction in New Year’s Eve event funding of $444,000.

Council’s proposal in the revised draft Annual Plan:

43.     At its meeting on 28 May 2020, Council did not support the removal of the $444,000 budget for the New Year’s Eve event funding and elected to retain the full budget. Therefore, the proposal in the draft Annual Plan was to retain this budget and continue the activity (i.e. Option 1).

Submissions received on topic:

Agree with retaining the full budget for New Year’s Eve event funding.

Disagree with retaining the full budget for New Year’s Eve event funding.

149

258

Analysis:

44.     Long term impacts of ceasing this service would include:

·    Reputational risk from the communities that enjoy the free NYE events, and those that now expect and enjoy the fireworks that can be seen across the city at 9.30pm and midnight.

·    Additional minor economic impact on local event suppliers, entertainers, contractors, etc.

45.     The New Year’s Eve celebrations are a significant investment for an event that delivers across a very brief timeframe (approx. 6.30pm to 9.30pm and again from midnight to 12.10am). 

NZ Police response to a request for additional information in relation to New Year’s Eve in Tauranga

Police opinion if Council decided to cancel NYE community events only (still did fireworks and enhanced safety operations)

46.     The community events provide a community service focus on families and their children. The last couple of years has seen low disorder and the community has been able to enjoy community events and celebrate the New Year in a positive manner. Any variation from this may increase the risk of disorder and impact on the community to celebrate. The level of risk has the ability to move as the organised family events, fireworks and enhanced safety operations are removed. If there is no public entertainment then the public will entertain themselves, which for the percentage that cause problems, will mean more drinking/disorder offences as this is what they will resort to.

Police opinion if Council decided to cancel NYE community events and 9.30pm and midnight fireworks (enhanced safety operations continue)

47.     If nothing is put on, the void will be filled with something else by others, whatever that looks like. The community events are safe and easy to manage from a policing point of view. They do not attract the NYE trouble makers and cancelling the fireworks displays disconnects the community. At present there are controlled gathering points, which assist in policing to risk. The ability to control group behaviour is removed if there are no events. Do you want the role of setting the tone for NYE?

Police opinion on what additional safety/security arrangements (over and above the normal enhanced safety operations) would be needed (if any) if Council cancelled the NYE community events and/or fireworks

48.     There will be issues with keeping the community entertained, and the defiance of liquor bans if there is not adequate security in place. Could mean we have more private parties and people will still congregate on the main beach as it is a hot spot/attractor. Would require more security in the hot spots like the Mount Main Beach, The Strand and Papamoa area. May have to look at also continuing to fence off Mount Drury and the beach area to stop any unnecessary congregating in these areas. A traffic management plan will be required for the CBD and the Mount area. Having the enhanced safety operations is reacting to a control measure and reacting to an unknown. There is a risk that disorder would ensue, which would mean we will see large gatherings at our historic known hot spots like the Mount and the Strand.

Police opinion if Council decided to discontinue funding to support enhanced safety operations in the CBD and Mount on NYE

49.     Likely see out of control and large numbers of holiday makers coming into the area, private parties, and people on the beach celebrating the NYE, as they will create their own NYE celebrations. Police would like the status quo but could look at reducing the length of time the fireworks go for and some structural changes around barriers and fencing.

 

Council-organised events budget

Issue:

50.     Events currently organised by Council include a possible Americas Cup Fan Zone, Trophy Tour and post-event celebration, Charter parade(s), ICC Women’s Cricket World Cup commitments, and the annual ANZAC Day services held across the city.

Options:

Option 1

Option 2

·    Confirm the reduction of the other council-organised events budget by $100,000.

·    Add $100,000 back to the other council-organised events budget.

Original Executive Recommendation:

51.     Option 1: Reduction in budget for other council-organised events of $100,000.

Council’s proposal in the revised draft Annual Plan:

52.     Option 1: Reduction in budget for other council-organised events of $100,000.

Submissions received on topic:

Agree with reduction in budget for other council-organised events of $100,000

Disagree with reduction in budget for other council-organised events of $100,000

279

109

Analysis:

53.     Impacts of reducing this budget would include:

·    Reputational risk from the communities that enjoy council-organised events.

·    Minor long-term impacts relating to Americas Cup, in terms of not being one of the host cities of an important major event for the country – Trophy Tour, Fan zone and potential victory event post.

54.     Note: The proposed budget reduction would allow some events to continue such as ANZAC day. $105,000 would remain in this budget in FY 20/21.

 

Historic Village functions and events budget

Issue:

55.     This service is proposed to be retained however, it includes a role that is currently vacant. The recommendation is to delay recruitment by six months until functions/event levels pick-up post-COVID-19.

Options:

Option 1

Option 2

·    Confirm the reduction of the functions and events budget at the Historic Village by $40,000.

·    Add $40,000 back to the functions and events budget at the Historic Village.

Original Executive Recommendation:

56.     Option 1: Reduction in the functions and events budget at the Historic Village of $40,000.

Council’s proposal in the revised draft Annual Plan:

Option 1: Reduction in the functions and events budget at the Historic Village of $40,000.

Submissions received on topic:

Agree with reduction in the functions and events budget at the Historic Village of $40,000.

Disagree with reduction in the functions and events budget at the Historic Village of $40,000.

204

192

Analysis:

57.     Impacts of reducing this budget could include:

·    Reputational risk for Council. 

·    Note: $39,000 would remain in this budget in FY 20/21.

 

Emergency Management community education budget

Issue:

58.     Readiness is a requirement under the CDEM Plan 2015 and the National Disaster Resilience Strategy, inclusive of public education and engagement. It is also significantly linked to hazard research for which we must consult our communities within a timely manner. Council is measured against hazard research being consulted to communities within six months of release.

Options:

Option 1

Option 2

·    Confirm the reduction of the Emergency Management community education budget by $45,000.

·    Add $45,000 back to the Emergency Management community education budget.

Original Executive Recommendation:

59.     Option 1: Reduce the Emergency Management community education budget by $45,000.

Council’s proposal in the revised draft Annual Plan:

60.     Option 1: Reduce the Emergency Management community education budget by $45,000.

Submissions received on topic:

Agree with reducing the Emergency Management community education budget by $45,000.

Disagree with reducing the Emergency Management community education budget by $45,000.

197

191

Analysis:

61.     Potential impacts of reducing this budget include:

·    Whilst this is an important statutory role, a current vacancy provides an opportunity to consider different delivery options in the short-term, alongside focusing on the higher frequency hazards for the city and leveraging other activities.

·    Not providing the full budget proposed for community education would mean greater reliance on nationally provided readiness collateral over developing localised content, and the use of digital engagement through social media and Council websites rather than community participatory events and programmes.

·    With a $45,000 reduction, $55,000 would remain in this budget for FY 20/21.

 

Reduction in funding for removal of harbour encroachments on reserve land

Issue:

62.     Council is in the process of removing encroachments on reserve land around Tauranga’s inner harbour. Most of these encroachments are onto esplanade reserve land along the harbour’s edge. Council removes encroachments in order to create or improve public access to reserves.

63.     Once an encroachment has been identified, Council staff meet with residents and form a plan to resolve each encroachment. Contractors are then employed to implement the plan.

64.     The Spaces & Places team has a stated KPI to resolve 20 encroachments each year.

65.     The temporary reduction of this service was to allow time to reset the communications and engagement approach for this activity.

Options:

Option 1

Option 2

·    Confirms the reduction in the harbour encroachment budget of $50,000.

·    Add $50,000 back to the budget for removal of harbour encroachments.

Original Executive Recommendation:

66.     Option 1: Reduction in the harbour encroachment budget of $50,000.

Council’s proposal in the revised draft Annual Plan:

67.     Option 1: Reduction in the harbour encroachment budget of $50,000.

Submissions received on topic

Agree with reduction in the harbour encroachment budget of $50,000.

Disagree with reduction in the harbour encroachment budget of $50,000.

218

170

Analysis:

68.     This service is easily partitioned with minimal impact on the community if not delivered for a short period of time.

 

Tropical Display House in Robbins Park

Issue:

69.     Council funds the maintenance and management of the plants within the tropical display house located in Robbins Park. This service is delivered as part of the reserves maintenance contract. 

70.     The display house is open to the public free of charge and as part of the wider Robbins Park attractions, is one of the destinations for cruise ship passengers visiting Tauranga.

71.     A people counter at the site has recorded 25,000 visitors in the nine months to the end of March 2020. In that time, over 900 people signed the visitors’ book. 

Options:

Option 1

Option 2

·    Confirms the $61,000 budget for the tropical display house in Robbins Park and retains that service.

·    Removal of the $61,000 budget for the tropical display house in Robbins Park and withdrawal of that service.

·    Add approx. $80,000 one-off OPEX cost for demolishing two buildings at Robbins Park.

Original Executive Recommendation’:

72.     Option 2: Removal of the $61,000 budget for the tropical display house in Robbins Park and withdrawal of that service.

Proposal in the revised draft Annual Plan:

73.     At its meeting on 28 May 2020, Council did not support the removal of the $61,000 budget for the tropical display house in Robbins Park and withdrawal of that service. Therefore, the proposal in the draft Annual Plan was to retain this budget and continue the activity (i.e. Option 1).

Submissions received on topic:

Agree with retaining the $61,000 budget for the tropical display house in Robbins Park and retaining that service.

Disagree with retaining the $61,000 budget for the tropical display house in Robbins Park and retaining that service.

176

225

Analysis:

74.     If this service is permanently discontinued, this would result in:

·    loss of city amenity; and

·    an approx. $80,000 one-off OPEX cost for demolishing two buildings at Robbins Park associated with the tropical display house (being the pumphouse and storage facilities) if no alternative uses are found for these buildings.

 

Hanging flower baskets in the city centre

Issue:

75.     Council funds the provision and maintenance hanging flower baskets in the city centre. Plants for the baskets are grown in a separate nursery facility. 

Options:

Option 1

Option 2

·    Retain the $89,000 budget for hanging baskets in the city centre and retain that service.

·    Removal of the $89,000 budget for hanging baskets in the city centre and withdrawal of that service.

·    Add approx. $10,000 one-off cost to remove hanging baskets and brackets from light poles.

Original Executive Recommendation:

76.     Option 2: Removal of the $89,000 budget for hanging baskets in the city centre and withdrawal of that service.

Proposal in the revised draft Annual Plan:

77.     At its meeting on 28 May 2020, Council did not support the removal of the $89,000 budget for hanging baskets in the city centre and withdrawal of that service. Therefore, the proposal in the draft Annual Plan was to retain this budget and continue the activity (i.e. Option 1).

Submissions received on topic:

Agree with retaining the $89,000 budget for hanging baskets in the city centre and retaining that service.

Disagree with retaining the $89,000 budget for hanging baskets in the city centre and retaining that service

156

261

Analysis:

78.     If this service is permanently discontinued, the long-term impacts would be:

·    a loss of city amenity;

·    reputational damage to Council from removing a service previously provided to residents and tourists;

·    approx. $10,000 one-off cost to remove hanging baskets and brackets from light poles, for dump fees and pole reinstatement costs; and

·    reinstatement costs if the council decides to provide the service in future.

 

Waterline Education Programme

Issue:

79.     There is an opportunity to refine the Waterline Education Programme offering rather than cut completely (the campaign relating to wet wipe use, for instance should stay, but one year off general water conservation messaging might be acceptable).

80.     The long-term impact of reducing the budget for this service may result in:

·    a loss of connectivity between councils in the waters space and how we engage with the community to ensure consistent messaging across regions;

·    reputational damage as this service builds a positive image/reputation for the overall council both locally and nationally. Waterline is a good news story; and

·    negative financial consequences of non-delivery of education and awareness campaigns (for example wet wipes and water conservation).  It is estimated that nearly 40% of sewage overflows were reduced directly as a result of the Save our Pipes from Wipes campaign (recorded in FY 2018/19).

Options:

Option 1

Option 2

·    Confirm the reduction in budget for the Waterline education programme by $45,000

·    Add $45,000 back to the Waterline education programme budget.

 

Original Executive Recommendation:

81.     Option 1: Reduction in budget for the Waterline education programme of $45,000

Proposal in the revised draft Annual Plan:

82.     Option 1: Reduction in budget for the Waterline education programme of $45,000

Submissions received on topic:

Agree with reducing budget for funding of Waterline Education Programme by $45,000

Disagree with reducing budget for funding of Waterline Education Programme by $45,000

241

144

 

Analysis:

83.     A 25% reduction in non-staff expenditure (totalling $45,000) would result in Waterline stopping media advertising associated with water conservation, its home show presence, and reduce planned campaigns as well as some education elements.

 

Memorial Park to The Strand Coastal Cycleway/Walkway

Issue:

84.     At the Council meeting of 27 August 2019, Council resolved to:

Approve a project in 2019/20 to gather sufficient information on the coastal pathway from Memorial Park to the Strand waterfront to inform a second round of public engagement, with a specific emphasis on providing the residents of Tauranga with clarity as to the outcomes sought by the project and an accurate assessment of the total costs and benefits; and that the Chief Executive be requested to take the necessary steps to provide a project budget not exceeding $400,000 to deliver such

85.     Work on the above resolution has not progressed as staff have been waiting for the Cycle Plan’s implementation plan to be confirmed. This was confirmed on 5 May 2020 through endorsement of the Walking and Cycling business case. An unintended advantage of this delay is that it has enabled further work to be done on the Te Papa Spatial Framework, which further highlights the potential for walking and cycling links around the coastal edge of the Te Papa peninsula.  

86.     Staff have reviewed the potential scope of the project. At this stage, a focus on feasibility and community engagement as foreseen in the above resolution is considered to be deliverable within a $200,000 budget and existing staff resources. 

Options:

Option 1

Option 2

·    Add $200,000 in 2020/21 for options/feasibility analysis and community engagement on the proposed Memorial to CBD waterfront walkway.

·    Confirms the decision not provide $200,000 in the budget for options/feasibility analysis or community engagement on the proposed Memorial to CBD waterfront walkway.

 

Original Executive Recommendation:

87.     Option 1: Provide a budget of $200K in 2020/21 for options/feasibility analysis and community engagement on the proposed Memorial to CBD waterfront walkway.

Proposal in the revised draft Annual Plan:

88.     At its meeting on 28 May 2020, Council did not support providing this budget in FY 20/21. The topic was included in the consultation material for the second round of submissions on the revised Annual Plan.

Submissions received on topic:

Agree with not adding $200,000 to the Memorial Park to The Strand Coastal Cycle/Walkway Project, so no further work is progressed this year.

Disagree with not adding $200,000 to the Memorial Park to The Strand Coastal Cycle/Walkway Project, so no further work is progressed this year.

222

191

 

89.     Analysis of submissions received is outlined below:

Summary of comments

Comments from those that agree with the proposal not to include the budget:

·    This should be included for review next year or in the next Long-term Plan. Now is not an appropriate time to progress this project due to its high cost.

·    There are sufficient public spaces in Tauranga and another one is not needed.

·    This project is controversial so should not be progressed.

·    This project has no economic value so should not be progressed.

·    We should not be building any further cycleways as we already have enough.

·    This project should not be progressed as the same money could be spent elsewhere for greater effect.

·    Concern that the project will impact on the ecological environment in its proposed location.

Comments from those that disagree with the proposal not to include the budget:

·    This project is needed to help the city move toward accommodating active transport.

·    This project will have a positive impact on traffic congestion.

·    This project will have a positive impact on the safety of people using active forms of transport.

·    This walkway will help to revitalise the city centre.

·    Completing this project is an important part of Tauranga contributing towards emissions reduction targets both nationally and globally by reducing travel related emissions.

·    This project will play an important role in the council’s cycling plan.

·    This project is an opportunity to explore our cultural heritage and share that with visitors.

Submissions Related: #42, 51, 62, 69, 79, 83, 84, 90, 102, 146, 203, 210, 218, 252, 265, 270, 292, 295, 296, 300, 310, 313, 317, 323, 325, 332, 334, 334, 336, 337, 338, 339, 343, 345, 347, 348, 350, 352, 353, 354, 356, 360, 361, 362, 364, 368, 370, 372, 373, 374, 379, 385, 386, 390, 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 398, 401, 403, 404, 405, 407, 408, 410, 414, 415, 418, 419, 419, 420, 421, 422, 424, 425, 426, 428, 430, 431, 436, 440, 441, 446, 447, 449, 456, 457, 458, 459, 465, 466, 471, 480, 485, 488, 498, 501, 504, 505, 507, 508, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 516, 517, 520, 521, 523, 524, 525, 528, 529, 530, 532, 536, 537, 539, 545, 548, 557, 559, 562, 563, 570, 573, 574, 609, 616, 621, 627, 635, 659, 687, 689, 692, 699, 701, 710, 711, 714, 715, 716, 718, 719, 721, 723, 724, 726, 728, 734, 738, 743, 752, 761, 763, 768, 770, 775, 782, 799, 800, 804, 807, 810, 817, 818, 827, 841, 842, 843.

Analysis:

90.     The inclusion of a $200,000 budget was recommended by the Executive at Council’s meeting on 28 May 2020. 

91.     If the resolution passed on 27 August 2019 is to be achieved and this project progressed, this requires support for the original recommendation that an additional $200,000 be added to the budget for FY 20/21. This would support better information being available for the 2021-31 Long-term Plan process next year, which will be where the budgets are confirmed to support implementation of the Walking and Cycling business case, Te Papa Spatial Framework and the Urban Form and Transport Initiative. The proposed work will confirm alignment or otherwise of the coastal pathway project to the outcomes sought by that strategic framework.

 

Additional support for economic development

Issue:

92.     The COVID-19 health crisis has created an economic crisis.

93.     The actions required to eliminate the virus have resulted in a steep, sharp drop in economic activity. We hope that we are now near the bottom of that drop, assuming there are no additional level 3/4 actions. A recession is inevitable, however the quantum and speed of this and recovery is difficult to forecast.

94.     The NZ Government response has been swift and largely targeted towards maintaining employment in the short term – this has been relatively successful. Sufficient government support / investment exists to mitigate many of the negative economic effects of COVID-19.

95.     The success of initial efforts to eliminate the virus places NZ in a relatively good position vs the trading ability of other nations.

96.     The community needs council to play a strong role in the recovery and rebuild post COVID-19.

97.     Priority One presented to Council on 28 May and outlined their COVID-19 specific recovery plans targeted to areas that:

a) have quick impact on employment,

b) that can provide direct benefit to the economy in the near term.

Annual Plan 2021 – Proposals

(priorities ranked by ability to implement quickly and lead to early job-creation)

Projects for consideration

Proposed Activity 2020-21

Proposed change in TCC 2020/21 contribution

Priority

 

Covid Recovery & Rebuild

 

 

Labour market recovery

 

 

·    Implementation of plan: regional investment mechanisms, labour market response

 

·    Employment hub, including increased job matching via Workfinder

·    Vocational pathways programme, leveraging increased government investment

·    Tertiary partnership – targeted upskilling and retraining packages

 

·    Maori/Pasifika youth employment pathways programme

 

+$75,000

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+$20,000 for Maori-specific engagement

(BOPRC match funding sought)

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

Digital Enablement

·    Refocus all activity on digital transformation for small business via Powering On programme and expanded communication to business networks

 

2

CBD planning facilitation

·    More hands-on development project facilitation, getting priority projects to ‘investment ready’

·    Additional planning/Council liaison capability

 

+$40,000

3

Marine precinct

·    Site development to stage 2

·    Progress wharf investment case

+$50,000

4

Ferry Service

 

·    Wharf infrastructure – take through to investment proposition

·    Progress project through to single phase business case with NZTA, then operator agreement

 $20,000 (BOPRC will be approached to provide funding too)

5

International Strategy

 

·    Bare maintenance on international programme but with focus in investor migrants (where there is still demand), international education (students still in NZ) and support for exporters.

-$75,000

7

Total

 

+$130,000

 

 

 

Options:

Option 1

Option 2

·    Include an additional $130,000 for economic development investment.

·    Not include an additional $130,000 for economic development investment.

 

Proposal in the revised draft Annual Plan:

98.     Option 1: Includes an additional $130,000 for economic development investment in the draft Annual Plan for consultation

Submissions received on topic:

·    Agree with adding an additional $130,000 for economic development investment

·    Disagree with adding an additional $130,000 for economic development investment

213

177

 

Analysis:

99.     In recessionary environments local and central government spend is critical. 

100.   So far, the central government response has been strong at a broad level.  It remains to be seen what impact this will have at a local level.

101.   The nature of the stimulus is important, it:

·    Needs to be significant enough to offset unemployment from other sectors.

·    Needs to be enabled quickly, most unemployment is expected in the next 9-12 months.

·    Needs to be of sufficient quality to be positive to the economy – should encourage job creation, solve other issues (e.g. Social housing) and may attract complementary private investment

102.   In addition to this, stimulus plays a vital role in increasing business confidence, leading to better employment outcomes.

103.   The community needs council to play a strong role and employment is a big driver of community wellbeing.

104.   As noted above Priority One’s COVID-19 specific recovery plans are targeted to areas that:

a.   have quick impact on employment,

b.   that can provide direct benefit to the economy in the near term.

§ Employment / labour market

§ Digital transition for SMEs

§ CBD projects

§ Marine precinct

Right now: Recover - provide confidence to businesses, keep our community in employment

Next step: Rebuild - greater emphasis on sustainability (economic, social, environmental), opportunities

 

Closure of Our Place site

Issue:

105.   At its meeting on 28 May 2020, the Council resolved to consult on closure of Our Place permanently through the revised Annual Plan process. The consultation material included an agree/disagree question of whether closure of Our Place permanently to reduce costs was supported.

106.   This report outlines the submissions received on that question and also notes specific proposals for operating the site that were brought to the hearings on 6 and 7 July.

Original Executive Recommendation:

107.   Option 1: Permanent Closure of the Our Place site.

Proposal in the revised draft Annual Plan:

108.   At its meeting on 28 May 2020, Council resolved to consult on closure of Our Place. The topic was included in the consultation material for the second round of submissions on the revised Annual Plan.

Submissions received on topic:

Agree with permanent Closure of the Our Place site.

Disagree with permanent Closure of the Our Place site.

229

187

Summary of comments:

Comments from those that agree:

·    The businesses in Our Place should be filling empty shops instead of using a subsidised site.

·    The businesses in Our Place are being subsidised at the expense of the competing businesses in the surrounding city centre.

·    This site should be used for a TCC building, green space, a hotel or as car parking.

·    It has to end at some point so might as well be now.

·    Our Place should not receive any funding but it should not be shut down.

·    The council should not be subsidising the company that runs Our Place.

·    Council should be focussing on sustainable rather than subsidised business.

·    Our Place should be moved to The Strand.

·    It is not sufficiently busy to justify TCC’s support.

·    It should be run as a community project by TCC instead of as a subsidised commercial enterprise.

·    If it is running at a loss then it should be closed.

Comments from those that disagree:

·    This is a valuable provider of family entertainment and a space for families to eat out.

·    Our Place has brought vibrancy and life to the city centre through entertainment and activities. Without Our Place there will be little reason for locals and tourists to visit the city centre.

·    Our Place provides a way for council and consumers to support small businesses which can then grow into larger, long term leases.

·    Our Place creates a sense of community in the city centre.

·    Our Place displays positive sustainable behaviours and shows how they can be implemented in the community.

·    Our Place provides a year’s worth of entertainment and is much better value than New Year’s Eve celebrations.

·    Our Place provides a cultural heart for the city centre.

·    It’s better to have Our Place than another vacant lot in the city centre.

·    It is a cheap investment for TCC to achieve the benefits of having it open for the city centre.

·    Our Place is a community resource that caters to an audience that is otherwise not well served in Tauranga city – student and young people.

Comments with neither option chosen or blank:

·    Our Place should be cost neutral for the council.

Other considerations

109.   One of the submissions (John Wylie, submission #359) contained a link to a petition (http://chng.it/Rj5JRLmn) which has 5,734 signatories. The petition is titled “Stand up, be heard and stop the closure of ‘Our Place’ Tauranga CBD”. There are comments submitted by signatories to the petition which can be also viewed at the link.

110.   There were two submissions that outlined specific proposals for continued operation of the Our Place site. These were the ‘Remaker’ proposal by John and Jackie Paine (submission #615) and the ‘Downtown Live’ proposal by Rawiri McKinney of Riff Raff Productions Ltd (submission #692).

111.   The ‘Remaker’ proposal is one that has been in development over the last few months in partnership with the current operators of Our Place. The proposal would see the current food and beverage offering in Our Place maintained and run by Our Place Tauranga Ltd and the balance of the site utilised for the ‘Remaker’ activity.

112.   The ‘Downtown Live’ proposal sought to take over the head licence from Our Place Tauranga Ltd and run the facility as a live venue. The proposal is to maintain and potentially expand the food and beverage offering on the site.

113.   Several submitters that spoke to the hearings on 6 and 7 July made general comment as to whether Our Place should continue operating or be permanently closed. Of those who made general comment on Our Place in their presentations there was a near 50:50 split between support or opposing closure. This is similar to the split of responses observed across all written submissions. 

Analysis:

114.   Four options are available to Council and are outlined below:

Option 1: Permanently close Our Place and decommission the site.

115.   This option would involve ending the head licence with Our Place Tauranga Ltd and immediately commencing the process of decommissioning the site.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    Certainty as to ongoing costs to Council.

·    Certainty of site availability for redevelopment or other temporary uses.

·    Decommissioning costs incurred immediately.

·    Loss of site activation.

·    Reputational damage of decommissioning a facility enjoyed by many residents before it was necessary to do so in terms of site redevelopment.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: $200,000 in FY 20/21 for site decommissioning costs.

Option 2: Support continuation of Our Place operation and incorporation of the ‘Remaker’ proposal.

116.   This option would support Our Place Tauranga Ltd continuing to run the facility, including a similar offering of food and beverage as is currently in place, with the balance of available containers used for the ‘Remaker’ proposal.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    Maintains activation of the site.

·    Supports current tenants of Our Place.

·    Ongoing cost to Council in terms of supporting overheads for the operation.

·    Operating model partly untested and shortfall in revenue may result in future requests for additional funding from Council.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: $160,000 in FY 20/21 (forecast $130,000 in FY 21/22, $50,000 in FY 22/23 and eventually, $200,000 for decommissioning).

Option 3: Support Downtown Live proposal

117.   This option would end the head license with Our Place Tauranga Ltd and Council would enter a new head licence with Riff Raff Promotions Ltd

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    Maintains activation of the site.

·    Negative impact on relationship with Our Place Tauranga Ltd.

·    Risk of losing current tenants of Our Place from city centre.

·    Operating model untested and shortfall in revenue may result in future requests for additional funding from Council.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: None in FY 20/21 (and eventually, $200,000 for decommissioning).

Option 4: Permanently close Our Place and do not decommission site.

118.   This option involves permanently closing Our Place and not putting any budget in FY 20/21 to support decommissioning of the site, or ongoing payment of rental to Royal Wolf for the containers that remain on site.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    No additional budget in Annual Plan 20/21 for Our Place.

·    Risk of losing current tenants of Our Place from wider city centre.

·    High reputational risk as Council has already resolved to take responsibility for decommissioning the site.

·    Risk of unbudgeted spend if forced to fund decommissioning of site anyway.

·    Mothballed facility left on high profile site.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: None

 

Executive Report

119.   Through an internal review process staff have identified changes required from the draft budgets both operational and capital.

Operational Budgets

120.   A number of adjustments to budget have been actioned which increase expenditure budgets from the draft but are offset by carryforward of rates funding from 2019/20, increased revenue and funding corrections from the draft annual plan, as set out in Attachment 1.

          Project Delivery and Health and Safety Resourcing

121.   It is essential that the Council has highly effective and capable project delivery resources and systems in place, particularly having regard to the major investment in infrastructure that is facing the city due to its rapid growth and recognising health and safety responsibilities and risks as the city continues to grow.   Recently some capital projects have not had successful outcomes and a recent review of our capital delivery had identified opportunities for improvement. 

122.   As part of the improvement, additional resources are proposed to perform a systemic quality assurance role to aid the successful delivery of individual projects and overall organisational outcomes.   The focus will be on:

•        Managing Council’s overall programme of works (rather than individual projects) to achieve scheduling efficiency;

•        Monitoring project progress and performance;

•        Developing common methodology, reporting and governance structures for project delivery to improve overall programme delivery;

•        Managing the introduction of new project management methodology to ensure that changes to processes are well imbedded in the organisation: and

•        Acting as a project management knowledge advisor.

•        Coordination across the business of health and safety responsibility

123.   It is estimated that the resource costs will be in the vicinity of $850,000 of which a portion is fixed term, a portion applies to user fee or loan funded activities, and which can be partially capitalised.  Overall the net rates impact for 2020-21 is estimated at $330,000 which is an increase of 0.2%.

Capital Expenditure

124.   Year-end capital budget carryforwards have been identified along with a consequential adjustment to the timing of projects in 2020/21 and three additional projects.  Overall, the total capital programme has increased from $244m to $259m, with the non-funded portion increasing from $39m to $43m. Closing net debt at June 2021 has been revised upward to $684m from $673m at consultation.  However, the debt to revenue ratio remains at 239% as the projects with NZTA funding have been increased in the amended list of projects for 2020/21. The debt to revenue ratio remains within the limit of 250% that council agreed for 2020/21.

125.   The revised capital budget and commentary on budget changes is provided in attachment 2. The additional carryforwards total $15m, offset by timing adjustments to projects and some new project budgets as follows:

(a)     $1.1m new project for water supply line to Tauriko business estate and Tauriko West

(b)     $0.24m for additional remediation at Mauao base track following an assessment of the surrounding slopes. These works include soil nail/anchors to the west (Matakana side) to support the existing Pohutukawa trees and track. This area was outside of the scope of works recently completed.

(c)     Reinstatement of $4m for strategic land acquisition. The non-funded capital adjustment has been increased by $4m to offset this budget as there is no specific purchase identified

Expenditure of DC’s collected for reserve land purchase and development

126.   The draft Annual Plan 2020/21 includes development contributions that have been collected for reserve land purchase and development. Staff have identified that the reserve land purchase funds may also be used for reserve land development, subject to the developments meeting relevant requirements of the Local Government Act and Council’s DC Policy.

127.   Therefore, for the 2020/21 financial year, staff intend to use land purchase development contributions to instead fund a number of reserve development projects, focussing on delivering walkway and cycleway projects on reserves. In addition, there is the opportunity to re-allocate some existing loan funded projects in the draft AP to be funded from development contributions.

128.   Along with rationalisation of the required year of expenditure of development contributions in the Papamoa Urban Growth Area, the result is a net reduction to the capital programme for 2020/21 of approx. $1.48m.  This reduction is included in the revised total capital programme in Attachment 2.

Ability to Bring Forward Budgets from Later Years

129.   Expenditure on capital projects has been moved out from next year’s budget where delivery is unlikely. In the LTP deliberations (29 May 2019) a delegation was agreed for the CE to bring forward project budgets within the first three years of the LTP where this is appropriate on a project by project basis and the overall capital budget for the year is underspent. The change in timing of projects arising from the capital review affects this list. A revised list of projects has been attached for which this delegation is proposed to apply for next year in Attachment 3.

current FINANCIAL POSITION

130.   Following the revisions to operational and capital costs proposed in the executive report, the Annual Plan budgets show some expenditure movements from the Annual Plan Consultation Document.  Overall the rates level remains at $190m, including water by meter, and results in an overall 4.9% rates increase after growth, which is 0.2% above the consulted figure of 4.7%. The key financials are included in Attachment 4.

council administrative systems

131.   If council resolves that there will be no further changes to rating policy or the rates budget after deliberations, other than minor variations, the rates resolution will follow a normal timeframe. Rates invoices will be prepared and ready to deliver to ratepayers on 1 August 2020.

132.   If council does not resolve that there will be no further changes to rating policy after deliberations, the rates resolution will be determined on the day of the Annual Plan adoption. Rates and water rates invoices will be delayed causing significant customer disruption and financial costs. This will reduce the time for ratepayers to pay from around 4 weeks to less than 3 weeks or alternatively pushing the rates due date into September which will incur significant costs such as payment of GST, and borrowing for delayed revenue, before rates are due for payment.

Strategic / Statutory Context

133.   The preparation and adoption of an Annual Plan allows Council to review the budget for the respective financial year to ensure the budget is accurate and to enable Council to respond to strategic priorities and objectives.

134.   The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires local authorities to prepare and adopt an Annual Plan for each financial year. This report is in relation to the 2020/21 financial year, which is the third year of the LTP. Developing an Annual Plan requires consultation on changes that are significantly or materially different from the LTP.

Legal Implications / Risks

The role of the Annual Plan

135.   The Annual Plan is Council’s resource-allocation document for the year ahead. 

136.   Legally, the purpose of the Annual Plan is set out in section 95(5) of the Local Government Act 2002 (“the Act”) as being to:

(a)     contain the proposed annual budget and funding impact statement for the year to which the annual plan relates; and

(b)     identify any variation from the financial statements and funding impact statement included in the local authority’s long-term plan in respect of the year; and

(c)     provide integrated decision making and co-ordination of the resources of the local authority; and

(d)     contribute to the accountability of the local authority to the community.

137.   The Act also requires, at section 95(6), that the Annual Plan be prepared in accordance with the principles and procedures that apply to the 2018/28 Long-term Plan. 

Other relevant legislative context

138.   There are two key elements of the Act that need to be considered as Council consider the contents of the Annual Plan.

Prudent financial management

139.   Section 101 of the Act addresses financial management and, at sub-section (1) explicitly refers to prudent financial management in relation to both the current and future communities. 

‘A local authority must manage its revenues, expenses, assets, liabilities, investments, and general financial dealings prudently and in a manner that promotes the current and future interests of the community.’

140.   This means that Council needs to find the balance between the short-term and long-term interests of its community when managing its finances.

Balanced budget

141.   Section 100 of the Act requires that Council sets a balanced budget.  This is explicitly stated in sub-section (1) thus:

‘A local authority must ensure that each year’s projected operating revenues are set at a level sufficient to meet that year’s projected operating expenses.’

142.   Despite this requirement, sub-section (2) provides for Council to set a budget where projected operating revenues do not meet projected operating expenses if it considers it is financially prudent to do so.  In setting an ‘unbalanced budget’ Council’s consideration of financial prudence needs to address four matters listed in the Act and paraphrased as:

(a)     The costs of desired service levels and of maintaining the capacity and integrity of assets throughout their useful lives

(b)     The revenues available to maintain the capacity and integrity of assets throughout their useful lives

(c)     Inter-generational equity

(d)     Council’s own Revenue & Financing Policy and other financial policies.

143.   This means that Council needs to give due consideration to the financial prudence of long-term cost and funding issues before adopting an unbalanced budget in its Annual Plan.

Consultation / Engagement

144.   Consultation on the original draft 2020/21 Annual Plan took place between 3 April and 3 May 2020. 

145.   Consultation on the revised draft 2020/21 Annual Plan took place between 17 June and 1 July 2020. 

Significance

146.   In terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy, the matters considered by this report are considered to have a high degree of significance.

Next Steps

147.   Following Council’s decisions, the final Annual Plan 2020/21 will be prepared, including any changes as a result of deliberations, and will be presented for adoption by Council on 30 July.

Attachments

1.       Attachment 1 2021 Annual Plan Revenue and expenditure budget adjustments - A11624948

2.       Attachment 2  2021 Annual Plan Revised Capital Programme (Deliberations) - A11624613

3.       Attachment 3 2021 Annual Plan Bring Forward List (Deliberations) - A11624190

4.       Attachment 4 2021 Annual Plan Key Financials - A11628785

5.       Attachment 5 Annual Plan 2020/21 submission analysis 3 April - 3 May - A11628018

6.       Attachment 6 Revised Annual Plan submission analysis 17 June - 1 July - A11628016   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

Annual Plan Feedback Analysis

Between 03 April to 03 May we have received 291 submissions on the draft Annual Plan.

 

Q1. Which infrastructure investments are most important to you, and why?

Infrastructure Important

Number of submissions that mention

Roading/Transport

56

Water Supply

43

Wastewater

39

Stormwater

21

Sports user fees

16

Waste and recycling

13

Community services/ well-being

13

Cycleways

12

Indoor sports facilities

11

Parks and Reserves

9

Do nothing at the moment

7

Development contributions

7

Te Tomokanga

6

Existing infrastructure

5

Land development and housing

5

City centre

3

City Planning

3

Environment quality

3

Staff of TCC

3

Public Transport

3

Intensification

2

Resilience

2

Parking

1

Library

1

Civic building

1

Museum

1

EV charging stations

1

Local Business

1

 

Q2. What is your view on the proposed rates increase for 2020/21?

From the 291 submissions received, 143 provided comment regarding their view on Council’s proposed rates increase for 2020/21. These submissions have been categorised as presenting the following positions:

 

Against

Support

Want higher

Unclear

Left blank

Total

98

24

2

19

148

 

Q2.1 What is your view on the 3.9% increase to overall general rates relating to business as usual activities?

From the 291 submissions received, 103 provided comment regarding their view on Council’s proposed rates increase for business as usual activities. These submissions have been categorised as presenting the following positions:

 

Against

Support

Want higher

Unclear

Left blank

Total

75

13

2

13

188

 

Q2.2 What is your view on the 2.1% increase to overall general rates relating to water and wastewater infrastructure?

From the 291 submissions received, 98 provided comment regarding their view on Council’s proposed rates increase for wastewater infrastructure. These submissions have been categorised as presenting the following positions:

 

Against

Support

Want higher

Unclear

Left blank

Total

55

27

2

14

193

 

Q2.3 What is your view on the 1.5% increase to overall general rates relating to growth and transport planning?

From the 291 submissions received, 93 provided comment regarding their view on Council’s proposed rates increase for growth and transport planning. These submissions have been categorised as presenting the following positions:

 

Against

Support

Want higher

Unclear

Left blank

Total

56

20

2

15

198

 

Q2.4 If you consider the rates increases are too high, what projects (from the capital expenditure list in the supporting documents) or services do you recommend reducing to lessen the rates increase?

Projects or services

Number of submissions that mention

Kerbside waste collection

12

Non-essential projects

12

New Mount information centre

11

Adams Centre

10

Elizabeth Street

7

Cycle paths

7

Wharf Street

7

City centre upgrade

6

All growth projects

6

Forrester Drive Walkway

5

Harington Street

5

Museum

4

Streetlight Renewal and LED upgrade

4

Tsunami Evacuation projects

4

Digital Services

3

Pay cut for staff

3

Streetscape

3

Bay Venues

3

Cut all contractors

3

Tourism related spending

3

Welcome Bay Supermarket

2

Memorial Park upgrade

2

Accessible Streets

2

Projects not started

2

Papamoa East Interchange

2

Walkways

2

UOW Marine Park

2

Cameron Rd Corridor

2

Redoing city streets and parks

2

Civic complex renewals

1

Local roads upgrades and Improvements

1

Historic village renewals

1

Western Corridor multi modal

1

K Valley Development

1

Marine precinct offloading wharf

1

Develop McLarens Falls

1

Gordon Carmichael reserve – development plan

1

Motoupuhi (Rat island) development

1

Pyes Pa walkways

1

Infrastructure Historic Village

1

TECT park

1

Community development projects

1

Pyes Pa West Growth Area

1

Western Ring Rd 3000 new houses

1

Wairakei Stream Planting

1

Trunk Wastewater

1

Staff training budget

1

Sell land and elderly housing

1

Library

1

Art Gallery

1

Kulim Park

1

Ecological restoration

1

Domain TV tower

1

TCC office space

1

 

Q3. What is your view on reducing the Uniform Annual General Charge to 10%? This reduces the total rates bill for lower-value properties, but will increase the cost for higher-value properties?

From the 291 submissions received, 104 provided comment regarding their view on Council proposed plan to reduce the UAGC to 10%. These submissions have been categorised as presenting the following positions:

 

Against

Support

Want lower

Unclear

Left blank

Total

54

38

0

12

187

 

Q4. What is your view on the commercial differential increasing to 1:1.2?

From the 291 submissions received, 85 provided comment regarding their view on Council proposed plan to increase the commercial differential to 1:1.2 These submissions have been categorised as presenting the following positions:

 

Against

Support

Want higher

Unclear

Left blank

Total

40

28

11

6

206

 

Q5. Is there anything else you would like to tell us about this annual plan (including Development Contributions Policy, Revenue and Finance Policy and User Fees and Charges)?

Councils response to the feedback presented by submitters is presented in two deliberations reports titled:

Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations – Issues and Options

Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations – Other topics.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

Revised Annual Plan Feedback Analysis

Between 17 June to 1 July we have received 587 submissions on the draft Annual Plan.

 

Q1. How strongly do you agree or disagree with an overall rates rise of 4.7%?

From the 587 submissions received, 424 provided comment regarding their view on how strongly they agreed or disagreed with an overall rates rise of 4.7%. These submissions have been categorised as presenting the following positions:

Strongly Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Strongly Agree

Left options blank

132

64

60

107

61

163

 

 

Summary of Comments

Comments from those that agree:

·    In light of the financial impact on the economy of COVID-19, this is an appropriate time for TCC to invest in infrastructure spending.

·    Agree with the proposed 4.7% rates rise to balance the council’s growth requirements against the financial pressure on ratepayers.

·    Acceptance of a higher rates rise in order to support continued level of services and continue infrastructure projects including support for a rates rise above 4.7% to ensure ongoing development to meet growth requirements and to make up for underinvestment in the past.

·    Essential projects need to be prioritised and “nice to have” projects need to be deprioritised.

Comments from those that disagree:

·    Spending should be curtailed at a time of financial difficultly for residential and commercial ratepayers resulting from the impacts of COVID-19.  Specifically, the council should reduce its staff costs and only undertake essential projects.

·    Spending should be reduced to match income, rates should not rise.

·    Tauranga rates should be reduced to match the rates paid to “other councils”.

·    Rates rises in general should be limited to CPI.

·    The rates rise should be higher than 4.7% to enable the Council to invest in the long-term success of the city and ensure TCC’s financial sustainability.

·    The rates rise should be higher as there has been an underinvestment in the city to date and this needs to be made up for.

Comments with neither option chosen or blank:

·    There should be no increase in rates.

·    Large rate increases should be avoided at all times.


 

Q2. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the proposed changes to operational budgets?

From the 587 submissions received, 407 provided comment regarding their view on how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the proposed changes to operational budgets. These submissions have been categorised as presenting the following positions:

Strongly Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Strongly Agree

Left options blank

93

73

44

105

93

179

 

 

Summary of Comments

Comments from those that agree:

·    The council should be lowering its expenses to reflect the difficult financial position of some ratepayers due to the effects of COVID-19.

·    Council has done a good job of lowering its expenses in the current environment.

·    TCC’s spending should be reduced to match income, rates should not rise.

·    Non-essential services should be cut or delayed until future years.

·    TCC should look to manage its costs downwards (including salary expenses) before cutting events and other community funding.

·    The council should reduce its spending on consultants.

·    Investment in infrastructure services should be prioritised.

·    Some community events should still be prioritised (e.g. Matariki and New Year’s Eve events) to maintain a sense of community spirit in the city.

·    Our Place should not be funded if it is not financially viable and offers subsidised competition to other city centre retailers.  Other submissions noted it should not be funded because it is unattractive.

·    Our Place should be retained as it is a drawcard for the city centre for young people and families and supports new businesses.

·    Council should be focusing its spending on sustainable initiatives at this time to save money in the long run.

Comments from those that disagree:

·    These savings do not go far enough – council should be focussed on making permanent changes to reducing staffing costs and cutting back on all non-essential projects.

·    Council should be focussed on cutting larger costs rather than smaller.  Priorities should be cutting consultant costs and staff expenses and looking into process improvements to save money.

·    Our Place is the only part of the city centre that has any vibrancy and it would be a large loss to the city as it adds energy and interest to the city for visitors throughout the year.

·    Our Place has become even more important to securing the future of the city centre post-COVID-19.

·    Our Place plays an important role in drawing shoppers into the city centre who then spend money outside Our Place.

·    Council should investigate commercially viable ways of keeping Our Place open.

Comments with neither option chosen or blank:

·    Our Place should be retained.

·    Events framework budget should be retained on the basis it will contribute towards rejuvenating the city and the success of local businesses.

·    There needs to be a stronger focus on the housing crises in Tauranga.

·    Funding for The Historic Village should continue and funding for The Elms should be increased.

 

Submitters were then asked if they would like to select which specific changes they agree or disagree with

Do you agree or disagree with the following temporary changes to reduce costs?

Change

Agree

Disagree

Cut $200,000 from events framework funding budget

272

116

Cut $100,000 from council-organised events budget

279

109

Cut $40,000 from the Historic Village functions and events budget. 

(note non-rates funded)

204

192

 

Cut $45,000 from the Emergency Management community education budget

197

191

Cut $50,000 from the budget to reduce harbour encroachments

218

170

Cut $45,000 from the Waterline education programme budget.

241

144

 

Summary of Comments

Comments from those that agree:

·    There should be a greater reduction in the New Year’s Eve budget.

·    These changes are a start but more funding cuts are necessary.

·    Council should be sticking to the basics post-COVID-19.

Comments from those that disagree:

·    Historic Village funding should not be impacted as it functions in a similar way to a museum for the city.

·    We should be doing more to encourage people to use the Historic Village including providing a greater range of events and retail opportunities.

·    Cutting budgets may have unintended impacts for the surrounding businesses.

·    Harbour encroachment funding seems like it is necessary spending and so should not be reduced.

·    Events and activities are necessary to keep the city vibrant and are beneficial for local businesses as they encourage spending by residents and tourists.

·    We should retain education budgets (emergency management) given our proximity to the ocean and the benefits to community safety.

 

Do you agree or disagree with the following permanent change to reduce costs?

Change

Agree

Disagree

Closure of the Our Place site (city centre container village)

229

187

 

Summary of Comments

Comments from those that agree:

·    The businesses in Our Place should be filling empty shops instead of using a council-subsidised site.

·    The businesses in Our Place are being subsidised at the expense of the competing businesses in the surrounding city centre.

·    This site should be used for a TCC building, green space, a hotel or as car parking.

·    Our Place has to end at some point so it might as well be now.

·    Our Place should not receive any funding but it should not be shut down.

·    The council should not be subsidising the company that runs Our Place.

·    Council should be focussing on sustainable rather than subsidised business.

·    Our Place should be moved to The Strand.

·    Our Place is not sufficiently busy to justify TCC’s support.

·    It should be run as a community project by TCC instead of as a subsidised commercial enterprise.

·    If it is running at a loss then it should be closed.

Comments from those that disagree:

·    This is a valuable provider of family entertainment and a space for families to eat out.

·    Our Place has brought a sense of community, a cultural heart, vibrancy and life to the city centre through entertainment and activities.  Without Our Place there will be little reason for locals and tourists to visit the city centre.

·    Our Place provides a way for council and consumers to support small businesses which can then grow into larger, long term leases of commercial property.

·    Our Place displays positive sustainable behaviours and shows how they can be implemented in the community.

·    Our Place provides a year’s worth of entertainment and is much better value than New Year’s Eve celebrations.

·    It’s better to have Our Place than another vacant lot in the city centre.

·    It is a cheap investment for TCC to achieve the benefits of having it open for the city centre.

·    Our Place is a community resource that caters to students and young people who are otherwise not well served in Tauranga city.

Comments with neither option chosen or blank:

·    Our Place should be cost neutral for the council.

_________________________________________________________________________

Do you agree or disagree with keeping the following permanent costs in the budget?

Change

Agree

Disagree

Keep $494,000 budget for New Year’s Eve event funding

149

258

Keep $61,000 to maintain tropical display house in Robbins Park

176

225

Keep the $89,000 budget to maintain hanging flower baskets in the city centre

156

261

 

Summary of Comments

 

Comments from those that agree:

·    It is important to make the city centre as attractive as possible. The area is already suffering from a lack of tenants and leaving it as is will delay recovery.

·    Events add to a sense of community spirit in Tauranga and are valuable family resources.

·    The community could step in to run these services at lowered costs or on a volunteer basis.

·    These services and events should be kept at a reduced cost.

Comments from those that disagree:

·    It is not worth investing in the city centre because no one goes there.

·    None of these expenses are necessary and the money could be better spent on supporting communities in need, supplying infrastructure or facilitating active and public transport.

·    Businesses should step in to cover the costs of running some, or all, of these services.

·    The New Year’s Eve event is too expensive to justify in the current climate.

·    There are sufficient privately-run events in the city so council does not need to provide any.

·    These services and events should be self-funding.

Comments with neither option chosen or blank:

·    No longer providing these services will only decrease the public’s enjoyment of the city and will not make a material difference to TCC’s financial position.  Costs should be cut in more significant ways in other parts of the organisation.

_________________________________________________________________________

Do you agree or disagree with adding the following permanent costs to the budget?

Change

Agree

Disagree

Council proposes to include $200,000 towards the creation and

implementation of a sustainable framework led by an independent sustainability advisory board.

200

196

Council proposes to add an additional $130,000 for Priority One, to support economic development.

213

177

 

Summary of Comments

 

Comments from those that agree:

·    Improving sustainability in the city is essential for the environment and our long-term future.  Delaying now will result in greater costs down the track.

·    Sustainability should be prioritised along with the ISAB.  The ISAB should comprise of mostly independent members representing a cross-section of the community.

·    There are concerns as to whether the advisory board will be effective and whether its recommendations will be followed.

·    We need to work together to encourage people to come into the city centre and to foster sustainable business.

·    Sustainability should be built into TCC’s long-term decision making.

Comments from those that disagree:

·    Both items should be deferred or are not needed at all.

·    There are concerns as to whether a separate advisory board and Priority One are necessary and/or effective and whether TCC staff can provide these services instead.

·    The same money could be spent on initiatives for which there is a proven benefit (example given: Memorial Park walkway).

·    Priority One should not be funded unless it has made a demonstrable commitment to sustainability and supporting sustainable business.

·    Do not provide any funding to Priority One.  It is not an effective use of council funds as it does not have any positive impact on business.

Comments with neither option chosen or blank:

·    Priority one funding should be funded by businesses as they are the primary beneficiaries.

·    The sustainability framework should be closely monitored to ensure it does not become a financial burden.

·    Uncertainty as to what these services are and why they are receiving funding.

_________________________________________________________________________

Do you agree or disagree with not adding this cost to the budget?

Change

Agree

Disagree

Council proposes to not add $200,000 to the Memorial Park to The Strand Coastal Cycle/Walkway Project, so no further work is progressed this year

222

191

 

Summary of Comments

 

Comments from those that agree not to add this budget:

·    This should be included for review next year or in the next Long Term Plan.  Now is not an appropriate time to progress this project due to its high cost.

·    There are sufficient public spaces in Tauranga and another one is not needed.

·    This project is controversial so should not be progressed.

·    This project has no economic value so should not be progressed.

·    We should not be building any further cycleways as we already have enough.

·    This project should not be progressed as the same money could be spent elsewhere for greater effect.

·    Concern that the project will impact on the ecological environment in its proposed location.

Comments from those that disagree with the proposal not to add the budget:

·    This project is needed to help the city move toward accommodating active transport both in terms of commuter safety and access.

·    This project will have a positive impact on traffic congestion.

·    This walkway will help to revitalise the city centre.

·    Completing this project is an important part of Tauranga contributing towards emissions reduction targets both nationally and globally by reducing travel related emissions.

·    This project will play an important role in the council’s cycling plan.

·    This project is an opportunity to explore our cultural heritage and share that with visitors.

_________________________________________________________________________

Q3. How strongly do you agree or disagree with the proposed list of capital projects for 2020/21?

Strongly Disagree

Somewhat Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

Somewhat Agree

Strongly Agree

Left options blank

52

47

140

97

32

219

 

 

Summary of Comments

 

Comments from those that agree:

·    The High Performance Centre should be deferred and ultimately should not be funded by council.

·    Street light upgrades should be prioritised.

·    It is important for the economy to keep spending on capital projects as it helps to create jobs.

·    Council should be spending more on infrastructure (and rates should rise to accommodate this).

Comments from those that disagree:

·    The costs of kerbside rubbish collection seem expensive.

·    Council should not be engaging in rubbish collection.

·    An app relating to rubbish collection is not required.

·    Council should not be funding the streetscaping around the Farmers building.

·    Te Tumu wastewater costs should be passed on to the developers.

·    Resources should be focussed on developing the intensification of the Te Papa Peninsular at the expense of Papamoa and Tauriko West as Te Papa is a more resilient location and located closer to existing amenities.

·    Sustainability and waste need more investment and need to be given greater priority.

·    Spending on roading infrastructure should be deprioritised.

 

Comments with neither option chosen or blank:

·    Start building projects in the city centre as soon as possible.

·    Council should consider carbon reduction and their environmental footprint.

_________________________________________________________________________

Q4. Do you have any comments on

Fees and Charges

Summary of Comments:

·    Fees for access to swimming pools are rising unevenly across the city and it is not clear why this is the case.

·    There should be an increase in charges for all council facilities – including sports fields.

·    The rationale given for increases in fees does not stack up with the proposed changes.  Overall, the increases are much higher than council can justify with its stated reasoning.

·    Rubbish collection should not be included in rates as a user pays system is preferable.

·    Recycling should be collected for free.

·    The cost of build consents is too high.

·    All fee increases should be suspended for the coming year.

·    Dog registration fees are too high.  It’s not clear where the money is being spent.  Only owners of anti-social dogs should have to pay for animal control services.

·    There should not be any parking fees in the city centre.

Revenue and Finance Policy

Summary of Comments:

·    All changes should be suspended for the coming year.

2020/21 Development Contributions Policy

Summary of Comments:

·    Developers should pay all costs associated with new developments.

·    The development contributions for low density housing need to increase relative to high density housing.

·    Schools and other educational facilities should be classified as a ‘Low Demand Business Activity’ rather than a ‘Business Activity’ due to their lower demand on infrastructure than traditional business.

_________________________________________________________________________

Q5. Do you have any other feedback on the contents of the annual plan?

 

Councils response to the feedback presented by submitters is presented in two deliberations reports titled:

 

Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations – Issues and Options

Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations – Other topics

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

10.2       Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations - Issues and Options - Other feedback and suggestions

File Number:           A11621357

Author:                    Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy and Corporate Planning

Authoriser:             Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       This report is presented to Council to deliberate on the issues and options raised and feedback received through consultation for other topics.

Recommendations

That Council:

Community Services

(a)     Agrees to the following options as included in the relevant attachment:

(i)      Awhina House (Attachment 1) – option …

(ii)     Kainga Tupu: Implementation (Attachment 2) – option …

(iii)     Grant funding to cover development contributions (Attachment 2) – option …

(iv)    Tauranga Community Foodbank (Attachment 3) – option …

(v)     Incubator Creative Hub (Attachment 4) – option …

(vi)    Taonga Tauranga Heritage Intent (Attachment 5) – option …

(vii)   Water Safety Bay of Plenty (Attachment 6) – option …

(viii)   Omanawa Falls Access (Attachment 7) – option …

(ix)    Mount Maunganui Cricket Club facility at Blake Park (Attachment 8) – option …

Bay Oval (Attachment 9)

(b)     Works with the Bay Oval Trust to amend lease arrangements at the Bay Oval to allow for an indoor cricket training facility

(c)     Declines the Bay Oval Trust’s request for a $2 million loan guarantee

Economic Development

(d)     Agrees to the following options as included in the relevant attachment:

(i)      Venture Centre (Attachment 10) – option …

(ii)     Film Bay of Plenty (Attachment 11) – option …

City Centre Parking (Attachment 12)

(e)     Agrees to option …

AND, if option 2 or 3 (or a variation thereof) is agreed:

(f)      Requests a report be provided to Council prior to 30 November 2020.  The report to include a review of the effectiveness of measures and include provision for any appropriate options ahead of the busy Christmas period, dependent on economic conditions.

(g)     Delegates authority to the General Manager: Infrastructure to adapt measures in response to issues or to improve effectiveness during the initial fixed period to 30 November 2020.

Sustainability (Attachment 13)

(h)     Agrees to option …

 

 

Executive Summary

2.       Community engagement on the revised draft Annual Plan 2020/21 has been undertaken.  This report is provided for Council to deliberate on issues raised through consultation.

 

Background

3.       Consultation on the draft Annual Plan 2020/21 was undertaken from 3 April to 3 May 2020. 291 submissions were received.

4.       Consultation on the revised draft Annual Plan 2020/21 was undertaken from 17 June to 1 July 2020. A further 587 submissions were received.

5.       A total of 85 submitters spoke at hearings between 2-7 July in support of their submissions covering both rounds of consultation.

6.       Multiple topics were covered, including items flagged for public feedback in the Consultation Document and several that were not.

7.       This report covers one proposal that was a consultation topic (sustainability) and a number of proposals that were not being directly consulted on.  These are addressed in Attachments 1 to 13. 

 

Strategic / Statutory Context

8.       The preparation and adoption of an annual plan allows Council to review the budget for the respective financial year to ensure the budget is accurate and to enable Council to respond to strategic priorities and objectives.

9.       The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires local authorities to prepare and adopt an Annual Plan for each financial year. This report is in relation to the 2020/21 financial year, which is the third year of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan (LTP). Developing an Annual Plan requires consultation on changes that are significantly or materially different from the LTP.

 

Options Analysis

10.     Options are provided for each issue in the attachments to this report.

 

Legal Implications / Risks

11.     The Annual Plan is Council’s resource-allocation document for the year ahead. 

12.     Legally, the purpose of the Annual Plan is set out in section 95(5) of the Local Government Act 2002 (“the Act”) as being to:

(a)     contain the proposed annual budget and funding impact statement for the year to which the annual plan relates; and

(b)     identify any variation from the financial statements and funding impact statement included in the local authority’s long-term plan in respect of the year; and

(c)     provide integrated decision making and co-ordination of the resources of the local authority; and

(d)     contribute to the accountability of the local authority to the community.

13.     The Act also requires, at section 95(6), that the Annual Plan be prepared in accordance with the principles and procedures that apply to the 2018/28 Long-term Plan. 

 

Consultation / Engagement

14.     Consultation has been carried out in accordance with this Policy and the LGA with this report (and other reports including on the Council agenda) presenting the discussion from the submissions received and recommendations.

 

Significance

15.     Under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014, these matters are of medium significance as they relate to the Council’s deliberations for the Annual Plan 2020/21. 

 

Next Steps

16.     Following Council decisions, the final Annual Plan 2020/21 will be prepared, including any changes as a result of deliberations, and will be presented for adoption on 30 July.

17.     This report responds to issues raised through public submissions and identified by the community. Following adoption of the Annual Plan 2020/21, submitters will be sent a summary of decisions and will be informed where they can access the deliberations reports.

 

Attachments

1.       Issues and Options - Awhina House - A11627173

2.       Issues and Options - Kainga Tupu Growing Homes - A11627159

3.       Issues and Options - Tauranga Community Foodbank - A11627162

4.       Issues and Options - Incubator Creative Hub - A11627179

5.       Issues and Options - Taonga Tauranga - A11627176

6.       Issues and Options - Water Safety BOP - A11627153

7.       Issues and Options - Omanawa Falls Access - A11624572

8.       Issues and Options - Mount Maunganui Cricket Club - A11622280

9.       Issues and Options - Bay Oval Trust Loan Guarantee - A11622282

10.     Issues and Options - Venture Centre - A11625984

11.     Issues and Options - Film BoP - A11625971

12.     Issues and Options - Parking Stimulus - A11627155

13.     Issues and Options - Independent Sustainability Advisory Board - A11621858   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

Title: Issues and options – Awhina House

File Number: A11627173

Author: Jodie Robertson – Community Development Advisor

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis: GM Community Services

 

ISSUE

1.       He Kaupapa Kotahitanga Trust (Awhina House) requests further financial support from Tauranga City Council for operational costs and urges Council to consider issues surrounding land supply and housing.

analysis of submission points

2.       Request for Council to support the intensification of housing in Tauranga, including provision for 1-2 bedroom units including apartments.

3.       Request for Council to support provisions for increasing affordable housing supply to support the most vulnerable members of the Tauranga community, including but not limited to the elderly, people with disabilities, and people experiencing various forms of homelessness.

4.       Request that rates are increased for commercial developments as opposed to residential developments.

5.       Supports the reduction of the Uniform Annual General Charge to 10% as it will provide relief for Tauranga’s most vulnerable communities.

6.       Request for provision of $40,000 grant in 20/21 Annual Plan to support the operational costs of Awhina House.

7.       A report on Awhina House Performance for FY 19/20 was attached to the submission.

8.       This report specifically addresses the request for additional funding.  The other submission points have been addressed elsewhere within the Deliberations agenda.

DISCUSSION and Analysis

9.       He Kaupapa Kotahitanga Trust (Awhina House) have received financial support from Council for the previous two years, which has enabled and contributed to the establishment of Awhina House and the first year of operations. Awhina House supports women experiencing homelessness through emergency accommodation and wrap around social support services. Reporting and service delivery to date has been to an excellent standard.

10.     Staff recognise the request for a further $40,000 would contribute to the second year of operations while Awhina House continues to embed their organisation and seek additional funds from central government agencies.

11.     Staff support there being a variety of housing typologies available to ensure affordable and suitable housing for vulnerable community members.

12.     The community development team have a strong working relationship with Awhina House who have been a contributing organisation to the WBoP Homelessness Provider Network, and the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes strategy.


 

Options Analysis

Option 1: Provide funding to He Kaupapa Kotahitanga Trust (Awhina House) of $40,000 for FY 20/21 to enable ongoing organisational development while they continue to seek central government support.

1.         Advantages

2.         Disadvantages

·    Enables Awhina House to continue providing support for women experiencing homelessness.

·    Enables Awhina House to extend their service focus to the provision of wrap around support services and housing brokerage.

·    Additional financial pressure on the Annual Plan 20/21.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: $40,000 for FY 20/21

Key risks: This is a low-risk opportunity to support a high-functioning yet much-needed community organisation.

 

Option 2: Do not provide funding to He Kaupapa Kotahitanga Trust (Awhina House) of $40,000 for FY 20/21.

3.         Advantages

4.         Disadvantages

·    No financial pressure on the Annual Plan 20/21.

·    Places financial pressure on an organisation that is directly supporting women experiencing homelessness and therefore, places additional pressure on housing placement brokerage.

·    Places pressure on a fledgling organisation that is still building their funding portfolio to become sustainable.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: None

Key risks: The risks to this approach is that Awhina House will be placed under financial pressure with a risk of being unable to support as many women into housing placements.

Next Steps

13.     Encourage and support the ability for community organisations and central government agencies to develop a range of housing typologies and affordable housing options.

Submissions recEived

Submission #023.

Attachments

Nil


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

Title: Issues and options – Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes Strategy

File Number: Obj ID: A11627159

Author: Jodie Robertson – Community Development Advisor

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, GM: Community Services

 

ISSUE

1.       The Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes Strategy was finalised in early 2020 and has resulted in the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes Action Plan, and the Kāinga Tupu Mayoral Taskforce. There is no current budget allocation for Action Plan implementation and/or the project management of the strategy and the Mayoral Taskforce.

2.       A leading issue impacting homelessness is the lack of appropriate and affordable housing stock, including an urgent need to increase social housing stock.

analysis of submission points

3.       All six submissions support the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes WBOP Homelessness Strategy led by the Mayoral Taskforce, and urge Council to provide dedicated budget to the strategy.

4.       #025 – Accessible Properties NZ Ltd

·    Support for the Pukehinahina Project and the development of mixed housing typology in Gate Pā, in accordance with the Te Papa Intensification Plan. Request Council leadership in developing a joint-partnership proposal.

·    Support for the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes Strategy and the work being led by the Kāinga Tupu Mayoral Taskforce, and project managed by TCC Community Development.

5.       #132 – Tauranga Community Housing Trust

·    Urges Council to take leadership alongside Accessible Properties NZ Ltd for the Pukehinahina Project.

·    The key to addressing homelessness is the provision of more affordable rental accommodation and first home units.

·    Request Council advocate strongly to Central Government and engage in suitable partnerships to build a minimum of 500 social housing units with varying typologies, to be built in the city near to public transport and amenities, over the next three years.

·    Request for specific project and funding stream for increasing city social housing stock.

·    Request for an integrated housing construction action plan to be developed with Council leadership and in collaboration with all stakeholders.

·    Requests amendment of the Development Contributions Policy to provide 50% relief of Council charges for registered Community Housing Providers who are developing new homes to permanently add to their community housing stock. Seeking a specific statement in the policy to enable current delegated power to be applied automatically when the waiver/relief application is received by Council.

·    Encourages planning changes to encourage more intensification in support of the Te Papa Peninsula intensification proposals. Encourages a focus on inclusionary zoning, title covenant restrictions to retain affordable housing in new developments.

·    Support the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes Strategy and the work being led by the Kāinga Tupu Mayoral Taskforce, and project managed by TCC Community Development

6.       #611 – Tauranga Housing Association

·    Encourages Council to allocate a dedicated budget to Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes WBoP Homelessness Strategy.

7.       #782 – St Peters Community Lunch (St Peters Church)

·    Supports work that Council is doing to address, understand and solve homelessness under the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes strategy.

·    Urges Council to consider homelessness through a dedicated budget for the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes WBOP Homelessness Strategy.

·    Continue to work at pace to implement the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes strategy in collaboration with central government agencies, local philanthropic funders, iwi and community organisations.

·    Support the initiative to have a trial period using 45 Cliff Road as a central kitchen to supply community meals from. Requests Council support for this trial to determine feasibility of community meal provision from a centralised base. Would support the development of cooking courses, life skills and budgeting as additional services to be provided through a centralised venue.

·    Urges Council to commit to actively engaging in co-designing creative approaches that will enable the fast-tracking local legislation processes and planning rules around land use parameters to see increases in housing supply in the short-term future.

8.       #803 – SociaLink Tauranga Moana

·    Urges Council to consider homelessness through a dedicated budget for the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes WBOP Homelessness Strategy.

·    Continues to work at pace to implement the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes strategy in collaboration with central government agencies, local philanthropic funders, iwi and community organisations.

·    Further requests Council to prioritise local social procurement and funding for the arts and culture programmes in support of Toi Moana implementation.

9.       #795 – Natural Assets Trust

·    Supports the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes strategy and the Kāinga Tupu Mayoral Taskforce but requests an urgent focus on affordable housing solutions while the Mayoral Taskforce is establishing implementation of the Action Plan.

·    Seeks short to medium-term rules and legislation changes to bridge the current housing crisis with a focus on reducing the waiting list for rental housing, reducing the number of applications for emergency housing, and enabling affordable home ownership. Specifically, the rule changes requested include:

a)   working in partnership with central government to redirect funding for emergency housing to alternative home ownership and permanent rental options;

b)   allowance for private home/landowners to host portable homes on a short to long-term basis. Submission includes a suggested framework to enable this option;

c)   allowance for waiver or reduced fees to support access to grey water or septic disposal;

d)   enable a tiny house eco-village pilot and work alongside SmartGrowth and the Kāinga Tupu Mayoral Taskforce to achieve this;

e)   pro-actively look for opportunities for cross-sector funding, including impact investment;

f)    innovative solutions for alternative housing that assist people to transform housing that is currently below standards;

g)   implementing emergency provision for transitional housing through diversion of emergency housing funding to rent-to-buy opportunities;

h)   partnering to support park up properties, enabling safe sites for people sleeping in cars;

i)    explore the ‘service hub’ as per Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes strategy as an opportunity to include transitional homes; and

j)    engage with the BOPDHB to develop an innovative, multi-purpose building as opposed to a single-story mental health unit.

DISCUSSION and Analysis

10.     Council staff support there being a variety of housing typologies to ensure affordable and suitable housing for vulnerable community members, with an emphasis on people experiencing homelessness, older people, and people with disabilities.  Staff support further investigation of enabling affordable and social housing supply.

11.     Staff support the proposed partnership model of the Accessible Properties NZ Ltd Pukehinahina Project.

12.     Staff support the trial of innovative solutions to affordable housing options and acknowledges the need to partner with central government agencies to support such efforts. TCC Community Development team are working alongside Ministry of Social Development and Ministry of Housing and Urban Development to examine ways of reducing the burden on emergency accommodation and maximise rental opportunities.

13.     Staff support the exploration and enablement of short to mid-term affordable housing solutions to help ease the burden of the existing housing crisis in Tauranga.

14.     The TCC Community Development team are currently investigating the feasibility of a centralised community hub as part of the actions within the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes strategy.

15.     TCC Community Development have a strong working relationship with all submitters and continue to work in partnership as part of the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes strategy, Kāinga Tupu Mayoral Taskforce, and Kāinga Tupu action groups.

16.     Staff support the provision of funding for the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes strategy, the implementation of the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes Action Plan, and the ongoing project management of the Kāinga Tupu Mayoral Taskforce.

17.     Staff support the provision of a centralised venue and kitchen for the ongoing provision of community meals and the development of additional support programmes for a one-year pilot period. The TCC Community Development team have been working collaboratively with ten community meal providers to encourage collaboration and coordination of meal provision. 

 

Options Analysis – kainga tupu implementation

Option A1: Provide dedicated funding in FY 20/21 to support the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes strategy, as detailed below:

·    $100,000 for Action Plan implementation to support a decrease in homelessness;

·    $70,000 for ongoing project management support of the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Strategy and the Kāinga Tupu Mayoral Taskforce; and

·    $30,000 for the pilot of a centralised venue for community meal provision.

5.         Advantages

6.         Disadvantages

·    Enables the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes Strategy to progress with implementation of key actions in collaboration with all stakeholders.

·    Enables the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes Strategy and the Mayoral Taskforce to progress with overall project management and coordination through a dedicated FTE within the TCC Community Development Team.

·    Enables the coordination of 10 community meal providers to collaborate and provide meals to vulnerable community members through a centralised venue.

·    Adds financial pressure to Annual Plan 20/21.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: $200,000 for FY 2020/21.

Key risks: This is a low risk opportunity to support action implementation, project management, coordination and collaboration to reduce homelessness and provide support for vulnerable communities across Tauranga.

 

Option A2: Do not provide funding support for the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes Strategy.

7.         Advantages

8.         Disadvantages

·    No additional financial pressure on Annual Plan 20/21.

·    Likely limited Action Plan implementation during FY 20/21.

·    Risk of limited reduction in homelessness.

·    Increased demand on the capacity of the TCC Community Development team to continue to provide project management and coordination of the homelessness portfolio.

·    Reduction in collaboration and coordination of WBoP stakeholders working to address homelessness.

·    Undermines the work undertaken to date on encouraging collaboration and coordination of community meals across Tauranga.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: None

Key risks: The key risk to this approach is that limited work will be undertaken to reduce homelessness in Tauranga.

 

Options Analysis – grant for develoment contributions

18.     The above options section covers general support for the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes strategy.  In addition to this, the Tauranga Community Housing Trust (“TCHT”) made a specific request for grant funding to cover at least 50% of the development contributions incurred by community housing providers (CHPs) when developing new community housing.

19.     TCHT are looking to develop a site in Greerton at present.  An assessment of that development indicates that the total development contributions payable will be approximately $75,000.  Staff are not aware of any other community housing projects currently being undertaken by CHPs but it is possible that others will occur in the 2020/21 year.  Therefore, it is difficult to identify the total quantum of potential grant applications if a fund was established as requested.

20.     The development contributions policy and supporting legislation does not provide for direct cross-subsidisation of developments using development contributions.  Therefore, any grants for the subsidisation of development contributions would need to be rate-funded. 

 

Option B1: Provide a grant for 50% of the development contributions payable by TCHT on their current development of community housing:

·    Grant budgeted at a maximum of $40,000

9.         Advantages

10.      Disadvantages

·    Provides the minimum support requested by the submitter.

·    Supports the provision of community housing by reducing a direct development cost.

·    A separate and specific rate-funded grant allows for the development contribution policy to be consistently applied but the submitter to receive a ‘discount’.

·    Adds financial pressure to Annual Plan 20/21.

·    Potential precedent effect of other non-CHP request for grants to cover development contributions.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: $40,000 rate-funded for FY 2020/21.

Key risks: Risk that other CHPs will also develop community housing (upside outcome risk) and further grants will be requested (downside rate-funded financial risk).

 

Option B2: Provide a grant for 100% of the development contributions payable by TCHT on their current development of community housing

·  Grant budgeted at a maximum of $75,000

11.      Advantages

12.      Disadvantages

·    Provides the maximum support requested by the submitter.

·    Supports the provision of community housing by reducing a direct development cost.

·    A separate and specific rate-funded grant allows for the development contribution policy to be consistently applied but the submitter to receive a ‘discount’.

·    Adds financial pressure to Annual Plan 20/21.

·    Potential precedent effect of other non-CHP request for grants to cover development contributions.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: $75,000 rate-funded for FY 2020/21.

Key risks: As for Option 1.

 

Option B3: Provide a grant of $xxx,000 to cover development contributions payable by any community housing provider during 2020/21

·  The level of uptake of available grants is dependent on the extent of qualifying development in the year.  Council would ned to determine the extent of this funding pool.

·  Criteria would need to be established to ensure the fund was administered fairly and equitably.

13.      Advantages

14.      Disadvantages

·    Provides capacity for the TCHT request.

·    Supports the provision of community housing by reducing a direct development cost.

·    A separate and specific rate-funded grant allows for the development contribution policy to be consistently applied but the submitter to receive a ‘discount’.

·    Adds financial pressure to Annual Plan 20/21.

·    Potential precedent effect of other non-CHP request for grants to cover development contributions.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: dependent on the amount voted.

Key risks: As for Option 1.

 

Next Steps

21.     Approve financial support for Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes Strategy and Action Plan.

22.     Encourage and support the ability for community organisations and central government agencies to develop a range of housing typologies and affordable housing.

23.     Encourage and support the ongoing development and implementation of the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes strategy, Action Plan, and Mayoral Taskforce.

Submissions recEived

Submissions #025, #132, #611, #782, #795, #803.

Attachments

Nil

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

Title: Issues and options – Tauranga Community Foodbank

File Number: Obj ID: A11627162

Author: Lisa MacKinnon: Community Development Advisor

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, GM Community Services

ISSUE

1.       Tauranga Community Foodbank requests support in finding and funding suitable accommodation for the city foodbank, which has seen a demand for their service increase by nearly 20% over the last year.

analysis of submission points

2.       Tauranga Community Foodbank provides a vital service to the Tauranga community, issuing 5,572 food parcels in 2019 and feeding 15,724 people of which 8,626 were children.

3.       From 1991 to 2015, Council provided the Tauranga Community Foodbank with a rent-free building on Dive Crescent. Unfortunately, the foodbank had to relocate as the building had asbestos-related issues and since that time have had to lease a space at commercial rates.

4.       Food parcel recipients are encouraged to seek budget assistance to help them become more self-sufficient. All parcels contain a well-balanced source of food and also include basic toiletries and sanitary items.

5.       Tauranga Community Foodbank’s current annual lease costs are ~$40,000 and are expected to rise to ~$60,000 when they move to a much-needed larger premises. The foodbank requests an additional $30,000 in FY 20/21 to support the need to move to new premises.

DISCUSSION and Analysis

6.       Current leased accommodation is too small to accommodate current demand and the lease cost will increase nearly 10% this year.

7.       Council has supported the foodbank for the past 11 years (since FY 09/10) with a $10K Stewart and Carruthers Trust annual grant, and a further $4K annually of operational funding support ($154K total over the 11 years).

8.       The Stewart Trust funding for the Foodbank was agreed at the 2018 funding round for $40,000 to be distributed in four tranches of $10,000 per year – 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021.

9.       The Tauranga Community Foodbank is currently experiencing a significant increase in demand and is highly likely to continue to increase over the next 6-12 months as a result of Covid-19.

10.     The foodbank provides a vital service to our city and without it, many more families will be unable to meet their basic needs. 

Options Analysis

Option 1: Provide support to find suitable new accommodation for Tauranga Community Foodbank and an additional $30K funding to help support associated increased rent and lease costs.

15.      Advantages

16.      Disadvantages

·    Enables the work of a vital community service to continue.

·    Allows the Foodbank to expand premises size, enabling enhanced efficiency of the service for the community.

·    Provides another avenue of referral and support for families and individuals to take responsibility for self-reliance through registered budgeting services.

·    Financial pressure on Annual Plan 20/21.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: $30,000 for FY 20/21, in addition to the already approved $10,000 Stewart and Carruthers Trust grant of which the last tranche will be distributed in 2021).

Key risks: Low risk

 

Option 2: Increase the existing operational funding (of $4,000) by $16,000, alongside the $10,000 Stewart and Carruthers Trust Fund to make a total $30,000 financial contribution in FY 20/21.

17.      Advantages

18.      Disadvantages

·    Less financial pressure on Annual Plan 20/21 than Option 1.

·    Enables the work of a vital community service to continue.

·    Allows the Foodbank to expand premises size, enabling enhanced efficiency of the service for the community.

·    Provides another avenue of referral and support for families and individuals to take responsibility for self-reliance through registered budgeting services.

·    N/A

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: Total $20,000 for FY 20/21 (i.e. an increase of $16,000 operational funding) in addition to the $10K Stewart and Carruthers Trust annual grant.

Key risks: Low risk

 

Option 3: Retain the status quo and continue with $4K operational funding as per the past 11 years, along with the $10K Stewart and Carruthers trust grant.

19.      Advantages

20.      Disadvantages

·    No financial pressure on the Annual Plan 2020/21.

·    Does not assist in alleviating additional pressure from community needs in the past year and increasingly post Covid19.

·    Does not show that Council values the work being undertaken by this vital community service.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: None

Key risks: Reputational risk that Council does not view community and people in hardship as a priority for the city.

 

Next Steps

11.     Encourage and support the Tauranga Community Foodbank to make a submission as part of the draft Long-Term Plan 2021/31 for ongoing support.

12.     Council’s Property team to work with Tauranga Community Foodbank to help find a suitable, larger premises for the increasing demands on this important community service.   

 

Submissions recEived

Submission # 014.

attachments

See below.


 

Attachment 1: support provided to foodbanks by other local authorities

COUNCIL

RESULTS

Christchurch City Council (CCC)

CCC doesn’t directly fund foodbanks or food delivery but they do fund the organisations that operate those foodbanks in other ways. For example, financial support of the City Mission’s Night Shelter through their Strengthening Communities Fund. This has the effect of reducing their overall financial burden so if they choose, they can apply funds to their foodbank if needed. Thus, any support CCC provides to the foodbank is indirect and not the subject of direct funding.

Hamilton City Council (HCC)

HCC fund foodbanks – they apply for an annual contestable grant each year through the single year community grant round in February. During Covid, food suppliers got together and have now formed a collective which has resulted in a joint application to the MSD fund. Going forward they may also do a combined application to HCC.

Whanganui District Council (WDC)

WDC have an ongoing contract with the City Mission who provide their foodbank and they get ~$11,000 a year from Council to support their ongoing operations.

Taupo District Council (TDC)

TDC no longer takes funding requests through their Annual Plan or Long Term Plan process. They have a contestable process for a three-year partnership agreement that is held after the LTP and they are kept separate. Their Foodbank would be able to apply to that. They also have community grants and foodbank receive funding from their social service grants.

Wellington City Council (WCC)

WCC haven’t tended to support foodbanks directly – they have a food rescue specific organisation Kaibosh who they support on a multi-year funding contract and they tend to supply a lot of the NGO’s and some foodbanks.

Southland District Council (SDC)

SDC do not fund foodbanks. They have funds that they could apply to but have never received any applications.

Palmerston North City Council (PNCC)

PNCC provide no direct or indirect funding to foodbanks via their community grants. However there is now an alliance of food providers who have come together post-Covid (Food Action Network) https://www.facebook.com/manawatufoodaction and they are utilising Community Environment Fund via Ministry for the Environment.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

Title: Issues and options – Incubator Creative Hub

File Number: Objective ID: A11627179

Author: Blair Graham, Team Leader – Historic Village

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis: GM Community Services

ISSUE

1.       The Incubator Creative Hub submitted seven new initiatives for consideration, all based in TCC building assets at The Historic Village, taking their total initiatives within the Historic Village to 12.

2.       The Incubator Creative Hub requests an additional $75,000 in FY 20/21.

3.       $50,000 of the requested amount would go towards two of the new initiatives, Ceramic Precinct and Village Cinema, and $25,000 would go towards a current initiative called Okorore located in Faulkner House.

4.       52 submissions have been made in support of The Incubator’s submission. This report focuses on the requests for funding.

analysis of submission points

5.       The Incubator Creative Hub is currently funded by TCC through the Long-Term Plan with $125,000 allocated per annum for three years. They are currently just starting the final year of that initial three-year commitment.

6.       Okorore commenced in late 2019 in Faulkner House and is a collaboration between TCC’s Heritage Collection (as building owner), The Historic Village and The Incubator:

(a)     The purpose of the initiative is to celebrate, nurture and incubate Toi Maori and Indigenous practitioners.

(b)     No rent is currently charged for the use of Faulkner House however, outgoings are charged to the tenant.

(c)     The Incubator are requesting $25,000 to go toward further development and coordination of Okorore.

(d)     This would be used for operational activities including remuneration of a coordinator for the initiative.

7.       The Ceramic Precinct is a new initiative proposing occupation of the Blacksmith Building (B5) at The Historic Village:

(a)     To be centred around a large table-top Kiln recently purchased by The Incubator.

(b)     The proposed space will only house the Kiln and not allow for space for works to be produced.

(c)     Investment will need to be made to renew the building to accommodate the Kiln.

(d)     The Incubator are requesting $25,000 to go towards development and coordination of the Ceramic Precinct.

(e)     This would be used for operational activities including remuneration of a coordinator for the initiative.

8.       The Village Cinema Proposal is a new initiative from The Incubator:

(a)     The Incubator are wanting to implement a free hire arrangement outside of The Historic Village cinema venue bookings.

(b)     The Incubator are requesting $25,000 to go towards development and coordination of the proposal, which would go toward remuneration of a co-ordinator.

DISCUSSION and Analysis

9.       The Historic Village Strategy 2012/22 is nearly end-of-life with many goals from this now completed. A review of the future direction of The Historic Village is underway and this work is planned to be completed by November 2020.

10.     Under the current strategy, The Historic Village tenant occupancy is meant to be a 50/50 split between the not-for-profit/community sector and the commercial sector. While the split in tenants is 50/50, the space they occupy is heavily weighted toward the not-for-profit/community sector.

11.     Also, under the current strategy The Historic Village is meant to break even or better but it currently delivers relatively significant financial losses.

12.     The Historic Village venues (of which the Village Cinema is one) are a source of revenue but currently achieve very low occupancy. A new sales and marketing strategy with an associated action plan is almost complete with a view to improving this. This is currently on hold until after the review of the overarching strategy is complete, so it can be aligned to the future direction of The Historic Village.

13.     Many of the stakeholders outlined in this proposal already use the Village Cinema and pay user fees, which contribute to The Historic Village revenue streams.

14.     The Village Hall is currently undergoing renewal works to improve the level of service and attractiveness of the space. Council also has similar plans for the Balcony Room. It is expected that once these works are complete, occupancy levels for all venues including the Village Cinema will improve generating much needed revenue.

15.     The Blacksmith Building is currently managed by the Heritage Collection team and will require capital investment to bring the building up to an acceptable level to be able to safely accommodate the Kiln. These works include installation of a concrete floor and addition of an 83amp, three phase electricity connection to power it. High-level estimates of this cost are between $80–$100K and this is not currently budgeted.

16.     Okorore as a cultural facility has been incredibly successful to date. The building is occupied seven days per week and freely accessible to the public. The Faulkner Family story is being told from the space and this facility has influenced and increased the amount of Maori and cultural events being held at The Historic Village.

 

Options Analysis

Option 1: Provide funding to The Incubator of $75,000 to go towards operational costs of the three proposed projects; Okorore, the Village Cinema and Ceramic Precinct.

21.      Advantages

22.      Disadvantages

·    Enables the Incubator Creative Hub to continue to grow.

 

·    Potential minor loss of revenue for The Historic Village venues.

·    Requires significant capital investment in building B5.

·    Pre-empts future direction being provided through the piece of strategic work currently being undertaken, due for completion in November 2020.

Budget – Capex: $80-$100K for FY 20/21

Budget – Opex: $75K for FY 20/21

Key risks: This is a medium risk approach as the upcoming strategic work could steer the future use of The Historic Village in a different direction. Capex expenditure needs to be scheduled and takes time to complete.

 

Option 2: Provide $25,000 funding to The Incubator for the Okorore project only and defer other requests until after the current strategic review is complete.

23.      Advantages

24.      Disadvantages

·    Enables The Incubator Creative Hub to continue to grow Okorore, a project unlikely to be impacted by the upcoming strategic review.

·    Defers the immediate need for capital investment in B5.

·    Allows The Historic Village to continue to earn revenue from the Village Cinema.

·    Reduced financial pressure on Annual Plan 20/21.

·    Will place plans for the Kiln on hold in the short term and it will need to be stored.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: $25,000 for FY 20/21

Key risks: This is a low-risk approach. It allows a review of the strategic direction of The Historic Village to be completed, prior to commitments being made that may be incongruous with the outcomes of that review. Capex expenditure needs to be scheduled and takes time to complete.

 

Option 3: Do not provide additional funding to The Incubator of $75, differing any additional funding decisions until after the current strategic review is complete.

25.      Advantages

26.      Disadvantages

·    No additional financial pressure on Annual Plan 20/21.

·    Allows all opportunities to be considered as part of The Historic Village strategic review.

·    Allows The Historic Village to continue to earn revenue from the Village Cinema.

·    Differs the immediate need for capital investment in B5.

·    Does not enable The Incubator to continue to grow significantly in the short-term.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: None

Key risks: This is a low-risk approach. It is important we communicate the reasons behind the decision and ask that these ideas, and/or new ones are submitted as part of the upcoming Long-Term Plan, in alignment with the current strategic review work.

 

Next Steps

17.     Encourage and support The Incubator to actively participate in The Historic Village strategic review and align their futures plans with the outcome of that review, including submissions to the upcoming Long-Term Plan.

 

Submissions recEived

Lead Submission #: 156

Supporting submissions 114, 115, 156, 179, 191, 572-608, 665-669, 671-683, 686, 688, 712, 713, 745, 789, 794, 796, 798

Attachments

Nil


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

Title: Issues and options – Taonga Tauranga – Heritage Intent

File Number: Obj ID: A11627176

Author: Anne Blakeway, Manager (Acting): Community Development

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis: GM Community Services

ISSUE

1.       Taonga Tauranga requests $20,000 funding for two years, starting in FY 20/21 to lead cross-regional development of a Regional Heritage Intent with input from key heritage stakeholders.

analysis of submission points

2.       Two submissions of support have been received, one from Taonga Tauranga and a second from Eric Holowacz, General Manager of Creative BOP.

3.       Several letters of support are attached to the submission, including:

-     Ian Thomas, Chair of the Elms Foundation

-     Simon Collett, Chair of the Pukehinahina Charitable Trust

-     Kristin Dunne, CEO Tourism BOP

-     Simon Bridges MP

-     Jan Tinetti MP

-     Angie Warren-Clark MP

-     Dean Flavell

-     Dean Waddell, Patron Taonga Tauranga

DISCUSSION and Analysis

4.       The Taonga Tauranga Trust approached Council’s Community Development team for seed funding to develop a collaborative, visionary document and action plan for the future of heritage activities in the sub-region.

5.       As a first step, the emphasis has been on sectoral collaboration and agreement gained on key issues, giving it a clear voice that is distinct from arts and culture.

6.       The Trust has been seeking advice from TCC’s Strategy team, while also involving subject matter experts in both the Libraries and Heritage Collection teams.

7.       They have now completed a fine-tuned scope with a clearly identified and achievable timeline for the ‘Regional Heritage Intent’.

Options Analysis

Option 1: Provide funding to the Taonga Tauranga Trust of $20,000 for FY 20/21 and $20,000 for FY 21/22 to enable the development of a Regional Heritage Intent.

27.      Advantages

28.      Disadvantages

·    Enables the work of a Regional Heritage Intent to continue.

·    Brings together all relevant stakeholders and puts emphasis on sector collaboration and agreement on key issues, before progressing further.

·    N/A

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: $20,000 for FY 20/21 and $20,000 for FY 21/22

Key risks: This is a low-risk approach that is being led by the community. The Taonga Tauranga Trust are also approaching BOPRC and WBOPDC for similar funding support.

 

Option 2: Do not provide additional funding to Taonga Tauranga Trust to enable the development of a Regional Heritage Intent.

29.      Advantages

30.      Disadvantages

·    No financial pressure on Annual Plan 20/21.

·    Does not enable the work of a Regional Heritage Intent to continue.

·    Does not provide an opportunity to bring together all the relevant stakeholders to collaborate and agree on key issues, before progressing further.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: None

Key risks: The key risk to this approach is that the stakeholders do not have an opportunity to work together, and we do not have a community-led heritage intent for the region.

 

Next Steps

8.       Encourage and support The Taonga Tauranga Trust to make a submission as part of the draft Long Term Plan 2021-31, to continue to progress work on their Regional Heritage Intent.

 

Submissions recEived

Submission #816 and #832.

Attachments

Nil

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

Title: Issues and options – Water Safety Bay of Plenty

File Number: Obj ID: A11627153

Author: Alana Rapson, Community Development Advisor

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis: GM Community Services

 

ISSUE

1.       Water Safety Bay of Plenty (WSBoP) requests a financial contribution of $30,000 towards the implementation of the Bay of Plenty Water Safety Strategy, and Tauranga City Council’s assistance in raising awareness of reducing preventable drownings.

analysis of submission points

2.       More specifically, WSBoP would like Council to support the implementation of the Bay of Plenty Water Safety Strategy by:

·    continuing to contribute to funding the salary of the Regional Water Safety Strategy Manager, for the implementation of the Bay of Plenty Water Safety Strategy;

·    working in partnership with WSBoP through TCC’s Welcoming Communities and Safer Communities programmes, and in the development of relationships with local iwi and Māori communities;

·    engaging with the coalition of interested parties already present within the Tauranga community on the Bay of Plenty Water Safety Strategy, and;

·    including water safety messages and documents in its community communications.

3.       This submission outlines the positive impacts this strategy will have on Tauranga by reducing the disproportionate numbers of preventable drownings that are occurring.

4.       Council should continue to recognise preventable drowning in Tauranga as a critical community issue which requires a collective response to reduce.

DISCUSSION and Analysis

5.       Tauranga City Council provided annual funding through the Annual Plan 2019/20 submission process.

6.       The Bay of Plenty Water Safety Strategy has been developed in consultation with sector stakeholders and the community, and focuses on reducing preventable drowning deaths and injuries by building a culture of safe enjoyment in, on and around the water in the Bay of Plenty.

7.       The purpose of the strategy is to develop a targeted and collaborative action plan for water safety in the Bay of Plenty and consists of seven key priority actions.

8.       The Bay of Plenty Water Safety Strategy links directly into supporting Council’s delivery of the Tauranga Western Bay Safer Communities Strategic Plan 2020-25, more specifically, one of the strategies key focus areas: Safety Goal 4. As well as this, point 3.1 and 3.3 of the Welcoming Communities Plan.

9.       Drownings in Tauranga and the Western Bay of Plenty made up a significant proportion of these drownings with 71 preventable drownings between 2010 and 2019, a rate of 2.3 preventable drowning fatalities per 100,000 of population.

10.     The vast majority (62%) of preventable drowning deaths in Tauranga occurred at beaches and in tidal waters.

 

Options Analysis

Option 1: Provide $30,000 funding to Water Safety Bay of Plenty to enable them to continue with the implementation of the Bay of Plenty Water Safety Strategy.

31.      Advantages

32.      Disadvantages

·    Enables the implementation of the Bay of Plenty Water Safety Strategy to continue.

·    Brings together all the relevant sector stakeholders and the community to reduce preventable drowning deaths and injuries.

·    $25K already included in FY 20/21 budget. 

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: $30,000 for FY 20/21 ($25k already budgeted)

Key risks: This is a low-risk approach that is led by the community. Water Safety Bay of Plenty already have confirmed funding from BOPRC through their Annual Plan process and are approaching other Councils in the BOP for similar funding.

 

 

Option 2: Reconfirm the $25K already allocated in the FY 20/21 budget.

33.      Advantages

34.      Disadvantages

·    No additional funding required.

·    Enables the implementation of the Bay of Plenty Water Safety Strategy to continue.

·    Brings together all the relevant sector stakeholders and the community to reduce preventable drowning deaths and injuries.

·    N/A

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: $25,000 for FY 20/21 but already included in the budget.

Key risks: This is a low-risk approach that is led by the community. Water Safety Bay of Plenty already have confirmed funding from BOPRC through their Annual Plan process and are approaching other Councils in the BOP for similar funding.

 

 

Option 3: Do not provide funding to Water Safety Bay of Plenty to enable them to continue with the implementation of the Bay of Plenty Water Safety Strategy.

35.      Advantages

36.      Disadvantages

·    No financial pressure on the Annual Plan 2020/21.

·    Does not enable the work of a water safety strategy to continue.

·    Does not provide an opportunity to bring together all the relevant stakeholders and community to collaborate and reduce preventable drowning deaths and injuries.

Budget – Capex: None

Budget – Opex: None

Key risks: The key risk to this approach is that community stakeholders do not work together and we continue to have high rates of preventable drowning in the Western BOP.

 

Next Steps

11.     Encourage Water Safety Bay of Plenty to make a submission as part of the draft Long-Term Plan 2021-31 process for ongoing funding support.

 

Submissions recEived

Submission #195.

Attachments

Nil


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

Title: Issues and options – Omanawa Falls Access

File Number: A11624572

Author: Mark Smith, Manager: Spaces & Places, & Warren Aitken, Team Leader: Parks & Environment

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, GM: Community Services

 

ISSUE

1.       Omanawa Falls Reserve is currently closed due to serious safety issues related to access to the falls.

2.       In 2017, Council committed to provide a $1,890,000 budget to respond to the access safety issues, which included $1,000,000 funding from the Tourism Infrastructure Fund (TIF).

3.       Approximately $180,000 has been spent across the 2019 and 2020 financial years for professional services, including various geotechnical reports and concept designs.

4.       The estimated cost to complete the project has increased from $1,711,000 to $3,857,224. The reasons for this increase include:

(a)     The initial project budget did not reflect a realistic option for project delivery that met all of the project objectives.

(b)     Project due diligence has raised a specific issue with the stability of the rock face above the waterfall pool – this item alone has increased the projected project cost by $450,000.

(c)     A more detailed cost approach, which has increased the certainty around the costs of individual elements and also identified that some elements were originally costed too low. Two items of particular note here are:

(i)      The car parking area where costs have increased from an estimated $80,000 to a more realistic $290,000; and

(ii)     Professional fees and consenting which have increased from an estimated $170,000 to $528,950. The current procurement approach is to complete delivery using an engineering led, early contractor engagement process to deliver the project.

(d)     Price escalation since the project was originally scoped in 2017.

5.       Due to more certainty about project deliverables, cost, and the level of due diligence completed to date, contingency has reduced from 20% to 12% of project budget.

6.       These issues have created a situation where a decision is required on the preferred way forward.

DISCUSSION and Analysis

7.       Omanawa Falls Reserve is closed to public access due to serious safety issues. This closure is not preventing people from visiting the falls illegally.

8.       As a result of the beauty, history, landscape amenity and ecological values associated with the reserve, and the use of social media by visitors to share experiences and highlight the ‘hidden’ attraction, the falls visitor numbers have grown over the last eight years.

9.       Safety issues include:

(a)     Cars parking unsafely along Omanawa Rd. Visitors often park in front of residential driveways and too close to the road edge. Omanawa Road has a speed limit of 100kph and has a narrow road carriageway. Council staff have received a number of complaints from local residents and neighbours regarding parking and trespassing. It is evident that the current parking area is insufficient to cater for the number of visitors who are visiting the falls and this is contributing to road safety concerns in the area, and is damaging the sector’s social licence.

(b)     Fall hazards accessing and leaving the falls at the escarpment, which is steep and slippery. Visitors are taking risks that are leading to serious injury and situations requiring rescue to remove people from the waterfall pool area when they find they cannot safely return back up the escarpment.

(c)     Geotechnical investigations during due diligence stages have revealed that the rock face above the waterfall pool requires stabilisation to ensure safety from a potential rock fall hazard.

10.     Measures to restrict access have not resulted in a marked reduction in visitors to the site, but have included:

(a)     Signage; at the road end, along the four-wheel drive access park, and at the escarpment.

(b)     Fencing at key access points.

(c)     Media and social media warnings.

11.     On 20 August 2019, Council received a report to review the Omanawa Falls Reserve Peer Review. Council supported the recommended staged approach to deliver the Omanawa Falls project. The project is advancing in line with this approach.

12.     The Omanawa Falls site is of significance to Ngāti Hangarau. A concept plan was recently developed to provide an indication of what can be achieved at the site. (Attachment A). Ngāti Hangarau, Tourism Bay of Plenty and Tauranga City Council are working through a co-design process to complete the design process.

13.     The co-design approach will respond to the issues and opportunities at the site by creating an authentic and culturally, historically and environmentally appropriate visitor experience.

Options Analysis

14.     Due to the serious safety issues related to public access at Omanawa Falls, including a death in 2018, staff have not presented a ‘do nothing’ option. The coroner’s report following the death noted, in relation to the efforts that Council has made to prevent public access to Omanawa Falls that:

“Despite these efforts, people continue to visit the area. The Council is currently making plans to create a safe accessway which will take some time.”

And went on to suggest visitors:

“...follow advice to not visit Omanawa Falls until safe access is established. There are many dangers associated with this area, including drowning”.[1]

Since 2018, further incidences have occurred, the latest during Covid Alert Level 4 when two visitors accessed the falls during daylight but were unable to safely leave the waterfall pool area. A rescue was completed at 11pm by two Park Rangers.

15.     Current opex for the area is $40,000 per annum.

16.     Communication with MBIE has indicated that the $1,000,000 TIF allocation is at risk if the project does not proceed along current timelines with project completion scheduled for November 2021. To meet this timeline the project cannot be further delayed.

 

Option 1: Full scope delivery – Council-funded

Council approves an additional $2,146,224 capex budget in FY 20/21 to deliver the Omanawa Falls safety and access project, as currently scoped following due diligence and engagement with Ngāti Hangarau and Tourism Bay of Plenty. Council requires staff to actively pursue external funding opportunities to mitigate the full impact of the additional funding on Council.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·     Responds to all serious safety issues to provide safe access for the public.

·     Provide Ngāti Hangarau and Tauranga City Council with the opportunity to share the site, safely and appropriately with manuhiri.

·     Deliver fit-for-purpose public access to an existing cultural, ecological and historical attraction.

·     Enhance the overall visitor experience.

·     Support additional visitor spend in the region.

·     Additional cost.

 

Budget – Capex: $3,857,224 noting that:

·    Tourism Infrastructure Fund $1,000,000 contribution committed

·    Additional capex budget sought is $2,146,224

Budget – Opex:

·    $80,000 maintenance costs per annum, of which $40,000 is already budgeted.

·    Additional debt servicing costs of $37,600 in 2021 FY.

·    Additional debt servicing costs of $75,100 and additional depreciation costs of $32,200 for 2022 FY onwards.

Key risks: Affordability of option, serious safety concerns if the project doesn’t continue.

 

Option 2: Full scope delivery – other funders

Council approves the full $3,857,224 project on the proviso that the additional $2,146,224 above the existing capex budget of $1,711,000 (incorporating $1M funded by the TIF) is sourced externally. 

This will deliver the Omanawa Falls safety and access project, as currently scoped following due diligence and engagement with Ngāti Hangarau and Tourism Bay of Plenty.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·     Responds to all serious safety issues to provide safe access for the public.

·     Provide Ngāti Hangarau and Tauranga City Council with the opportunity to share the site, safely and appropriately with manuhiri.

·     Deliver fit-for-purpose public access to an existing cultural, ecological and historical attraction.

·     Enhance the overall visitor experience.

·     Support additional visitor spend in the region.

·     Maintains Council’s capital commitment at the existing budget.

·     The project will not be delivered to its full extent if additional external funding can not be found.

 

Budget – Capex: $3,857,224 noting that:

·    Tourism Infrastructure Fund $1,000,000 contribution committed

·    Council’s already-approved commitment of $711,000

·    Additional external funding assumed of $2,146,224

Budget – Opex:

·    $80,000 maintenance costs per annum, of which $40,000 is already budgeted.

·    Additional depreciation costs of $32,200 for 2022 FY onwards.

Key risks: External funding will not be found, serious safety concerns if the project doesn’t continue.

 

Option 3: Retain the status quo

Council reconfirms only the current allocated FY 20/21 capex budget for the Omanawa Falls safety and access project at $1,711,000 and directs staff to reduce scope to meet budget.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·     No additional budget required to deliver.

 

·     Will fail to deliver safe and culturally appropriate access.

·     Road end and/or falls access issues will remain as decisions are made to rescope delivery to meet budget, even if priority given to safety elements. These compromises will undermine relationships with surrounding landowners, users of Omanawa Rd and Ngati Hangarau.

·     The anticipated project benefits will not be realised.

Budget – Capex: $1,711,000 noting that

·    Tourism Infrastructure Fund $1,000,000 contribution committed

·    No additional capex budget is being sought

Budget – Opex: $80,000 maintenance costs per annum, of which $40,000 is already budgeted.

Key risks: The project will not respond to all serious safety issues at the Reserve, incidents continue and potentially increase as visitor access is facilitated by some investment.

 

Next Steps

17.     Deliver the Omanawa Falls project in accordance with the available budget, project plan and programme.

18.     Establish the Project Governance Group to oversee governance matters relating to the project including scope, budget, reporting on timing and delivery.

19.     Commence external funding processes to identify and apply for additional third party funding for the project.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A – Omanawa Falls Concept Plan 2020


Attachment A - Omanawa Falls Concept Plan 2020


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

Title: Issues and options – Mount Maunganui Cricket Club Facility Proposal for a Club Building on Blake Park

File Number: A11622280

Author: Megan Cleverley, Team Leader: Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities 

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, GM: Community Services

 

ISSUE

1.       Mount Maunganui Cricket Club (MMCC) want a land lease and financial support to develop a clubroom facility on Blake Park.

analysis of submission points

2.       This is their fourth submission regarding an agreement between TCC and the MMCC for the establishment of a grass wicket on the lower tier at Blake Park, which was broken as the wicket was removed to enable the rugby fields to be increased in size.

3.       This action has left the club without a grass wicket on the Blake Park lower tier, and without a clubroom overlooking the main senior wicket.

4.       MMCC are advocating for clubrooms to be constructed on the top tier between the two main cricket ovals. This could be hired out to other users of the fields.

5.       They are seeking approval to lease a 151sqm piece of land adjacent to the netball courts.

6.       They are also requesting Council contribute 30% of the construction costs for the project (total cost $443,400 +GST)

DISCUSSION and Analysis

7.       A project group was established to work with the club to discuss possible solutions to this issue. This includes club representatives, staff and three elected members. The recommendation is to consider a new building and part-fund through the annual plan, rather than fund irrigation works and a new cricket wicket.

8.       A potential location for the building has been identified adjacent to the netball courts.

9.       The club will need to work with staff and other sporting codes to ensure there are no adverse effects on other reserve users from the building, such as shading or stormwater run-off. 

10.     The Spaces and Places Strategy does not support the development of a single sport use facility except in exceptional circumstances.

11.     There is currently $80,000 capex allocated in the FY 20/21 budget to realign irrigation and install a grass wicket that would need to be cancelled. These funds could be re-allocated to this project and the contribution would be in the form of an operational loan funded grant.

12.     As this is proposed to be a grant, there is no depreciation or onsite maintenance costs for TCC. There will however be loan interest/debt retirement. There is also no additional wicket maintenance opex requirement.

13.     If permission was granted for a lease, this would be publicly notified and all other reserve users would be given the opportunity to submit feedback. 

14.     If approved, staff would then need to work with the club to ensure that it is available for hire to other potential users.

 

Options Analysis

Option 1: Support the provision of land (via a lease) and provide a loan-funded grant of 25% of the total project cost to a maximum of $110,850.  In addition:

·    cancel the $80,000 capex in the FY 20/21 budget to realign irrigation and install a grass cricket wicket, in favour of the operational loan funded grant to MMCC

37.      Advantages

38.      Disadvantages

·    Provides MMCC with an operational base for games hosted at Blake Park.

·    Provides other users of the top tier with an operations centre for their sports.

·    MMCC talk to this as a new home for cricket and as such, there may be minimal ability for other codes to utilise it.

·    The Spaces and Places Strategy does not support the development of a single sport use facility except in exceptional circumstances.

·    Potential shading impact on netball and tennis courts.

Budget – Capex: Nil

Budget – Opex: $110,850 one-off operational loan funded grant (in accordance with the Revenue & Financing Policy, if a loan-funded operating grant is approved the loan-funded nature needs to be specifically resolved). 

          Impacts of this loan are interest of approximately $3,900 and debt retirement of $22,170 over five years. This would be offset by $6,000 savings associated with the cancellation of the capex project of $80,000.

Key risks:

·    On completion of the final design, including the provision of services, the cost may be higher than the estimation.

·    The club may be unable to raise the balance of funds required to construct the facility.

·    The facility may not be made available for multi-use by other sporting codes on the park.

·    There may be a negative response from the community and other park users when the intention to lease land to the MMCC is publicly notified, therefore a risk that the project will not proceed.

 

Option 2: Support the provision of land (via a lease) and provide a grant of 30% of the total project cost to a maximum of $133,020.

39.      Advantages

40.      Disadvantages

·    Provides MMCC with an operational base for games hosted at Blake Park.

·    Provides other users of the top tier with an operations centre for their sports.

·    MMCC talk to this as a new home for cricket and as such, there may be minimal ability for other codes to utilise it.

·    The Spaces and Places Strategy does not support the development of a single sport use facility except in exceptional circumstances.

·    Potential shading impact on netball and tennis courts.

Budget – Capex: Nil

Budget – Opex: $133,020 one off operational loan funded grant (in accordance with the Revenue & Financing Policy, if a loan-funded operating grant is approved the loan-funded nature needs to be specifically resolved). 

          Impacts of this loan are interest of approximately $4,680 and debt retirement of $26,604 over five years. This would be offset by $6,000 savings associated with the cancellation of the capex project of $80,000.

Key risks: As noted in Option 1.

 

Option 3: Decline the request for a land lease and therefore don’t fund the project.

41.      Advantages

42.      Disadvantages

·    Provides the opportunity for the MMCC to work with other leaseholders on the park to share facilities.

·    MMCC will not have a dedicated operational base for the games hosted at Blake Park.

·    The club will continue to be dissatisfied due to the lack of facility and support for their sport.

Budget – Capex: Nil

Budget – Opex: Nil

Key risks: The club will continue to be dissatisfied with the lack of support for their sport.

 

Next Steps

15.     If options 1 or 2 selected (or variation thereof), Council staff to work with the club to confirm the location and publicly notify the intention to lease the land to the MMCC.

 

Submissions recEIved

Submission #831.

Attachments

Nil

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

Title: Issues and options – Bay Oval Trust Seek a Loan Guarantee and Lease Variation for an Indoor Cricket Facility on Blake Park

File Number: A11622282

Author: Mark Smith, Manager: Spaces & Places; Mohan De Mel, Treasurer

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services; Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

 

ISSUE

1.       Bay Oval Trust is seeking Council consent to provide land within the Bay Oval lease area to build an indoor training facility.

2.      Bay Oval Trust is also requesting a loan guarantee for up to $2M to complete the Bay Oval Pavilion.

DISCUSSION and Analysis

Indoor Cricket Training Facility

3.       The Bay Oval Trust (“Trust”) is requesting Council allocate sufficient land within the current Bay Oval lease area to build an indoor training facility.

4.       Currently the region does not have suitable facilities for indoor cricket training and is regarded as a critical requirement for all grades of cricket.

5.       The Trust considers that Blake Park is the best location for the training facility and best fit with other high-performance activities. This facility is expected to provide multiple use opportunities, including for non-cricket users.

6.       The estimated cost of this facility is $1.5M. To date, $0.5M of funding commitments have been received, subject to Council confirming appropriate lease arrangements. There are also strong indications of support from other funders for this project.

7.       This facility is part of the recent application made to Crown Infrastructure Partners as a ‘shovel ready project’ and this project, together with other Blake Park related initiatives have progressed past the initial evaluation process.

8.      No funding is requested from Council.

Bay Oval Pavilion

9.       The Trust is planning to further develop the Bay Oval into the premier cricket ground in the country and as part of the success of this, the completion of the Bay Oval Pavilion (Stage 2) is fundamental.

10.     The pavilion is estimated to cost $4.289M. To date, the Trust has secured $1.5M and consider themselves in a strong position to secure a further $0.728M. This leaves a current expected shortfall of $2.061M.

11.     The Trust believe that the shortfall in funding can be debt funded and serviced by commercial returns from the pavilion. In order to secure debt funding, the Trust is seeking a loan guarantee from Council for up to $2M.


 

LEASE Options Analysis

Option 1: Support amending lease arrangements to facilitate building an indoor cricket training facility.

43.      Advantages

44.      Disadvantages

·    New facilities built for sporting activities.

·    Funding sourced from non-Council sources.

·    The Reserves Management Plan states that Blake Park should be managed to ‘enable Bay Oval to become New Zealand’s premier cricket ground’ and to this end permits leases for the pavilion, ancillary buildings and the cricket nets.

·    Increase of non-Council owned buildings on Reserve land.

·    Uncertainty on future renewal funding for buildings.

Budget – Capex: N/A

Budget – Opex: N/A

Key risks: Training facility only partially completed due to shortfall in funds, significant project cost increases and uncertainty on renewals funding for the future.

Recommended: Yes. Staff support the proposal and will work with the Trust to develop a lease to accommodate the proposed Indoor Cricket Training Facility.

 

Option 2: Do not support an indoor cricket training facility on Blake Park.

45.      Advantages

46.      Disadvantages

·    Reserve land green space maintained.

·    No risks relating to additional facilities on Blake Park.

·    Opportunity forgone to provide new training facilities.

·    Bay Oval Trust not supported in the provision of facilities for cricket.

Budget – Capex: N/A  

Budget – Opex: N/A

Key risks: N/A

Recommended? No

 

Guarantee Options Analysis

Option 1: Decline the request for a $2M guarantee to support development of Stage 2 of the Bay Oval Pavilion.

12.     It is not normal practice for Council to act as a loan guarantor for lending to a trust where the asset is not owned by Council.

13.     Council’s Treasury Policy allows for a guarantee to be entered into if the activity is consistent with Council’s strategic objectives.


 

47.      Advantages

48.      Disadvantages

·    No risk to ratepayers through a guarantee if the Trust is unable to repay the loan and the lender exercises the guarantee.

·    Council’s debt capacity would not be eroded to the level of the guarantee.

·    The Trust may be unable to fund the project.

Budget – Capex: N/A

Budget – Opex: N/A

Key risks: Project may not continue.

Recommended: Yes

 

Option 2: Approve in-principle a guarantee to the Bay Oval Trust of up to $2M, subject to completing due diligence.

14.     Council could consider guaranteeing a $2M Bay Oval Trust loan, if it’s considered consistent with current strategic objectives. Council would first need to undertake due diligence of the loan arrangements, the project itself, and projected revenue streams to ensure that the Trust could support the debt.

15.     This guarantee would be calculated as part of total debt of Council by our rating agency. From Council’s perspective while it is not debt, we would need to allow for the possible exercise of this guarantee as part of our debt capacity. It is not normal practice for Council to act as a loan guarantor for lending to a trust where the asset is not owned by Council.

49.      Advantages

50.      Disadvantages

·    The Trust may be able to fund the project,

·    Risk to ratepayers through a guarantee if the Trust is unable to repay the loan and the lender exercises the guarantee.

·    Council’s debt capacity would be eroded to the level of the guarantee.

·    Further work by Council would be needed to undertake due diligence of the proposal.

·    Creates potential precedent for guarantees for other sporting and community groups infrastructure.

Budget – Capex: N/A

Budget – Opex: N/A

Key risks: Council’s debt capacity is eroded and the guarantee is a risk to the ratepayer.

Recommended: No

Recommendation

16.     That staff work with the Bay Oval Trust regarding amending lease arrangements to facilitate building an indoor training facility.

17.     Do not support a loan guarantee for up to $2M to complete the Bay Oval Pavilion.

Next Steps

18.     Staff to work with the Bay Oval Trust to facilitate a lease variation and notify the lease in accordance with the Reserves Act. 

Submissions recieved

Submission #:460.

Attachments

Nil

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

 

Title: Issues and options – Venture Centre

File Number: A11625984

Author: Ross Hudson, Strategic Advisor

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

ISSUE

1.       Venture Centre, a local charity, who provide support services for people embarking on new business and social enterprises is seeking $40k investment to provide more support for the growing number of people who through choice or circumstance are beginning new ventures post COVID-19.

analysis of submission points

2.       Venture Centre’s submission outlines the community/market segment that they target with a range of services covering advice on business model development, a network of entrepreneurs on similar journeys and access to ‘angel investor’ capital. They take a particular focus on enabling new ventures to be digital from the start and have particular strengths in supporting social enterprises, whether profit-making or not-for-profit.

3.       They differentiate from the services provided by the Chamber of Commerce, whose focus is established small businesses and from Priority One, who do not have capacity to nurture multiple early-stage start-ups.

DISCUSSION and Analysis

4.       Venture Centre’s services are now well understood and recognised within the start-up and wider business community. Council, via the Economic Development (commercial) rate has supported some of their work previously through the Digital Enablement Programme (DEP) and they continue to provide the Powering On programme under the DEP in partnership with the Priority One and the Chamber of Commerce, which supports the digital transformation of established businesses.

5.       Their intention with the proposed $40k is to retain and expand their support for very early-stage ventures, which are increasing in number as the city grows and as people respond to the economic disruption caused by COVID-19. Their submission provides more details. We would expect Venture Centre to report annually on their outputs by way of people supported and (if funding is ongoing) on venture/business ‘birth and death’ rates and employee numbers.

Options Analysis

6.       Councillors will need to weigh the value of this investment against the proposed additional investment in Priority One and the request for funding from Film BOP and against the impact of UAGC changes on the commercial ratepayer.

 

Option 1: Provide $40k per annum of Economic Development (commercial) rate funding to Venture Centre over a three-year contract period.

51.      Advantages

52.      Disadvantages

·    Supports job and wealth creation and the development of new ventures in the ‘new normal’ post COVID-19

·    Provides cash-flow and service stability

·    Costs to commercial ratepayers who may only receive indirect benefits.

 

Budget – Capex: Nil

Budget – Opex: $40k per annum, Economic Development rate.

Key risks: Multiple ventures will not succeed. 

 

Option 2: As option 1 but for one year only, to be reviewed via the Long-term Plan.

53.      Advantages

54.      Disadvantages

·    Option for early review.

·    Less stability for Venture Centre’s programmes. 

 

Budget – Capex: Nil

Budget – Opex: $40k, one year only

Key risks: as above

 

Option 3: Provide no new funding to Venture Centre.

55.      Advantages

56.      Disadvantages

·    Lower impact on Commercial ratepayers

·    Less support available for people starting-up new ventures

 

Budget – Capex: Nil

Budget – Opex: Nil

Key risks: Detrimental effect on jobs and wealth creation.

 

Submissions recieved

Submission: #268

Attachments

Nil

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

 

Title: Issues and options – Film Bay of Plenty

File Number: A11625971

Author: Ross Hudson, Strategic Advisor

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

ISSUE

1.       Film Bay of Plenty (Film BOP) is requesting that Council renew its investment in support of the emerging film and media sector in the Bay of Plenty. They are seeking $98,000 per annum for three years.

analysis of submission points

2.       Film BOP’s Strategic Plan 2020-23 outlines the initiatives they are involved in to grow the sector in Tauranga and the wider Bay of Plenty. Key assets they intend to facilitate the development of include: a live broadcast studio and post-production facilities at Chadwick Road; the Waiariki Film Studios (potentially at TECT park), for which they are seeking Provincial Growth Fund support; and a Motion Capture Sound Stage in the Western Bay. Details of these initiatives and the broader work that Film BOP undertake to grow the sector and create inward investment and jobs is outlined in their Strategic Plan (see submission #122). This also includes expenditure details.

DISCUSSION and Analysis

3.       The funding sought is equivalent to $0.75 per capita and they are also seeking proportionately equivalent sums from other Councils in the Bay and support from TECT, Rotorua Energy Consumer Trust and BayTrust. Council has provided $75k per annum over the last three years.

4.       Film BOP appears to have established itself successfully and is now generating multiple new opportunities for the Tauranga and wider Bay of Plenty film and media sector. Border closures will constrain the industry in the short term.

5.       Investment to date has been via the Economic Development (commercial) rate. The options below assume that as the rating mechanism. Councillors could also consider using the General Rate. 

Options Analysis

6.       Councillors will need to weigh the value of this investment against the proposed additional investment in Priority One and the request for funding from Venture Centre and against the impact of UAGC changes on the commercial ratepayer.

 

Option 1: Provide $98k of Economic Development (commercial) rate funding annually to Film BOP for 2020-23.

57.      Advantages

58.      Disadvantages

·    Supports jobs and inward investment in the growing film industry

·    Costs to commercial ratepayers who may only receive indirect benefits.

Budget – Capex: Nil

Budget – Opex: $98k, three years.

Key risks: Envisaged assets and sector growth do not materialise at the scale intended. 

 


 

Option 2: Provide $75k of Economic Development (commercial) rate funding to Film BOP for 2020-21 only and reconsider through the Long-term Plan.

59.      Advantages

60.      Disadvantages

·    Lower impact on Commercial ratepayers than option 1

·    Less support available for the sector

·    Less cashflow stability for Film BOP

Budget – Capex: Nil

Budget – Opex: $75k, one year only

Key risks: as above

 

Option 3: Provide no new funding to Film BOP

61.      Advantages

62.      Disadvantages

·    Lower impact on Commercial ratepayers

·    Less support available for the sector

·    Less cashflow stability for Film BOP

·    Potentially undermines emerging initiatives that may create wealth and jobs

Budget – Capex: Nil

Budget – Opex: Nil

Key risks: Detrimental effect on emerging industry already constrained by border closure. 

 

Submissions recieved

Submission: #122


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

 

Title: Issues and options – Parking Stimulus for City Centre

File Number: A11627155

Author:  Russell Troup, Manager: Transport Network Operations

Authoriser:  Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

 

ISSUE

1.       Parking management in the City centre is a tool that has the potential to contribute to the Covid-19 economic recovery. This paper discusses short-term issues and options associated with this potential opportunity

 

analysis of submission points

2.       A total of 11 submissions were received relating to parking

3.       Key points included:

(i)      stating that free parking in CBD during COVID allowed shoppers to support local traders

(ii)     urging Council to remove parking fees in the CBD

 

DISCUSSION and Analysis

4.       Strategic Context:

a)   Parking management is an important tool / intervention that can support the achievement of a number of broader community outcomes, including that Tauranga:

i. Is well planned, with a variety of successful and thriving compact centres

ii. Attracts businesses, people and visitors.

iii.         Has predictable travel times and transport choices.

 

b)   Council's longer-term approach to parking management across the City is still in development. However, the recently concluded Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) identified:

”With the increase in multimodal use and improved access to the urban centres, the need to provide the same quantum of carparking could reduce. Parking costs are targeted to help encourage people to use the personal mobility or public transport options available to them. For the commercial areas throughout the sub-region, an appropriate level of turnover is the focus of parking management policy and activities.“  The UFTI report provides actions to implement the recommended programme, which include a key move between 0-5 years to: ”Complete carparking strategy changes to support increased parking turn-over".

 

c)   It is intended that the strategic direction provided by UFTI will be further considered in the context of the wider research Council has undertaken to provide a recommendation to the mayor and councillors on an approach to parking over the longer-term and the key areas where this should focus (e.g. City centre; Mount Maunganui peninsula). Technical work indicates that parking management should aim for ’85%’ utilisation, as this optimises efficiency and high turn-over.

d)    However, in the meantime ahead of this being agreed the longer-term direction for parking provided by UFTI is important to be aware of when considering any shorter-term initiatives related to parking management. This helps to ensure that short term decision-making doesn’t preclude or conflict with the longer-term objectives (e.g. reduce reliance on private vehicles; move towards a compact urban form, improved transport choices and predictable travel times).

 

e)   In respect to the wider research on parking management undertaken by Council it is noted that parking is just one of the factors that influences people’s choice and reasoning for visiting a location like the City Centre. Other factors include the quality of the attractions on offer at a destination. Given this, while parking management can contribute an economic recovery it is suggested that it will need to be part of a broader package of interventions targeted to attract people to the City centre.

 

5.       Background:

a)      As the country emerged from COVID lockdown, TCC responded with a range of measures designed to support and stimulate economic recovery for businesses in the city, including parking measures.

b)      Post-lockdown parking stimulus measures were in place from 26 March 2020 to 11 June 2020.

c)      The range of parking stimulus measures included:

(i)      Free parking for the first 2 hours at the following locations:  Parking buildings, Cliff Road, Dive Crescent, TV3 and Waterfront off-street Car Parks

(ii)     Free on-street parking and time restricted off-street car parks (admin, Masonic, Devonport Road car parks) - Time restrictions still applied

 

6.       Key Observations, Causes and Remedial Options learnt from recent parking stimulus measures:

a)   Well supported initiative -

(i)      Observation:

(1)     Post-lockdown parking stimulus measures were well received by businesses and the wider community at the time

(2)     Some negative feedback received only from those who had received infringement notices. 

(3)     Businesses and community appreciated limited free parking at the time

 

b)   Poor behaviours to achieve all day parking –

(ii)     Observations: 

(1)     Perverse behaviours where people were abusing the free on-street parking by moving their vehicle to achieve free all-day parking due to the P180 limitations in part of the CBD. With P180, a vehicle only  needed to be moved once to achieve free all day parking near business areas.

(2)     Vehicles abusing the 3 hours on street time restriction are mostly believed to be commuters due to the duration vehicles were observed in the CBD area. Some specific vehicles were known to belong to staff of local businesses.

(3)     All-day parkers reduce spaces available for genuine consumers that adversely affects the positive economic impact of the parking stimulus measures.

(4)     Fines issued during the period included:

(a)     Waterfront - 24 fines

(b)     Dive Crescent - 14 fines

(c)     TV3 - 8 fines

(d)     Cliff Road - 4 fines

 

(iii)     Possible cause(s): 

(1)     Enforcement being limited to 9am and 3pm results in only one ‘move’ per day to achieve free all-day parking.

(2)     Difficulty enforcing time restrictions without parking sensor technology and as stated the 3-hour restriction in a 6 hours enforcement window. Our officers will only catch a small number of offending vehicles.

 

Options Analysis

7.       The scope and objective of this paper, to provide short term stimulus is aligned with the COVID post-lockdown stimulus measures.

8.       Therefore, the two options considered are to either retain the status quo, or to reinstate COVID post lockdown stimulus measures. 

 

Option 1: Retain the status quo (as per pre-COVID)

63.      Advantages

64.      Disadvantages

·    Maintaining consistent level of service

·    No adverse impact on Council revenue

·    The current utilisation figures generally are under the considered ideal 85% utilisation, which indicates that parking capacity is underused.

 

Budget – Capex: nil

Budget – Opex: nil - no change to revenue

Key risks:

(i)        Parking utilisation remains relatively low

(ii)       Council is perceived to be unsupportive of economic recovery

 

Option 2: Baseline Measures – as per post-lockdown parking stimulus measures

9.       Reinstatement of COVID post-lockdown stimulus measures, namely:

(i)      Free parking for the first 2 hours at the following locations: 

Parking buildings, Cliff Road, Dive Crescent, TV3 and Waterfront off street Car Parks were free for first 2 hours

(ii)     Free on-street parking and time restricted off-street car parks (admin, Masonic, Devonport Road car parks) - Time restrictions still applied

(iii)     Trial to be reconsidered prior to 30 November 2020.

 

65.      Advantages

66.      Disadvantages

·    The measure encourages people to drive to city centre, with a focus on short-term visitors leading to a high turnover.

·    Supports economic activity in the city centre

·    Reduction in revenue for Council

·    Conflicts with Councils longer term strategic objective to encourage mode shift.

 

 

Budget – Capex: nil

Budget – Opex: c$200k per month of lost user fee revenue

Key risks:

(ii)     Creating public expectation for free limited parking in the City in the longer term.

(iii)     Conflicting messaging: reducing/removing parking fees for short-term parking will lead to an expectation that parking should be free, also in future, which might have an effect at a later stage when fees might be reintroduced, either in the City Centre or potentially in other areas

 

Option 3: Baseline Measures – Free on street parking with strict enforcement of time limits

10.     Reinstatement of COVID post-lockdown stimulus measures, namely: 

(i)      Free on-street parking and time restricted off-street car parks (admin, Masonic, Devonport Road car parks) - Time restrictions still applied.

(ii)     The P180 on street carparks are changed to P120 for the duration of this measure to prevent vehicles being able to only move a vehicle once to obtain all day free carparking. This will need to be done via a bylaw change and new signs installed. The parking could remain as P180 until the change is made to the bylaw.

(iii)     Trial to be re-considered before 30 November 2020.

 

67.      Advantages

68.      Disadvantages

·    The measure encourages people to drive to city centre, with a focus on short-term visitors leading to a high turnover.

·    Supports economic activity in the city centre.

·    Commuters using the off-street carparks for all day parking are still paying for the carparks so long-term assumptions parking is free will not develop. This helps support the long-term mode shift strategic objectives.

·    Reduction in revenue for Council

·    A bylaw change is required to reduce the current P180 parking as an interim measure. This may result in some parkers moving the vehicles to get all day parking until the reduction in parking duration.

 

 

Budget – Capex: nil

Budget – Opex: c$100k per month of lost user fee revenue plus approximately $15k for the sign replacement

Key risks:

(i)      Creating public expectation for free limited parking in the City in the longer term.

(ii)     Conflicting messaging: reducing/removing parking fees for short-term parking will lead to an expectation that parking should be free, also in future, which might have an effect at a later stage when fees might be reintroduced, either in the City Centre or potentially in other areas

 

monitoring and management

11.     If Option 2 or Option 3 is preferred (or some variant thereof), it is recommended that the following resolutions also be considered. That Council:

(i)      Request a report be provided to Council prior to 30 November 2020.  The report will include a review of the effectiveness of measures and include provision for any appropriate options ahead of the busy Christmas period dependant on economic conditions. 

(ii)     Delegate authority to the General Manager: Infrastructure to adapt measures in response to issues or improve effectiveness during the initial fixed period to 30 November 2020.

 

Next Steps

12.     Public notification of intended measures.

13.     Implementation of intended measures.

Submissions recieved

Submission #: 012, 231, 232, 296, 359, 390, 391, 488, 496, 529, 557, 779

Attachments

Nil

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

 

Title: Issues and options – Independent Sustainability Advisory Board

File Number: A11621858

Authors: Rebecca Maiden, Manager: Sustainability and Waste; Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Authorisers: Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive; Nic Johansson, General Manager, Infrastructure; Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

ISSUE

1.       This paper considers options around resource allocation for the development of a community/city-wide sustainability framework with input from a TCC Independent Sustainability Advisory Board (“ISAB”), and options and costs for associated corporate sustainability resourcing to be assessed through the Annual Plan deliberations process.

Background to the ISAB proposal

2.       The ISAB was moved as an amendment to the draft Annual Plan at the Council Meeting of 28 May 2020. The resolution was –

a)   That this Council allocate $200,000 of its annual operational budget to the creation and implementation of a sustainable framework led by a TCC Independent Sustainability Advisory Board (ISAB).

b)   That the ISAB must have an independent chair, and a majority of independent members.

c)   That the ISAB’s purpose is to:

i.    Facilitate the provision of independent information to TCC to inform decision making at all levels, including, but not limited to, strategy, programme and project.

ii.    Facilitate the provision of independent information to inform TCC’s engagement and consultation processes at all levels, including but not limited to, strategy, programme and project.

d)   It is envisioned that the ISAB is initially tasked with the delivery of a stock take on the organisation and the development of a high level framework and action plan that is linked to the current 2021 - 2031 LTP process.

e)   That all work is informed directly by the Government policy statements, the living standards framework, and the UNESCO sustainable development goals.

3.       The amendment replaced the proposed “(ix) Reduction in potential budget for energy, carbon, and sustainability management and advisory services of $100,000 while a refreshed approach to these services is considered (temporary)”.

4.       The community/city-wide sustainability framework / ISAB was one of the changes consulted on in relation to the revised Annual Plan. The number of responses for and against the proposed ISAB was almost even (200 agree, 196 disagree) and four people spoke at the Annual Plan hearings in favour of the ISAB – see below for a more detailed analysis of submissions received.

Scope of the sustainability framework and role of external advisors

5.       Per the resolution above, the key initial task is the delivery of a community/city-wide sustainability stocktake, framework and action plan.

6.       This paper assesses the different options around sustainability including the development of a community/city-wide sustainability framework and the role of the external advisors in that, together with other possible ways of delivering on sustainability objectives (including staffing costs and priority initiatives). While this paper considers at a high level the potential role of the external advisors, it does not set this out in depth. It is recommended that a paper is brought to the Policy Committee in coming months which sets out the proposed approach to the development of a sustainability strategy and the external advisors’ role in that including but not limited to:

(a)     development of the community/city-wide sustainability framework (which enables the council to make good decisions, centred around the four well-beings);

(b)     direction and scope of a community sustainability reference group (local community members who are engaged in the sustainability space);

(c)     selection criteria for reference group and/or external experts, with an experienced chair;

(d)     Tangata Whenua involvement; and

(e)     a summary of what other councils and the Ministry for the Environment are doing in this space.

Balance between community/city-wide strategy and organisational tactical delivery

7.       In determining resource allocation, consideration needs to be given to the twin aims of the development of a city-wide strategy and framework for decision-making, and tactical and operational interventions that make a difference ‘on the ground’.  

8.       A key factor is the level and extent of staff time which will be required to either work with the external advisors or to work separately on definition/delivery of Council’s sustainability objectives. Consideration is needed of Council’s current sustainability function and initiatives, including what is essential and what could potentially be reduced or stopped in either the short or longer term. This would likely be one element of the stocktake to be undertaken as a precursor to the development of the strategy and framework.

9.       Currently there is 0.8 FTE included in the draft 20/21 Annual Plan budget (included in the $200,000 sustainability budget).  At present this is filled by a Corporate Sustainability Manager.  A 0.6 fixed term appointment in the energy and carbon space concluded on 30 June 2020 as there was no ongoing funding identified. 

10.     The Corporate Sustainability Manager has prepared an Initiation Paper for the consideration of the Executive in the lead up to the draft LTP, and is currently working on a corporate sustainability stocktake, and associated corporate sustainability framework/action plan.

11.     While the community/city-wide sustainability stocktake and framework would broadly include Council operations, the level of detail and action for the Council to take responsibility for its own impacts requires dedicated, focussed resource for the delivery of key actions that can improve our performance. With this in mind, an option is presented for Council consideration which provides for up to $200,000 for internal resourcing which could be applied to increase the Corporate Sustainability Manager role to 1 x FTE and creating an additional 1 x FTE to specifically focus on energy and carbon management.

12.     The benefits of the above include:

(a)     Reputational – we are leading by example and taking responsibility for the areas of our own operations that we can influence in a positive way.

(b)     Operational – we have the ability to influence the way in which projects are developed and scoped to ensure that opportunities for sustainability benefits are not missed.

(c)     Financial – by identifying and managing our impacts and looking for ways to future-proof the organisation we are more likely to realise the benefit of financial savings, either now through savings in energy consumption, or in the future when looking at the whole life costs of projects.

13.     By keeping the operational activity underway, we will be better placed to act once the community/city-wide sustainability framework and subsequent action plan are developed.  Some key projects to be continued and extended by technical staff include:

a)      Development and implementation of the corporate (i.e. Council-focussed) sustainability framework/action plan,

b)      Energy management/advice including policy and projects,

c)      Carbon auditing/reporting,

d)      Management of key external relationships with funding bodies such as MfE and EECA,

e)      Liaison with community groups which require council representation,

f)       Staff training and induction.

Broader strategic context

14.     The Strategic Directions paper presented to the Policy Committee on 16 June 2020 synthesised recent strategic work and community engagement (including the Vital Update survey) to recommend a refreshed set of Community Outcomes and Principles. Sustainability in the broader sense underpins all of the draft Community Outcomes and is explicit through the draft principle that “Sustainability and resilience underpin our decision making and service delivery, protecting the future of our city”. The draft Community Outcomes and Principles are being consulted on from 6th – 26th July 2020.

15.     The Strategic Directions paper was developed in order to inform LTP planning and prioritisation within the necessary timeframes. In parallel a longer-term strategic refresh project is also underway, which will be undertaken in collaboration with key stakeholders, community and city partners. It will be essential that the development of a sustainability strategy and framework is integrated with this strategic refresh process.

analysis of submission points

16.     In relation to the proposed change - “Allocation of $200,000 of council’s annual operational expenditure budget to the creation and implementation of a sustainable framework led by a TCC Independent Sustainability Advisory Board (ISAB)” 200 submitters agreed and 196 disagreed. Comments (for and against), included –

·    Improving sustainability in the city is essential for the environment and our long-term future.  Delaying now will result in greater costs down the track.

·    Sustainability should be prioritised along with the ISAB.  The ISAB should comprise of mostly independent members representing a cross-section of the community.

·    Sustainability should be built into TCC’s long-term decision making.

·    There are concerns as to whether the advisory board will be effective and whether its recommendations will be followed.

·    There are concerns as to whether a separate advisory board is necessary and/or effective and whether TCC staff can provide these services instead.

·    The same money could be spent on initiatives for which there is a proven benefit (example given: Memorial Park walkway).

·    The sustainability framework should be closely monitored to ensure it does not become a financial burden.

·    Uncertainty as to what these services are and why they are receiving funding.

17.     Four submitters spoke at the Annual Plan hearings, representing Sustainability Options, Sustainable Business Network, Sustainable Business Solutions and the Carbon Reduction Group. All four who spoke supported development of the ISAB, with two stating that more funding than $200,000 is required. The majority of these speakers also believed there needs to be an associated staff budget / role to support delivery and implementation and that this role should be “mandated and resourced appropriately”.

18.     Other key points raised by the speakers’ submissions included –

·        The necessity of acting quickly – particularly in light of the opportunity presented by COVID-19 for “resting, resetting and recalibrating what the right way forward is”

·        A review of Tauranga’s economic development policy and a re-examination of Council’s funding of business agencies is also needed. Growth needs to be reviewed under, and guided by, a comprehensive sustainability lens rather than a traditional economic model and to be integrated with social and environmental sustainability outcomes

·        It is imperative that the framework is integrated into all Council decision-making with endorsement and accountability from Councillors and Senior Leadership and also awareness and buy-in by staff (including resourcing for training as necessary)

·        Tauranga residents rank environmental and social wellbeing as their top priorities

·        Previous work towards social and environmental sustainability outcomes (including the Smart Growth Environment & Sustainability Forum, the environment strategy and UFTI) has not gained sufficient traction or delivered the anticipated outcomes and engagement, and it is therefore hoped that the ISAB can reverse this trend

DISCUSSION and Analysis

19.     Through recent community engagement (such as the Vital Update survey), the draft Community Outcomes and Principles (underway), and the submitters who spoke at the hearings there is a demonstrable view that now is the time to act definitively in integrating sustainability into both Council decision-making and the city’s future and growth.

20.     It is less definitive however what is the best way to achieve this and without a clearly defined scope for the development of a strategy and framework and for the role of the ISAB it is difficult to conclusively assess whether this is the most effective way to deliver on the desired outcomes.

21.     The view of both staff, and the submitters referenced above, is that in order for a sustainability strategy to be most effective it would need to be integrated and aligned with Council processes, projects, strategies and planning. There would need to be a clear flow of information both ways and for the external advisors to provide valuable input and advice a significant amount of preparatory work would need to be done by the external advisors in order to understand TCC’s current sustainability landscape (for example work done around environmental resilience, urban planning, transport and community development). The external advisors would also need to understand broadly Council’s current strategic framework, activities, budgeting and prioritisation for the LTP, and areas we have the ability to change and influence as opposed to those mandated by Central Government or otherwise outside of our control.

22.     Without a sufficiently resourced internal sustainability function it is difficult to see how true alignment could exist between the role of the external advisors in providing strategy-level advice and Council’s day to day operations in order to achieve meaningful progress.

Options Analysis

 

Option 1: Sustainability funding proposed ($200,000) allocated solely to the development of a community/city-wide sustainability strategy with input from external advisors

 

69.      Advantages

70.      Disadvantages

·    Responds to the call for strong strategic leadership in the area of sustainability

·    External advisors provide independent information to inform Council decision-making, consultation and engagement

·    No increase in cost beyond funding already proposed

·    ISAB concept supported by majority of submissions in relation to revised Annual Plan

·    Insufficient Council resource to provide the necessary information and “onboarding” for the external advisors to be fully informed about Council activities and to be effective

·    Potential lack of staff resource to advance key sustainability initiatives which are already underway and be ready to implement recommendations of the strategy

 

Budget – Capex:

Budget – Opex: $200,000

Key risks: Reduced effectiveness of strategy and the role of the external advisors through lack of integration with Council and lack of staff capacity to provide information and support

 

 

Option 2: Funding increased to $400,000 for the development of a community/city-wide strategy as proposed, plus additional staff resource

23.     Funding as proposed in the resolution of 28 May, with additional staff resource (i.e. 2 FTEs) in order to integrate the strategy development and outputs and advance key internal initiatives as described above

 

71.      Advantages

72.      Disadvantages

·    Strategy developed and external advisory panel established, with associated benefits (per option 1)

·    Effectiveness of, and investment into, the strategy and external advisory panel maximised through resource to integrate into Council activities

·    Strategy development and ISAB supported by majority of submitters

·    Majority of those who spoke in favour at hearings recommended that an associated staff budget was required

·    Enables the external advisors to act more quickly by providing additional resource/support

·    Increase in cost / budget required

 

Budget – Capex:

Budget – Opex: $400,000

Key risks: Justification of increase in spending in light of current financial climate

 

 

Next Steps

24.     Paper to be brought back to the Policy Committee in coming months outlining in more detail the proposed approach to the development of a sustainability strategy and the external advisors’ role in that.

Submissions recieved

Submission #: 197, 210, 339, 365, 419, 427, 446, 458, 501, 568, 626, 698, 726, 755, 778, 786, 793, 807

Attachments

Nil

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

10.3       Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations - User fees and charges and other topics

File Number:           A11619000

Author:                    Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Authoriser:             Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       This report is presented to Council to deliberate on the issues raised and feedback received through consultation for user fees and charges and other topics.

Recommendations

That the Council:

For User Fees and Charges

(a)     Notes staff comments on submissions relating to user fees and charges in
Attachment 1.

(b)     Confirms the following approach to user fees and charges schedule as a result of feedback from consultation:

(i)      BVL revised pricing schedule - Option …

For Other Feedback and Suggestions

(c)     Notes staff comments on submissions relating to other topics in Attachment 3.

(d)     Confirms the following changes to 2020/21 CAPEX and OPEX budgets as a result of feedback from consultation:

(i)      St Peters Community Lunch – Option …

(ii)     Wells Ave playground – Option …

(iii)     Installation of at two new public dump stations – Option …

 

Executive Summary

2.       Public consultation and hearings for the revised draft Annual Plan 2020/21 have been undertaken. The consultation document on the revised draft Annual Plan 2020/21 presented five topics for consideration.

1.   Council’s proposed draft Annual Plan

2.   Councils proposed operational budget changes

3.   Councils proposed capital budget changes

4.   User Fees and Charges, Revenue and Finance Policy and Development Contributions Policy

5.   Other feedback

3.       This report is presented to Council to deliberate on the issues raised and feedback received throughout the consultation period and hearings on user fees and charges and other feedback.

Discussion

4.       The revised draft Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Document presented the significant or material differences from Year 3 of the LTP and the original draft Annual Plan 2020/21 prior to the effects of COVID-19. The budget adjustments and review of the work programme for the 2020/21 year were not deemed to be significant or material, however, an issue regarding Council’s financial position due to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the economy was highlighted and warranted consultation with the community.

5.       The Consultation Document introduced the main issues that Council experiences regarding the funding, financing and deliverability of the capital and operational programme. As part of the consultation, feedback was requested in relation to if people agreed or disagreed with the revised draft annual plan overall rates rise of 4.7%. It also asked for feedback on changes to both operational and capital budgets for 2020/21. Feedback received on these issues are presented in report titled “Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations”.

6.       Issues addressing changes to the Revenue and Finance Policy are presented in a report titled “Issue and Options- Rating Policy - level of Uniform Annual General Charge and general differential.”

7.       This report presents the feedback received for the draft user fees and charges, and any other feedback or suggestions.

USER Fees and Charges

1.   Submissions that related to the proposed user fees and charges are presented in
Attachment 1 along with a staff response and an indication where a decision is required.

2.   There were submissions that made broad comments on user fees and charges as a whole but did not specify in particular which fee or charge the comments were directed too. Common comments were that user fees and charges are “too high” or that user fees and charges should be focused on a more “user pays” system.

3.   Staff have not responded to these comments individually. However, over the next 12 months Council will prepare a new Long-term Plan 2021-2031 (LTP) and within that work a review of all fees and charges will be undertaken. Staff’s response to those comments is that there is no change to the annual plan required. This is due to the work reviewing the fees and charges that is about to be undertaken as part of the LTP.

4.   Council staff have made one amendment to the user fees and charges as presented below:

·        The GST inclusive water volumetric charge has been corrected from $2.22 per cubic metre to $2.23 per cubic metre.  This amendment makes it consistent with the GST exclusive amount of $1.94 per cubic metre rate that was included in the funding impact statement provided in the supporting documentation to the consultation document.

·        The draft financials are based on the a $1.94 per cubic metre GST exclusive charge. If the fee was to be held at $2.22 inclusive this would be a rate of $1.93 exclusive of GST. Revenue would be reduced by $126,129 and debt would increase by that amount.

 

BVL Facilities

5.   In response to submissions received through the first round of consultation, BVL conducted a further review of their pricing schedule. This is attached as Attachment 2

6.   In Attachment 1 mentioned above BVL have provided these responses to the submissions in the context of the revised pricing schedule.

7.   Price increases relating to the funded network have been reduced significantly from the initial figure that was provided for the annual plan in January 2020, BVL have now communicated with council that they have adopted a CPI plus rationalisation approach.

8.   The benchmark position has been CPI increase for all prices, however, some prices have increased by more than CPI if there was an opportunity to rationalise in line with similar levels of service elsewhere in the network.

9.   In all cases where prices have increased by more than CPI, the following rationale applies;

·    The proposed price is less than what was initially proposed in January (and consulted on through the annual plan)

·    BVL have achieved rationalisation to equivalent levels of service elsewhere in the network

·    BVL have simplified our pricing structure to enable an easier transition to future technology platforms

·    The proposed price is the lowest possible increase to achieve the above criteria without resulting in a decrease elsewhere.

Options:

Option 1: Amend the BVL user fees and charges as proposed in Attachment 2 in response to submissions

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    Ensures the user fees and charges list is accurate and takes into account feedback received.

·    None

 

Budget – Capex: N/A

Budget – Opex: N/A

Key risks: None

 

Option 2: Retain the status quo

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    None

·    Prices would remain at levels included in the consultation.

 

Budget – Capex: N/A

Budget – Opex: N/A

Key risks: Council progresses with user fees and charges for 2020/21 without full consideration of the community’s views.

Other feedback and suggestions

10. The submissions relating to other feedback, requests and points raised by submitters, along with a staff response and an indication where a decision is required is Attachment 3.

11. In addition to this report another report titled “Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations – Other topics issues and options” has addressed some of the other topics in their own issues and options papers attached to that report. Where this has occurred, that submission will not feature in Attachment 3 to this report.

Options:

Option 1: Approve the options to add additional funding to the Annual Plan 2020/21 that are put forward for a decision in Attachment 3.

8.       This option Council would approve the three decisions for additional funding as presented in Attachment 3. This would result in an addition of $212K CAPEX and with a further additional $33K OPEX per annum from 2020/21 onwards.

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    Submissions relating to other feedback have been fully considered and assessed.

·    None

 

Budget – Capex: $212K

Budget – Opex:   $33K

Key risks: None

 

Option 2: Retain the status quo

9.       This option would not approve the three decisions for additional funding as presented in Attachment 3.

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    None

·    Submissions relating to other feedback are not considered and assessed by Council.

 

Budget – Capex: N/A

Budget – Opex: N/A

Key risks: Council progresses with the Annual Plan 2020/21 without full consideration of the community’s views

 

Option 3: Approve some of the options to add additional funding to the Annual Plan 2020/21 that are put forward for a decision in Attachment 3.

10.     This option would approve … decisions for additional funding as presented in Attachment 3.

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    Some submissions relating to other feedback have been fully considered and assessed.

·    Some submissions relating to other feedback are not considered and assessed by Council.

 

Budget – Capex: N/A

Budget – Opex: N/A

Key risks: Council progresses with the Annual Plan 2020/21 without full consideration of the community’s views

Strategic / Statutory Context

11.     The preparation and adoption of an annual plan allows Council to review the budget for the respective financial year to ensure the budget is accurate and to enable Council to respond to strategic priorities and objectives.

12.     The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires local authorities to prepare and adopt an Annual Plan for each financial year. This report is in relation to the 2020/21 financial year, which is the third year of the 2018-28 Long Term Plan (LTP). Developing an Annual Plan requires consultation on changes that are significantly or materially different from the LTP.

Legal Implications / Risks

13.     The Annual Plan is Council’s resource-allocation document for the year ahead. 

14.     Legally, the purpose of the Annual Plan is set out in section 95(5) of the Local Government Act 2002 (“the Act”) as being to:

(a)     contain the proposed annual budget and funding impact statement for the year to which the annual plan relates; and

(b)     identify any variation from the financial statements and funding impact statement included in the local authority’s long-term plan in respect of the year; and

(c)     provide integrated decision making and co-ordination of the resources of the local authority; and

(d)     contribute to the accountability of the local authority to the community.

15.     The Act also requires, at section 95(6), that the Annual Plan be prepared in accordance with the principles and procedures that apply to the 2018-28 Long-term Plan. 

Consultation / Engagement

16.     Consultation has been carried out in accordance with this Policy and the LGA with this report (and other reports including on the Council agenda) presenting the discussion from the submissions received and recommendations.

Significance

17.     Under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014, these matters are of medium significance as they relate to the Council’s deliberations for the Annual Plan 2020/21. 

Next Steps

18.     Following Council’s decisions, the final Annual Plan 2020/21 will be prepared, including any changes as a result of deliberations, and will be presented for adoption by Council on 30 July 2020.

19.     This report responds to issues raised through public submissions and identified by the community. Following adoption of the Annual Plan 2020/21, submitters will be sent a summary of decisions and will be informed where they can access the deliberations reports.

Attachments

1.       User Fees and Charges submissions - A11623277

2.       Detailed Price Schedule - BVL - A11625826

3.       Other Feedback and Suggestions submissions - A11619427   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

 

Submission

Staff Comment

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – ANIMAL CONTROL

Submission #026

 

Michele Bishop

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

(a)   Queries why TCC dog registration fees are higher than WBOP and Auckland, given they have a greater region to cover.

(b)   That neither dog waste bags nor dedicated dog waste bins are available.

(c)   Requests senior citizen discount so elderly have companionship. Believes such dogs are unlikely to cause disturbance or be menacing.

(d)   Dissatisfied about surcharge fee via card payment both online and in person.

Decision sought by submitter:

That dog waste bags be readily available in parks and for senior citizens to receive a dog registration discount.

Staff comment:

(a)   Dog registration fees vary significantly around the country and are dependent on several factors, including; rates contribution, services provided, number of dogs etc. Dog registration fees in Auckland start at $148.00 and WBOPDC start at $88.00 whereas Tauranga City has one fee of $87.00. This is the third consecutive year in which dog registration fees have not increased.

(b)   Animal Services installed 40 dog waste bag dispensers at key parks and beach access points. Bags can be disposed of in existing rubbish bins reducing the need and cost of installing specific dog waste bins.

(c)   On 21 April 2020, Council set the registration fee for 2020/21. During that time, the impact of having reduced (including zero) fees for those over 65 was considered. Council however, decided to continue with the current fee.

(d)   The surcharge on card payments applies to all Council transactions paid for by credit card and equates to the fee Council is charged by the provider.

Submission #055

 

Chris Pattison

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

(a)   Opposes dog registration fees and perceives dog owners get little in return from fees gathered.

(b)   Would like pensioners to receive one free animal registration per year. This would assist with companionship against loneliness and depression.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of points and views within the submission.

Staff comment:

(a)   All revenue collected from dog registration; together with income received from pound fees and fines, are used to run Animal Services. This revenue cannot legally be used for any other purpose. Animal Services responds to over 4,500 requests for assistance each year. These relate to dog attacks, barking and roaming dogs and requests to assist owners in managing dog behaviour. In addition, we manage the pound which facilitates the return of lost dogs and the adoption of unclaimed ones. Bite prevention training is provided to school children and work groups, to assist in understanding how to behave around dogs which helps minimise attacks.  

(b)   Currently 2,260 dogs are owned by 2,000 people over the age of 65 in Tauranga, any decrease in registration fees paid by this sector would require a corresponding increase in revenue by either increasing dog registration for owners under 65 or alternatively increasing the annual rates contribution.

 

Submission #564

 

Nandi Freeman

Speaking at hearing: No

 

Related submission

Submission #566

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Opposes increase to dog registration. This will only force more dogs to become homeless.

Decision sought by submitter:

Stop increasing animal registration

Staff comment:

On 21 April 2020 Council set the registration fee for 2020-2021. This is the third consecutive year in which dog registration fees have not increased. They have remained at $87 if registered before 31 July since the 2018/2019 year.

 

Submission #818

 

Jody Webster

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

(a)   Opposes dog registration fees increasing.

(b)   Would like to see forced compliance for owners walking dogs in restricted areas.

(c)   Supports dog waste bags that are compositable

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of points and views within the submission.

Staff comment:

(a)   On 21 April 2020 Council set the registration fee for 2020-2021. This is the third consecutive year in which dog registration fees have not increased. Fees have remained at $87 if registered before 31 July since 2018/2019.

(b)   Rule breakers face a range of actions for breaches under the Dog Control Act and associated Bylaw. This ranges from written warnings, the issue of fines and prosecution depending on the nature of the offending and whether the dog owner has been spoken to previously.

(c)   Council is currently exploring options for the use of biodegradable dog waste bags.

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – Bay Venues Ltd (BVL)

Submission #028

 

Canoe Slalom Bay of Plenty

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Against BVL increase in User Fees and Charges for Otumoetai Pool. Proposed fee changes will increase our average per night lane hire rate from $25 to $48 - a 92% increase.

Decision sought by submitter:

Review of the proposed changes to BVL pool fees

BVL comment:

BVL are recommending an approach to price increases that is based on CPI plus rationalisation as per the attached detailed pricing schedule. The purpose of the rationalisation is to achieve a streamlined and consistent approach to entry price across the network.  This will result in some price increases greater than CPI however these will be considerably lower than what was initially proposed.

Canoe Slalom currently book 2 lanes at Otumoetai Pool, once a week from 6pm to 8pm during term time.  The current rate charged is 1hr at off-peak rate and 1hr at peak rate.

DECISION REQUIRED

 

Option 1: Approve BVL revised schedule of entry fees and prices (Attachment 2).

Option 2: Do not approve BVL revised schedule of entry fees and prices (Attachment 2).

Submission #075

 

Lynda Hitchfield

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Disagreement in proposed increased community venue fees for "Bay Venues facilities.” Community halls that ratepayers have supported, in particular Greerton Community Hall and Baywave Aquatic Centre.

Decision sought by submitter:

Review of the proposed changes to BVL fees.

BVL comment:

Price increases relating to the funded network have been reduced significantly from the initial figure that was provided for in the annual plan in January. BVL are suggesting an approach to price increases in the funded network of CPI plus rationalisation.

In regard to user fees and charges at Greerton Hall, prices will only be going up by CPI.

Submission also spoke to price increases at Baywave general entry– these are increasing by CPI only.

 

Note: That the decision made for submission #028 also relates to this submission.

Submission #076

 

Andrew Spraggon

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Mount Intermediate Venue costs are already limiting for many families. Council should be subsidising the venue costs.

Decision sought by submitter:

Review of the proposed changes to BVL fees.

BVL comment:

Price increases relating to the funded network have been reduced significantly from the initial figure that was provided for the annual plan in January. BVL are suggesting an approach to price increases in the funded network of CPI plus rationalisation.

Assumption this relates to Mt Sports Centre being Mount Intermediate who hire venue for basketball practice.

Rationalisation approach will result in user fees consistent across all three single court facilities (Aquinas, Merivale and Mt Sport Centre).  The recommended price is aligned to Merivale’s current fees and increases by CPI only. 

Mt Intermediate are currently charged the Youth Community rate of $11.80, which will increase to $15.10, an increase of 28%, but much lower than the $18.00 initially proposed.

 

Note: That the decision made for submission #028 also relates to this submission.

Submission #081

 

Sheryl McLay

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Against user fee increase for pools.

Decision sought by submitter:

Review of the proposed changes to BVL fees.

BVL comment:

The submission seeks to waive lane hire fees due to COVID-19.  In response to this comment, BVL notes that clubs can apply to Sport NZ Relief Package – community resilience fund if required. 

The submitter also opposes user fees increase for pools. The initial proposal was to remove the off-peak lane hire rate and charge a flat rate equivalent to the peak rate.  BVL have reviewed initial price increase post COVID and now propose that off-peak and peak rates remain and are increased by CPI only.

Initial proposal for Baywave squad entry was to increase adult entry ($3.80 to $4.50) and apply a discount to the child entry which would have reduced the charge ($3.80 to $3.00).

The revised proposal for Baywave squad entry is to increase adult entry by CPI only ($3.80 to $3.90) and retain the current child entry price of $3.80.

 

Note: That the decision made for submission #028 also relates to this submission.

Submission #093

 

Susi Peterson

(Member of Tauranga City Basketball Association & the WAIBOP Football Ass)

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Against making changes to the user fee charges across all sport and recreation facilities. In this challenging time sport is important to me because we are facing many challenges for grass root sports for our tamariki at this stage.

Decision sought by submitter:

Review of the proposed changes to BVL fees.

BVL comment:

Price increases relating to the funded network have been reduced significantly from the initial figure that was provided for the annual plan in January. BVL are suggesting an approach to price increases in the funded network of CPI plus rationalisation. 

The primary facilities Tauranga City Basketball (TCB) hire are Trustpower Arena and QEYC. The review has these venues’ user fees increasing by CPI only. 

TCB also utilised BVL single court facilities.  Our rationalisation approach will result in user fees being consistent across all three single court facilities (Aquinas, Merivale and Mt Sport Centre).  The recommended price is aligned to Merivale’s current fees and increased by CPI only. 

BVL acknowledges that Class 4 gaming funds will be limited due to COVID.  Clubs have the opportunity to apply to Sport NZ Relief Package – community resilience fund if required. 

 

Note: That the decision made for submission #028 also relates to this submission.

Submission #128

Sharon Horne

Spoke at hearing: No

 

Related Submissions:

Submission #129

St Thomas More Catholic School

 

Submission #140

Mount Maunganui Badminton Club

 

Submission # 148

Mark Rogers

 

Submission #153

Helen Richardson

 

Submission #213

Bryce McFall

 

Submission #198

Anna Spencer

 

Submission #224

Arataki Art Group

Submission #230

Tauranga Underwater Hockey Club

 

Submission #266

Taran Busby

 

Submission #249

Audri Abbot

 

Submission #253

Michael Stoodley

(Otumoetai Intermediate School)

 

Submission #254

Robyn McCormick

 

Submission #281

Michelle Frank

 

Submission #282

Patricia Begley

(Tauranga City Basketball)

 

Submission # 244

Sue Galpin

 

Submission #212

Zane Jensen

Sport BoP

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Against BVL user fee increase.

Decision sought by submitter:

Review of the proposed changes to BVL fees.

BVL comments:

Price increases relating to the funded network have been reduced significantly from the initial figure that was proposed for the annual plan in January. BVL are suggesting an approach to price increases in the funded network of CPI plus rationalisation. 

A review of prices proposes to increase user fees at the Trustpower Arena and QEYC by CPI only. 

 

Across single court indoor facilities, our rationalisation is that user fees are consistent across all three single court facilities (Aquinas, Merivale and Mt Sport Centre).  The recommended price is aligned to Merivale’s current fees and increased by CPI only. 

BVL acknowledges that Class 4 gaming funds will be limited due to COVID.  Clubs have the opportunity to apply to Sport NZ Relief Package – community resilience fund if required

 

The initial proposal for aquatic membership prices were increases based on the general entry rate multiplied by an average of 2 swims per week. We acknowledge this is an increase from what is currently being charged however, the current charge is equivalent to the cost of around 1 swim per week and is therefore too low for unlimited membership use.

 

Price increases relating to the funded network have been reduced significantly from the initial figure that was proposed for the annual plan in January. BVL are suggesting an approach to price increases in the funded network of CPI plus rationalisation. 

 

Across the community centres, the rationalisation is that the size of rooms across all three centres (Arataki, Papamoa CC and Papamoa S&RC) should be consistent and has been retained in the review, however the quantum of the increase has been reduced.  Arataki Art Group are currently charged $11.10 per hour, initial increase was $18.00, now reduced to $11.80, 6.3% increase.

 

The initial proposal was to remove the off-peak lane hire rate and charge a flat rate equivalent to the peak rate.  BVL is suggesting that off-peak and peak rates remain and increased by CPI only.

 

Initial proposal for Baywave squad entry was to increase adult entry ($3.80 to $4.50) and apply a discount to the child entry which would have reduced the charge ($3.80 to $3.00).

 

The revised proposal for Baywave squad entry is to increase adult entry by CPI only ($3.80 to $3.90) and retain the current child entry price of $3.80.

 

Note: That the decision made for submission #028 also relates to this submission.

Mike Cunningham

Submission #241

Spoke at hearing: No

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Pool entry and membership charges should be kept the same for seniors and

children

Decision sought by submitter:

Review of the proposed changes to BVL fees.

BVL comment:

Aquatic general entry prices recommended to increase by CPI only, hence seniors and children prices will remain the same. However this is not consistent with national benchmarking whereby seniors do tend to be higher than the child price. 

Submission #262

 

Chris Wood

Spoke at hearing: No

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Proposed swimming increases are out of proportion. For example, Statement of Proposal, User Fees and Charges, why does a single swim fee at Baywave increase only 10 cents but at Greerton it goes up a whole dollar (20%)? And the junior/senior price goes up only 30 cents at Baywave but also a full dollar at Greerton, in this case 40%? Annual memberships: reason given on Page 9 that Council failed to implement 7% increases for the last four years.
While the introduction of a junior/senior annual fee is appreciated, even though that is about $40 higher than your reasoning would suggest it should be, what can possibly justify the adult annual increase of almost 100 per cent at Baywave and close to 150 per cent at three other pools?

Decision sought by submitter:

Comment on points raised in submission regarding BVL pool fees

BVL comment:

Price increases relating to the funded network have been reduced significantly from the initial figure that was provided for the annual plan in January. BVL are suggesting an approach to price increases in the funded network of CPI plus rationalisation.

Squad entry

At Baywave, adult squad entry is proposed to increase by CPI only ($3.80 > $3.90) with no change to children’s squad entry ($3.80).  At Greerton/Memorial/Otumoetai (GMO), adult squad and child squad entry are proposed to increase, to align with the same discount on general entry as Baywave squads pay, but significantly lower than the initial pricing proposal.  Based on this approach, GMO prices will increase as follows: adult $1.40 > $2.30 and children $1.40 > $1.80 effective 1st October 2020. 

Aquatic Membership

The initial proposal for aquatic membership prices was based on the general entry rate x an average of two swims per week. We acknowledge this is an increase from what is currently being charged, however the current charge is equivalent to the cost of around one swim per week and is therefore too low for unlimited membership use.  Prices in the revised annual plan will increase by CPI only effective 1st July 2020.

 

Note: That the decision made for submission #028 also relates to this submission.

Submission #632

 

Shirley Hampshire

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Concerned at the large cost increases for sports facilities used predominantly by children.  Focus should be on encouraging families to be involved in sport and cultural activities not making it harder.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration for cost increases for sports facilities.

BVL comment:

BVL are increasing the majority of our entry prices by CPI only, to offset increased operational expenses.

Some prices are proposed to increase beyond CPI, where this achieves a streamlined and consistent approach to entry prices.  There are three single-court indoor sports facilities that currently have three different pricing schedules (Mount Sports Centre, Aquinas Action Centre and the Merivale Action Centre).  BVL are proposing to align user fees and charges across these three facilities to what the current charges are at the Merivale Action Centre, plus a CPI increase.  The proposed increase is due to take effect from 1st October 2020.

 

Note: That the decision made for submission #028 also relates to this submission.

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – BUILDING SERVICE FEES

Submission #512

 

Bernie Ryan

Spoke at hearing: No

 

Related Submissions:

Submission #459

Submission #513

Submission #781

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Building fees are excessive.  Especially when compared to WBOP

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision sought.

Staff comment:

Building Fees are charged to recover the costs of operating the Building Unit

This is predominately funded through user fees and charges and has little ratepayer funding.

 

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – ALCOHOL LICENCING FEES

Submission #001

Attachment

 

Hospitality NZ

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Urges Council to decrease or remove alcohol licencing fees following COVID-19.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment:

Licencing fees are set by legislation so would require legislative change.

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – KERBSIDE SERVICE & RECYCLING

Submission #021

Alison Lusby

Speaking at hearing: No

 

Related Submissions

Submission #554

Submission #719

Submission #720

Key issues raised by submitter:

Opposes kerbside rubbish collection charge. Households should be asked individually if they want it. If it does proceed, it needs to be optional.

Decision sought by submitter:

Maintain waste collection as is.

Staff comment:

An updated report on kerbside waste collection services is to be considered by Council in late August 2020. This does not impact the 2020/21 Annual Plan.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

 

 

Submission

Staff Comment

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – ANIMAL CONTROL 

Submission #659

 

Steven Davies

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Would like dog registration fees reduced and proposes channelling this fee toward dog parks.

Decision sought by submitter:

A reduction in dog registration fees and for this fee to be channelled toward dog parks.

Staff comment:

The Dog Control Act 1996 makes councils responsible for the control of dogs and makes the registration of dogs mandatory each year. On 21 April 2020 Council set the registration fee for 2020/ 21 and decided not to increase fees from last year.

The provision of dog parks has been considered but is inconsistent with Council Dog Management Policy (2018), which states “dogs need the ability to exercise unrestrained and socialise with other dogs. Therefore, Council does not restrict dogs to dog exercise areas and considers it appropriate that dogs are able to be exercised unleashed in public places so long as when circumstances require, the dog can be leashed.” The creation of a dog specific park may require a park currently accessible to all the public to then exclude some members of the public. This could then lead to a public expectation that dogs should be excluded from other parks. The issues associated with the location of such a park would also create considerable debate. Those in favour of the concept wanting the park located near where they live. Those opposed, not wanting the noise associated with a concentration of excited barking dogs located next to their residence.

 

Submission #812

 

Rannva Graham

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Under current bylaws there is no legal way to manage feral cat colonies.
Proposes enforcing microchipping on all cats.

 

Decision sought by submitter:

For microchipping to be enforced on cats.

 

Staff comment:

Unlike dog control which has a Government Act providing a legislative platform providing Council authority to impound dogs, issue infringements and other actions to ensure the community is safe; there is no such legislation for cats.

Councils that have introduced bylaws can only encourage cat owners to microchip. If an owner refuses, Council has no tools to compel the owner, other than prosecution which is not a viable option due to the high cost of action.

Any law needs a balance between information and education, and the ability to compel an owner to comply. Government legislation such as a Cat Control and Management Act is required if we want to introduce effective cat control.

There are an estimated 40,000 cats in the city, compared to 14,000 dogs of which the management is largely funded by dog registration fees. In order to manage, Council would need a similar fee structure for cats including building a pound.

 

 

Other submissions that align with this theme

#026, #055, #231, #564, #566, #714, #720, #818

 

 

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – CITY CENTRE / CIVIC REBUILD

Submission #428

 

Shaan Kingi

 

 

Submission #687

Christine Sligo

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Favours a museum to tell the stories of Tauranga Moana to the community.

Decision sought by submitter:

For Tauranga to have a museum to tell the stories of Tauranga.

Staff comment:

Council has committed to reviewing its indicative master plan for the Civic Precinct land in Tauranga’s city centre. This discussion is due to recommence later this calendar year and is expected to include consideration of the existing master plan components of a museum, library, and other community facilities. This will link to a discussion through the 2021-2031 Long- term Plan on the extent of Council involvement in planning and enabling a museum for Tauranga Moana including consideration of possible funding and timing. These matters will be consulted on through the 2021-2031 Long- term Plan.

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – CITY AND INFRASTUCTURE PLANNING / HOUSING

Submission #059

 

Port of Tauranga

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Seeks an increased focus and investment on the strategic and localised urban network to ensuring the Port can provide efficient access for the region’s growing freight industry.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the proposal within the submission.

Staff comment:

This is a strong focus for Council through the UFTI project and through the Tauranga System Plan project.  It is essential that the transport system can efficiently deliver freight to and from NZ’s largest port.

Submission #090

Attachment

 

Richard Hart

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Suggests Te Tumu Structure Plan needs a review of its assumptions and has concerns it has been driven by vested interests resulting in a less than ideal outcome for the city.

Decision sought by submitter:

No decision sought.

Staff comment:

TCC has been progressing the development of the Te Tumu Structure Plan, and rezoning plan since 2016.  To date, that plan is largely complete and includes 400ha of land of the 743 as non-developable.  The non-developable includes coastal dunes, ecological and natural character areas, riverside wetlands, stormwater reserves, areas subject to natural hazards, archaeological and cultural sites and an active reserve (20ha).  The area of constrained land is now above 50% of the total landholding. 

In regard to Regional Park Planning TCC and BOPRC undertook some early planning work on regional parks options/recreation opportunities within the broader lower Kaituna area, considering land areas which could be connected, and opportunities.  This work was not progressed to completion at that time but will be completed for use in planning for the lower Kaituna area, and Te Tumu planning. Council is further progressing as part of the implementation planning for Te Tumu a Cultural Management Plan and Landscape Plan for Te Tumu, with a focus over those identified constrained areas.   These plans will deliver a constrained land open space framework that builds on the identified values and best practice methods for delivering urban open space in a sensitive coastal environment.

In 2019, following the last Annual Plan, TCC Mayor and Councillors resolved to engage with Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council on the opportunities for a Regional Park in the Lower Kaituna, Te Tumu and Maketu area in the next triennium. This work will be undertaken during the current triennium but will not result in changes to the structure plan and rezoning plan for Te Tumu.

Submission #121

Attachment

 

Tauranga Branch Royal Forest Bird Protection Society Inc

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Suggests a change in thinking about what housing needs are. The Housing Choice Plan states the need for “more up than out” housing development on the Te Papa peninsula but this should be promoted in all suitable areas.

Decision sought by submitter:

No decision sought. Consideration of views and points regarding housing.

Staff comment:

The current Housing Choice Plan change being progressed by Council applies to all residential areas across Tauranga, not just Te Papa.  There are likely to be some exclusions e.g. areas where more work is required around natural hazard management and climate change risks.

The Plan change will enable duplex and multi-level terraced housing across the city.  Council are focusing on even higher densities in Te Papa initially e.g. apartment buildings and plan to roll out spatial planning to other suburbs in the near future and consider other locations where apartment buildings would be suitable and what types of infrastructure and community amenities would be required to support this type of land use change.

Submission #132

Attachment

 

Tauranga Community Housing Trust

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

(a) Proposed timeframe appears to treat all areas of the city in the same way.  TCHT recommends that even prior to the final shape of the Urban Development Bill being known, that TCC regards at least part of the Te Papa peninsula as a form of the proposed Special Development Project model for high growth areas without waiting for Government intervention.

(b) Council is urged to take leadership along with Accessible Properties in a new named and funded TCC partnership project for the Gate Pa area.

Decision sought by submitter:

No decision sought. Consideration of points and views within the submission.

Staff comment:

(a) Council is proposing to enable intensification across the city through its current Housing Choice plan change, but with an initial focus on Te Papa in terms of apartment buildings, transport investment and community amenities. 

The Special Development Project model will be considered once it is in place.  It may have some applicability to opportunities in the Te Papa peninsular.

(b) Staff support there being a variety of housing typologies to ensure affordable and suitable housing for vulnerable people including people experiencing homelessness, older people and people with disabilities.

Defer request for further funding to the LTP decision process.

Submission #197

Attachment

 

Jo Wills

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Tauranga has followed a traditional growth model for so long now it’s understandably difficult for some to view the city under any other lens, however that’s exactly what is needed.

Growth needs to be reviewed under and guided by a comprehensive sustainability lens.

Decision sought by submitter:

No decision sought.

Staff comment:

Thank you for your submission and the support for intensification related projects and broader suggestions around growth management.  The Annual Plan is focused on setting the Council’s budget for the next financial year rather than taking a strategic view of managing growth in the long-term.  With this in mind you may wish to consider getting involved in community engagement and consultation processes associated with projects like UFTI, Te Papa spatial plan, Housing Choice plan change and our greenfield structure planning projects. 

Submission #205

Attachment

 

Accessible Properties NZ Ltd

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

(a) Encourages priority of implementation for SmartGrowth, Te Papa Spatial Planning and Housing Choice Plan changes, given they focus on encouraging development and community regeneration within the city footprint.

(b) Pukehinahina Project requests Council’s support and leadership in developing a joint partnership proposal.

Decision sought by submitter:

No decision sought.

Staff comment:

(a) It is a high priority for Council to complete the Te Papa spatial plan and Housing Choice plan change with urgency.  Prioritisation of capital investment to support these projects will occur through the next Long-term Plan.

(b) Staff are committed to working with Accessible Properties and will continue to do so through the Long-term Plan planning process.


 

Submission #206

Attachment

 

Ian Dustin

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Proposal of a three legged approach to solve the immediate and long-term problem.

(a)  Potential to partially subdivide Papamoa Beach Reserve which would help provide more housing within city limits and add to the rating base via land sales.

(b)  Stop logging trucks bound for the Port entering the city. Offload at Rangiuru Business Park and utilise trains to transport further.

(c)  With train movements increasing, construct flyovers where rail crosses a road.

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision sought. Consideration of the proposal within the submission.

Staff comment:

(a)  The proposed beachside housing in Papamoa is not suitable due to the zoning of the land, constraints such as ecological values and long-term climate change and natural hazard risks that the Council has an obligation to consider.

(b)(c) The transport related points of the submission are areas (rail, transport connections of the Port) to be considered as part of Western Bay sub-regional Transport System Plan.

Submission #283

Attachment

 

H G Rose Architecture

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

(a) Encourages appointing Chief Manager of Mobility Innovation to resolve issues around mobility.

(b) Requests to forward-plan infrastructure, better contractor maintenance, CBD, parks and reserves and roading / upgrade contracts.

(c) Requests faster city intensification through Te Papa and more support from Council for smaller developers /property owners.

(d) Maintenance contracts are not working, lack management and quality control and have issues regarding safety.

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision sought. Consideration of the proposal within the submission.

Staff comment:

(a) In respect of improving mobility through concepts like inter-linking suburbs and creating major hubs, this is closely aligned with concepts being developed through the Urban Form & Transport Initiative.

(b) Significant forward planning of infrastructure is underway through UFTI and other processes, especially in relation to transport.

(c) TCC’s focus is on enabling intensification in Te Papa as quickly as possible however there are necessary process steps to achieve this. Council have undertaken broad engagement a number of times in relation to intensification projects both current and recent e.g. the Tauranga Urban Strategy, Te Papa Spatial Plan and the Housing Choice plan changes. TCC is currently embarking on significant changes to its City Plan for intensification, flooding and earthworks.  A full City Plan review will also be underway next year. 

(d) There are a range of maintenance contracts in place to deliver a prescribed level of service.  These range from CBD street cleansing to road maintenance and most include indicators to measure performance. Health and Safety controls are a key focus for TCC, so any further insight into concerns would be appreciated, particular details are unclear from the submission. Council are currently developing a Parking Strategy that will contribute and support Council’s wider strategic objectives.

Submission #287

Attachment

 

BOP Regional Council

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Regional Council is committed to multimodal solutions to getting people moving and reducing traffic congestion. As a result, BOPRC strongly support TCC’s funding and delivery of Public Transport infrastructure needed for a high performing Public Transport network. 

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision sought.

Staff comment:

Thank you for this support.

Submission #333

 

Mel Cox

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Urges Council to focus on amending the zoning rules to include tiny houses, medium to high density, co-housing, so people can afford to live in the city.

Decision sought by submitter:

Amendment of zoning rules.

Staff comment:

These matters are being progressed through the current Housing Choice plan change and will be further considered through the next City Plan review.  There are opportunities for community input and submission as part of those processes. Further information on the Housing Choice Plan Change can be found on Council’s website https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/our-future/enabling-growth/plan-change-26-housing-choice

Submission #374

 

John Aitken

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

KiwiRail is interested in double tracking Tauranga’s urban corridors as preparation for light rail. Believes Council need to send an invitation to access funding to ensure a low-carbon future. Submitter is particularly excited about possibility of a light rail between Omokoroa and Te Puke.

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision sought.

Staff comment:

Council already has an existing and good working relationship with KiwiRail to support integrated road and rail transport planning. An example of this is the Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan project where KiwiRail is a project partner alongside Council.

It’s noted that the recent Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) identified that:

- The rail-enabled growth option was not supported due to issues such as the time required to achieve adequate dwelling densities and job locations to support rail public transport in the first thirty years.

- The option of using rail for public transport in the longer term is attractive given the potential to provide another transport option for those living in the East.

Given this UFTI promotes:

- Continuing to invest in optimisation of the rail network to continue to increase mode share of freight movement by rail; and

- Futureproofing planning now with respect to location of potential bus park and ride and public transport hubs on the Apata– Paengaroa Corridor to support future mode shift to rail, if/when it occurs (10 plus years).

Submission #545

 

Russell Wenn

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Council invests too heavily in expanding Tauranga outwards instead of focusing on increasing density. Tauranga cannot afford to pay for the infrastructure needed. Too much is being allocated to roads that will not relieve existing gridlocks. Council needs to provide meaningful multi modal transport options for residents; dedicated busways and e-bike/cycle ways are the answer. Just look at the massive increase in cyclists during lockdown.

Staff comment:

Thank you for these comments.  We agree that more focus is required on intensification of the existing city and the provision of better transport options for cyclists.  Council has a number of projects underway in this regard.

Further information on the Te Papa intensification and multi-modal planning is available on Council’s website https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/our-future/projects/te-papa-peninsula

Also relevant is the Urban Form and Transport Initiative which was approved by Council on 3 July 2020.  It clearly identifies residential intensification and multi-modal as key to future development.  Refer https://ufti.org.nz/ for further information.

Submission #610

 

Jan & Phil Jameson

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Strongly supports the development of the Cameron Road multi modal transportation project networks as the backbone of the transportation network. The inclusion of a safe cycleway along Cameron Road is very likely to result in a greater up take by cyclists. Submitter cycled route during lock down but have had to desist with the return of traffic because of safety concerns.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of thoughts raised in submission.

Staff comment:

Thank you for your support on this project.  Over the upcoming year Council will continue with project design and community engagement to enable the project to move toward construction in future years.

Submission #652

 

Robynne Andrews

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Proposes inner city housing be developed at a reasonable price. This would rejuvenate the inner city and reduce traffic. Such apartments need to be realistic e.g. under $450,000 or Council owned and managed. Inner city housing is sustainable with less heating and transport issues. A goal should be to reduce people's living expenses especially for single people.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration for thoughts raised in submission.

Staff comment:

Council supports the development of inner city housing and is currently progressing changes to the City Plan through the housing choice plan change to make it easier to develop this form of housing.  Further information on the Housing Choice Plan Change can be found on Councils’ website https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/our-future/enabling-growth/plan-change-26-housing-choice

Submission #795

 

Natural Assts Trust

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Considers current legislative barriers prevent people seeking solutions to housing including not permitting multiple dwellings on shared land or living permanently in tiny Houses on wheels.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration for thoughts raised in submission.

Staff comment:

TCC is working on a number of projects to assist with housing challenges in our city including the current Housing Choice plan change.  This will address some issues you have raised.  Amending the City Plan requires a significant process as set out in the RMA.  As such changes will take more time to come into effect compared to the timeframes suggested in your submission.

Further information on the Housing Choice Plan Change can be found on Councils’ website https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/our-future/enabling-growth/plan-change-26-housing-choice

 

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION - COMMUNITY SERVICES / ARTS & CULTURE

Submission #085

Attachment

 

Wairakei Community Centre Trust

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Requests Council to continue its commitment to collaborate with the WCCT in building for a community centre in Papamoa East.

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision is sought.

Staff comment: 

TCC is working through the process of understanding the land use in Te Tumu, through the current planning and structure planning process for this growth area.  This project includes opportunity for sports fields, and associated infrastructure.  Previous work has also considered the delivery of a pool and community facility, in Wairakei, in working with the landowners of the Golden Sands Town Centre.  The city wide needs analysis conducted in 2019 will inform decisions made in the context of land provision prior to commitment of these concepts. Further analysis and negotiation are required to ensure all information is available to inform any land purchase decisions, and future implementation.  No decisions have been made regarding the operating model for a community centre. Current models are operated by both local community trusts and Bay Venues Ltd. Funding is set aside in the LTP for land purchase and development options. 

Continue the growth development planning for Te Tumu.

Submission #221

Attachment

 

Merivale Community Centre

Spoke at hearing: No

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Wishes to work with Council to deliver the social infrastructure to address Tauranga’s current context as well as the ongoing effects of inequality.

Decision sought by submitter:

Assistance with funding.

Staff comment: 

Tauranga City Council are committed to fulfilling the four well beings established by the LGA . Ongoing support can be accessed through the Community Development Match Fund.

Merivale Community Incorporated (MCI) is currently supported by council with a peppercorn rent and an operational grant towards a social worker of $50,000 in the current financial year (2019/ 20). Recent contestable support includes:

Match Fund of $1,000 Nov 2019, there has been no other Match Fund funds to MCI since 2014/15, Stewart and Carruthers $8,000, for the relief of poverty in October 2018 (2018/19).

 

Current annual plan budget includes support for Merivale and Welcome Bay community centres of $50,000 each.

Defer requests by Merivale to the 2021 LTP decision process.

Submission #228

Attachment

 

Tauranga Arts Festival Trust

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Urge Councillors to support and acknowledge the importance of arts and culture when making their deliberations in the Annual Plan.

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision is sought.

Staff comment: 

Toi Moana Arts and Culture Strategy and Implementation Plan remain in place for FY 20/21, directly supporting the arts in Tauranga. This support can be accessed through the Creative Communities Scheme and Creative Bay of Plenty. The arts sector receives a wide variety of direct and indirect support through TCC including Events, Baycourt, the Historic Village and Project Tauranga.

Submission #259

Gregory Brownless

 

Submission #267

Jaine Kirtley

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Allocate an appropriate bulk fund to arts organisations struggling post- COVID. Rather than determining the funding per organisation, a subcommittee should be set up to assess applications. 

Decision sought by submitter:

For Council to clearly state the criteria on which funding decisions will be made

Staff comment: 

Toi Moana Arts and Culture Strategy and Implementation Plan remains in place for 2020/21, directly supporting the arts in Tauranga. This support can be accessed through the Creative Communities Scheme and Creative Bay of Plenty. The arts sector receives a wide variety of direct and indirect support through TCC including Events, Baycourt, the Historic Village and Project Tauranga.

 

Current opex budget includes $614,108 funding towards arts and culture related organisations and activities. Various arts and culture events receive additional funding through the Event Funding Framework.

Submission #285

Attachment

 

NZ Chinese Language week Trust

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Request $5,000 to assist with delivery of the New Zealand Chinese Language Week event being held across New Zealand 20-26thSeptember 2020.

Decision sought by submitter:

Assistance with funding.

Staff comment: 

Staff support cultural events that help connect communities and create vibrancy and a sense of belonging in the city. This support can be accessed through the Events funding or the Community Development Match Fund.

Submission #335

Abbe Mear

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Provide space at the Historic Village for the Good Neighbour Initiative to continue.

Decision sought by submitter:

Provide space at the Historic Village for the Good Neighbour Initiative to continue.

Staff comment:

There has been no engagement with Good Neighbour to date with regard to holding their Food for Thought food rescue event at the Historic Village instead of at Our Place. However, there may be opportunities to explore funding for this event through the Event Funding Framework or Community Match Fund.

Submission #353

 

Jill Best

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Thanks, Council, for maintained support with community facilities such as libraries, museum and art gallery. These support education, recreation and community-building. Tauranga lacks things for visitors to do when it rains. Encourages Council to create the new mobile library, to support those with limited mobility

Decision sought by submitter:

Deliver mobile library for residents with limited mobility.

Staff comment:

A new mobile library is planned to replace and upgrade the existing mobile library. This project is set to commence in 2021 and will take nine months to complete.

Submission #436

 

Ronda Lawrence

TBOP

Submission #437

Nicole Ellis

TBOP

 

Submission #718

 

Speaking at hearing: No

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Supports TCC's ongoing investment in TBOP and encourage the existing funding to remain in TCC's Annual Plan 2020-21.

Decision sought by submitter:

Commit to funding as per Annual Plan 2020-21.

Staff comment:

It should be noted that both submitters are TBOP staff members.

TCC staff support that the existing TBOP funding remains in the Annual Plan 2020/21.

It should also be noted that should TCC’s current level of investment in TBOP not be maintained, TBOP will not be eligible to apply for the $700,000 available from the central Government’s Strategic Tourism Assets Protection Programme. 

Should the current level of funding be maintained and TBOP’s application to central Government be successful , TBOP’s capacity for destination marketing and promotion activity will be significantly increased.  This additional funding is core to helping the visitor industry rebuild post the COVID-19 disruption.

Submission #513

 

Suzanne Edmonds

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

Related Submissions:

Submission #082

Katie Horrocks

Submission #507

Annette Hansen

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Encourages Council to invest in a community garden close to Baywave.

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision is sought.

Staff comment:

From a food security perspective, it is a good idea, however, this kind of initiative needs to be owned and/or entrusted, managed, and operated by the local community through a community organisation.

 

TCC to explore working with local organisations such as Good Neighbour who have a successful community garden programme.

 

Submission #609

 

Multicultural Tauranga

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Request for a rent abatement for the next six months.

Decision sought by submitter:

Request for a rent abatement for the next six months

Staff comment:

Tauranga Regional Multicultural Council Inc (TRMC) has been provided with 100% rent relief for three months during the COVID lockdown period. They have been open and operating fully for the last five weeks and cannot provide evidence of continued financial hardship as a result of COVID. They are the only tenant of The Historic Village to ask for further rent relief, with the cost of rent relief at around $80k to date in lost revenue.

In addition, TRMC has received significant financial support from TCC, WBOPDC and other local funders over the last five years towards mentoring and capacity building. TRMC has also recently been awarded $12k funding by the Event Fund Panel for the Multi-Cultural Festival as a stand-alone event.

Submission #727

 

Debz Turner

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

a) Proposes a community centre is built to support people in the community with loneliness.

b) Requests Council provide covered bus shelters with seating available to protect from the weather conditions. Suggests constructing bus shelters in more connected spaces i.e. close to amenities.

Decision sought by submitter:

For Council to provide covered bus shelters in well-connected areas.

Staff comment:

a) A feasibility study into a Community Hub concept is currently underway as one of the workstreams of the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes strategy, which will create a centralised location for families and individuals to access advice, information and wellbeing support. If additional funding is required, this would be sought through the LTP.

b) Council has a process in place to assess potential shelter sites. In the future this will be further supported by guidance from NZTA that is expected to be released later this year. The annual budget for 20/21 bus shelter installation will prioritise sites where there is no objection from property owners. Future funding provision will be considered through the forthcoming 2021-2031 Long-term Plan.

 

Submission #782

 

St Peters Community Lunch

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Supports work Council is doing to address, understand and solve homelessness.

Supports initiative to have a trial period using 45 Cliff Road as a central kitchen to supply all meals from. Each organisation would use this facility. Support from TCC for this would determine feasibility. Enquires whether courses in cooking, life skills, budgeting, etc to help disadvantaged community could be possible?

Decision sought by submitter:

Support and fund the proposal.

Staff comment:

Staff have been working collaboratively with the 10 community meal providers towards this end. A full agreement with all 10 providers is close to completion.

 

DECISION REQUIRED

Option 1: An additional $30,000 be included in the Annual Plan towards OPEX costs

 

Option 2: Do not add $30,000 be included in the Annual Plan towards OPEX costs.

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – CORPORATE SERVICES

Submission #021

 

Alison Lusby

Spoke at hearing: No

 

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Requests submission forms are emailed to all ratepayers as not all people read the paper, visit Sunlive or council websites.

Decision sought by submitter:

For submission forms to be emailed to all ratepayers.

Staff comment:

TCC is able to send submission forms to any resident/ratepayer if they agree to provide us with their email address for that purpose.  Historically, some residents/ratepayers have provided TCC with their email addresses for specific purposes such as emailing invoices or to use to send their dog registrations to. However TCC is unable to use those email address for general communications outside the original purpose for which it was given unless that resident/ratepayer has given permission.   TCC recognises the value of being able to reach and engage with as many people in the community as possible on matters of interest and is looking at improved ways to facilitate this in the future.

Submission #087

Attachment

 

Papamoa Residents and Ratepayers Ass

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Concerned about lack of communication and consultation with the community. Feedback from online surveys has reinforced a perceived disconnect between Council and residents. 

Decision sought by submitter:

Greater community consultation.

Staff comment:

Improvements to Council engagement processes are currently in development. This includes early consultation, and stakeholder management to better track community involvement along the journey of a project. It is agreed that Council and the community need to work together better. The success of this is the openness from both parties to listen and have open dialogue on issues. Mutual respect is critical in acknowledging the knowledge and expertise of all those involved, and the shared outcome everyone wants to see.

Submission #130

 

Barry Scott

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Believes Council should conduct town hall meetings to consult with residents in place of referendums.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consider feedback in engagement going forward.

Staff comment:

Face-to-face meetings are a key part of engagement and will continue to have priority going forward. However, large town hall meetings can be off-putting to some members of our community. Large meetings often focus on the dominant voice in a room, rather than hearing a range of views from people present.

Drop-in sessions are a recommended approach where people are able to have one-on-one conversations, discuss their interest and be heard.

Having a large amount of staff and councillors present at one event increases the cost. Some of our community are not interested in face-to-face and they prefer to call or submit feedback online. Council need to manage the cost of face-to-face with the interest from the community and providing a range of ways for people to be informed and have their say. 

Submission #275

 

Carole Gordon

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Requests Council to adopt the Treasury Living Standards Framework to guide the way forward.

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision is sought. Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment:

Whilst Council do not intend to directly adopt the Treasury Living Standards Framework, it does agree that adopting a strategic approach to sustainable development is important. In the 2018-2028 LTP, Council committed to managing the balance between social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing of the community. The requirement to do this has been further strengthened by the 2019 reinstatement of the four well-beings into the Local Government Act. TCC will continue to focus on balancing the different elements of wellbeing during development of the next long LTP and will continue to engage the community during this process.


 

Submission #325

 

Malcolm Smith

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Believes many of the consultation practices appears to 'tick-the-boxes' but have no effect on the decision-making process – “lip service”

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision sought.

Staff comment:

Community consultation is undertaken to inform the Council of the diverse views of our communities. Submitters views will contribute to informing our plans.

Submission #835

 

Peter McKinlay

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

That Council adopt the essence of the community engagement charter.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration for points raised in submission.

Staff comment:

Council acknowledges the importance of fully engaging with our communities.  An engagement team has recently been established to focus on community engagement. The team is in the process of developing an engagement strategy which recognises the sentiments in the Councillors’ ‘Charter’.

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – CYCLE WAYS

Submission #018

 

Andrew Ball

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Urge Council to improve cycle link from K-Valley to Westridge Drive, as steel is not suitable for cyclists.

Decision sought by submitter:

To improve the cycle link between K-Valley to Westridge Drive.

Staff comment:

As part of the roll out of the Cycle programme, Council have identified local connections around K-Valley needing improvement. Council are hoping to progress this work in 2022.

Submission #036

 

Te Puke Women’s Cycle Group

Spoke at hearing: No

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Urge Council to extend the boardwalk from Parton Road through to Te Okuroa Drive to connect to the Papamoa East cycle trail.

Commends Council on amazing work with Papamoa cycle ways.

Decision sought by submitter:

Extend the boardwalk from Parton Road to connect to the Papamoa East cycle way.

Staff comment:

There is a large part of land between Parton Road and Palm Springs Boulevard that is privately owned. Council are unable to provide a facility to connect Parton Road and Springs Boulevard at this time. TCC have however, been working to provide facilities through Te Okuroa Drive. Whilst Council appreciate this might not be ideal for many in the community, this connection or use of Papamoa Beach Road may be the best alternatives at the present.

Submission #054

Stephen Shaw

 

Submission #754

 

Haley Saunders

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Cycle ways should be created in areas of high commuter traffic to reduce bottlenecks e.g. between Maungatapu to Mt Maunganui, Hewletts Rd commercial area, from Papamoa to Mt Maunganui and Hewletts Rd to Tauranga CBD

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision is sought.

Staff comment:

The City Cycle Plan is actively developing new cycle routes and facilities on major corridors including bottle necks.

 

Submission #142

Attachment

 

Bike Tauranga

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Encourages Council to recognise the great tourist potential of a safe, signed cycle trail through the city by the end of the year and to allocate funds for it.

Decision sought by submitter:

For Council to allocate funds for a signed cycle trail.

Staff comment:

Council recognises the importance of way finding signage across the city. Funds have been allocated through the cycle plan. Staff will work with Bike Tauranga to have this developed and implemented in the 2021 financial year.

 

Submission #276

 

Jan Meijer

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Opposes push for cycle ways and the space constraints bought about with traffic through Greerton without proper consultation.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the above requests and issues presented within the submission.

Staff comment:

Tauranga City is growing at a rapid pace. As part of transport planning, TCC are seeking to provide a balanced approach to provide people who wish to bike, walk, drive or bus, with a choice. Any work undertaken for people biking is part of a holistic solution in reducing the rate that congestion increases.

Submission #355

 

Aaron McGarva

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Create cycleway on Totara St and Marine Parade so cyclists are safer.

Decision sought by submitter:

Create cycleway on Totara St and Marine Parade so cyclists are safer.

Staff comment:

Council is planning to implement a shared path and intersection safety improvements between Hewletts Road and north of Dominion Salt, and a two-way cycle way facility on the Port side connecting to Coronation Park. Consultation will commence on this proposal in July and a decision to proceed to implementation will be made by Councillors in September/ Oct.

Council is also looking to work with the community to look at opportunities to improve safety for people along Marine Parade. This project is part of the national Innovating Streets programme, that enables community and Council to work together to come up with solutions. These solutions are tested through temporary measures to see how well it might work.  Such testing enables communities to get a sense of what their streets could be like and try a change prior to any permanent changes being made.

Submission #390

 

Leslie Wilson

Spoke at hearing: No

 

Related Submission:

Andrew Ferguson

Submission #421

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

(a) The pedestrian crossing at Bayfair interchange is an example of poor planning in regard to improving walking and cycling options long-term since the removal of the underground passage.

(b) Supports Memorial Park to City Centre coastal pathway.

Decision sought by submitter:

Better planning in improving walking and cycling options.

Staff comment:

(a) The Baylink project is led and managed by Waka Kotahi NZTA.  The current pedestrian and cycling crossing are a temporary measure while the existing Bayfair underpass is closed to allow for construction of the flyover.  NZTA has recently committed to restoring the underpass as part of the project so the at grade pedestrian crossings should no longer be required long term.

(b) Further investigation of a coastal pathway from Memorial Park to the city centre will be undertaken in due course in coordination with other initiatives, particularly implementation of the Te Papa Spatial Framework and Walking and Cycling Business Case. This is best considered through the 2021-31 Long- term Plan given the strategic framework is still being established.

Submission #510

 

Heath Lett

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Suggests road designers do not consider cyclists safety. Cyclists are being harmed and taking their lives into their own hands. An example is the new Otumoetai roundabout.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission regarding cyclist safety.

Staff comment:

The safety of all road users and in particular vulnerable users such as cyclists and pedestrians are factored in when planning and implementing new transportation projects. Independent road safety audits are also conducted on each project to ensure all aspects of safety have been considered.  We acknowledge that the Otumoetai roundabout area is a challenging environment due to the offset intersection of three streets onto Otumoetai Rd right near a primary school.  In this particular case, the infrastructure has been designed to reduce vehicle speeds with kerb extensions that reduce the width of the shoulders where people typically bike.  The expected behaviour, as defined in the road code, is for cyclist to claim the lane as they approach the roundabout.

Submission #836

 

Shane Plummer

Spoke at hearing: No

 

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Believes Councillors were presented a solution for signoff regarding Tauranga Cycle Plan without being shown an alternate low-cost solution through public submissions.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration for low-cost solution presented.

Staff comment:

As part of the Accessible Streets business case, a painted line option as you have suggested was evaluated. While it may seem cost effective, its benefits to the wider community is limited to those that are confident cycling. The greatest potential to get more people biking is to provide a variety of infrastructure interventions that support all ages and abilities.  This is in alignment with international and national best practice. The preferred option being progressed achieves the following:

·     140% - 190% increase in cycle trips within Tauranga in 2043, relative to today

·     180% - 250% increase in the total cycle-km travelled within Tauranga in 2043, relative to today

·     Travel to work mode shares increasing to between 6.5% and 10% in 2043, from 3.5% today

·     Travel to school mode shares increasing to between 14% and 15% in 2043, from 8.5% today

·     Between 2,600 and 3,200 fewer commuter peak car journeys each day

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Submission #215

Attachment

 

Tauranga Chamber of Commerce

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

TCC to work collaboratively with the Chamber, Priority One and Mainstreet organisations to ensure an appropriate response plan is developed to limit the impact on vacancy rates of commercial tenancies on the city’s main streets. 

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment:

Council would be happy to work with key stakeholders.

Submission #237

 

TCC Youth Advisory Group

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Requests support to create industry partnerships for career progression in Tauranga for youth based in and outside of Tauranga.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment:

TCC is happy to consider these ideas in conjunction with Priority One. Aspects of submission are largely already in process via Priority One, though perhaps could be supported further.

Submission #243

Attachment

 

Marine Precinct Advisory Group

Spoke at hearing: Yes

 

Key issues raised by submitter:

Seeking $2m investment to improve ‘boat to truck’ vehicle access to wharf, enabling industry growth at Vessel Works.

Decision sought by submitter:

Seeking $2m investment to improve ‘boat to truck’ vehicle access to wharf, enabling industry growth.

Staff comment:

TCC acknowledge the benefits a wharf extension would have in enabling industry growth and attracting funds into the community. Investment in the Marine Precinct, including this project, is a focus for Priority One.

 

The SmartGrowth Covid Stimulus Urban Development application included a request for $5 million for wharf extension at the Marine Precinct.  We have not yet been advised the outcome of this funding application to the Government.  If funding is approved, it will be applied to this project.

 

Noted significant lack of wharf space at the precinct impacting on local industry.  The wharf development will enable greater capacity for users and allows for private funding contribution based on the existing design. Wider benefits to fishing and other industries using the precinct leading.  Funding will be through user fees and charges at the precinct with no ratepayer funding required.   

Submission #066

 

Vanessa McPherson

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Queries what is being done to contribute to the heart and soul of the city.