Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

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.

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

(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 ⇩

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

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.

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 20-26^thSeptember 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.

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision sought.

Staff comment:

Council is delivering projects to improve the quality of the city centre as a place for people. Further consideration of investment will be given in preparation of the 2021-31 Long-term Plan, including ways to promote our unique identity. Work by TBOP on identity does warrant further consideration via LTP strategic framework process. Business attraction via P1.

Submission #141

Priority One

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

a) Proposes no change to UAGC due to impact on business of combined UAGC and differential change.

b)Urges Council prioritise infrastructure spending to create economic stimulus and flow-on benefit to assist the city recover from the economic impact of COVID-19. Including Te Papa Peninsula intensification, Tauriko, Te Tumu, Rangiuru and roading around the Port.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment:

a) This is addressed in report titled “Issue and Options- Rating Policy - level of Uniform Annual General Charge and general differential.”

b) Infrastructure projects remain a priority for Council. Capex budgets for the 2020/21 financial year remain very similar to what was proposed pre-Covid; demonstrating TCC’s priority on infrastructure spending to assist with Covid recovery and continued support to our communities.

Submission #318

Shannon Gray

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Requests the need for a venue or stadium capable of holding concerts or sporting events.

Decision sought by submitter:

Creation of a venue capable of holding concerts or sporting events.

Staff comment:

Initial consideration is being given to the need and feasibility of a stadium by Priority One.

Other submissions that align with this theme

#065, #248

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – FINANCE

Submission #051

Simon Johnston

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Queries why TCC is not receiving fuel tax funds and road user charges from Labour.

Opposes any future rubbish collection being included in rates.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration for points made in submission.

Staff comment:

TCC does receive fuel tax funds (over $1m in 2020 financial year). Local road building and maintenance is generally subsidised by NZTA by 51%.

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.

Submission #084

Jill Brightwell

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Provides commentary on capex and detailed budget report.

Opposes borrowing from Central Government.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration for points made in submission.

Staff comment:

Projects in the Growth category are predominantly funded by developers and people building new dwellings over varying periods of time.

Many projects are multi-year and the Annual Plan budget relates to the amount spent on a project in that year. Changes in the amount assigned to individual capital programmes occur as we get closer to the end of the financial year and have a better idea of what is likely to occur in the following financial year. The revision of the Annual Plan also allowed another prioritisation opportunity based on latest information.

Submission #265

Richard Prince

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Opposes rates increase.

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision sought.

Staff comment:

Overall rates increase in revised draft 4.7% after growth. Rates increase, and structure proposed in the revised CD was the balance that Council was comfortable with between acknowledging that some in our community will struggle and the requirement to support the needs of the city. Rates relief support is provided and information available on the council website.

Submission #340

Simon Driessens

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Against commercial differential on businesses that employ people. If charges increase, businesses will reduce staff. More taxpayers’ dollars will be paid in WINZ money.

Decision sought by submitter:

Remove commercial differential.

Staff comment:

This is addressed in report titled “Issue and Options- Rating Policy - level of Uniform Annual General Charge and general differential.”

Submission #350

Maurice O’Reilly

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Believes many fees and charges are justifying additional employment at Council.

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision sought.

Staff comment:

Fees and charges are applied as either a total or partial recovery of expenditure to certain services where we are able to identify direct beneficiaries. Consistent with the revenue and financing policy.

Submission #365

David Le Breton

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Opposes Council proposing administrative and bureaucratic costs to the budget whilst proposing to strip out costs that relate to the amenity and enjoyment of the city. Against non-essential projects.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration for points made in submission.

Staff comment:

Much of the increase in support services costs is IT related which ensures secure and efficient management of council information and is a catch up after previous under-investment in core systems.

Increased investments in city planning have also occurred to better support the growth of the city and to address resilience, transportation issues and housing supply.

Submission #372

Jim Sherlock

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Supports commercial differential of 1:1.4 as their costs are a tax-deductible expense. Against non-essential projects. All businesses have had to cut back on staff and believes TCC needs to as well.

Decision sought by submitter:

Increase commercial differential and reduce TCC staff.

Staff comment:

This is addressed in report titled “Issue and Options- Rating Policy - level of Uniform Annual General Charge and general differential.”

Submission #375

Dave Jennings

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Believes Annual Plan lacks depth.

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision sought.

Staff comment:

The AP is the last year of the 2018-28 LTP which outlined outcomes and direction in some depth. The 2021-31 LTP will provide an opportunity to revisit community outcomes and investments in more depth. The revised community outcomes are currently under consultation.

Submission #424

John Douglas

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Proposes higher rates and rates relief for individual hardship. Tauranga cannot avoid expenditure to provide for the growing population.

Decision sought by submitter:

Increase rates.

Staff comment:

Rates increase, and structure proposed in the revised CD was the balance that Council was comfortable with between acknowledging that some in our community will struggle and the requirement to support the needs of the city. Rates relief support is provided and information available on the council website.

Submission #427

Frank Stuart

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Council should permanently reduce staff budgets and staff numbers.

Urges Council to set debt capacity at 300% now; not in the future.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration for points made in submission.

Staff comment:

Maximum debt capacity is effectively set by our lenders – Council may choose an internal limit of less than that to reflect matters such as future growth needs and retaining some capacity to respond to unplanned events. Presently our lenders have capped that at 300% for the 2020/21 financial year.

The level of staff resourcing is predicated by the level of services to the community and our city planning needs. Council undertook a high level review of services as part of its review of the Annual Plan.

Submission #714

Graeme Purches

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Argues segregation of rating categories should not be done on the basis of “how we compare with other Councils”, but rather, on Tauranga’s unique demographic and economic circumstances.

Supports rates rise but opposes UAGC and commercial differential.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration for thoughts raised.

Staff comment:

This is addressed in report titled “Issue and Options- Rating Policy - level of Uniform Annual General Charge and general differential.”

Other submissions that align with this theme

#003, #044, #055, #069, #141, #196, #218, #250, #269, #274, #279, #361, #397, #362, #396, #407, #429, #627, #828

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – SPACES & PLACES

Submission #005

Chris Longman

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Would like more indoor sports facilities to cater for current and future demand.

Decision sought by submitter:

Decisions as outlined above.

Staff comment:

Council recently undertook a City wide needs analysis of community facilities, including indoor sports facilities. The purpose of the needs analysis was to understand needs for community facilities both for the current population and the future population, considering projected population growth. The needs analysis identified the need to maintain the existing indoor sports capacity, and to provide additional capacity to meet future population growth. The outcome of the analysis is that Council will be considering a community facilities investment plan for inclusion in the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan, which will consider the findings of the needs analysis regarding maintaining current provision and providing for the future population. The intention is for the investment plan to be publicly consulted on through the Long-term Plan process.

Consider in the next LTP.

Submission #031

Impact Gymsport Academy

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Requests assistance from Council in securing a reduced rent from BVL.

Decision sought by submitter:

Securing a reduced rent from BVL.

BVL comment:

This is an operational matter between BVL and the submitter. It is not appropriate for Council to intervene through the Annual Plan process. Council notes that BVL has provided the submitter with 100% rent relief until the end of June 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Submission #046

Margaret Long

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

(a) Would like a similar structure to replace existing bridge, with character and looks pleasing.

(b) Would like the erosion to be dealt with the same as Fergusson Park foreshore.

Decision sought by submitter:

Replace existing bridge with similar

Staff comment:

(a) Previously addressed in the 2020 Annual Plan ($30,000) and is now likely to be a carry forward. Staff propose to demolish the existing bridge that is past the end of its service life and install a new bridge 5m inland.

There has been community consultation on replacement of the bridge. To replace with a similar structure extra budget is required over what has already been allocated. Additional community consultation is planned for later in 2020.

(b) The erosion issue cannot be addressed through the current bridge replacement project as it needs to be part of a wider investigation funded through the Long-term Plan. Cost estimate to address any erosion would be in excess of $600,000.

Submission #074

Attachment

Sydenham Botanic Park

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Thanks, Council, for support to help maintain the park to a good standard.

For Council to consider the future funding model for the Sydenham Botanic park. The Funding Trust and Advisory Group would like to arrange for councillors to visit the park.

Decision sought by submitter:

For Council to consider the future funding model for the Sydenham Botanic Park.

Staff comment:

Council thanks the Sydenham Botanic Park for their submission and can arrange a visit to the park with councillors, staff and key Trust and Advisory group members. Separate paper on the future governance and funding model for Sydenham Botanical Park was deliberated on 2nd of June 2020 council meeting to consider the ongoing structure and funding. $45,000 was granted as a one-off capex contribution towards development and confirmed existing opex budget.

Submission #120

Erle & Ursula Dunseath

Spoke at Hearing: No

Related Submissions

Submission #139

Submission #200

Key issues raised by submitter:

Urges Council to reconsider the walkway in Forrester Drive as it is an unnecessary expense during current climate.

Decision sought by submitter:

For Council to reconsider constructing the walkway in Forrester Drive.

Staff comment:

The purpose of the Esplanade Reserve is to provide public access. Council has an Encroachments onto Reserves Policy and a programme of resolving 20 encroachments per year. Once encroachments are removed then there will be public access which will require a walkway in certain parts. Where possible, it will be mown grass.

Staff have been meeting with residents to discuss what is required at each property. No additional budget required.

Submission #194

Sport New Zealand

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Sport NZ supports the proposed revised user fees and charges as this reflects the current environment and reducing costs will help mitigate one of the biggest risks to physical activity, which is access.

Sport NZ supports the $1.1m investment towards the Greerton Pools upgrade.

Thanks Council on behalf of the people of Tauranga and Sport NZ, for the contribution to sport and recreation in Tauranga.

Decision sought by submitter:

No decision sought. Support for initiatives.

Staff comment:

Submission received, thank you.

Submission #212

Sport Bay of Plenty

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Advocating for sports and recreation to continue to be a core service of Council’s business.

Thanks, Council, for the ongoing support for the Spaces and Places Strategy and value the Council / Sport BOP partnership agreement.

Decision sought by submitter:

No decision is sought.

Staff comment:

Council thanks Sport BOP for their submission and values the partnership agreement. Spaces & Places Strategy support is a budgeted sum of $20,000 per annum plus staff time. This is in conjunction with shared funding of the other 5 participating councils to facilitate a funding framework to provide for sporting infrastructure in the Bay of Plenty.

Master planning of the sporting network is currently being considered for staff prioritisation.

Submission #242

Jim McMaster

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Considers ecological restoration of Matua reserve is leaching spray into the harbour and believes Council will propose a walkway over this area in the future.

Decision sought by submitter:

No decision is sought.

Staff comment

Council has undertaken restoration activities on this reserve consistent with other restoration projects. Letters of support for this particular project from Department of Conservation, Forest and Bird, and BOP Regional Council. BOP Regional Council tested a sample of the water in the tidal area of this Reserve and results showed no sign of agrichemicals. A meeting held at the Matua Bowling Club (in excess of 100 people) showed overwhelming support for the proposed walkway.

Submission: #289

Attachment

Mt Maunganui Community Menz Shed Trust

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Wish to lease a space on Hewletts Road Reserve as there is a delay on Tatua Reserve.

Decision sought by submitter:

For Council to provide lease a space on Hewletts Road Reserve.

Staff comment:

Hewletts Road Reserve has space for one more building. The space has been allocated to the Tauranga Model Railway Club, and staff are now working with the clubs to see if it is possible to share a building.

TCC has funding allocated to develop Tatua Reserve as a site for community buildings during 2019/20 that is now re-budgeted to 2022.

Access for Menz Shed on Tatua Reserve was placed on hold after the council decision for Badminton to not use Soper Reserve and instead consider a BVL location with Tatua Reserve as a backup site. Council received the Badminton site location paper during June 2020 for a decision.

Council directed that Badminton will be accommodated on Tatua Reserve; this will reinvigorate discussions with clubs for space on the reserve.

TCC has the opportunity to work with both Badminton and Menz Shed to share the 7,500m2 site along with other reserve users.

Should that not be successful, TCC is investigating land purchase in the forthcoming LTP in both Te Tumu and the Western Corridor for community building reserves. These sites are dependent on the rate of city growth and are anticipated to be several years away.

Submission #290

BOP Rugby Union

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Support expansion of UoW Adams Centre.

Seek urgent support from TCC in 2020 to remedy existing Tauranga Domain grandstand to house a camera platform on the roof for Sky TV cameras.

Without the upgrade, BOP Rugby are in a position where all five home Steamers games will be held at Rotorua. BOP Rugby submit that this situation is unacceptable.

Decision sought by submitter:

Seek urgent support from TCC in 2020 to remedy existing Tauranga Domain grandstand to house a camera platform on the roof for Sky TV cameras.

Staff comment:

Staff have been working through the process to enable TCC to get a TV platform on the roof at the request of BOP Rugby. A project exists to fund this during 2021 for $180,000 (now postponed until 2022 during this AP process). $26,000 has already been spent on investigations. This construction requires a building consent.

When a Building Consent is applied for, the applicant is obliged to bring a building up to current standards, to enable any new works. As such, TCC have conducted a study into what is required to bring the grandstand up to code so the TV platform can be constructed.

It has become apparent that the works required are potentially extensive, and likely to be expensive. Further investigation is underway, and staff are conducting a cost analysis. As investigations are ongoing, no permanent TV platform will be constructed in 2020/21.

To bring the stadium (constructed in 1962) up to current requirements, it is expected that project escalations are likely. Due to the anticipated high cost of the changes, the proposed budget will be referred to the LTP for Council to consider funding.

However, staff are seeking the requirements to lodge a building consent for a temporary solution to accommodate the games this season, this does depend on a number of factors.

Submission #414

Judy Colville

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Queries whether TCC manage existing projects i.e. numerous companies mowing in certain areas. Believes this is inefficient and council departments need to work together to cut spending (parks and gardens, sewage etc).

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision sought.

Staff comment:

Open Space maintenance is conducted by a number of contractors. Each contract is competitively tendered in accordance with the TCC Procurement Policy. The type and nature of the different contracts is considered appropriate.

There are changes to delivery in progress, with further rationalisation of contracts on the horizon.

Submission #439

Stephen Lasslett

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Proposes consultation with local community for new ideas on land use for reserve land in Kennedy Ridge subdivision (allocated as part of Open Space Strategy). Believes numerous sites around Tauranga can be better utilised for positive benefit to the community.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of points raised in submission.

Staff comment:

It is assumed that the submitter is referring to ‘neighbourhood reserve 6’ that will be acquired by Council within the Kennedy Ridge Subdivision as the subdivision progresses, in accordance with the Open Space Strategy, Open Space Level of Service Policy, the City Plan, and the Development Contributions Policy.

The Open Space Level of Service Policy recognises that open space plays a role in achieving good urban development outcomes by providing community focal points, pedestrian and open space connections, high levels of amenity and feelings of openness and a range of recreational opportunities. In this part of the city, reserves are required to be located within 500m of most residences, have a desired minimum size, and functionality and quality requirements. The policy aims to ensure that there is fair and reasonable distribution of open space across the city.

The City Plan requires that when subdividing, good urban design principles are followed, which includes provision of easy access to open space and reserves.

Through the Development Contributions Policy, Council has collected development contributions to enable the purchase and development of this reserve in accordance with the Open Space LOS policy.

Upon completion, it will be owned by Council, and subject to the Reserves Act 1977.

For reserves held under the Reserves Act, in order to use them for another purpose, Council must first revoke the status of the reserve, which involves demonstrating the reserve is surplus to requirements, a public consultation process, and the consent of the Minister of Conservation. Until the reserve status is revoked, Council is not able to consider alternative uses.

Approx. 3,000m2 of reserve is being acquired at the Kennedy Ridge subdivision in accordance with referenced Council policies, which are all aimed at ensuring good urban design outcomes for the City. Kennedy Ridge is a higher density residential subdivision, with narrow streets and small sections which do not afford the residents a great deal of open space amenity, or areas to recreate and exercise, in the street environment or within their own properties. These features of the subdivision only increase the importance of providing functional, good quality, and locally accessible public open space to achieve good urban design outcomes for this neighbourhood.

Therefore, it is not recommended to pursue investigations into alternative uses for part of the neighbourhood reserve.

Submission #612

Gate Pa Advisory Group

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Complete funding or 50% funding of $245K Anzac Park upgrade including barbecue facilities, play area, planting and concrete paths.

Decision sought by submitter:

Funding of Anzac Park upgrade as outlined in submission.

Staff comment:

It is agreed that the upgrade of the park is a great idea. This was to be addressed during the 2019/2020 financial year with a budget of $94,905.

Due to community feedback regarding inclusion of accessible playgrounds, and other upgrades, the original project budget of $94,905 is not enough.

The project is now deferred until 2021/22 and additional funding sought through the LTP process.

Submission #619

Charlotte Clarke

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

To petition for a playground upgrade for the Wells Ave playground. It currently has a climbing frame, 2 swings and adult gym equipment. There is nothing for small children. Also proposes a shade sail for this playground.

Submitter also proposes a programme to retrofit all current playgrounds with shade sails; as is being done in Auckland's North Shore.

Decision sought by submitter:

To petition for a playground upgrade for the Wells Ave playground.

Staff comment:

Wells Avenue Reserve playground was installed in 2011.

Currently Wells Ave play equipment is programmed for replacement/renewal in 2036. Additional equipment is a good proposal and would have a cost of $12,000 for two additional pieces of play equipment, a sea saw & slide plus an extension of playground (timber edging and safety surface).

Operational costs are minimum and could be absorbed into current budgets.

Shade in reserves is considered in the Tauranga Reserves Management Plan.

Given the capital, depreciation and maintenance costs associated with artificial shade, Council’s preference is to provide shade by natural rather than artificial means.

Council will continue to review shade requirements across the reserve network and progressively seek to increase shade cover over time. As a starting point, when considering the provision of shade, Council will focus on providing vegetation for shade at reserves where people are likely to be spending long periods of time e.g. high-profile reserves, active reserves and reserves with playgrounds.

Vegetation adds to the amenity value of reserves by providing aesthetic qualities, environmental benefits (such as habitat and carbon absorption), adds to the natural character of the reserves, and provides natural shade cover.

A number of reserves have significant vegetation areas that enhance the amenity of the reserve, the identity and character of the reserve and surrounding areas, provide shade for reserve users and perform an important ecological function.

The Urban Forester team is actively planting trees to provide shade cover, it is acknowledged that it takes some time for the trees to reach maturity.

DECISION REQUIRED

Option 1: Add an additional $12,000 CAPEX to fund play equipment upgrade. And also add $600 depreciation pa to OPEX.

Option 2: Do not add an additional $12,000 CAPEX to fund play equipment upgrade. And also add $600 depreciation pa to OPEX.

Submission #744

Susan Hodkinson

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Requests publication of scheduled services i.e. berm mowing, road sweeping, trees pruned in submitter’s area.

Decision sought by submitter:

Requests publication of scheduled services

Staff comment:

Vegetation maintenance is ‘performance based’ and not ‘regime/schedule based’. As such there is no regular maintenance i.e. ‘every Tuesday’.

Rather, specifications are set, and the vegetation is maintained to that standard, and site visits for maintenance are planned dependant on the growing season/growth rates.

For example, this prevents contractors mowing when the grass is not growing in the summer or winter due to an inflexible schedule, that requires funding, and does not achieve cost efficiency. It also allows for the staff to move to other tasks such as garden maintenance.

Recommend that staff liaise directly with the submitter and discuss maintenance regimes.

Submission #773

Fiona Kean

Submission #811

Tauranga Historical Society

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Submission supports restoration works at Monmouth Redoubt Historic Reserve. Believes restoration work, which was recommended in the Monmouth Redoubt Conservation Plan (completed and adopted in 2018-2019), is to be delayed.

Decision sought by submitter:

No delay caused to the Monmouth Redoubt Historic Reserve.

Staff comment:

The Monmouth Redoubt Historic Reserve restoration work project has a value of $250,000 and has been moved to 2021/22.

Whilst this project is of immense value to the historic reserve and the city of Tauranga, it is a low priority for funding post covid-19 and should be delayed by one year.

Submission #787

Heritage New Zealand

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Seeks that the repair works on Monmouth Redoubt be included in the annual plan. Seeks consultation with TCC regarding nature of proposed works at Omanawa Falls, described as a significant ongoing project, to discuss the impacts, if any.

Decision sought by submitter:

Seeks repair works on Monmouth Redoubt be included in the annual plan. Seeks consultation with TCC regarding nature of proposed works at Omanawa Falls.

Staff comment:

The Monmouth Redoubt Historic Reserve restoration work project has a value of $250,000 and has been moved to 2021/22.

Whilst this project is of immense value to the historic reserve and the city of Tauranga, it is a low priority for funding post covid-19 and should be delayed by one year.

Staff have met with HNZ during the early stages of the project, and plan to engage further with HNZ as the project develops and options are discussed. This is also likely to be a legislative requirement, as it may also be necessary to seek an archaeological authority. This has not yet been established.

Submission #797

Papamoa Football Club

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Seeks:

− Reclassification of Simpson Reserve to that of “Active Reserve”; and

− Subsequent to this reclassification, allocation of Simpson Reserve to Papamoa FC for its use as a football field and training facility from January to September, each year.

Decision sought by submitter:

Reclassify Simpson Reserve as an active reserve.

Staff comment:

This has been considered in the past.

Simpson Reserve is located in the residential area and is a small reserve (in terms of active reserves). It is unsuitable for conversion to an active reserve.

TCC has no under provision of fields in Papamoa, and as such, no need to invest in conversion to sports fields.

For training purposes, the outfields in active reserves can be used in addition to formed fields. The use of portable goal posts for football is best practice, and these can be wheeled out for practice and returned to storage after training.

Submission #814

Gerry Hodgson

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Development of K Valley Botanical and recreational park.

Decision sought by submitter:

That TCC develops a concept plan for the development of Kopurererua valley and applies to the CIP shovel ready fund.

Staff comment:

Staff have worked closely with Ngai Tamarawaho and the Kopurererua Valley Rotary Centennial Trust to prepare a development plan for the reserve.

The Kopurererua Valley Rotary Centennial Trust was founded to support the restoration of Kopurererua Valley. The developed plan (2017) is the second and updated version that was worked on during an extensive engagement process with key stakeholders for the benefit of the reserve and the community.

Ngai Tamarawaho have led the visioning process for the Kopurererua Valley.

The development plan has been successful and during 2017 TCC and Ngai Tamarawaho jointly submitted and won a merit award in the Outstanding Park category of the New Zealand Recreation Association (NZRA) Awards.

During 2018 the park won the NZRA outstanding project award. The award recognises excellence, innovation and effectiveness. The current development concept plan and the collaborative approach of TCC and hapu was used as the basis of the nomination. This plan was costed and funded during the last LTP. As such, a total of $5,709,000 remains scheduled in the forthcoming financial years to develop the reserve.

Staff have also been successfully working with the Trust over the years to seek external funding for elements of the design and use this to offset the TCC capital cost. This year the trust successfully applied to TECT for $141,800 to put towards the restoration of Puketoromiro Pa which includes an access track to the top and interpretation.

Staff applied to the CIP shovel ready projects to fund the development during the COVID response, but the application was unsuccessful.

The TCC stormwater team and BOPRC work extensively in the reserve to develop stormwater solutions. Some ponds have already been constructed and further wetlands are proposed.

Other submissions that align with this theme

#094, #255, #256, #432.

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – STORMWATER

Submission #037

New Zealand Motor Caravan Association Inc.

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

The NZMCA recommends budgeting $150,000 for the installation of at least two (2) new public dump stations in Tauranga. These facilities, much like public toilets, are necessary to support local tourism and provide the infrastructure required

Decision sought by submitter:

Budgeting $150,000 for the installation of at least two (2) new public dump stations in Tauranga.

Staff comment:

There are only 2 public dump stations in Tauranga City. There have been many calls for more to be installed and the existing stations to be improved.

DECISION REQUIRED

Option 1: Add $200,000 to CAPEX to for the installation of at two new public dump stations in Tauranga. Also add $3,000 to OPEX budget from 2021/22 onwards.

Option 2: Do not add $200,000 to CAPEX to for the installation of at least two new public dump stations in Tauranga.

Submission #032

Attachment

Friends of Palm Beach Reserve Papamoa

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Requests a permanent halt to planting and new plants to be removed and area to be restored to former state.

Decision sought by submitter:

To restore area to original state.

Staff comment:

Issue was put to Council (19.05.2020). Council resolved to stop planting and restore area to former state.

Other submissions that align with this theme

#070, #080, #260, #242

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – SUSTAINABILITY & WASTE

Submission #079

Chris Brown

Spoke at hearing: No

Related Submission

Submission #420

Key issues raised by submitter:

Kerbside collection proposal must produce household savings; not greater expense.

Decision sought by submitter:

For kerbside collection to produce household savings.

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.

Submission #362

Judy Clark

Spoke at hearing:

Related Submissions

Key issues raised by submitter:

Opposes any future rubbish collection being included in rates.

Decision sought by submitter:

Opposes rubbish collection being included in rates.

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.

Submission #411

Roderick Bailey

Speaking at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Supports free recycling collection.

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision sought.

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.

Submission #625

Sue Blomquist

Speaking at hearing: No

Related Submissions

#540, #544, #562, #647, #664, #702, #716, #724, #725

Key issues raised by submitter:

Leave rubbish removal to the private sector. Then residents will pay only for what they need. It will also keep pricing competitive.

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.

Submission #744

Susan Hodkinson

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Proposes TCC engage with the community about city care and tidying the city, so residents have greater responsibility as opposed to relying on TCC to resolve. Requests collaboration with Regional Council in improvements to roadside litter.

TCC Waste Management needs improvement. Many users don't know when recycling and glass is to be recycled. If the TCC is to charge me for domestic collection I am wanting better than I'm getting now

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration for thoughts raised in submission.

Staff comment:

We agree that further work should be undertaken to encourage the community to care for our environment. This is identified in our Waste Management and Minimisation Plan. We also are evaluating a Request for Proposal for the provision of services for city cleansing. We will work closely with the new incumbent to ensure that the concerns of the submitter are addressed.

With regards to recycling, the proposal for residential kerbside waste collection services is to be considered by the Council in late August 2020. This will include education to the community on how to recycle. This does not impact the 20/21 Annual Plan.

Other submissions that align with this theme

#021, #043, #055, #078, #087, #146, 197, #203, #362, #411, #420, #554, #540, #540, #544, #562, #625, #626, #647, #664, #698, #702, #716, #719, #720, #724, #725, #755

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – TRANSPORTATION

Submission #012

Alex Zilionis

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Encourages Council make it more expensive to park in the CBD whilst reducing the cost of public transport to the CBD.

Decision sought by submitter:

Increase CBD parking fees and subsidise public transport.

Staff comment:

The public transport system is run by the regional council who make decisions about bus fares.

This is also addressed in the issues and options paper titled “Parking stimulus”

Submission #018

Andrew Ball

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Unsafe pedestrian facilities on Cambridge Rd.

Unsafe location of bus stop on Plane Tree Lane needs relocating.

Decision sought by submitter:

To improve pedestrian facilities on Cambridge Rd and relocate bus stop on Plane Tree lane.

Staff comment:

TCC have a minor safety project which has been investigated to provide a pedestrian refuge, revised bus stops, footpath and minor intersection improvements at Westridge.

Submission #052

Martin Cowan

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Urges Council to subsidise or remove charges for public transport within a 10km radius of the CBD to encourage people to leave cars at home.

Decision sought by submitter:

For Council to subsidise or remove charges for public transport within a 10km radius of the CBD.

Staff comment:

The public transport system is currently subsidised and run by the regional council who determine bus fares. TCC is undertaking a review of its approach to parking management – including the cost of parking. This includes how the cost of parking could assist with public transport uptake.

Submission #058

Attachment

Rob McGregor

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Encourages Council to dedicate one side of footpath for pedestrians only, the other for side cyclists.

Decision sought by submitter:

To dedicate one side of footpath for pedestrians only, the other for side cyclists rather than creating new footpaths.

Staff comment:

TCC acknowledge there is conflict at times with areas where footpaths are too narrow to cater for the number of users. How footpaths are used by users are governed through legislation by central government. Council therefore is unable to implement a regime that requires pedestrians using one side of the footpath and cyclists another. In delivering the walking and cycling network, a greater separation for people walking and those biking will be achieved.

Submission #067

Attachment

Graham Holloway

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Encourages a road toll facility charging non- residents for using the Tauranga road network.

Decision sought by submitter:

No specific decision

Staff comment:

This type of intervention is being considered through the Urban Form and Transport Initiative as part of a potential long-term solution to Tauranga’s transport challenges. Currently there is no legislative framework in place to enable and deliver such a system.

Submission #069

Bryan Norton

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Encourages removal of roadside parking in the Te Papa Peninsula/ Cameron Road traffic reconfiguration for safer multi-modal transport.

Decision sought by submitter:

No decision sought. Consideration of views and points regarding submission.

Staff comment:

The Cameron Road multi-modal project seeks to achieve the proposed outcomes for active and public transport modes. Whilst stage 1 is included in the Draft AP and covers the area between Elizabeth Street and 17^th Ave, stage 2 will cover the southern part of Cameron Road and be prioritised through the upcoming Long-term Plan process. The solutions submitted will be considered (in a similar form) through the option assessments for those projects.

Submission #071

Rebecca Hall

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Road safety improvements required for SH29 / Cambridge Road and Gargan Road intersection leading to congestion and dangerous conditions.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration by Council to improve these intersections.

Staff comment:

Council acknowledge there is an issue at the SH29/Cambridge Road intersection. The matter is being investigated with transport partners through the Tauriko West Works Business case.

Retain budget for Tauriko West Early Works business case in Annual Plan. Prioritise capital spend through LTP once the business case is complete.

Submission #087

Attachment

Papamoa Residents and Ratepayers Ass

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Queries why Papamoa Eastern Interchange (PEI) is in the annual plan when it was originally funded by NZTA.

Queries when Papamoa Beach Road will be resurfaced.

Decision sought by submitter:

Clarification on points raised in submission.

Staff comment:

The funding model for PEI is be funded entirely by development contributions from Wairakei and Te Tumu. This was set up ahead of the Tauranga Eastern Link being constructed. Subsequently, TCC has approval for a 10 year interest free loan through the Housing Infrastructure Fund which includes for a 51% share from NZTA reducing the TCC / development share from 100% to 49%.

Council will be considering a review of the road surfacing policy as part of the Long- term Plan process. The timing is such that those Policy decisions along with projected future traffic volumes and land use will inform the treatment selection of the 3 sites in the 2020/21 programme on Papamoa Beach Road.

Submission #157

Derek Boshier

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Opposes building a highway beside Bayfair creating further congestion. Instead urges Council to consider cycle ways.

Decision sought by submitter:

Urges Council to focus on cycle ways over new highways.

Staff comment:

The highway improvements near Bayfair are part of NZTA’s strategic highway network and funded by NZTA.

TCC are currently progressing multiple cycle improvements, such as the Arataki Multi Modal project, in which improvements are being made for cyclists, pedestrians and bus users.

Submission #223

Attachment

Michael McLennan

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Road safety improvements required for Bellevue Road / Windsor Road intersection to help slow the traffic on the corner and reduce fatalities.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration by Council to improve these intersections by constructing a roundabout.

Staff comment:

TCC has a draft design for this option and is willing to progress. This design also forms part of a wider look into the Bellevue Area, for which there is a project planned to investigate opportunities for improved pedestrian and cycling connections, speed management and parking management.

Captured in the Annual Plan 2020/21:

(Bellevue Area Traffic Management)

Submission #270

Glen Crowther

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Request TCC fast-track investment for ten bus shelters in the Western/ Otumoetai suburbs.

Decision sought by submitter:

For Council to invest in ten bus shelters in Western/ Otumoetai suburbs.

Staff comment:

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 Long- term Plan.

Submission #359

John Wylie

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Urges Council to remove parking fees in CBD. Opposes Council subsidising empty buses.

Decision sought by submitter:

Remove parking fees in CBD

Staff comment:

The matter of CBD parking is addressed in the issues and options paper titled “Parking stimulus”

The management of bus routes, including any subsidy is undertaken by the BoP Regional Council.

Submission #390

Leslie Wilson

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Requests greater accountability regarding Council projects i.e. Harrington Street transport hub. Queries what Council is planning to do with Harrington St now it is not proceeding.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment: Parking management

The Project Advisory Board approach put in place by Council to provide expert advice on this situation and recommend a way forward that best protects the community’s interests is considered best practice. Processes to determine liability are underway and cannot be commented upon until there is an outcome that can be publicly reported. The future use of the Transport Hub site is currently under consideration and we anticipate that any options involved will be reported to Council later this year.

Council has committed to take action to maintain a balance between parking demand and capacity. To that end, a Parking Strategy is currently under development to support Council’s wider strategic objectives for the CBD.

Submission #488

Laurie Evans

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Proposes an idea to create parking in the CBD and have business owners pay for it.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the points raised throughout the submission regarding parking in CBD.

Staff comment:

Council are currently developing a Parking Strategy that will contribute and support Council’s wider strategic objectives that include provision to support business. Council also have a strategic focus to improve the public realm through creating of appealing open spaces for people who live, learn, work and play in the CBD and surrounding area, that would contrast with the proposal to remove existing green space in favour of more parking.

Submission #530

Shelley McPherson

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Community want slower safer speeds limits, wider roads and footpaths, more pedestrian crossings and working streetlights, less road accidents and the injuries and deaths that are occurring regularly on roads.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration for points raised in submission.

Staff comment:

Council are currently in the process of reviewing all speed limits in the city, with the objective of aligning speed limits with safe and appropriate speeds for different road functions.

Other general road safety concerns are part of normal TCC business such as improving pedestrian facilities generally. We incorporate safety improvements into our normal decision making at both a network wide strategic level and also on a site specific basis. Pedestrian facilities are incrementally improved around the city under our minor safety Improvements budget. Street lighting upgrades are currently allocated funding in the draft annual plan, or form part of routine maintenance and renewal.

TCC does not have responsibility for speed enforcement or associated penalties.

Submission #691

Sandy Ward

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Unhappy with traffic situation in Greerton giving priority to pedestrians. Requests four lanes from Greerton through to Pyes Pa.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the points raised throughout the submission regarding Greerton traffic.

Staff comment:

The Greerton project is designed to balance the needs of traffic and the competing needs of safe pedestrian movement through the Greerton Village retail area. Staff have been monitoring traffic flow and seeking to optimise the pedestrian traffic signals to reduce delay. At this stage the road does not support being four lanes.

Submission #722

Charlotte Yates

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Urges Council to construct crosswalks along Maranui St and Oceanbeach Rd for the safety of Arataki School pupils and general community. The intersection of Omanu Way and Oceanbeach is particularly difficult to cross safely, especially during peak traffic times. There should be a safe, connecting corridor or crosswalks from the beach to Arataki neighbourhood

Decision sought by submitter:

Urges Council to construct crosswalks along Maranui St and Oceanbeach Rd for the safety of Arataki residents.

Staff comment:

This specific request reflects a broader road safety issue which has been previously identified, i.e. the need for improved pedestrian facilities along the Marine Parade/ Maranui St/ Oceanbeach Rd/ Papamoa Beach Rd corridor. A programme of improvements to address this is included within the Local Roads Pedestrian Improvements – Minor Safety Improvements programme.

Submission #734

Tristan Benge

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Urges Council reinstate Greerton as previous, with two lanes between Cameron Rd and Bakers Corner. Suggests creating an underpass for pedestrians.

Decision sought by submitter:

For Council to reinstate Greerton as per previous layout.

Staff comment:

The Greerton project is designed to balance the needs of traffic and the competing needs of safe pedestrian movement through the Greerton Village retail area. Staff have been monitoring traffic flows and seeking to optimise the pedestrian traffic signals to reduce delay and at this stage do not support the road being four-laned.

In relation to an underpass for pedestrians, there is insufficient room to build the approach ramps and meet the requirements for disabled access as well as CPTED issues for pedestrians due to the right angle bends needed to try and fit approach ramps, so a pedestrian underpass cannot be supported.

Submission #744

Susan Hodkinson

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Enquires as to when Bain St will be upgraded. Believes Bain Street should be one-way; left onto Maunganui Rd only or a parking street.

Requests Links Ave has crisscrossed yellow lines toward the fire station.

A crossing is needed at Valley Rd on the Eastern side of Tweed Street. Vehicles cut corners and the road is dangerous.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration for thoughts raised in submission.

Staff comment:

The Maunganui Rd Bain St intersection is expected to receive improvements as part of the Maunganui Rd Upgrade Project. Although, there is no upgrade planned or proposed for Bain Street.

Other matters raised by submitter are operational and minor safety matters that have been passed on to staff to consider under existing minor safety or maintenance budgets. There is no requirement for specific consideration in the Annual Plan.

Submission #830

Stephen Bird

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Options for the future of Farm Street, that could help change the nature of the street from a vehicle movement route, into a proper public space, that serves a range of diverse users.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration for thoughts raised in submission.

Staff comment:

Options for Farm Street will be considered as part of the Arataki Bus Facility and multi-modal stage 2 project, which will include a pilot engagement approach with residents and the wider community. Design and engagement are planned and budgeted for the 2020/21 Annual Plan, with construction to be prioritised through the 2021-31 Long- term Plan process.

Other submissions that align with this theme

#199, #209, #214, #262, #296, #391, #496, #529, #557, #779, #805, #833

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – WASTEWATER

Submission #687

Christine Sligo

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Proposes new builds should have grey water tanks installed, to assist with water for toilet flushing and watering gardens.

Decision sought by submitter:

For all new builds to have grey water tanks installed

Staff comment:

A proposal is included in the draft revised 20/21 Annual Plan regarding the establishment of an Independent Sustainability Advisory Board (ISAB). It is intended that the ISAB would establish a sustainability framework for the city that would enable the areas identified in the submission to be addressed. The funding proposed is currently $200,000 to support the establishment of the ISAB and development of the framework.

There is a separate issues and options paper as an attachment to the report “Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations - Issues and Options - Other feedback and suggestion” that covers ISAB submissions.

MAIN THEME OF SUBMISSION – URBAN SPACES

Submission #057

Dolphin Seafaris NZ Ltd

Spoke at hearing: No

Related Submissions:

Brewbus NZ

Submission #061

Key issues raised by submitter:

Supports TBOP's plans to create Te Tomokanga. The current experience offered to cruise passengers upon arrival is unsafe, unwelcoming, underwhelming and does not share the region’s rich cultural history.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment:

Project included in Draft Annual Plan and also supported by Provincial Growth Fund. Project focussed on providing support to domestic tourism market and providing a local community asset.

Submission #133

Scott Brundell

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

(a) Proposes greater pedestrianisation of Mt Mainstreet whilst limiting large vehicles.

(b) Suggests designs for a Mt Sea Pool and a ‘show piece’ events centre.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment:

(a) Parking and pedestrianisation changes would need to be informed by the Parking Strategy currently being developed.

(b) The requested investment in streetscape improvements and community facilities would best be considered through the 2021-31 Long- term Plan process.

Submission #146

Robert Paterson

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Urges Council to abandon proposals for Mount visitor information centre, CBD redevelopments including Wharf Street and Elizabeth Street and other expensive developments that have minimal benefit but increase rates.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment:

These projects have been identified in the 2018-28 Long-term Plan to enhance the city for both residents and visitors.

Submission #199

Mainstreet Tauranga

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

(a) Activate Vacant Spaces pilot programme; ask that, based on the success of the pilot programme, serious consideration be given to extending further funding to this programme and that funding be set aside in the annual plan in support this to the tune of a further $100K.

(b) Acknowledge there will be reduced funding through the Events Funding Framework.

(c) Asks that street asset and amenity cleaning be improved. Public seating areas in the city centre, especially those under or near trees need to have an increased cleaning regime implemented.

(d) Strongly opposes the proposed increases in parking charges.

Favours a tiered costing structure for on street short-term parking.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration be given to extending further funding.

Staff comment:

(a) Support the Activate Vacant Spaces pilot being extended through to October using existing funding. The success of the Activate Vacant Spaces pilot is yet to be evaluated so it is premature to commit to further funding at this stage while the remainder of the pilot is delivered. It is recommended that any further city centre support be linked to a comprehensive strategy to support the success of the CBD.

(b) Events Funding Framework – As outlined in the submission there will be reduced funding available to support the events industry due to the current commitments of the fund and the proposed $200k temporary reduction in the budget

(c) TCC are currently evaluating a Request for Proposal for the provision of services for city cleansing. We will work closely with the new incumbent to ensure that the concerns of the submitter are addressed. In the meantime, we will work with the current incumbent to ensure that the standard required is met, and whether an increased level of service is required in these areas.

d) There is a separate issues and options paper as an attachment to the report “Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations - Issues and Options - Other feedback and suggestion” that covers the parking element of this submission.

Submission #207

Peter Stanley

Related Submissions:

Neil Pollet

Submission #240

Key issues raised by submitter:

Against Mount visitor information centre.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment:

Project included in Draft Annual Plan and also supported by Provincial Growth Fund. Project focussed on providing support to domestic tourism market and providing a local community asset.

Submission #296

Ange Holmes

Spoke at hearing: No

Related submission:

Submission #317

Lianne Pepperell

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

More consideration needed to make the CBD a place that people can be proud of and that reflects the 4th largest city. Suggests free limited parking, incentives and lower costs for businesses in the city, more engaging fun stuff like dining halls etc.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment:

The issue raised about CBD parking is covered in the issues and options paper titled “Parking stimulus.”

Submission #501

Kurt McCollum

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Suggests waterfront is not being utilised to its full potential. Would like Council to take advantage of this area.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment:

The priorities for the waterfront and wider city centre will be developed for consultation with the community as part of the 2021-31 Long- term Plan.

Submission #615

John Paine

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

Request funding from Council in via the Linkt Community Trust to run the Remaker Space. An innovative hub creatively repurposing, reusing and upcycling waste heading to landfill.

Funding will enable access to 15 vacant containers and shared spaces in “Our Place” for a two year period. Councils contribution: 2020/21 $160,000, 2021/22 $130,000.

Decision sought by submitter:

Council to contribute $160,000 (2020/21) and $130,000 (2021/22)

Staff comment:

If a decision is made to keep Our Place operating there would potentially be opportunity to incorporate the activities outlined by the submitter into the space. This would require coordination with any other operators confirmed for the site such as Our Place Tauranga Ltd, or another operator.

We are currently evaluating an RFP that may provide for this type of activity at the Te Maunga Transfer Station. There is also a TECT/TCC/WBOPDC feasibility study being undertaken on the concept.

Linkt have also applied for $15,000 to our Resource Wise Community Fund for a detailed feasibility on repair/reuse opportunities in Tauranga. They have been advised that they will be awarded 50% of this funding and must secure additional funding for the remainder to meet their funding requirements.

This topic is covered in the decision on the Our Place site which is included in a report titled to the report “Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations.”

Submission #692

Riffraff Promotions

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter

Proposes new concept and rebranding as “Downtown Live” in current Our Place space.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the proposal.

Staff comment:

This topic is covered in the decision on the Our Place site which is included in a report titled to the report “Annual Plan 2020/21 Deliberations.”

Submission #742

Mal Fraser

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

Ensure all funds are available to complete Wharf St project. It makes no commercial sense to stop halfway and create disruption.

Decision sought by submitter:

Ensure all funds are available to complete Wharf St project.

Staff comment:

Sufficient budget to complete the project has been included in the Annual Plan.

Other submissions that align with this theme

#064, #068, #124, #126, #127, #131, #313, #397, #438, #629, #754, #637, #779.

REMAINING MULTIPLE ISSUE SUBMISSIONS

Submission #210

The Sustainable Business Network

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

(a) Encourages community consultation on UFTI, the Te Papa Spatial Plan, and the joint spatial plan to occur before decisions are locked in by sub-region’s leaders.

(b) Ensure TCC’s Environment Strategy underpins all other plans and strategies, with key criteria embedded up front into all decision-making processes.

(c) Provide an updated Economic Development Strategy reflecting our post-COVID-19 reality, in context of the four well-beings, low carbon, circular (low waste) economy and emphasis from central government on better community engagement.

(d) Supports proposed investment into a Sustainability Framework.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment:

(a) Council is conscious of aligning its growth projects with projects such as UFTI, Te Papa Spatial Plan, and the joint spatial plan. Council is confident that its plans for Te Tumu and Tauriko West are required and in alignment with these other processes.

(b)(c) Council staff are currently reviewing the council’s approach to sustainability and will ensure that the previous work undertaken on the environment strategy is incorporated. The review, and subsequent work undertaken by council to develop a comprehensive sustainability framework (together with the development of a revised strategic framework to support a broader city vision) will ensure that sustainability is addressed in council’s strategic documents. Whether this includes a revised economic development strategy as a sub-regional document (as currently) or as a stand-alone Tauranga document is yet to be determined. The Sustainable Business Network will be invited to be part of these wider strategic framework discussions that will commence in the third quarter of the 2020 calendar year.

(d) The UFTI report approved on 1 July 2020 includes an action for the development of a sub-regional Economic Development Strategy. Priority 1 is identified in UFTI as having the lead responsibility for this. The project plan and engagement approach for the strategy is yet to be developed. That new strategy will not be in place for the 2021 LTP, however. The strategy will identify priority areas for investment and action.

Submission #231

Hillary Burrows

Spoke at hearing: No

Related Submissions:

Shane Burrows

Submission #232

Key issues raised by submitter:

(a) Provide free all-day parking for workers in the city centre.

(b) Ensure only dog owners are charged for dog-waste bags and not general rate payers. Encourages limit of one dog per household.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission

Staff comment:

(a) Council are currently developing a Parking Strategy that will contribute and support Council’s wider strategic objectives that include provision to support business.

(b) Dog owners are required to pick up their dog faeces immediately and can face a fine of $300 if they don’t. Council has provided a number of bag dispensers at beach access points and some reserves. These are all paid for from dog registration fees and from rates. Dog owners are encouraged to carry their own bags with them and dispose of these hygienically. If you witness a dog owner not picking up after their dog, please phone Council on 5777000 and report this and where we can identify the owner, we will take appropriate action against them.

(c) Council does not currently provide waste services to commercial businesses. It does, however, have a Resource Wise Business programme that business can join, and be supported on their waste minimisation journey. Public place waste stations (incorporating recycling) are placed in strategic locations across the city to deal with litter in high foot traffic areas

Continue with Resource Wise Business programme, and public place waste station management and monitoring.

Submission #291

Attachment

Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana

Spoke at hearing: No

Key issues raised by submitter:

(a) Consultation with tangata whenua on resource consent applications.

(b) Council and mana whenua should work together to co-create a street naming work project to enhance cultural heritage protection and recognition.

(c) Council should support and collaborate with mana whenua to establish a Maori Housing Advisory Group external to Council.

(d) Mana whenua have requested a review of rating and valuation of Maori land and believe that this matter has not been responded adequately.

(e) Concerns there will be increased impacts on current wastewater systems at Te Maunga and Chapel St. Te Rangapu Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana (RMU) support the ongoing work programme of the Wastewater Management Review committee.

(f) The Rangapu supports a joint workplan of īwi/hapu and TCC staff e.g. Takawaenga personnel to review current īwi/ hapu management plans.

(g) Mana whenua continues to support the current structure of the TCC Takawaenga Maori Unit.

(h) Encourages ongoing consultation with tangata whenua on the Te Papa spatial plan, Housing Choice plan change and Flooding plan.

(i) Te Rangapu support the continued working relationship with TCC on the RFR (Draft Acquisition and Disposal Policy).

(j) Urges Council must ensure new fast-tracking legislation does not impede the Treaty Principals of engagement.

(k) Concerns around Plan Change 27(flooding from intense rainfall events) and Plan Change 26 (Housing Choice).

(l) The Rangapu desire is to work alongside Council to establish a post- Covid-19 rebuilding our city strategic plan.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment:

(a) Environmental Planning, with TCC’s Takawaenga Maori Unit’s (TMU) support, are keen to review the existing guidance around consultation with mana whenua on resource consent applications. The current policy is out of date (2006) and does not represent best practice or RPS direction. A Sub-regional Tangata Whenua consultation policy for resource consent processing has been previously progressed by the Combined Tangata Whenua Collective and the three Council’s in the sub-region in accordance with SmartGrowth 11A(4). This will form a useful basis for addressing the submission point made here. Progressing a review will require co-ordination across the three Councils as well as engaging the appropriate tangata whenua representatives. Support from TCC’s TMU will be important to do this effectively.

(b) TMU supports the resourcing of a report on suitable naming and renaming opportunities across Tauranga Moana to reflect the history of Tauranga in a more balanced fashion.

(c) The Joint Action Group is currently reviewing the Papakainga toolkit and workshops. The outcomes will be presented to RMW for comment and feedback. The idea of a Maori Housing Action Group should form part of those discussions and ideally be an interagency initiative possibly foreshadowed by initiatives like Ara Rau Tangata.

(d) TMU will facilitate a review of recent reports including Hemi Rolleston/ Jolene Patuawa and workshop issues to be addressed. This will highlight whether there are opportunities within TCC discretion or whether the opportunities lie in changing legislation.

(e) The western wastewater solution to service the new western growth areas is designed with storage to buffer high peak flows and to maintain consistent flows to the Chapel and/or Te Maunga treatment plant. An overview of the Western Corridor Wastewater study will be presented to the Wastewater Management Review committee later this year.

(f) Takawaenga will present a stocktake of current plans and funding to RMW and establish a plan that demonstrates progress on these.

(g) Takawaenga will workshop the details of this idea to seek consensus and/or support for a way forward.

(h) Comments in relation to the Te Papa spatial plan, Housing Choice Plan change and Flooding Plan change have been passed on to staff leading these projects. Implementation budgets, especially in relation to Te Papa or for iwi/hapu management plans, will be considered through development of the 2021-31. Implementation budgets, especially in relation to Te Papa or for iwi/hapu management plans, will be considered through development of the 2021-31 LTP. It should also be noted that a review of the Papakainga toolkit, as requested in this submission, is budgeted and underway.

(i) Dates have been offered for July and August to re-establish this discussion.

(j) Takawaenga acknowledges and shares concerns that fast tracking and streamlining processes risks neglecting consultation and engagement obligations.

(k) Plan Change 27: Support dedicated and qualified mana whenua advice. Plan Change 26: needs to be informed by point (c).

(l) Tangata whenua will be involved in Emergency Management post COVID-19 planning as well as the City Plan Review with substantial dedication and resourcing

Submission #214

Attachment

Bluehaven Holdings Ltd

Spoke at hearing: Yes

Key issues raised by submitter:

(a) Supports bus shelters along The Boulevard where public transport route is to focus being main arterial route for Te Tumu and Wairakei. This includes bus shelters for a larger hub adjacent to The Sands town centre.

(b) Seeks higher level of planting and maintenance than currently planned for the town centre.

Decision sought by submitter:

Consideration of the issues and points raised throughout the submission.

Staff comment:

(a) New bus shelters will be installed on a city-wide priority basis, with provision for 10 new shelters per year in the current plan. The inclusion of bus bays is treated as traffic management items in road layout design.

(b) Current planting and maintenance planned for the town centre will continue as planned.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

16 & 17 July 2020

Item	Submission number	Submission topic	Submission summary	Proposed response
1.	Submission 144 Attachment for S 144	Special provisions for retirement villages	In essence the submission is requesting an amendment to TCC’s DC policy to give more consideration to the unique characteristics of comprehensive retirement villages that lower the demand for infrastructure and community facilities, due to lower occupancy, reduced activity levels and onsite amenities within villages.	The DC Policy already includes some measures to account for lower demand levels associated with retirement villages. In addition, the policy includes a provision for applicants to apply for a special assessment if a development will place lower demand on Council’s infrastructure than what is assumed within the Policy. It is not possible for the policy to include special provisions for every permutation of development typology. The principles of the Local Government Act 2002 provide for this in that it acknowledges that policies may need to group developments by geographic location or activity type provided it is done in a manner that balances practical and administration efficiencies with considerations of fairness and equity. TCC staff note they are intending to undertake a review of the underlying assumptions and provisions within the DCP prior to the adoption of the next Long-Term Plan and 2021/22 DC Policy. As part of this process they will include a review of the demand profiles related to Retirement Villages and will engage with staff from Auckland Council regarding the specific retirement village provisions which they have adopted.
2.	Submission 155 Attachment for S 155 Revised submission 155	Schools assessed as “low demand”	The submission is seeking an amendment to the DC Policy so that schools and other education facilities would be grouped within the category of “low demand business activities’ to reflect the limited operating hours and limited use of water.	The Low Demand business activities category has been created to specifically reflect demand attributes of storage and warehousing facilities along with utilities type buildings which are largely unoccupied. It is not considered appropriate to group schools within the same category as these industries. Council will source available actual demand evidence relating to water and wastewater use by schools to help contribute to policy reviews being undertaken in the upcoming financial year.
3.	Submission 158 / Attachment for S 158	Increases in Citywide DC’s	Advocates for a freeze on proposed increases to Citywide DC’s (16%) in the next financial year as it is out of step with the current economic forecast and is likely to impact investment opportunities.	The proposed increase in Citywide contributions within this year’s development contributions are a direct impact of increased costs of delivering infrastructure. These are costs that TCC has already incurred or is expected to incur within the upcoming financial years. If these increases are not passed on in the form of development contributions, then these costs will eventually end up being incurred by the rate payer.
4.	Submission 158 / Attachment for S 158	Transparency and Fairness	Seeks to ensure that the development contribution per unit is sufficient to account for the demand generated by the HUE and that the method for determining this is transparent.	The Developments Contribution Policy includes specific details on the assumptions used to calculate the unit of demand for each activity and each charge. TCC will undertake a review of these underlying demand assumptions in the upcoming financial year to check if they are aligned with current demand trends.
5.	Submission 158 / Attachment for S 158	Special considerations	Requests that policy gives consideration to ways in which the fees can be varied relative to actual development activities occurring rather than a general gross floor area or HUE charge. Also requests that the provisions for special assessments should be given more flexibility than currently enabled.	It is not pragmatic nor efficient for the Development Contributions Policy to include a specific provision for each different development typology. Development types must be grouped to be able to establish a simple and transparent charging methodology. The Local Government Act acknowledges that developments may be collectively grouped provided it is done so in a manner that balances practical and administrative efficiencies with considerations of fairness and equity. The special assessment provisions are included within the policy to account for those development types whose demand does vary significantly from the average development type assumed in the calculations of the household unit equivalent charges. The other issue with creating multiple different charging categories is that each time there is a change in use of a building there will need to be an assessment to see if the change requires additional contributions to be payable. This reduces transparency of the policy and increases the difficulties in managing its implementation.
6.	Submission 158 / Attachment for S 158	Double collection for transportation infrastructure	Considers that developers are often required to contribute towards the cost of upgrades of transport infrastructure projects in addition to the payment transport related development contributions.	Development contributions are collected for specific projects listed within the schedules of the Development Contributions Policy. The upgrades required for high traffic generating activities are separate infrastructure works and do not mitigate or reduce the need for the development contribution funded projects.
7.	Submission 158 / Attachment for S 158	Future increases to Citywide fees	Notes that the projected increase to the DC charge in 2022 is wholly unacceptable without detailed explanations of the increase.	The increase for 2022 is included within the consultation for the draft Policy as a signal of a future increase. Further information and details will be made available regarding the projected increase. We will engage with the submitter regarding these future increases.
8.	Submission 158 / Attachment for S 158	Increase in Tauriko fees	Seeks further information regarding the 6% increase in development contributions for Tauriko.	The increased development contribution levy for the wastewater service primarily relates to a new wastewater pump station. This is required to ensure that the last development areas will have adequate wastewater connections. The proposed project replaces the previously planned pump station which was no longer achievable. The new project is larger in scale but will also provide for the future development areas in Tauriko West and Lower Belk road areas. The project costs and funding apportionments are detailed in the schedules of the draft policy. Whilst the submitter considers that the increased fee may result in adverse effects on development it is important to note that no further development can occur until these wastewater works have been undertaken. The costs of the wastewater project have been apportioned over the full Tauriko catchment as DC’s are charged on a catchment wide basis. However, it should be noted that most of the Tauriko development areas are either already developed or consented for development and so the developments that will be paying a contribution towards this project are likely to be only those that will directly benefit from the wastewater projects which it is funding.
9.		Timing of payment	Suggests that DC ought to be payable at one specific point in time rather than allowing Council’s discretion to charge either on a land use consent or a building consent.	TCC’s DC policy intentionally provides for development contributions to be collected at multiple different stages to reflect the multiple different ways in which a development can be staged. For example, some developments are required to get a land use consent but do not necessarily need a building consent. Having the multiple collection points reduces the risk of Council not being able to collect development contributions.
10.	Submission 216 Attachment for S 216 Submission 214 / Attachment for S 214	Staged DC payments for land area developments	Two submissions received have requested amendments to the policy to provide for staging of DC payments in relation to non-residential developments in areas where Development contributions are payable on a site area basis.	Staff appreciate the time and consideration that the submitter has put into drafting proposed policy wording amendments. At this stage we do not consider it appropriate to adopt these as the staged payments in the manner suggested create an element of financial risk to Council. At this stage, it is more appropriate for staff to enter into specific arrangements on a case by case basis if financial risk can be mitigated through agreements entered with the development parties. Staff can continue to work with the submitter over the upcoming financial year to determine if there is an appropriate solution that will achieve the submitters’ intentions without creating any financial risk and could consider making changes to the 2021/22 DCP.
11.	Submission 143 Attachment for S 143	Cost details for infrastructure which service both Wairakei and Te Tumu	Submission received in relation to the projects which service both Wairakei and Te Tumu catchments. The key basis of the submission is that the submitter requests further information regarding funding proportions for specified projects including details on the HIF funding source and NZTA funding proportions. The submitter also requests information regarding the cost escalations, particularly concerning the wastewater infrastructure and requests that we update funding for projects if additional Crown funding is secured.	No response is required for each individual submission point as staff have already met with the submitter and provided the details requested. We will continue working with the submitter to provide detailed design work as requested. Details regarding funding of projects have been provided and as no funding has yet been secured via the Crown Infrastructure funding source then there are no updates required to these allocations. Staff have also noted to the submitter that Crown funding sources may not directly affect the DC policy depending on the nature of the funding arrangements and if they are a grant or a loan mechanism.
12.	Submission 218 Attachment for S 218	Timing of payment	The submission requests that all citywide DC’s / Building impact fees (BIFs) are eliminated from the building consent fees payable by homeowners and that all DCS should be payable at the time of development. Infill housing should be encouraged by a discounted consent levy concession, all development contributions should include the full funding costs	The Building Impact fees (BIFs’) or Citywide DCs as they are now called are charged on building consent so that the fee can be tailored to reflect the actual development typology occurring on the site. For example, reduced charges for 1 and 2 bedroom housing developments and different charge for residential compared to non-residential developments. TCC’s DC policy currently contains several provisions to encourage infill housing and higher intensified developments. For example, in most growth catchments the number of local DC’s paid for a development is capped at a maximum quantity determined by the site area. In addition, DC’s in brownfield development areas tend to be lower as there are less growth-related infrastructure works being undertaken by TCC. TCC cannot remove DC’s completely from infill housing as these costs would be incurred by general ratepayers.
13.	Submission 222 / Attachment for S 222	Budgets for development in Tauriko.	The submission relates to growth funded infrastructure within the Tauriko and Tauriko West catchments. The submission is technical in nature and largely relates to infrastructure which the developer is involved in the construction of. Key requests included within the submission are: - Update structure plans - Supply budgets with forecasted timings - Update costs to actuals and review scheduled items remaining work required - Update unit rates for projects The submission also includes requests to allow budget within the 2020/21 financial budgets for reimbursement for projects being constructed by the developer.	TCC have met with the developer and worked through the details of the submission request. As a result, staff and the submitter have prepared the attached document which outlines a number of capital expenditure changes required to ensure that TCC’s budgets are aligned with infrastructure being delivered and costs are updated to reflect the expected final costs. The proposed capital expenditure changes recommended by staff are set out in Attachment B. The overall financial impact of the proposed changes is a reduction in the capex budget by approximately $390,000. This includes a number of carry forwards related to infrastructure projects not completed within the 2019/20 financial year and bringing forward some funding relating to the delivery of key roading infrastructure within the Tauriko catchment. Where the developer has submitted requests for reimbursement in the 2021 financial year this has been assessed against the criteria set out in the Development Contributions Policy requiring that the projects be completed or tendered by the end of June 2020 to be eligible for reimbursement in the 2020/21 financial year.
14.	Submission 280 Attachment for S 280 Submission 284 Attachment for S 284	Papakainga developments	Requests provisions in the DC Policy and annual plan in relation to Papakainga housing	Council will consider specific policy provisions relating to Papakainga development such as the deferral of payment, reductions to charges and potential alternative government funding sources as part of the Development Contribution Policy review over the upcoming year flowing into the 2021/22 Policy.
15.	Submission 284 Attachment for S 284	Papakainga developments	The submission details several difficulties encountered in being able to provide water and wastewater to Papakainga development in a Welcome Bay rural area. Key submission points: · The development is located in a rural area and in order to connect to Council’s water and wastewater network requires significant investment to extend existing networks to the meet the surrounding properties. · The infrastructure will provide surplus capacity to the needs of the individual development and therefore will be able to service future developments within the vicinity of the development. The submitter is aggrieved that they are required to construct and vest infrastructure assets and still required to pay development contributions in addition.	Council will consider specific policy provisions relating to Papakainga development such as the deferral of payment, reductions to charges and potential alternative government funding sources as part of the Development Contribution Policy review over the upcoming year flowing into the 2021/22 Policy.
16.	Submission 18	Supporting intensification	Current DC policy penalises intensification by charging full contributions where existing dwellings are modified into an increased number of dwelling units. We should encourage this form of intensification which puts insignificant additional demand on infrastructure.	If intensification results in an increased number of household units within the city then this still creates increased demand for key infrastructure such as water and wastewater networks and increased traffic. For example, where one household is modified into five then this enables four new households to use Council services. The policy is already structured in such a way that a credit is provided in relation to the existing or previous demand that existed. TCC supports the enablement of intensification, however, if the costs of providing infrastructure are not paid by those whom are creating the additional demand then these costs inevitably need to be transferred elsewhere - generally it will be borne by general ratepayers. The policy does have some special features which account for households that are likely to create a lower demand - for example the citywide development contribution for a dwelling with only 1 bedroom is 50% of that payable for any dwelling with 3 or more bedrooms.
17.	Submission 42 Submission 55 / Attachments for S 55 Submission 77	Growth pays for growth	A number of submissions were received noting support for developers paying the full costs of growth but query why this is not currently happening and why the growth cost burden is being borne by the ratepayer rather than developers.	Councils Revenue and Finance Policy lists Development Contributions are a preferential source to fund all growth-related capital expenditure. However, there are some legislative provisions that make this difficult in some instances and other situations in which full recovery from developments are not possible. TCC has been actively working with Central Government to reduce these barriers so that growth costs can be fully passed onto those who create the growth. The projects which the submitter has noted within the submission in Tauriko and in Wairakei are 100% funded via development contributions.
18.	Submission 132 Attachment for S 132	Community housing providers	The key request of the submission is requesting an amendment to the DCP to give at least 50% discount of TCC charges to registered Community Housing Providers whom find it difficult to funding building projects without Government loans or grants.	Council will consider policy provisions relating to community housing providers in the upcoming financial year alongside considerations for the papakainga developments as part of the Development Policy review over the upcoming year flowing into the 2021/22 Policy.
19.	Attachment for S 132	Request for a grant to funds development contributions for a proposed development	TCHT submitted a supplementary submission which requests a grant be provided to help subsidise development contributions required for a future proposed development in Greerton. The purpose of the development and of the TCHT developments in general is to provide an increased supply of long-term social rentals particularly for older people or those with disabilities. The request of this submission is on the basis of Section 2.14.4 of the operative DC Policy which states... "Council will consider making grants to offset development contributions payable in relation to developments undertaken by or for the benefit of community groups through submissions received to the Annual Plan or Long-Term Plan process.	The DC Policy and delegations relating to its implementation do not provide the ability to reduce development contributions payable for grounds related to financial hardship or community developments. Any grant or subsidy towards development contributions will need to be determined via a Council decision. This request has been referred to the Community Development Team whom will respond to this grant request through the annual plan deliberations process.
21.	Submission 214 / Attachment for S 214	Structure plan updates	The submission requests that structure plans are updated to reflect the following: - Up to date boundaries of sub catchments B and C in Wairakei - Show key off-road active mode access and the outlines of the consented developments of the Sands development areas - Update overland flow paths on structure plans	The boundaries for areas B and C have been updated. Further amendments may be required to align boundary lines with parcel boundaries once these have been determined. Staff will work with the developer to update the consented development areas however time restraints may mean they are not able to be shown in the structure plan until the following financial year. Staff have not updated the overland flow paths on the structure plans as we have not yet had confirmation from the TCC water engineers that it is appropriate to do so.
22.	Submission 214 / Attachment for S 214	Funding for Wairakei internal water mains	Update funding for LIPS 710 to account for capacity providing to Te Tumu catchment	No changes are required to the funding for this watermain. Whilst the main does provide capacity for both Wairakei and Te Tumu, the funding basis has always been that the portion of the mains in Wairakei are funded by development in Wairakei. The portion in Te Tumu is funded by growth in Te Tumu. The TCC waters engineer has offered to meet with the submitter to discuss further if needed
23.	Submission 214 / Attachment for S 214	Cost escalations for Wastewater infrastructure	Provide further details regarding the cost increases in relation to the wastewater infrastructure in Wairakei and the Eastern corridor.	Staff have supplied the submitter with a link to the agenda items presented to the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee meeting on 9 June 2020 which included a report regarding the Eastern Corridor Wastewater programmes and discussed the key drivers of the cost increases which the submitter has requested. TCC water engineer has also indicated a willingness to meet to discuss the cost increases.
24.	Submission 214 / Attachment for S 214	Pump station capacity	Provide information regarding the capacity of a pump station – LIPS 1585 in Wairakei.	The pump station is a local pump station that only services the local Wairakei catchment as indicated on the Structure plan. The catchment does not extend into Te Tumu (structure plan circles being indicative only).
25.	Submission 214 / Attachment for S 214	Wairakei landscaping	Suggests that the budget for Wairakei landscaping project are not sufficient and requests that a higher level of service/amenity is provided within the area of the proposed Town Centre.	The majority of the landscaping project is not rates funded and is budgeted within LIPS 3339 with a budget of over $5m. The team overseeing the implementation of the landscaping project have advised that they can meet with the submitter to discuss the concepts of the landscape works to be completed within the vicinity of the Town Centre.
26.	Submission 214 / Attachment for S 214	Cost increase for Wairakei Transport	Requests detailed explanation regarding the increased in costs for the transportation capex budget in Wairakei.	The main driver for the increase was related to one project budget which had increased by just over $1million compared to costs in the 2019/20 Policy. This project has been reviewed and costs reduced to reflect the now final actual costs of construction which are lower than the fees in the draft policy.
27.	Submission 214 / Attachment for S 214	Bus Bays and Bus Shelters	Include provision for additional bus bays and shelters along The Boulevard.	Given the changes in the functionality of the Boulevard and increased public transport on this road we will discuss with the staff directly involved in the installation of the bus shelters to confirm the current intended plans regarding bus shelters. We will supply this information to the submitter once available.
28.	Submission 214 / Attachment for S 214	Papamoa East Interchange	Council give consideration to future funding for the Papamoa East Interchange (PEI) in the case that Crown funding is secured.	At this stage TCC have not received confirmation of eligibility for any of the requested Crown funding. If funding is successful, the nature of that future (eg loan or grant) will also impact on when Council decides to proceed with the project. The nature of any Crown funding will also impact on the level of related development contribution charge. The PEI investment and timing will be considered through the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan process.
29.	Submission 214 / Attachment for S 214	Land surplus for Papamoa East Interchange	Requests that the cost of the project for the sale of land surplus to the PEI be updated to reflect further sell down of future land.	LIPS 3633 is the budget for the anticipated sale of surplus land. We will have this valuation reviewed once the finalised concept plan of the PEI is confirmed.
30.	Submission 214 / Attachment for S 214	Long term leases	Requests that Council consider using DCs to fund long term leases to enable community infrastructure to be delivered where it would not otherwise be possible. Consideration of the potential to use long term leases to fund.	Council can consider use of long-term leases if appropriate on a case by case basis. There are a number of legislative issues that may make it more complicated to be able to implement development contribution fund arrangements such as long-term leases.
31.	Submission 214 / Attachment for S 214	Tolling	Submission point 25 requests that Council consider tolling for other large-scale roading projects associated with State highway networks such as Bayfair overpass.	Council is always considering alternative funding and financing arrangements to deliver key infrastructure works, tolling is an option that could be considered in this mix. There would be a number of regulatory requirements that would be required to be resolved if this was an option Council chose to pursue. It is noted that the example given in the submission point relates to an NZ Transport Agency project.

[1] Certificate of Findings, Coroner M Robb, 22 May 2020


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

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.

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

	Against	Support	Want higher	Unclear	Left blank
Total	98	24	2	19	148

	Against	Support	Want higher	Unclear	Left blank
Total	75	13	2	13	188

· To ensure the effective and efficient governance of the City

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

· Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

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

	Against	Support	Want lower	Unclear	Left blank
Total	54	38	0	12	187

Strongly Disagree	Somewhat Disagree	Neither Agree nor Disagree	Somewhat Agree	Strongly Agree	Left options blank
132	64	60	107	61	163

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

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.

53. Advantages	54. Disadvantages
· Option for early review.	· Less stability for Venture Centre’s programmes.

55. Advantages	56. Disadvantages
· Lower impact on Commercial ratepayers	· Less support available for people starting-up new ventures

57. Advantages	58. Disadvantages
· Supports jobs and inward investment in the growing film industry	· Costs to commercial ratepayers who may only receive indirect benefits.

Advantages	Disadvantages
· Ensures the user fees and charges list is accurate and takes into account feedback received.	· None

Advantages	Disadvantages
· Submissions relating to other feedback have been fully considered and assessed.	· None

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.

Council	UAGC (incl. GST)	UAGC % of rates	Commercial Differential	Commercial general rates
Tauranga	$ 600	20%	1.134	16%
Hamilton	$ 348	10%	2.569	33%
Auckland	$ 424	12%	2.800	32%
Christchurch	$ 130	4%	1.697	32%
Dunedin	$ -	0%	2.450	32%
Wellington	$ -	0%	3.250	44%

Advantages		Disadvantages
All ratepayers will have a similar rate increase which based on the consulted draft budget increase of 4.7% would be between 3-5%.		Additional pressure on affordability as lower value residential and commercial properties will have the highest increase.

Key risks	Tauranga continues to have the highest level of UAGC and lowest commercial differential impacting on affordability for lower value properties. Rates affordability concerns may constrain the level of investment that can be undertaken by council to meet the needs of a growing city.

Advantages		Disadvantages
Progressive change signalled in the LTP will continue for residential and commercial ratepayers.		Lower value properties will have less of a rate decrease than proposed in the amended AP.

Key risks	Tauranga continues to have the highest level of UAGC and lowest commercial differential impacting on affordability for lower value properties. The increased share of rates paid by the commercial sector may add further costs to the commercial sector at a time it is dealing with the impacts of Covid-19 and recession. The commercial sector may not perceive it is getting value for the additional costs it must pay.

Advantages		Disadvantages
Progressive changes will continue to bring the level of UAGC in line with other metros		Additional increase in rates for commercial ratepayers to those signalled in the LTP.

Key risks	The commercial sector would be more heavily impacted by rates increases over the year which could be a challenge for some businesses already impacted by COVID-19 and recession pressures.

Advantages		Disadvantages
Consistent rates increase for all commercial ratepayers.		Lower value residential properties will have higher rates increases

Key risks	By not lowering the UAGC further, there remains a higher impact on affordability for ratepayers of lower value properties. Rates affordability concerns may constrain the level of investment that can be undertaken by council to meet the needs of a growing city.

Advantages		Disadvantages
Will assist with affordability in lower valued residential and commercial properties.		Higher value properties will pay relatively higher rates.

Key risks	Some rate payers, particularly owners or lessees of higher value residential properties, may be concerned about the extent that their relative rates contribution will increase.