Agenda of Policy Committee Meeting

UNCONFIRMED Policy Committee Meeting Minutes

2 - 7 July 2020

MINUTES

Policy Committee Meeting

Thursday, 2 - 7 July 2020

Order Of Business

1 Apologies. 3

2 Public Forum.. 3

3 Acceptance of Late Items. 3

4 Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 3

5 Change to Order of Business. 3

6 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 3

7 Business. 4

7.1 Annual Plan 2020/21 Hearings 2-7 July. 4

8 Discussion of Late Items. 43

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council
Policy Committee Meeting
HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council, Council Chambers, 91 Willow Street, Tauranga
ON Thursday, 2 - 7 July 2020 AT 9am

2 July

PRESENT: Cr Steve Morris (Chairperson), Cr Dawn Kiddie (Deputy Chairperson), Mayor Tenby Powell, Cr Jako Abrie, Cr Larry Baldock, Cr Kelvin Clout, Cr Bill Grainger, Cr Andrew Hollis, Cr Heidi Hughes (via Skype), Cr John Robson, and Cr Tina Salisbury.

2 July

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Megan Cleverley (Team Leader: Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor), and Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor).

1 Apologies

nIL

2 Public Forum

nIL

3 Acceptance of Late Items

NIL

4 Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

NIL

5 Change to Order of Business

NIL

6 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

· Cr John Robson had declared an interest due to donations he had made to one or two of the submitters that were presenting.

7 Business

7.1 Annual Plan 2020/21 Hearings 2-7 July

· The report was taken as read and there were no further questions or discussions.

All copies of PowerPoint presentations and/or tabled items that were presented during the Annual Plan hearings can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this committee meeting.

Committee Resolution PO9/20/1

Moved: Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded: Cr Kelvin Clout

That the Policy Committee:

(a) Receives the verbal and written submissions to the draft Annual Plan 2020/21.

Carried

Hearing of submissions – 2 July 2020

(1) Sub ID: 044 - Margaret Holmes – Engine Room Chartered Accountants – Tauranga

Key points

· Submitter had commended Tauranga City Council (TCC) on the cycleways that had been established.

· Wanted Council to play a bigger role in advocating for electric vehicles and cycleways.

· The proposed commercial differential would have a significant impact on small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) which were vitally important to the economy of New Zealand.

· Submitter had canvassed SMEs in Tauranga and had found that many would struggle if the rates were to increase, particularly in the COVID-19 lockdown period.

· Commercial rent impacted on the valuation of a building which in turn had an impact on rates that ultimately affected the tenant leasing or renting a commercial space.

· Encouraged more parking and free parking options because they were critical to attracting people into the city centre.

In response to questions

· The change in the uniform annual general charge (UAGC) had meant that for some businesses dependant on certain factors, rates may potentially go down.

· The rates calculator was a good tool for anyone who wanted to check what their rates would be as it worked on an address-specific basis.

(2) Sub ID: 023 - Angela Wallace - Awhina House

- PowerPoint Presentation

Key points

· The submitter explained the work Awhina House did and the services it provided.

· For women, homelessness was quite different due to higher vulnerability and risks.

· Due to COVID-19, Awhina House had seen an increased demand for their services and they were currently operating at capacity.

· Housing supply, especially rental properties, was a significant concern because the organisation was unable to cater for people in need or accommodate referrals from other agencies.

· The submitter thanked TCC for their $40,000 funding (10% of their budget) and advised that central government funding had been secured as well.

· Local government, central government, and not-for-profit organisation partnerships were the best formula for success in the field to help the community.

(3) Sub ID: 087 - Philip Brown - Papamoa Residents and Ratepayers Association

- Tabled Item

Key points

· Tauranga had one of the highest rates in New Zealand.

· The Annual Plan and Long Term Plan (LTP) were unsustainable.

· TCC had to reduce capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX).

· The blowout of costs in projects had to be addressed.

· Project estimations were not up to standard and burdened ratepayers with blowouts.

· Kerbside rubbish collection was not needed because Tauranga had private operators and the community generally were good at recycling and rubbish disposal.

· It would cost an estimated $400 million dollars over 20 years in terms of kerbside rubbish collection in rates.

· Costs for kerbside rubbish collection should be included in the rates rather than be an addition to rates; submitter had requested that it be deferred for five years.

· The growth expansion strategy was not working because infrastructure was not keeping up and the traffic jams were a case in point.

· A legacy of ratepayers’ debt was not something TCC should be advocating for.

· Ratepayers should not be burdened for financial mistakes of Council.

(4) Sub ID: 074 - Brian Hodge - Sydenham Botanic Park Advisory Group

- Tabled Item

Key points

· Submitter thanked TCC for their support and assistance over the years in helping maintain Sydenham Botanic park to a good standard.

· Wanted TCC to consider the future funding model for Sydenham Botanic park.

· The Funding Trust and Advisory Group wanted to arrange for councillors to visit the park to see the work that had been accomplished.

Staff Action:

· Staff to organise with Places and Spaces team to organise a tour.

(5) Sub ID: 115 - Sue Macdougall – Incubator

Key points

· The submitter was a relatively new resident to Tauranga and had not received any information about kerbside rubbish collection.

· She lived in a cul-de-sac and on collection days there were a lot of rubbish trucks at any given time clogging up the street.

· TCC’s rates were high when compared to Auckland City’s rates.

· The submitter put all her rubbish into the council-approved plastic bags without separating or sorting it because she did not want to take multiple bins or bags to the transfer station.

· The removal of the carpark and the Mountie statue from the Mount were not prudent for the area because skateboarders only made use of the new space now.

In response to questions

· The Mountie statue was in storage with Mount Maunganui Mainstreet Association that was assessing reinstallation.

· If proposed rates for kerbside rubbish collection was approved, then bins will be provided by TCC.

Staff Action (General Manager: People and Engagement):

· Staff to contact submitter to add her to mailing lists and newsletters.

(6) Sub ID: 130 - Barry Scott

Key points

· Submitter congratulated TCC staff on the presentation of the consultation document and follow-ups that were carried out.

· Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 stipulated to promote and advocate for all of the community and not just for parts of it.

· Face to face local community consultation via a townhall style meeting was needed so that community engagement took place.

· The submitter urged Council to listen to social concerns from communities or suburbs because it would help Council understand on the ground realities faced by the locals.

· Repeated cost blowouts and project failures should be internally investigated.

· Submitter requested that deliberations on kerbside rubbish collections be postponed because proper widespread community consultation had not been undertaken.

· The LTP survey was not consultative and collaborative.

· The submitter wanted Council to consider the effect of its decisions on the people and how it had affected them.

(7) Sub ID: 081 - Sheryl McLay

Key points

· The submitter operated a swimming program at Baywave TECT Aquatic & Leisure Centre that was managed by Bay Venues Limited (BVL).

· The approach BVL had taken to running swimming pools in terms of lane hire and pool entry was to increase fees.

· Swim coaching, learn to swim, and competitive programmes were hit hardest by fee increases because their income was not increasing, particularly during and post COVID-19 lockdowns.

· Hire charges and fee increases affected people, particularly children, because these services became inaccessible due to unaffordability, and this was considered socially irresponsible.

· Council facilities were for the community and there was a social obligation to keep these facilities accessible, affordable, and not operated just for the sake of making profits.

· The proposed High Performance Sports Centre should be cancelled, and the allocated funds should be diverted to community facilities.

· Staff levels in some of these facilities had to be assessed because there were a lot of employees, but the service level was not on par.

· Approximately a million dollars had been spent on the splashpad and the submitter had witnessed on numerous occasions that no one used it.

· Pool usage was down, and this was because of fee increases, bureaucracy, and the management of these facilities.

(8) Sub ID: 133 - Scott Brundell

· Submitter did not attend.

(9) Sub ID: 003 - Jordan Williams and Louis Houlbrooke – NZ Taxpayers Association (via Skype)

Key points

· Introduced the work of the NZ Taxpayers Association.

· Due to the financial and economic troubles caused by COVID-19, it was not the time to increase rates, taxes, or any other costs.

· Caused by socio-economic repercussions of COVID-19, social costs were predicted to increase exponentially.

· It was not the role of Council to do economic development, particularly by taking money from the community to fund it.

· Since 2014, rates had increased by 6.5%.

· Other councils were reducing or freezing rates, particularly post COVID-19.

· TCC’s payroll costs were increasing by 2% and OPEX was increasing by 4%, and these were unjustified.

In response to questions

· Council had to work on reducing the bureaucracy for new housing rather than being involved in the industry of building them.

(10) Sub ID: 243 - Erika Harvey and Sean Kelly - Marine Precinct Advisory Group

Key points

· The Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s (BOPRC) funding for the Marine Precinct development was meant to assist the local economy and community but it had failed to do so.

· Twenty-five businesses in the industry had either closed down or left the area; since 2016 there had been $30 million dollars loss annually, equating to $120 million dollars to date.

· The Marine Precinct development had caused more issues than it was meant to alleviate.

· There was a significant safety hazard due to the shortage of space for the industry and for vessels; more wharves were needed to alleviate conflict and frustration of users, particularly a dedicated wharf for fishing vessels.

· It was recommended that funding should be provided for extending the wharf, better road access, upgrading infrastructure, and promoting local tourism opportunities such as tours.

· Opotiki and Whakatāne were committing significant investment towards their wharves and ports.

· A number of existing piers and wharves in Tauranga were either unusable and/or required urgent repairs.

· Large fishing ships used to come to Tauranga to use the slipway or access engineering shops, but this was no longer the case.

· Hobart and Freemantle were similar to Tauranga and the submitter urged Council to look at how they did things.

· Fishing businesses were growing in Tauranga, but the infrastructure was lacking and not keeping up with the growth.

In response to questions

· Priority One was sporadic in their contact and communication with the Marine Precinct Advisory Group.

· Statistics that had been discussed were provided by an independent consultant.

· There should not be any clashes between the proposed ferry service and Marine Precinct Advisory Group, so it was imperative to hold collaborative consultations.

· Truck and boat space were enduring issues at the precinct and TCC selling waterside land into private ownership had exacerbated the problem.

· The harbour bridge was an impediment because it restricted taller vessels from docking.

(11) Sub ID: 142 - Chris Ingram - Bike Tauranga

- Tabled Item

Key points

· The submitter thanked TCC for the creation of safe recreational cycleways and tracks.

· Urged TCC to continue funding and investing in the above because it assisted the community by promoting healthy lifestyles and mental health well-being.

· Bike Tauranga was working with Council to identify safe and easy to manoeuvre tracks and cycleway routes with signage and a café to be enjoyed by newcomers, locals, and tourists.

· TCC’s Antenno app was a good tool for reporting issues and the submitter thanked Council because the app increased community confidence, safety and appreciation.

· The Bayfair underpass decision was an incredible victory for cyclists and walkers.

· The completion of two projects in August 2020 would create an 85km to 135km trail known as the Great Bay of Plenty Coastal Trail, and it would contribute to the economy and image of Tauranga as a green city.

· Cyclists and walkers were essential to small businesses such as cafes and dairies because of the spending they do when touring.

(12) Sub ID: 084 - Jill Brightwell

Key points

· The submitter recognised the challenging climate within which the revised Annual Plan was drafted, and thanked TCC staff for their hard work.

· Better project management was required by Council and information that was shared needed to be holistic so that it did not leave Council open to criticism.

· Reports on projects had to provide detailed information on all funding sources, any deferments, and timelines so that ratepayers could decide which projects were worth being rates funded.

· If a project was fully funded from development contributions, then it would not be of a concern to ratepayers as it was not funded through rates.

· The Elizabeth Street upgrade project needed to be moved to the LTP.

· Many projects were for growth or future developments and they had to be reviewed in terms of reprioritisation in the current socio-economic climate to ascertain which projects could be shifted to developers for funding by development contributions.

· Self-funding projects such as the renewal of the airport runway and upgrades to the elder housing portfolio were supported by the submitter.

· The decision to reduce the capital budget for cemeteries had to be reversed because the maintenance and development of cemeteries was an ongoing requirement, and a small cost when compared to other items in the Annual Plan.

· The Council’s combined consultancy budget was $6.1 million and required reviewing with an ambition of reducing the cost.

· The submitter recommended that a responsible dog owner fee be implemented so that it penalised dog owners who did not do the right thing or did not abide by the rules and law.

· Ratepayers were not cash cows or golden gooses, so the submitter urged Council not to use them to fund projects.

In response to questions

· TCC was under constant attack lately so as a former employee, the submitter wanted to provide some balance.

At 11.04am the meeting adjourned.

At 11.14am the meeting reconvened.

(13) Sub ID: 195 - David White and Catherine McCulloch - Water Safety Bay of Plenty

- PowerPoint Presentation

Key points

· Introduced the Bay of Plenty Water Safety Strategy and discussed key initiatives for the next twelve months.

· The key priorities were to roll-out Water Skills For Life, valuing Māori water safety, coastguard education and memberships, changing attitudes and behaviours that led to drowning, stakeholder collaboration, male-specific water safety messages, and internationally recognised signage.

· The submitter strongly advocated for inter-organisational collaboration, and his role was to assist in strategic outputs and consistent messaging regarding the Strategy.

· Māori drowning statistics were significant and disproportionate in the Bay of Plenty.

· Coast guard membership was low even though it was not expensive to become a member; there was a three thousand dollars callout fee for non-members.

(14) Sub ID: 085 - Brian Cavit and Sandra Johnson - Wairakei Community Centre Trust

Key points

· The submitter introduced the Wairakei Community Centre Trust and discussed their work within the community.

· Papamoa did not have a community centre, despite the significant increase in dwellings and the population in the area.

· There was an urgent need for a space for residents, charities, and the community.

· The nearest accessible space was the Owen Place Centre which for some members of the community was not an easy commute to get to.

· Papamoa Library was always booked out due to high demand and this exemplified the need for another communal hub that the community could access.

· Approximately eight thousand people sought assistance from community organisations out of Papamoa and these were made up of newcomers, people suffering from loneliness or mental health concerns, budgeting help, and advocacy services.

· There was a noticeable surge in calls for help for psychological issues from the community due to the pandemic lockdowns, the downturn of the economy, and subsequent loss of income or employment.

· Requested Council to form a sub-committee to explore the development of a community hall on behalf of the Papamoa and Papamoa East communities.

In response to questions

· It was difficult to build in Papamoa because of land scarcity and those sections that were available were too small to build on.

(15) Sub ID: 199 - Brian Berry - Mainstreet Tauranga

Key points

· The city centre was in crisis, and the expansion of suburban malls and shopping centres had compounded the issues faced by the CBD.

· The Farmers development was eagerly awaited, and it was hoped that it would significantly assist in the CBD revitalisation efforts.

· COVID-19 had caused significant strain for businesses and a number of businesses had closed down or relocated, especially along Devonport Road.

· The submitter stressed that this was not the time to increase costs and Mainstreet Tauranga was opposed to the increase in the commercial rates differential.

· Building owners would pass on rate increases to their tenants and these businesses would bear the brunt of any increases.

· The submitter supported initiatives such as free bus services and free parking trials due to issues with parking in the city.

· The events funding framework was also supported for events in the city centre because they had wider socio-economic benefits.

· The submitter encouraged funding support for a cruise ship shuttle service in partnership with Tourism Bay of Plenty.

In response to questions

· The Annual Fireworks and Mayor’s BBQ events were strongly supported because they were popular and enjoyed by the wider community.

(16) Sub ID: 285 - Jo Coughlan - NZ Chinese Language Week Trust (via Skype)

- PowerPoint Presentation

Key points

· Many Kiwis did not know or understand the strength of the New Zealand-Chinese relationship or had exposure to the Chinese culture.

· The submitter appreciated local government initiatives such as sister cities and the delegations which went to China.

· New Zealand Chinese Language Week was becoming popular (over 300 events in 2019) and had strong support from a cross section of the community, local government, and central government.

· A trilingual book was created annually, and the Trust had held several events for the community.

· The submitter wanted a liaison officer from within TCC and requested $5,000 to assist with delivery of the New Zealand Chinese Language Week events being held across New Zealand 20-26 September 2020.

In response to questions

· The Trust required support from local government, central government, and the community with fundraising, logistics, planning, and launching events.

(17) Sub ID: 268 - Pascale Hyboud-Peron and Daryl French - Venture Centre

- PowerPoint Presentation

Key points

· The vision of the Venture Centre (the Centre) was to create and stimulate small to mid-size enterprises (SMEs), start-ups, and entrepreneurs.

· To make the vision a reality, the Centre required support from TCC in providing assistance for a ‘not for profit’ service to very early-stage business start-ups/entrepreneurs with business skills and advice, models, networking and innovation.

· 2500 people had been supported by the organisation particularly during and after COVID-19 lockdowns due to losses of income or employment.

· It was a difficult journey to take a small idea and turn it into a viable enterprise which was why funding from and partnership with TCC was imperative; it would enable and encourage community empowerment.

· The Centre had partnered with Priority One and recommended funding to Priority One’s efforts in the area of community development, particularly for start-ups.

In response to questions

· Submitter was requested to provide a breakdown of their funding and finances to Council.

(18) Sub ID: 175 - Sophie Evans – Incubator

Key points

· The submitter supported the Incubator Creative Hub submission.

· The historic village was the definition of community and it was a hub for artists, poets, and creatives.

· It was a one-stop destination for many people to turn their visions, creative ideas and inspirations into reality as well as providing a great space for families and communities to enjoy.

· The historic village and incubators required support and funding so that the Creative Hub could continue to be a safe space and place which nurtured entrepreneurs and dreamers to grow.

In response to questions

· Tauranga did not have proper kiln facilities, especially when compared to Waikato.

(19) Sub ID: 283 - Phil Green – H. G. Rose Architecture

- Tabled Item

Key points

· The submitter believed that essential tangible items had been missed out in the growth and development of the city whereby sometimes a potted plant was more important than a car park.

· The current plans were not innovative or invigorating and did not bode well for the vision for Tauranga because they did not take into account what the city would look like in 10, 20, or 50 years’ time.

· City care and maintenance were inefficient because the city was not kept clean and tidy.

· The submitter had recommended more trees and grass to be planted and to close off Wharf Street completely to vehicular traffic.

· Car parking at the waterfront should be removed and turned into a park so that the community can enjoy the park and the waterfront.

· The laneways around the city should be activated with better lighting.

· It was accepted that with growth came more vehicles, which in turn increased pollution, both noise and air.

· Residential grass verges were meant to be looked after by ratepayers but some of the infrastructure around the verges themselves were in a state of disrepair.

· TCC needed to consult with locals rather than with out-of-town developers.

· Resurrecting old projects that had been turned down and rejected by ratepayers should stop.

· Encouraged appointing a Chief Manager of Mobility Innovation to resolve issues around mobility.

· Requested to forward-plan infrastructure with better management of maintenance for the CBD and sub-contractor contracts for infrastructure upgrades.

· There had to be faster city intensification in Te Papa and more support from Council for smaller developers and property owners.

(20) Sub ID: 132 - Jo Gravit and Jacqui Ferrel - Tauranga Community Housing Trust

- Tabled Item

Key points

· Submitter congratulated TCC on the Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) decision.

· Supported funding into portable housing (and housing in general), rebates for building and consent fees, further funding for social housing in the Development Contribution policy, and a dedicated project manager.

· Tauranga Community Housing Trust wanted to be a part of the Elder Housing project.

· Affordable housing was a huge challenge in Tauranga; the city was globally labelled as one of the most unaffordable cities to live in.

· There was a significant increase in homelessness with people living in motels, cars, or sleeping rough.

· Public housing accommodation was decreasing when it should be increasing in light of the social issues.

· A location-based approach to housing was important because it put the conversation at the forefront of the issue.

· Plan changes for Te Papa Intensification was critical to alleviating the housing shortage pressures and could not come quickly enough.

· The submitter recommended that even prior to knowing the final version of the Urban Development Bill, Council should regard part of the Te Papa peninsula as a form of the proposed Special Development Project model for high growth areas without waiting for central government intervention.

· More land should be identified for similar intensification projects for housing and the submitter urged Council to take leadership along with Accessible Properties in a new named and funded partnership project for the Gate Pa area.

In response to questions

· TCC had been strong in advocating for housing and hoped that it would continue to do so because the UFTI decision was a good, and welcomed, step in the right direction.

(21) Sub ID: 206 - Ian Dustin and Mark Wassung

- Tabled Item

Key points

· The submitter discussed the pollution from ships and the dangers it posed to Mount Maunganui residents.

· Called on TCC to oppose Methyl Bromide (MB) fumigation and to support residents who were against MB.

· The proposed Rangiuru Business Park and Rangiuru log to rail transfer station would remove logging trucks from the roads as well as ensure that all MB fumigation was done on-site rather than at the wharf or in ship holds at Mount Maunganui.

· Proposed a three-pronged approach to solve immediate and long-term problems including, but not limited to, traffic, pollution, and infrastructure.

· Recommended to partially subdivide Papamoa Beach Reserve to assist providing more housing within city limits and add to the rating base via land sales.

· By offloading at Rangiuru Business Park and utilising trains to transport further, it would stop logging trucks bound for the Port entering the city.

In response to questions

· Had applied for funding to Crown Infrastructure Partner Fund and not the Provincial Growth Fund but was not successful.

· Local government should not be involved in business ventures because private enterprises were better equipped to deliver results as seen in the Tauriko Business Precinct project.

· Priority One and KiwiRail were supportive of the Rangiuru Business Park proposal but the Port of Tauranga was not.

· The proposal was in line with the central government’s vision and mandate on providing better roading networks and fighting pollution.

(22) Sub ID: 026 - Michelle Bishop

Key points

· Did not want rubbish collection done by Tauranga City Council (TCC) and opposed rates-funded kerbside collections.

· Kerbside glass collection service (blue collection bin) fees had kept rising.

· Did not want a rates increase, especially in the post COVID-10 socio-economic climate.

· Many residents were elderly, people were on fixed incomes, and businesses were struggling.

· Rates increases would lead to ratepayer debt and further social issues.

· Projects to redo city streets and parks should be cancelled.

· TCC Deputy Mayor was the highest paid in the country and TCC had not made any attempt at reducing their payroll.

At 12.45pm, Mayor Tenby Powell exited the meeting.

At 12.48pm, Mayor Tenby Powell entered the meeting.

· Other councils were reducing staff but TCC was not.

· Urged Council not to carry on with ‘pet’ projects or high borrowing projects and to prioritise in order to keep within budget.

· Wanted an end to the Bella Vista court case as well as the pool fencing court case.

· Wanted Council to acknowledge past mistakes, fix them, and move ahead cautiously.

· Businesses could not afford any cost increases and struggling business would lay off staff which in turn would cause more social concerns.

· Development Contributions should be increased because of the demand in people wanting to live in Tauranga.

(23) Sub ID: 203 - John Garwood

· Submitter did not come.

At 12.55pm the meeting adjourned.

Continuation of meeting 3 July 2020

At 9.01am the meeting reconvened.

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Anne Blakeway (Manager: CCO Relationships and Governance), Avon Adams (Manager: Communications & Engagement)Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor), and Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor).

The Policy Committee acknowledged and accepted the apology for lateness received from Cr. Andrew Hollis.

(24) Sub ID: 197 - Jo Wills

Key points

· The submitter was disappointed in the first Annual Plan because it was a forced singular narrative of growth and presented as the only option.

· Growth was good for the elites because Tauranga’s suburbs were for those who could afford to live in them.

· New buildings or suburbs were planned and built for those who could afford them but not for those who could not.

· The system was man-made and broken and the Annual Plan had sought to reinforce it.

· People liked to connect with nature, and it was being replaced with malls and shopping centres.

· There was a lot of funding going towards economic development agencies but not to organisations that could support Council as partners for sustainable growth.

· The submitter urged Council not to accelerate economic growth for the sake of growth but suggested developing the Annual Plan for proper and meaningful engagement.

At 9.11am, Cr Andrew Hollis entered the meeting via Skype.

In response to questions

· Despite central government setting the pace and the rules, TCC could still achieve its goals by understanding ground realities and planning according to them because UFTI and SmartGrowth were not in synch with these ground realities.

(25) Sub ID: 069 - Bryan Norton

Key points

· Decisions had been made because project contracts were already in motion and could not be stopped, such as the road projects.

· There were opportunities to save money by looking within contract variances and by scaling back or postponing some projects or activities like beach cleaning or New Year Eve fireworks; supported the $50,000 reduction in the New Year Eve event funding.

· Urged Council to apply for central government funding for events or certain projects rather than using ratepayer funds.

· The cycle ways and walking tracks that were being planned or were being made were not going to be utilised if they were perceived by cyclists to be unsafe.

· Morning traffic was exacerbated by school drop-off parking on streets and if this was banned then people would use public transport more.

· It was cost effective and more productive to work from home and should create savings for Council.

· The Uniform Annual General Charge was a Robin Hood type of system and a move away from the User Pay System; it would affect people who are asset rich but cash poor.

· If people were paying higher rates and expenses, they would not have money to donate to community agencies or for social causes.

· The submitter supported the 1:1.2 commercial differential.

· Urged Council to defer city centre streetscape and Mount i-SITE if commercial rates could not substantially fund them.

(26) Sub ID: 210 - Glen Crowther – Sustainable Business Network

Key points

· Submitter urged Council to fast-track building more bus-shelters.

· The case for sustainability was very strong globally and in New Zealand because sustainability was not a barrier to growth but rather assisted it.

· The Sustainability Framework and draft Environment Strategy conversations had to be restarted.

· Economic sustainability was missing from the current economic development strategy and policy.

· It was important to get the viewpoint of the community rather than economic development agencies dictating what the economic development policy should be without taking into account social and environmental outcomes.

· Sustainable Business Network’s 2019 circular economy research in Auckland within three different sectors showed that with sustainable economic policies savings would be in the billions of dollars by 2020.

· Sustainability policy should have outcomes for everyone and not just certain parts of the community.

· The submitter encouraged community consultation on UFTI, the Te Papa Spatial Plan, and the joint spatial plan to occur before decisions were locked in by sub-region leaders.

· Urged that TCC’s Environment Strategy underpinned all other plans and strategies with key criteria embedded up front into all decision-making processes.

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

In response to questions

· Rotorua Lakes Council was focusing on the circular economy and had co-designed an economic strategy policy with the community which had some good lessons and outcomes.

(27) Sub ID: 141 - Nigel Tutt and Greg Simmonds - Priority One

Key points

· Intelligent and sustainable economic development was in the domain of all agencies.

· Strong economic wellbeing was holistic because it encompassed social, cultural and financial factors.

· Due to the effects of COVID-19, the labour market and private sector were struggling.

· Submitter urged TCC to be strong in the face of uncertain economic times and supported the proposed 4.7% proposed rates.

· Due to the uncertain times, it would be prudent not to have large rate changes and to soften the Uniform Annual General Charge balance to assist smaller businesses.

· Partnership was required between general rates and commercial rates, and targeted rates were preferred.

· Industrial land policy was problematic because there was not enough land available and what was available was not being utilised properly.

· Congratulated TCC on the UFTI decision because it gave confidence to the business community.

· The submitter recommended private sector investment in commercial projects rather than the public sector.

· Urged Council to prioritise infrastructure spending to create economic stimulus and flow-on benefit to assist the city recover from the economic impact of Covid-19; including Te Papa Peninsula intensification, Tauriko, Te Tumu, Rangiuru and roading around the Port.

In response to questions

· Industrial land policy had to be better planned in terms of demand and growth.

· There was going to be severe rating pressure for some time to come and targeted rates were better because it rated landlords and users rather than tenants.

· Businesses were sympathetic to TCC’s position, but they were struggling too.

(28) Sub ID: 122 - Anton Steel and Glenn Dougal - Film Bay of Plenty

- Presentation

Key points

· The submitter thanked Tauranga City Council for their support over the last three years.

· COVID-19 presented an opportunity whereby a lot of overseas companies were seeking to come to New Zealand; this was a real opportunity in terms of investment and image.

· An example was provided where if a series was shot in the region, it could mean $16 million dollars’ worth of investment for the region.

· The Mocap Studio opportunity will be a first of its kind in New Zealand and Film Bay of Plenty was working with industry leaders in getting the technology to New Zealand.

· The submitter requested ongoing funding and investment towards local production operational costs to represent Tauranga as the regional film office.

In response to questions

· The Mocap Studio will be based in Tauranga and local production crews were usually housed in Tauranga, so there was direct and indirect investment.

(29) Sub ID: 215 - Matt Cowley - Tauranga Chamber of Commerce

Key points

· The submitter thanked TCC’s call centre staff for their work in partnership with other agencies during the level 4 lockdown for calling and welfare checking businesses.

· Communication on Annual Plan and rates had to be improved because members of the community were confused or could not understand it.

· COVID-19 had some good lessons for Council in understanding the community better.

· The decisions on license to occupy and hardship funds were appreciated by the Chamber and its members.

· UFTI had to be communicated with concise and detailed information so that the community could understand and support it.

· Whilst UFTI had been approved, it would be a difficult journey ahead so partnership and building trust were critically important.

· The Chamber supported a modest increase in rates as well as a rates postponement policy that took into account hardship.

· The decrease of the Uniform Annual General Charge in the Annual Plan was not widely supported by the Chamber and its members.

· There should be a Polycentric City vision for the CBD, suburbs, and industrial zones but it should not compete with the CBD because that went against the spirit of the City Plan.

· Private and public sector partnerships were very important, and the Chamber stood ready to assist Council progress and strengthen them.

· Requested TCC to work collaboratively with the Chamber, Priority One and Mainstreet organisations to ensure an appropriate response plan was developed to limit the impact on vacancy rates of commercial tenancies on the city’s main streets.

In response to questions

· Uniform Annual General Charge discussion by members of the Chamber had been generic in nature.

· The online rates calculator and similar tools were helpful.

(30) Sub ID: 228 - Kathryn Lellman - Tauranga Arts Festival Trust

Key points

· Arts and culture were important parts of life and should be a part of Annual Plan deliberations.

· Arts organisations could assist Council in cost-saving, innovative ways of economic recovery, and community engagement.

· The $25 million grant over two years towards arts, heritage and culture from central government showed commitment towards the sector.

· The Arts and Culture sector was not going be a victim of COVID-19 but a powerful tool of recovery from it.

· Success measures were not just economic but also socio-cultural and measured by community wellbeing.

In response to questions

· Continued support from TCC was important to the Trust, and it understood that funding cuts or reductions had to happen due to the economic recovery from effects of COVID-19 but funding must re-continue in the future.

(31) Sub ID: 065 - Robert Paterson on behalf of Sally Paterson

Key points

· Submitter opposed rates and kerbside collection.

· Staff numbers were too high, and an independent staffing review was required to reduce the increase in payroll expenses.

· Agreed with submissions from the New Zealand Taxpayers Association, Barry Scott, and Papamoa Residents and Ratepayers Association.

· The proposed rates increase was not going to achieve significant income for Council.

· Infrastructure on 3 Waters had to be prioritised as a matter of urgency and “fancy” projects should be shelved.

· Tenants would bear the brunt of the commercial differential increase.

· A proper analysis of Council spending was required so that it kept to its debt-ratio.

· Council spending was excessive and above the 250% limit.

· CAPEX lacked transparency and documentation was not available online.

(32) Sub ID: 146 – Robert Paterson

Key points

· There should be a rate freeze due to the pandemic crisis.

· The online submissions process had not worked well because email acknowledgements were not received.

· The entire submissions process had been a disappointment and Council should have dealt with both Annual Plans simultaneously rather than in the current way.

· Requested that Council concentrate on essential infrastructure projects that were necessities, such as 3 Waters.

· Urged Council to abandon proposals for the Mount visitor information centre, CBD redevelopments including Wharf Street and Elizabeth Street and other expensive developments that would have minimal benefit but instead contributed to increased rates.

· Strongly against proposed kerbside collection service and requested that wide community consultations take place on it.

· All ratepayers had equal access to Council services, and it was hard to justify the disparity in costs.

· The commercial differential rates required better analysis.

· Urged Council to investigate Development Contributions so that maximum benefit can be derived from it.

· There was a lack of consultation on the proposed Memorial Park to The Strand Coastal Walkway.

(33) Sub ID: 799 – Robert Paterson & Citizens Advocacy Tauranga

Key points

· Submitter was not against progress but against wasteful spending.

· Rates should either be frozen or zero depending on the circumstances.

· Harbour encroachment should be at the cost of those doing it and not the ratepayers.

· Requested Council to close down Our Place and stop funding Priority One.

· All projects should stop unless deemed essential because in the Annual Plan, 50% of budgeted work could be classed as non-essential.

· Fees and charges were acceptable as long as they were on a ‘User Pays’ basis.

· Developers should be made to pay upfront rather than getting deferred payments.

· All properties, no matter their value, had equal access to TCC services like water, roads, etc.

· Submitter was not advocating for people with wealthy properties but was against the policy of targeting people based on their property value.

In response to questions

· TCC did not have a stadium or a museum which some smaller councils had but if these were to be built, they had to be used properly and be cost-effective.

· If past Councils were prudent with their spending and did not have cost blowouts, then there would be funds to spend on a stadium or museum.

(34) Sub ID: 248 - Mary Dillon & Envirohub Bay of Plenty

- Tabled Item

Key points

· The submitter opposed the 10% Uniform Annual General Charge.

· Intensifying Te Papa was important to the growth of Tauranga, especially from the perspective of roading and housing.

· The submitter urged Council to clear geographic information system (GIS) maps to relook at all the available greenspace and utilise the available land.

· Reserves and parks were important for community engagement and for fostering community values and empowerment.

· TCC did not contribute to Envirohub Bay of Plenty and the submitter urged council to partner with them to achieve common goals.

· Funding for the Sustainable Environment Network should not be removed from the budget because it was a low-cost organisation that was doing good work in the area of sustainable economic development.

· Our Place was viewed from a cost perspective only but had community support and should be seen as an investment in the CBD which was struggling to attract people; submitter did not want Our Place closed.

· The Sustainability Framework was strongly supported and had to be fast-tracked.

· TCC had to compare its procurement with Christchurch City Council’s when it came to sustainability because they were leaders in this area.

· The Memorial Park walkway has been languishing since 2002; it was only an 800-meter walkway that provided another access point into the CBD and the submitter urged Council to complete the project.

· The submitter had supported prioritising projects involving walkways, cycleways and public transport.

· The submitter questioned riparian rights claims and recommended investigating claims in detail.

(35) Sub ID: 214 - Nathan York - Bluehaven Holdings Ltd

Key points

· The submitter requested updating the policy for Stage Development, Wairakei Maps, and structures plans.

· Highlighted the lack of modelling, especially in wastewater, and subsequently the difficulty in undertaking cost forecasts.

· Recommended continuation of investment in roading, particularly in Papamoa East and the Interchange.

· Supported bus shelters along The Boulevard where these were main arterial routes for Te Tumu and Wairakei; including bus shelters for a larger hub adjacent to The Sands town centre.

· Sought higher level of planting and maintenance than currently planned for the town centre.

· The submitter highlighted the need for more investment in the pools and libraries within Papamoa East; pitched an idea for an Olympic standard swimming pool.

· Leasing through Development Contributions was an option for new community amenities.

· Urged Council to make tough decisions like closing down Our Place because sustainability also had to be about financial sustainability as well.

· Road toll charges needed to be made equitable and generic across Tauranga so that it could fund roading infrastructure.

In response to questions

· The Community Centre in Papamoa East had land and resource consent but needed support and partnership.

At 11.10am the meeting adjourned.

At 11.15am the meeting reconvened.

(36) Sub ID: 255/256 - Mark Rogers - Tauranga City Basketball & BVL Indoor User Collective

Key points

· On behalf of the indoor sport users of Bay Venues facilities, the submitter urged Council not to increase user fees and charges.

· Basketball was the fastest growing sport in New Zealand and according to the submitter there had been no investment into indoor sports from when Bayfair Arena had opened.

· Investment into grassroots sports and community centres were required but did not support investment for a High Performance Sports Centre.

In response to questions

· There needed to be more community courts to cater for the increasing demand.

· There was a lot of international and regional interest for sporting events, but appropriate infrastructure was not available to attract high end sport to Tauranga.

· Private sector partnership with community facilities was agreed as a good idea.

· Multi-format outdoor courts were a cost effective way to get more facilities out of a court.

(37) Sub ID: 014 - Nicki Goodwin and Larry Bilodea - Tauranga Community Foodbank

Key points

· Tauranga Community Foodbank had worked with a number of other social community agencies and networks based on a system of referrals.

· They received support from corporate and public sector organisations but with the current economic climate due to COVID-19, funds/grants could potential be stopped or reduced but demand for their service had increased.

· The submitter requested long term support for a part of Tauranga Community Foodbank’s rent so that they could continue to do their work supporting the vulnerable in the community.

· The organisation was exploring a larger facility so that they were able to cater for the increase in demand for their service and as such, support from Council over a five to ten year period for partially funding their rent would assist the Foodbank greatly.

In response to questions

· The option to co-hub a space was not off the table, but anonymity was important to their role because some people were embarrassed when arriving to get food packs.

· The current cost of rent was $40,000 in the current premise and a larger space would potentially cost $60,000 to rent so $30,000 funding from TCC would assist greatly.

· The organisation had budgeted for 30% growth in demand, but demand was quickly outpacing that forecast.

At 11.34am, Mayor Tenby Powell entered the meeting.

(38) Sub ID: 205 - Greg Orchard and Vicki McLaren – Accessible Properties NZ Ltd

- Tabled Item

Key points

· Submitter stressed the importance of being able to house people into properties in the current housing shortage.

· COVID-19 had put immense pressures on housing and social issues would increase due to the housing shortage or rental unaffordability.

· Highlighted the ongoing issues around rental price that was increasing and outgrowing income capacity.

· Accessible Properties wanted to partner with TCC and the Central Governmental to find solutions for the housing shortage.

· The submitter supported the Mayoral Taskforce on homelessness and the Elder Housing projects.

· Tauranga was labelled as one of the most unaffordable cities to live in and this was something not to be proud of.

· Encouraged priority of implementation for SmartGrowth, Te Papa Spatial Planning and Housing Choice Plan changes, given they focus on encouraging development and community regeneration within the city footprint.

· Pukehinahina Project requested TCC’s support and leadership in developing a joint partnership proposal.

In response to questions

· Accessible Properties NZ Ltd was in consultations with the District Health Board on developing affordable properties.

(39) Sub ID: 218 - Ian Stevenson

- Tabled Item

Key points

· Submitter opined that Bay Venues Limited (BVL) was operating at a loss and that its budget was under-reported.

· More money was going into BVL than was being approved and the merger between BVL and TCC was not working.

· The debts and losses of BVL should not be a burden on Council, and subsequently on ratepayers.

· Submitter recommended that any non-core activity should be fully funded by BVL rather than Council because, according to the submitter, an estimated $20 million annually had been added to rates due to BVL.

· Urged Council to review what was being spent versus what was approved.

· The duplication of facilities and roles added to the burden of ratepayers.

· The Memorial Park project’s cost blowout was not acceptable.

At 11:58 am, Mayor Tenby Powell and Deputy Mayor Tina Salisbury left the meeting.

· Annual losses of $2 million and investments of over $100 million by ratepayers was not financially acceptable and to be insolvent meant that debt payments could not be met.

· The submitter opposed rates increase because Council had not properly considered community needs and concerns.

At 12.09pm, Cr Jako Abrie entered the meeting.

(40) Sub ID: 219 - Ian Stevenson - Stevenson Accounting Ltd

Key points

· Cash that was collected for a specific purpose was not shown accordingly in the budget and debt was understated.

· Development Contribution’s had to be fully accounted for by developers’ and not the ratepayers.

· Submitter discussed the 2011 Standard and Poor’s calculation as well as Council’s revenue breakdown.

At 12:11 pm, Mayor Tenby Powell and Deputy Mayor Tina Salisbury returned to the meeting.

· Profit and Loss data was not properly accounted for because Bella Vista showed as income and the debt recovery plan was not easily locatable.

· If something was not working, change it or find better ways of doing it but do not keep doing it.

· Submitter requested stopping CAPEX for 12-24 months for projects that had not started so that they could be reviewed in terms of whether the project was required or could be scaled down.

· Manager to staff ratio was 1:4 when it had to be 1:10 and submitter urged for staffing restructures.

· SmartGrowth had not worked and should be cancelled.

(41) Sub ID: 220 - Ian Stevenson - Bodyzone 2016 Ltd

Key points

· Proposed that all fees and charges be done on a user-pays basis.

· Core industries such as tourism was down so it was critical to rebuild industries.

· The submitter predicted that within six to nine months, existing projects would slow down or stop and there would be a loss of development contributions.

· The increase in rates had been tried before but current failures and project cost blowouts showed that it had not worked.

· Urged TCC to review CAPEX as well as payroll because independent surveys showed that Council’s payroll was above private sector parity.

At 12:00pm, Cr. Larry Baldock left the meeting.

· The socio-economic predications post COVID-19 were startling and alarming because the potential recession would be unlike any other.

· The COVID-19 wage subsidy claimed by TCC was unjustified because its payroll had not changed.

At 12:04pm, Cr. Larry Baldock returned to the meeting.

· The Durham Street, Wharf Street, and Elizabeth Street projects would under-deliver their investment value.

· TCC was insolvent because an intolerable ceiling of debt was reached.

· Traffic congestion was going to continue.

· Rubbish collection by Council had no benefit for ratepayers because people were paying for what they used via private contractors.

At 12.20pm the meeting adjourned.

Continuation of meeting - 6 July 2020

At 9.00am the meeting reconvened.

ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Avon Adams (Manager: Communications & Engagement), Mark Smith (Manager: Spaces & Places), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Doug Spittle (Team Leader: Urban Spaces), Dani Jurgeleit (Team Leader: Community Development), Megan Cleverley (Team Leader: Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities, Kieran Wall (Community Development Advisor: Disability & Age Friendly Cities), Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor), and Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor).

The Policy Committee acknowledged and accepted apologies for lateness received from Cr. Andrew Hollis and for absence from Cr Heidi Hughes.

(42) Sub ID: 598 – Harry Taitapanui

· Submitter did not attend.

At 9.15am the meeting adjourned.

At 9.30am the meeting reconvened.

(43) Sub ID: 397 – Anna Rogers

Key points

· Councils, past and present, had wanted to build the city but could not get past community spaces over big developments.

· Strongly opposed to closing Our Place because it was a lifestyle spot, provided jobs, kept the city vibrant, and the lights and activity gave a semblance of safety.

· Urged Council to take over running Our Place or to go into a partnership to keep it operational and provide mentorship to Our Place management to be self-sufficient.

· A small museum was going to be good for the city.

· Baypark and the ASB stadium was not accessible by bus.

· The Cargo Shed had been allowed to get run down.

· It was pointless to attract visitors to the CBD if there was nothing to do.

· It was important for Council to invest in affordable housing living so that the CBD was not just for the wealthy to live in.

· Supported keeping New Year’s Eve budget, the Memorial Park to Strand Coastal Project and free parking within CBD.

(44) Sub ID: 626 – Joy Moir – Sustainable Business Solutions

- Presentation/Tabled item

Key points

· There was a misconception that sustainability was solely about the environment because it was much more holistic than just that.

· The 2020 World Economic Forum stated that the five out of the top ten global financial risks were related to the environment.

· Sought endorsement from Council on forming an Independent Sustainability Advisory Board.

· Wanted a consultative process between Sustainable Business Solutions and Council so that TCC could be a leader in the area of sustainability.

· Every individual should have environmental accountability from a sustainability viewpoint so that things were done for the long term rather than the short term.

· COVID-19 had created a shortage of funds and government funding was hard to access so if funding applications had a strong sustainable risk mitigation framework, it could be the key between a successful and unsuccessful application and Sustainable Business Solutions could provide expertise on this.

· Requested funding from Council via Link Community Trust for “Remaker Space.”

· Funding would enable access to 15 vacant containers in Our Place for a two year period.

In response to questions

· The Independent Sustainability Advisory Board would be made up of subject matter experts in the field of sustainability and decision-makers from Council.

At 11.30am, Cr Andrew Hollis entered the meeting.

(45) Sub ID: 601 – Tanya Horo Taitapanui

· Submitter did not attend.

(46) Sub ID: 615 – John and Jackie Paine

- Presentation

Key points

· Supported the incubator as a waste minimisation hub.

· Urged community upcycling and recycling so that things did not end up in landfills.

· Our Place was a perfect space for a repurposing and educational centre.

· A large number of people had signed a petition not to close down Our Place.

· Our Place was on the bus route and encouraged people to use public transport.

· A repurposing centre would attract locals and tourists into the city.

· The remaker concept and other similar organisations were a global movement and gaining popularity in New Zealand, but not yet in Tauranga.

· There was a significant interest in the remaker project from University of Waikato, Toi Ohomai Institute of Technology, the business community, NGOs and Our Place.

· A two year funding commitment would be required ($130,000 for 2021 and $120,000 2022) before the project becomes self-sufficient.

· If TCC funds the project, then it would subsequently be investing in the activation of the city centre, sustainability, strong labour market and zero waste economy.

In response to questions

· The “Remaker Space” could done from anywhere and was not limited to Our Place however Our Place was the preferred location.

· Had submitted a funding request to central government’s Waste Minimisation Fund for approximately $500,000 over three years.

· By having “Remaker Space” at Our Place, it would provide 50% of OPEX and would keep the entity viable.

(47) Sub ID: 270 – Glen Crowther

Key points

· Supported the Incubator, the remaker initiative and the sustainability framework.

· Wanted more focus on building bus shelters in Otumoetai as well as other suburbs in Tauranga.

· Many people were braving the weather just to use the bus service and Council was doing its part through the Public Transport Plan but there should be more engagement to keep the community informed.

· Believed the first stage in delivering a genuine multi-modal transport system and modal shift began with supporting public transport

· There was a potential that the Brookfield Interchange may not go ahead so submitter recommend that Council use part of that funding to create bus shelters for suburbs struggling without bus shelters.

· The submitter wanted to see a detailed analysis of each capital project in a cost/benefit matrix.

In response to questions

· There was funding for bus shelters and there had been reports about a list of potential locations.

· The lists did not seem to capture the bus shelters in locations as needed by the community.

· The Regulatory Committee and Urban Form and Transport Development Committee had reports which were pending.

At 10.19am the meeting adjourned.

At 10.30am the meeting reconvened.

(48) Sub ID: 031 – Shar Matthew – Gymnastics Club

Key points

· The Gymnastics Club had three gymnasts who were the part of New Zealand Gymnastics.

· Urged Council in assisting the Club to negotiate with Bay Venues Limited for reducing rent because the Club was struggling to pay $95,000 annually; more so due to COVID-19.

· Ideally the Club’s ambition was to be in their own building which they could co-share space with others if needed.

In response to questions

· Gymnastics required a lot of specialised equipment, so the space requirements had accommodated for these.

· Currently the Club co-shared with Astro Cheers Vision, a cheerleading club.

· The Club’s current location was perfect, but they were open to moving to another suitable space that had good rental opportunity, but the area had to be one that was not serviced by another club in order to mitigate duplication.

· Tauranga did not require three gymnastics clubs and forming a super club was open to negotiation if there was an appetite for it.

At 10.36am the meeting adjourned.

At 11.10am the meeting reconvened.

(49) Sub ID: 265 – Richard Prince & Sub ID: 627 – Richard Prince – Welcome Bay Rating Advocates

Key points

· Due to COVID-19 and consequent socio-economic pressures, there should be a rate freeze.

· The 10% increase in Universal General Annual Charge (UGAC) was in line with ground realities because a ratepayer could be asset rich but cash poor.

· There should be targeted rates so that the rates accurately captured ratepayer circumstances.

· The median rates increase of 1% was misleading because some ratepayers would be paying 6.8% and some would pay up to 22%; some ratepayers would be multiple times over the threshold for accessing the same services.

· Businesses were already struggling and changes to the commercial differential would affect them, especially tenants of commercial properties.

· The submitter had summarised some newspaper articles and submission entries which supported a non-increase to commercial rates.

· Revised Annual Plan cost savings were insignificant, and the submitter urged Council to scale back or cancel projects.

· Cycleways on Totora Street were unsafe and dangerous for cyclists because it was a major arterial road for trucks.

· Our Place should be closed and hanging baskets needed to be removed.

· The New Year Eve funding should be cancelled and requested loan repayments be prioritised.

· Development Contributions had to be fully paid by developers with no cost to ratepayers.

At 11.20am, Cr Andrew Hollis entered the meeting.

In response to questions

· The rates freeze meant to keep the rates to what it was last year.

· Targeted rates relief was already something Council was exploring.

· A lower value dwelling did not relate to a lower combined income.

· Due to capital gains on a property, rates deferment had to assessed carefully.

At 11.35am the meeting adjourned.

At 11.40am the meeting reconvened.

(50) Sub ID: 584 – Jannine Spiers

Key points

· Supported the Incubator, Tauranga Screen Collective, and Tauranga Film Creative submissions.

· The Incubator had supported the grassroots film industry, writers, the acting community, and provided filmmakers a space, resources, and a hub from which to grow and showcase their work.

· The film industry was developing rapidly and had to be supported so that the expertise and talent did not go elsewhere due to a lack of resources in Tauranga.

(51) Sub ID: 026 – Michelle Bishop

Key points

· Was against the rates increase because people were losing jobs or were on reduced hours or income, and businesses were struggling.

· Council had to decrease its operational budget, reduce the staffing size and stop using consultants.

· Funding to the emergency management community should not be cut.

· Our Place was a failing business which should be closed and turned into a carpark.

· New Year Eve funding was to be retained but the hanging baskets budget should be looked into.

· Robbins Park was delipidated and required proper maintenance.

· CAPEX had to be reduced significantly because if the community were budgeting due to COVID-19 then so should Council.

· The community did not want rubbish and kerbside collection.

· To have a cycleway plan just to secure NZTA funding was not right because some of the proposed cycleways were not properly planned out or consulted on.

· Enquired why TCC dog registration fees were higher than other areas including Western Bay of Plenty and Auckland, given they have a greater area to cover.

· Dog waste bags were not available nor were dog waste specific bins available.

· Requested a senior citizen discount for dogs providing companionship.

· Paying a service for Council online or in person with a credit card incurred a surcharge and it had to be removed.

(52) Sub ID: 621 – Stephen Lasslett – Be Content

- Presentation

Key points

· Discussed utilisation of unused land and space in Tauranga.

· Proposed consultation with local community for new ideas on land use in Kennedy Ridge subdivision (allocated as part of Open Space Strategy).

· Would like Council support for identifying unused land at The Lakes.

· An example of unused land in Memorial Park was given and albeit being part of open places and spaces policy, the submitter felt the policy was outdated and an impediment.

· Believed numerous sites around Tauranga can be better utilised for positive benefits to the community.

In response to questions

· 6000sqm in The Lakes was earmarked for parks and swings but there were already a number of these and perhaps the community may want to sub-divide some parcels of the land for something different.

(53) Sub ID: 317 – Lianne Pepperell

Key points

· There was stigma and stereotype that the younger generation did not contribute to discussion or society because they do not pay rates.

· Councillors had seemed fearful of making tough decisions, out-of-the box decisions, or making decisions just for the sake of appeasing some voters or losing their jobs.

· Voting to remove Our Place was detrimental to the CBD activation and attracting people to the city.

· The city was struggling because Council discussions were all about parking, hanging baskets, and things which were stuck in the past.

· Submitter did not oppose to a rate increase because it was needed to progress the city.

· The year was 2020 and not 1920 so a house purchased 50 years could not be purchased at the same price today; urged councillors to stop living in the past.

· Public transport was failing because it was not made appealing or affordable.

· Tauranga was an attractive destination for tourists and locals but due to indecision the city and tourism were failing.

· A 500-person conference moved to Rotorua because Tauranga did not have a conference venue large enough to accommodate them and this was a lost opportunity.

· Submitter urged councillors to be courageous by making tough discussions and encouraged Council to focus on developing a vibrant family-friendly city; particularly for younger rate payers who understood the need to pay for quality, growth, and development.

(54) Sub ID: 820 – Robyn Molloy

- Tabled Item

Key points

· Our Place was failing and should be closed down.

· Supported the 800m cycleway and walkway from the Strand to Memorial Park which had been discussed for the past 12 years so it was time now to act.

· The submitter acknowledged however that this year was not one to spend money on another feasibility study but urged Council to keep the project on the radar for the future.

In response to questions

· Riparian rights were allowable as long as egress did not occur.

At 12.30pm the meeting adjourned.

At 1.30pm the meeting reconvened.

(55) Sub ID: 505 – Joanne Bruce

Key points

· Council needed a long-term city vision that was focused on tomorrow.

· Supported the 7.6% rate increase.

· Urged prioritisation of public transport, walkway and cycleway plans, especially the Memorial Park to Strand Project.

· Arts and events should be promoted because they were important for good mental health.

· Supported the Farmer development because it would greatly assist in the city’s activation.

In response to questions

· The lockdown had showed the community spirit, particularly within the walking and cycling community, which proved if could be done with the right investment.

(56) Sub ID: 706 – Norm Weir

Key points

· The proposed rates increase was not fair during the current COVID-19 climate.

· Information was not provided in the newspapers in great detail and this had disenfranchised those who did not have access to the internet, especially the elderly.

· It had taken some elderly members of the community a long time to purchase their properties and to become mortgage-free, but they could be forced to sell because of the rates increase.

· Supports a uniform rating structure and strongly opposed rate increases providing certain households a reduction whilst others received an increase.

In response to questions

· A deferment policy without interest charges would be desirable but it would not solve the problem because it would defer to the next generation.

At 1.48pm the meeting adjourned.

At 1.52pm the meeting reconvened.

(57) Sub ID: 744 – Susan Hodkinson

Key points

· Submitter was 70 years old and had been cleaning up streets at Mount Manganui for the last 40 years.

· Was privileged to have grown up in Mount Manganui but was saddened at how filthy it had become with rubbish and littering.

· No one seemed to be doing any civic cleaning or had civic pride at Mount Manganui.

· There was no information readily available on whose responsibility it was to clean and maintain the area.

· Bay Dreams and other festivals like it did not have a good system of where rubbish was collected after the events had finished.

· There should be more public bins and there was no pride in the city.

· Urged Council to start a partnership with the Wrigley Company to reuse their empty candy tins for recycling or repurposing.

· Submitter wanted dedicated recycling days and weeks for glass, plastic and paper.

· Roadside litter polluted the streams, beaches and sea.

· Proposed Council engage with the community so that residents had greater responsibility in maintaining local neighbourhoods; as opposed to relying on Council to provide city-care.

· Requested collaboration with the Regional Council in improvements to roadside litter.

· Wanted a publication of scheduled services i.e. berm mowing, road sweeping, tree pruning.

(58) Sub ID: 727 – Debz Turner

Key points

· Submitter was a long-time Tauranga resident and it has been six years since she raised the issue of bus services.

· Most pedestrian crossings near bus stops were dangerous and most bus shelters were old, unsafe, uncovered, did not have seating, and did not contain updated timetables or information; requested Council to look at Hamilton City’s bus stops to see what a good and safe one looked like.

· Urged Council to put the city first by having a good bus service and shelters that were located in more connected spaces i.e. close to amenities.

· Proposed turning the old i-Site space into a bus terminal waiting room for users and bus drivers which could be manned by volunteers.

· Proposed a community centre be built to support people in the community with loneliness.

· Did not support hanging baskets and wanted them replaced with children’s artwork instead.

· Tauranga needed a communal community centre which would be great for mental health wellbeing, combating loneliness, and fostering community networking and support.

(59) Sub ID: 196 – Scott Adams Branch President, Property Council (Natalia Tropotova did not attend)

Key points

· Supported 4.7% rates increase but urged relief or rebate packages for those facing hardships.

· Urged maintaining current UAGC to protect and support those businesses that were commercial tenants.

· Rates differentials should be abolished because it was a 11% or 24% increase for commercial properties which would affect SMEs.

· If commercial OPEX was seen as too expensive, then Tauranga will not attract businesses or investors.

· CAPEX on critical infrastructure was supported but not the library, swimming pool, and reserves/parks upgrades, and similar non-core infrastructure capital projects should be deferred.

· Many developers and builders were also struggling so the Development Contributions Policy should be deferred to 2021.

In response to questions

· There had to be more transparency in the UACG charges because the rates bill was not broken down in detail.

· Commercial businesses could claim back rates charges as part of GST.

(60) Sub ID: 714 – Graeme Purches

Key points

· Supported rates rise but opposed UAGC and commercial differential.

· Submitter believed that Development Contribution levies were influenced by developers who had been misleading Council since the mid-1990s.

· Tauranga had become very difficult to conduct business in, especially in the building industry because it was too expensive.

· There should be a targeted rate for all new development projects because developers had been selling sections at market rates and pocketing the money.

· The Waihi Road roundabout was a disaster and it was projects like these which caused community angst and frustrations.

· Believed that rating categories should not be compared to other councils, but rather, focus on Tauranga’s unique demographic and socio-economic circumstances.

· Opposed how dog registration fees were calculated and believed 80% of operating costs should be recovered from dog owners whose dogs created the administration costs.

In response to questions

· Development Contributions had come into force in 2002.

· Dunedin and Hamilton cities did not have UACG and were doing remarkably well.

· Local government should not be engaged in social utopia projects because that was what the central government was for.

(61) Sub ID: 811 – John Coster – Tauranga Historical Society

- Tabled item

Key points

· The management and protection of historical monuments was not good.

· The Elms was important to the history of Tauranga and the Elms Foundation had relied on visitors for income but post COVID-19, there had been a substantial decrease in visitor numbers.

· Urged Council to ensure that The Elms staff and volunteers were not impacted by staff reductions or lack of operational funding.

· Supported Council’s proposal to maintain capital expenditure on parks and recreation developments and upgrades.

· Urged continuation of Monmouth Redoubt project in accordance with the conservation plan.

At 2.49pm the meeting adjourned.

At 3.14pm the meeting reconvened.

(62) Sub ID: 828 – Stephanie Simpson

Key points

· The scale of the pedestrian aspect of the Elizabeth Streetscape project was not needed.

· Phoenix Park was a waste of money and lacked community engagement or support.

· 3 Waters infrastructure was failing but money was being wasted on projects that were not required.

· Council needed to listen to the community and engage with them, especially on projects.

· Kerbside collections should be included in rates because charging for it was a concern for smaller families or individuals who did not have a large garbage footprint.

· Events planning and management were not Council’s job and funding for it should cease.

· Our Place had failed and should be closed down.

· Council had a large pool of staff but still hired consultants which was a waste of funds.

· UACG should be reviewed and decreased.

(63) Sub ID: 803 – Liz Davis

· Submitter did not attend.

(64) Sub ID: 829 – Charlotte Greer

· Submitter did not attend.

At 3.21pm the meeting adjourned.

At 5.00pm the meeting reconvened.

(65) Sub ID: 751 – Leonard Mitchell

Key points

· Strongly opposed any rates increase.

· Submitter had canvassed Golden Sands in Papamoa and had found rates for 117 homes had gone up.

· Submitter had an 80sqm house, was a pensioner, and his house was small, yet his rates had increased by 50% from last one.

· For some pensioners to increased rates meant sacrificing food or fuel.

· Supported the completion of major road works.

· Requested keeping building costs down and removing bureaucracy to ensure efficiency.

In response to questions

· It was clarified that for the submitters property, there could be a potential decrease in the rates, and he was urged to check the Council’s online rates calculator tool.

· The issue was further compounded by the fact that Bay of Plenty Regional Council was also increasing their rates which affected the submitter’s property so it could be a case where despite the Tauranga City Council rates decreasing, the total rates were increasing.

(66) Sub ID: 279 - Terry Molloy

Key points

· Councillors needed to work together for the sake of the city and community.

· Opposed changes to the rating regime and any large rates increases.

· Supported growth relating to green fields and intensification.

· It was not necessary for all developments and projects to happen in 2020 or 2021 but instead they could be staggered over a number of years.

· Memorial Park walkway did not have to happen immediately, but it could be staggered, and this approach would be supported by the community.

· People and the environment were important, and organisations such as Envirohub did outstanding work in the sustainability space and deserved support from Council.

· There were a lot of people hurting in the community, even before COVID-19, and this would only get worse as the repercussions and effects of COVID-19 increased.

· The CDB decay was not the fault of small businesses and there were no easy answers on how to solve it, but it was important to continue the work on activation.

(67) Sub ID: 237 - Lucy Hill - Youth Advisory Group (YAG) – Youth Retention

Key points

· The beauty and appeal of the Bay of Plenty was attractive to the youth and new workers.

· Tauranga had an issue with long term employment and did not offer incentives for youth to stay in the region.

· Wanted Council support and partnership to build better conditions and enticements for youths.

· Wanted to create industry partnerships and collaboration with existing partners (such as Priority One) to find solutions for encouraging youth not only to stay in Tauranga but also be attracted to Tauranga to take advantage of clear pathways and career progression options.

In response to questions

· Youth membership or a graduate program within Council would be a good idea.

· YAG had partnerships with Tauranga Chamber of Commerce and Trustpower.

· YAG had a membership age range of 16-24 years and had 13 members.

(68) Sub ID: 275 - Carole Gordon

- Presentation

Key points

· The use of too many consultants put funds and resources of Council under stress.

· The community was not happy with the Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) outcomes.

· Wellington was a vibrant multi-cultural city for all ages and Tauranga was not because it was not pedestrian friendly or age friendly.

· Wanted investment in public transport and Smart City initiatives such as smart homes and smart cars.

· There needed to be a strong move towards reducing elder dependency and adopting the Treasury’s Living Standards Framework (LSF).

· Free buses came to the CBD, but many elderly people did not want to come into the city centre.

· Did not want the sale of elder housing land and requested Council offer a better pathway forward by engaging with the community and elders more deeply.

· UFTI was not a co-design process because it was aged-biased and did not capture the voices of Māori families.

· Urged Council to think about the community before thinking about projects such as roads, and to give the elders the ability to live in a liveable city.

· Wanted Council to focus on its people and build a modern sustainable Smart City that was prosperous.

(69) Sub ID: 271 - Michael Pugh

· Submitter did not attend.

(70) Sub ID: 137 - Maraea Timutimu

· Submitter did not attend.

(71) Sub ID: 250 - Lincoln Taylor

- Presentation

Key points

· Strongly opposed the 4.7% increase.

· Despite the increase in rates, the submitter would receive little to no benefits.

· Reserves were going into the sea due to erosion and there was no water security in summer.

· House valuations should not be confused with the ability to pay rates, particularly increases.

· Submitter had purchased his property 20 years ago when it was affordable for his family and children.

· Since 1984, the productivity divide between the private and public sectors had increased.

· Council had to review OPEX rather than CAPEX.

· Annual Plan proposed to increase the operating budget to $273 million and the submitter considered this a large increase in two years with no satisfactory explanation provided.

· Increasing rates was disrespectful to hardworking ratepayers and was akin to price gouging by a monopoly; which the submitter believed Council was.

In response to questions

· A reasonable rate would be whatever it is to run the city effectively and our rates were higher than that of Vancouver.

(72) Sub ID: 090 - Richard Hart (Revised)

Key points

· In a hundred years’ time Te Tumu would be fully developed with people living in it so were the current plans capturing this.

· Proposed that the Te Tumu Plan required an independent review because it was driven by vested interests.

· Suggested a spatial workshop run with stakeholders such as Western Bay of Plenty District Council, fishermen, and Tangata Whenua.

· The planning, the infrastructure and assumptions needed to be outcomes based with proper modelling so that the project was resilient and future-proof.

(73) Sub ID: 312 - Claudia Vianello

· Submitter did not attend.

(74) Sub ID: 570 – Keegan Millar

Key points

· TCC was at a pivotal point in its development and progression.

· Opposed increasing debt to revenue ratio to 300%.

· Revised Annual Plan was general good except for the Elizabeth Street project which should be postponed, or other streets should be considered.

· Bay Venues Limited should not be funded by Council anymore.

· Protective cycleways would save lives but not the current system of a green medium painted strip.

· Little Big Events was given a peppercorn lease arrangement, but Council was seen to be subsidising their expenses or doing their work.

· Supported closing Our Place because the project had failed.

· Our Place was sometimes closed during the weekends which was not conducive or made good business sense because most ratepayers could only come to Our Place during weekends.

· Recommended getting rid of the hanging baskets because they were from the 1930s and did not belong in the 2020s.

· Opposed keeping New Year’s Eve budget.

· Opposed paying for a public transport system that was not fit for purpose.

In response to questions

· Bay Venues Limited took away business away from SMEs.

At 6.28pm the meeting adjourned.

At 6.43pm the meeting reconvened.

(75) Sub ID: 385 – Gordon Gray-Lockhart

Key points

· Disagreed with lowering rates as per revised annual plan.

· Since 2012, Tauranga had grown by 25% but infrastructure had not kept up with growth.

· Tauranga City had an exciting and great future, but it required tough decision-making by Council because for Tauranga to progress, money had to be spent in advance.

· Requested Council explore rates rebates for those who deserved it.

· Urged Council to make decisions not for a few who always opposed to progress, but for the majority who wanted to see the city grow and develop.

· Opposed New Year’s Eve budget.

In response to questions

· Council was approximately $50 million dollars short in its income and did not charge commercial entities like other cities did so it needed to consider this.

· The pathway forward to build the city had to be unified and have community support.

· Our Place’s management and operation were questionable.

At 6.57pm the meeting adjourned.

At 7.02pm the meeting reconvened.

(76) Sub ID: 692 Rawiri McKinney – Riff Raff Promotions

- Presentation/Tabled Item

Key points

· Strongly opposed to closing Our Place and recommended rebranding the space as Downtown Live.

· The concept would create a space for buskers, artists, dance groups, and the community to use.

· Wanted Council support for an all-weather stage or space so that Tauranga can be seen as the music capital of New Zealand.

· The project would complement businesses in the CBD rather than competing against them and would also attract people to the city.

In response to questions

· Pop-up stores would take up occupancy in the empty shipping containers when a gig was on.

· Our Place did not have a retail venue appeal.

· Artists could potentially take up residencies in some of the shipping containers.

· Downtown Live would be self-sufficient within six months but required Council support to get a better stage so that the venue could be used to its maximum potential.

At 7.25pm the meeting adjourned.

Continuation of meeting 7 July 2020

At 9.20am the meeting reconvened.

ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Mark Smith (Manager: Spaces & Places), Megan Cleverley (Team Leader: Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities), Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor), and Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor).

The Policy Committee acknowledged and accepted apologies for lateness received from Cr. Dawn Kiddie and for absence from Cr Heidi Hughes.

(77) Sub ID: 795 – Tessa MacKenzie – Natural Assets Trust

Key points

· Wanted a semi-permanent safe space for roughsleepers living in cars to be able to access showers, toilets, Wi-Fi, and kitchen amenities.

· There were approximately 700 people on the waiting list for emergency housing.

· Urged Council to waive consent fees for portable houses and the requirement of connecting to a sewerage line.

· The Tiny House movement was growing because it provided first homeowners an opportunity to buy their own home and these were usually cabins, self-contained trailers, or portable houses.

· The community needed to come together to support one another and especially for those who were struggling.

· Submitter sought to reduce the waiting list for rental housing, reduce the number of those applying for emergency housing and enable affordable home ownership options.

In response to questions

· There needed to be an alternative option to just building houses because sometimes it was not achievable in the short-term; opportunities such as portable houses, trailer homes, and other similar housing solutions should be explored.

· Government was funding profits of motels by paying for emergency housing.

· Portable homes had a self-contained grey water system.

· Families were sharing bedrooms or living in motels which were not safe or good for their mental health wellbeing.

· The multiple dwellings policy had to be updated to reflect ground realities.

(78) Sub ID: 203 – John Garwood

· Submitter did not attend.

(79) Sub ID: 197 - Jo Wills

Key points

· Supported the previous submitter’s points and comments.

· Strongly supported the Sustainability Framework and subsequent advisory board; requested $200,000 to fund the advisory board.

· The advisory board had to be independent, void of bias or vested interest, and not pressured by TBOP, Priority One, and corporate organisation.

· Subject matter experts in the Sustainable Framework should make up the advisory board.

· Requested that Council retain staff who were working in the Sustainability Framework space and to provide them with further resourcing so that they have the capacity to do a good job.

· Urged Council to do more than just pay lip-service by accepting recommendations and implementing them into short, medium, and long term goals so that there was a commitment to sustainability.

· In the submitter’s opinion, the Environment Strategy was one of the best pieces of co-design work carried out by Council, but it had disappeared in Council bureaucracy; submitter hoped that the Sustainability Framework did not suffer the same fate.

· Wanted a review of fund allocation so that the distribution of economic development funds aligned to the Sustainability Framework.

· Urban Planning was only seen from the point of the ratepayer but not of renters or those who were doing it tough and thus disenfranchised members of the community.

· The UFTI scope and growth strategy did not take into account gentrification and low income households.

· Cycling should be advocated as a mode of transport, not just as recreation or sport.

· Rotorua's Housing and Thriving Communities Strategic Framework was a fantastic example of co-design work which put socio-cultural goals such as speaking Te Reo first; submitter urged Council to peruse the framework to get ideas.

· Submitter requested that Council have an open mind and shift its thinking from profit to people.

In response to questions

· There was an over-representation of ratepayers, businesses, and corporates in the work that Council does, and this should not be the case for the advisory board which should be made up of subject matter experts.

(80) Sub ID: 812 - Rannva Graham

Key points

· Feral cats were running rampant and there was no agency looking into this issue or any avenues to look for support.

· Under the current bylaws there was no legal way to manage feral cat colonies, so it had become a serious issue in suburbs.

· There needed to be some control management plan for feral cats, especially if one was captured in a trap.

· There was no enforcement for microchipping and the submitter urged Council to address this gap.

· If a feral cat was put down humanely, then fines could be issued to the person who surrendered the cat if it was discovered that the cat belonged to someone.

· Urged Council to provide funding for the issue to deal with a growing problem and to protect those who were taking a risk to do the right thing.

· Neutering of feral cats became an issue for people who took the feral cats to the vet because they had to pay for the neutering expenses and looking after the cat before release; it was not fair or equitable.

· The SPCA could not provide assistance or support in this area because they did not have the funds or resources to do so.

· The submitter was concerned because the name of the person was registered when they surrendered a feral cat to the vet for euthanasia; it became a question of whose liability it became if the cat was microchipped.

· Strongly requested Council to create a guideline or policy to govern this issue, dedicate resources and to fund it.

In response to questions

· Cat owners should have their cats tagged and all cats should be microchipped.

· The responsibility of whether a cat dies or not should not be the prerogative of the person catching the feral cats; it was unfair.

· Council had no jurisdictional responsibility or legislation for cats as they did for dogs.

· Wellington City Council had some policies regarding cat microchipping and these policies should be explored.

Staff Action (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance):

· Where land was Council owned and/or administered, then Council could look into what was provided for removing feral cats from the land.

(81) Sub ID: 797 - Maaka Nelson – Papamoa Football Club (PFC)

Key points

· Given the size and the growth of PFC, access to space in fields was becoming a significant issue which may force the Club to cap numbers, and this was not conducive to growing the sport.

· Submitter strongly advocated for Simpson Reserve to be reclassified and rezoned as an active reserve.

· PFC had the support of other football clubs for Simpson Reserve to be rezoned.

· Submission of PFC highlighted issues faced by the fastest growing code in the region and country.

· Other sporting codes had more space and access than football clubs.

· Te Tumu would not be available for some time so rezoning Simpson Reserve would cater for the growing demand.

· Subsequent to the reclassification, the submitter requested allocation of Simpson Reserve to PFC for its use as a football field and training facility from January to September, each year.

In response to questions

· PFC had 37% women membership, and in some of the junior grades there were more females than males.

(82) Sub ID: 817 - Malia Tupou

· Submitter did not attend.

(83) Sub ID: 741 - Rangimarie Kingi

Key points

· Submitter discussed climate change and sea level rise in The Strand.

· Businesses along The Strand should move to Cameron Road because of sea level rise.

· Smart meter installations and 5G towers were not good for health and this concern needed to be investigated thoroughly.

· Smart City was an agenda for Crown expansion and increasing migrant population.

· The Queen should be charged for historical wrongs in New Zealand.

· People in the community were not happy with Council.

· The Land Tribunal should be replaced with a restorative justice plan

· Fresh water tables were being systematically polluted, and Council should explore desalination plants for drinking water security; Auckland seeking to take water from Waikato was a case in point of water security issues.

· Believed that many projects were over-funded and requested their removal from the budget.

(84) Sub ID: 513 - Suzie Edmonds

Key points

· Believed that Council did not have a good and robust formal complaints process.

· The current complaints process was not sufficient from a governance perspective and was reactive rather than proactive.

· It could be seen as not being independent or impartial, personal and dismissive, and an abuse of power bordering on bullying.

· The submitter, from her experience with the process, found it to be draconian and left the complainant feeling worse off; therefore, was not genuine, or empathetic, or restorative.

· Complaints were usually referred to the internal legal team or external lawyers and could be seen as a scare tactic under the guise of protecting ratepayer privilege.

· An independent panel of Justice of Peace and mediators should arbitrate large or complicated complaints or issues such as Bella Vista.

· Requested an independent complaints process group be established by elected community volunteers.

· Requested honest, respectful, accountable and equitable dialogue; the complaints process was important, especially when public confidence in Council was low.

(85) Sub ID: 833 – Chris Lee

Key points

· TCC was doing well, in comparison to Auckland and Wellington but required a governance and project costs estimates reset.

At 10.44am, Cr Dawn Kiddie entered the meeting.

· Submitter was against the Memorial Park walkway project.

· Requested creating small committees that had dedicated project management focus which then reported back to Council on projects.

· A rating review was required, and a zoning/land value based taxation system was requested to be explored.

· There were more lower value homes than higher valued properties, and it was these lower value home-owners who were funding Council.

· The disparity between rates for industrial and commercial properties required investigating.

· The Port of Tauranga had leased good usable land for container storage which was a waste of land.

At 10.49am the meeting adjourned.

At 11.20am the meeting reconvened.

(86) Sub ID: 766 – John Lee

- Presentation

Key points

· Submitter discussed the loss of fish stocks, pollution, social issues, poverty, extreme weather/disaster events, pandemics, sea level rise and climate crisis due to global warming.

· Council had outdated models, projections, and policies with respect to the issues listed above and as evidenced in the Annual Plan; causing disadvantage to future generations.

· The submitter urged Council not to ignore the issues and to show leadership in addressing them.

· Wanted Council to pass a resolution to recognise and address sea level rise and global warming.

· New Zealand had done well during COVID-19 and was a world leader on the global stage; Could should aspire to do the same.

In response to questions

· As per the submitters research, other cities encouraged youth and community groups to be part of the process in a leadership capacity to address the issues raised.

(87) Sub ID: 090 – Richard Hart

Key points

· Submitter had lived in the property since 1991, and since then he had seen an approximately 600% increase in rates.

· Acknowledged that property values had increased but requested Council, due to the COVID-19 socio-economic downturn, relook at the budget for savings rather than increasing rates.

· After the Christchurch earthquake, the building code had changed to identify earthquake prone buildings to subsequently undertake seismic strengthening. This was a very expensive and complex process for heritage-listed buildings.

· The Harrington Street carpark project was salvageable for under the costs that were given to Council and experienced overseas based consultants should take over.

· Our Place was costing ratepayers and those viable businesses operating from Our Place should take up vacancies of empty shops in the CBD.

· Our Place was meant to be temporary until a new Council Administration Building (CAB) was completed; recommended starting the geotech process on Our Place to pave the way for the new CAB or another building at the site.

· Revitalisation of The Strand and the walkway should continue because they would add value to the community and assist in the CBD activation.

· OPEX costs of Council, such as outsourced contracts to Bay Venue Limited or City Care, needed to be taken back inhouse.

· Submitter urged Council to increase rates at a later stage but not now because businesses in the CBD and the community were struggling.

At 11.42am the meeting adjourned.

At 12.00pm the meeting reconvened.

(88) Sub ID: 816 – Bruce Farthing – Taonga Tauranga Heritage BOP Charitable Trust

- Presentation

Key points

· The Regional Heritage Intent Strategy (RHIS) was imperatively needed because the Bay of Plenty did not have a heritage strategy and the RHIS filled an important gap.

· The mokopuna, the community, storytellers, and visitors were requested for historical, heritage, and socio-cultural identity stories.

· The government funding pool for heritage was beginning to lessen, even more so post COVID-19.

· There were a number of high profile stakeholders who supported the initiative proposed by Taonga Tauranga Heritage BOP Charitable Trust.

· The Council heritage targets, such as schools borrowing of historical artefacts, had been surpassed and this indicated the need for RHIS.

· The submitter requested a $20,000 investment from Council to support the organisation for the sake of future generations.

· The $20,000 funding for two years starting 2020/21 would lead to cross-region development with interested stakeholders.

· Waipā District Council’s Te Ara Wai Journeys was a great example of heritage strategy in motion that was used for the benefit of New Zealanders and visitors alike.

In response to questions

· To realise the ambitions of the organisation, it had required investment and support from a cross-section of the community and stakeholders.

· This project was not designed to replace a proposed museum but can be used as a steppingstone and experiment to gauge the wider conversations around a museum.

At 12.17pm the meeting adjourned.

At 12.20pm the meeting reconvened.

(89) Sub ID: 814 – Gerry Hodgson

- Tabled item

Key points

· Submitter presented and explained history/scope of the Kopurererua Valley Rotary Centennial Trust; wanted support for the development of the Kopurererua Valley Reserve (K-Valley); had a lot of socio-cultural, historical and Māori significance.

· K-Valley was very important because of its 300 hectare wetland and would become a formative part of society and community as Tauranga expands and grows.

· Discussed a number of current and future environmental and socio-cultural issues impacting the region and country.

· Congratulated Council on its replanting plan, remedial work, environmental restoration, landscaping, and engineering work.

· Urged Council to intensify its activities in the replanting space as a shovel ready project to align with central governments One Billion Trees Programme and be a strong contender for the Crown Infrastructure Partners (CIP) fund; securing the fund would rejuvenate the local labour market and economy.

In response to questions

· Hapū, iwi, and Tangata Whenua sites of cultural importance had been identified as well as the natural geology which would be recognised and maintained.

· Mana Whenua consultations were on-going and seeking endorsement was work in progress.

· Cambridge Park and Smiths Farm could be included in K-Valley.

· In 50-100 years, K-valley could be the last and largest central park available to future generations.

(90) Sub ID: 821 – Mark Wassung

- Presentation/Tabled item

Key points

· Presented a design proposal concept for transformational transport modal shift project "Tauranga Skyway".

· It would be a tourist attraction as well as an alternative mode of public transport for locals, alleviating the traffic congestion issues faced by the city

· The project would bring in much needed tourism, activate the CBD, and provide employment.

· Each gondola could accommodate up to 10 people travelling at 30 kilometres per hour, designed to be elderly, cyclist, and disabled community accessible.

· The per kilometre install and operational costs would be better than road or rail.

· The ropeways were safe, weather resistant and designed to be able to withstand 100 kilometre per hour winds.

· It would be easy to install and maintain and simple and cost effective to operate.

In response to questions

· Using the railway bridge was not an option due to its age however the new harbour bridge was a better option.

· Subsidies, funding, and support would all be required at both the local and central government levels.

(91) Sub ID: 290 – Neil Alton – Bay of Plenty Rugby Union

· Submitter did not attend.

At 12.55pm the meeting adjourned.

At 2.30pm the meeting reconvened.

(92) Sub ID: 830 – Stephen Bird

Key points

· Wanted a more proactive approach from Council to community concerns, particularly in Mount Manganui.

· Urged for better holistic processes for a consensus based approach to concerns such as the temporary bus interchange (which had taken three years with no results), the reduction of speed limits, and carparks.

· Requested Council to set aside funding to look into issues that had been raised previously but nothing had been done about them or to find synergies between them and existing projects that were funded.

· Farm Street was dangerous for pedestrians and children because it was narrow without a dedicated cycleway or proper footpaths; compounded by increased traffic and buses operating along it.

· Wanted to work with Council to make the area more public-centric, safe, appealing and aesthetically pleasing.

In response to questions

· Solutions should be community-vision led rather than Council-driven.

· Community had very little meaningful engagement or consultations.

· The volume and speed of traffic were the most dangerous aspects of the Farm Street issues.

· Trials of no-right turn, or buses only, or lower speed limits, or a combination of all, should be explored to determine what works best in mitigating the issues.

· The UFTD Committee would be revisiting the Arataki Interchange and there would be an opportunity for consultation.

Staff Action (General Manager: Community Services):

· The central government’s Innovating Streets Fund was an option and staff would check on the submission dates.

(93) Sub ID: 835 – Peter McKinlay

- Tabled item

Key points

· Local Government New Zealand’s (LGNZ) latest elected members survey showed that there was a strong desire for community engagement and co-design in projects.

· Mitigating impacts on ratepayers was important during COVID-19 and the post COVID-19 recovery climate.

· There had to be a real desire to seek and exhaust all available options before increasing rates to minimise impacts on ratepayers.

· A rates deferment option was not considered when the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 mandated Council to consider it.

· To impose rates without a deferment option was detrimental and punitive; would cause mental anguish and suffering in the community.

· Council was an agent of the community and not its controller which was why community engagement, enablement and empowerment had to be at the forefront of Council decisions.

In response to questions

· Deferment or rates postponement policy did not do anything for bad debts and the submitter did not know any other councils doing deferments or postponements that were done poorly.

· International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) principles and tools were not being used properly by local government in New Zealand.

· Basic services such as 3 Waters was inadequately funded.

(94) Sub ID: 212 – Zane Jensen and Heidi Lichtwark – Sport Bay of Plenty

Key points

· New incoming Chief Executive Heidi Lichtwark was introduced.

· Thanked Council for their continued support, funding and partnership.

· Community sport and recreation was a community asset and brought the community together.

· Draft User Fees and Charges in the post-COVID-19 climate was supported because it benefited users of community recreational facilities.

· The submitters felt that Bay Venues Limited were difficult to work and negotiate with.

· The deferment of funding the High Performance Centre was welcomed.

· Congratulated Council on its Bay of Plenty Places and Spaces Strategy because it had contributed to great local, regional, and sub-regional achievements.

In response to questions

· A Fees and Charges comparison was difficult to do due to the different types of operators (CCO, private, public), demographics, type of services provided, the types of facilities.

(95) Sub ID: 133 – Scott Brundell

- Presentation

Key points

· Parking issues, traffic congestions, and the lack of pedestrianisation were significant impediments to development and expansion; and detrimental for locals and tourist patronage.

· A feasibility study needed to be undertaken by Council to investigate the issues highlighted above.

· Submitter recommended limiting large vehicles and buses as well as building a sea pool at Moturiki modelled after Dunedin.

· A multi-story parking building on the corner of May Street and Shadelands Lane, that was attached to an event centre and which captured the views of Pilot Bay and Mount Maunganui, could alleviate vehicle volumes, traffic and parking issues.

In response to questions

· Pedestrianisation and footpaths would not be possible without addressing parking issues such as on-street parking.

· Community engagement with townhall type meetings would be worthwhile to do in order to gauge community buy-in and thoughts.

(96) Sub ID: 831 – Andrew Hoogstraten – Mt Maunganui Cricket Club

- Presentation/Tabled item

Key points

· The Mt Maunganui Cricket Club was the only club in the Bay of Plenty without a proper facility or ground.

· They had gone from having three grass wicket fields down to two.

· Discussed the exploration and feasibility study of potentially using Blake Park as a site for a dedicated facility for the Club.

· Whilst Blake Park was not for a specific sporting code, it had catered for all other codes except for cricket.

· Requested a 30-year lease with $53,000 funding.

In response to questions

· The field reduction from three to two was not ideal but could be coped with.

· Mount Sports was an option but unfortunately had not come to fruition.

· The Club had vacated a lease on good faith but promises made to it were then not kept.

(97) Sub ID: 156 – Simone Anderson – The Incubator

- Presentation

Key points

· The submitter expressed gratitude and thanked Council for its support to the Arts and to the Incubator.

· The Incubator was an important hub for the creative and arts community and had successfully delivered well received things such as The Peoples Gallery, Taonga Gallery, Jam Factory, and Satellite Studios.

· Submitter requested Council to continue its support to the Incubator and the Historic Village so that they can continue to grow and be a part of the community as well as be a tool for community development.

· The Incubator recorded, promoted and safeguarded arts, culture and the creative intellectual property of the region.

· The space was for future generations and supported the economy due to local patronage and tourism.

Attachments

1 Angela Wallace - Awhina House

2 Philip Brown - Papamoa Residents and Ratepayers Association

3 Brian Hodge - Sydenham Botanic Park Advisory Group

4 Chris Ingram - Bike Tauranga

5 David White & Catherine McCulloch - Water Safety Bay of Plenty

6 Jo Coughlan - NZ Chinese Language Week Trust

7 Pascale Hyboud-Peron and Daryl French - Venture Centre

8 Phil Green - H. G. Rose Architecture

9 Jo Gravit and Jacqui Ferrel - Tauranga Community Housing Trust

10 Ian Dustin

11 Anton Steel and Glenn Dougal - Film Bay of Plenty

12 Mary Dillon & Envirohub Bay of Plenty

13 Greg Orchard and Vicki McLaren - Accessible Properties NZ Ltd

14 Ian Stevenson

15 Joy Moir - Sustainable Business Solutions

16 Stephen Lasslett - Be Content

17 Robyn Molloy

18 John Coster - Tauranga Histroical Society

19 Carole Gordon

20 Rawiri McKinney - Riff Raff Promotions

21 Lincoln Taylor

22 John Lee

23 Bruce Farthing - Taonga Tauranga Heritage BOP Charitable Trust

24 Gerry Hodgson

25 Mark Wassung

26 Peter McKinlay

27 Scott Brundell

28 Andrew Hoogstraten - Mt Maunganui Cricket Club

29 Simone Anderson - The Incubator

8 Discussion of Late Items

Nil

The meeting closed at 3.55pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Policy Committee meeting held on 20th October 2020.

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020

8 Business

8.1 LTP 2021 - 2031 Community Grant Fund - Issues & Options Report

File Number: A11738183

Author: Anne Blakeway, Manager: CCO Relationships and Governance

Ariell King, Team Leader: Policy

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To provide the Policy Committee with issues and options regarding the potential establishment of a contestable grant fund to provide funding support to community organisations.

Recommendations

That the Policy Committee:

1. Agrees to include a proposal in the consultation document for the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 for a contestable grant fund, which would provide financial support to community organisations that aligned with Council’s strategic objectives and outcomes.

2. Agrees that the Community Investment Policy is to be amended to reflect the proposal for a contestable grant fund, and that following adoption by the Policy Committee, consultation will be undertaken in conjunction with the consultation document for the Long-term Plan 2021-2031.

3. Recommends the following scope and scale for a potential contestable grant fund:

(a) inclusion of requests for funding through the Annual Plan/Long-term Plan submission process (direct grants), and Level of Service subsidies;

(b) the proposed level of funding for the proposed contestable grant fund is to be set at $1.81 million. This includes what is currently set aside for direct grants ($1.65 million) and Level of Service subsidies ($160,000);

(d) allow grants to be confirmed for a maximum three-year period;

(e) set proposed minimum and maximum grant amounts; and

(f) that an Assessment Panel is created as the decision-making body.

4. Requests that the proposed eligibility, criteria and decision-making requirements are confirmed by the Policy Committee prior to inclusion in the consultation document for the Long-term Plan 2021-2031.

5. Notes that these recommendations are subject to the prioritisation process required to prepare the draft Long-term Plan 2021-31.

Background

6. Council resolved on 11 August 2020 to confirm the workstreams for the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 (LTP) and requested an issues and options paper on the following:

· the establishment of a bulk fund to allow funding support for social/cultural organisations;

· the decision-making framework, including criteria for support and delegation of decision-making;

· the scale of the bulk fund; and

· other forms of support provided to social and cultural organisations.

7. During 2019, staff carried out a project to review Council’s community organisation funding and support across all its activities. The project also developed a draft framework to guide consistent and transparent decision-making for organisations to receive funding or other support from Council.

8. The project involved a Technical Working Group, which included staff involved in supporting community organisations, and a Project Community Advisory Group sourced from Tangata Whenua and a range of community organisations in Tauranga, including Sport Bay of Plenty, Creative Bay of Plenty, SociaLink, The Incubator and the Bay of Plenty District Health Board.

9. In addition, discussions were held with other key funders in Western Bay (TECT, Bay Trust, Acorn and the Department of Internal Affairs) to understand how they invested in community organisations, and to seek their views on what could be done better in this area. There was also a desktop review of the approach of other councils, including Palmerston North and Hamilton City Councils.

10. This paper draws on the outcomes of this recent work to assist with identifying the issues and options of a potential contestable grant fund to provide funding support for community organisations in Tauranga.

Current community funding and support

11. Council currently funds numerous community organisations to help Council meet its strategic community outcomes, through a range of methods. These methods include uncontested grants, service level agreements, subsidies on rates and user fees and charges, contested match funds, and contested external agency funds. An explanation of each funding type and support streams is provided in the table below:

Name/type	Purpose	Approx. amount allocated in 2019/20
Direct grants from Council	Direct grants have historically been made through the Annual Plan or LTP process. Some are one-off grants and others are long standing annual grants. Examples include grants to surf clubs for building development, and The Incubator. (See Attachment 1).	$1.65 million
Level of service subsidies (through fees and charges for use of Council land or facilities, long-term property arrangements, charity waivers etc.)	In the Fees and Charges schedule, community organisations are charged a fee for the occupation of Council land. This fee includes a built in 50% subsidy on the market rental, which is not included here. However, some organisations have applied for and have been granted a reduction in the prescribed fees. It should be noted that the Property Team are preparing a paper on the building and land lease/rentals for community organisations as part of the LTP 2021-2031 workstreams. This level of discount should be considered when assessing other funding applications. At the Historic Village, fees may be waived for community events up to a total maximum of $80,000 per year. Charity waivers are the waiver of fees at transfer stations for community groups (e.g. Salvation Army and other charity retailers).	$160,000
Service level agreements	These agreements have been created to facilitate the delivery of a community service on Council’s behalf and in conjunction with the relevant organisation. Examples include Creative Bay of Plenty, Sport Bay of Plenty and Travel Safe. Note that these have already been included in the first draft of the LTP budgets and therefore have not been included in the summary in Attachment 1.	$1.43 million

Rates remissions	These are provided for through the Rates Remissions Policy and the Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land. These policies set out the specific circumstances where these policies will apply and are intended to provide specific targeted financial relief and support.	$1.5 million
Funds received from central government agencies or other partners for Council to distribute	Council receives funds from other agencies to distribute on their behalf for a particular purpose. There are set criteria, eligibility and decision-making processes in place. Examples include Creative Communities and the Resource Wise Community Fund.	$2.56 million
Community Development Match Fund	This fund assists groups to deliver new initiatives that foster strong, innovative and vibrant communities, by contributing 50% of the project costs up to $10,000. Note that the Council, at a meeting on 6 October 2020, considered amendments to improve the Community Development Match Fund to better deliver on Council’s purpose of social wellbeing.	$150,000
Development Contribution grants	The current Development Contributions Policy provides for community organisations to apply to Council through the Annual Plan/LTP process for a grant to cover the calculated development contribution. Note that that definition of a community organisation is different from the definition in the Community Investment Policy.	$40,000
Event Funding	The event funding framework consists of four event funds – Community Event Fund, Legacy Event Fund, Event Support Fund and the Major Event Fund. The funds are intended to ensure that residents can enjoy a wide range of sporting, performing arts, cultural events and more. The funding framework sets out the eligibility and assessment criteria and the decision-making process. The funding identified in this table excludes the Legacy and Major Events Funds, as these funds are open to all applicants, not just community organisations.	$214,000
Stewart and Carruthers Trust Funds	Council has a responsibility to ensure these funds are applied in accordance with the Trust Deeds. The fund can only be used for particular purposes e.g. for the relief of poverty. They are only distributed when there are sufficient funds.	$10,000
Staff support	Council staff provide assistance and support to a wide range of community organisations across a number of Council’s activities e.g. Community Development, Spaces and Places, Events, Libraries and Heritage etc.	$2.06 million
Total		$9.77 million

12. When considering the options outlined below for a potential contestable grant fund, the following existing funding types and support streams are excluded from the discussion due to their characteristics, e.g. funding is provided to Council for a particular purpose, there is an existing contestable framework, the intended outcome is clear and aligned with Council’s strategic outcomes, or they are being addressed through a separate Council paper:

· Rates remissions

· Funds distributed on behalf of others

· Community Development Match Fund

· Development Contribution grants, which are being addressed in a separate paper to Council

· Event funding

· Stewart and Carruthers Trust Funds

· Staff support is excluded on the basis that it is an integral part of Council’s offering to a range of community groups across a number of Council activities. It is intended that this support will continue irrespective of Council’s approach to grant funding.

13. Attachment One provides the organisations and approximate amounts that are included in the direct grants and service level agreements figures provided above.

14. Other points to note:

· It is important to recognise the support provided through the use of Council land, which is independent of the rent subsidies for groups once they have been permitted to use Council land. This type of support is not included in this paper as the decision making issues associated with the use of land are quite different to the issues for funding support e.g. when deciding whether to provide Council land, issues include the ability to obtain a resource consent for the proposal, the potential effects on the future use of the land, and the need for the proposal to occupy Council land. A comprehensive framework to assist with decisions regarding the use of Council reserve land is included in the Tauranga Reserves Management Plan.

· Work is underway on the COVID-19 recovery funding with central government and some relief (circa $150,000) is likely to be available for community organisations in Tauranga. This funding is excluded from the options regarding a potential grant fund.

· When considering the funding provided to community organisations, Council should be cognisant of the funding available from other funding agencies. This includes over $14 million from TECT, Acorn Foundation and the Lottery Grant Board.

· The future of gaming trusts is a current issue with central government and the outcome of their review could have significant and well-canvassed long-term implications for funding for community organisations.

What is Council trying to achieve from community funding and support?

15. Council is mandated under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to “promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future”.

16. Council has a number of strategies and plans that, in conjunction with the Community Outcomes, set the overarching rationale for Council’s involvement in community development and support. These strategies and plans set out a range of outcomes including the following:

· increasing participation and inclusivity;

· Tauranga Moana iwi and hapū work together and are actively involved in restoring and enhancing the mauri of Tauranga Moana;

· attracting creative people;

· raising awareness and respect for minorities; and

· attractive city, quality environments.

17. A draft Community Wellbeing Strategy was developed in 2018. This strategy will be reviewed when Council’s City Vision is adopted and strategic priorities are confirmed.

18. In addition to these overarching strategies and plans, there are specific policies that relate to Council’s role in community investment and support.

19. The Community Investment Policy sets out Council’s intentions regarding community funding. The purpose of the policy is to:

· support services and activities provided by the community which contribute towards the Tauranga community’s social, cultural, economic and environmental outcomes and priorities;

· promote co-operation, partnership and networking between community organisations to enable more efficient use of community resources;

· improve the transparency, consistency and fairness of decision-making in the allocation of Council’s financial investments in the community; and

· develop stronger relationships with other funding agencies, through sharing information and developing joint solutions to issues identified by the community.

20. This policy also provides a definition for community organisations as follows:

“is a voluntary or not-for-profit organisation that serves a public benefit; that relies on volunteers for at least its governance; and has values, purpose and objectives independent of government or commercial institutions. It must be a registered trust or incorporated society with IRD charitable status. Unless there are clearly justified reasons, membership or participation in its activities should be available to everyone who wishes to join”.

21. The Bulk Fund Capital Expenditure Policy provides for capital funding to be allocated throughout the financial year to eligible community requests and delegates decision-making on minor amounts of capital expenditure from Council to management. It is also intended to ‘alleviate the Annual Plan workload by re-directing community requests to a more appropriate decision-making process’. There is currently no funding allocated for this purpose.

22. The Community Share Policy provides for agreements between Council and others for the shared use of a non-Council owned facility or land to enable or increase public access. This policy has been included for independent review in phase 4 of the Use of Council Land project.

Feedback from stakeholders and community organisations

23. As part of the work in 2019, the following feedback regarding the current funding arrangements was received from stakeholders and community organisations who were on the Project Advisory and Technical Groups:

· lack of transparency and consistency in Council’s funding and support;

· more front-end thinking needed on what the funding and support will achieve;

· making sure the relevant people are involved in front-end thinking;

· an equity lens is needed to ensure there is fairness and equal support across the well-beings and if considered appropriate, across sectors;

· not reflective of what Council necessarily wants to achieve and, in some cases, limited alignment to strategic outcomes;

· inefficient decision-making process relative to the extent of funding and support being provided or applied for;

· retro-fitting funding agreements with community organisations after the funding and support has been approved;

· limited sense checking and assessment of the benefit of Council having provided funding and support;

· a need to develop better trust with community organisations and encourage good track records with sustainable organisations to achieve the best outcomes; and

· flexibility to include things around the fringes when issues surface and need to have urgent responses.

24. In addition, the executive staff at TECT, Acorn Foundation, Bay Trust and the Department of Internal Affairs provided some suggestions, which they saw as having the potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Council’s investments:

· provide a pipeline of prioritised projects and consider where other funders could fit in;

· understand the ‘bread and butter’ of each funder to consolidate the best overall approach for a multi-funder approach in Tauranga;

· consider the merits of a distribution panel with wide expertise; and

· focus on ways to streamline funding processes and decision-making to be more effective, open and transparent.

25. There may be opportunities to align more closely with these funders to achieve better outcomes for Tauranga.

Issues and Options

26. When considering the current approach to community funding and support (other than those funding streams excluded above), and feedback from stakeholders, the following issues have been identified:

· fairness and transparency of the existing approach to allocating funding and support to community organisations;

· alignment of the funding and support with Council’s strategic outcomes;

· other outcomes that Council could seek, including assisting community organisations to become and remain financially sustainable, self-governing and self-managing;

· addressing the current needs of our communities;

· the scale and scope of grant funding;

· are community organisations receiving funding and support from more than one source within Council? If so, is this fair and consistent; and

· future opportunities for funding from other organisations – scale, availability, collaboration and sustainability.

27. To address the identified issues and in consideration of the development of a contestable grant fund to provide community support and funding, three options are considered below.

Option 1: Retain the current approaches to community funding and support

NOT RECOMMENDED

28. This option would mean a continuation of the current approach to community funding whereby funds are allocated through the Annual Plan/LTP process and by Council resolution throughout the year. This includes direct grants and other requests received by Council for matters such as a rental subsidy or waiver of fees.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Nil

· Will not address the issues that have been identified throughout the review process and by key stakeholders.

· Will not provide a fair and transparent approach to the distribution of funds to community organisations.

· Will not demonstrate a clear alignment with Council’s strategic outcomes.

Option 2: Establish a contestable grant fund

RECOMMENDED

29. Council could establish a contestable grant fund that included specific criteria, eligibility, decision-making, accountability and reporting requirements. It is expected that the criteria and eligibility requirements would align with and help achieve Council’s strategic objectives and outcomes. It would also ensure that community organisations were aware of the eligibility requirements when applying to the grant fund.

30. The decision-making, accountability and reporting requirements would ensure that a fair and transparent process was undertaken in the assessment of applications, that successful applicants knew of and could meet the accountability and reporting requirements, and that the reporting requirements would demonstrate the outcomes that were achieved through the use of the fund.

31. Based on the current level of community funding that sits outside of the support excluded above, the total annual amount is approximately $3.24 million (direct grants, Level of Service subsidies and service level agreements). It is anticipated that the level of funding would be reviewed and determined every three years as part of the LTP process.

32. The advantages and disadvantage of establishing a contestable grant fund are set out below:

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Fair, transparent and consistent distribution of funding to community organisations.

· A contestable grant fund provides the opportunity to establish a fixed amount of funding each year or period of years and priority areas of interest can be established, which align to current strategic outcomes.

· Greater transparency of Council’s decision-making process regarding investment in the community and clarity for applicants.

· Accountability and reporting requirements ensure that money is spent and used for the intended purpose and outcomes.

· Administration of a contestable grant fund can be undertaken in an efficient and effective manner.

· Opportunities to work with other funding agencies/providers to achieve a strategic approach to funding in the city.

· There may be a perception that the amount of the fund is not adequate to provide for the various projects, initiatives and programmes that would benefit from Council funding support.

· Potential difficulties applying a ‘one-size-fits-all’ set of funding criteria, eligibility and decision-making to a potentially wide range, variety, and scale of organisations, projects, initiatives and programmes.

33. If Council were supportive of a proposal to establish a contestable grant fund, guidance is also sought on the scope and scale of the fund with the following matters identified in the table below:

RECOMMENDED

Matter to be considered	Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
1. What grants should be included in the contestable grant fund?	a. Direct grants (currently determined through AP/LTP submissions) Note: that where an existing grant extends beyond June 2021, the funding for this has been included in the relevant budget. It may also be appropriate to consider a transition period up to June 2024. This would allow organisations who currently receive a grant to seek funding either through the contestable fund or from another funder. RECOMMENDED	Provides for a fair and transparent approach in the consideration of these requests. Ensures that the level of community funding is as agreed through the LTP.	The outcomes achieved by an existing direct grant may not continue if a group is unsuccessful in obtaining funding through the contestable grant fund.
	b. Level of service subsidies RECOMMENDED	Would remove the need for these requests to be considered through the AP/LTP process or through individual requests to Council.	The number and value of these requests is unknown in any given year. This may affect the amount of funding available for other community organisations. The outcomes achieved by an existing Level of Service subsidy may not continue if a group is unsuccessful in obtaining funding through the contestable grant fund.
	c. Service Level Agreements Note: that if Council agreed that these agreements should be included in the grant fund, then it may be appropriate to consider a transition period and that inclusion be considered for the LTP 2024-2034. This would allow organisations who currently receive a grant to seek funding either through the contestable fund or from another funder.	Provides an opportunity to consider a large range of outcomes and proposals in a fair and transparent process. Ensures that all community groups can access Council grant funding.	The outcomes achieved by the existing service level agreements may not continue if a group is unsuccessful in obtaining funding through the grant fund. May be in contravention of requirements set out in existing Council documents e.g. funding for Sport BOP.
2. The scale of the fund	a. Retain the current level of funding of approximately $1.81 million (made up of direct grants and Level of Service subsidies) per annum for three years, to be reviewed every three years to set the amount for the subsequent three years. RECOMMENDED	The current level of funding represents what has currently been agreed to by Council. A three-yearly review will enable the amount to be amended to reflect the current situation and emerging issues, and considering the value of requests received in the previous funding periods.	May not be reflective of the need for community funding.
	b. Increase the level of funding	Will potentially provide funding for a wider range of community organisations, projects and initiatives.	May not be appropriate given the well-documented challenges regarding infrastructure costs and affordability.
	c. Decrease the level of funding	May be appropriate given the well-documented challenges regarding infrastructure costs and affordability.	Unlikely that it would be reflective of the need for community funding.
3. Funding rounds per year.	One per year	Efficient from an administrative perspective.	Limited opportunities for community organisations to access a potential grant.
	Two per year (with up to 50% of the fund to be distributed per round).	Greater opportunities for community groups to access a potential grant. Dependant on the timing of each round, it may provide certainty for a community organisation heading into a new financial year.	Nil
	Three or more per year (with the fund split accordingly between each round).	Greater opportunities for community groups to access a potential grant.	Would require a higher level of administration to provide three or more funding rounds per year. May have an impact on the maximum grant amount.
4. Length of grant	a. One year only	Having a one-year grant would mean that each year a new set of grants could be considered with the full grant fund being available.	Many projects and initiatives need funding over multiple years to achieve the proposed outcomes and objectives. As such, a one-year grant may not provide the required certainty.
4. Length of grant	b. Up to three years RECOMMENDED	Provides flexibility for consideration of projects or initiatives that require multi-year funding.	All funds for the three-year LTP cycle could potentially be allocated in year 1.
5. Minimum or maximum grant amounts	a. Minimum amount RECOMMENDED	Setting a minimum amount would provide an expectation that the projects or initiatives to be considered for the funding would be of a particular scale and likely to have a certain outcome. More administratively efficient and therefore, more cost-effective.	Some community organisations may be disadvantaged as the projects or initiatives that they are intending may not meet the minimum grant level.
5. Minimum or maximum grant amounts	b. Maximum amount RECOMMENDED	Setting a maximum grant amount would ensure that the fund can be distributed across multiple groups and respond to multiple outcomes.	Some community organisations may be disadvantaged as the projects or initiatives that they are intending may exceed the maximum grant level.
6. Delegations	a. Delegate decision-making to an Assessment Panel that includes Councillors, Council staff and potentially an independent party from an established funding organisation. RECOMMENDED	Provides for a mix of skills to be utilised in considering applications. Councillor representation provides for consideration of whether a project or initiative will meet Council’s strategic objectives. Does not require all Councillors to be present throughout the decision-making process.	Nil
	b. Create a Subcommittee of Council to consider the applications for the contestable grant fund. Could include an independent party from an established funding organisation.	Provides for a mix of skills to be utilised in considering applications. Councillor representation provides for consideration of whether a project or initiative will meet Council’s strategic objectives.
	c. Decision-making on the contestable grant fund is delegated to the CEO.	Likely to be more efficient from an administration perspective.	Councillors would not be involved in the decision-making process.

34. Other matters that will be considered and brought back to the Committee include the definition of a community organisation, how to identify if an applicant has received funding from another organisation or from TCC in another form (e.g. rental subsidy), should funding be available for both operational and capital expenditure, and specific items of expenditure that should be ineligible for funding.

35. It is anticipated that this information, the draft decision-making framework (including specific criteria and eligibility requirements) developed in 2019, and existing decision-making funding frameworks such as the Event Funding framework would be used to amend the Community Investment Policy and develop additional documents as required e.g. application forms, scoring methodology, reporting templates etc.

36. The amended Community Investment Policy and proposed eligibility, criteria and decision-making requirements would be provided to Council to consider and adopt before including in the consultation on this proposal as part of the consultation for the LTP.

Option 3: Allocate a set amount of funding to be distributed on Council’s behalf

NOT RECOMMENDED

37. Council could consider setting an amount each year that was allocated to an existing funding agency, which was then distributed on Council’s behalf. A suitable agency would be identified that was most likely to achieve the outcomes sought by Council and that had the required expertise to undertake the proposed role.

38. The advantages and disadvantage of this option are set out below:

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Expertise of the agreed agency in assessing applications and allocating funds to community organisations.

· Limited administration involvement and impact in providing the funds to the agreed agency.

· Fair, transparent and consistent distribution of funding to community organisations, based on the eligibility and specific requirements of the agreed agency.

· Accountability and reporting requirements would sit with the agreed agency to ensure that money is spent and used for the intended purpose and outcomes.

· May not be able to guarantee that the outcomes sought by Council would be achieved.

· There may be a community perception that Council is devolving its decision-making responsibility.

Financial Considerations

39. The financial implications of the recommended option are dependent on the amount of funding that Council agrees to include in the contestable grant fund. The current level of funding that could potentially be included in the fund is approximately $3.24 million. Council could agree to increase or decrease this amount. The amount would be confirmed through the deliberations process to complete the LTP 2021-2031.

Legal Implications / Risks

40. There are no immediate issues which may arise for Council as the recommendations do not require changes to current funding arrangements.

41. If Council decided that the funding allocated to existing direct grants and service level agreements that extend beyond June 2021 were to transition to the contestable grant fund, it would be necessary to review these agreements and engage with the relevant parties to discuss the changes and future requirements.

Consultation / Engagement

42. It is recommended that a proposal to create a contestable grant fund is included in the consultation document for the LTP 2021-2031. It is also proposed that consultation is undertaken on amendments to the Community Investment Policy as part of this process.

43. Engagement is also recommended with those that currently receive a direct grant from Council, or who have a service level agreement in place; and with the members of the Technical Working Group and key funders, including TECT, the Acorn Foundation and Bay Trust.

Significance

44. The decision is considered to be of moderate significance under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Next Steps

45. Prepare the following to be presented to the Policy Committee for consideration:

(a) amendments to the Community Investment Policy and other policies as required;

(b) additional documents as required to support a robust approach to a contestable grant fund (including proposed eligibility, criteria and decision-making requirements); and

46. Include the required budgets in the draft LTP 2021-2031 to support the Policy Committee’s recommendations (subject to the draft LTP prioritisation and decision-making process).

47. Engage with those who receive a direct grant from Council, those who have a service level agreement, and the other stakeholders identified above to provide an update regarding the proposed approach recommended by the Policy Committee.

Attachments

1. Direct grants - Community Grant Fund - Issues and Options Report - A11898381 ⇩

	Task	Lead	Status
Strategic Reviews
SR1	LTP Strategic Approach Strategic objectives and fiscal factors – how do they drive the LTP preparation.	Strategy & Finance	Complete: Policy – 8 September
SR2	Community outcomes, vision, strategic direction Reassessment of the strategic framework underpinning Council’s role on behalf of the community. Subject to Council direction may also include the proposed ‘community preferences’ survey that was put on hold in late July.	Strategy	Complete: Policy – 8 September
SR3	Strategy Stocktake A look into all current adopted strategies to see if still relevant and if actions are being carried out. Those no longer relevant decide if to update or combine with another. Final output new strategic framework for LTP.	Strategy	Complete: Policy – 16 June
SR4	Environmental Scan Review of external factors influencing the preparation of the LTP and socialisation with elected members.	Strategy	Complete: Policy – 16 June
SR5	Level of Service / Cost / Productivity Review Review of Councils operational levels of service including costs and delivery.	Executive	Complete: Policy – 8 September
SR6	Engagement Approach Implementation and continued rollout of the new TCC approach to community engagement will affect many projects and activities in the lead-up to the LTP (being ‘pre-engagement’ on the LTP itself).	Communications and Engagement	Engagement approach for the LTP workshop conducted with Mayor and Councillors 6 October.
SR7	CCO’s · Strategic review of BVL · Key CCO LTP issues identified and addressed (input into draft LTP) ·	GM Community Services	Briefing scheduled for strategic review of BVL on 14 October. Report due to Council 17 November.
SR8	Waters reform Central Government is reviewing how to improve the regulation and supply arrangements of drinking water, wastewater and stormwater (three waters) to better support New Zealand’s prosperity, health, safety and environment. Watching brief to understand and respond to the government’s work.	City Waters	Report to PSOC on Funding Delivery Programme on 27 October.
SR9	Resilience Two-year study of the resilience to natural hazards of Council’s infrastructure and the impact on potential future landform. Impacts on asset-based activity budgets will be significant. Policy decision-making for council is also likely to be significant.	City & Infrastructure Planning	Workshop scheduled for 2 November. Report to UFTD on 24 November.
SR10	Natural Hazards/Climate Change (in particular Mount North) Detailed consideration of options to address current and future stormwater and current and future groundwater issues in the Mount North area. Significant first step in council’s ‘adaptive planning’ response to climate change and resilience issues.	City & Infrastructure planning	Briefing held on 8 October. Report to Council on 17 November.
SR11	s17A A review of the cost-effectiveness of current arrangements for meeting the needs of communities within its district or region for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions. Activities to be subject to s17A reviews yet to be determined.	Strategy	Report to Council on 17 November.
SR12	Sustainability Framework Implement Council direction	Strategy	Update report taken to Policy Committee on 8 September. Further update on 20 October Policy Committee agenda.
SR13	Community Facilities & Active Reserves Plan Develop Community Facilities Plan and Active Reserves Plan to understand and address community needs in a fast-growing city.	Strategy	Workshop 1 occurred on 5 October. Workshop 2 scheduled for 29 October and workshop 3, 11 November. Issues and options paper for consideration late 2020.
S14	City Centre Plan Develop City Plan which identifies needs and responses. Key components: · Private sector investment plan / prospectus · Civic precinct masterplan · Urban Spaces Programme · Waterfront Masterplan · Movement Plan (including parking) · Residential Plan	Strategy	Briefing scheduled for 19 October.
Financing & Funding
F1	Financial Strategy Providing a guide for Council to consider proposals for funding and expenditure against; and provide a context for consultation on the local authority’s proposals for funding and expenditure by making transparent the overall effects of those proposals on the local authority’s services, rates, debt, and investments. Includes: · Revenue & Financing Policy · User Fees strategy · Risk Reserve (noting significant current underfunding) · Debt / Revenue ratio	Finance	Workshop held on 9 September and report to FARC on 22 September. Further work ongoing.
F2	Rates Review A rates review is the review of the allocation of rates and what share of the rates each ratepayer should pay. A rating review is NOT about how much should be collected in rates. A comprehensive review would include questions of ability to pay, commercial/residential differentials, targeted rates, uniform charges vs variable charges, etc. Includes consideration of wastewater charging; consideration of capital value vs land value rating (longer term issue).	Finance	Workshop held on 9 September and report to FARC on 22 September. Further work ongoing.
F3	Alternative / Additional Financing and Funding Opportunities Explore a range of opportunities such as tolling, road pricing, infrastructure bonds, moving current responsibilities off balance sheet for individual / collective partners and other thinking that may require new legislation to implement.	Chief Executive	Workshop held on 9 September and report to FARC on 22 September. Further work ongoing.
F4	Development Contributions a) Significant review to ensure that key assumptions and logic are relevant and that current issues (including those raised by submitters in previous year) are addressed. b) Issues & Options papers on DC funding on Maori land and (separately) community housing. c) Quantify amount of DC under collection. Financial adjustments. Consider targeted rate option ·	a) Growth Funding · b) Growth Funding c) Finance	Workshop held on 23 September. Workshop 2 scheduled for 12 November.
F5	User Fees Review Review specific user fees for activities.	Finance	Workshop held on 9 September and report to FARC on 22 September. Further work ongoing.
Growth
G1	Growth assumptions / approach Growth assumptions reviewed for long term planning. Impacts expenditure projections for many teams, especially re capex.	City & Infrastructure Planning	Complete: UFTD – 9 June
G2	Te Papa Consultation and plan change project to enable intensification on the Te Papa peninsula. Significant community involvement and capex implications.	City & Infrastructure Planning	Report to UFTD on Te Papa Spatial Plan on 13 October.
G3	Parau Farms Land currently zoned for recreational reserve, current investigation into alternative uses (linked to potential alternative sportsfield provision in the Western Bay and Merricks Farm possibility). Linked to Community Facilities work at SR13.	Strategy	Forms part of SR13.
G4	Smiths Farm Master plan for potential housing supply near Bethlehem. Complicated by previous Council decision not to access site off Westridge Drive. Potential joint-venture with external funders.	City & Infrastructure Planning	Report to UFTD on 24 November.
G5	UFTI + Transport Planning Outcomes for urban planning and transport planning will be significant. Impact on LTP planning likely to be significant.	City & Infrastructure Planning	Briefing on TSP occurred on 11 September. Joint Councils workshop 20 Oct, report to SmartGrowth 21 October, approval report due to Council 28 October.
G6	Tauriko West (Social Infrastructure) The social infrastructure planning aspect of the Tauriko West development.	Strategy	Forms part of SR13.
G7	Te Tumu and Tauriko West Consideration of reasonable assumptions regarding timeframes for the development of these urban growth areas, as well as costs and funding models, for appropriate inclusion in LTP.	City & Infrastructure Planning	Growth and land use project progress report due to UFTD 24 November.
Major Projects
P1	Potential Major Project Seek EM strategic direction / political appetite on: · Stadium · Mt Visitor Centre · Sustainability Centre · Others that may arise from Activity Planning ·	Executive	Currently in development. Aim to report to Council prior to end of 2020.
P2	Civic Facilities (CBD) Major civic facilities in the CBD including library, museum and performing arts facility.	Strategic Investment & Commercial Facilitation	Briefing scheduled for 12 November.
P3	Memorial Park aquatic Consideration of significant upgrade to Memorial Pool facility.	BVL	Forms part of SR13.
P4	Memorial Park / Strand walkway Walkway/cycleway connecting CBD to Memorial Park along the waterfront.	Spaces and Places	Issues and options paper due early 2021.
P5	Elder housing Potential implementation of decision made in last LTP to divest elder housing stock. Significant financial and community considerations involved.	Strategic Investment & Commercial Facilitation	Workshop occurred on 17 August. Report to Council due late 2020.
P6	Civic administration building / accommodation Potential project for the development of a new CAB on the Willow/Durham site. Project is part of partnership agreement with Willis Bond. Involves significant consideration of the funding model. In the short-term, consideration of accommodation options until such a new building is built.	Strategic Investment & Commercial Facilitation	Reported to Council 8 September 2020.
P7	Parking Strategy Overall approach to parking Consideration of whether Council should retain the buildings or sell to a private provider. Linked the parking strategy discussion facilitated through UFTI.	City & Infrastructure Planning	Workshop held 8 October.
P8	CBD Streetscape Further consideration of a variety of largely CBD-based streetscape projects for inclusion in the LTP.	Spaces and Places	Projects are to be delivered in 2021 year with Strand extension scheduled in 2022.
P9	Solid Waste The roll-out of the kerbside collection is due to take place on 1 July 2021. If it proceeds according to plan the issue for the LTP decision making will be minimal. Ties in with Revenue and Finance Policy conversation in F1.	Waste & Sustainability	Complete Council - 25 August (Decision made and progress of roll out will continue to be reported)
Levels of Service & Options
LOS 1	Activity Areas Plans & Resourcing For each activity prepare Activity Areas Plans	Teams individually	Currently in development. Aim to report to Council prior to end of 2020.
LOS 2	Asset Management Plans Preparation of asset management plans for next LTP, including understanding of levels of service, delivery methods, renewals budgets, etc.	Relevant Teams	Workshop scheduled 15 October.
LOS 3	Infrastructure Strategy	Policy / Strategy	Workshop scheduled 15 October.
LOS 4	Reseal LOS The elected members have signalled that they would like to review the reseals level of service logic.	Transportation	Issues and Options paper to Policy Committee 20 October.
LOS 5	Core Digital systems Digital Systems review of core systems (excluding financial, refer above) and roll out of strategic plan.	Digital	Briefing scheduled for 10 November.
LOS 6	Boat Ramps · Assess issues and options re provision · Boat ramp user fees ·	Property	Report to Council on 6 October on the Approach to develop a Marine Facilities Strategy and a Marine Facilities Development and Management Plan. Council resolved to include the boat ramp issues as part of this work (and therefore after the LTP).
LOS 7	Tropical Display House – Robbins Park Issues & Options paper to be considered with the following options: · Upgrade existing facility · Establish tropical display house at another location and demolish existing · Demolish existing and do not replace. ·	Places & Spaces	Issues and options paper due to Council in early 2021.
LOS 8	Town Centre & Neighbourhood Spatial Plans Issues & Option paper on: · Urban spatial plans and / or public realm redevelopment plans · Locational priorities across the city · Timing	Strategy	Report to UFTD due in late 2020.
LOS 9	Bulk fund to support social wellbeing Issues and options paper on: · The establishment of a bulk fund to allow funding support for social/cultural organisations · The decision-making framework, including criteria for support and delegation of decision-making · The scale of the bulk fund · Other forms of support provided to social and cultural organisations ·	Community Development	Issues and Options paper to Policy Committee 20 October.
Mechanics & Systems
MS1	Planning & reporting – KPIs & measures Review of how we set and report against targets and measures. Will include detailed consideration of relevance and use in decision-making.	Corporate Planning	Review currently being undertaken as part of activity planning. Aim to report to Council prior to end of 2020.
MS2	LTP guidance Preparation of ‘how to’ information for all activity areas ahead of LTP processes. Will include ELT understanding and agreeing to approaches to activity and business planning, and messaging around budgetary philosophy and constraints. Will also involve user-focussed information on any new systems to be used for collating LTP information.	Strategy and Corporate Planning	N/A
MS3	Prioritisation process, business cases and activity area templates Finance are working with the infrastructure team to develop the financial overlay on the agreed gateway process. This will ensure appropriate annual budgets, whole of life costings and appropriate contingencies are provided for each project. In addition to the Project Lifecycle Process, the Finance and Strategy teams are jointly working on the development of business case templates for all projects.	Finance, Strategy	Currently in development. Aim to report to Council prior to end of 2020.
MS4	Finance system upgrade IBIS system installed. Likely to have major impacts on the preparation process.	Finance, Digital Services	N/A

LGOIMA request fees
Requests for official information may be made to: Democracy.services@tauranga.govt.nz info@tauranga.govt.nz phone 07 5777000 Democracy Services Tauranga City Council Private Bag 12022 Tauranga 3143 Check out the link below for more information on LGOIMA. https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/council/about-your-council/governance/official-information-requests
1	If the request is made by an identifiable natural person seeking access to any personal information about that person, then such requests are not subject to any charge.
2	Where repeated requests are made in respect of a common subject, in any period of up to 8 weeks, requests after the first shall be aggregated for charging purposes.
3	Subject to paragraph 6, staff time will be charged, where the total time involved is in excess of one hour, after the first hour, for each half hour or part thereof at a rate of	$38.00
4	Photocopying or printing, on standard A4 or foolscap paper, where the total number of pages is in excess of 20 pages, will be charged for each page after the first 20 pages at a rate per page of	$0.20
5	All other charges incurred shall be fixed at an amount that recovers up to the actual costs involved. This will include: · the provision of documents on computer disks · the retrieval of information off-site · reproducing a film, video or audio recording · arranging for the applicant to hear or view an audio or visual recording · providing a copy of any map, plan or other document larger than foolscap size	·
6	A charge may be modified or waived at the discretion of the Chief Executive.
7	The charge may not include any allowance for: · locating and retrieving information which is not where it ought to be · time spent deciding whether or not access should be allowed and in what form	·
8	A deposit may be required where the charge is likely to exceed or where some assurance of payment is required to avoid waste of resources. Any unused portion of a deposit will be refunded to the applicant.
9	A record will be kept of any costs incurred. Wherever a liability to pay is incurred, the applicant is to be notified of the method of calculating the charge and this fact noted on the record.
10	Council will refer to the Ministry of Justice Charging Guidelines for Official Information Act 1982 Requests (issued 18 March 2002) for guidance in addressing any issues not covered above. You can find more information in the link below: https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/1982-Official-Information-Act-charging-guidelines.pdf

Locations searched	·
Search terms used	·
Date range	DD/MM/YY–DD/MM/YY
Estimated no. of documents at issue/to be searched through
Chargeable activities required	£ Search and retrieval £ Collation £ Research (reading and reviewing to identify the information) £ Editing (excising or redacting information to be withheld) £ Scanning / copying £ Reasonably required peer review to ensure that these tasks have been carried our correctly
Estimated minutes per document to complete chargeable activities
Estimated total time to complete chargeable activities
Estimated no. of pages to be photocopied

	Quantity	Price	Totals
Labour	[A] hours	$38/half hour, with the first hour free	$[A - 1 x $76]
Photocopying (if applicable)	[B] pages	$0.20/page, with the first 20 pages free	$[B - 20 x $0.20]
Other (specify)		$	$
Discount applied due to public interest / hardship (if applicable)	[1–100] %	- [amount of discount]
Total cost

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020

8.5 LTP 2021 - 2031 Road resealing Level of Surface Issues and Options Paper

File Number: A11736812

Author: Russell Troup, Manager: Transport Network Operations

Authoriser: Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. This paper provides information about Council’s level of service for road resurfacing within Tauranga city. It includes a summary of the current level of service policy and its application; issues relating to the current approach; and, options for consideration in determining the appropriate level of service for the upcoming summer resurfacing season (2020/21) and the Long-Term Plan (LTP) 2021-2031.

Recommendations

That the Policy Committee:

(a) Receives the ‘Road Resurfacing Level of Service Issues and Options’ report;

(b) Retains the current level of service for road resurfacing, including the replacement of asphalt with chipseal on neighbourhood roads (road categories 4 and 5);

(c) Notes that the current level of service for road resurfacing aligns with NZTA’s funding criteria and optimises the NZTA available subsidy; and

(d) Notes that insufficient funding for road pavement and resurfacing over the years, and the Council directed hold on replacing asphalt with chipseal has resulted in a backlog that is impacting on the road network, and approves:

(i) 2020/2021 ‘fit for purpose’ resurfacing programme proceeding and

(ii) Funding to address historic backlog being included in the LTP 2021 – 2031 prioritisation process.

Executive Summary

2. Road resurfacing is required to contribute to the achievement of a safe transportation network. In residential areas, however, the road resurfacing level of service aligns more to amenity than transportation needs, with the quality of the road surface influencing how a local community perceives their neighbourhood. In general, asphalt roads are often perceived by communities as providing a higher level of amenity.

3. In new residential subdivisions, developers have primarily used asphalt to improve aesthetics and marketability. Asphalt surfaces also have the added advantage of providing a more durable surface that is less likely to suffer damage due to construction traffic stresses. Once subdivisions are complete, roads are vested in Council for continued management and maintenance. Changes by Council to the road surface when it is due to be renewed, can lead to some communities feeling aggrieved.

4. Council’s current level of service policy determines how road resurfacing treatment is applied across the road network. The policy is described as ‘fit for purpose’ with asphalt being used for moderate to high volume and/or stressed roads and chipseal being used for low volume neighbourhood roads.

5. Some community members have expressed their dissatisfaction with the current level of service for road resurfacing in residential areas. The key issue being that under the Council’s current level of service policy, many subdivision areas originally developed with asphalt road surfaces that are scheduled for resurfacing are to be resurfaced with chipseal. Some community members perceive this as a decrease in the level of service provided by Council, and a decrease in the overall amenity of their neighbourhood.

6. Although there may be aesthetic benefits for communities in resurfacing neighbourhood roads with asphalt, the cost implications for Council are substantial. Cost increase is primarily a result of New Zealand Transport Authority’s (NZTA) funding criteria that currently align with Council’s ‘fit for purpose’ level of service policy. Failure to comply with NZTA expectations has implications on the level of subsidy available for resurfacing purposes, dramatically increasing costs to the ratepayer beyond what is considered affordable (costing Council up to nine times more than chipseal).

7. In addition, insufficient funding in the past for pavement and resurfacing has resulted in a backlog of work that needs to be addressed, adding more pressure to available funds.

8. It is therefore recommended that Council retains the current level of service policy and commences road resurfacing over the 2020/21 summer resurfacing season, including starting to address the backlog of work.

Background

9. On 6 August 2019, Council considered two petitions from members of the community seeking to have their neighbourhood roads resealed with asphalt rather than the intended chipseal. As a result, Council agreed to defer replacing any asphalt surfaces with chipseal during the 2019-2020 summer resurfacing season.

10. Sites that provision chipseal over asphalt within the current 2020-2021 resurfacing programme remain on hold. Those sites are compromised and require resurfacing to prevent deterioration below an acceptable level of service that would require disproportionate maintenance cost to maintain in the interim.

11. Council also requested an issues and options paper regarding this level of service be brought to it for consideration during the Annual Plan 2020-2021 development process. This was subsequently deferred to the LTP 2021-2031 process and has resulted in the development of this issues and options paper.

road resurfacing

12. A road surface is the uppermost layer of a road pavement structure on which the traffic runs. The purpose of roading surfacing is to:

· Protect the valuable structure of the road under the surface, known as the road pavement, from water damage. If the road pavement gets wet, it will deteriorate rapidly.

· Minimise the rate of pavement wear and maintenance costs

· Provide a riding surface of suitable smoothness

· Minimise vehicle operating and maintenance costs

· Provide a dust-free surface

· Provide suitable properties for the local environment e.g. noise reduction and surface texture.

13. Council’s road pavement asset replacement cost is currently valued at $419 million. It is therefore important that we manage the asset in accordance with best practice.

Key characteristics of chipseal and asphalt

14. There are two main road resurfacing approaches used in Tauranga city:

· Chipseal – a layer of loose stone chips spread over bitumen binder and rolled into place

· Asphaltic concrete (known as AC or asphalt or hot mix) – pre-made bitumen and aggregate mixture.

15. Key physical characteristics of asphalt compared with chipseal resurfacing treatments is summarised in Table 1. Please note that the ‘flexibility’ characteristic is particularly relevant to this level of service discussion. In this context, flexibility relates to the strength of the underlying pavement and the amount of flex a pavement has under load (called deflection, measured in millimetres). Weak pavements with high deflection can cause cracking of the surface material.

16. Asphalt, like normal concrete, has no tensile strength so needs to be supported by a very strong base pavement with little, or no deflection. Often, our local and access roads do not have very strong pavements, so the extent of pavement strengthening work needed to support asphalt is considerably greater than chipseal. Sometimes a road pavement will need to be completely replaced (pavement rehabilitation). This has upward cost implications for the decision on resurfacing treatment.

17. The impact of climate change and the associated rise of groundwater levels is expected to accelerate pavement deterioration in affected areas. In those instances, the inherent flexibility of chipseal will provide greater resistance to deterioration.

18. In comparison, chipseal is more flexible and can be effectively applied to roads where the pavement has lost some strength and demonstrates moderate deflection. However, asphalt does provide a more durable, smooth surface producing less road noise.

Table 1: A comparison of chipseal and asphalt characteristics

Characteristic	Chipseal	Asphalt
Flexibility	High	Low
Durability – high traffic / stress	Poor	Good
Durability – medium traffic / stress	OK	Good
Durability – low traffic / stress	Good	Good
Appearance / smoothness	Textured (varies depending on size of chip)	Smooth
Tyre noise	2 – 4 dB more noise than hot mix. Noise difference is negligible at speeds up to 50 km/h	OK
Loose chips	Nuisance problem initially	None
Skid resistance – safety	Good	Good
Water spray	Medium	High

19. For most residential roads, a resurfacing renewal is required on average every 12 years for chipseal and 16 years for asphalt. This varies depending on traffic volumes, stresses and other environmental factors.

current level of service for road resurfacing

20. The current level of service policy adopted by Council can be described as “fit for purpose”. Table 2 outlines how the current approach is applied across the six categories of roads in Tauranga city. In summary, asphalt is used for high and moderate volume roads (categories 1-3) and chipseal for lower volume neighbourhood roads (categories 4 and 5).

Table 2: Current level of service for road resurfacing across road categories

Type of road	Category	Type of resurfacing
Commercial and industrial	1A	Asphalt
Tauranga city centre, Mount Mainstreet, and Greerton village	1B	Asphalt
Arterial roads – these are roads that carry significant volumes of traffic and link major state highways, urban and commercial areas.	2	Asphalt
Collector roads – these are roads that carry moderate volumes of traffic and provide a connection between residential or neighbourhood streets and the arterial network. Most collector roads in Tauranga have more than 10,000 vehicles using them per day (vpd).	3	Asphalt
Neighbourhood roads – with greater than 200 vehicles using them per day (vpd).	4	Chip seal – except where there is a cul-de-sac head or an intersection with high wear and tear, or another valid engineering reason.
Neighbourhood roads – with less than 200 vehicles using them per day (vpd).	5	Chip seal – except where there is a cul-de-sac head or an intersection with high wear and tear, or another valid engineering reason.

21. For the purpose of this report we are primarily concerned with Category 4 and 5 roads. These are the low volume ‘neighbourhood roads’ that service residential subdivisions and are the subject of some community dissatisfaction. Under Council’s current policy, when neighbourhood roads with asphalt are due for resurfacing, the treatment is chipseal rather than asphalt.

22. Figure 1 shows the breakdown of the road network by classification. ‘Access’ and ‘low volume’ roads, typically our neighbourhood roads, represent 54 percent of the total network length.

Figure 1: Network length by One Network Road Classification (ONRC)

Note: the number above each bar denotes the actual length of roads in that classification.

issues for consideration

23. Key issues for consideration for the road resurfacing level of service discussion include:

· Community expectations to retain the amenity value of asphalt road surfaces in new subdivisions, as well as perceived equity issues between the level of service provided in old and new subdivision areas.

· Continued growth of new residential subdivisions, with high amenity asphalt road surfaces, that are vested in Council for further maintenance continues to add to the current situation.

· Insufficient level of investment to address the backlog of road resurfacing needed, adding to financial constraints when considering increasing the level of service.

· NZTA expectations and funding criteria currently align with Council’s current ‘fit for purpose’ level of service policy. Failure to comply with NZTA expectations has significant implications on the level of subsidy available for resurfacing purposes.

Community expectations road resurfacing

24. In residential areas, the road resurfacing level of service relates more to amenity than transportation needs, i.e. the quality of road surface in a neighbourhood may impact how the local community perceives their neighbourhood. Asphalt roads are generally perceived by the community as providing a higher level of amenity, including less traffic noise.

25. Amenity and perceptions of inequity in relation to the level of service provided are the two key community issues to consider in this level of service review. Table 3 describes these two issues in more detail.

Table 3: Summary of community issues relating to road resurfacing

Community issue		Description
Amenity	Noise	· Chipsealed roads with high average speeds (greater than 60km/hr) result in higher noise levels that may be a nuisance for residents. As speed reduces, the noise difference between asphalt and chipseal diminishes.
Amenity	Aesthetics	· Asphalt is more often perceived as a more aesthetically pleasing surface treatment than chipseal.
Perception of inequity	Residents	· Residents living in areas with asphalt surfaces may expect to retain this higher level of service. · Residents who have had an asphalt road resealed with chipseal may be particularly aggrieved if the policy changed to ‘like for like’ because they would now be subject to chip renewal going forward.
Perception of inequity	New subdivision areas vs. older areas	· New subdivisions are being developed with asphalt road surfaces to maximise appeal for potential buyers. Some neighborhood (local and access) roads have an asphalt surface while others have chipseal depending on the resurfacing policy at the time. A change to the policy is likely to disadvantage older areas of the city which historically have been chip sealed as well as those chipsealed under a ‘fit for purpose’ policy in the past.

Growth issues – new subdivisions with high amenity asphalt

26. Tauranga city’s growth and the continued creation of new subdivisions with high amenity asphalt roading continues to add to this community issue.

27. Tauranga city has experienced considerable and increasing levels of growth in recent decades, including many new residential subdivisions. Developers have primarily used asphalt in new residential subdivisions to improve aesthetics and marketability. They also use asphalt to provide a more durable surface that is less likely to suffer damage due to construction traffic stresses.

28. Once subdivisions are complete, roads are vested in Council for continued management and maintenance. Figure 2 shows the growing length and number of roads vested in Council over the last ten years. This has led to a relatively high proportion of asphalt roads in Tauranga City. This was noted by NZTA in their investment audit in 2018 as an issue that needs to be addressed because it indicates deviance from best practice, ‘fit for purpose’ asset management that is economically optimal, particularly for neighbourhood roads^{^[2]}.

29. As growth continues, the proportion of asphalt roads will also increase with new subdivisions and subsequently new roads being vested in Council to maintain. This has significant cost implications. For example, the proportion of asphalt to chipseal roads increased from 50 percent in 2017 to 55 percent in 2019. Under a ‘like for like’ scenario, the costs to renew with asphalt will be considerable higher (five to nine times greater for asphalt), than the ‘fit for purpose’ level of service currently held by Council.

Figure 2: The length and number of new roads vested in Council over a ten-year period

Level of investment is currently insufficient resulting in a backlog of roads in need of resurfacing

30. Currently, there is an annual road renewals budget of around $5 million for pavement and surfacing. Available modelling and data have confirmed that this level of investment is insufficient to maintain the road surface at a level that prevents pavement deterioration. The road pavement is a high-value asset ($527.4 million), which costs significantly more to replace (or rehabilitate) than resurfacing.

31. This historic underinvestment in resurfacing has resulted in a current backlog of approximately 100km of roads in need of resurfacing (refer Attachment A, Figure A).

32. Based on the expected life of a road surface, we should be resurfacing about 6 to 8 percent of our network each year^{^[3]}. In recent years, we have only resurfaced between 1.6 and 4.4 percent per annum (refer Table 4).

Table 4: Proportion of network resurfaced annually

33. This substantial backlog of renewal sites across the road network typically have compromised waterproofness making them susceptible to damage (e.g. potholes and depressions). Those sites disproportionately contribute to the gradual decline in overall network condition that we are seeing through the data we are collecting and physical asset inspections (Attachment A, Figure B).

34. If this under-investment is not addressed, potholes will become increasingly prevalent as the pavement fails because of water ingress (refer Attachment A, Figure C). Further, the cost to repair will increase significantly with the need to renew the costly pavement ($80-150/m2), not just the road surface.

35. Although the aim is to address the historic backlog through the 2021-31 Long Term Plan (by optimising investment and increasing funds from $5 million to $7 million), there are also funding implications for the resurfacing level of service and an already stretched budget.

NZTA subsidy implications on costs and funding

36. In broad terms asphalt surfacing is around five times more expensive than chipseal. When NZTA subsidy eligibility is considered, asphalt is more than nine times more expensive than chipseal to install. Taking into account the fact that asphalt lasts longer than chipseal, the per annum cost, and net present value (NPV) is still considerably more expensive (refer Attachment B).

37. NZTA offer a 51 percent Funding Assistant Rate (FAR) subsidy for all resurfacing to achieve a ‘fit for purpose’ level of service. Under our current ‘fit for purpose’ policy, our resurfacing programme is endorsed by NZTA and optimally subsidised. NZTA have confirmed that they would not endorse a ‘like for like’ level of service (refer Attachment C for a letter confirming NZTA’s position).

38. If the Policy Committee were to adopt a ‘like for like’ or ‘all asphalt’ policy, NZTA are only willing to fund asphalt up to a ‘fit for purpose’ basis beyond road category three. This means that for category four and five roads the cost difference between a chipseal and asphalt resurface would be borne fully by Council. This is expected to be approximately $24 per square metre replacement cost and $1.37 per square metre annual cost (refer Table 5).

Table 5: Average cost and expected life by surface type

Surface Type	Average Cost	Average expected life	Average gross cost per m2 per year
Asphalt	$30/m2	16	$1.87
Chipseal	$6/m2	12	$0.50

39. Table 6 illustrates the stark cost implications observed for Category 4 and 5 roads (low volume / access / neighbourhood roads) where NZTA only subsidise to the ‘fit for purpose’ level (51% of the chipseal cost rather than 51% of asphalt cost on Category 4 & 5 roads). This means that if asphalt is used, the NZTA subsidy remains at the chipseal level ($3.06), leaving a shortfall of approximately $24/m2 that needs to be funded by the ratepayer as NZTA’s ‘fit for purpose’ criteria are not met. For a nominal 500 meter road, the net cost to the ratepayer of resurfacing a Category 4 or 5 road would be $11,760 for chipseal compared to $107,760 for asphalt.

Table 6: A comparison of resurfacing with chipseal and asphalt - NZTA subsidy implications and costs to the ratepayer

	Chipseal (per square metre)	Asphalt (per square metre)
NZTA subsidised (meets their “fit for purpose” criteria)
Gross cost	6	30
Subsidy @ 51%	3.06	15.30
Net cost (to ratepayer) / m2	2.94	14.70
ELIGIBLE FOR FULL SUBSIDY - Net cost (to ratepayer) for nominal 500m long road, 8m wide (4000m2). FULL SUBSIDY	$11,760	$58,800
Per annum net cost (to ratepayer) per year of seal life for nominal 500m long road, 8m wide.	$980	$3,675

Road category 4 & 5 (local and access roads)	Fit for purpose = chipseal (i.e. Eligible for full subsidy)	Like for like = Asphalt (i.e. Not eligible for full subsidy)
Gross cost	6	30
Subsidy	3.06	3.06*
Net cost (to ratepayer) / m2	2.94	26.94
Differential cost per square metre between policy options. This cost is fully borne by TCC.		$24
Net cost (to ratepayer) for nominal 500m long road, 8m wide (4000m2)	$11,760	$107,760
Per annum net cost (to ratepayer) per year of seal life for nominal 500m long road, 8m wide.	$980	$6,735

*subsidy amount up to the value ‘fit for purpose’ only as per NZTA advice

Options Analysis

40. Three level of service options are presented for the Policy Committee’s consideration in relation to the six road categories across Tauranga city:

· Option 1 – ‘Status quo’: ‘fit for purpose’ policy as outlined in the current policy

· Option 2 – ‘Like for like’ policy: resurfacing roads with the same material as currently used

· Option 3 – All asphalt: resurfacing all roads with asphalt

Option 1 – Status Quo – Fit for Purpose (preferred option)

41. Option 1 represents the status quo with no change to the level of service policy. The level of service provided for each road category is:

· Categories 1, 2 and 3 roads (or greater than 10,000 vehicles per day) are resurfaced with asphalt.

· Categories 4 and 5 roads are resurfaced with chipseal (except where there is a cul-de-sac head, intersection with high wear and tear, or a valid engineering reason).

42. Table 7 summarises the key advantages, disadvantages, risks and costs associated with this option.

Table 7: Advantages, disadvantages, risks and costs associated with Option 1.

OPTION 1 – STATUS QUO

Advantages

Disadvantages

Council maximises NZTA subsidy

Reduced / changed level of service in neighborhoods that previously had asphalt

Consistent level of service is provided across city

Some residents may feel dissatisfied with the level of service provided, especially where chipseal replaces asphalt. This may result in negative media attention.

Effective and responsible use of financial resources

Greater length of resurfacing can be achieved

Improved ability to address the historical backlog of renewal need

Asphalt is still applied where it is considered appropriate

General ratepayers satisfied with cost savings

Costs remain the same.

Key risks

· Community risk – some sectors of the community will remain dissatisfied with this decision. This may result in negative media attention. Community expectations would need to be managed through clear communication outlining the reasoning for the policy decision.

Risk mitigation measures for consideration include:

· Council could change the Infrastructure Development Code to require the use of chipseal in residential subdivisions to mitigate this issue. However, the initial asphalt surfacing is not at the Council’s cost and its durability is more appropriate to mitigate risk of damage from construction/building traffic stresses during the intensive building phase.

· Requiring every LIM issued for a property in a neighbourhood road (Category 4 or 5) that has an asphalt surface to contain advice to the purchaser of the estimated year when the street will be due for resurfacing, and that chipseal will be applied.

Costs for Option 1: 10 Year programme level indicative cost analysis

	Road categories 1, 2 and 3	Road categories 4 and 5	Total cost
Overall programme Gross cost	$33M	$32M	$65M
NZTA subsidy	$16.8M	$16.2M	$33M
Net cost to Council	$16.2M	$15.2M	$32M

Option 2 – ‘Like for Like’ or road resurfacing with the same material that is existing (either asphalt or chipseal)

43. Option 2 represents a change to the level of service provided. This ‘like for like’ option represents resurfacing roads with the same material as currently used. The level of service provided for each road category would include:

· Categories 1, 2 and 3 roads (or greater than 10,000 vehicles per day) are resurfaced with asphalt.

· Categories 4 and 5 roads are resurfaced either chipseal or asphalt depending on what is existing.

44. Table 8 summarises the key advantages, disadvantages, risks and costs associated with Option 2.

Table 8: Advantages, disadvantages, risks and costs associated with Option 2.

OPTION 2 – LIKE FOR LIKE

Advantages

Disadvantages

Amenity values remain unchanged in residential areas with asphalt (smooth roads with high aesthetic qualities and less noise)

NZTA will not fund above ‘fit for purpose’ treatments, so all additional cost is borne by ratepayers

Some residents satisfied with level of service provided

Community perceptions relating to inequitable and inconsistent decision making. This may particularly apply to residents who have recently had chipseal resurfacing over asphalt on their neighborhood road

Over-investment in both cost and level of service from an optimal asset management perspective resulting in low value for money outcomes

As growth continues, the proportion of the network in asphalt will increase with associated higher renewal costs

Considerably higher costs to manage the same length of network with increased costs associated with maintenance of the underlying pavement

Higher depreciation costs

Ratepayers are dissatisfied with increased funding spent on residential subdivision road resurfacing

Key risks

· Community risk – Ratepayers are dissatisfied with increased funding spent on residential subdivision road resurfacing at the cost of projects perceived to be more important.

· Reputational risk – Council’s inconsistent decision making and over-investment in a level of service that provides low value for money for ratepayers in this financially constrained environment.

Costs for Option 2: 10 Year programme level indicative cost analysis

	Road categories 1, 2 and 3	Road categories 4 and 5	Total cost
Overall programme Gross cost	$33M	$57M	$90M
NZTA subsidy	$16.8M	$16.2M	$33M
Net cost to Council	$16.2M	$40.8M	$57M

Option 3 – ‘All Asphalt’: resurfacing all roads with asphalt

45. Option 3 represents a change to the level of service provided. This option provides for the entire road network to be renewed with asphalt. Over time, all chipseal would be converted to asphalt as renewal need arises.

46. The level of service provided for each road category would include:

· Categories 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 roads are all resurfaced with asphalt.

47. Table 9 summarises the key advantages, disadvantages, risks and costs associated with Option 3.

Table 9: Advantages, disadvantages, risks and costs associated with Option 3.

OPTION 3 – RESURFACING ALL ROADS WITH ASPHALT

Advantages

Disadvantages

Amenity values remain unchanged in residential areas already with asphalt and improve in areas currently with chipseal (smooth roads with high aesthetic qualities and less noise)

NZTA will not fund above ‘fit for purpose’ treatments, so all additional cost is borne by ratepayers

Overtime, this results in the same level of service provided across the entire network

Any existing equity and inconsistency issues remain until the next resurfacing renewal. This may cause residents to pressure Council to expedite renewals ahead of when it is technically optimal.

Slightly longer life expectancy of road resealing.

Over-investment in both cost and level of service from optimal asset management perspective – sub-optimal value for money outcomes.

Improvements in overall road network durability.

As growth continues, the proportion of the network in asphalt will increase with associated higher renewal costs.

Considerably higher costs to manage the same length of network with increased costs associated with maintenance of the underlying pavement

Higher depreciation costs

Ratepayers are dissatisfied with increased funding spent on residential subdivision road resurfacing

Key risks

· Community risk – Ratepayers are dissatisfied with increased funding spent on residential subdivision road resurfacing at the cost of projects perceived to be more important.

Costs for Option 3: 10 Year programme level indicative cost analysis

	Road categories 1, 2 & 3	Road categories 4 & 5	Total cost
Overall programme Gross Cost	$39M	$90M	$129M
NZTA subsidy	$19.8M	$13M	$32.8M
Net cost to Council	$19.2M	$67M	$86.2M

Summary of Options Analysis

48. A comparison across the three options for all road categories is summarised in Table 10 below. It is clearly illustrated that although Options 2 and 3 may result in higher levels of amenity for category 4 and 5 roads (and a consistent level of service for Option 3) across the roading network, the total costs are significantly higher. The cost to Council for a 500 meter road is $11,760 under Option 1, compared to $107,760 for both Option 2 and Option 3.

49. Continuing to resurface neighbourhood roads using chipseal represents the most cost effective and appropriate option. Option 1 is therefore the preferred option. This requires no change to the level of service policy.

Table 10: A comparison of key factors for each option

	Option 1: Status Quo	Option 2: Like for Like	Option 3: All asphalt
Categories 1, 2 & 3	Asphalt	Asphalt	Asphalt
Categories 4 & 5 (local and access roads)	Chipseal	Asphalt or chipseal depending on existing surface	Asphalt

The following relate to affected roads (Category 4 & 5) only:
Surfacing Treatment	Chipseal (fully subsidised)	Asphalt (not fully subsidised*)
Cost effectiveness / financial prudence	High	Low
Amenity	Moderate	High
Consistent level of service across the network	Moderate	Low
Indicative cost to TCC (per m2) after NZTA subsidy	$2.94	$26.94
Cost to TCC for nominal road 500m long, 8m wide (4000m2) after NZTA subsidy	$11,760	$107,760
Cost per annum for life of seal (nominal road 4000m2)	$3,167	$9,113

*Asphalt treatment does not meet NZTA ‘fit for purpose’ funding criteria, therefore the subsidy applied matches that for a chipseal treatment only. Table 6 provides further detail.

**Detailed NPV calculations are provided in attachment B.

50. The recommended, ‘fit for purpose’ option also aligns with majority of other similar Council approaches to road resurfacing. Most Councils in New Zealand have adopted a ‘fit for purpose’ resurfacing policy in line with NZTA funding assistance criteria. This includes the four major cities with network configuration or growth similar to Tauranga City (Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Hamilton). There are a number of smaller councils who have adopted a ‘like for like’ policy approach, such as Hurunui District Council, Mackenzie District Council and Ashburton District Council. These smaller networks have a lot of unsealed and chipseal roads, so retaining similar surfacing is a more cost-effective option. Further, these smaller districts tend to have very little asphalt roads and therefore residents do not have the same expectation for asphalt on neighbourhood roads. In addition, Selwyn District Council advised that they have experienced considerable growth in recent times resulting in asphalt being used in new subdivision areas. Consequently, Selwyn District Council are reviewing their ‘like for like’ policy as a result of increased cost, technical and equity issues.

Financial Considerations

51. Financial considerations are detailed above in both the ‘Issues for Consideration’ and ‘Options Analysis’ sections of this report. The cost impact on the overall ten year programme and available funding sources are summarised below.

Cost impact on overall 10 year programme

52. The overall cost implication of the reseal level of service is outlined within the three options presented in this report. The summary table below (Table 11) compares the cost to complete Council’s ten-year renewal programme under the various option scenarios considered in this report. A key consideration is the cost to Council once subsidy is considered. The bottom right cell of each option presents a considerable difference in cost to Council.

Table 11: Cost implications for Council on the ten-year renewal programme

	Overall programme	NZTA subsidy	Net cost to Council
Option 1
Road Categories 1, 2 & 3	$33M	$16.8M	$16.2M
Road Categories 4 & 5	$32M	$16.2M	$15.2M
Total	$65M	$33M	$32M
Option 2
Road Categories 1, 2 & 3	$33M	$16.8M	$16.2M
Road Categories 4 & 5	$57M	$16.2M	$40.8M
Total	$90M	$33M	$57M
Option 3
Road Categories 1, 2 & 3	$39M	$19.8M	$19.2M
Road Categories 4 & 5	$90M	$13M	$67M
Total	$129M	$32.8M	$86.2M

Other relevant considerations:

53. Vested assets each year are typically asphalt, so over time the cost for a ‘like for like’ or ‘all asphalt’ option increases.

54. A net present value (NPV) assessment between chipseal and asphalt that includes provision for maintenance and pre-seal repair is included in attachment B. It shows that the whole of life cost of asphalt, in today’s dollars, is considerably more than chipseal, refer Table 12. Therefore, where conditions permit (i.e. traffic volumes and stresses), chipseal is the most cost-effective solution and provides the lowest whole of life cost for Council.

Table 12: Net Present Value (NPV) summary comparison between Asphalt and chipseal

	Chipseal	Asphalt
7 year NPV	$28,200	$123,460
30 year NPV	$55,716	$182,930
48 year NPV (aligns with an assumed pavement life / renewal)	$61,832	$206,661

55.

Available funding sources

56. The roading renewal activity is funded as part of the Council’s capital programme and is provisioned through Council’s Long Term Plan and Annual Plan.

57. As discussed, the current ‘fit for purpose’ policy is endorsed by NZTA and therefore optimally achieves a 51% Funding Assistance Rate for the full resurfacing programme each year.

58. If Council were to adopt Option 2 or Option 3, the additional cost for a higher level of service would be borne by Council and not subsidised by NZTA.

59. If Council wished to proceed with either Option 2 or Option 3, Council could consider targeted rates to offset these additional costs. An indication of the requisite targeted rates for a nominal road 500m long, 8m wide is summarised in Table 12 below. Further cost details are also provided in attachment D.

60. Council would need to consider whether such a targeted rate should be implemented across the whole of the city (following public consultation), or by suburb or street where a specified level of community support is expressed. It should be noted that administrative overhead cost increases relative to the complexity of the targeted rate.

Table 12: Option 2 and 3: Targeted rates dependent on housing density and road surface life

Total cost to be recovered		$133,960.00
Total Annual Target Rate	16 years @ 50 properties	$192.57
Total Annual Target Rate	16 year @ 60 properties	$160.47
Total Annual Target Rate	16 years @ 40 properties	$240.71
Total Annual Target Rate	20 years @ 50 properties	$164.25

Legal Implications / Risks

61. Key risks associated with each option are identified within the ‘Options Analysis’ section. There are no legal implications arising from this report.

Significance

62. Under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, the preferred option is of ‘low’ significance as it represents a continuation of a level of service already provided.

63. If the Policy Committee decide to adopt an alternative option, that decision would result in a change to the level of service and is likely to be considered ‘high’ significance.

Consultation / Engagement

64. If the Policy Committee proceeds with the recommendations contained in this report, additional community consultation beyond the usual resurfacing programme process is not considered necessary because there is no change from the current policy. It should be noted that this decision is likely to result in some sectors of the community being dissatisfied, and it is therefore suggested that community expectations be managed through clear and targeted communications outlining the reasons for the policy decision.

65. The primary submitters of the two petitions received by Council on 6 August 2019 have been notified by TCC staff of the decision being considered at this Policy Committee meeting.

66. If the Policy Committee decide to proceed with an alternative option (including Options 2 and 3), a high level of community engagement would be appropriate as there is likely to be high public interest in a change to the level of service. This could be best achieved through the upcoming LTP consultation process.

Next Steps

67. If the decisions in this report are adopted by the Policy Committee, the next steps are to:

· Provide clear and targeted communications detailing the reasons for the decision;

· Undertake Council’s normal resurfacing notification process with affected communities; and

· Implement the summer resurfacing programme for 2020/21 by applying the level of service policy.

Attachments

1. Attachment A Background information regarding resurfacing backlog and network condition - A11885509 ⇩

2. Attachment B Net Present Value Assessment - compares chipseal and asphalt - A11885510 ⇩

3. Attachment C Letter from NZTA confirming funding assistance implications - A11885511 ⇩

4. Attachment D Target Rate calculation - A11885513 ⇩

[1] Per section 93(6) of the Local Government Act 2002

[2] Reference: NZTA Investment Audit Report May 2019

[3] Generally assuming a 610km road length divided by expected life of 12-16 years, then expressed as a percentage of the overall network length gives a rough order renewal percentage of 6-8%.


AGENDA Policy Committee Meeting Tuesday, 20 October 2020
I hereby give notice that a Policy Committee Meeting will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 20 October 2020
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Tauranga City Council Council Chambers 91 Willow Street Tauranga
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz.
Marty Grenfell Chief Executive

Chairperson	Cr Steve Morris
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Dawn Kiddie
Members	Mayor Tenby Powell Cr Jako Abrie Cr Larry Baldock Cr Kelvin Clout Cr Bill Grainger Cr Andrew Hollis Cr Heidi Hughes Cr John Robson Cr Tina Salisbury
	Tangata Whenua representative (TBC)
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

Type of Grant	Grant Recipient	Amount FY 2020/21 $	Total Amount of Grant $	Opex/Capex
Direct Grant	Incubator - Creative Hub	125,000	375,000	Opex
Direct Grant	Incubator - Wish Tree	3,700	7,500	Opex
Direct Grant	Elms Foundation	225,000	675,000	Opex
Direct Grant	Neighbourhood Support	25,000	75,000	Opex
Direct Grant	Tauranga Combined Community Patrols	30,000	90,000	Opex
Direct Grant	SociaLink	30,000	90,000	Opex
Direct Grant	He Kaupapa Kotahitanga Trust (Awhina House)	40,000	40,000	Opex
Direct Grant	Taonga Tauranga	20,000	40,000	Opex
Direct Grant	Tauranga Community Foodbank Trust	4,000	12,000	Opex
Direct Grant	Tauranga Community Foodbank Trust	30,000	30,000	Opex
Direct Grant	Merivale Community Centre	867,877	867,877	Capex
Direct Grant	Mt Maunganui Cricket Club	133,020	133,020	Capex
Direct Grant	Merivale Community Centre	35,000	105,000	Opex
Direct Grant	Welcome Bay Community Centre	20,000	20,000	Opex
Direct Grant	Tauranga Community Housing Trust	10,000	10,000	Opex
Direct Grant	Under the Stars	30,000	30,000	Opex
Direct Grant	Water Safety NZ	25,000	25,000	Opex

Policy type	Democracy
Authorised by	Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement
First adopted	1 november 2020	Minute reference
Review date	September 2023

To:	Executive
From:	Kath Norris, Team Leader Democracy Services
Date:	23 September 2020