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.

2.1         Colin Shilston and Simone Cuers – Freedom Cabins in association with the Peoples’ Project

Key points

·         Supply was one of the four issues that needed to be considered to end homelessness.

·         Freedom Cabins provided an innovative solution to homelessness with a rent-to-buy scheme which provided an affordable rental with the option of owning the cabin in five years.

·         Freedom Cabins was working with the Peoples’ Project to provide social support and align the support services needed. 

·         The Peoples’ Project had housed 57 people in the last two years. There were approximately 80 people either homeless, living in cars or rough sleeping in Tauranga.

·         The Freedom Cabins rent-to-buy option offered an opportunity to gain equity over a five-year period.

·         Considered preferable to spread affordable housing throughout the city.

In response to questions

·         No more than two cabins would be interspersed together throughout Tauranga; a “scatterside” approach.

·         Requested assistance from council with identification of any Council land that could be made available at a low lease rate to run a working pilot project. 

·         Were open to all land options including private property. Cabins could be connected to the grid like a caravan, fully transportable; or could be standalone. 

·         There was ongoing discussion with the Ministry of Social Development and private individuals to refine the financial model and possible funding arrangements and financing rates.  The pilot project was important to tell the story to attract individual funders.

·         Freedom Cabins had met with a planning consultant to discuss planning requirements and restrictions; were looking for land in residential or commercial zones.

·         Expected some transience within the homeless community; the Peoples’ Project provided long-term wraparound services based on individual needs e.g. mental health, household management.

·         There were different types of homelessness – unsheltered homelessness; people that lived in overcrowded houses; couch surfing.

Discussion points raised

·         Tauranga City Council was working towards a Western Bay of Plenty solution with Western Bay of Plenty District Council and all relevant agencies via the Mayoral Taskforce for Homelessness.

2.2         Heather Grace - Wakefield Drive trees

Key points

·         This was a collective request from the eight properties that were affected by the three trees on Wakefield Drive. 

·         Noted that the trees had been protected since 1995 and outlined their growth.

·         Outlined the hazards created by the trees; landowners were unable to prune or maintain the trees.

·         Emphasised the shadow cast by the trees on the various houses in Wakefield Drive and considered this was similar to the shadow cast by a four-storey building.  Houses on Edwin Grove were most impacted.

·         Protected trees on private property caused the most frustration.  It was a council responsibility to maintain council amenity assets e.g. street trees; should be the same policy for protected trees on private land.

·         Considered that the only option that would reduce the size of the trees appropriately was pollarding.

In response to questions

·         There would need to be a conversation held with the eight homeowners affected regarding any contribution to the cost of pruning.

·         The homeowners were open to a staged approach and understood that a pruning/pollarding process would take time, any reduction was better than no reduction.  Residents were concerned about safety, responsibility and liability and considered the risk should be reduced as soon as possible.

6.1         Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 27 November 2019

Resolution  CO3/20/1

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 27 November 2019 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

6.2         Minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 December 2019

Resolution  CO3/20/2

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Dawn Kiddie

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 December 2019 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

8.1         Petition - Friederike Haffelder - Pedestrian and cyclist safety – Links Avenue/Golf Road.  Supported by Karen Laidlaw and Johann Breeuwer

The petition was tabled and a presentation provided.

Key points

·         The three presenters were parents that lived in the area.

·         Concerned for safety of children as they negotiated the corner between Links Ave and Golf Road.

·         The amount of traffic had increased significantly; posed significant risk to cyclists especially schoolchildren.

·         Cycling did not feel like a safe option for children. Safe cycle routes to school for children were key; children were less experienced and more at risk. 

·         The two-lane road had been turned into a three-lane road to accommodate increased bus capacity. 

·         Outlined the pros and cons of the current road design.  Buses and cars were very close to the edge of the road and the shared path.

·         Noted the guidelines on the NZTA website regarding footpaths: required lateral clearance of one metre on each side of a cyclist and a 1.5m separation between the path and an adjacent road.

·         Provided a commuter count.  For an hour between 8am and 9am there were 246 pedestrians and 186 cyclists.

·         Provided photos of the current situation with children cycling on the crowded footpath.  There was very little clearance between path and road.

·         Local schools were providing teachers at key risk points to ensure children’s safety. 

·         The free school bus service had reduced numbers of cars but increased number of pedestrians on the pathway used by cyclists.

·         Provided suggested solutions e.g. review the need for bus lanes, greater segregation between shared footpath and traffic, school buses stop at schools.

At 10:06 am, Cr Tina Salisbury left the meeting.

In response to questions

·         In the long term the positioning of the bus interchange would have an effect.  The current situation involved putting new uses and objectives into a street designed some time ago.  There was a need to look at the street and transport uses from a safe systems perspective; any factor failing should not result in death or serious injury for any user.

At 10:09 am, Cr Tina Salisbury returned to the meeting.

·         Council would be engaging with the community and bringing together a group of affected stakeholders in the area.

·         The petitioners considered action needed to be taken sooner rather than later due to the safety risks posed to the school children.

·         Moving of power poles could also be part of consideration for safety.

Discussion points raised

·         It was not acceptable to be putting in place measures that caused any safety issues. 

·         The issue needed to be looked at in the context of overall transport strategies; there were similar chokehold areas in other parts of the strategy.  Need to prioritise where action was needed first.

Resolution  CO3/20/3

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That Council receives the petition.

Carried

9.1         Adoption of Standing Orders

In response to questions

·         The Code of Conduct was scheduled to be considered at the 24 March 2020 Policy Committee meeting.

Discussion points raised

·         Need to ensure that audio visual facilities were appropriate and suitable for audio visual attendance.

·         Noted the new requirements for leave of absence under the proposed Standing Orders.

Resolution  CO3/20/4

Moved:       Cr Dawn Kiddie

Seconded:  Cr Steve Morris

That Council:

(a)     Approves the recommendations of the Policy Committee on 11 February 2020; and adopts the Standing Orders in Attachment 1, which includes the following changes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(vii)   Amend Standing Order 13.5 to include:

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

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

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

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

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

Carried

10.1       53 Wakefield Drive, Bethlehem - Prune of Notable London Plane Tree Request

Staff:         Mark Smith, Manager: Spaces & Places 

                  Warren Aitken, Team Leader: Parks & Environment

External:  Paul Kenny, Independent arborist

Key points

·         The report was taken as read.

In response to questions

·         Older trees could be damaged by pollarding. Generally, pollarding started when trees were young by pruning to develop that particular structure; cutting a mature tree was not considered pollarding and might cause damage through fungal infection.  An older tree could not repair large cuts, new growth might cover the cuts but decay would be present.  Severe pruning or pollarding then necessitated annual pruning.

·         Council inspected all tree stock, including notable trees, every three years; if a tree is considered dangerous or at risk of branch fall then action was taken.  Any sign of decay and imminent risk was acted on immediately; inspection frequency could also increase to every 12 months.

·         Noted that there were different opinions on safety of any particular tree.

·         London planes were a reliable broadleaf exotic tree with minimal large branch failures.

·         There were emergency works provisions that could be implemented that did not require consent; otherwise evidence was needed to support a resource consent application for pruning.

·         These trees were checked by arborists in September 2019.  No major concerns were found that would warrant any further any investigation.

·         The primary responsibility lay with the landowner in terms of liability. 

At 10.40am the meeting adjourned.

At 10.52am the meeting reconvened.

·         The removal of notable trees in Cliff Rd was through a notified resource consent process with no objections received.

·         Clarification was provided regarding pruning completed on one of the three trees concerned. A reduction by 25%-30% was able to be maintained without triggering rapid vigorous regrowth.

Discussion points raised

·         The contribution from residents was appreciated. 

·         Any loss of tree amenity was balanced by the nearby reserve and other trees in the vicinity.

Resolution  CO3/20/5

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(a)     Receives this report

(b)     Acknowledges the request by property owners in Wakefield Drive associated with the three London Plane Trees; and

(c)     Approves the trees to have crown reduction to the maximum possible under the constraints of the City Plan.

(d)     Waives all Council Resource Management Act application and processing costs.

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

Against:           Nil

carried 11/0

(e)     Assists with engaging qualified professionals to complete the application and physical works on a cost sharing basis with the property owners.  Cost sharing proportions decision delegated to the Chief Executive, made after discussion with property owners and affected residents.

In Favour:       Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout and Heidi Hughes and Tina Salisbury.

Against:           Crs Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris and John Robson

carried 6/5

(f)      Notes the costs associated with implementing these resolutions is unbudgeted expenditure, and that there is no commitment to future costs.

(g)     Includes in the upcoming comprehensive City Plan review the Notable Tree provisions within Chapter 6 of the City Plan.

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

Against:           Nil

carried 11/0

Carried

10.2       Rental Car Depot Extension Capex

Staff:         Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Key points

·         Was continued increased rental car demand at the airport and a shortage of available carparks.

·         Would create 70 carparks.

In response to questions

·         There was minor impact on debt carried with payback within five years.

·         An increase in disabled parking was also included.

Resolution  CO3/20/6

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Council:

(a)     Receive Report Rental Car Depot Expansions

(b)     Approve the addition $600k of capex. 

Carried

10.3       Car Park Extension Capex Request

Staff:         Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Key points

·         Would create 150 carparks.

In response to questions

·         There was no impact on residential rates; was a self-funding activity.

Discussion points raised

·         Noted that there were limited multi-modal options available at the airport e.g. no bus service.

Resolution  CO3/20/7

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the Car Park Extension report.

(b)     Approves the additional unbudgeted $300,000 capex.

(c)     Approves the bringing forward of $385,000 capex budgeted from 2024.

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

Against:           Cr Heidi Hughes.

carried 10/1

Carried

Resolution  CO4/20/1

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That the late item Report: Emergency Provisions for COVID-19 be accepted for consideration as this item could not be delayed to another meeting as there was an urgent need to respond to the recent announcements by the Prime Minister in relation to alert level status for COVID-19.

Carried

10.1       Emergency Provisions for COVID 19 (late item)

Staff          Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

                  Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services  

Key points

·         The impacts and constraints of COVID 19 alert levels on the ability of Council to continue its business were noted; and the suggested changes to governance structures to respond to the situation were outlined.

Resolution  CO4/20/2

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Council:

(a)       Receives the report “Emergency Provisions for COVID-19”

(b)       Establishes an Emergency Committee with a membership of three consisting of the Mayor Tenby Powell as the Chairperson, the Deputy Mayor Larry Baldock as the Deputy Chairperson and one other elected member selected in the following order:

·               Councillors Kelvin Clout and Steve Morris (Standing Committee Chairpersons – with preference being given with the Chairperson whose portfolio aligns with the matter of urgency being considered)

·               Councillors Tina Salisbury, Jako Abrie, Dawn Kiddie and Heidi Hughes (Standing Committee Deputy Chairpersons - with preference being given with the Deputy Chairperson whose portfolio aligns with the matter of urgency being considered)

·               Councillors John Robson, Andrew Hollis and Bill Grainger

In the event that the Mayor or Deputy Mayor are unavailable three elected members in the order as stated above.

(c)       Adopts the following Emergency Committee’s Terms of Reference:

(i)        To determine matters within the authority of Tauranga City Council where the urgency of those matters precludes a full meeting of the Council, or its committees, or emergency legislation is enacted and the Council or its committees are unable to meet.

(ii)       To exercise all Council functions that cannot be exercised by the Council or its committees using its standard processes and procedures due to a pandemic, other natural disaster or state of emergency, except for those that:

·                have been delegated to staff; or

·                cannot be delegated as set out in Clause 32 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 which are:

(a)     the power to make a rate; or

(b)     the power to make a bylaw; or

(c)     the power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan; or

(d)     the power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report; or

(e)     the power to appoint a chief executive; or

(f)      the power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under this Act in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement; or

(g)     [Repealed]

(h)     the power to adopt a remuneration and employment policy. or

·                cannot be delegated by the Council as set out in any other legislation.

(iii)      The Emergency Committee can only be activated by resolution of Council for specific emergency events, or where resolution by Council is not possible, on the joint authority of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor and the Chief Executive.

(iv)      The Emergency Committee will report to the Council (at the next available full meeting of Council) summarising the Committee’s activities and any decisions made over the period.

(v)       The quorum for the Emergency Committee will be two members.

(vi)      The Emergency Committee will meet as required.

(vii)     When an Emergency Committee meeting has been called, Councillors will be notified details by email and agendas and minutes will be circulated electronically. Public notice requirements as set out in the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 will apply.

(d)       Delegates to the Mayor, the Deputy Mayor and the Chief Executive, the authority to activate the Emergency Committee during the COVID-19 emergency when a resolution of Council is not possible.

(e)       Activates the Emergency Committee from 24 March 2020 to operate during Alert Levels 3 and 4 of the COVID-19 Emergency and suspends all other Committees, apart from the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Joint Committee.

(f)        Establishes that the quorum for the Council’s Standing Committees during the COVID-19 emergency will be two members to be physically present.

(g)       For the purposes of the COVID-19 emergency, delegates to the Chief Executive all the Council’s powers, duties, and responsibilities that the Council can lawfully delegate to officers, including the ability to enter into any contract and/or to authorise any level of expenditure (“Emergency Delegation”).   This Emergency Delegation does not include (or limit) the powers, duties, and responsibilities that the Council has already delegated to the Chief Executive under delegations in force at this time, or any authority to make any Council decisions under the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 (which shall be dealt with in accordance with that Act). This Emergency Delegation is subject to the following conditions:

(i)        It may be exercised only in circumstances where the Council and its committees are unable or unavailable to hold meetings that comply with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987;

(ii)       The Chief Executive may only exercise the Emergency Delegation in consultation with the Mayor (or if the Mayor is unavailable, the Deputy Mayor, or if the Deputy Mayor is unavailable, the Chairperson of the relevant committee, or if the Chairperson of the relevant committee is unavailable, the Deputy Chairperson of the committee).

(iii)      Any decisions made and documents executed in exercising the Emergency Delegation must be reported to the next ordinary meeting of the Council.

(iv)      This Emergency Delegation may be revoked at any time by the Council.

(v)       In the event there is any inconsistency between this Emergency Delegation and any other delegation made by the Council, this Emergency Delegation takes precedence.  For the avoidance of doubt, this means that the contract value and other limits specified in the Chief Executive’s delegations under clause 6 of Council’s Procurement Policy (relating to approval of exemptions to open procurement and contract variations) will not apply while this Emergency Delegation is in effect, thus enabling the Chief Executive to approve these no matter the contract value or contract variation parameters during the effective period of this Emergency Delegation.

(h)       Delegates the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Chief Executive to Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy and Growth, as Acting Chief Executive in the event that the Chief Executive is unable to fulfil his duties due to COVID-19; and

(i)         Agrees that where the Acting Chief Executive is unable to fulfil her duties due to COVID-19, the Chief Executive’s delegated powers, duties and responsibilities will be transferred to the next designated General Manager in the following order:

·               Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

·               Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance

·               Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

·               Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

·               Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People and Engagement

Carried

10.2       Adoption of draft Annual Plan 2020/21

Staff          Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

                  Christine Jones, General Manager: Growth & Strategy       

Key points

·         Noted the impact of COVID-19 on the community and the economic environment.

·         Outlined key topics in the draft Annual Plan.

In response to questions

·         Implications of different levels of capital adjustment were clarified.  Noted that the assumed debt provision could be significantly different if any operational costs were debt funded.  The  opening debt position for the year could be significantly higher and the debt/revenue ratio remain an issue.

·         Varying levels of the Uniform Annual General Charge (UAGC) and the impact on ratepayers were discussed.  Options were provided for Council decision; the total rates “pie” stayed the same but how to divide it between ratepayers was a political decision.

·         There was no requirement to follow a Special Consultative Procedure; Council could choose its level of engagement and consultation approach. 

·         The narrative to the community was a real issue as there was a question around the ability of the community to fund infrastructure development over the next 12 months.  Conversations were underway with central government regarding post-COVID recovery and development, including the delivery of housing and infrastructure.

·         Further possible levers and issues could be identified in the consultation document without a position being expressed.  Debate on the issues and decisions as required could take place when the Annual Plan was adopted in June.  Council’s proposal needed to be clear in the draft Annual Plan, but other options could be included for consultation to allow room for reconsideration in June.

At 9.40am the meeting adjourned.

At 9.57am the meeting reconvened.

Discussion points raised

·         Important to provide flexibility to manage in the current uncertain times.

·         Noted that this was not a time for business as usuaI; was a need to recognise the severity of COVID-19 and to soften the blow of rates increases. 

·         Was a need to focus on essential services in the next 12 months. 

Motion 

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Council:

(a)     Notes the decision of the 4 March Policy Committee was for an overall rates increase of 12.6% for the 2020/21 year.  This rates level was to increase  financial capacity for the Council to deliver infrastructure to support growth and was approved prior to the arrival of COVID-19;

(b)     Notes that Council is seeking to achieve a balance between being cognisant of the impact of COVID-19 while also continuing to invest in our city, meeting the infrastructure needs of our community and providing a sound platform for the city to recover;

(c)     Adopts the Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Document (CD) for public consultation and the Draft Annual Plan 2020/21 supporting financial information, with the following amendments:

i)       Debt management levy to be removed from the draft Annual Plan;

          ii)       Commercial differential of 1.2 and Uniform Annual General Charge of 15% as per          the Long-Term Plan;

          iii)      Disclosure that Council has considered and will continue to consider other   options for rates including a commercial differential between 1.3:1 and 1.2:1 and the UAGC between 10% and 15%, and that feedback on these other options is        sought.

(d)     Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the draft 2020/21 User Fees and Charges as the basis for public consultation;

(e)     Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the draft Revenue and Financing Policy as the basis for public consultation;

(f)      Authorises the Chief Executive to approve drafting, financial and presentation amendments to the draft Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Document and Statement of Proposals for User Fees and Charges and the Revenue and Financing Policy to give effect to the above resolutions of Council, to provide disclosure on COVID-19 issues associated with the Annual Plan and to address minor matters;

(g)     Continues to work on understanding the impact and opportunities of COVID-19 for the city, identify options to meet the needs of the city with a strong focus on recovery, and listen to the community feedback with a view to reflecting this in the final Annual Plan to be adopted post consultation;

(h)     Will assess and revise the $30 million capital adjustment and other operational funding considerations as part of the Annual Plan adoption process;

(i)      Report back on options to assist those most in need before finalising the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

Resolution  CO4/20/3

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That clause (c)(ii) be amended to read “ Commercial differential of 1.2 and Uniform Annual General Charge of 10% as per the Long-Term Plan”.

Carried

The substantive motion was then put:

Resolution  CO4/20/4

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Council:

(a)     Notes the decision of the 4 March Policy Committee was for an overall rates increase of 12.6% for the 2020/21 year.  This rates level was to increase  financial capacity for the Council to deliver infrastructure to support growth and was approved prior to the arrival of COVID-19;

(b)     Notes that Council is seeking to achieve a balance between being cognisant of the impact of COVID-19 while also continuing to invest in our city, meeting the infrastructure needs of our community and providing a sound platform for the city to recover;

(c)     Adopts the Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Document (CD) for public consultation and the Draft Annual Plan 2020/21 supporting financial information, with the following amendments:

i)       Debt management levy to be removed from the draft Annual Plan;

          ii)       Commercial differential of 1.2 and Uniform Annual General Charge of 10% as per          the Long-Term Plan;

          iii)      Disclosure that Council has considered and will continue to consider other   options for rates including a commercial differential between 1.3:1 and 1.2:1 and the UAGC between 10% and 15%, and that feedback on these other options is        sought.

(d)     Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the draft 2020/21 User Fees and Charges as the basis for public consultation;

(e)     Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the draft Revenue and Financing Policy as the basis for public consultation;

(f)      Authorises the Chief Executive to approve drafting, financial and presentation amendments to the draft Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Document and Statement of Proposals for User Fees and Charges and the Revenue and Financing Policy to give effect to the above resolutions of Council, to provide disclosure on COVID-19 issues associated with the Annual Plan and to address minor matters;

(g)     Continues to work on understanding the impact and opportunities of COVID-19 for the city, identify options to meet the needs of the city with a strong focus on recovery, and listen to the community feedback with a view to reflecting this in the final Annual Plan to be adopted post consultation;

(h)     Will assess and revise the $30 million capital adjustment and other operational funding considerations as part of the Annual Plan adoption process;

(i)      Report back on options to assist those most in need before finalising the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

Carried

10.2       Adoption of the Draft 2020/21 Development Contributions Policy

Staff          Christine Jones, General Manager, Strategy & Growth       

Key points

·         The main points of the draft Policy were outlined.

Discussion points raised

·         Noted that the development of this policy was a substantial and challenging piece of work.

·         Hoped that there would be a move by central government to allow the inclusion of a contingency figure.

Resolution  CO4/20/5

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(a)     Adopts the Draft 2020/21 Development Contributions Policy for public consultation

(b)     Adopts the Statement of Proposal for the Draft 2020/21 Development Contributions Policy as the basis of public consultation;

(c)     Authorises the Chief Executive to approve minor drafting, financial and presentation amendments to the Draft 2020/21 Development Contributions Policy prior to printing if necessary

Carried

At 10.23am the meeting adjourned.

At 10.39am the meeting reconvened.

At 10:40am, Cr Andrew Hollis left the meeting.

At 10.40am, Cr Dawn Kiddie left the meeting.

10.3       Code of Conduct Complaint

The Deputy Mayor assumed the Chair for this item of business.

Staff          Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive   

Key points

·         The Deputy Mayor introduced the item and explained the process to be followed.

·         The Chief Executive advised that the complaint and investigation process had been in accordance with Council’s Code of Conduct and the recommendations were there for Council consideration.

·         Noted that Crs Hollis and Kiddie had left the meeting for this item of business as they were affected parties; no other councillors identified as affected parties.

Mayor Tenby was invited to make a statement:

·         Admitted he had made mistakes and apologised to councillors and the community for his behaviour.

·         Acknowledged a lack of trust between elected members; noted frustration at the internal damage and division within Council.

·         Commented on councillors’ disruptive behaviour on social media.

·         Emphasised the need to work in partnership with iwi.

At 10:44 am, Mayor Tenby Powell left the meeting.

Discussion points raised

·         Elected members needed to behave professionally and respectfully, and be aware of the impact of their behaviour.  Personal derogatory remarks of any form, verbal or on social media, were unacceptable.

·         From a staff and organisation point of view, appropriate apologies had been made.

·         Councillors needed to be able to disagree and respect differing points of view without being disagreeable.  Full and frank debate was an important part of democratic decision making.

·         Focus must be on robust decision-making for the city.

·         Any penalty should be commensurate with the offence.

·         There needed to be a clear statement about acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

·         The Code of Conduct allowed a councillor to make public an opinion that was contrary to Council’s position.

At 11.12am the meeting adjourned.

At 11.18am the meeting reconvened.

Motion 

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report “Code of Conduct Complaint”; and

(b)     Notes the findings of the independent investigation; and

(c)     Concurs with the findings of the independent investigation that the subject of this complaint did constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct;

Motion 

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

(d)     Requests that the respondent make a written apology to:

                   (i) Cr Andrew Hollis

       (ii) Cr Dawn Kiddie

       (iii) remaining elected members, and

       (iv) all Tauranga City Council staff;

Amendment

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That (d)(iii) remaining elected members, and (d)(iv) all Tauranga City Council staff be deleted.

In Favour:       Crs Tina Salisbury, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Heidi Hughes and Steve Morris

Against:           Crs Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger and John Robson

carried 5/3

Amendment

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That recommendation (e) be added – That a letter of censure be written to Mayor Powell.

carried 8/0

The substantive motion was then put in parts:

Resolution  CO4/20/6

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report “Code of Conduct Complaint”; and

          (b)     Notes the findings of the independent investigation.

Carried

Resolution  CO4/20/7

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Council:

          (c)     Concurs with the findings of the independent investigation that the subject of this                      complaint did constitute a breach of the Code of Conduct.

Carried

Resolution  CO4/20/8

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Council:

 (d)    Requests that the respondent Mayor Powell make written apologies to:

          (i)      Cr Andrew Hollis;

          (ii)     Cr Dawn Kiddie.

 (e)    Writes a letter of censure to the respondent, Mayor Powell.

Carried

Apology

Resolution  CO15/20/1

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the apologies for lateness received from Cr Andrew Hollis, Cr Dawn Kiddie and Cr Bill Grainger be accepted.

Carried

10.1       Adoption of Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) Final Report

Staff          Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Key points

·         Noted that this was a collaborative piece of work with agreement to work together to move forward and create an integrated plan.

·         Noted the significant shortfall of land and housing supply and the urgent need to address transport and housing issues.

·         Tauranga City Council was moving forward with UFTI aligned work such as Te Tumu and Tauriko, intensification plan changes and multi modal transport options.

Discussion points raised

·         The document should lead to the delivery of transport and housing solutions for the city; would demonstrate to the community that there was a strategy to move the city forwards. 

·         Noted the honesty and good intent shown in the collaborative process between the authorities and agencies.  Success would be measured at the 2022 election.

·         Emphasised the need to plan for a potential Western Bay population of 400,000; this initiative would be the powerhouse for this strategic planning.

Resolution  CO15/20/2

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the Urban Form and Transport Initiative Final Report July 2020.

(b)     Endorses the UFTI Report as a Programme Business Case to guide land use and transport investment processes under a range of plans and work programmes, including Long Term Plans, the Regional Land Transport Plan and the National Land Transport Plan and the first iteration of the new Joint Spatial Plan for the western Bay of Plenty sub-region.

(c)     Notes the role of the SmartGrowth Leadership Group as the Portfolio Manager for the Programme and requests the Chair prepares a reporting framework for SmartGrowth Leadership Group approval at its next meeting.

(d)     Requests that the SmartGrowth Leadership Chair develops a project plan for the finalisation of the new Joint Spatial Plan including an iwi spatial layer and public engagement to be completed by 1 April 2021.

(e)     Notes that the SmartGrowth Leadership Group has delegated the Leadership Group Chair and Deputy Chair authority to make minor changes to the final Urban Form and Transport Initiative Programme Business Case to address errors or omissions.

(f)      Approves the Urban Form and Transport Initiative Final Report July 2020.

(g)     Acknowledges the work and contribution of the UFTI team; the Project Leadership Team and Chair; partner governance and staff including government officials; tāngata whenua; stakeholders and SmartGrowth Forums in the preparation of the UFTI Programme Business Case.

Carried

Resolution  CO19/20/1

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the apology for absence from Mayor Tenby Powell be received and accepted.

Carried

2.1         Margaret Murray-Benge – Waste and Recycling

Key points

·                Commended staff who had worked tirelessly to bring forward a proposal that was beneficial to all in Tauranga City and the Western Bay of Plenty.

·                Believed the project was a recipe for success and endorsed Tauranga City Council (TCC) to go ahead with the project.

·                Advocated for a ‘pay as you throw’ option.

The Mayor thanked Ms Murray-Benge for her presentation.

6.1         Minutes of the Council meeting held on 30 July 2020

Resolution  CO22/20/1

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 30 July 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

10.1       Avocado Tree 5 Thirteenth Avenue

Staff           Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

A copy of all presentations and tabled documents for this item can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this council meeting.

The following members of the public had been granted permission to speak to the meeting on this item.  Presenters were allotted five minutes each.

Brian Askin

·                Opposed council’s decision to remove the tree. 

·                The site could be easily developed with a single street access and shared driveway. 

·                There had been no substantive reason to overturn the original Council decision to decline the application for the tree to be removed.

·                It was clear the only reason to remove the tree was to facilitate the proposed development.

Aaron Collier

·                Mr Collier was a Planner and appeared in support of Brian and Gabrielle Askin.

·                Believed the resource consent applicant had sought to over-intensify the site by not complying with a number of standards in the City Plan.

·                Believed that it was poor planning to unbundle the tree component from the rest of the resource consent application.

·                Believed the applicant’s resource consent required public notification.

·                The site had over 23m of frontage and there were other options for access that had not been considered by the applicant.

·                Contrary to the suggestion in the staff report, the applicant’s proposal was not located in the Te Papa intensification area.

Barbara and Graham Fraser

·                Opposed council’s decision to remove the tree.

·                The developers had put a lot of pressure on council staff to move quickly towards granting consent for cutting down the tree and for the resource consent for the development.

·                Believed there were serious breaches and rule abuses contemplated in the applicant’s design.

·                The issue could be simply resolved by modifying the design to enable a single, shared driveway.

·                The decision to remove the tree failed to consider the amenity value of established trees in the older, more established neighbourhood.

·                The tree should not be treated as a private asset.  The neighbourhood believed it to be their asset.

Phil Green

·                Opposed council’s decision to remove the tree. 

·                Presented his case by taking the voice of the avocado tree.

Christine Price

·                Opposed council’s decision to remove the tree. 

·                Believed due process had not been carried out in this instance.

·                Believed that the developers had simply assumed that the tree would be cut down.

·                28 submissions had been received opposing the removal of the tree.

·                The tree was a highly valued and key asset of the area.

·                St Mary’s School was nearby and three car parks were outside the proposed development.  Potentially one of those carparks would go.

·                A shared driveway provided a solution that would allow the tree to remain.

Amanda Moore

·                Ms Moore was a Planner and appeared for the applicant.

·                The proposed development achieved good design principles and realised good amenity outcomes.

·                Replacement trees would be provided, funded by the applicant.

·                The development was consistent with Tauranga’s City Plan and New Zealand Urban Design principles.

·                A future resource consent would be lodged for subdivision.

·                The proposed development fulfilled the need for further housing.

Brendan Gordon

·                The removal of the tree sat outside of the resource consent process.

·                The development was fully compliant.

·                The development was not an intensive development; not exaggerative or overstepping requirements.

·                A shared driveway was not an ideal design scenario.

·                The tree would be replaced.

Garry and Luanne Bettelheim

·                Had answered all council queries in a timely manner and willingly agreed for the resource consent to be delayed for the hearing at today’s meeting.

·                The Bettelheims were a family, not developers.

·                At seven metres, the proposed homes had significantly more setback than was permitted.  Both neighbours would retain and enhance their current aspects.

·                Evidence of tree removals in the street over the years proved mitigation planting could achieve positive outcomes in an appropriate timeframe.

·                The fruit from the tree was beneficial to a limited number of people.  The fruit was too high to access.  Rotten fruit was left for rats and seagulls.

·                The whole community was not opposed to the removal of the tree.

In response to questions

·                There were two processes - a resource consent application that included a design which required the removal of the tree to gain access to the site, and the tree was situated on the berm and the applicants required permission from the land owners (council) to remove the tree to gain access to the site.

·                The resource consent application was on hold. No decision had been made.  A decision could be made by council that the tree be removed subject to the resource consent successfully going through the regulatory framework.

·                Any replacement tree would offset the amenity value of the removed tree as much as was possible.

·                If the removal of the tree was declined by council, the applicant would not have access to the site with the current design and it was unclear whether a re-design was possible.

·                The owners intended to replace the tree with three trees, one big and two small.  The size of any replacement trees was dependent on the available space and the location of any underground services.

At 10.37am, the meeting adjourned.

At 10.45am, the meeting resumed.

Motion 

Moved:       Cr Heidi Hughes

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Council decline the removal of the avocado tree outside 5 Thirteenth Avenue.

In Favour:       Crs Jako Abrie and Heidi Hughes

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

lost 2/9

Resolution  CO22/20/2

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council allow for the removal of the avocado tree outside 5 Thirteenth Avenue, subject to the project satisfying all relevant regulatory requirements.

Carried

Attachments

1        Brian Askin - Statement of Evidence

2        Aaron Collier - Statement of Evidence

3        Graeme Fraser - tabled document

4        Barbara Fraser - tabled document

5        Phil Green - tabled document

6        Garry and Luanne Bettelheim - tabled document

10.2       Māori Representation

Staff           Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

Carlo Ellis, Manager: Strategic Maori Engagement

External     Matire Duncan, Chairperson, Te Rangapu

Buddy Mikaere, Member of the Tangata Whenua/Tauranga City Council Committee

Warwick Lampp, Electoral Officer

A copy of the Cr Jako Abrie’s presentation for this item can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this council meeting.

Key points

Matire Duncan

·                Acknowledged all those in the public gallery.

·                Spoke on behalf of Te Rangapu, a collective of 17 hapu and iwi representatives in the Tauranga City Council (TCC) area.

·                Te Rangapu had established a long-standing relationship with TCC.

·                Māori representation on council would provide a decision-making component which, in turn, would strengthen the Māori voice and demonstrate true partnership.

·                If a Māori ward was established, Tauranga City would be recognised as the national leaders in local government.

·                There was a statutory obligation to provide opportunity for Māori to participate in the council decision making process.

·                Non-voting rights for tangata whenua representation on council committees was not in the spirit of partnership.

Buddy Mikaere

·                Different standards applied for Māori wards.  Following a Council decision to create a Māori ward, 5% of voters could petition for a poll to be held to confirm or not the council decision.  That poll provision had, in the past, been a death knell for Māori wards.

·                There were only two councils in New Zealand with Maori wards – Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Waikato Regional Council.

·                The Māori population of the Tauranga electorate was a little over 17%.  The national average was 14%.  Based on nearly one fifth of the electorate’s population being Māori, it was reasonable that Māori should have their own representation on council.

·                Councillors could not be expected to have a complete understanding of the Māori perspective.

Carlo Ellis

·                Tangata whenua had been working hard to put themselves in front of council to discuss issues.  There was a genuine desire to assist with the development of Tauranga Moana, of Tauranga City.

·                Council had first-hand experience of the value that could be brought around the table by having Māori representation at council committee meetings.

In response to questions

·                A sub-committee had been recently formed to consider how one Māori representative could reflect the aspirations and desires of the three iwi and conversations with iwi and hapu would be ongoing.

·                Agreements with tangata whenua representatives on council committees included that they agreed to abide by the Elected Members Code of Conduct.

·                Māori electors would be able to vote in the Māori ward and in the at large ward, but not in the general wards.

·                To stand for election in the Māori ward, you would need to be on the Māori roll.

·                The opportunity to move from the general roll to the Māori roll happened every five years.

·                The cost of a poll if held in conjunction with the next local body election would be approximately $20,000 to $25,000, as opposed to $216,000 for a stand-alone poll.

Resolution  CO22/20/3

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(a)       Receives the report “Māori Representation”.

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

Against:           Nil

Abstained:       Cr John Robson

carried 10/0

(b)     Approves the recommendation from the Tangata Whenua/Tauranga City Council Committee and agrees that voting rights be provided for the Tangata Whenua Representatives on the following Standing Committees:

·        Finance, Audit and Risk Committee

·        Policy Committee

·        Projects, Services and Operations Committee

·        Urban Form and Transport Development Committee

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

Against:           Crs Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis and John Robson

carried 8/3

(c)     Approves the recommendation from the Tangata Whenua/Tauranga City Council Committee and agrees to establish a Māori Ward for Tauranga City Council for the 2022 local government elections.

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

Against:           Crs Kelvin Clout, Andrew Hollis, Steve Morris and John Robson

Abstained:       Cr Dawn Kiddie

carried 6/4

Carried

Attachment

1        Presentation - Cr Jako Abrie

10.4       Kerbside Waste Collection, Waste Facilities and Litter Services

Staff           Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Cathryn Taylor, Waste Planning Manager

Sam Fellows, Manager: Environmental Regulation

A copy of the staff presentation for this item can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this council meeting.

Key points

·                The project started in 2016 with the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan and its objective was to minimise waste to landfill.

·                The plan for Council to run a kerbside waste collection service to achieve that objective was shaped up, consulted on and adopted in the 2018 Long Term Plan (LTP).

·                Registration of Interest (ROI) and Request for Proposal (RFP) processes were endorsed by the Project Services and Operations Committee in 2019.

·                Following sector, stakeholder and community engagements, recommendations could now be presented to Council.  It was acknowledged that the recommendations would not suit everyone.

·                TCC had worked collaboratively with Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) on the project.  WBOPDC had voted unanimously two weeks previously to proceed with a ‘pay as you throw (PAYT)’ council run kerbside rubbish and recycling.

·                Almost 70% of the waste from kerbsides that was currently being sent to landfill could be recycled or composted.

·                TCC could offer a higher level of kerbside collection service at a lower cost to the average household than what was currently offered.

In response to questions

·                Although TCC had worked collaboratively with WBOPDC the final contracts would be stand alone. 

·                The PAYT service had a base rate and required the purchase of tags that would be put out with bins on collection day.

·                There would be full engagement with the community about how the chosen system would work.

·                WBOPDC’s base rate for PAYT was $140-150.  The tags were an additional cost at $3.95 per household.

·                Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) technology was only in use for small commercial operations of 1,000 to 5,000.  It could not yet be applied for the larger number operations such as Tauranga’s 58,000 households.

·                The living wage was a standard requirement of the contract.

·                There were service specifications to meet waste reduction targets and specific penalties built in to the contract.  The contract also contained standard clauses regarding price increases.

·                A job analysis had been done.  There would be more job creation with a circular approach, rather than with the current linear approach.

·                Councils normally had long-term contracts because the required investment and infrastructure costs of the contracts were high and contractors were able to provide a competitive price because of the length of the contract.

·                There were options for variations in the contract for things that were out of TCC’s control such as the possible Central Government nationwide container deposit scheme.

·                Many in the community were currently still using refuse stations.  The suite of services offered should increase the uptake for all options.

·                It was hard to determine what the current CO2 footprint was, but a definitive answer of what a carbon footprint would be on the new service could be provided.

Recommendations (a), (b), and (i) were then taken in parts.

Resolution  CO22/20/4

Moved:       Mayor Tenby Powell

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(a)       Considers options in relation to kerbside waste collection services and future use of Te Maunga Resource Recovery Park and Maleme St Transfer Station as set out in this report

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

Against:           Nil

carried 11/0

(i)      Resolves that the decisions made in confidential under recommendations (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) are made publicly available when commercial negotiations with the preferred proposer have concluded.

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

Against:           Nil

carried 11/0

Carried

Resolution  CO22/20/5

Moved:       Mayor Tenby Powell

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That recommendation (b) for this item be left to lie on the table until after the remainder of this item had been discussed in the Public Excluded session.

Carried

Attachment

1        Presentation - Kerbside Waste Collection, Waste Facilities and Litter Services

10.4       Kerbside Waste Collection, Waste Facilities and Litter Services (Continued)

Recommendation (b) for this item that had been left to lie on the table earlier in the meeting, was then put.

Resolution  CO22/20/7

Moved:       Mayor Tenby Powell

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(b)       Recognises that consultation since the introduction of the Waste Management Minimisation Plan (2016) has been sufficient to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 and does not undertake additional community engagement or consultation before deciding on the kerbside waste collection options outlined in the confidential report.

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

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

carried 6/5

Carried

10.3       STV Electoral System

Staff           Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

External     Warwick Lampp, Electoral Officer

The report was taken as read.

Resolution  CO22/20/8

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report “STV Electoral System”.

(b)     Notes the interpretation of section 27 of the Local Electoral Act 2001 requires the Council to give public notice by 19 September 2020 of the right to demand a poll on the electoral system to be used for the election of the Tauranga City Council.

Carried

10.5       Proposal to declare Wharf Street east as a Pedestrian Mall

Staff          Doug Spittle, Team Leader: Urban Places

The report was taken as read.

Resolution  CO22/20/9

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Mayor Tenby Powell

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the submissions on the Statement of Proposal to declare part of Wharf Street East as a Pedestrian Mall; and

(b)     Declare that part of Wharf Street between Willow Street and The Strand as a Pedestrian Mall pursuant to Section 336 of the Local Government Act 1974 as set out in Attachment A.

Carried

10.6       Wharf Street - Licences to Occupy

Staff           Doug Spittle, Team Leader: Urban Places

The report was taken as read.

Resolution  CO22/20/10

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Bill Grainger

That the Council resolves, pursuant to Clause 7.3 of the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018, to create a Licence to Occupy area on Wharf Street East in the area identified in Attachment B to the Bylaw (illustrated in Attachment 2).

Carried

10.7       Three Waters Sector Reform Programme and Stimulus Funding

Staff           Nic Johansson, General Manager, Infrastructure

The report was taken as read.

Resolution  CO22/20/11

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Council:

(a)     Notes that

(i)      In July 2020, the Government announced an initial funding package of $761 million to provide a post COVID-19 stimulus to maintain and improve water networks infrastructure and to support a three-year programme of reform of local government water services delivery arrangements; and

(ii)     Initial funding will be made available to those councils that agree to participate in the initial stage of the reform programme, through a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Funding Agreement, and approved Delivery Plan.

(iii)     This initial funding will be provided in two parts: a direct allocation to individual territorial authorities, and a regional allocation.  The participating individual authorities in each region will need to agree an approach to distributing the regional allocation

(iv)    The Steering Committee has recommended a preferred approach to the allocation of regional funding, being the same formula as was used to determine the direct allocations to territorial authorities.

(b)     Agrees to sign the MoU at Attachment A.

(c)     Agrees to nominate Marty Grenfell, the Chief Executive of the Council as the primary point of communication for the purposes of the MoU and reform programme – as referred to on page 6 of the MoU.

(d)     Agrees to delegate decisions about the allocation of regional funding to Marty Grenfell, the Chief Executive of the Council, with the understanding that the minimum level of funding to the Council be based upon the formula used to calculate the direct council allocations, and noting that participation by two-thirds of territorial authorities within the Bay of Plenty region is required to access the regional allocation.

(e)     Notes that the MoU and Funding Agreement cannot be amended or modified by either party, and in doing so would void these documents

(f)      Notes that participation in this initial stage is to be undertaken in good faith, but this is a non-binding approach, and the Council can opt out of the reform process at the end of the term of agreement (as provided for on page 5 of the MoU).

(g)     Notes that the Council has been allocated $7.46 million amount of funding, which will be received as a grant as soon as practicable once the signed MoU and Funding Agreement are returned to the Department of Internal Affairs, and a Delivery Plan has been supplied and approved (as described on page 5 of the MoU).

(h)     Notes that the Delivery Plan must show that the funding is to be applied to operating and/or capital expenditure relating to three waters infrastructure and service delivery, and which:

(i)      supports economic recovery through job creation; and

(ii)     maintains, increases and/or accelerates investment in core water infrastructure renewal and maintenance

(i)      Agrees to authorising the Chief Executive to finalise the funding agreement and delivery plan to address feedback from community and obtain the approval needed to release funding.

Carried

10.8       Proposed amendments to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw

Staff           Brendan Bisley, Director of Transport

The report was taken as read.

Resolution  CO22/20/12

Moved:       Mayor Tenby Powell

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(a)     Receive Amendments to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 report.

(b)     Adopt the proposed amendments to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 Attachment as per Appendix B, effective from 1 September 2020.

Carried

10.9       CCO Final Statements of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23

Staff           Anne Blakeway, Manager: CCO Relationships and Governance

The report was taken as read.

The Mayor allowed Keegan Miller from the public gallery, to speak to this item.  Mr Keegan spoke in regards to the Bay Venues Limited (BVL) Statement of Intent, in particular about the Bay Catering and Bay Audio Visual venue-based businesses.

Key points

·                Believed that BVL should not provide catering and sound and lighting services for events that were not held in their venues, and that the provision for these should go to other local operators.

·                Believed that BVL providing these services for events outside of their venues went against Tauranga City Council Policy - Commercial Activities in Council Facilities June 2011, clause 12.5.3.

·                Requested that the words “and some off-site events and venues” be removed from the Statement of Intent for both businesses.

Resolution  CO22/20/13

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the CCO Final Statements of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 report.

(b)     Receives and agrees Bay Venues Limited’s final Statement of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 (Attachment 1).

(c)     Receives and agrees Tauranga Art Gallery Trust’s final Statement of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 (Attachment 2).

(d)     Receives and agrees Tourism Bay of Plenty’s final Statement of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 (Attachment 3).

(e)     Notes that Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC), as joint shareholder, approved the final Statement of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 for Tourism Bay of Plenty at their Council meeting on 13 August 2020.

Carried

Resolution  CO23/20/1

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That the following items be included in the agenda for consideration and decision:

10.1       Governance Issues : Council Appointed Review and Observer Team

1.2         Governance issues - Council appointed Review and Observer Team - Attachment 4 (Confidential)

Carried

6.1         Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 21 August 2020

Resolution  CO23/20/2

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That the minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 21 August 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

10.1       Governance Issues : Council Appointed Review and Observer Team

Staff          Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

External    Linda O’Reilly, Partner: Brookfields

Key points

·         Following the resolution passed at the Council meeting of 21 August 2020, Terms of Reference had been drafted for the Council-appointed Review and Observer Team, for consideration and approval.

·         A breakdown of the budget required for the review process was included in the report and approval was sought for the unbudgeted expenditure.

·         Details of possible appointees to the Review and Observer Team were provided in the public excluded attachment to the report.

In response to questions

·         The Chief Executive did not consider he could provide advice regarding the Review and Observer Team being disbanded earlier than planned if issues were appropriately addressed.

·         Issues contained in an email circulated amongst councillors the previous evening could be introduced during the debate on a motion.

·         Concern was expressed regarding the estimated budget for the process and the cost to the ratepayer.  It was clarified that, even if the Department of Internal Affairs appointed their own observer team, the cost would still lie with TCC.

Resolution  CO23/20/3

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

A motion was moved that Council suspends Standing Order 21.5 to facilitate free discussion.

Carried

Motion 

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That the Council:

(a)     Receives report “Governance Issues:  Council Appointed Review and Observer Team”.

(b)     Approves the Terms of Reference as per attachment 1. 

(c)     Approves the ‘Summary of Key Decisions’ as per attachment 2.

(d)     Transfers Resolution __________ being resolution to appoint members of the Review and Observer Team into the open section of the meeting once the appointees have been informed.

(e)     Approves unbudgeted expenditure of $350,000 for costs associated with the Council Appointed Review and Observer Team, with actual costs reported to Council on a quarterly basis.

(f)      Retain Attachment 4 of this report in the confidential section to protect the privacy of natural persons.

The following amendment to add a new resolution (f) was put:

Motion 

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That Council:

          (f)      Will review the continuation of the Review and Observer Team following the                             submission of their first report due in four to six weeks’ time; with the first report to                   include initial findings regarding:

·         Problem definition

·         Diagnosis of cause/s of the problem

·         What does ‘success’ look like going forward?

·         Proposed action plan.

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

Against:           Cr Larry Baldock

carried 10/1

Discussion points raised

·         Discussion was held around the ability to have an “off-ramp” for the review process, to assess whether the Review and Observer Team was still required if progress was made quickly and issues resolved.  Emphasised that the operation of the Review and Observer Team was a voluntary process that Council was entering into, so Council could resolve to opt out and discontinue the process at any stage, and that this would be taken into account in appointment and contractual arrangements.

·         The funding for the Review and Observer Team was unbudgeted; the $350,000 would be a good investment if the efficiency and decision making of councillors was improved.  There had already been a significant cost to Council due to extra meetings, responding to requests under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) and legal opinions.

·         Replacement of councillors could be an option; the Review and Observer Team should consider whether current councillors had the right to continue to serve the community.

·         Elected members needed to take responsibility and show leadership; their role was to serve the city and its citizens.

·         Suggested that elected members fund the cost of the Review and Observer Team themselves rather than the unbudgeted expenditure being covered by Council funds.

A second amendment was put:

Amendment

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That Clause 12 (e) of the Draft Terms of Reference for the Review and Observer Team be amended by the deletion of the words “other than offering guidance or advice”.

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

Against:           Nil

carried 11/0

A further amendment was put:

Amendment

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That Tauranga City Council requests that the Remuneration Authority issue a new determination deducting $350,000 from the councillors’ current remuneration determination.

In Favour:       Crs Dawn Kiddie and Steve Morris

Against:           Mayor Tenby Powell, Crs Tina Salisbury, Jako Abrie, Larry Baldock, Kelvin Clout, Bill Grainger and Heidi Hughes

Abstained:       Crs Andrew Hollis and John Robson

lost 2/7

Discussion points raised (continued)

·         Council must pay the councillors what the Remuneration Authority determined; Council could not by resolution force a deduction or payment from an individual councillor’s salary.

·         Individuals could still donate where they saw fit; the differing levels of affordability amongst councillors was noted.

·         Concern was expressed that this could set a precedent for elected members to be held financially accountable for any lapses in governance; would be a disincentive for anyone to stand for office.

The substantive motion (as amended) was put:

Resolution  CO23/20/4

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That the Council:

(a)     Receives report “Governance Issues:  Council Appointed Review and Observer Team”.

(b)     Approves the Terms of Reference as per attachment 1; with the deletion of the words “other than offering guidance and advice” from Clause 12(e). 

(c)     Approves the ‘Summary of Key Decisions’ as per attachment 2.

(d)     Transfers Resolution CO__________ being the resolution to appoint members of the Review and Observer Team into the open section of the meeting once the appointees have been informed.

(e)     Approves unbudgeted expenditure of $350,000 for costs associated with the Council Appointed Review and Observer Team, with actual costs reported to Council on a quarterly basis.

(f)      Will review the continuation of the Review and Observer Team following the submission of their first report due in four to six weeks’ time; with the first report to include initial findings regarding:

·         Problem definition

·         Diagnosis of cause/s of the problem

·         What does ‘success’ look like going forward?

·         Proposed action plan.

(g)     Retain Attachment 4 of this report in the confidential section to protect the privacy of natural persons.

Carried

Resolution  CO23/20/5

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

A motion was moved that Council reinstate Standing Orders.

Carried

1

Feedback Via Website

Agree

No I think it sounds great.

2

Feedback Via Website

Agree

I suppose a safer bike path along Totara street

3

Feedback Via Website

Agree

Long overdue. Very excited to be able to safely cycle to work!

4

Feedback Via Website

Agree

It all looks great

5

Feedback Via Website

Agree

I think this is an awesome idea

6

Feedback Via Website

Agree

No, I think it is really good and fully support it.

7

Feedback Via Website

Agree

Sounds like a great idea and will make cycling in the area much safer

8

Feedback Via Website

Agree

I really feel sorry for those poor saps on bicycles and scooters down Totara. The average lack of consideration given to them by the average car and truck driver is appalling. If they were separated even i might dust off the push bike.

9

Feedback Via Website

Agree

Some permanent upgrades to cycle ways citywide need to be a priority, rather than temporary patch-ups here and there. If the council is truly committed to reducing traffic congestion and climate change then cycle paths should be planned before roads, not as an afterthought.

10

Feedback Via Website

Agree

This is desperately needed! Near misses all the time biking along Totara Street at rush hour.

11

Feedback Via Website

Agree

A grass area in between the road and cyclists/pedestrians to increase distances from vehicles. This would increase safety and reduce emissions inhaled by those using the foot/cycle path.

12

Feedback Via Website

Agree

Get it done NOW! What are you waiting for? More people to die? Democracy only works if you're in the majority (ie car drivers in this situation). Come on, make the tough call and get this done. For people's health, for the planet (reduce pollution), and to avoid more deaths. Enough faffing about council. I'm just glad Tauranga City Council wasn't handling our COVID response. You'd still be deciding what to do while people died.

13

Feedback Via Website

Agree

I would like to bike, I live 3km from Ballance and should be able to bike safely everyday - the road is filled with cars with single occupancy, the trucks are revolting, the buses aren't much better.  I don't want just painted green on the road, but a safe footpath with curb path for people to bike, walk on.  Thanks

14

Feedback Via Website

Agree

Separate vehicles from pedestrians and cyclists.  The most dangerous section is when heading from the mount to Tauranga, approaching the Hewletts rd lights. Even if you ride on the small footpath you need to cross over three lanes of traffic to join the cycle way to get over the harbour bridge. Any new cycle way needs to be on the port side of totara st.  Continue to progress the specific walking / biking tracks from Tauranga to the mount, bayfair and airport. 

15

Feedback Via Website

Agree

do it! Much needed

16  to 38

Feedback Via Website

Agree

No additional  comments 23 submissions

39

Feedback Via Website

Agree

The design sounds wonderful.   I work at the bike shop on Totara street and see everyday just how beneficial this cycle lane could be.

40

Feedback Via Website

Agree

just get it done, you have been procrastinating since 2015.

41

Feedback Via Website

Agree

I submitted a message the last time I was asked about safety measures being proposed for Totara Street cycle lanes back in 2016-17. In it, I said that someone will die on the road if Council does nothing. Subsequently, the proposed changes to the road were shelved and someone was killed. I rode through the exact spot just an hour earlier that day and had my heart set racing as a truck speed past me to beat the lights. I would like to propose that Council actually goes through with the changes this time, no matter the opinion of the motorists and business owners in the area—when their cars collide with our bikes, they don't die, we do. Look about the grass verges on Totara Street and you'll see cycle tracks carved so deep  that grass will never grow there again. It shouldn't have taken a death to prompt these changes, only eyeballs. So here's what else I would like you to consider (for future projects): when you're not sure what to do – because you're caught between two different opinions and money is at stake – do the right thing.

42

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Put in more planting so that it has greater green feel and visual amenity   Get Regional Council to put in more clean air monitors and ban methyl bromide use on Mount wharves near Totara st  so no risk to Totara st bikers and walkers

43

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

As a rider who joins Totara at Hull Road and rides over the harbour bridge and what I see daily - I think people will always attempt to cross over to the opposite side of the road if traffic is crawling along Totara, to avoid stopping at a signalised crossing. The perceived danger is not enough to deter this movement.    I also think that a separated shared path is awesome from a maintenance point of view - the amount of flats I've had from swarf on Totara St is immense! Thanks for the opportunity to give feedback.

44

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Need to ensure access to/from side roads give way to bikes & pedestrians.

45

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Education for local private vehicle users, soft traffic calming measures, maintain the shared paths right of way at intersections, reducing the corner radii for slower vehicle speeds, reduce vehicle volumes of HGVs on Totara Street by rerouting to Tasman Quay, consider a width of 4m as 3m would be barely enough for two-way cycle let alone pedestrians. Consider pedestrian island or median strip at bus stops on the Port Side (currently unacceptable), improve street lighting. Consider that this design still priorities vehicles. Consider a cycle lane on one side of the street for ease of movement .

46

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Is the signal crossing they will install near the Hewletts road end necessary? Why not have cyclists/pedestrians etc cross the the east side of Totora street at the traffic lights already in place at the intersection of Totora and Hewletts?     Space is tight between the Ford dealer and Totora st but if you utilized the footpath and existing cycle lanes (there’s actually 2 cycle lanes heading south on Totora that could be used) you could have a 2.5m wide path, for about 50m then widen it out to the planned size once past the Ford dealer.     This might ease traffic congestion and improve flow not having to stop twice in such a short distance.   

47

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Bike paths need to have a number of features to make them appealing and useable for bike commuters and cyclists. They need to be: separate and safe from traffic; direct and efficient; have minimal obstacles / turns / stops. If riding the bike path makes it too slow then you won’t get but in from cyclists and cycle commuters who want to get to their destination efficiently

48

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Many cyclists, especially those with experience will not be keen use a cycleway which crosses the road with stop lights. If the proposed cycleway narrows the actual road then this might be even more dangerous. Just something to consider.

49

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Crossing at hull rd, left turning vehicles down side streets to to Tara, can be very busy during peak times.

50

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

safer crossings and more space for bikes

51

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

People on bikes are trying to get from A-B efficiently as possible, the designs constantly have the cyclists turning away from intersections adding distance. The dutch have better models on how to integrate cycle ways and round abouts.    Like how cycle way is back from the road but unless there is enough space for cars to pull off the road and stop before cycle way you will end up with accidents. Remember cyclist and ebikes happily travel at 30+ km/hr    Remove slip lane.

52

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Physical barrier between cyclist and the road, Christchurch has done a fantastic job of this. I used to cycle everywhere in chch but don't quite feel as safe here

53

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

The only reason I don't cycle is my fear of dying on totara Street.  Crossing roads and junction entrances is dangerous on bikes, lots of cyclists don't look or pay attention although lots do. I feel the 2 way cycle way all the way to Hewlett Road would be more appropriate and save junction crossings.

54

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Implementing a safer cycle way on Totara is well-overdue and incredibly important for Tauranga City residents' health and wellbeing, as well as reducing motor traffic and carbon emissions from cars.  As a doctor working at Tauranga hospital, we too frequently see cyclists injured or killed due to inadequate cycle ways.   A large barrier to many BOPDHB employees cycling to work from the Mount  is the extremely dangerous route along Totata Street.

55

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Nothing to add to the interim design, but has any thought been given to creating a cycle path from Hewlett's rd to Hull rd using the land alongside the existing rail line which parallels Tasman Quay, as this line is not highly used and rail land seems to be the preferred option in many overseas cities . Cyclists could then exit onto Totara st at Hull rd where the traffic is greatly reduced or create another cycle lane on the Western side to Rata st.

56

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

How bikes get from the cycle lane across totara street to access the Hewletts road section.  Cycle appropriate light buttons.

57

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Shade trees and lighting for cyclists, safe crossings. Consistent treatments and format

58

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Safety safety safety

59

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Alter the NZ Rail timetable to avoid peak travel times.  Alter the Waimarie lights so they don’t change immediately for port traffic.  Alter the Waimarie lights so they don’t change for “ghost traffic”.  Stop push bikes Turing off Hewletts Roadd onto Totara (Port Side across the grass) so they’ll cross the road on the East Side with the pedestrian crossing.

60

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Not sure, but anything is better than nothing, the only reason I dont bike into town daily is because that road is too dangerous and terrifying on a bike. A safe cycleway, separate from the road/trucks, is an absolute must

61

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

The overwhelming bad attitude most drivers have towards cyclists in this town.

62

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Brilliant idea.  If it could all happen on one side of the road, that would be best, but it's important for a growing city to be able to encourage more people to cycle - which needs off-road cycle lanes.  The more people who cycle, the better the traffic for everyone!

63

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Reducing heavy port traffic to non peak hours.

64

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I support the decision to remove the Totara Street cycle lanes, these were dangerous so would never used them.    I FULLY support the proposal for a 3m wide shared path along Totara St.    Regarding the 3 options on WSP sheet C01 rC (TCC DRAWING/ IP NUMBER: 101862), I DO NOT support option A to install pedestrian push button signals as I feel this would just slow down traffic flow and just annoy drivers.  I recommend proceeding with both options B & C to give cyclist two good options to get across this intersection. For option B perhaps just a zebra crossing with speed table instead of signalising the slip lane, I find traffic is usually moving slow around this corner at peak times but 80% of drivers just don't stop a second to let you cross. I suspect this is why I see most cyclists cut across Totara St between traffic and not that its a great place to cross.    Consider extending the 3m wide shared path along Totara to the Taiaho Place intersection to strengthen option C as this part of the route to the CBD from the Mount is a really nice (quiet / less dusty / less wind wash from trucks) part of the journey that is currently undervalued and underutilised.

65

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

How will cyclist safety be managed during construction. How will cyclists exit at Kawaka St. Will the shared path continue to that intersection. How long will cyclist have to wait to cross at the signalised intersections.

66

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Love the idea, definitely doesn't feel safe cycling down Totara street, especially where the cyclist has recently passed. Thank you for working on this!    Driveway entrances from Totara street businesses (Hull rd to Waimare st) is still a concern for this proposal.     I would prefer to cycle on the footpath currently there, but it can be just as hazardous as the road when traffic is backed up heading towards city, as they are let in by sitting traffic but you don't have that visibility as a cyclist - room for error there, potentially serious.     If there were a shared path here, the issue would still be there for people pulling across traffic into these businesses. Not sure how you would get around that, the proposal is definitely an improvement that I would warmly welcome, but that is a particularly hazardous area.    Cheers! Hopefully that makes sense, if not my mobile is xxxxxxx  Ben

67

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I know we are a minority, but there are people who ride to Ballance and therefore do not  cross Totara to go over the bridge but do need a safe way to turn on Hewletts Rd.  Please do not remove the cycle lane!  Also, after over 20 years of commuter cycling (and cycling for fun), I have had more accidents when riding on a cycle path that crosses business entrances than I have had on a designated bike lane on a road. A major issue is cars going above the posted speed limit and generally not caring about bicyclists right of way - I love that this idea is being considered but it does not appear to be an easy option for cyclists with the various crossings and intersections - particularly in poor weather conditions.

68

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

If this goes ahead, an education campaign on how to share the road would be great to see.

69

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I think the current proposal is okay, but the two-way path needs to be on the western side of the rd, for the length of Totara st. This is to avoid the majority of cars entering/exiting Totara on the eastern side of the rd. Cycles can use the roundabout to enter/exit the cycle path onto Hull Rd where the majority of cycles go if they are not going the length of Totara.    Instead there should be a bus lane the length of Totara st on the eastern side. This is to encourage bus use and reduce the number of cars in the morning when traffic backs up the most. This lane can also be used by cycles and motorbikes, and traffic turning into side streets.

70

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I agree with this proposal, have used this exact route for years to avoid port accessways and trucks.  However road cyclists will still want to bike on the road.   Is there a way to stop vehicles crossing onto the dedicated (painted) cycle lanes? (this applies to the whole of Tauranga where cyclways are painted onto the road)  

71

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Totora Street is super slow at peak traffic because of cars feeding in from side streets and i guess i am just worried traffic signals stopping traffic will only further increase this. also, if it is slow then i would want to just keep going on my bike. stopping traffic will make cyclists and drivers angry i think. I suppose it's not possible to have the pathway on the same side as the bridge pathway, otherwise you would have mapped that out as that would make more sense for people using it.

72

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

How any cycle / shared path on totara street will interchange with Hewletts Road to Maunganui Road, as this hard to navigate also with buses / bikes sharing one lane and turning bays.

73

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

- ensuring traffic lights for the crossing is far enough from the Hewlett's intersection to not cause issues for road vehicles backing up past the Hewletts turn.    - good / clear visibility of the cycle path users from both people existing the properties, and entering the properties    - needs to be inside the kerb enough for vehicles entering the property to stop for cyclists without obstructing Totara St traffic (except trucks)

74

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Mixed needs of different kinds of cyclists. some cyclists are best placed on a shared path, some cyclists are best served by on-carraigeway routes.  Debris left by log trucks make riding down totara street on a road bike particularly hazardous. Fine on a mountain bike or a cruiser, but the amount of wood/bark/rocks on the current cycle path make it particularly hazardous. The potential disadvantages of leaving the carriageway to road cyclists (Including poor route continuity, pedestrian conflict, and road crossing safety issues) should be seriously considered for this route.

75

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Excellent idea to get bikes off the road on Totara St. It would be great if there were also some upgrades to handle the heavy traffic volumes and jams as well, but this is an excellent beginning for safety

76

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Needs to be a truly separated cycleway in order for people to use it and ensure that it is maintained and swept regularly.  the current cycleways are littered with road metal thrown onto them by cars and trucks and glass smashed on them.  If we want to encourage people to bike we need to provide a better facility than the alternative of driving.

77

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

The crossing of hull road given this is a very busy intersection.  I did not see any proposed traffic lights on this section.  Are cyclists and walkers expected to cross the road giving way to all traffic?  You may see people taking risks to cross given how busy the road is.

78

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Safe crossing over Hull Road, Triton etc  Hope this is covered by intersection improvements.

79

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Provide safety measures between Kawaka Street and Hull Road on driveways as trucks and cars often pull out and block the path way. 

80

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

If you could ensure cyclists heading to Blake park for sports have a path for them to turn into and across Kawaka St.  Looks great, thanks for all the work you have put into this!

81

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

So happy this is happening! It would make me much more confident to cycle with my family using this route. I've always felt this section is incredibly dangerous and am so sad about people that have lost their lives on this stretch of road using active transport. Thank you for making this work a priority, I support it to go ahead in it's totality.

82

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

We need to balance how long works will take vs the congestion impact to an already busy road. Is it possible to design without need to effect traffic at all while improvements are underway?   In general though it’s a great idea! I’d love to see a set of traffic lights at the Hull Rd roundabout as well which will prevent rubber Neckers, and make it safe for cyclists to cross

83

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Wouldn't it be simpler to stay on the west side of Totara the whole way?

84

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Getting from Totara street to the right side shared path as always been a challenge.  Also the Totara st roundabout when using the current bike path is a real problem.  There always seems to be traffic blocking the path on the other side (traveling from Mount to town).  Using the roundabout on the road, is much safer.

85

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Yes. If you are on a road bike, you would have to stop, unclip and then walk across the lights (in cleated shoes) to get onto the shared pathway of the harbourbridge.  Am I reading it right? Why is the cycle way not on the same side as the port, this would remove the need to cross.

86

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Well needed - looks workable, although I only ride the Hewletts Road to Hull Road part, so I am not sure about how the further down crossing again part would work in practice.

87

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

This is great, thank you. We biked a lot over lockdown and for a little bit after but now the road is too dangerous to bike down. I think this will allow a lot of people to get back on their bikes!

88

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Make sure the bike lanes are off the road and not having to share with cars/trucks. Think about the lighting that needs to be included and also make sure the gates are working over the railway line as they have been out of action for seems like over a year now so having to go over the road makes it more unsafe.

89

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I love the idea to make it safer for bikers. Trucks and crossing to the bike pathway at the main intersection lights is so dangerous that I avoid biking.    Very short waiting times for bikes at the lights (like the waiting times for the bike cross over at the bayfair roundabout, would be great.

90

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

If a safe bike lane was available (similar to that over the bridge) then I would bike more.  Also it would be great to have this on Hull Road (or some alternative route) as well, which links the Mount to Totara Street and feels quite unsafe on bikes due to the number of trucks and the wide busy road.

91

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I bike this route regularly and, yes, it's a death trap. So glad you're doing something, and wish it was the original plan. But this will certainly be better than nothing.  So thank you very much. A couple of points:   1. I don't quite see why the Option B wasn't chosen, i.e. to signalise the slipway at the Totara / Hewlett's intersection? I'd be interested to know. It seems problematic to have crossing lights so close to the major lights at the intersection of Totara and Hewletts, but I'm not a traffic engineer. Signalising the slipway would also help any cyclists or walkers who are heading further up Hewlett's.   2. Triton Avenue is used by a lot of cars at morning and evening rush hours trying to avoid the queue of cars back to the intersection with Hull Road. Is there a way to discourage this, as it can cause a lot of problems? I was wondering if traffic lights would be a good idea at that intersection, but since you are already adding two sets of those, maybe not.   3. I've kept an eye on the 'new' train gates along the footpath "not working" status for, hmmm, well over a year now. I guess those will stay. But right now, while they don't work, they're more dangerous than nothing, actually.  Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback.

92

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

Connecting the bike park to the international cricket ground and promoting people to bike to day time events would be awesome? Linking Totara via cricket ground through to Bay Oval new entrance. Adding bike stand in key areas

93

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

The children

94

Feedback Via Website

Agree with suggestions

I understand your reasoning for having the cycle/shared lane on different sides in different places however I do not think that a lot of cyclists will stop to use the signalled crossing points. They will either make a dash for it when there are no cars, or just travel on one side of the road using the cycle path only for the section it is there for.     I think there also needs to be a public campaign to for both cyclists and motorists to be harmonious and kind to one another as there is a lot of hate. For cyclists it is to be courteous road users and other pedestrians, not run red lights etc. For motorists it’s one less car they have to sit behind in traffic, that it is actually quicker to ride a bike to your destination in rush hour than drive. I fear for the older cyclists that are now suddenly on ebikes after not ridden for years with poor bike skills and young people getting to school that they will get hurt due to the hate stirred up by cyclists who have no regard for road rules.

95