Policy Committee Meeting

Tuesday, 20 October 2020

I hereby give notice that a Policy Committee Meeting will be held on:


Tuesday, 20 October 2020




Tauranga City Council

Council Chambers

91 Willow Street


Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website:

Marty Grenfell

Chief Executive


Terms of reference – Policy Committee




Common responsibilities and delegations

The following common responsibilities and delegations apply to all standing committees.



Responsibilities of standing committees

·         Establish priorities and guidance on programmes relevant to the Role and Scope of the committee.

·         Provide guidance to staff on the development of investment options to inform the Long Term Plan and Annual Plans.

·         Report to Council on matters of strategic importance.

·         Recommend to Council investment priorities and lead Council considerations of relevant strategic and high significance decisions.

·         Provide guidance to staff on levels of service relevant to the role and scope of the committee. 

·         Establish and participate in relevant task forces and working groups.

·         Engage in dialogue with strategic partners, such as Smart Growth partners, to ensure alignment of objectives and implementation of agreed actions.



Delegations to standing committees

·         To make recommendations to Council outside of the delegated responsibility as agreed by Council relevant to the role and scope of the Committee.

·         To make all decisions necessary to fulfil the role and scope of the Committee subject to the delegations/limitations imposed.

·         To develop and consider, receive submissions on and adopt strategies, policies and plans relevant to the role and scope of the committee, except where these may only be legally adopted by Council.

·         To consider, consult on, hear and make determinations on relevant strategies, policies and bylaws (including adoption of drafts), making recommendations to Council on adoption, rescinding and modification, where these must be legally adopted by Council,

·         To approve relevant submissions to central government, its agencies and other bodies beyond any specific delegation to any particular committee.

·         To appoint a non-voting Tangata Whenua representative to the Committee.

·         Engage external parties as required.



Terms of reference – Policy Committee





Cr Steve Morris

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Dawn Kiddie


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)


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



·         To establish, implement and review the operational policy and planning framework for decision making that will assist in achieving the strategic priorities and outcomes for the Tauranga City Council.

·         To establish policies and plans for decision making that will assist in achieving the strategic priorities and outcomes.


·         Manage the process of development of the Long Term Plan and Annual Plan, including the hearing of submissions, and determine the form and extent of public consultation methods to be employed.  (Note: The Council cannot delegate to a Committee the adoption of the Long-term Plan and Annual Plan).

·         Develop and review bylaws.

·         Develop, review and approve policies and plans.

·         Develop and approve the draft Statement of Intent for the Council’s Council-Controlled organisations (CCOs).

·         Undertake any reviews of CCOs and make recommendations on any proposed changes to CCO governance arrangements.

·         Consider and approve changes to service delivery arrangements arising from the service delivery reviews required under LGA 2002 that are referred to the Committee by the Chief Executive.

·         Approve Council submissions to central government, councils and other organisations including submissions to any plan changes or policy statements.

Power to act

·         To make all decisions necessary to fulfil the role and scope of the Committee subject to the limitations imposed.

·         To establish subcommittees, working parties and forums as required.

·         To appoint a non-voting Tangata Whenua representative to the Committee.

Power to recommend

·         To Council and/or any standing committee as it deems appropriate.



Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020


Order Of Business

1          Apologies. 7

2          Public Forum.. 8

2.1            Liz Davies - Social Link. 8

3          Acceptance of Late Items. 9

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 9

5          Change to Order of Business. 9

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 10

6.1            Minutes of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 2 July 2020. 10

6.2            Minutes of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 8 September 2020. 54

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 65

8          Business. 66

8.1            LTP 2021 - 2031 Community Grant Fund - Issues & Options Report 66

8.2            Long-term Plan 2021-2031  - Workstreams update. 80

8.3            Charging Policy for LGOIMA.. 90

8.4            Sustainability Advisory - Next Steps. 102

8.5            LTP 2021 - 2031 Road resealing Level of Surface Issues and Options Paper 107

9          Discussion of Late Items. 129

10       Public Excluded Session. 130

10.1          Reappointment of Directors to the Board of Bay Venues Limited. 130



Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020


1            Apologies

2            Public Forum

2.1         Liz Davies - Social Link   

3            Acceptance of Late Items

4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

5            Change to Order of Business

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020


6            Confirmation of Minutes

6.1         Minutes of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 2 July 2020

File Number:           A11908449

Author:                    Raj Naidu, Committee Advisor

Authoriser:             Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services



(a)     That the Minutes of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 2 July 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.





1.       Minutes of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 2 July 2020 


UNCONFIRMEDPolicy Committee Meeting Minutes

2 - 7 July 2020




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



2            Public Forum  



3            Acceptance of Late Items



4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open



5            Change to Order of Business



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.




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.


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, Cr John Robson, and Cr Tina Salisbury.


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.



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 John Robson, and Cr Tina Salisbury.

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.


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 John Robson, and Cr Tina Salisbury.


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.



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



The meeting closed at 3.55pm.


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




Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020


6.2         Minutes of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 8 September 2020

File Number:           A11876408

Author:                    Raj Naidu, Committee Advisor

Authoriser:             Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services



(a)     That the Minutes of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 8 September 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.





1.       Minutes of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 8 September 2020 


UNCONFIRMEDPolicy Committee Meeting Minutes

8 September 2020




Policy Committee Meeting

Tuesday, 8 September 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. 4

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 4

6.1            Minutes of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 4 March 2020. 4

6.2            Minutes of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 16 June 2020. 4

6.3            Minutes of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 28 July 2020. 4

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 4

8          Business. 5

8.1            Adoption of the Library Archives Policy. 5

8.2            Use of Council Land Policy Review.. 5

8.3            Community Outcomes - Consultation Results. 6

8.4            Independent Sustainability Advice - Next Steps. 7

8.5            Long-term Plan 2021-2031 - Timeline, Workstreams, Strategic Approach and Level of Service Reviews. 9

9          Discussion of Late Items. 10



MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Policy Committee Meeting

HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council, Council Chambers, 91 Willow Street, Tauranga

ON Tuesday, 8 September 2020 AT 9.30am



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, Cr John Robson, and Cr Tina Salisbury


IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Emma Joyce (Policy Analyst), Jeremy Boase (Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning), Melony Atkins (Senior Policy Analyst), Fiona Nalder (Strategic Advisor), Josh Logan (Team Leader: Corporate Planning), Rene Bester (Team Leader: Heritage & Research), Abby Wharne (Heritage Specialist), Ariell King( Team Leader: Policy) Sarah Stewart (Strategic Advisor), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor), and Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor)


1            Apologies


Committee Resolution  PO11/20/1

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie


That the apology for lateness received from Cr Andrew Hollis be accepted.



2            Public Forum 



3            Acceptance of Late Items



4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open


5            Change to Order of Business



6            Confirmation of Minutes

6.1         Minutes of the Policy Committee meeting held on 4 March 2020

Committee Resolution  PO11/20/2

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury


That the minutes of the Policy Committee meeting held on 4 March 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.



6.2         Minutes of the Policy Committee meeting held on 16 June 2020

Committee Resolution  PO11/20/3

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury


That the minutes of the Policy Committee meeting held on 16 June 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.



6.3         Minutes of the Policy Committee meeting held on 28 July 2020

Committee Resolution  PO11/20/4

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury


That the minutes of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 28 July 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.



At 9.35am, Cr Andrew Hollis entered the meeting.


7            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Crs. Baldock and Abrie declared respective conflicts of interest with Item 8.2


8            Business

8.1         Adoption of the Library Archives Policy

Staff          Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

                  Abby Wharne, Heritage Specialist


Key points

·         The report was taken as read and there were no questions asked.


Committee Resolution  PO11/20/5

Moved:       Cr Heidi Hughes

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury


That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Adopt the Library Archives Policy 2020.

(b)     Delegate to staff the ability to make minor changes to the policy for the purposes of correction or clarification.



8.2         Use of Council Land Policy Review


Staff          Melony Atkins, Senior Policy Analyst       


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


Key points

·         The public use of Council land had an effect on all facets of Council work.

·         Demand for public land was increasing but there was a shortage in supply.

·         The purpose of the review was to simplify and consolidate 19 policies that dealt with public land.

·         Engagement with the community was a key part of designing the policy framework.

·         A series of issues and options papers would be presented to elected members before a draft policy paper was formulated.


In response to questions

·         The Road Reserve policies would be relooked at based on current national policy.

·         Privately leased berms were not common within Tauranga City Council jurisdictions.

·         The policy governing the marine precinct was old and would expire in 2021.

·         The Urban Plan, Reserve Management Plan, and the Reserves Act 1977 covered green spaces and active or passive reserves.

·         Te Papa Spatial Plan took into account green spaces and would be presented to elected members in October 2020.

·         The Reserves Act had remained unchanged since 1977 and the definitions therein were quite strict and inflexible which was why Tauranga City Council policies (governed by the Act) were sometimes perceived as stringent or inflexible as seen in the case of Arataki Park.

·         User Fees and Charges would be part of the policy review.

Discussion points raised

·         Central government legislations and Acts sometimes complicated the work of local government.

·         It was important to educate the community in understanding the restrictions which Tauranga City Council faced when developing policy because in most cases they were governed by central government requirements.


Committee Resolution  PO11/20/6

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Mayor Tenby Powell


That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Agree to proceed with the Use of Council Land policy review according to the proposed four-part review structure.

(b)     Agree to proceed with community engagement on part one of the review, consisting of issues relevant to the Community, Private and Commercial Use of Council Land Policy and seven associated policies.


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

Against:           Nil

Abstained:       Cr Jako Abrie

carried 10/0



1        Presentation - Melony Atkins


8.3         Community Outcomes - Consultation Results


Staff          Fiona Nalder, Strategic Advisor


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


Key points

·         The consultation results were based on the engagement from draft community outcomes and principles.

·         It was promoted via radio, print, digital advertising, social media posts, digital billboards, media release and the Tauranga City Council website.

·         552 responses were received over a three-week period.

·         81% of respondents had agreed that these were the right outcomes and 58% stated that the environment was one of the most important priority items because it was seen as an asset to Tauranga.

·         The survey results on the community principles gave a good snapshot of where improvements were required by Council.

·         The consultation costs had totalled $16,403 (excluding GST).

In response to questions

·         It was important not to have duplication in terms of reports and consultations.

·         As the City Vision Project progressed, these outcomes could change due to the comprehensive nature of the City Vision engagement process with the community.

·         552 responses were not considered bad for the type of engagement that had been envisioned because of Long Term Plan time pressures.

·         Engagement analysis in terms of demographics was not available because demographic questions were not asked in the survey based on the engagement strategy for this particular consultation.


Discussion points raised

·         76% had responded that the Tangata Whenua and Tauranga City Council partnership was a step in the right direction.

·         The four well beings were addressed in the consultation, although it was a smaller piece of research.

·         Consistent language and messaging were imperative because it reduced community confusion and encouraged community participation.

·         Sustainability and Tangata Whenua engagement were important and should be factored into all facets of Tauranga City Council’s work or processes.


Committee Resolution  PO11/20/7

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout


That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Approve the community outcomes and principles, as contained in this report.

(b)     Note the findings from the community outcomes consultation.

(c)     Note the proposed next steps in this report, including:

(i)      Progressing the strategic direction for the upcoming 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

(ii)     Developing the long-term City Vision Project.



1        Presentation - Fiona Nalder

Staff Action – Fiona Nalder

Report back results for what were the most effective tools of engagement and data capture.


8.4         Independent Sustainability Advice - Next Steps

Staff          Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning


Key points

·         Sustainability, the four well beings, and prioritisation were important aspects of Council work.

·         The next steps were to create the scope and purposes of the Sustainability Project Advisory Board (SPAB) and to start the recruitment process.  

·         The medium-term vision would feed into the Long Term Plan.

·         The Waikato Wellbeing Project was a good piece of holistic work to build SPAB on.

In response to questions

·         There was a concern raised about the name change from Independent Sustainability Advisory Board (as per draft annual plan) to SPAB; staff clarified that the strategic scope remained the same despite the name change.

·         The Community and Stakeholder reference group underpinning the SPAB was yet to be decided upon.

·         Staff would prepare a paper on the two frameworks to present to the SPAB and Executive to finalise a draft model which would then be presented to the elected members for a final decision/approval.

·         Tauranga City Council’s level of staffing in the sustainability space was not set-up or resourced adequately so staff were exploring whether to allocate inhouse staff to do the strategy work or engage external consultant(s) because the work would be demanding in terms of research and engagement requirements.

·         A small percentage of the annual plan budget was allocated towards the SPAB.

·         The SPAB’s aim was to be involved in the Long Term Plan process to provide advice and guidance on sustainability, prioritisation, the four well beings, caring for communities, etc.

·         Duplication in the short and medium terms was a tricky aspect of the whole process and it was something that would require consultation, engagement, and partnerships with the community and other agencies working in this space in order to mitigate it.


Discussion points raised

·         It was important for futureproofing that the SPAB worked on the premise of the region and City Vision rather just being Tauranga City Council-centric.

·         Sustainability was holistic in that it was socio-economic, cultural and environmental.

·         There had to be tangible changes coming from this process rather than just strategy and policy papers.

·         It was important that the SPAB was community and stakeholder-centric in partnership with Tauranga City Council rather than being disconnected or in siloed engagement.

·         Partnership between the SPAB and City Vision was important as nuanced by the Vital Signs survey as well as other surveys where environment and development were key indicators.

·         There had to be a balance between the environment and development so that the city could be enjoyed by future communities.

·         It was important not to rush the process and use the expertise of the subject matter experts of the SPAB, who also needed to be open-minded and flexible.


Committee Resolution  PO11/20/8

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes


That the Policy Committee:

(a)       Authorises the Chief Executive to establish a Sustainability Project Advisory Board with a purpose and scope that is consistent with council’s decision of 16 July 2020 and also covers council’s involvement in the city vision project (Option 2).


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

Against:           Nil

Abstained:       Cr Andrew Hollis

carried 10/0


8.5         Long-term Plan 2021-2031  - Timeline, Workstreams, Strategic Approach and Level of Service Reviews

Staff          Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning


Key points

·         Creating a sustainable Long Term Plan (LTP) was going to be the key focus and challenge.

·         Two draft models of the LTP were envisioned (basic/complex) for consultations and workshops.


At 10.47am, Mayor Tenby Powell left the meeting.

·         There was a lot of work involved in the LTP process which was compounded by COVID-19 and limited resourcing could be a problem due to the time pressures involved.


At 10.48am, Mayor Tenby Powell returned to the meeting.

At 10.48am, Cr. Jako Abrie left the meeting.


In response to questions

·         There was a sizeable gap between the basic and complex model options of the LTP and this was the challenge that elected members had to navigate through to get a draft model.

·         The intention of bringing the recommendations to Council now was to kickstart the conversations due to time pressures.


At 10.51am, Cr. Jako Abrie returned to the meeting.


Discussion points raised


·         The LTP had to acknowledge the mistakes of the past and embrace sustainability.

·         One Council ran the bus service and another Council managed the infrastructure was case in point of a disconnected and siloed way of thinking that led to duplication.

·         It was important to understand the aspirations of the community in order to achieve good outcomes for the city.

·         External funding to Council Controlled Organisations and other entities had to be added to LTP stream.


Committee Resolution  PO11/20/9

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Mayor Tenby Powell

That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Notes the timeline prepared in Attachment 1 for elected member involvement and decision making in significant projects from July 2020 – June 2021.

(b)     Confirms the committee that each workstream item in Attachment 2 is to be reported to through the development of the LTP

(c)     Approves the strategic approach of preparing two LTP scenarios as the basis of developing the Long-term Plan 2021 – 2031.

(d)     Notes the level of service analysis undertaken during the development of the 2020/21 Annual Plan and the specific level of service work already planned for the LTP and does not require further level of service reviews to be conducted. 


9            Discussion of Late Items



The meeting closed at 11.09am.


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






Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020


7            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

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.


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);

(c)     two funding rounds per year, with up to 50% of the fund to be distributed per round;

(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.




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:



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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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



$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


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.



·    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


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:



·    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:




Matter to be considered




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.


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


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.


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.


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.

b. Up to three years


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


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.

b. Maximum amount


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.


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.


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


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:




·    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.


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

(c)     information to be included in the consultation document for the LTP 2021-2031.

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.


1.       Direct grants - Community Grant Fund - Issues and Options Report - A11898381  


Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020


Attachment One – Community Grant Fund – Issues and Options Paper

Type of Grant

Grant Recipient


FY 2020/21 $

Total Amount

of Grant $


Direct Grant

Incubator - Creative Hub




Direct Grant

Incubator - Wish Tree




Direct Grant

Elms Foundation




Direct Grant

Neighbourhood Support




Direct Grant

Tauranga Combined Community Patrols




Direct Grant





Direct Grant

He Kaupapa Kotahitanga Trust (Awhina House)




Direct Grant

Taonga Tauranga




Direct Grant

Tauranga Community Foodbank Trust




Direct Grant

Tauranga Community Foodbank Trust




Direct Grant

Merivale Community Centre




Direct Grant

Mt Maunganui Cricket Club




Direct Grant

Merivale Community Centre




Direct Grant

Welcome Bay Community Centre




Direct Grant

Tauranga Community Housing Trust




Direct Grant

Under the Stars




Direct Grant

Water Safety NZ






Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020


8.2         Long-term Plan 2021-2031  - Workstreams update

File Number:           A11895174

Author:                    Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Authoriser:             Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth


Purpose of the Report

1.       To provide an updated Long-term Plan (LTP) workstreams document to Policy Committee.


That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Notes the LTP workstreams update as per Attachment 1.



2.       Under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), every three years the Council is required to produce a Long-term Plan (LTP). The purpose[1] of the LTP is to:

a)   describe the activities of the local authority; and

b)   describe the community outcomes of the local authority’s district or region; and

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

d)   provide a long-term focus for the decisions and activities of the local authority; and

e)   provide a basis for accountability of the local authority to the community.

3.       The LTP covers ten years and also incorporates an infrastructure strategy with a 30-year timeframe.  The next LTP is due for adoption by 30 June 2021.

4.       The LTP brings together a large number of processes and topics and requires content input from all Council activities.  Coordinating this, including providing appropriate content to the mayor and councillors for direction-setting and decision-making, is a significant task.  Some workstreams have been underway for many months (and in some cases years) while others commence later in the process.  Each separate process or content topic has its own project planning commensurate with its type and scale.



5.       This report continues on from the LTP workstreams report that was considered and approved by Council on 11 August 2020.

6.       A further workstreams document that aligned each workstream with a committee (or full council) to report the progress of the workstream into was developed and reported to Policy Committee on 8 September 2020.

7.       That report included an attachment that provided a brief summary of the key workstreams contributing to the LTP.  These are collated under six headings:

(a)     Strategic reviews

(b)     Financing and funding

(c)     Growth-related issued

(d)     Major projects

(e)     Levels of service and options

(f)      Mechanics and systems

8.       Attachment 1 to this report provides a further update to the previous two reports and includes the current status of each of the workstreams for the mayor and councillor’s information.

Consultation / Engagement

9.       The LTP consultation document will be formally consulted on in March/April 2021.  An engagement approach and programme are one of the aspects in the ‘strategic review’ section of Attachment 1.  The mayor and councillors will be further involved in the development of that approach and programme over coming months. 


10.     The matter of the LTP and its contents have a high degree of significance.  However, the decision to note the established outline work programme is of lower significance as the work is already underway or complete.

Next Steps

11.     Work will continue on each of the workstreams included in Attachment 1 and these will be reported to the relevant committees as identified on 8 September 2020. 

12.     A further update of this document will be provided to Policy Committee on 1 December 2020.


1.       LTP workstreams list update at at 8 October 2020 - A11895706   

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020


List of Workstreams Contributing to the 2021 - 2031 Long-Term Plan

As at 8 October 2020






Strategic Reviews



LTP Strategic Approach

Strategic objectives and fiscal factors – how do they drive the LTP preparation.


Strategy & Finance


Policy – 8 September


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.




Policy – 8 September


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.







Policy – 16 June


Environmental Scan

Review of external factors influencing the preparation of the LTP and socialisation with elected members.




Policy – 16 June


Level of Service / Cost / Productivity Review
Review of Councils operational levels of service including costs and delivery. 




Policy – 8 September


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.



·      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.



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.



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.


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.


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.



Report to Council on 17 November.


Sustainability Framework

Implement Council direction



Update report taken to Policy Committee on 8 September. Further update on 20 October Policy Committee agenda.



Community Facilities & Active Reserves Plan

Develop Community Facilities Plan and Active Reserves Plan to understand and address community needs in a fast-growing city.



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.


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



Briefing scheduled for 19 October.

Financing & Funding



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.



·      Revenue & Financing Policy

·      User Fees strategy

·      Risk Reserve (noting significant current underfunding)

·      Debt / Revenue ratio



Workshop held on 9 September and report to FARC on 22 September. Further work ongoing.


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).



Workshop held on 9 September and report to FARC on 22 September. Further work ongoing.




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.


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.


User Fees Review

Review specific user fees for activities.



Workshop held on 9 September and report to FARC on 22 September. Further work ongoing.




Growth assumptions / approach
Growth assumptions reviewed for long term planning.  Impacts expenditure projections for many teams, especially re capex.


City & Infrastructure Planning

UFTD – 9 June


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.


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.



Forms part of SR13.


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.


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.


Tauriko West (Social Infrastructure)
The social infrastructure planning aspect of the Tauriko West development.



Forms part of SR13.


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



Potential Major Project

Seek EM strategic direction / political appetite on:

·      Stadium

·      Mt Visitor Centre

·      Sustainability Centre

·      Others that may arise from Activity Planning



Currently in development. Aim to report to Council prior to end of 2020.


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.


Memorial Park aquatic

Consideration of significant upgrade to Memorial Pool facility.



 Forms part of SR13.


Memorial Park / Strand walkway
Walkway/cycleway connecting CBD to Memorial Park along the waterfront.


Spaces and Places

Issues and options paper due early 2021.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


Council - 25 August

(Decision made and progress of roll out will continue to be reported)

Levels of Service & Options



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.


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.


Infrastructure Strategy

Policy / Strategy

Workshop scheduled 15 October.


Reseal LOS

The elected members have signalled that they would like to review the reseals level of service logic.



Issues and Options paper to Policy Committee 20 October.


Core Digital systems
Digital Systems review of core systems (excluding financial, refer above) and roll out of strategic plan. 



Briefing scheduled for 10 November.


Boat Ramps

·      Assess issues and options re provision

·      Boat ramp user fees




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).


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.


Town Centre & Neighbourhood Spatial Plans

Issues & Option paper on:

·      Urban spatial plans and / or public realm redevelopment plans

·      Locational priorities across the city

·      Timing



Report to UFTD due in late 2020.


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



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.


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



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.


Finance system upgrade

IBIS system installed.    Likely to have major impacts on the preparation process.


Finance, Digital Services





Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020


8.3         Charging Policy for LGOIMA

File Number:           A11897682

Author:                    Kath Norris, Team Leader: Democracy Services

Authoriser:             Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement


Purpose of the Report

1.       The purpose of this policy is to set out the Tauranga City Council’s (TCC) charging policy for providing information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA). 



That the Policy Committee:

(a)     Endorse the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) Charging Policy for Tauranga City Council in Attachment 1.

(b)     Delegate to the Chief Executive the ability to charge for LGOIMA requests.



Executive Summary

2.       The Charging Policy for LGOIMA (refer to Attachment 1) was presented and approved by the TCC Executive on 28 September 2020 (refer to Attachment 4 for the Memo to the Executive) and is now provided to the Policy Committee for their information and endorsement. 

3.       The policy will come into effect from 1 November 2020. 


4.       There have been several LGOIMA requests received in recent months where the requests have been large, complex, resource intensive and time consuming across multiple business units within council.

5.       One of the recognised tools to assist agencies managing requests of this nature is the ability to charge requesters for information. Charging for LGOIMA requests is recognised by both the Office of the Ombudsman and the Ministry of Justice. Their guidance has been followed when formalising this policy.

6.       Charges will be considered when making the information available; including time spent retrieving and collating the information and preparing it for release. However, charges cannot be made for the time spent or any expenses incurred in deciding whether to release the information.

7.       The charges are set out in the annual schedule of User Fees and Charges and are consistent with the Ministry of Justice Charging Guidelines and endorsed by the Office of the Ombudsman. These charges will also be added to the Governance Official Information requests page on the TCC website.

Strategic / Statutory Context

8.       TCC is committed to the principles of openness and public engagement and will make information available unless there are good reasons for withholding it.

9.       The principle of availability underpins the whole of the LGOIMA. This principle should always be kept in mind when considering how best to respond to a request for official information.

10.     There is no requirement for the Council to formally adopt this policy as it is a TCC operational policy.


Option 1 – Endorse the LGOIMA Charging Policy

11.     TCC currently does not charge for LGOIMA requests because it does not have a LGOIMA Charging Policy in place. 

12.     This option provides a tool available to TCC to assist with the large, complex, resource intensive and multiple requests that are a feature of some LGOIMA requests currently received and anticipated to be received into the future.  For this reason this option is recommended.

13.     This policy in no way minimises councils’ commitment to making official information readily available to those who request it, but it will consider on a case by case basis if a charge for that information will be appropriate.  Refer to Attachment 3 for a sample estimate of costs that would be calculated when charging.

14.     No charges will be applied without having engaged with the requester on options for how to manage the request.

15.     The delegation to charge will sit with the Chief Executive who will then further delegate through the TCC delegations manual.

16.     The LGOIMA Charging Policy will come into effect on 1 November 2020 and information will be available on the TCC’s website (Refer to Attachment 2).


Option 2 –Decline to Endorse the LGOIMA Charging Policy

17.     This option would see the Council decline to endorse the LGOIMA Charging Policy.

18.     TCC staff would then be unable to charge for LGOIMA requests.

19.     As charging is recommended by the Office of the Ombudsman as a tool to manage the large, complex, resource intensive and multiple requests staff would have one less crucial tool to manage these requests.

20.     For this reason this option is not recommended.


Financial Considerations

21.     Any funds received from charging for LGOIMA requests will be used to recover the costs of this activity. 

Legal Implications / Risks

22.     There is a risk that TCC would be seen to be punitive by introducing this charging policy. However, there are safeguards available to requesters through the Office of the Ombudsman should they wish to dispute any charges imposed.


23.     This policy is considered to be of low significance in terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy.

next steps

24.     Policy to be available on TCC website.




1.       TCC LGOIMA Charging Policy - A11865356

2.       LGOIMA Charging Information for Website - A11865355

3.       Sample estimate of costs for calculating a charge for LGOIMA - A11865358

4.       Memo to Executive LGOIMA Charging Policy - A11865359   

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020






Policy type


Authorised by

Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement

First adopted

1 november 2020

Minute reference


Review date

September 2023



1    The purpose of this policy is to set out the Tauranga City Council’s (TCC) charging policy for providing information under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA). 

2    It supports the principles of the LGOIMA to increase the availability of official information, and to protect official information and the deliberations of local authorities to the extent consistent with the public interest and the preservation of personal privacy.


3    This policy applies to all LGOIMA requests that TCC receives and sets the policy for charging for LGOIMA when appropriate.


4    TCC is committed to the principles of openness and public engagement and will make information available unless there are good reasons for withholding it.

5    The principle of availability underpins the whole of the LGOIMA. This principle should always be kept in mind when considering how best to respond to a request for official information.

6    TCC must be mindful of the duty to give reasonable assistance to a person making a LGOIMA request, communicating with them to clarify their request in order to identify the information sought.


7    TCC will consider charging for a request for information that is likely to take a significant amount of research, collation and reproducing of information and will take into account the cost of the labour and materials in making the information available.

8    Charges can be made for making the information available; including time spent retrieving and collating the information and preparing it for release. However, charges cannot be made for the time spent or any expenses incurred in deciding whether or not to release the information.

9    In addition, it may not be reasonable to charge for locating or retrieving information if there are record keeping practices in place that mean the information is not stored where it should be in accordance with the TCC’s normal prudent business practice.

10  TCC will not consider whether and how much to charge for the release of information until it has decided whether (and to what extent) the information can be made available. At the same time consideration will be given to whether reduction or waiver of any proposed charge may be made in recognition of the public interest and/or potential hardship.

11  TCC must notify the requester of the decision to charge at the same time as the requester is advised of the decision to release information.  The requester will be asked to confirm their agreement to pay the charge and either asked to pay the full amount or pay a deposit, with the balance to be paid on release of the information. Any unused component of the maximum charge will be refunded.

12  Where the charge is substantial, TCC should give the requester an opportunity to refine the scope of the request in order to reduce or remove the need to charge.

13  The requester has the right to complain to the Ombudsman about the decision to charge and will be advised of this right by TCC.

14  The charges are set out in the annual schedule of User Fees and Charges and are consistent with the Ministry of Justice Charging Guidelines and endorsed by the Office of the Ombudsman.


15  LGOIMA aims to make official information held by local authorities more freely available. It allows for effective participation by the public in actions and decisions of the local authority and promotes open and public transparency of the business of council. It also promotes the accountability of council members and staff. There are protections from disclosure where non-disclosure is in the public interest or to protect personal privacy. When a request is so considerable that it would require ‘substantial collation or research’ to make the information available, agencies are expressly required to consider whether charging would enable the request to be met.


16  The delegation to charge for official information will sit with the Chief Executive who will then further delegate through the TCC internal delegations manual.


Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020


Information To be Published on Tauranga City Council Website

Official information request fees and charges

The fees and charges below apply to official information requests. These fees are set out in the Tauranga City Council 2020-21 User fees and charges, you can find the charges on page 31 in this link:

All fees are stated as GST inclusive and are effective from 1 November 2020. Council reserves the right to review any fees and charges at any time. Please check with Council for any updates.

If a fee or charge for a Council service is not specifically listed below the charge or fee will be the total of the actual cost of materials, officer time incurred to provide the service and GST.

LGOIMA request fees

Requests for official information may be made to:

phone 07 5777000

Democracy Services
Tauranga City Council
Private Bag 12022
Tauranga 3143

Check out the link below for more information on LGOIMA.


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.


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.


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



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



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



A charge may be modified or waived at the discretion of the Chief Executive.


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



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.


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.


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: 


Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020


Sample estimate of costs

Locations searched


Search terms used


Date range


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








[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



­      To:

­      Executive

­      From:

­      Kath Norris, Team Leader Democracy Services

­      Date:

­      23 September 2020


Charging Policy for LGOIMA



That the Executive approves the Charging Policy for LGOIMA for Tauranga City Council (TCC) and that this take effect immediately.


Executive Summary

Council does not currently have a policy in place to apply a charge for a LGOIMA request.  Charging for requests  is a recognised and approved tool by the Office of the Ombudsman to support agencies when they receive LGOIMA requests of a significant size. This tool has always been available to TCC, but charges have rarely been initiated and certainly not since the Democracy Services team has been in place.


There have been an increasing number of large LGOIMA requests received by TCC over the past three months, including multiple requests from individuals. These requests have been resource intensive across multiple business units and in many cases also require external advice from legal counsel.  They have placed significant strain on the teams required to provide assistance with the responses, in particular the Democracy Services team.

These do not appear to be abating and through public interest in these high profile requests the nature of some other requests has changed towards a much broader scope of official information, particularly around all communications across all mediums these are not only the Mayor and Councillors communications but in some instances all staff communications are requested.

This policy has been drafted using the Office of the Ombudsman’s Guidelines for Charging and the Ministry of Justice Official Information Charging Guidelines.,

The Charging Policy

The policy is not being put in place to restrict the flow of official information or to impose a blanket charge for all LGOIMA requests but to give TCC a tool to manage large requests that require considerable resources for searching, collating and making the information available.

Charges can be made for making the information available; including time spent retrieving and collating the information and preparing it for release. However, charges cannot be made for the time spent or any expenses incurred in deciding whether or not to release the information.

When a charge is being considered the requester will be notified and provided with an estimation of the charge, and how the charge has been calculated. The Democracy Services team will communicate with the requester and offer what assistance they can to support the requester to understand the charge and how it could possibly be reduced or removed, an example of this might be refining the scope of the request.

It should be noted that consideration will be given to whether reduction or waiver of any proposed charge may be made in recognition of the public interest and/or potential hardship. The Ombudsman’s Guidance states that agencies need to consider the important democratic and constitutional role of the news media in informing the public and that this may make it unreasonable, in the circumstances of a case, to charge, or to charge the full amount.  While charging can be applied to news media requests, these would have to be considered carefully.

A decision to charge for such requests will be made on case by case basis with the Manager Democracy Services taking oversight of the decision making.

Review Rights

The requester has the right to complain about the decision to charge, and will be advised of this in writing by TCC

The Actual Charges

The charges are set out in the annual schedule of User Fees and Charges and are consistent with the Ministry of Justice Charging Guidelines and endorsed by the Office of the Ombudsman.

Next Steps

1.   TCC procedures and processes will be updated to support the new policy

2.   Communications to Mayor and Councillors will be sent advising them of the new policy

3.   Charging policy will be available on the TCC website


Coral Hair

Manager Democracy Services



I.    Draft Charging Policy for LGOIMA

II.   Information on Charging for the TCC website

III.  Template letter for Requester Advising of Charge

IV.  Sample estimate of costs for calculating a charge for LGOIMA

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

20 October 2020


8.4         Sustainability Advisory - Next Steps

File Number:           A11899671

Author:                    Sarah Searle, Strategic Advisor

Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy and Corporate Planning

Authoriser:             Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth


Purpose of the Report

1.       To inform Elected Members of the intended process for establishment of the Sustainability Advisory Board (“the Board”) and development of a Sustainability Framework and Action Plan, per previous Council resolutions.


a)   That the Policy Committee receives “Sustainability Advisory – Next Steps” report.


Executive Summary

2.       At the Policy Committee meeting of 08 September 2020, the Committee delegated authority to the Chief Executive to “establish a Sustainability Project Advisory Board with a purpose and scope that is consistent with council’s decision of 16 July 2020 and also covers council’s involvement in the city vision project”.

3.       Staff and the Chief Executive have developed a process for recruiting the Board and undertaking the associated sustainability framework and action plan, in order to meet the objectives and intent of the Council resolutions of May, July and September this year (see background below).

4.       It is proposed that recruitment is via a direct-appointment  process (as outlined below in paragraphs 12-16) and that this is supplemented by the use of external consultants to leverage expertise of those who have completed similar work (i.e. stocktake, framework, action plan) previously and to maximise the role of the Board around provision of knowledge, review and challenge.

5.       The objective is for recruitment and appointment to take place by mid-November with the first meeting held by the end of November.


6.       The concept of an “Independent Sustainability Advisory Board” (“ISAB”) was first introduced as an amendment to the draft Annual Plan at the Council Meeting of 28 May 2020.

7.       In the Annual Plan deliberations (16 July 2020) Council resolved to allocate $400,000 of its annual operational budget to creation and implementation of the ISAB ($200,000 per original decision in May and a further $200,000 effectively for organisational support / implementation). The direction and budget were approved at the Council meeting of 30 July 2020.

8.       A paper was brought to Policy Committee dated 8 September 2020, where the resolution as set out in paragraph 2 above was passed.

9.       Further to the evolution of the concept and terminology as outlined above it is proposed that the Board is now called a “Sustainability Advisory Board” – reflective of the fact that its purpose and operations will be somewhat different to a typical Project Advisory Board (which would be generally focussed on a discrete project(s) rather than broader scope).

Board structure and recruitment

10.     Initial scoping documents and conversations indicate the intention for the Board to comprise national experts in sustainability-related fields. It is important to note that sustainability is being defined in the holistic sense of the four LGA well-beings (economic, environmental, social and cultural) rather than solely environmental.

11.     Recognising there is inevitably a large degree of overlap between the four well-beings, it is nonetheless suggested that the skills and roles advertised cover these at a minimum, with the addition of a chair or generalist(s) across sustainability broadly. Paragraph 48 of the 08 September Policy Committee paper also outlines the skills and knowledge sought, noting also that the environment bullet should also recognise sustainable land use, not just water and air.

12.     The expected size of the Board is 3-5 members.

 “Recruitment” process

13.     There is no fixed precedent/process for appointing members to the Board, however the intention is to strike a balance between a process that is sufficiently robust/transparent and fair whilst also efficient and timely, particularly given the intention for the Board to input into LTP processes, timeframes and decisions.

14.     Given the calibre of Board members sought, there is no guarantee that those approached will be interested and/or available to participate, particularly given the desire to get the Board set-up quickly.

15.     Options considered for recruitment were formal and informal recruitment.

Formal recruitment process:

·        Advertised more widely via media and other channels. This was not recommended due to the additional time and money involved and the calibre of candidates being sought.

Informal recruitment process:

·        For the defined skill sets / areas of expertise identify appropriately skilled individuals who would bring high value to the Board

·        Agree preferred list (depending on numbers, define positions and have a 1st and 2nd preferred candidate)

·        Approach agreed 1st list to gauge interest and availability (prepare high level “role description” with overview of background / scope / Terms of Reference, and ask candidates to provide detail of skills/experience making them suitable for the role)

·        If unavailable, approach 2nd preferred candidates

·        If still unavailable, revisit and approach others as relevant

16.     It is noted that a similar process was run for the TSP Challenge Team – the brief and skills statements used for this will form another input into development of the role descriptions.

Purpose and scope

17.     The 08 September Policy Committee paper outlines the potential scope and purpose of the Board, namely -

(i)      “To facilitate the provision of independent information to inform engagement, consultation and decision-making at all levels within council (including, but not limited to, strategy, programme and project). In order to achieve the above, the Project Advisory Board would receive and review a stocktake on the organisation and lead the development of a high-level framework and action plan linked to the 2021-31 Long-term Plan. It is anticipated that the high-level framework would include some form of prioritisation process for the Long-term Plan”.

Draft Terms of Reference

18.     Based on the above draft scope, and Terms of Reference from previous TCC Project Advisory Boards (including Waiari and Waste), the following Terms of Reference (“ToR”) have been drafted:


To provide strategic advice and guidance to the Chief Executive and staff around sustainability and its application to engagement, consultation and decision-making at all levels within council (including, but not limited to, strategy, programme and project).

Role and scope

·        Contribute to/advise on a sustainability framework and action plan for Tauranga City Council.

·        Provide expert information and advice in relation to sustainability and its application, particularly in a Local Government context (including best practice, challenges, considerations, current and future trends)

·        Understand Council planning, processes and opportunities to embed sustainability

·        Identify short, medium and longer-term sustainability priorities

·        Consider /advise on the relevance of wider models for understanding / applying sustainability

·        Review existing/draft stocktake and action plan

·        Input into LTP process, prioritisation and project selection

·        Guidance and input into city vision process currently underway (and alignment of council’s sustainability objectives with the city’s more broadly focussed city vision project)

Reports to

The Chief Executive.

19.     It is proposed that the draft TOR will be discussed with the members of the Board once appointed to seek their input prior to the TOR being finalised

20.     Other terms to be defined will include:

·        Term / duration of appointments

·        Remuneration

·        Time commitment / frequency / location of meetings (and time / input in between set meetings)

Community Reference Group

21.     The 08 September Policy Committee paper recommends that the Board be supported by a Community Reference Group. This group would provide local knowledge, experience and connections (assuming that some or all of the Board may be national experts who are not Tauranga-based).

22.     Again, it is suggested that ‘recruitment’ is through an informal process of approaching a short-list of names identified by Elected Members / Executive / staff as being the most appropriate.

23.     Given the nature of this group, some members may also be involved in other council or related activities and forums. In particular, SmartGrowth has both a Social Sector and Environment & Sustainability Sector Forum which meet bi-monthly. These have extensive membership locally – Social Sector, Environment & Sustainability.

24.     Key differences are that the SmartGrowth forums:

·        Are intended to give a voice to the non-government and not for profit sector (other organisations / government agencies are ‘participating observers’)

·        Take a sub-regional and multi-agency approach

·        Have a much larger group membership than the Board which would, by design, be small and focussed

25.     Consideration will be given around the extent to which the local input provided by the Community Reference Group could be provided by the forums above.

26.     Per the resolution of 08 September, it will also be important that the Board aligns with the Tauranga City Vision project (which will be a wider city collaborative approach). It may be that the Board can provide / review council’s input into this process. This is included in the draft ToR for the Board.

Role of Board in relation to external consultants and staff resource

27.     It is recommended that the Board / Sustainability Framework is supported by an internal steering group, comprising at a minimum the GMs: Infrastructure and Strategy & Growth, and Managers: Sustainability & Waste and Strategy & Corporate Planning.

28.     It is also considered more efficient for the bulk of the (more time-extensive) work around the Sustainability Framework and Action Plan to be done by consultants (who have done similar work before) with the Board playing a review/input role.

Existing work to leverage


29.     A draft sustainability stocktake and action plan were undertaken by the previous Corporate Sustainability Lead and will provide a foundation and starting point for the Board to consider.

30.     The stocktake was conducted in accordance with the GRI – Global Reporting Initiative, which is an international independent standards organisation providing a framework for sustainability reporting.

31.     Possible gaps / considerations include –

·        An assessment of sustainability in a NZ context, particularly across the four well-beings as identified in the LGA, for example Social Well-being. The Vital Update results, released since the stocktake was completed, also provide further detail in this regard.

·        Opportunity for a more holistic and city-wide lens

·        Consideration of the interdependencies and (sometimes) trade-offs between the well-beings

·        A consolidated organisation-wide approach to climate change e.g. reporting, prioritisation, plus mapping existing resilience and climate change projects

·        Changes since / implications of COVID (for example acceleration of remote/flexible working but on the flipside increased economic and social challenges)

·        Assessment/explanation of the GRI as the most suitable framework for reporting / measurement

·        How this interacts with a broader, city-wide framework/vision

32.     An additional exercise has been undertaken, including meeting of a group from across council, to map resilience and climate change projects and their relevance and status. This will be helpful in providing more information at a project level to sit beneath the sustainability stocktake’s mapping of activity areas.



Strategy Stocktake

33.     An extensive stocktake of existing council strategies was also undertaken as part of the LTP process to inform our revised community outcomes and principles. This identified the lack of a coherent environmental and/or sustainability strategy/approach.

34.     Our existing Corporate Sustainability Strategy (Sustainable Steps 2011-2016) provides input and broad parameters but needs significant refreshing given developments since this was drafted ten years ago.


35.     Work already underway or undertaken for council’s Long-Term Plan 2021-2031 will also be a key input. This includes:

·        Our revised community outcomes and principles, including specifically around sustainability

·        Development of prioritisation matrix

·        Environment scan (with WSP) which identified current and future trends and possible blinds spots for council

·        Consideration of opportunities for Board input

·        Use of SOLGM indicators to ‘measure’ well-being

Information to Provide / Onboarding

36.     Information and onboarding support for the Board will be confirmed depending on the members, timing and agreed scope and their familiarity with Tauranga and the council / Local Government context and processes.

Financial Considerations

37.     The 2020/21 Annual Plan includes $400,000 for internal and external resources to support strategic and operational sustainability structures as discussed in this report. A detailed breakdown of the budget has not yet been prepared.

Consultation / Engagement

38.     The 08 September Policy Committee paper outlines the consultation process through the Annual Plan. Further engagement in relation to the Board and Framework as outlined in this paper is not contemplated.


39.     The matter of sustainability is of high significance. However, this report is of low significance as it is a step in the implementation of a previous council decision.

Next Steps

40.     Staff and the Chief Executive to finalise the skills statements / position descriptions, commence recruitment process and appoint candidates for the Board.

41.     Staff and Chief Executive to commence a tender process for consultants to begin work on the Sustainability Framework and Action Plan.




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.



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. 


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