AGENDA

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

Tuesday, 17 November 2020

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

Date:

Tuesday, 17 November 2020

Time:

9.30am

Location:

Tauranga City Council

Council Chambers

91 Willow Street

Tauranga

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

Marty Grenfell

Chief Executive

 


Terms of reference – Council

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Mayor Tenby Powell

Deputy chairperson

Cr Tina Salisbury

Members

Cr Larry Baldock

Cr Kelvin Clout

Cr Bill Grainger

Cr Andrew Hollis

Cr Heidi Hughes

Cr Dawn Kiddie

Cr Steve Morris

Cr John Robson

Quorum

Half of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting frequency

Six weekly or as required for Annual Plan, Long Term Plan and other relevant legislative requirements.

Role

·         To ensure the effective and efficient governance of the City

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

Scope

·         Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

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

·         The powers Council is legally prohibited from delegating include:

o   Power to make a rate.

o   Power to make a bylaw.

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

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

o   Power to appoint a chief executive.

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

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

·         Council has chosen not to delegate the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural matters

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

·         Adoption of Standing Orders.

·         Receipt of Joint Committee minutes.

·         Approval of Special Orders.

·         Employment of Chief Executive.

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

Regulatory matters

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

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

Order Of Business

1          Apologies. 7

2          Public Forum.. 8

2.1            Mr Glen Crowther - Totara Street 8

2.2            Mr Kevin Kerr - Totara Street 8

3          Acceptance of Late Items. 9

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 9

5          Change to the Order of Business. 9

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 10

6.1            Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 14 April 2020. 10

6.2            Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 21 April 2020. 16

6.3            Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 16 June 2020. 29

6.4            Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 14 July 2020. 43

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 57

8          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 57

Nil

9          Recommendations from Other Committees. 57

Nil

10       Business. 58

10.1          Totara Street Business Case and Update. 58

10.2          Traffic and Parking Bylaw Amendment 217

10.3          Kennedy Road Embankment Dam Scope and Budget Adjustment 240

10.4          Approval for Renaming Upper Section of Ohauiti Road. 247

10.5          Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Update. 251

10.6          Sustainability Board - update. 262

10.7          Delegations relating to the Resource Management Act 1991. 265

10.8          Meetings schedule 2021. 269

10.9          Appointments as a result of Councillor Abrie's resignation. 274

10.10       Leave of absence Mayor Powell 277

10.11       Review and Observer Team Report 280

11       Discussion of Late Items. 288

12       Public Excluded Session. 289

12.1          Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 21 April 2020. 289

12.2          Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 16 June 2020. 289

12.3          Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 14 July 2020. 290

12.4          Devonport Road Commercial Request 290

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

1            Apologies

 

2            Public Forum

2.1         Mr Glen Crowther - Totara Street

2.2         Mr Kevin Kerr - Totara Street  

 

3            Acceptance of Late Items

 

4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

 

5            Change to the Order of Business


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

6            Confirmation of Minutes

6.1         Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 14 April 2020

File Number:           A11984179

Author:                    Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

Authoriser:             Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 14 April 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 14 April 2020 

  


DraftEmergency Council Meeting Minutes

14 April 2020

 

 

MINUTES

Emergency Council Meeting

Tuesday, 14 April 2020

 


Order of Business

1          Apologies. 3

2          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 3

3          Business. 3

3.1            Crown Infrastructure Partners COVID Economic Stimulus Package Application. 3

3.2            Covid-19 - Short term business sector relief options. 4

4          Discussion of Late Items. 4

 


MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council
Emergency Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council (by video conference)
ON Tuesday, 14 April 2020 AT 11.30am

 

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

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Ross Hudson (Strategic Advisor), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor), Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor)

 

1            Apologies

Nil                                                                                                                  

2            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil

3            Business

3.1         Crown Infrastructure Partners COVID Economic Stimulus Package Application

Staff          Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

                  Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

Key points

·         Outlined a three-tier approach to the COVID recovery plan; the Crown Infrastructure Partners (CIP) programme was in Tier 1.

·         Highlighted that Tauranga City Council (TCC) would have a large part to play in the post-COVID recovery of Tauranga City.

·         A regional package with being considered jointly with other Bay of Plenty local authorities; the regional package would endorse individual council packages.  SmartGrowth was also lodging applications for projects under the Urban Growth partnership.

·         Was a CIP requirement to complete a prioritisation process and provide views on the relative priorities of projects.

·         CIP applications focussed on projects that would be shovel-ready within six to twelve months; there was a very detailed application process for each project submitted along with the Overview Statement.

·         TCC’s application was grouped into two packages: Creating Communities and Housing for All; and Employing our People.

·         Support for the priority given to the various projects was sought.

 

In response to questions

·         Moving the Memorial Park recreation/aquatic facility up in priority would require the project being shovel-ready in 6-12 months; a feasibility study would need to be approved.  Bay Venues Limited (BVL) was confident that a detailed design and resource consent process could be fast-tracked for the project to be ready 6-9 months post lockdown.  BVL had indicated support for the Memorial Park aquatic facility becoming Priority 1 and the visitor leisure facilities becoming Priority 2.

·         To be shovel-ready, the design brief would need to commence almost immediately and would require commitment of council funding of $350,000, before the Annual Plan process.

·         Clarified that the Memorial Park leisure facility was a separate project to the Memorial Park/Strand walkway; the two projects were in different stages of readiness.

·         Noted that the priority given was only one factor that would be considered; other likely factors were employment; extent of project readiness; geographic distribution across the country.

·         Improvement opportunities for cycleways were included in various projects within the package such as the Arataki multi-modal project, Totara Street and the Te Papa intensification plan.

 

Discussion points raised

·         The priority to be given to various projects was discussed.  Noted there was still the Annual Plan process to work through in conjunction with the central government funding decisions.

 

Resolution  CO5/20/1

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That the Council:

(b)     Approves the package of projects as described in the “Overview Statement” for submission to the Crown Infrastructure Partners Economic Stimulus Process with the following amendment: that the priority attributed to the Memorial Park Recreation and Leisure Hub project be increased, with the Aquatics and indoor facility being Priority:1 and the Visitor leisure facilities being Priority:2

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

Against:           Cr Heidi Hughes

carried 10/1

Carried

At 12.36pm the meeting adjourned.

At 12.45pm the meeting reconvened.

 

 

3.2         Covid-19 - Short term business sector relief options

Staff          Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

                  Ross Hudson, Strategic Advisor

 

Key points

·         Council continued to work with the Chamber of Commerce and Priority One to assess the impact of COVID on Tauranga’s business community.

 

Discussion points raised

·         Particularly important for Council to support small-medium businesses.

·         Noted the limited number of financial and funding levers available to Council to use.

 

 

Resolution  CO5/20/2

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Council:

(a)     Requests that staff report back to the next Council meeting on options for specific short-term community and business support measures, as identified and agreed in this meeting;

(b)     Commits to working with the business community through Priority One and the Chamber of Commerce to produce a comprehensive economic response to Covid-19.

Carried

 

4            Discussion of Late Items

Nil.

 

The meeting closed at 1.03pm

 

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Ordinary Meeting of the Tauranga City Council held on 17 November 2020.

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

6.2         Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 21 April 2020

File Number:           A11984202

Author:                    Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

Authoriser:             Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 21 April 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 21 April 2020 

  


UNCONFIRMEDOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes

21 April 2020

 

 

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting

Tuesday, 21 April 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. 4

5          Change to the Order of Business. 4

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 4

Nil

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 4

8          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 4

Nil

9          Recommendations from Other Committees. 4

Nil

10       Business. 4

10.1          Chief Executive Report 4

10.2          Amendment to emergency committee following law change. 6

10.3          Draft 2020/21 Annual Plan - COVID19 update. 6

10.4          COVID-19 Council financial relief measures. 7

10.5          New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Amendments. 8

10.6          Dog Registration Fee Report 9

10.7          New Bus Shelter Sites Update. 10

10.8          CCO Half Yearly Reports, Draft Statements of Intent and Increase to BVL's Two Way Loan Agreement 10

11       Discussion of Late Items. 12

12       Public Excluded Session. 12

 


MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council
Ordinary Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council (by video conference)
ON Tuesday, 21 April 2020 AT 1pm

 

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

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Mohan De Mel (Treasurer), Jeremy Boase (Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning), Kathryn Sharplin (Manager: Finance), Frazer Smith (Manager: Strategic Finance & Growth), Jim Taylor (Transactional Services Manager), Nick Swallow (Manager: Legal & Commercial), Sam Fellows (Manager: Environmental Regulation), Anne Blakeway (Manager: CCO Relationships and Governance), Mark Smith (Manager: Parks & Recreation), Ross Hudson (Strategic Advisor), Philippa Browne (Traffic Safety & Planning Specialist), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor), Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor)

 

1            Apologies

Nil

2            Public Forum

Nil 

3            Acceptance of Late Items

Resolution  CO6/20/1

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Steve Morris

(a)     That the following items be included in the agenda:

·         Chief Executive Report

·         COVID-19 Council financial relief measures

·         New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Amendments

(b)        The above items were not included in the original agenda because they were not available at the time the agenda was issued. These reports were late due to the need to respond quickly to the multiple complex issues arising from the COVID-19 situation and require decisions that cannot be delayed until the next Council meeting.

Carried

 

4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

Nil

5            Change to the Order of Business

Change the Order of Business

Resolution  CO6/20/2

Moved:       Mayor Tenby Powell

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the first item of business be the CE Report, and that the reports: COVID-19 Council financial relief measures and NZ Local Government Funding Agency Amendments become business items 4 and 5; following the Draft Annual Plan COVID-19 update.

  Carried

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Nil 

7            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil

8            Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

9            Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil

10          Business

10.1       Chief Executive Report

Staff:         Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

 

Key points

·         The report was taken as read; noted that the report contained two recommendations.

 

In response to questions

·         It was expected that construction for the Wharf St upgrade could start under COVID Level 3.  Staff were working with Wharf St businesses to determine which businesses were planning to open in order to manage the impacts of construction.

·         Initial work in relation to Memorial Park needed to be done regardless of Crown Infrastructure Partners (CIP) funding application success; part of the Te Papa intensification. The sooner the work was started the higher the chance of the project being shovel-ready in the timeframe required.

·         Opex implications of the projects were being worked through.  There was still a decision-making process for Council whether operationally the various projects were affordable even if capital funding was received from the Crown. 

·         The Annual Plan would need to be modified and reconsulted, including the implications of the success or otherwise of the CIP process; the executive team was working through what the Annual Plan timeframe would now look like.

·         Next steps for the SAP project were training and live roll-out and use, migration of data, and upskilling of the organisation and use in a live sense.

 

Discussion points raised

·         Money spent on the Memorial Park project would not be money wasted as it was a question of timing of work rather than whether the work would happen, was needed as part of Te Papa intensification. 

·         Memorial Park was a significant project that needs to be thought through thoroughly in terms of both community needs and CIP application.

·         The longer it took to start the Memorial Park project, the less likely the project would meet the shovel-ready criteria.  Memorial Park was the highest priority facility development; the Council funding demonstrated commitment to the project regardless of whether CIP funding was available or not. There was also a high element of goodwill currently with TECT in terms of their funding contribution.

·         Project decisions needed to be assessed against all four wellbeings, including environmental wellbeing.

 

Resolution  CO6/20/3

Moved:       Mayor Tenby Powell

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

 

The motion was taken in parts:

 

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the Chief Executive Report;

 

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

Against:           Nil

carried 11/0

 Carried

 

(b)     Approves a funding contribution of $350,000 (being a ‘bring forward’ of capital

expenditure from the 2021/22 financial year) for the next phase of the Memorial Park Recreation & Leisure project, subject to BVL securing the remaining $350,000 from TECT.

 

Resolution  CO6/20/4

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That recommendation (b) “Approves a funding contribution of $350,000 (being a ‘bring forward’ of capital expenditure from the 2021/22 financial year) for the next phase of the Memorial Park Recreation & Leisure project, subject to BVL securing the remaining $350,000 from TECT”  be left to lie on the table.

 

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

Against:           Crs Jako Abrie, Kelvin Clout and Heidi Hughes

carried 8/3

Carried

 

10.2       Amendment to emergency committee following law change

Staff:         Nick Swallow, Manager: Legal & Commercial

 

Key points

·         The report was taken as read; it was a technical report reflecting legislation change.

 

Resolution  CO6/20/5

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Council:

(a)     In order to enable continuation of Council and Committee meetings under Covid-19 restrictions, modifies resolution CO4/20/9 passed on 24 March 2020 by:

(i)      Revoking the suspension of all committees by amending resolution (e) as follows:

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

(ii)     Deletes resolution (f) being the requirement for a quorum of two members to be physically present.

Carried

 

10.3       Draft 2020/21 Annual Plan - COVID19 update

Staff:         Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

                  Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

 

Key points

·         The draft Annual Plan (AP) was adopted just as lockdown occurred.  Now that the implications of COVID were becoming clearer the AP needed to be reconsidered in the context of the new environment. 

·         Direction was sought from Council on key factors included in the draft AP, to determine whether more or less focus should be given to those factors in an updated draft. Staff would take this direction into account and bring an updated AP back to Council.  There may be a need to reconsult as the updated draft was likely to look significantly different from the current draft and the current Long-Term Plan (LTP).

·         Financial modelling now showed a significant reduction in user fees and revenues e.g. Bay Venues Limited events; the implications of the projected reduction was significant in terms of what could be delivered in the capital programme.

 

 

In response to questions

·         Focus could be the same as in the current AP.  If focus was increased that would concentrate efforts on that activity or factor.

·         Guidance around focus would provide enough direction for staff to come back to  Council with a redrafted AP with an appropriate level of detail.  It was a matter of understanding what essential services must be delivered and then determining the priority of other discretionary activities in terms of what was affordable.  Any Crown funding and its impacts on levels of service delivery would be factored in as received.

 

Resolution  CO6/20/6

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That the Council:

(a)     Recognises that the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the nation, the city, and the council will require significant reconsideration of the draft 2020/21 Annual Plan prior to adoption by 30 June 2020 or later.

(b)     Recognises that the direct impact on Council of government stimulus package opportunities is currently unknown and that, depending on the outcome of those opportunities, further analysis and options beyond those covered by this report may need to be considered by Council prior to the adoption of the 2020/21 Annual Plan.

(d)     Notes that staff will conduct further work on planning scenarios relating to future disruption assumptions to be brought to a subsequent Council or Committee meeting for endorsement. 

Carried

At 2.45pm the meeting adjourned.

At 2.55pm the meeting reconvened.

 

 

10.4       COVID-19 Council financial relief measures

Staff:         Ross Hudson, Strategic Advisor

 

Key points

·         Noted that report recommendation (b) had been withdrawn.

·         Highlighted s6 of the report, the criteria for assistance; and the matrix which provided detail on each initiative and how it weighed up against the criteria.

·         Noted that it was a balancing situation, provision of financial relief was difficult with Council’s current financial position.  There was still the ability to consider individual circumstances case-by-case.

 

In response to questions

·         50% relief for Licence to Occupy (LTO) charges for lockdown-closed businesses was consistent with what other landlords were providing.  50% LTO relief could be used as a starting point and adjusted towards 100% on a case-by-case basis.

 

Discussion points raised

·         Commercial support provided should focus on small to medium enterprises.

·         Considered was an appropriate response, working within council financial constraints while trying to address community concerns.

Resolution  CO6/20/7

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That the Council:

(a)     Agrees to provide funding provision of up to $100,000 for User Fees and Charges relief until 30 September 2020, to allow consideration of requests for case by case exemptions on the basis of hardship; agrees that this fund should be loan funded and delegates to the Chief Executive responsibility for decisions on that fund.

(c)     Consider amending the Rates Remission Policy as part of the 2020/2021 Annual Plan deliberations, in order to retain a consistent remission for future emergency events.

(d)     Continues to work with Central Government to extend its rates rebate scheme; but does not create a ratepayer funded rates rebate scheme.

(e)     Provides, for commercial and residential Licence to Occupy, Lease and Grazing agreements, a 50% rent relief (up to 100% in respect of LTOs only) for those organisations that meet the Government’s COVID-19 support package criteria, to the end of this financial year (30 June 2020); with any further adjustments and longer-term rent freezes to be considered on a case-by-case basis and factored into revenue assumptions through the 2021 Annual Plan process.

(f)      Provides a full rent abatement for community organisations at the Historic Village for the last three months of this financial year and a 50% abatement for commercial tenants; with a further 3-6 month rent abatement for community organisations, and commercial tenants with proven hardship, to be considered in through 2021 Annual Plan process.

(g)     Provides a full rent abatement for community organisations and sports groups leasing land directly from Council for the last three months of this financial year; and considers a further 6-12 month rent abatement through the 2021 Annual Plan process.

Carried

 

10.5       New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Amendments

Staff:         Mohan De Mel, Treasurer

 

Key points

·         The amendments would allow Council-controlled organisations (CCOs) to borrow directly from the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) rather than through parent Councils.  Agreements with CCOs could be put in place from 1 July 2020.

·         The proposed changes had been reviewed by Simpson Grierson

 

 

In response to questions

·         Councils would have to approve the agreement, put a structure in place upfront, and underwrite the loan.  The amendments allowed CCO holding company structures to access LGFA loans.

·         Would still have two-way loan agreements.  If undertaking a major development that required debt funding, a CCO would get the same rates whether via council or directly to LGFA.

·         Clarification was provided around status of debt held by Bay Venues Limited (BVL).

 

 

 

Resolution  CO6/20/8

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency Amendments report.

(b)     Authorises the Council’s entry into the documentation noted in this report.

(c)     Authorises any two of the Council’s elected members to execute the following deeds for the purposes of recommendations (b) above:

(i)      Amendment and Restatement Deed (Multi-issuer Deed);

(ii)     Amendment and Restatement Deed (Notes Subscription Agreement); and

(iii)     Amendment and Restatement Deed (Guarantee and Indemnity).

(d)     Authorises the Chief Executive to execute the Chief Executive Certificate and such other documents and take such other steps on behalf of Council as the Chief Executive considers it is necessary or desirable to execute or take to give effect to recommendation (b) above.

Carried

 

10.6       Dog Registration Fee Report

Staff:         Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance

                  Sam Fellows, Manager: Environmental Regulation

 

Key points

·         Council was required to set dog registration fees by resolution not through the AP process.  Registration was required by 1 July.

·         No changes were proposed this year

·         Noted the historic concern around the quantum in the revenue budget and the actual amount of fees charged.  Staff endeavoured to make sure all dogs were registered and revenue maximised.

 

In response to questions

·         Around 95% of Animal Control time was on dogs, very limited stock work in a city.

·         Payment flexibility could be considered on a case-by-case basis payment; legislatively, a dog was not registered until full fees were paid.

 

Resolution  CO6/20/9

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report; and

(b)     Resolves to maintain Dog registration at $87.00 per dog and $130.00 for Dangerous Dogs.

 

Carried

10.7       New Bus Shelter Sites Update

Staff:         Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

                  Philippa Browne, Traffic Safety & Planning Specialist

 

Key points

·         The report provided an update on current status.  Had expected to have had a hearing by now; the report recommendations provided for the continuation of the process.

 

In response to questions

·         The person adjacent to the proposed bus shelter location had the right to object.  There were about 10 objectors that needed the opportunity to be given a hearing; hearings were possible under COVID Level 2.

·         Hearings were regulatory style.

·         All bus shelters currently funded were being progressed.

 

Resolution  CO6/20/10

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That the Council:

(i)      Receives the report updating on progress of bus shelter installation and acknowledges that installation will continue where no formal objections have been received.

(ii)     Approves to proceed with arrangements for a public hearing to consider formal objections to the installation of bus shelters, at an appropriate time with regard to alert levels and Covid-19 restrictions.

Carried

 

10.8       CCO Half Yearly Reports, Draft Statements of Intent and Increase to BVL's Two Way Loan Agreement

Staff:         Anne Blakeway, Manager: CCO Relationships and Governance

 

Key points

·         The report addressed various procedural and legislative requirements.

·         Council was obliged to receive the CCOs Half-yearly reports.  Noted that the second half of the financial year would be impacted by COVID.

·         Feedback on the CCO Draft Statements of Intent was drafted pre-COVID; expected that CCOs would need to revise their Statements in terms of COVID, with revised financial forecasting.

·         Approval of an increase in the Bay Venues Limited (BVL) two-way loan was sought.  Financial forecasting around the level of debt showed a need to extend the loan provision up to $25m; tie extension would be subject to BVL working with Council on a weekly basis and subject to Council staying within its Treasury Policy.

 

In response to questions

·         The short-term increase to the BVL two-way loan would be reviewed following approval of the Annual Plan.  Clarification was provided around the scope of the loan arrangement; the increase was needed for short-term cash management.  If BVL could borrow directly from LGFA in the future than the quantum of this loan will decrease.

·         Noted a need to be transparent about debt retirement and funding from the depreciation reserve.

·         BOPLASS also had a small loan facility, currently at zero.

·         TBOP was relooking at their strategy and financial position in terms of the impact of COVID; a significant period of recovery was expected.  Noted that the majority of tourism revenue in the Western Bay of Plenty was from domestic tourism.

Resolution  CO6/20/11

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the CCO half yearly reports, draft statements of intent and increase to BVL’s two-way loan agreement cover report, noting that further information is provided in the attached reports.

(b)     Receives the half yearly reports to 31 December 2019 report (Attachment 1):

(i)  Receives Bay Venues Limited’s report on its performance for the six months to 31 December 2019 as required by the 2019-2020 Statement of Intent.

(ii)  Receives Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services Limited’s report on its performance for the six months to 31 December 2019 as required by the 2019-2020 Statement of Intent.

(iii) Receives Tauranga Art Gallery Trust’s report on its performance for the six months to 31 December 2019 as required by the 2019-2020 Statement of Intent.

(iv) Receives Tourism Bay of Plenty’s report on its performance for the six months to 31 December 2019 as required by the 2019-2020 Statement of Intent.

(v) Receives the Local Government Funding Agency’s report on its performance for the six months to 31 December 2019 as required by the 2019-2020 Statement of Intent.

(c)     Receives the CCO Draft Statements of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 report (Attachment 2):

(i)  Receives the draft Statements of Intent (SOIs) for Tauranga City Council’s CCOs; Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services Limited, Bay Venues Limited, Tauranga Art Gallery Trust, Tourism Bay of Plenty, and the Local Government Funding Agency for 2020/21 to 2022/23.

(ii)  Approves the shareholder comments on those draft SOIs, while expecting that it will be necessary for the CCOs to revise their SOIs and financial and non-financial targets prior to 30 June 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

(iii) Notes that as joint shareholder of TBOP, Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) will be asked at their next Council meeting to approve the shareholder comments on the draft Statement of Intent for TBOP.

(d)     Approves an increase to the Intra-Group Two-Way Loan Agreement between Tauranga City Council and Bay Venues Limited, from $20.1 million to $25 million (Attachment 3):

(i)      Noting that this is subject to Bay Venues Limited continuing to work with council staff in monitoring their cashflow position.

(ii)     Delegates to Tauranga City Council’s Emergency Committee the authority to provide further increases to the Intra-Group Two-Way Loan Agreement with Bay Venues Limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, when a resolution of Council is not possible.

(iii)     Noting that this is subject to Tauranga City Council being able to remain within its Treasury Policy limits.

 Carried

 

11          Discussion of Late Items

Late items were discussed as part of business. 

12          Public Excluded Session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution  CO6/20/12

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Kelvin Clout

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution

12.1 - 2020 Appointment of CCO Board Members

s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

s7(2)(c)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

 

The meeting closed at 4.10pm.

 

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 17 November 2020.

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

6.3         Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 16 June 2020

File Number:           A11969399

Author:                    Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

Authoriser:             Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 16 June 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 16 June 2020 

  


UNCONFIRMEDOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes

16 June 2020

 

 

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting

Tuesday, 16 June 2020

 


Order Of Business

1          Apologies. 3

2          Public Forum.. 3

2.1            Emma Jones - Clear the Air Mount Maunganui 3

3          Acceptance of Late Items. 4

3.1            Acceptance of Late Items. 4

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 5

5          Change to the Order of Business. 5

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 5

6.1            Minutes of the Council meeting held on 17 December 2019. 5

6.2            Minutes of the Council meeting held on 19 May 2020. 5

6.3            Minutes of the Council meeting held on 28 May 2020. 5

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 6

8          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 6

Nil

9          Recommendations from Other Committees. 6

Nil

10       Business. 6

10.5          Appointment of Chairs and Deputy Chairs of Committees and SmartGrowth Leadership Group appointees and remuneration. 6

10.1          Adoption of draft Annual Plan 2020/21. 9

10.2          Extension of the 2019/20 Development Contributions Policy. 10

10.3          Tangata Whenua representative appointment to Finance, Audit and Risk Committee. 11

10.4          Procedural closure motion. 11

11       Public Excluded Session. 12

11.1          Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 17 December 2019. 12

11.2          Public Excluded Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 19 May 2020. 12

11.3          Request approval for Exemption to Open Competiton for TC30/20 Elizabeth Street Upgrade. 12

12.      Public Excluded Resolutions transferred into the public arena. 13

12.1          Public Excluded Resolutions Transferred into the Public Arena. 13

 

 

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

ON Tuesday, 16 June 2020 AT 11am

 

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

 

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Jeremy Boase (Manager: Strategy and Corporate Planning), Nick Swallow (Manager: Legal and Commercial), Josh Logan (Team Leader: Corporate Planning), Mohan de Mel (Treasurer), Tracey Hughes (Financial Insights and Reporting Manager), Sheree Covell (Financial Analyst), (Ana Blackwood (Development Contributions Policy Analyst), Avon Adams (Manager: Communication and Engagement), Scott MacLeod (Group Communication Advisor), Carlo Ellis (Manager: Strategic Māori Engagement), Ross Boreham (Civic Communications Specialist), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor) and Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor)

 

1            Apologies

Nil

 

2            Public Forum

2.1         Emma Jones - Clear the Air Mount Maunganui

 

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

 

Key points

·                Clear the Air was a Mount Maunganui Community Group focused on air quality concerns including dust, odours (toxic and non-toxic) and methyl bromide use at the Port of Tauranga.

·                There was a growing frustration in the community with the lack of action over air pollution.

·                The Mt Maunganui industrial area was a designated polluted airshed according to Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) monitoring data and report.

·                There was no buffer between residential and industrial zones which created serious health concerns and raised a question regarding the future vision for Mt Maunganui.

·                Clear the Air was asking for a zoning review of the industrial land and an aggressive plan for the relocation of heavy industry to free up the space for development more in line with the city vision and community health and wellbeing.

·                A tank farm was proposed to be sited next to the Whareroa Marae and this had sparked a large response with over 24,000 engagements on their Facebook site.

·                The consent for the tank farm had been a catalyst for change.

·                People were demanding that the resource consent for the tank farm be publicly notified so that the public could have their say and a voice in these big decisions.

·                Dual consent application – BOPRC had made a notification assessment; TCC had placed the processing of the consent on hold awaiting a cultural impacts assessment and a conversation with Whareroa Marae.

·                Observed that there was a widespread perception in the community that BOPRC had a conflict of interest as 51% owners of the Port of Tauranga. 

·                Whareroa Marae felt that it was not been listened to.

·                Clear the Air asked the Council to consider having a conversation around questions such as:

1.         Do we still need an industrial complex near the port?

2.         Are there better ways we can mitigate and still build?

3.         Have we considered  the cumulative effect, and the impact of the designation of the polluted airshed?

4.         What would a buffer zone look like?

·                Modern city design would not allow heavy industry so close to residential areas.  Cities had evolved and council needed to be cognisant of that.

 

In response to questions

·                A follow-up staff report to Council was requested to respond to the concerns raised by Clear the Air regarding the tank farm application.  The report should address the impacts of the tank farm; TCC and BOPRC roles in the consenting process particularly regarding public notification and assessment of effects; and the current work that TCC and BOPRC were undertaking together on the future of Mount Maunganui within the City Plan and Regional Policy Statement and resources required to progress this work.

·                Noted that future planning frameworks could not address existing use rights.

 

Staff Action

1.         Request a report to Council on the impacts of the tank farm, TCC’s role in the consenting process, and work being jointly undertaken by TCC and BOPRC on planning for the future of the Mount Maunganui area. 

 

Attachment

1        Presentation - Emma Jones - Clear the Air Mount Maunganui

 

3            Acceptance of Late Items

3.1         Acceptance of Late Items

Resolution  CO13/20/1

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the following items be included in the agenda:

·                Appointment of Chairs and Deputy Chairs of Committees and Smartgrowth Leadership Group appointees and Remuneration

·                Request approval for Exemption to Open Competiton for TC30/20 Elizabeth Street Upgrade (to be considered in public excluded business)

These items were not able to be included in the agenda when published as information relevant to the reports was unavailable at that time.

Carried

 

 

4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

Nil

 

5            Change to the Order of Business

The Mayor indicated that item 10.5 - Appointment of Chairs and Deputy Chairs of Committees and Smartgrowth Leadership Group appointees and Remuneration, would be the first item of business.

 

6            Confirmation of Minutes

6.1         Minutes of the Council meeting held on 17 December 2019

Resolution  CO13/20/2

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 17 December 2019 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

 

 

6.2         Minutes of the Council meeting held on 19 May 2020

Resolution  CO13/20/3

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 19 May 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

 

 

6.3         Minutes of the Council meeting held on 28 May 2020

Resolution  CO13/20/4

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 28 May 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

 


 

 

7            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil

 

8            Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

 

9            Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil

 

10          Business

10.5       Appointment of Chairs and Deputy Chairs of Committees and SmartGrowth Leadership Group appointees and remuneration

Staff          Coral Hair and Nick Swallow

 

Key points

·                 Remuneration changes would be required to reflect changes to the governance structure.

·                 The entire remuneration pool was required to be allocated.

·                 The Remuneration Authority’s approval was required.

 

In response to questions

·                 Cr Robson was to be appointed as a SmartGrowth representative following the resignation of Cr Clout.

·                 Remuneration changes would be backdated to the day of appointment.

·                 The Remuneration Authority’s proposal to reduce remuneration for a six month period in response to COVID-19 would most likely be changed once the Authority was advised of the changes in remuneration resolved at today’s meeting.

 

Discussion points raised

·                 Concern was expressed that the Deputy Mayor was not being appointed as a TCC SmartGrowth  representative.

·                 Noted the importance of working constructively with SmartGrowth partners.

·                 Noted the importance of listening to and challenging alternative views and understanding that the SmartGrowth table should be a place of debate.

·                 Opportunity now to work with all SmartGrowth partners to take the Western Bay of Plenty forward.

·                 In terms of remuneration, all councillors contributed in different ways and offices held may not be an accurate reflection of workload, responsibility or community work undertaken by individual councillors. 

·                 A flatter remuneration structure was more in step with other metro councils.

·                 Different councils had very different governance structures and therefore it was hard to compare ourselves with other councils.

·                 People stood for office to represent their community rather than for the remuneration.

 

 

 

Resolution  CO13/20/5

Moved:       Mayor Tenby Powell

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report “Appointment of Chairs and Deputy Chairs and Smartgrowth Leadership Group appointees and Remuneration”;

(b)     Receives the letter of requisition dated 2 June 2020 signed by six Councillors addressed to the Chief Executive to the extent it covers matters other than the removal of the Deputy Mayor;

(c)     Receives the letter from Cr Clout dated 12 June 2020 withdrawing support for the removal of the Deputy Mayor and election of a new Deputy Mayor;

(d)     (i)      Confirms the chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of the standing committees    of Tauranga City Council, except for the Deputy Chairperson of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee;

(ii)     Discharges, in accordance with Clause 31, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2020, the deputy chairperson of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee of Tauranga City Council appointed by the Mayor under section 41A(3)(c) of the Local Government Act and appoints Cr John Robson as the deputy chairperson of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee.

(e)     (i)      Replaces Cr Kelvin Clout, on his resignation as Tauranga City Council  representative on the SmartGrowth Leadership Group, with the appointment of Cr John Robson;

(ii)      Approves, in the event that SmartGrowth approves the appointment of alternates, that Deputy Mayor Tina Salisbury be appointed as the alternate.

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

Against:           Cr Larry Baldock

CARRIED 9/1

Carried

 

Motion 

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Dawn Kiddie

That the Council:

(f)      Alters the remuneration of elected members, subject to approval by the Remuneration Authority, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Amendment

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

(f)      Alters the remuneration of elected members, subject to approval by the Remuneration Authority, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


In Favour:   Crs Larry Baldock and Kelvin Clout

Against:           Crs Tenby Powell, Tina Salisbury, Bill Grainger, Andrew Hollis, Heidi Hughes, Dawn Kiddie, Steve Morris, John Robson and Jako Abrie

lost 2/9

 

 

Resolution  CO13/20/6

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Dawn Kiddie

That the Council:

(f)      Alters the remuneration of elected members, subject to approval by the Remuneration Authority as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carried

 

 

10.1       Adoption of draft Annual Plan 2020/21

Staff          Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Tracey Hughes,  Financial Insights and Reporting Manager

Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy and Corporate Planning

 

Key points

·                4.7% final rates number in the draft Annual Plan.

·                Document reflected what had been discussed at the previous Council meeting and had been well canvassed.

 

In response to questions

·                The statement on page 15 of the Consultation Document about the closure of Our Place affecting parking revenue was queried and it was agreed that the statement would be removed.

·                Funding impact statement for elder housing did not include depreciation.

·                Printed versions of submission forms and consultation documents would be available on Friday, 19 June 2020; however, people were being encouraged to complete online submissions.

·                Rates calculator available online.

·                Reserves for the Southern pipeline in the revised draft Statement of Reserves related to development contributions.

·                Bayfair underpass figure of $2m was correct.

 

Discussion points raised

·                Appreciation was expressed to the Executive  team and staff who had worked through this draft Annual Plan process twice due to COVID-19. 

·                The rates increase had started at 12.7%, was reduced to 7.6% and was now sitting at 4.7%.

·                This draft Annual Plan was the time to make decisions that were right for the city and address the recovery after COVID-19. This was an opportunity to stimulate economic investment, job creation and infrastructure provision.

·                Looking forward to community engagement and keen to hear from the community regarding priorities and costs and urged ratepayers to use the online ratepayer calculator.

·                Noted the Local Government Funding Authority (LGFA) revision of net debt/revenue ratio limits.

·                TCC commercial rates were considered to be low in comparison to other councils; unfortunately the need to change this had coincided with the impact of COVID-19.

 

Resolution  CO13/20/7

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Mayor Tenby Powell

That the Council:

(a)     Approves a revised draft 2020/21 Annual Plan with:

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

(ii)     A total rating increase of 4.7% after growth.

(b)     Adopts the revised draft Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Document (CD) for public consultation from 17 June to 1 July 2020;

(c)     Adopts the draft Annual Plan 2020/21 supporting financial information;

(d)     Not reconsult on the draft 2020/21 Development Contributions Policy, the draft User Fees and Charges schedule, or the draft Revenue and Finance Policy due to them still being valid. Staff will still accept any new submissions on the Development Contributions Policy, User Fees and Charges, and the Revenue and Finance Policy and include them in Hearings and Deliberations material.

(e)     Authorises the Chief Executive to approve minor drafting, financial and presentation amendments to the draft Annual Plan 2020/21 Consultation Document prior to printing if necessary.

Carried

 

 

10.2       Extension of the 2019/20 Development Contributions Policy

Staff          Ana Blackwood, Development Contributions Policy Analyst

 

Key points

·                Administrative decision required.

Resolution  CO13/20/8

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That the Council:

(a)     Adopt the proposed amendment to the 2019/20 Development Contributions Policy which enables the extension of the document past the original end date of 30 June 2020.

Carried

 

 

10.3       Tangata Whenua representative appointment to Finance, Audit and Risk Committee

Staff          Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

 

Discussion points raised

·                Familiar with Dr Beilby’s input on the Policy Committee and welcomed him onto the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee.

 

Resolution  CO13/20/9

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report “Tangata Whenua Representative Appointment to Finance, Audit and Risk Committee”.

(b)     Accepts the recommendations of Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana and appoints Dr Wayne Beilby as the Tangata Whenua Representative to the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee.

(c)     Notes that Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana will provide a recommendation for the Tangata Whenua representative to the Policy Committee to replace Dr Wayne Beilby.

Carried

 

 

10.4       Procedural closure motion

Staff          Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

 

Resolution  CO13/20/10

Moved:       Cr Kelvin Clout

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Council receives the report “Procedural Closure Motion”.

Carried

 

 

 

 

11          Public Excluded Session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution  CO13/20/11

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Bill Grainger

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution

11.1 - Public excluded minutes of the Council meeting held on 17 December 2019

s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege

s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

11.2 - Public excluded minutes of the Council meeting held on 19 May 2020

s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

11.3 - Request approval for Exemption to open competition for TC30/20 Elizabeth Street upgrade

s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

 

Carried

 

 

12.         Public Excluded Resolutions transferred into the public arena

12.1       Public Excluded Resolutions Transferred into the Public Arena

The following resolution and the report were released into the public part of the meeting once the contract had been awarded.

 

11.3       Request approval for exemption to open competiton for TC30/20 Elizabeth Street upgrade

Resolution  CO13/20/12

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Heidi Hughes

That the Council:

(a)     Approves an Exemption to Open Competition for TC30/20 – Elizabeth Street Capital works (as outlined in Attachment A) to allow for direct engagement with Hawkins Limited as the Lead Contractor for the contract works.

(b)     Approves the report and resolution being moved into public once the contract has been awarded.

Carried

 

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 2.19pm.

 

The minutes of this meeting to be confirmed at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 17 November 2020

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

6.4         Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 14 July 2020

File Number:           A11988479

Author:                    Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

Authoriser:             Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 14 July 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 14 July 2020 

  


UNCONFIRMEDOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes

14 July 2020

 

 

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting

Tuesday, 14 July 2020

 


Order of Business

1          Apologies. 3

2          Public Forum.. 3

2.1            Ms Deborah Turner - Tauranga bus service and safety of bus stops. 3

3          Acceptance of Late Items. 4

4          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 4

5          Change to the Order of Business. 4

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 4

6.1            Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 20 February 2020. 4

6.2            Minutes of the Council meeting held on 27 February 2020. 4

7          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 4

8          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 4

Nil

9          Recommendations from Other Committees. 4

9.1            Recommendation from other committees - Finance, Audit and Risk Committee – 30 June 2020: 9.1 – Treasury Strategy. 4

10       Business. 5

10.1          Chief Executive's Report 5

10.2          SmartGrowth Leadership Group Agreement - Update. 5

10.3          Minor amendments to Local Election Policy maps. 6

10.4          Code of Conduct 6

10.5          Waste Activity Update. 11

11       Discussion of Late Items. 12

12       Public Excluded Session. 12

12.1          Public Excluded Minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 20 February 2020  13

12.2          Elder Housing Divestment 13

12.3          Request approval for Exemption to Open Competition and to authorise expenditure for TC31/18 – Tauranga VCat LED Street Lighting Upgrade. 13

 

 

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

ON Tuesday, 14 July 2020 AT 9.30am

 

 

PRESENT:              Mayor Tenby Powell, Cr Tina Salisbury, Cr Jako Abrie, Cr Larry Baldock, Cr Bill Grainger, Cr Andrew Hollis, Cr Heidi Hughes, Cr Dawn Kiddie, Cr Steve Morris, Cr John Robson

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Ariell King (Team Leader: Policy), Stuart Goodman (Team Leader: Regulation Monitoring), Rebecca Maiden (Manager: Sustainability & Waste), Rob Golsby (Project Manager: Kerbside Waste Services and Facilities), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor).

 

1            Apologies

Apology

Resolution  CO16/20/1

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the apology for absence received from Cr Clout be accepted.

Carried

 

2            Public Forum

2.1         Ms Deborah Turner - Tauranga bus service and safety of bus stops

Key points

·         Noted the absence of park and ride, ferry and train services.  These alternative services would take pressure off the roads and provide a different option to catching the bus. 

·         Suggested the reinstatement of the Mount to Tauranga CBD ferry service.

·         Considered that better resourcing was needed to improve the bus service and the bus stops.  People still preferred using cars for most journeys, especially if there was a long walk to the bus stop or the journey required taking two or three buses.

·         Emphasised that it was hard for the elderly to use the bus service without sufficient and appropriate bus shelters; these should be prioritised for resourcing.

·         Concerned about the lack of direct bus services from Papamoa into Tauranga. Noted a lack of bus stops in Maungatapu for elderly residents.

·         Suggested providing dedicated seating on buses for the elderly.

 

 

3            Acceptance of Late Items

Nil

4            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

Nil

5            Change to the Order of Business

Nil

6            Confirmation of Minutes

6.1         Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 20 February 2020

Resolution  CO16/20/2

Moved:       Cr Andrew Hollis

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the minutes of the Extraordinary Council Meeting held on 20 February 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

 

6.2         Minutes of the Council meeting held on 27 February 2020

Resolution  CO16/20/3

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 27 February 2020 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

 

7            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

Nil

8            Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

 

9            Recommendations from Other Committees

9.1         Recommendation from other committees - Finance, Audit and Risk Committee – 30 June 2020: 9.1 – Treasury Strategy

Resolution  CO16/20/4

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Tina Salisbury

That the Council:

Approves an interim Borrowing Programme of $35m for the month of July 2020.

Carried

 

10          Business

10.1       Chief Executive's Report

Staff          Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

 

Key points

·         The strategic finance project (SAP) went live over the weekend.  This was a significant project which went smoothly due to three months of hard work and planning, not an easy implementation.  Congratulations to the Digital Services team for their hard work and good result.

 

In response to questions

·         The total cost of SAP (system implementation and transition) would be reported back.  There was a $7.6m budget but likely there would be some increase due to COVID impact on timing.

 

Resolution  CO16/20/5

Moved:       Cr Andrew Hollis

Seconded:  Cr Larry Baldock

That the Council:

Receives the Chief Executive’s Report.

Carried

 

10.2       SmartGrowth Leadership Group Agreement - Update

Staff          Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

Key points

·         The proposed modifications to the Agreement formalised the alternate system for deputy mayors.

 

Resolution  CO16/20/6

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr John Robson

That the Council:

(a)     Adopts the updated SmartGrowth Leadership Group Agreement and associated Terms of Reference that includes provision for alternates, attached as Attachment 1.

(b)     Authorises the Mayor/Chair to sign the agreement.

Carried

 

10.3       Minor amendments to Local Election Policy maps

Staff          Ariell King, Team Leader: Policy

Stuart Goodman, Team Leader: Regulation Monitoring

 

Key points

·         Regular assessments of permitted locations for election signs are undertaken; two changes were suggested for safety reasons.

 

In response to questions

·         Consideration was given to election signage being more aggregated rather than spread throughout the city.  Since the map system with permitted locations was implemented, the number of complaints regarding signage has reduced significantly.  Happy to consider suggestions around location. 

·         The best practice guidance in the candidate handbook regarding erection and anchoring of signs was reviewed and updated as necessary.

 

Resolution  CO16/20/7

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That the Council:

Approves the amendment of map 16, the deletion of map 27 and the renumbering of maps 28 to 31 in Schedule 1 of the Local Election Policy.

Carried

 

10.4       Code of Conduct

Staff          Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

 

 

Key points

·         Noted that the draft Code of Conduct had been before Council previously and had also been workshopped with councillors; the report incorporated suggested changes.

·         A decision was sought regarding the establishment of a Code of Conduct committee; a 75% majority was needed to adopt the Code of  Conduct.

·         The Code of Conduct could be adopted without establishing a Code of Conduct Committee; a Code of Conduct committee could be established at any stage if reference to the committee was included in the Code of Conduct.

 

In response to questions

·         If established, the appointment of non-elected members to the Code of Conduct Committee would be through a registration of interest process prior to any breach complaint. A further paper would come to Council regarding the appointment process to the Code of Conduct Committee and to address issues such as remuneration of appointees.

·         The dollar amount specified in the gift register was up to the councillors to determine; it had previously been a $50 threshold for declaration.

·         Expense claims were generally asked to be completed on a monthly basis.  Staff were unaware how strict other councils were on timeframes for claims.

·         The Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) Code of Conduct template and best practice guidelines did not include the option of using truth as a defence in relation to statements made in Council.

·         If a Code of Conduct committee was established, Council still had the option of deciding to refer a complaint to the Committee or hear the complaint itself.

 

Discussion points raised

·         Addressed the reality that situations of conflict did arise and acknowledged the need to have a fair and efficient way of dealing with these issues.  Considered it important to have an independent panel to address Code of Conduct breaches; not always best or appropriate for elected members to adjudicate on their colleagues.

·         Discussion was held regarding the appropriate and desired qualifications for non-elected members of the Code of Conduct Committee.

·         A Code of Conduct was important to manage behaviour and expectations both inside and outside of Chambers.

·         The lower the value required to be declared in the gift register may make it less likely that all gifts were reported as may capture very innocuous situations.  Aim of the gift register was to manage risk of fraud and bribery.  Council should consider the reasonableness of the threshold figure.

 

Motion 

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Mayor Tenby Powell

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report on the Code of Conduct; and

(b)     Revokes the current Code of Conduct 2016-19 in Attachment 2; and

(c)     Adopts the updated Code of Conduct in Attachment 1 (Option 1); and:

(i)      Agrees to continue with the requirement for a member to declare whether or not they are an undischarged bankrupt.

(ii)      Agrees to include a new provision requiring members to complete the Regulatory Register (section 9.2).

 

AND

(e)     Establishes a Code of Conduct Committee to hear and decide on Code of Conduct complaints with the following membership and delegations:

(i)      Membership of the Code of Conduct Committee to be three members consisting of:

1.   the Mayor to chair the Committee (except where there is a potential conflict of interest where the Mayor will stand aside, and the committee will be chaired by the Deputy Mayor);

2.   two non-elected members appointed by the Council on the basis of relevant experience, knowledge and/or qualifications; and

(ii)      Delegates to the Code of Conduct Committee the following powers and terms of reference:

(1)     To consider and decide on Code of Conduct complaints referred to the Committee, including the findings of an independent investigator, and determine whether or not a penalty or action should be imposed, and if so, the nature of that penalty or action;

(2)     To refer the final Code of Conduct Committee decisions to the Chief Executive for implementation;

(3)     To consider any matters relating to the Code of Conduct and/or the behaviour of elected members referred to it by the Council for advice.

And that in fulling the terms of reference the Code of Conduct Committee will:

(4)     In considering a report from the Chief Executive, ask, if necessary, the investigator to provide briefing on their findings and invite the complainant and respondent to speak to any written submissions that might have been made;

(5)     Conduct its business in open meeting, except where the alleged breach concerns matters that justify the exclusion of the public, in which case it will be a closed meeting;

(6)     Ensure that penalties or actions recommended in response to a serious breach of the Code are proportionate to the breach and consistent with the actions set out in the Code.

(iii)     Delegates to the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Mayor, the development of the position description (including the experience, knowledge and qualifications/skills sought) for the Code of Conduct Committee non-elected members and the authority to establish an appointment panel to select and recommend to the Council these appointments.

(iv)    Authorises the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Mayor, to determine the remuneration for the Code of Conduct Committee non-elected members.

(g)     Notes that the Code of Conduct can only be replaced by a vote of at least 75 percent of members present at the meeting.

(h)     Notes that the Elected Members’ Interests Disclosure Procedure will be updated to reflect the updated Code of Conduct.

(i)      That 9.1 be amended to read: “(e): non-pecuniary interests”; and that the original (e) “Any other matters” be numbered as (f).

 

Amendment

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Jako Abrie

That recommendation (e)(i)1 be deleted, and that recommendation (e)(i)2 be changed to read “three non-elected members.

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

Against:           Nil

carried

Amendment

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Mayor Tenby Powell

That the words “in consultation with the Mayor” and “to establish an appointment panel to select and” be deleted from recommendation (e)(iii); and the words “in consultation with the Mayor” be deleted from recommendation (e)(iv).

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

Against:           Nil

carried

Amendment

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Cr Bill Grainger

That 9.3 of the Code of Conduct be changed so that the $100 limit be dropped to $20 on the gift register; and the parties involved in the gift be disclosed.

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

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

 A 75% majority threshold was required for this vote; therefore, the amendment was lost

Amendment

Moved:       Cr Jako Abrie

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That 9.3 of the Code of Conduct be changed so that the $100 limit be dropped to $50 on the gift register; and the parties involved in the gift be disclosed.

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

Against:           Nil

carried

 

At 10.35am the meeting adjourned.

At 10.45am the meeting reconvened.

The substantive motion was then put: 

Resolution  CO16/20/8

Moved:       Cr Larry Baldock

Seconded:  Mayor Tenby Powell

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report on the Code of Conduct; and

(b)     Revokes the current Code of Conduct 2016-19 in Attachment 2; and

(c)     Adopts the updated Code of Conduct in Attachment 1 (Option 1); and:

(i)      Agrees to continue with the requirement for a member to declare whether or not they are an undischarged bankrupt.

(ii)      Agrees to include a new provision requiring members to complete the Regulatory Register (section 9.2).

 (d)    Agrees that the Council considers and decides on Code of Conduct complaints.

AND

(e)     Establishes a Code of Conduct Committee to hear and decide on Code of Conduct complaints with the following membership and delegations:

(i)      Membership of the Code of Conduct Committee to be three non-elected members appointed by the Council on the basis of relevant experience, knowledge and/or qualifications; and

(ii)      Delegates to the Code of Conduct Committee the following powers and terms of reference:

(1)     To consider and decide on Code of Conduct complaints referred to the Committee, including the findings of an independent investigator, and determine whether or not a penalty or action should be imposed, and if so, the nature of that penalty or action;

(2)     To refer the final Code of Conduct Committee decisions to the Chief Executive for implementation;

(3)     To consider any matters relating to the Code of Conduct and/or the behaviour of elected members referred to it by the Council for advice.

And that in fulfilling the terms of reference the Code of Conduct Committee will:

(4)     In considering a report from the Chief Executive, ask, if necessary, the investigator to provide briefing on their findings and invite the complainant and respondent to speak to any written submissions that might have been made;

(5)     Conduct its business in open meeting, except where the alleged breach concerns matters that justify the exclusion of the public, in which case it will be a closed meeting;

(6)     Ensure that penalties or actions recommended in response to a serious breach of the Code are proportionate to the breach and consistent with the actions set out in the Code.

(iii)     Delegates to the Chief Executive the development of the position description (including the experience, knowledge and qualifications/skills sought) for the Code of Conduct Committee non-elected members, and the authority to recommend to the Council these appointments.

 

(iv)    Authorises the Chief Executive to determine the remuneration for the Code of Conduct Committee non-elected members.

 (f)     Notes that the Code of Conduct can only be replaced by a vote of at least 75 percent of members present at the meeting.

(g)     Notes that the Elected Members’ Interests Disclosure Procedure will be updated to reflect the updated Code of Conduct.

(h)     Changes section 9.3 of the Code of Conduct so that the $100 limit be dropped to $50 on the gift register; and the parties involved in the gift be disclosed.

(i)      Amends section 9.1 of the Code of Conduct to read: (e): non-pecuniary interests; and that the original (e) Any other matters be numbered as (f).

 

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

Against:           Nil

Abstained:       Cr John Robson

carried 9/0

Carried

 

10.5       Waste Activity Update

Staff          Rebecca Maiden, Manager: Sustainability & Waste

                  Rob Golsby, Project Manager: Kerbside Waste Services and Facilities

 

A PowerPoint presentation was provided.

 

Key points

·         The Request for Proposal (RFP) process – a joint procurement with Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) had closed in March.  The evaluation team was now going through responses with a recommendation to Council expected at the end of August.

·         Outlined the kerbside waste project timeline.

·         Outlined targeted stakeholder engagement undertaken.  This targeted engagement included the groups that requested the referendum and various interested community groups.

·         Market research was underway on pricing of options available for households.

·         Key concerns from the referendum groups included consultation without confirmed costs; the possibility of delaying the August decision to consult further; and the perceived unrealistic cost of the actual service.

·         Noted the tonnage of glass collected; and the differences between glass tonnages collected by the private sector and that collected through the Council kerbside collection.  There had been an increase in participation in kerbside glass recycling since the introduction of the Council service.

·         Of total waste collected via wheelie bins and rubbish bag collection, 65% could be recycled or diverted from landfill.

 

In response to questions

·         Details of full costings were unable to be provided as still subject to the procurement process.

·         The report to Council in August would include price and cost options.

·         Pricing schedule in the RFP included more bespoke services for particular sectors of the community e.g. level of service provided for private roads, and for multi-unit dwellings.

·         100% of glass collected was recycled.  It was colour sorted and transported to Auckland.

·         The price would be reviewed annually for CPI adjustments. The waste contract was for eight years plus a right of renewal for two years. 

·         Noted that the emissions trading scheme might add additional cost which would be passed onto consumers.  Increases in cost of the service was a concern for the community.

·         If the amount was similar to that consulted on in the LTP then Council was not required to consult; if significantly different that Council must re-consult the community.  If Council optionally decided to consult there was no specific time frame.

·         WBOPDC glass tonnages were collected in their transfer stations but then came through TCC facilities to be sorted and transported.

·         The waste levy being considered by government would increase to a point where it would aid diversion activities to become more viable.

·         Communication was being maintained with the current private waste contractors.  Before the RFP was issued, conversations were held with waste operators around the city to ensure they were aware of the process; during the evaluation process for the RFP the conversations had effectively stopped as the process was worked through.  An opportunity was provided during the RFP process for any tenderer to speak to their solutions provided.

 

Discussion points raised

·         Easier to have meaningful engagement with the community with actual figures rather than estimates; look to reconsult once the costs were known.

·         The impact of any increase in waste levies should be included in any further consultation undertaken; and environmental considerations as well as financial considerations outlined, particularly in relation to expected changes in the diversion rate.  The community needed to be informed on cost and value.

Resolution  CO16/20/9

Moved:       Cr John Robson

Seconded:  Mayor Tenby Powell

That the Council receives the Waste Activity Update report.

Carried

 

11          Discussion of Late Items

Nil. 

12          Public Excluded Session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution  CO16/20/10

Moved:       Cr Tina Salisbury

Seconded:  Cr Andrew Hollis

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting, with the exception of Mr Jesse Phillips, Partner, KPMG and Mr Andrew Wade, Associate Director, KPMG present for Agenda item 12.2.

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution

12.1 - Public Excluded minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 20 February 2020

s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

12.2 - Elder Housing Divestment

s6(b) - the making available of the information would be likely to endanger the safety of any person

s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

12.3 - Request approval for Exemption to Open Competition and to authorise expenditure for TC31/18 – Tauranga VCat LED Street Lighting Upgrade

s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

 

At 11.35am the meeting adjourned for 15 minutes; and reconvened in public excluded session.

 

The meeting closed at 1.50pm.

 

The minutes of this meeting to be confirmed at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 17 November 2020.

 

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

7            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

 

8            Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

 

9            Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

10          Business

10.1       Totara Street Business Case and Update

File Number:           A11911605

Author:                    Karen Hay, Team Leader: Cycle Plan Implementation

Brendan Bisley, Director of Transport

Authoriser:             Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

 

Preamble

1.       The Totara Street project has been developed in response to the tragic fatality of a cyclist in May 2020. Totara Street is a difficult route from a traffic engineering perspective, due to the adjacent land uses, the high percentage of heavy vehicles, the number of intersections and its status as a key route between the Mount and the Te Papa peninsula.

2.       The design recommended in this report - and the analysis it is based on - is highly-specialised and builds on reports previously presented to Council. We have engaged experts in transportation, road safety and cycleway design who have created appropriate solutions to similar network issues elsewhere in New Zealand. Those solutions, once implemented, have been found to work effectively for cyclists with a range of needs and capabilities, as well as for general road users, heavy industrial traffic and adjacent stakeholders. Our advisors are nationally-recognised safety experts and have the academic qualifications and experience required to deal successfully with the issues and complexities of building cycleways in such environments. They are also cyclists, so appreciate what works from both a vehicle user’s and cyclist’s perspectives, and how cyclists will interact with any facility built.

Purpose of the Report

3.       The purpose of this report is to seek approval of the Totara Street Safety Improvement business case and the associated costs in order to seek approval of the business case and partnership funding from Waka Kotahi.

4.       The report provides responses to questions from Councillors from its 6 October 2020 meeting.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Approves the Totara Street Safety Improvement Business Case and implementation of           the project as attached in Appendix C.

(b)     Approves $8.4M for the Totara Street Safety Improvement project between Hewletts           Road and Rata Street, noting the contribution by Council being $4.116M.

(c)     Notes that the implementation of the project is subject to Waka Kotahi approval.

 

 

Executive Summary

5.       As Tauranga grows and there is more pressure on our roads, we need to make it easier and more attractive for more people to move around the city without always needing to rely on motor vehicles. Our top priority is to create a safe environment for every person, no matter how they are travelling. People have told us they want to see safer cycleways and safer intersections in Tauranga. The challenge is there is not usually enough room to add new cycleways without compromises. It’s all part of living in a community where everyone has different needs, and where everyone has the right to travel safely.

6.       The business case for the Totara Street project is focussed on measures to reduce the crash risk between heavy vehicles and people biking, and demonstrates the potential for more people to bike on Totara Street.

7.       The business case was developed in partnership with Waka Kotahi, it is centred around an evidence-based approach to options and demonstrates the benefits for co-investment in the project.

8.       The return on investment assessment for the Totara Street project shows there is a higher benefit than cost.  The Benefit Cost Ratio range (BCR) has been applied to this project shows a BCR between 1.7 (low e-bike scenario) to 2.3 (high e-bike scenario).

9.       Additional benefits should be derived from the Innovating Streets project in Mount North provides with the provision of safe walking and cycling facilities. The cycle model shows that the Innovating Streets project could attract up to 20% more cyclists than currently use the route and, in particular, increase use by  new e-bike users. Should the full Cycle Programme be delivered, an additional 50% of new riders are expected on Totara Street.

10.     The business case does not reflect potential use of e-scooters. The design of Totara Street has considered the needs of e-micro mobility into the future.

11.     Equally, if the proposed cycle facility between Hull and Hewletts Road is installed and then relocated within the next ten years as part of a future upgrade of Totara Street then a lower BCR is expected of between .95 (low e-bike scenario) to 1.3 (high e-bike scenario) due to the shorter life of the cycle facility.

12.     To ensure greater confidence in the project costs an independent Quantity Surveyor completed a review on the  cost estimates of $8.4M . The revised cost estimates for the project indicates an increase in costs from the original cost estimate. The additional costs are due to:

a.   Increases in traffic management because the majority of construction work will occur at night and on weekends to limit the impacts on business and retail operations.

b.   Increased costs for landscaping due to a requirement to replace the existing hedge on the western side of Totora Street (Kawaka Street to Rata Avenue) and at Rata Street intersection.

c.   Increased costs for the installation of signals at Hull Road and Triton Avenue to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists     . 

Background

13.     Totara Street is used by a mix of vehicles and different modes, particularly where cyclists mix with large freight trucks. It is one of the main access points to the Port and the most direct route for cyclists from Mount Maunganui to the City. Therefore, we need to provide safer facilities for cyclists have better separation from the traffic flow.

14.     Safer facilities for cyclists,  with better separation from the traffic flow are urgently needed. This proposed cycleway presents a significant opportunity to provide safer cycling key connections between Mount Maunganui and the rest of Tauranga for a large proportion of our community.

15.     Due to the tragic cycling fatality involved a truck and a person cycling near the intersection of Totara Street and Waimarie Road in 2020, plans to improve safety on Totara Street has been accelerated. This is the second fatality involving a truck and a vulnerable road user on Totara Street in two years (a fatality involving a truck turning right into a driveway occurred in 2018).

16.     Any death or serious injury on the transport network is tragic and something we must take steps to avoid. A safe system approach is where we acknowledge that mistakes can be made by road users, but they should not lead to death or serious injury. This approach involves looking at the road, speeds and user behaviour to make it safer for all road users to use the road.

17.     An independent risk assessment shows the risk of serious injury or death of any one individual vulnerable road user on Totara Street is significantly higher than that on a typical road with similar volumes of traffic and of similar length in New Zealand.

18.     Totara Street forms part of the strategic cycle network and is identified by the Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan as a high priority for freight and cycling.

19.     A report was tabled at the Project Services and Operations Committee on 23 June 2020. The report outlined the challenges and safety risks between heavy vehicles and people cycling on Totara Street and the options considered to mitigate these risks (Appendix A). The Committee resolved to progress the project to consultation.

20.     A report outlining the consultation results and preliminary designs (Attached in Appendix B) was tabled at the Council’s 6 October 2020 meeting. A proposal  to signalise the Hewletts Road left turn slip lane with a staged crossing across Totara Street was tabled.

21.     A business case for investment has been development in partnership with Waka Kotahi that outlines the case for change and the return on investment for this project.

22.     At the 6th of October Council meeting, staff committed to bring the updated costs, business case and the economic evaluation of the Totara Street project for Council’s consideration and Councillors requested further information including:

a.   Key criteria for evaluation of the economic benefits of the project.

b.   Origins and destinations of potential cycle trips.

c.   The impact on people using Hewletts Road due to vehicle queueing.

d.   The resulting CO2 emissions due to vehicle queueing on Hewletts Road.

e.   Whether an overpass or realignment of the railway crossing north of Waimarie could be provided to enable the shared path to be placed on the Port side.

f.    The number of vehicles entering and exiting the retail area between Hull Road and Triton Avenue.

Strategic / Statutory Context

23.     This project aligns with:

1.         New Zealand’s Road Safety Strategy, Road to Zero which has a vision for New Zealand where no-one is killed or seriously injured in road crashes. The Road to Zero strategy builds on, and is guided by, the Safe System approach.

2.         The Safe System is the international standard in road safety. It recognises that people make mistakes and are vulnerable in a crash. It reduces the price paid for a mistake, so crashes don't result in loss of life or limb. Mistakes are inevitable – deaths and serious injuries from crashes are not acceptable on our roads.

3.         Tauranga’s Accessible Streets programme focuses on developing a safe, accessible, and connected cycling network to improve road safety, increase safe cycling access, and provide greater transport choice.

Options Analysis

Business case summary

24.     The business case approach (BCA) is an evidence-based approach that must be followed for any co- investment from Waka Kotahi. The business case is guided by the following key principles:

(a)     clear understanding of problems, consequences and benefits at the outset.

(b)     strategic and outcomes alignment.

(c)     builds the case for investment.

(d)     enables consideration of a wide range of alternatives and options to address a problem.

25.     The business case was developed in partnership with Waka Kotahi to ensure alignment of objectives and that good outcomes are delivered for both partners and the community. This also ensures that the case for investment is clear and is worthwhile to fund.

26.     The problem and benefits for transport use of Totara Street are outlined in the below:

27.     An assessment of the business case provides assurance to Waka Kotahi and Council that a robust process underlies the case and the principles of the business case approach have been applied to the appropriate degree. 

28.     In the case of Totara Street, the project has been assessed using the Waka Kotahi’s Investment Assessment Framework (IAF) with a high strategic alignment and a low BCR. The business case is attached in Appendix C.

29.     A summary of the results alignment is outlined below:

Strategic priority

Criteria for a high rating

Assessment

 

Safety

Addresses a high predicted walking

or cycling safety risk

 

Totara Street currently has significant actual and perceived safety issues, associated with the existing, narrow, on-street painted cycle lanes and high volumes of heavy vehicles.

 

A future risk assessment has been completed for Totara Street utilising the national UrbanKiwirap framework.

The Collective Risk (risk density measured as the number of fatal and serious casualties over a distance) is assessed as being  medium to high. This means that Totara Street has a higher than average risk of a death or serious injury being sustained by a vulnerable road user compared to other corridors of the same length in New Zealand. 

The Personal Risk (risk to the individual of fatal or serious casualty per million vehicle kilometres travelled) is assessed as high. This means that the risk of serious injury or death of any one individual vulnerable road user on Totara Street is significantly higher than that on a typical corridor of this length in New Zealand. 

Addresses a high perceived safety

risk to use of the mode

Access –

liveable

cities

Targets the completion and promotion of networks in major metros to enable access to social and economic opportunities

The project forms part of the wider Tauranga Cycle Programme. Together with other proposed cycle routes, the project forms a part of a cohesive cycle network that is planned for the wider Tauranga urban area.  

 

Specifically, Totara Street will enable cycle access from Mount Maunganui to social and economic opportunities within central Tauranga, as well as the reverse.

 

Addresses a significant problem with the ability to use existing facilities including use by people

who identify as disabled

The project addresses accessibility issues to the existing Tauranga Harbour Bridge shared path, which does not connect to safe, accessible cycle infrastructure on the east side of the harbour.

Environment

Enables modal shift from private motor vehicles to active modes

The project enables a mode shift away from private car travel to active modes, primarily for commute to work trips.

 

30.     The return on investment for Totara Street amounts to discounted project benefits of between $15.1 and $20.9 million, and discounted costs of $9.0 million (including construction and ongoing maintenance).  The BCR is between 1.7 (low e-bike scenario) to 2.3 (high e-bike scenario). Further details can be found in Appendix D – Totara Street Demand Assessment and Economic Evaluation. The associated preliminary design plans are attached in Appendix E.

31.     Sensitivity testing has indicated a wider BCR range of between 0.95 to 2.8. The higher BCR is achieved should the Mt Maunganui Innovating Streets project provide improved safety and facilities for people biking and walking on connecting streets to the north. Based on the Tauranga Cycle model, this project  is estimated to result in a further 20% increase in people biking on Totara Street between Mount North, Tauranga Central and Otumoetai. 

32.     If Totara Street between Hewletts Road and Hull Road receives a more significant road upgrade in the next 10 to 20 years, to accommodate growth in general traffic and freight, and the  shared path needs to be removed or replaced, then the BCR ranges are then between 0.95 and 1.3. 

33.     If the full Tauranga Cycle Programme is delivered, the cycle model predicts that a further 50% more cyclists will use the Totara Street cycleway.

34.     The business case also includes performance measures. Following the project’s implementation, the actual benefits achieved are reviewed against investment performance targets and pre-implementation baseline performance.

 

Key criteria for evaluation the economic benefits of a cycling project.

35.     The economic analysis, relied on Economic Evaluation Manual (EEM) procedures, but applied updated inputs from Waka Kotahi’s Monetised Benefits and Costs Manual (MBCM), which has recently replaced the EEM, as per guidance in Waka Kotahi’s Investment Decision Making Framework Review report. Full procedures for the EEM can be found here: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/economic-evaluation-manual/economic-evaluation-manual/docs/eem-manual.pdf

36.     The criteria for cycle related projects are outlined in the table below:

Criterion

How the criteria is applied

Health Benefits

These benefits consider the public health benefits to Tauranga’s population, in terms of increased physical activity and reduced mortality. These are based on the number of new daily cyclists and the distance they cycle, with a benefit rate applied.

Cyclist Travel Time Benefits

A measure of the perceived travel time benefit for existing cyclists, with a weighting being given to travel time relative to the quality of a cycle facility. The weighting ranges from 2.0 (for an off-street cycle path) to 1.0 (for on-street cycling on an arterial road with no cycle infrastructure).

Safety benefits

Cycle safety benefits are calculated for both new and existing cycle trips, where an improved cycling facility is provided.  

Decongestion Benefits

General traffic decongestion benefits are part of the overall project benefits. This is achieved through provision of alternative transport options to private car travel.  Any mode shift in favour of cycling will reduce existing (or forecast future) congestion on the road network, benefitting those who continue to drive cars.

General Traffic disbenefits

The assessment includes travel time costs (including congestion), vehicle operating costs and emissions costs.

 

The impact on people using Hewletts Road due to vehicle queueing.

37.     The need to provide a signalised facility at the left turn slip lane on Hewletts Road is important given that the Tauranga Harbour Bridge currently caters for more than 400 cyclist per day. It is the most direct route for people cycling from Totara Street and Hewletts Road. This is outlined in Figure 3 of this report.

38.     The crossing at Hewlett’s Road slip lane is planned to be signalised so that conflicts between people walking, cycling and driving is mitigated by heightening visibility, showing a clear right of way, and facilitating eye contact and awareness of different modes.

39.     Predicting the way people will act is difficult to achieve. The results of the traffic modelling are highly sensitive.

40.     An Aimsun model has been developed in order to undertake the modelling of the proposed options. The Aimsun model is a part of the Tauranga Transport Hybrid Model (TTHM). It covers Hewletts Road from Dive Crescent to Waimarie Street and the Totara Street corridor from Hewletts Road to Rata Street and includes the Rata Street / Maunganui Road roundabout. The full report is attached in (Appendix F).

41.     The table below outlines:

(a)     the changes in traffic flows between the base 2018 PM peak model compared with provision of a signalised crossing 100m north of Hewletts Road (Option 1) and signalising the slip lane (Option 2); and

(b)     summarises the vehicle flow by the number of vehicles per hour (veh/h) for the existing layout and the options tested at the Totara Street / Hewletts Road intersection, noting that the left turning traffic is a portion of all Hewletts Road traffic.

Table

Description automatically generated

42.     The difference in vehicle flows at the left turn slip lane due to the signals is low (60 vehicles in the peak hour), with 120 vehicles in the peak hour on Hewletts Road, but there are large differences in queueing figures. The queue length extends by 500m from 1650m to 2150m should the slip lane at Hewletts Road be signalised. The resulting delay is an additional 1.7minutes and has been applied in a worst case scenario, that includes:

(a)     The highest peak hour traffic flow.

(b)     The signal phasing is activated at each phase to accommodate a cyclist or pedestrian crossing.

43.     These extended queue lengths are outlined in the overleaf below.

Map

Description automatically generated

                         Figure 1: Queue lengths on Hewletts Road based on options assessed.

 

44.     Given the uncertainties in predicting future traffic flows, cycle usage and traffic signal operation, this analysis is focussed more on comparative analysis of options than absolute prediction of queue length.

45.     The traffic modelling assumes a fixed traffic demand in the peak hour and does not consider the potential mode shift from people using a car. Research has shown that people adjust their travel choices in response to travel times. Some choose to bike, take a bus, work from  home or change their travel time or route.  

46.     Based on the modelling results, the 1.7 minutes delay is considered a worst-case scenario. The full modelling report is attached Appendix F.

47.     We recognise that not every new cyclist trip due to the cycle programme would otherwise take place by private car. The transport modelling has estimated that on Totara Street, 62% of new bike trips will correspond to users who previously drove a car.

48.     If the project is delivered, the increase in people biking on Totara Street and the Tauranga Harbour Bridge is predicted to be between 110 and 130 new cyclists per day.  62% of these new cyclists are likely to have previously driven a car, partially offsetting the modelled reduced vehicle flow figures presented above.

49.     The same model predicted similar or worse traffic conditions by 2028 even without signalising the slip lane. This is because the rate of growth in the number of people driving private cars and associated congestion will continue, unless there are realistic alternatives.

50.     The Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI)  and the Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan (TSP)  identified that it may take longer to travel by private car in future than it does now, but there needs to be alternative travel options provided that are attractive and viable (e.g. compete on travel time, reliability, convenience and price and safety).

51.     Waka Kotahi supports the preferred option of signalising the Hewletts Road left turn slip lane to enable safe crossing for pedestrians and cyclists, acknowledging that there will be trade-offs with other modes of transport in order to support multi-modal choices.

 

 

The resulting CO2 emissions due to vehicle queueing on Hewletts Road

52.     The Waka Kotahi’s Monetised Benefits and Costs Manual (MBCM) is the industry's standard for the economic evaluation of land transport activities in New Zealand.

53.     The new MBCM economic evaluation includes costs associated with CO2 emissions. These costs are included in the general traffic benefits and disbenefits presented previously. CO2 emissions make up approximately 0.3% of these benefits.

54.     The CO2 emissions generated as result of the queue lengths and 1.7-minute potential delay is estimated at 42kgs of CO2  emissions per day. 

 

Origins and destinations of potential cycle trips

55.     The Tauranga Cycle Model was utilised to determine the use of Totara Street by people biking with and without the proposed project. The Tauranga Cycle Model has been calibrated for use as part of the Accessible Streets Programme Business case which includes census data, cycle counts and manual counts at various locations across the city. It estimates future cycle demands, based on trip lengths, the quality of cycle infrastructure, road gradients, and the underlying demand for travel.

56.     The modelling has indicated that the project is expected to increase the number of cyclists using Totara Street by approximately 40%. The majority of these trips are expected to be between Mt Maunganui and central Tauranga.

57.     In considering potential uptake in e- bike’s, trips were extended to 10km or less and school trips 6km or less. These thresholds include approximately 90% of all existing Tauranga work trips and 99% of all existing Tauranga school trips. 

A picture containing transport, wheel

Description automatically generated

58.     The results show that the largest increases were in the main central employment areas of the city centre and Mount Maunganui. When these longer trips were included, the city centre and Mount Maunganui commercial areas continued to be the dominant destination.

 

59.     Figure 3 shows the outputs from the cycle model with and without the proposed cycling improvements. As shown, the number of cyclists currently using Totara Street is predicted to increase considerably.

60.     The model identified a large catchment east of Maunganui Road with cyclists accessing Totara Street via Triton Avenue. The eastern alignment of the proposed shared path between Kawaka Street and Hewletts Road caters well for this group of cyclists travelling to and from home.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

 

61.     Totara Street is an attractive cycling route given its directness and the opportunity to provide a reliable way for people to bike to and from the central city.

 

Impacts on traffic on Hewletts Road should people bike directly across Hewletts Road

62.     The current pedestrian and cyclist crossing directly across Hewletts Road operates on a parallel signal phase with straight through movements onto Totara Street. Should the cycling route only provide a crossing at this location, it will have minimal, if any, impact.

63.     Modelling shows a high demand for people accessing the Tauranga Harbour Bridge from Hewletts Road and Totara Street. As a result, there is  a need to provide a safer facility for people to cross .

64.     This is essential for the safety and comfort  of people regardless of how people travel. The aim is to minimise conflicts between people walking, biking and driving by heightening visibility, providing a clear right of way and raise awareness of different modes.

 

Could an overpass or realignment of the railway crossing north of Waimarie be provided to enable the shared path to be placed on the Port side.

65.     An overpass or realignment of the railway crossing is likely to be at a significant additional cost of an estimated $6m for a medium-term option and would diminish the return on investment for this project. This means that it is unlikely to attract Waka Kotahi partnership funding and the project will need to be funded by Council alone.

66.     There are height requirements for an overpass of 7m to clear railway operations together with appropriately graded ramps to enable people to access the overpass. The ramps would extend to around 80m on each approach, limiting driveway access to at least four adjacent businesses. No alternative access to these businesses exist.

67.     Realigning the railway crossing to accommodate the path on the Port side will equally negatively impact access for major business operations, specifically Triton Pacific Ltd because their driveway access is close to the railway corridor.

68.     Realignment to the Port side will not mitigate the safety issues with higher number of driveway conflicts with heavy vehicles. Modelling results have also shown that the eastern alignment serves the majority of cyclists on Totara Street. None of the businesses in this area support cycle facilities on the Port side given the greater number of heavy vehicle movements.

69.     Overall, there is insufficient corridor width, there are significant cost implications of realignment, cyclists will remain on road and hence is undesirable in achieving safety outcomes.

70.     In addition, we note that it is not the rail level crossing that is the primary barrier to safe cycle trips on Totara Street. The primary safety concern and barrier to cycle trips is conflict with road traffic, particularly heavy vehicles.

The number of vehicles entering and exiting the retail area between Hull Road and Triton Avenue

71.     Staff have contacted the retailers along Totara Street to ascertain the number of vehicles entering and exiting the retail area. Many of the retailers have provided their best estimate of expected number of vehicles or the average number of daily customers that visit their premises.

72.     Across all the businesses there are an estimated 640 customers per day. The typical duration  and turnover is unknown. Some of these customers may access the premises from the rear of the properties where access and parking are provided.

73.     Given that the turnover and length of time that customers might visit any particular business, it is difficult to access the hourly movements to reflect conflicts at each driveway. It is noted that these conflicts are prevalent if people are biking off or on road.

74.     These conflicts are reduced with provision of  specific driveway treatments as outlined in the report to Council on 6th of October. With these new treatments, conflicts  between people walking, cycling and driving are reduced  by improving visibility, showing a clear priority and awareness of different modes.

75.     This situation is not unusual in a retail precinct area where high turning traffic volumes are experienced, for example, on 15th Avenue with a Z Energy petrol station, a medical centre and many retailers in this area.

76.     It is noted that the example above is different to the conflict experienced between heavy vehicles and people biking on Totara Street. This is because of the blind zone associated with heavy vehicle movements and the high volumes of heavy vehicles turning into side streets.

Financial Considerations

77.     There has been an increase cost in Council contribution to the project from $3.41M to $4.1M. The remaining partnership funding of $4.284M will be provided by Waka Kotahi bringing the total project cost to $8.4M. Based on the cost of $8.4M the BCR is 1.7 (low e-bike scenario) to 2.3. (high e-bike scenario)

78.     Increased costs are attributable to traffic management given the cost of construction over weekends and at night, the hedge relocation or replacement along the Port side north of Kawaka Street and additional costs associated with the additional signalised crossings at Hull Road and Triton Avenue.

79.     The Western Bay subregion Transport System Plan (TSP) project will be investigating Totara Street, Hewletts Road and the surrounding network to consider movement of freight into the future. The business case is expected to take at least 3 years to complete.

80.     Should the future upgrade of Totara Street come to fruition in the next ten years, then the potential at-risk area is  between Hull and Hewlett’s Road. If the shared path is removed or replaced,  then the estimated $4.1M ($2M Council share) will have a reduced BCR of between 0.95 to 1.3. Given the limited space on Totara Street it is likely that some parts of the shared path will need to be relocated.

81.     Should Council endorse the Totara Street Safety Improvement business case and associated funding, approval from Waka Kotahi is still required prior to the project progressing to implementation.

Legal Implications / Risks

82.     There are no significant legal implications. The project and associated funding is yet to be approved by Waka Kotahi for implementation.  Until Waka Kotahi funding is secured, the cost of progressing detailed design to expedite the project is at Council’s risk.

Consultation  AND Engagement

83.     Staff are committed to continue to  work with local businesses and key stakeholders through the development of the project. This includes working with Bike Tauranga, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, local hapu, Port of Tauranga  and local businesses throughout the design process.

84.     Some landlords wish to upgrade the frontage of their businesses in the light commercial areas, which Council will help facilitate when the contractor is appointed. Commercial arrangements will be directly between the contractor and landlords.   Options for parking layouts will continue to be developed with local businesses and bike parking provided as requested by a business. The new parking layouts ( paint marking) will be delivered as part of the project cost to Council.

85.     Staff will continue to meet with the Port to mitigate as much as possible the impacts on operations. Some changes to the design have been made to accommodate the Port’s concerns, including maintaining the left turn slip lane at Rata Street and their preference to signalise the slip lane rather than the crossing north on Totara Street.

86.     Early feedback on the design and its buildability from an experienced contractor has been undertaken. No fatal flaws were identified but the feedback will help inform our procurement strategy.

87.     Impacts of construction will be carefully managed to minimise the impacts on local businesses and the travelling public. Most of the work between Hull Road and Hewletts Road is expected to be undertaken at night.

88.     Project progress updates will continue throughout project development and responses to customers and businesses will be ongoing.

Significance

89.     Under the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy 2014, the proposal is likely to be of high significance with a high level of interest from local residents, business, iwi, public and stakeholders.

Next Steps

90.     The business case will be submitted to Waka Kotahi for approval, the outcome of which is expected in early December 2020.

91.     To accelerate the delivery of the project, we intend seeking early contractor involvement through the procurement process to effectively execute the delivery of the project  through the implementation stages. This includes which parts of the project could be delivered first or concurrently.

92.     Parts of the hedge north of Kawaka will require transplanting or replacement to accommodate the two-way cycle lane. Planning on when and how this will be achieved is underway.

93.     We will work with Bay Oval to agree the impacts and work programme on the upcoming International Cricket event planned for early March 2021.

94.     Continue to work with local businesses around parking layouts and agreements on these.

95.     Actively engage with local hapu and the various utility operators.

96.     Continue with detailed design of the project and commence procurement planning.

Attachments

1.       Appendix A Totara Street Safety Improvements PSOC 23 June 2020 - A11941200

2.       Appendix B Totara Street Safety Improvement Council 6 October Report - A11941191

3.       Appendix C -Totara Street Safety Improvement Business Case - A11941151

4.       Appendix D - Totara Street Demand Assessment and Economic Evaluation - A11941156

5.       Appendix E Totata Street - Preliminary Design Plans - A11941276

6.       Appendix F Totara Street Modelling Report August 2020 - A11960980   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator




Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

10.2       Traffic and Parking Bylaw Amendment

File Number:           A11940596

Author:                    Will Hyde, Senior Transportation Engineer

Authoriser:             Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       To obtain approval from Council to introduce amendments to the appropriate Attachments within the Traffic and Parking Bylaw.

2.       These Amendments result from the following changes comprising additional Special Vehicle Lanes – (Cycle Lanes), additional No Parking Behind Kerb Areas, areas of additional no parking, new and amended parking time restrictions, new loading zones with time restrictions, new Bus Stops and changes to existing bus stop locations, and new Passenger Service and Other Vehicle Stands (Amusement Rides).

Recommendations

That the Council:

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

(b)     Adopt the proposed amendments to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 Attachment as per Appendix B, effective from 18 November 2020.

 

 

Executive Summary

3.       The Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 includes Attachments each of which lists various traffic and parking restrictions.

4.       Council can amend the Attachments by Council Resolution.

5.       This report sets out Amendments to the following:

·    Attachment 4.3: Special Vehicle Lanes (Cycle Lanes)

·    Attachment 7.1: No Parking Behind Kerb

·    Attachment 7.2: Prohibited Stopping and Standing of Vehicles

·    Attachment 7.9: Parking Time Restrictions

·    Attachment 7.16: Loading Zones with Time Restrictions

·    Attachment 7.18: Loading Zones for Goods Vehicles Only

·    Attachment 7.21: General Bus Stops

·    Attachment 7.28: Passenger Service and Other Vehicle Stands (Electric Vehicles)

·    Attachment 7.29: Passenger Service & Other Vehicle Stands (Amusement Rides)

Background

6.       Council adopted the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 (the ‘Bylaw’) on 23 October 2012 and it came into effect on 1 November 2012. The purpose of the Bylaw is to facilitate traffic management and parking control measures in respect of roads, public places, parking areas and transport stations owned or managed by Council.

7.       Amendments to ‘the Bylaw’ are presented to Council for approval three to four times annually so that any enforcement of parking restrictions can be carried out as required.

Strategic / Statutory Context

8.       The amendments achieve the vision and strategic transport priorities to help make our network safer and easier for people to get around the city.

Options Analysis

9.       Option 1:  Adopt the proposed amendments to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw Attachments, as per Appendix B.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·   Improve traffic management and parking control.

·   Improve traffic safety.

·   Some changes respond to business and residents’ requests.

·    Nil

Budget – Capex:  Not applicable.

Budget – Opex:  Not applicable.

Key risks – Added enforcement of amendments may affect the wider community.

Recommended? Yes

 

10.     Option 2:  Do not adopt the proposed amendments to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw Attachments, as per Appendix B.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·   Monitoring and parking enforcement activities continue as is.

·   Traffic management is compromised.

·   Safety issues remain.

·   Does not respond to business and residents’ requests.

·   Parking enforcement not possible as sites not designated in Bylaw.

·   Bus stops not allocated where required.

Budget – Capex:  Not applicable.

Budget – Opex:  Not applicable.

Key risks – Traffic infringements cannot be enforced as Amendments have not been approved.

Recommended? No

Financial Considerations

11.     There will be some additional costs to alter parking signs associated with the changes above, but these can be absorbed into existing budgets.

Legal Implications / Risks

12.     The bylaw amendments are needed to allow enforcement of the changes.

Consultation / Engagement

13.     When required, affected residents, businesses, disabled persons and school personnel have been consulted or engaged with as appropriate.

Significance

14.     Under the Significance and Engagement Policy 2014, this decision is of low significance as the proposed amendments are minor changes to the attachments of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012.

Attachments

1.       Appendix A Summary of Amendments to the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 - A11898173

2.       Appendix B Amendments to Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 - A11940625   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

 


Attachment

Associated Clause in the Bylaw

Proposed amendment Location

Details of amendments

Reason

Consultation

Attachment 4.3

Special Vehicle Lanes – Cycle Lanes

Clause 6.1

ADD

Marine Parade

 

Adams Avenue to Banks Avenue (north boundary)

 

Existing cycle lanes not currently in bylaw

 

Not required.

 

 

Oceanbeach Road

No.77B to Golf Road

 

 

 

 

Oceanbeach Road

Surf Road to Golf Road

 

 

Attachment 7.1

No Parking Behind Kerb

Clauses 12.1

and 12.3

ADD:

Links Avenue – North Side

Owens Place – West Side

Sherwood Street

 

From Golf Road for 220 metres south

From Matapihi Road for 330 metres south

Otumoetai Rd to Little John Drive

 

Vehicles parking on berms – safety reasons.

 

Minor Correction to description

 

Not required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DELETE:

Owens Place – West Side

 

From Matapihi Road for 250 metres south

 

 

Entry no longer required.

 

Not required.

 

 

Sherwood Street

100m west of Otumoetai Rd to Little John Drive

Entry no longer required.

Not required.

Attachment 7.2

Prohibited Stopping and Standing of Vehicles

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachment 7.2

(continued)

Prohibited Stopping and Standing of Vehicles

 

Clauses 12.1

and 12.3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clauses 12.1

and 12.3

 

 

ADD:

Aerodrome Road – Mount Maunganui

Ascot Place – Mount Maunganui

Ascot Road – Mount Maunganui

Awataha Crescent – Tauriko

Burrows Street – Tauranga South

Cupples Street – Papamoa East

Eighth Avenue – Tauranga Central

Eleventh Avenue – Tauranga South

Farm Street –

Mt Maunganui

Fraser Street – Tauranga South

Grace Road – Tauranga Central

Grove Avenue – Mt Maunganui

Hugo Way – Papamoa

Kennedy Road – The Lakes

Laurence Street North – Gate Pa

Lee Street – Mt Maunganui

Lydbrook Place – Otumoetai

Makura Drive - Papamoa

Maxwells Road – Bureta

Merivale Road – Tauranga South

Mortlake Heights – The Lakes

Oceanbeach Road – Mount Maunganui

Ohauiti Road – Ohauiti

Otumoetai Road – Otumoetai

Paine Street - Otumoetai

Paraone Koikoi Drive – Tauriko

Royal Ascot Drive – Papamoa

Scantlebury Street – Tauranga South

Seventh Avenue – Tauranga Central

Sherson Street – Greerton

Sixteenth Avenue – Tauranga Central

Summerhaven Place – Ohauiti

Tamworth Drive – Gate Pa

Tara Road – Papamoa

Tarawera Road – Welcome Bay

The Strand Extension – Tauranga CBD

Tom Muir Drive – Gate Pa

Tuangi Way - Papamoa

Twentythird Avenue – Tauranga South

Twin Oak Avenue – Papamoa

Watling Street – Greerton

Westmorland Rise – Bethlehem

 

 

 

Various lengths of no parking restrictions installed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Traffic and safety reasons.

 

Residents requested clearance to driveways and intersections.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some areas not originally scheduled in Bylaw.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tidy up of some existing restrictions.

 

 

 

 

Requested by Residents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearance to intersection requested.

Traffic and Safety reasons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clearance at intersection.

 

 

 

Traffic and Safety reasons.

 

Not required.

 

 

Residents requested changes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not Required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not required.

 

 

Not required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not required.

 

 

 

 

 

Not required.

 

 

DELETE:

Burrows Street

Eighth Avenue

Farm Street

Laurence Street North

Scantlebury Street

Sherson Street

Tidy up of existing restrictions, correction of road name.

 

 

Attachment 7.9

Parking Time Restrictions

Clauses 12.1

and 12.2(c)

ADD:

Dive Crescent – Tauranga Central

 

P30, nine spaces.

 

Corrected time limit.

 

Not required.

 

 

Eleventh Avenue – South Side – Tauranga South

Existing restriction scheduled into Bylaw.

 

Tidy up of schedule.

 

Not required

 

 

Farm Street – Mt Maunganui

P120 limit added

 

Residents requested shorter parking time from ALL DAY parking.

Not required

 

 

Matapihi Road – South Side – Matapihi

 

Five parallel parks near Russley Drive.

Residents requested shorter parking time from ALL DAY parking.

Not required

 

 

DELETE:

Dive Crescent – Tauranga Central

 

Nine P60 spaces

 

Incorrect time limit in schedule.

 

 

Attachment 7.16

Loading Zones with Time Restriction

 

 

Clause 18.1

 

ADD:

Ashworth Lane – Both Sides – 15 minute restriction – Mount Maunganui

 

 

From Triton Avenue to Trent Lane.

 

 

Existing service lane time restricted to prevent ALL DAY parking.

 

 

Businesses requested time restriction.

 

 

The Strand, West Side

12am to 9am

2pm to 4pm

5 minute time restriction

Single loading bay at the end of the Wharf St pedestrian mall.

To service businesses on Wharf St pedestrian mall.

Extensive consultation with affected businesses.

 

 

Willow Street, East Side

12am to 9am

2pm to 4pm

5 minute lime restriction

Single loading bay at the end of the Wharf St pedestrian mall.

To service businesses on Wharf St pedestrian mall.

Extensive consultation with affected businesses.

Attachment 7.18

Loading Zones for Goods Vehicles Only

Clause 18.1

ADD:

The Strand, West Side

12am to 9am

2pm to 4pm

5 minute time restriction

 

Single loading bay at the end of the Wharf St pedestrian mall.

 

To service businesses on Wharf St pedestrian mall.

 

Extensive consultation with affected businesses.

 

 

Willow Street, East Side

12am to 9am

2pm to 4pm

5 minute time restriction

Single loading bay at the end of the Wharf St pedestrian mall.

To service businesses on Wharf St pedestrian mall.

Extensive consultation with affected businesses.

Attachment 7.21

Passenger Service and Other Vehicle Stands (Stopping Places for Buses)

Clause 20.1

ADD:

Coopers Road – Greerton

Dickson Road – Papamoa

Gloucester Road – Mount Maunganui

Maranui Street – Papamoa

Monowai Street – Mount Maunganui

Papamoa Beach Road – Papamoa

Pyes Pa Road – Pyes Pa

 

DELETE:

Dickson Road

Maranui Street

Pyes Pa Road

Coopers Road

 

Additional Bus Stops scheduled into Bylaw.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Various old locations removed from Bylaw.

 

Tidy up of some bus stops and additional ones added.

 

 

Existing Bus Stop locations altered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bus Stops relocated or removed.

 

Not required.

 

 

 

 

Not required.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not required.

Attachment 7.28

Passenger Service and Other Vehicle Stands (Electric Vehicles)

20.1

DELETE:

The Strand

 

Removal of designation.

 

Electric charge point removed.

 

Not required.

Attachment 7.29

Passenger Service and Other Vehicle Stands (Amusement Rides)

Clauses 12.1, 12.2(d), 12.2(l), 12.2(n) and 20.1

ADD:

Salisbury Avenue

 

No change to restriction, editing of wording only.

 

Editing to link time restrictions to this specific location.

 

Not required.

 

 

Maunganui Road

East side

At all times

Single parking space allocated for Amusement Ride vehicles.

Requested by operators.

Liaison with Mt Mainstreet and Tourism BOP.

 

 

The Strand

East side

At all times

Single parking space allocated for Amusement Ride vehicles.

Requested by operators.

Liaison with Tourism BOP.

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

 

Attachment 4.3:    Special Vehicle Lanes – Cycle Lanes

 

Council resolution dated 23 October 2012 and Minute Number M12/68.6

Council resolution dated 17 February 2014 and Minute Number M14/6.11

Council resolution dated 23 June 2015 and Minute Number M15/42.12

Council resolution dated 19 July 2016 and Minute Number M16/45.13

Council resolution dated 27 August 2018 and Minute Number M18/72.12

Council resolution dated 27 August 2019 and Minute Number M19/58.8

As approved at Council Meeting held on 2 June 2020

 

Pursuant to Clause 6.1 of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 the following portions of road are declared to be cycle lanes:

 

Road Name

Road Portion

Direction

ADDITIONS

Marine Parade

Adams Avenue to Banks Avenue (north boundary)

Both

Oceanbeach Road

No.77B to Golf Road

Eastbound

Oceanbeach Road

Surf Road to Golf Road

Westbound


Attachment 7.1:    No Parking Behind Kerb

 

Council resolution dated 23 October 2012 and Minute Number M12/68.6

Council resolution dated 22 September 2014 and Minute Number M14/65.9

Council resolution dated 15 December 2015 and Minute Number M14/89.10

Council resolution dated 19 July 2016 and Minute Number M16/45.13

Council resolution dated 18 July 2017 and Minute Number M17/63.6

Council resolution dated 19 December 2017 and Minute Number M17/121.9

Council resolution dated 20 February 2018 and Minute Number M18/8.10

Council resolution dated 27 August 2018 and Minute Number M18/72.12

Council resolution dated 5 March 2019 and Minute Number M19/11.8

Council resolution dated 10 December 2019 and Minute Number CO5/19/15

As approved at Council Meeting held on 2 June 2020

Council resolution dated 25 August 2020 and Minute Number CO22/20/12

 

 

Pursuant to Clause 12.1 and Clause 12.3 of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012, parking of motor vehicles is at all times prohibited between the kerb line and road boundary in the locations listed below:

 

 

Location

Details

ADDITIONS:

Links Avenue

North Side

Commencing at the intersection with Golf Road, extending 220 metres south and east.

Owens Place

West Side

Commencing at the intersection with the southern kerb of Matapihi Road, extending 330 metres south.

Sherwood Street

North Side

Commencing at the western kerb of Otumoetai Road, extending to the eastern kerb of Little John Drive.

DELETIONS:

Owens Place

West Side

Commencing at the intersection with the southern kerb of Matapihi Road, extending southwards a distance of 250 metres.

Sherwood Street

North Side

Commencing at a point 100 metres west of the western kerb of Otumoetai Road, extending to the eastern kerb of Little John Drive.

 


 

Attachment 7.2:    Prohibited Stopping and Standing of Vehicles

 

Council resolution dated 23 October 2012 and Minute Number M12/68.6

Council resolution dated 18 March 2013 and Minute Number M13/12.17

Council resolution dated 17 February 2014 and Minute Number M14/6.11

Council resolution dated 22 September 2014 and Minute Number M14/65.9

Council resolution dated 15 December 2015 and Minute Number M14/89.10

Council resolution dated 23 June 2015 and Minute Number M15/42.12

Council resolution dated 19 July 2016 and Minute Number M16/45.13

Council resolution dated 18 July 2017 and Minute Number M17/63.6

Council resolution dated 19 December 2017 and Minute Number M17/121.9

Council resolution dated 20 February 2018 and Minute Number M18/8.10

Council resolution dated 27 August 2018 and Minute Number M18/72.12

Council resolution dated 22 October 2018 and Minute Number M18/90.11

Council resolution dated 20 November 2018 and Minute Number M18/101.11

Council resolution dated 5 March 2019 and Minute Number M19/11.8

Council resolution dated 4 June 2019 and Minute Number M19/3.7

Council resolution dated 27 August 2019 and Minute Number M19/58.9

Council resolution dated 10 December 2019 and Minute Number CO5/19/15

As approved at Council Meeting held on 2 June 2020

Council resolution dated 25 August 2020 and Minute Number CO22/20/12

 

 

Pursuant to Clause 12.1 and Clause 12.3 of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012, the parking of motor vehicles is prohibited at all times in the following locations:

 

Prohibited Stopping and Standing of Vehicles

ADDITIONS:

Aerodrome Road

East Side

Commencing at the intersection with the northern kerb of Aviation Avenue, extending 55 metres north.

Ascot Place

Both Sides

Commencing at the intersection with the northern kerb of Ascot Road, extending 21 metres north.

Ascot Road

North Side

Commencing at the intersection with the western kerb of Ascot Place, extending 23 metres west.

Ascot Road

North Side

Commencing at the intersection with the eastern kerb of Ascot Place, extending 20 metres west.

Ascot Road

South Side

Commencing at the eastern edge of the entrance to No.16, extending 38 metres east.

Awataha Crescent

East Side

Commencing at the intersection with the southern kerb of Paraone Koikoi Drive, extending 40 metres south.

Awataha Crescent

West Side

Commencing at the intersection with the southern kerb of Paraone Koikoi Drive, extending 20 metres south.

Awataha Crescent

West Side

Commencing at the northern side of the entrance to No.117, extending north and west for 24 metres.

Awataha Crescent

South Side

Commencing at the northern side of the entrance to No.14, extending north and west for 35 metres.

Awataha Crescent

East Side

Commencing at the intersection with the southern kerb of Paraone Koikoi Drive, extending 40 metres south.

Burrows Street

South Side

Commencing at the intersection with the northern kerb of Fifteenth Avenue, extending 56 metres north.

Cupples Street

South side

Commencing at the intersection with Batty Street, extending north to a point 10m north-west of the common boundary of Nos.9 and 11.

Eighth Avenue

South side

Commencing at the intersection with the eastern kerb of Cameron Road, extending 11 metres east.

Eighth Avenue

South side

Commencing 159m east of the eastern kerb of Cameron Road, extending 147 metres east.

Eleventh Avenue

North Side

Commencing at the intersection with the eastern kerb of Fraser Street, extending north and east 30 metres.

Eleventh Avenue

South Side

Commencing at the intersection with the eastern kerb of Fraser Street, extending 23 metres east.

Farm Street

East side

Commencing 152m south of the prolongation of the eastern boundary of Concord Avenue, extending south to the intersection with Taupo Avenue, except for marked parking bays and bus stops.

Fraser Street

East Wide

Commencing at the intersection with the southern kerb of Eleventh Avenue, extending 20 metres north.

Grace Road

Both sides

Commencing 2m south of the prolongation of the western boundary of Sixteenth Avenue, extending eastwards for 40m.

Grove Avenue

South side

Commencing 16 metres west of the west boundary of Pitau Road, extending west for 10 metres.

Hugo Way

Both Sides

Commencing at the intersection with the southern kerb of Papamoa Beach Road, extending 28 metres south.

Kennedy Road

North Side

Commencing at the intersection with the western kerb of Mortlake Heights, extending 15 metres west.

Laurence Street North 

Both sides

The whole road, from the intersection with Clarke Street to the cul-de-sac end, except for marked parking bays.

Lee Street

North side

Commencing 5 metres east of the common boundary of Nos.27 and 29, east for 5 metres.

Lydbrook Place

North Side

Commencing 1 metre north of the north side of the entrance to No.25, extending south and east 30 metres.

Makura Drive

East side

Commencing 12.5m south of the centreline of Tuangi Way, extending 25 metres north.

Maxwells Road

South Side

Commencing opposite the prolongation of the eastern boundary of Ngatai Road, extending 13 metres east.

Merivale Road

North Side

Commencing 27m east of the prolongation of the eastern boundary of Landview Road, eastwards for 9m.

Merivale Road

South side

Commencing 27m east of the prolongation of the eastern boundary of Landview Road, eastwards for 8m.

Mortlake Heights

North Side

Commencing at the western side of the entrance to No.103, extending east and south 40 metres.

Mortlake Heights

South and West Sides

Commencing at the western side of the entrance to No.56, extending east and south to Kennedy Road.

Mortlake Heights

West Side

Commencing at the intersection with the northern kerb of Kennedy Road, extending 80 metres north.

Mortlake Heights

East Side

Commencing at the intersection with the northern kerb of Kennedy Road, extending 195 metres north.

Oceanbeach Road

North side

Commencing at a point 2 metres west of the entrance to No.303, extending 34 metres east.

Ohauiti Road

East Side

Commencing at the centreline of the intersection of Summerhaven Place, extending 55 metres north.

Ohauiti Road

East Side

Commencing at the centreline of the intersection of Summerhaven Place, extending 35 metres south.

Otumoetai Road

West Side

Commencing at a point 3 metres south of the entrance to No.410, extending 26 metres north (excluding marked parking space).

Paine Street

North side

Commencing 6m west of the eastern boundary of No.15, extending 25m eastwards.

Paraone Koikoi Drive

South Side

Commencing at the intersection with the eastern kerb of Awataha Crescent extending 90 metres east (excluding marked Bus Stop).

Paraone Koikoi Drive

South Side

Commencing at the intersection with the western kerb of Awataha Crescent, extending 22 metres west.

Royal Ascot Drive

Both Sides

Commencing at the intersection with the northern kerb of Tara Road, extending 21 metres north.

Scantlebury Street

North Side

Commencing at the intersection with the southern kerb of Fifteenth Avenue, extending 45 metres south.

Scantlebury Street

South Side

Commencing at the intersection with the southern kerb of Fifteenth Avenue, extending 180 metres south.

Seventh Avenue

South side

Commencing 2m west of the eastern boundary of No.34, extending to the western end of the cul-de-sac.

Seventh Avenue

North side

Commencing 5m east of the eastern boundary of No.34, extending to the western end of the cul-de-sac.

Sixteenth Avenue

Both sides

Commencing 8m north of the prolongation of the north boundary of Grace Road, extending 47m south.

Summerhaven Place

Both Sides

Commencing at the intersection with the eastern kerb of Ohauiti Road, extending 20 metres east.

Tamworth Place

Both sides

Commencing 15 metres north of the southern boundary of No.1, extending north to the carriageway of Tom Muir Drive.

Tara Road

North Side

Commencing at the intersection with the western kerb of Twin Oak Avenue, extending 40 metres west.

Tara Road

North Side

Commencing at the intersection with the eastern kerb of Twin Oak Avenue, extending 13 metres east.

Tara Road

North Side

Commencing at the intersection with the western kerb of Royal Ascot Drive, extending 28 metres west.

Tara Road

North Side

Commencing at the intersection with the eastern kerb of Royal Ascot Drive, extending 12 metres east.

Tarawera Road

West side

Commencing 4 metres east of the common boundary of Nos.1 and 3, extending east and north for 35 metres.

Tarawera Road

West side

Commencing 7 metres south of the common boundary of Nos. 5 and 9, extending north for 50 metres.

The Strand (extension)

East Side

Commencing at a point 5 metres north of the intersection with the Matapihi Railway Bridge walkway, extending generally 12 metres south.

Tom Muir Drive

South Side

Commencing 50 metres west of the centreline of Tamworth lace, extending 100 metres east.

Tuangi Way

North Side

Commencing 6.5 metres east of the prolongation of the east boundary of Makura Drive, extending west to the Makura Drive carriageway.

Tuangi Way

South side

Commencing at the Makura Drive carriageway, extending around the end of the cul-de-sac to the vehicle crossing of No.5

Twin Oak Avenue

Both Sides

Commencing at the intersection with the northern kerb of Tara Road, extending 20 metres north.

Twentythird Avenue

North side

Commencing at the western boundary of No.35, extending 33m to the southern boundary of No.35.

Watling Street

North Side

Commencing at the eastern boundary of No.71, extending 40 metres east.

Westmorland Rise

North Side

Commencing at the western side of the entrance to No.97, extending east to the eastern side of the entrance to No.105.

DELETIONS:

Burrows Street

South Side

Commencing at the intersection with the northern kerb of Fifteenth Avenue, extending 28 metres north.

Eighth Avenue  

South Side

Commencing at the intersection with the eastern kerb of Cameron Road extending 132 metres east.

Farm Street

East Side

Commencing at a point 7 metres north from the intersection with the northern kerb of Taupo Avenue, extending 31 metres north.

Farm Street

East Side

Commencing at a point 1 metre north of a point opposite the joint boundary of No.53 and No.55, extending 33.5 metres north.

Laurence Street   

North Side

Commencing at the intersection with the western kerb of Clarke Street, extending 27 metres west.

Laurence Street   

South Side

Commencing at the intersection with the western kerb of Clarke Street, extending 67.5 metres west.

Laurence Street   

South Side

Commencing at a point 42 metres west from the western boundary of property No.114B, extending 20 metres west.

Scantlebury Street

East Side

Commencing at a point 10 metres south of the southern kerb of Fifteenth Avenue, extending south a distance of 45 metres.

Scantlebury Street

East and West Sides

Commencing at the intersection with the southern kerb of Fifteenth Avenue, extending south a distance of 40 metres.

Sherson Street

West Side

From the northern boundary of Chadwick Road continuing generally northwards for a distance of 130 metres.

 

 


Attachment 7.9:    Parking Time Restrictions

 

Council resolution dated 23 October 2012 and Minute Number M12/68.6

Council resolution dated 18 March 2013 and Minute Number M13/12.17

Council resolution dated 9 May 2013 and Minute Number M13/27.6

Council resolution dated 17 February 2014 and Minute Number M14/6.11

Council resolution dated 22 September 2014 and Minute Number M14/65.9

Council resolution dated 15 December 2015 and Minute Number M14/89.10

Council resolution dated 23 June 2015 and Minute Number M15/42.12

Council resolution dated 19 July 2016 and Minute Number M16/45.13

Council resolution dated 18 July 2017 and Minute Number M17/63.6

Council resolution dated 19 December 2017 and Minute Number M17/121.9

Council resolution dated 20 February 2018 and Minute Number M18/8.10

Council resolution dated 27 August 2018 and Minute Number M18/72.12

Council resolution dated 5 March 2019 and Minute Number M19/11.8

Council resolution dated 4 June 2019 and Minute Number M19/3.7

Council resolution dated 27 August 2019 and Minute Number M19/58.9

Council resolution dated 10 December 2019 and Minute Number CO5/19/15

As approved at Council Meeting held on 25 August 2020 and Minute Number CO22/20/12

 

 

Pursuant to Clause 12.1 and Clause 12.2(c) of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012, no vehicle (except for passenger service vehicles in vehicle stands) may park on the following roads for longer than the applicable time limit listed below:

 

Parking Time Restrictions:  30 minute parking

ADDITIONS:

Dive Crescent

East Side

Commencing at a point 35 metres north of The Strand Railway Crossing and extending northwards for a distance of 60 metres (9 parallel parks).

 

 

Parking Time Restrictions:  60 minute parking

ADDITIONS:

Eleventh Avenue

South Side

Commencing 27 metres west of the western kerb of Tutchen Street, extending 71 metres west.

Matapihi Road

South Side

Commencing at a point 34 metres east of the eastern kerb of Russley Drive, extending 36 metres east (5 parallel parks).

Dive Crescent

East Side

Commencing at a point 35 metres north of The Strand Railway Crossing and extending northwards for a distance of 60 metres (9 parallel parks).

 

 

Parking Time Restrictions:  120 minute parking

ADDITIONS:

Farm Street

East Side

Commencing 206m east of the eastern boundary of Concord Avenue, extending 83 metres east in marked parallel spaces only.


1.           

Attachment 7.16: Loading Zones with Time Restrictions

 

Council resolution dated 23 October 2012 and Minute Number M12/68.6

Council resolution dated 22 September 2014 and Minute Number M14/65.9

Council resolution dated 19 July 2016 and Minute Number M16/45.13

Council resolution dated 20 February 2018 and Minute Number M18/8.10

Council resolution dated 27 August 2018 and Minute Number M18/72.12

Council resolution dated 5 March 2019 and Minute Number M19/11.8

Council resolution dated 10 December 2019 and Minute Number CO5/19/15

 

 

Pursuant to Clause 18.1 of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012, the following portions of road, land or building, are declared to be loading zones during the times specified below only:

 

Loading Zones with Time Restriction

ADDITION:

Ashworth Lane

Both Sides

15 minute time restriction

From Triton Avenue to Trent Lane.

The Strand

West Side

12am to 9am

2pm to 4pm

5 minute lime restriction

For a distance of 8m, centred on the east-west centre-line of the Wharf Street pedestrian mall.

Willow Street

East Side

12am to 9am

2pm to 4pm

5 minute lime restriction

For a distance of 8m, centred on the east-west centre-line of the Wharf Street pedestrian mall.

 


 

Attachment 7.18: Loading Zones for Goods Vehicles Only:

Council resolution dated 23 October 2012 and Minute Number M12/68.6

 

Pursuant to Clause 18.1 of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 the following portions of road, land or building are declared to be loading zones for goods vehicles only:

 

Loading Zones Goods Vehicles Only

ADDITION:

The Strand

West Side

12am to 9am

2pm to 4pm

5 minute lime restriction

For a distance of 8m, centred on the east-west centre-line of the Wharf Street pedestrian mall.

Willow Street

East Side

12am to 9am

2pm to 4pm

5 minute lime restriction

For a distance of 8m, centred on the east-west centre-line of the Wharf Street pedestrian mall.

 

 


Attachment 7.21: Passenger Service and Other Vehicle Stands (Stopping Places for Buses)

 

Council resolution dated 23 October 2012 and Minute Number M12/68.6

Council resolution dated 23 June 2015 and Minute Number M15/42.12

Council resolution dated 19 July 2016 and Minute Number M16/45.13

Council resolution dated 5 March 2019 and Minute Number M19/11.8

Council resolution dated 4 June 2019 and Minute Number M19/34.7

Council resolution dated 27 August 209 and Minute Number M19/58.8

Council resolution dated 10 December 2019 and Minute Number CO5/19/15

As approved at Council Meeting held on 2 June 2020

As approved at Council Meeting held on 5 August 2020 C022/20/12

 

 

Pursuant to Clause 20.1 of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012, the following locations are declared to be vehicle stands for buses to be used solely for picking up or setting down passengers by buses:

 

Passenger Service and Other Vehicle Stands (Stopping Places for Buses)

ADDITIONS:

Coopers Road

East Side

Fronting No.80 Coopers Road.

Dickson Road

East Side

Fronting No.137 Dickson Road.

Dickson Road

East Side

Fronting No.219 Dickson Road.

Dickson Road

East Side

Fronting No.274A Dickson Road.

Dickson Road

North Side

Fronting No.7 Dickson Road.

Dickson Road

South Side

Fronting No.4 Dickson Road.

Dickson Road

West Side

Fronting No.180 Dickson Road.

Dickson Road

West Side

Fronting No.236 Dickson Road.

Gloucester Road

East Side

Opposite No.46 Gloucester Road.

Gloucester Road

West Side

Fronting No.22 Gloucester Road.

Gloucester Road

West Side

Fronting No.42 Gloucester Road.

Maranui Street

North Side

Fronting No.79 Maranui Street.

Monowai Street

North Side

Fronting No.25 Monowai Street.

Monowai Street

South Side

Fronting No.32 Monowai Street.

Ngatai Road

South Side

Fronting No.270 Ngatai Road.

Papamoa Beach Road

South Side

Fronting No.12 Santa Fé Key (Papamoa Beach Road side).

Pyes Pa Road

East Side

Fronting No.27 Pyes Pa Road.

DELETIONS:

Dickson Road

East Side

Fronting No.195 Dickson Road.

Dickson Road

East Side

Fronting No.227 Dickson Road.

Dickson Road

West Side

Fronting No.190 Dickson Road.

Dickson Road

West Side

Fronting No.242 Dickson Road.

Maranui Street

East Side

Fronting No.77 Maranui Street.

Pyes Pa Road

East Side

Fronting No.21 Pyes Pa Road.


Attachment 7.28: Passenger Service and Other Vehicle Stands (Electric Vehicles)

 

 

Council resolution dated 19 December 2017 and Minute Number M17/121.9

As approved at Council Meeting held on 2 June 2020

 

Pursuant to Clause 20.1 of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 the following areas of road are declared to be vehicle stands for Electric Vehicles.  Electric Vehicles may park in the area as described below to re-charge batteries for a maximum time period of up to P120 (two hours) at any one time:

 

Passenger Service and Other Vehicle Stands (Electric Vehicles)

Deletions

The Strand

East Side

“At All times”

Commencing at a point 22 metres north of the northern boundary of the boundary of Spring Street, extending north for a distance of 12 metres (two parallel parks).

 


Attachment 7.29: Passenger Service and Other Vehicle Stands (Amusement Rides)

 

Council resolution dated 22 October 2018 and Minute Number M18/90.12

 

ADDITION

 

That pursuant to Clauses 12.1, 12.2(d), 12.2(l), 12.2(n) and 20.1 of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 the following areas of road are declared to be parking areas and vehicle stands for Amusement Ride Vehicles during the specified time periods and subject to the conditions set out below:

 

Passenger Service and Other Vehicle Stands (Amusement Rides)

Salisbury Avenue

South Side

Between 20 September and 31 May (inclusive) from 6:00am to 11:00am on the days that Cruise Ships visit the Port of Tauranga in accordance with the annual Cruise Ship Schedule (and any amendments thereof).

Commencing at a point 12 metres west of the prolongation of the western boundary of Victoria Road extending 15 metres west (5 angle parks).

Maunganui Road

East side

At all times

Commencing 4.5m south of the southern boundary of No 123 Maunganui Road, southwards for 6m (one kerb-side parallel parking space).

The Strand

East side

At all times

Commencing 20m south of the southern boundary of the Wharf Street eastern extension, southwards for 7m (one in-set parallel parking space).

 

 

DELETION

 

That pursuant to Clauses 12.1, 12.2(d), 12.2(l), 12.2(n) and 20.1 of the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2012 , the following areas of road are declared to be parking areas and vehicle stands for Amusement Ride Vehicles between 20 September and 31 May (inclusive) from 6:00am to 11:00am on the days that Cruise Ships visit the Port of Tauranga in accordance with the annual Cruise Ship Schedule (and any amendments thereof) and subject to the conditions set out below:

 

Passenger Service and Other Vehicle Stands (Amusement Rides)

Salisbury Avenue

South Side

Commencing at a point 12 metres west of the prolongation of the western boundary of Victoria Road extending 15 metres west (5 angle parks).

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

10.3       Kennedy Road Embankment Dam Scope and Budget Adjustment

File Number:           A11912716

Author:                    Gareth John, Team Leader: Infrastructure Projects

Authoriser:             Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       This report seeks approval from Council to adjust the scope and budget for the Kennedy Road Embankment Dam Project (Job No 380319001) in the 2020/21 financial year.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Approves a scope and budget adjustment resulting in a spend increase of $3,545,000 this financial year for the Kennedy Road Embankment Dam Project (Job No 380319001).

 

Executive Summary

2.       Growth and residential development has stalled in the Pyes Pa West Growth Area due to the lack of available stormwater storage. This project will provide the stormwater infrastructure (along with the associated Pond 25 project) to enable growth and development to recommence in the catchment. The acceleration of this project will also enable approximately 108 residential sections to the market 12 months earlier than originally planned.

3.       This report seeks approval from Council for a scope and budget adjustment that could result in a spend increase of $3,545,000 this financial year. This could allow for the delivery of the Kennedy Road Embankment Dam Project (the KREDP) in this financial year (2020/21).

4.       The KREDP is a stormwater project which will enhance the environment through improving water quality, mitigate flooding effects from rain events and allow for the delivery of 108 housing lots.

5.       The preferred project methodology is a trenchless option (pipe jack/thrust) which will allow the project to be delivered within one year (rather than two) and prevent lengthy closure of Kennedy Road. This methodology is undergoing further investigation before it is finally chosen. The alternative methodology is the traditional open cut trench option, which will take longer and cause more disruption. The traditional option is approximately 8.5% cheaper than the pipe jack/thrust approach.

6.       The project budget ($2,390,000) referenced in the current financial system is insufficient to deliver the project, regardless of the methodology chosen. A total project budget had previously been developed totalling approximately $6M, however due to an administrative omission this budget figure is not reflected in the current financial system.

Background

7.       Kennedy Road has recently been upgraded. At the time of the upgrade, it was unknown that works needed to be completed to upgrade the embankment (KREDP) to building code and New Zealand Society on large dams requirements (NZSOLD).

8.       The KREDP is a key element in enabling the delivery of approximately 108 housing sections by local developers.

9.       In recent years Council has delivered a number of infrastructure projects in the Pyes Pa area focused on enabling growth. This report focuses on the Kennedy Road Embankment Dam Project (the KREDP). The KREDP is part of a suite of projects which will effectively and sustainably manage stormwater in the catchment of the Nanako Stream, Pyes Pa West – specifically in the area that extends from Kennedy Road to Freeburn Road. The objective of these projects is to limit the potential impacts of flows from existing and future development around the Nanako Stream, and on other land and properties in the catchment.

10.     Together these projects will deliver a comprehensive stormwater solution for the community which will:

(a)     accommodate planned developments in the Pyes Pa West growth area, via the construction of an attenuation dam and water treatment wetland downstream of the reconstructed Kennedy Road embankment;

(b)     mitigate the potential flooding effects of smaller and larger rain events;

(c)     strengthen the Kennedy Road embankment to meet current dam safety design standards and reduce risk of dam failure;

(d)     improve the environment by incorporating water quality treatment through constructed wetland areas in order to reduce impact of further siltation; and

(e)     enhance the stream ecology through the establishment of a drainage reserve and planting along the Nanako stream.

11.     The current budget has been refined as the project has progressed, informed by detailed design and associated costings, and this report seeks the additional amount required in order to deliver the project.

Project readiness

12.     As mentioned above, the KREDP is one of a number of construction projects for the Nanako Stream catchment that will protect property, improve water quality, provide stormwater attenuation for the remaining development area and improve stormwater management.

13.     Consent for these projects is being sought under one application (Nanako Stream stormwater consent). Council originally applied for resource consent from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) in 2018. During this consenting process both residents and the BOPRC raised several queries and issues, which resulted in Council withdrawing the application.

14.     Further work has been completed to deliver a new design solution which addresses these past concerns. This process has included technical design, planning and testing. As a result, Council anticipates the resource consent for the package of works to be issued in November 2020. This could allow construction to commence on the KREDP as early as January 2021 as we already have a contract in place with Map Projects through an Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) model. However, this would be subject to the final decision by the project team on the preferred option and completion of the final design ready for construction. There is a risk of delays which would push some of the funding into the 2022 financial year.

Design solutions and cost estimates

15.     The KREDP includes the strengthening of the current Kennedy Road embankment to meet dam safety design standards and the installation of a new 2500mm diameter culvert to accommodate the 1,000 ARI (Annual Recurrence Interval) event.

16.     Design work completed for the KREDP has identified two options for the installation of the culvert, both which will cost more than the current budget.

17.     Option one involves the culvert being installed via open cut trenching. This approach would result in:

·    a two-year delivery time. This is because the works would need to take place over two separate summers (earthworks season) to allow for sufficient ground settlement. Ground improvement works would occur in year one, and installation of the culvert would occur in year two;

·    closure of Kennedy Road for approximately 4-5 months, during which time a detour would be put in place; and

·    An estimated cost of $5,466,000 (an increased spend of $3,076,000).

18.     Option one was assessed as having significant disadvantages.

·    The longer delivery time would delay the delivery of much needed housing for the city.

·    The road closures would cause significant disruption for the existing community.

·    Kennedy Road was recently upgraded (2 years ago) and the open cut trenching would result in an otherwise unnecessary road resealing.

19.     Because of these disadvantages, Council has explored innovative and practical solutions, which have resulted in the identification of an alternative approach.

20.     Option two involves the culvert being installed via pipe jack/thrust technology, a trenchless option. This option:

·    allows the KREDP to be completed within one year (one earthworks season with a potential winter extension), facilitating faster delivery of much needed housing for the city;

·    allows Kennedy Road to be open and operational during the works, and not require the reconstruction of the road; and

·    has an estimated cost of $5,935,000 (an increased spend of $3,545,000).

21.     Option two (pipe jack/thrust) is estimated to cost $469,000 more than option one (open cut trench), or an additional 8.5%.

22.     Various risk management exercises are underway further assessing the trenchless pipe installation methodology. This work is occurring in collaboration with technical experts, engineers, contractors/subcontractors and suppliers.

23.     The final decision regarding options will be made in December 2020, once this work is complete.

24.     However due to the significant advantages of option two, at this point in the process it is preferred, and this report seeks an increase in spend on the estimated cost of option two.

Strategic / Statutory Context

25.     This project delivers on two of Council’s community outcomes.

·    We value and protect our environment - Tauranga is a city that values our natural environment and outdoor lifestyle, and actively works to protect and enhance it.

·    We have a well planned city - Tauranga is a city that is well planned with a variety of successful and thriving compact centres and resilient infrastructure.

26.     Additionally, the project facilitates the delivery of much needed housing for the city and helps Council to meet its legislative requirements in regards to stormwater management.

Options Analysis

27.     The options available for project delivery are noted below;

(a)     Approve an increased spend of $3,545,000, allowing for the delivery of option two (Recommended option).

Advantages (if option two is the chosen methodology)

Disadvantages

·    Allows for the project to be completed in one year.

·    Facilitates residential development and growth earlier than anticipated

·    Avoids the closure of Kennedy Road.

·    Avoid reputation damage to Council by undertaking the works without having to reconstruct or close Kennedy Road.

·    Increased spend of $3,545,000 in this financial year.

 

(b)     Do not approve an increased spend, with the additional budget required to complete the project ($3,076,000, as per option one) secured via the upcoming Long Term Plan. (Not recommended).

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    Increased spend this financial year

 

·    Delays the delivery of much needed residential development and growth.

·    Carry forward this financial year and re-budget in year 1 of the long-term plan.

·    Completing the project over two years  creates a longer construction period and more disruption to residents (reputational).

·    Two site establishments and longer construction duration could result in an increase in labour and material costs from the contractor.

·    Longer construction programme equating in an increase in construction monitoring/MSQA, consultant and project management costs.

 

Financial Considerations

28.     Council has received tendered prices from Map Projects (preferred contractor) for the Kennedy Road Embankment Dam Project. Map Projects has provided prices for traditional open cut excavation and trenchless excavation for the Kennedy Road Embankment Dam and both options exceed the current budget.

29.     The prices for option one and option two are contained in the table below (rounded).

 

Option one – open cut trench

Option two – pipe jack/thrust

Construction

$3,040,000

$3,447,000

Contingency (20%)

$608,000

$689,000

 

 

 

Design

$225,000

$225,000

Contingency (20%)

$45,000

$45,000

 

 

 

Peer Review

$20,000

$20,000

 

 

 

MSQA / Construction Monitoring*

$336,000

$252,000

Contingency (20%)

$67,000

$51,000

 

 

 

Mana Whuena (assume 10 hr/wk @ $50*

$26,000

$26,000

 

 

 

Construction consenting/monitoring Cost (1% of construction cost w/ no contingency)

$31,000

$35,000

 

 

 

Engagement/Comms (assume 4 hours per week @ $100 per/hr)*

$11,000

$10,000

 

 

 

TCC Project Management (assume 20 hours per week @ $140 per/hr)*

$146,000

$146,000

 

 

 

 

Total

4,555,000

4,946,000

 

 

 

Risk Funding (RF) - general 20%

$911,000

$989,000

 

 

 

Total w/ Risk Funding

$5,466,000

$5,935,000

 

 

 

Total Increase in Spend

$3,076,000

$3,545,000

 

 

* As is highlighted in the option table for option one, these costs are likely to be higher for option one as option one is delivered over a longer time period. This would have the effect of lessening the difference in cost between options one and two. Costs to be confirmed once option is selected, however non-construction cost savings envisaged for option two.

30.     The final negotiated price for the preferred construction methodology will be reviewed by a quantity surveyor prior to award.

31.     As the trenchless option is only an approximate 8.5% increase to the traditional open cut methodology, the project team has focused on this option due to the advantages it provides in terms of project length, disruption and flow on benefits (earlier delivery of residential development).

32.     However, as mentioned earlier, the final option has not been chosen and will be determined over the next few months.

33.     This project is envisaged to have a minimal impact on rates, as it is funded through developer contributions.

34.     If, during the detailed design stage and further risk management exercises, it is determined that trenchless excavation is not a viable option, the project will revert to the traditional open cut excavation and two-year construction programme timeframe.

Legal Implications / Risks

35.     Council has a legislative responsibility to manage stormwater.

36.     The project’s major risks and mitigation measures are outlined in the table below.

Area of risk

Mitigation measures

Dam design / QA

 

i. Engagement of a suitably qualified Chartered Engineer specialising in Dam Engineering certifying design construction methodologies.

ii.                       Building Consent obtained via Waikato Regional Council

Construction methodologies, delays and challenges

 

i. Undertaking an ECI (Early Contractor Involvement) approach to select and work with a contractor during design development to develop a ‘watertight’ construction methodology to ensure construction is de-risked and achieves ‘value for money’.

ii.    Multiple Risk Management Workshops with SME (subject matter experts).

iii.   Contractual leavers to share/mitigate the ownership of risk.

Community engagement/consultation (dissatisfaction)

i. Early and robust engagement with community.

ii.    Implementation of comprehensive professional engagement plan.

iii.   Include community input to parts of design.

iv.   Education.

 

Consultation / Engagement

37.     An engagement plan is being developed for this project and the key messages contained in the engagement plan will be informed by final option chosen for the project (option one: open cut trench, versus option two: pipe jack/thrust).

Significance

38.     The significance of this decision, as assessed against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, is medium and consultation is not required.

Next Steps

39.     If Council chooses to approve the increase in spend needed to deliver option two, the next step is to enter into a contract with the preferred contractor following it being consented.

40.     Following this, the project team will continue to develop the design, risk manage strategies, and health and safety controls for a construction methodology with the objective of completing the KREDP this financial year without a road closure, unless a flaw is discovered during design development.

Attachments

Nil


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

10.4       Approval for Renaming Upper Section of Ohauiti Road

File Number:           A11907996

Author:                    Donna Officer, Enterprise IM Manager

Authoriser:             Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       Approval for the Renaming of Upper section of Ohauiti Road

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Approve option 1 to rename the upper section of Ohauiti Road (southwards from the intersection with Boscabel Drive and Adler Drive,) to be Upper Ohauiti Road.

(b)     Note the following

(i)      In conjunction with the date of this name change, Tauranga City Council will amend the existing property location addresses, for those properties that access onto this section of roadway. 

(ii)     That the timing for the name change shall be dependent on Western Bay of Plenty District Council also approving this change.

(iii)     The agreed date of implementation to reside with CEO’s of both Councils. 

 

 

Executive Summary

2.       Duplicated and non-sequential property numbers on Ohauiti Road have recently been flagged as a problem, and therefore make it more difficult to locate the correct property on this road.  This can be a particularly significant problem for emergency services like fire, police, and ambulance needing to find an address quickly.  However, it is also a regular problem for mail delivery services, utility providers, tradespeople and visitors.  Property owners themselves are frustrated at having their goods delivered to the wrong property. 

3.       This matter has recently been brought to the attention of both Tauranga City and Western Bay of Plenty District Councils’ by the Surveyor-General with a suggestion that the upper section of Ohauiti Road from the intersection with Boscabel and Adler Drive generally southwards, be renamed Upper Ohauiti Road.

4.       Following a meeting with Western Bay of Plenty Council Staff, a joint decision was agreed that this pragmatic solution be taken forward to each Council for adoption.

5.       This change does also need to be approved by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council as the road in question continues generally southwards from the Tauranga City area, into the Western Bay of Plenty District Council area.  This will be submitted to the Western Bay of Plenty District Council Committee on the 24th November 2020.

Background

6.       The lower, urban part of Ohauiti Road has had address numbers in use since at least the late 1970’s, with location addressing later implemented to the rural (upper) part of the road being implemented in the early 1990’s, by the introduction of Rural Access Property Identification (RAPID) addressing.

7.       The part of the road within Tauranga City Council (TCC) boundaries, where these addressing issues currently exist, is confined to a length of approximately 870 metres and some 20 different sets of property owners.

8.       The RAPID numbering was done in conjunction with Western Bay of Plenty District Council, whereby TCC contributed an amount to Western Bay of Plenty District Council to cover the same contractors implementing numbers into both authority areas at the same time.  This contract was initiated and run by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council. 

Strategic / Statutory Context

9.       Roadway naming, and any alterations to such names, along with the issuing and amendments to property location addresses are Council functions as per s319B (3) Local Government Act 1974.

10.     The newly adopted Tauranga City Council naming policy 2020 - MCO8/20/20, requires that renaming decisions be made by Council, as per section 5.3.2, and that changes may be made to avoid confusion, duplication or ambiguity. 

Options Analysis

11.     Staff have considered the following four options as below,

Option 1 - TCC and Western Bay of Plenty District Council rename, and TCC also does address number changes to the upper sections of Ohauiti Road (recommended)

 

That TCC and Western Bay of Plenty District Council rename their sections of Ohauiti Road southwards from the Boscabel and Adler Drives intersections to being UPPER OHAUITI ROAD. 

In conjunction with this name change TCC will issue changes to those land parcels within the Tauranga City Council (TCC) portion of this section of roadway, for the purpose that TCC property location addresses align with the existing sequencing of address numbers that exist within the Western Bay of Plenty District Council area. 

Also, allowance would be made for further intensification of those lands, and so extra numbering would be reserved into the addressing layout schema used.

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      Resolves an issue that is of concern and frustration within the community

·      Enhancement to possible emergency response times with follow on benefits to possible better lives and property outcomes

·      The existing numbering schema used is currently a mix of odds and even numbers, changing from side to side around this section road,  This change would remove that confusion and align with current addressing standards of having the even numbers on the right and odd numbers on the left of the road when travelling in an ascending numbering direction

·      This option means that Western Bay of Plenty District Council properties, would retain their existing numbering, but must be notified of the road name change

·      Is supported by the Surveyor General which role has a final say in addressing matters

·      Costs to Councils and workload impacts that had not been considered with Drafting Annual Plan budgets, though estimated costs for TCC but are minor

·      Would require road signage and in-house systems data changes

·      TCC staff would need to work with approximately 19 different property owners.  Also involved would be the notifying of changes to LINZ and emergency services etc, these being routine functions

 

TCC would be responsible for the erection and subsequent maintenance of new road name signage at the Boscabel / Adler Roads change point, with Western Bay of Plenty District Council being responsible for all road signage within their authority area. 

 

Option 2 - TCC and Western Bay of Plenty District Council do nothing  

 

Do nothing, with neither TCC nor Western Bay Of Plenty District Council changing address numbering.

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·      No costs to Councils’, or workload impacts that had not been considered with Drafting Annual Plan budgets

·      Many in community may support this approach as they do not see this as a priority for Council spending

·      Does not resolve an issue that is of seems to be of concern and frustration to a part of the community

·      This would not support the Surveyor Generals recommendation 

 

We also considered the following:

A.    TCC and Western Bay of Plenty District Council renumber their upper sections of Ohauiti Road

 

·    That TCC and Western Bay of Plenty District Council renumber their sections of Ohauiti Road southwards from the Boscabel and Adler Drives intersections, so that numbering continues to be sequential from the start of Ohauiti Road (at the junction with Welcome Bay Road).

 

·    The numbering schema used would be adjusted, so that no duplication of numbering would exist, and that due consideration had been given for current and future intensification of these lands by allowance for more urban and rural residential type subdivision changes.

 

B.    TCC and Western Bay of Plenty District Council renumber ALL Ohauiti Road

 

That TCC and Western Bay of Plenty District Council, renumber all Ohauiti Road, starting from Welcome Bay Road.  This option would retain the existing Road name for the full length of the road. 

 

Financial Considerations

12.     Most of the system changes to add in another road name, will be standard internal TCC’s processes that are used on a regular basis.  The replacement signs costing for supply and installation, has been sourced from Transport Network Operations as being $800, which is sufficient for the six, or so signs that are being envisaged as required. 

13.     Other external organisations also have their own regular processes for adding in new road names and making address changes.

14.     Property owners would be required to pay for their own number boards, and would choose their own types.  These costs are seen as minimal, as major hardware stores carry reflective numbers of a variety of styles.

Legal Implications / Risks

15.     There are no significant legal risks associated with the four identified options.  There is of course the need for both Councils’ to simultaneously implement any adopted name change.

Consultation / Engagement

16.     Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council staff are both in agreement that if this change is approved by both Council’s, then they will jointly work together to advise all owners and residents by all usual means of the agreed road name change date.

Significance

17.     Under the Significance and Engagement Policy, the road name change costs, and community impacts are considered to be classified as of ‘low’ significance as they do not impact the wider public or have a significant impact on budget.  Road name and location address changes are a common event and impacts are of short duration.

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

18.     Following Council approval for what is agreed to, then a detailed work plan would be worked through, and shared with the Surveyor General and the wider community with timelines for progressing and implementation.

19.     Individual property owners would be responsible for their own address changes, though both councils’ will provide links to free online resource tools to assist them make these changes. 

Attachments

Nil


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

10.5       Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Update

File Number:           A11967356

Author:                    Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Authoriser:             Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       To update Council on progress on the 2021-31 Long Term Plan regarding key financial issues and scenarios.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receive the report Long Term Plan Update

(b)     Note the key Long-Term Plan issues and proposed next steps.

 

Executive Summary

2.       An overview of the LTP workstreams was presented to the Policy Committee in August, September and October.

3.       An outline of the key financial issues and an outline of the proposed direction on key funding and financing elements was agreed at the Finance Audit and Risk Committee on 22nd September 2020. 

4.       Staff have continued to work to update the corporate planning system with the latest information for the 2021-31 period (and longer for the infrastructure strategy). 

5.       Whilst significant further work is required initial indications are of a significantly higher capital expenditure programme than prior LTP’s to deliver on the identified current and future wellbeing needs of the community.

6.       The key decisions you will need to make are significantly more challenging than anything faced before.

7.       This paper provides an overview of the Local Government Act requirements in respect of providing for the expenditure associated with wellbeing needs of the community, an update of the latest capital expenditure forecasts and the scenario modelling staff are undertaking.   It outlines the proposed way forward to provide further information to Council’s December meeting.

8.       Some high-level rating assumptions have been used in this paper however no detailed rating calculations have yet been completed.  The focus of this paper is outlining the wellbeing obligations and confirming the development of capital expenditure scenarios.

9.       In 2009 Audit NZ qualified the draft LTP as not being financially sustainable as it breached borrowing covenants in future years and did not make adequate and effective provision to meets the forecast expenditure needs.  Currently, based on forecasted needs of the community and fiscal capacity, this qualification is a potential outcome in the current LTP.

Background

10.     The Local Government Act states the Financial Management obligations of Council.  In particular Sections 101(1) and 101(2):

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

·        A local authority must make adequate and effective provision in its long-term plan and in its annual plan (where applicable) to meet the expenditure needs of the local authority identified in that long-term plan and annual plan.

 

11.     There are a number of workstreams contributing to the 2021 – 2031 LTP (as per the graphic below) which seek to understand TCC’s revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities and also to define the current and future interests of the community.

 

 

Current and future interests and associated expenditure needs

12.     The requirements of Section 101 of the Local Government Act to promote and provide expenditure to meet current and future needs gives effect to the purpose of local government.  The purpose of local government is “to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future” (section 10(1)(b)).

13.     As noted above there are a number of LTP worksteams which identify these present and future well-being needs.  Well-being needs which are associated with significant financial investment requirements are identified in the following:

·    SmartGrowth (approved 2012) and (Urban Form and Transport Initiative (approved July 2020)

·    Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan (approved October 2020)

·    Community Facilities Investment Plan (under development)

·    Resilience Programme (under development)

14.     Further, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development requires TCC as a Tier 1 Growth Local Authority to provide sufficient housing and business land development capacity to meet expected needs.  The NPS states that in order to be “sufficient the development capacity must be ‘infrastructure ready’ and meet the expected demand plus a competitiveness margin (20% in the short and medium term and 15% in the long term). 

15.     The NPS defines development capacity as “infrastructure ready” if:

a)   There is adequate existing development infrastructure to support the development of the land

b)   In relation to the medium term (10 years), either paragraph (a) applies, or funding for adequate infrastructure to support development of the land is identified in a long-term plan

c)   In relation to the long term (10-30 years), either paragraph (b) applies, or the development infrastructure to support the development capacity is identified in the local authority’s infrastructure strategy (as required as part of its long-term plan).

Prudent Financial Management

16.     To understand TCC’s prudent financial management challenges work has been undertaken on various fiscal scenarios.

17.     With respect to the capex capacity and impact of the LTP workstreams the following charts are reproduced from the 22nd September FARC meeting.  The first graph outlines Councils capital expenditure capacity based on a rate increase of CPI + 2%.  This is not a suggested rating level but one showing the implications on capex and subsequent debt capacity.  All graphs include an increase in revenue in the first year of the plan relating to kerbside rubbish collection.

18.     The second graph shows the improved situation if rates are increased 2.1% more than in graph 1, when this additional revenue is used to retire debt rather than fund increased expenditure.

19.     What is clear from both graphs is that even with the inclusion of a debt retirement levy of $4m in year one of the plan debt capacity is limited whilst maintaining existing borrowing covenants.

20.     The chart below shows the initial first cut of the Long-Term Plan capital requirements (excluding vested assets) noting that significant quality assurance and prioritisation is still required on these numbers.

 

21.     The total first draft of LTP capital expenditure requirement is $4.3b over the ten years.  Whilst this is indicative it outlines the size of the gap facing Council through this LTP.  Quality assurance is being completed on the projects and capital estimates.  While this will likely result in some timing and cost changes it is unlikely to significantly alter the overall scale and fiscal challenge.

22.     The key reasons for the large increase in capital programme from the previous LTP are

(a)     The inclusion of a number of significant growth projects which have long payback periods.  The next ten years sees the need for substantial capital investment on stepped infrastructure across water, wastewater and transportation and the need to provide community infrastructure in many of our existing communities as well as across new growth areas.  Further pressure comes from the impacts of climate change, recent assessment of the infrastructure requirements to build resilience, and increasing environmental standards.

(b)     Updated planning and design information

(c)     The inclusion of more realistic contingency pricing

(d)     General price level increases particularly those facing the construction industry

Scenarios for the LTP

23.     Staff have allocated projects to two planning scenarios.  The first being Committed and Prioritised projects and the second being more inclusive know as Growing Connected Communities.

24.     The first round of allocation to these scenarios has included $3.7b of capex in scenario one and $4.3b in scenario two.  Further work is now being undertaken to come up with a more refined scenario one.   Based on the graphs shown above this is estimated to have capex at approximately $200m p.a.  This may be able to increase to $250m per year dependant upon revenue levels and the delivery of the current year capital programme.  Scenario two will be more inclusive with capex closer to the $4.3b total currently included in the planning system.

25.     It should also be noted that an increase in delivery capacity will be required to deliver a programme greater than $200m p.a.

26.     Given the significant reduction required in capital expenditure to fit within fiscal envelopes it is expected that scenario one will be reduced to a capital programme equivalent of renewals, currently committed projects including the completion of Wairai water treatment plan.  Due to the constraint of this scenario further scenarios are now being created to graduate capex delivery in steps between scenarios one and two.

27.     The basic scenario one will not have capacity for any investment in Tauranga System Plan (TSP), resilience expenditure or other than very limited growth expenditure.  It would also not have any capacity for amenity projects that add soul to the city.

28.     Scenarios will be developed showing:

(a)     Core scenario one plus a very limited number of TSP critical projects, a small element of resilience expenditure, a reduced growth programme and limited soul projects.

(b)     The scenario in (a) together with further expenditure in these areas.

29.     Associated operating expenditure scenarios will also be created.

30.     Under each scenario both rates and debt will increase, and it is anticipated that higher debt retirement levies will need to be introduced in the later scenarios to deal with balance sheet management.

31.     Detailed stories will be developed under each scenario to explain options to the community.  These will outline the key outcomes of each scenario together with the rating and debt requirements as well as other possible funding and financing opportunities.

32.     Water reform, if it proceeds, will have a significant influence on funding and financing and will be considered as a scenario in this LTP.

Options:  Funding, Financing and Prioritisation

33.     Significant work has been completed on planning the city needs and we now understand the infrastructure gap better than ever before.  Staff can confirm, as has been signalled to elected members, particularly during the development of the last two annual plans, the infrastructure gap is large.

34.     Due to the size of the infrastructure gap and the current pressure on Council’s balance sheet it is evident that traditional funding and financing solutions will be insufficient.  Growth Councils have been advising for some time that the traditional funding and financing mechanisms are no longer fit-for-purpose and that alternatives are required.

35.     The 22nd September FARC paper outlined the key areas of funding that staff will focus on to bring options to Council in future meetings.   

36.     In addition to these funding options the high-level options to deliver the LTP are shown in the diagram below which will be the focus of future meetings.

 

Expenditure and efficiency

-  Expenditure options were outlined in the previous Annual Plan and therefore not repeated in the LTP

-  Initiatives to improve delivery outcomes continue including a refined project delivery model and changes to the community engagement process

New Funding and Financing tools and other reforms

-  Recently introduced Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levies

-  Sub regional funding and financing opportunities

-  Potential impacts of water reform

Existing revenue options

-  Various rating levels associated with each particular scenario

-  Alternatives outlined in the 22nd September FARC meeting including business and residential rates

Capital prioritisation

-  Each scenario will allow a certain amount of capex

-  Staff will undertake first level prioritisation under each community outcome for council consideration

 

Debt retirement levy

37.     Debt retirement was introduced in the 2009-19 LTP.  This recognised the need for balance sheet management as the alternative to reduced levels of service.

38.     It is anticipated that given the significant balance sheet capacity issues that are emerging in the upcoming LTP that debt retirement options will be need to be considered in this LTP.

39.     Any debt retirement levy option needs to be considered in light of other off-balance sheet options that may be applicable.  Eg IFF legislation.  Whilst these may incur higher financing costs, they may reduce the need for rating for balance sheet management via debt retirement.

Compliance with the Local Government Act (LGA)

40.     As noted in paragraph 8 of this report Section 101 of the LGA requires a balanced budget to be produced and requires the prudent use of ratepayer funds.   It also requires Council to provide for the expenditure required to deliver on the current and future needs of the community.  

41.     In 2009 Audit NZ qualified the draft LTP as not being financially sustainable as it breached borrowing covenants in future years and did not make adequate and effective provision to meets the forecast expenditure needs (refer attachment 1).  Currently, based on forecasted needs of the community and fiscal capacity, this qualification is a potential outcome in the current LTP.

42.     In 2009 the final LTP received a clear audit opinion subsequent to the Council approving an approach which better balanced revenue and expenditure on well-beings.  This included stepped rates increases particularly over the first three years.

Consultation and engagement

43.     A full consultation and engagement plan accompanies this LTP with the formal consultation period occurring throughout March and April of next year.

44.     It is anticipated that the scenarios being developed as the basis of this LTP will form the basis of this consultation including the funding and financing options accompanying each scenario.

Strategic / Statutory Context

45.     This report outlines the initial analysis of the capital programme for the 2021-31 LTP and outlines the direction forward for presentation of options and information to Council in future meetings.

Options Analysis

46.     These are not presented in this report however will be outlined in upcoming LTP meetings.  The outline of the format of these options is included in this report.

Financial Considerations

47.     No direct financial considerations in this report however the high level implications on capex and debt are outlined. 

Legal Implications / Risks

48.     This report provides high level information of some of the LGA compliance issues that will arise through this LTP and the proposed way to address these issues.

49.     Risk management is not addressed in this paper however future options will include those outlined in the 22 September FARC meeting.

Consultation / Engagement

50.     Consultation and engagement will occur through the development of the LTP.

Significance

51.     This report is for information and is not significant in terms of the Significance and Engagement policy

Next Steps

52.     The information contained in this report will form the basis of future options to be presented to Council on the LTP.  The scenarios outlined in this report will continue to be developed outlining clearly what the delivery to the community and the cost in terms of rate funding and debt and any other options available.

Attachments

1.       Qualified Audit Option 2009 -2019 Draft Long Term Plan - A1165   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

10.6       Sustainability Board - update

File Number:           A11964718

Author:                    Sarah Searle, Strategic Advisor

Authoriser:             Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       To provide an update on the establishment of the Independent Sustainability Advisory Board (“the Board”), including the recruitment process, draft Terms of Reference and suggested work programme.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the ‘Sustainability Board – Update’ report;

(b)     Retains Attachment 1 of the report in the public excluded section to protect the privacy of           natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons.

 

 

backgrounD

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.       At a subsequent Policy Committee meeting on 20 October 2020, a process for recruiting the Board was approved. It is intended that the Board comprise national experts in sustainability-related fields. The expected size of the Board is 3-5 members.

4.       Sustainability is being defined in the holistic sense of the four Local Government Act well-beings (economic, environmental, social and cultural), rather than solely environmental.  Recognising there is inevitably a large degree of overlap between the four well-beings, it is important that the skills and roles of the Board members collectively cover all four well-beings, with the addition of a chair or generalist(s) across sustainability more broadly.

 

recruitment update

5.       An informal direct-appointment process is underway as approved at the October Policy Committee meeting.  For the defined skill sets / areas of expertise, appropriately skilled individuals have been identified.  A long list of potential candidates has been compiled (refer Attachment 1) and a prospective Chair has been approached and has informally accepted.

6.       Based on discussions with the likely Chair about the long-list of potential candidates, a short-list has been compiled that will provide a balance and range of high calibre expertise and knowledge across the four well-beings.  Preferred candidates have been approached and initial discussions have commenced.  The long and short list both continue to evolve as we undertake conversations with possible candidates and others in the sector.

7.       Following further discussions, it is anticipated that candidates will be confirmed, and contractual arrangements will be finalised by the end of November to allow for an initial meeting (most likely virtual) in December.  Once candidates are confirmed a public statement will be made regarding the make-up of the Board.

 

purpose, scope and TERMS OF REFERENCE refined

8.       A draft Purpose, Scope and Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Board was presented at the October Policy Committee.  These have been refined following an initial discussion with the prospective Chair and shared again for the Chair’s review. The draft TOR as they currently stand are -

Purpose

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 (including review, oversight and challenge)

·        Input into LTP (Long Term Plan) process, prioritisation, project selection and community consultation

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

·        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

Reports to

The Chief Executive.

9.       Remuneration and a short form contractual agreement will be confirmed with each candidate once they have formally accepted the role.

10.     As stated above, the inaugural meeting of the Board is planned for December 2020.  Following this initial meeting, it is suggested that the Board meets monthly for the first six months or until the work programme is more fully defined and implemented.  It is then proposed that meetings be held bi-monthly.  

 

Suggested work programme

11.     In the first instance it is suggested that the Board’s work programme consists:

·    Sustainability Stocktake

·    Input into the Long-Term Plan, including the consultation document

·    City Vision project.

Sustainability Stocktake

12.     A draft Sustainability Stocktake has previously been commenced internally but not finalised or refreshed.

13.     An RFP for consultants to complete a Sustainability Stocktake (phase one) and proposed action plan (phase two) has been prepared by staff.  Input from the Board into the consideration of responses to the RFP and oversight of this project will be very valuable. 

Long Term Plan

14.     Work already underway or undertaken for Council’s Long-Term Plan 2021-2031 will also benefit from the Board’s consideration and input in relation to sustainability, particularly:

·        Our revised community outcomes and principles and their application

·        Development of prioritisation matrix

·        Development of the consultation document

City Vision

15.     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.

Next Steps

16.     Next steps in the establishment of the Board include:

·    Confirming Board members

·    Finalising contractual arrangements with Board members

·    Arranging a first Independent Sustainability Advisory Board meeting in December 2020.

Attachments

1.       Sustainability Board Potential Candidates Long List - A11903211 - Public Excluded   

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

10.7       Delegations relating to the Resource Management Act 1991

File Number:           A11960204

Author:                    Janine Speedy, Team Leader: City Planning

Authoriser:             Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       To delegate functions, powers and duties of Council to section 34A of the Resource Management Act (RMA) and the specific power to recognise national policy statements under section 55 of the RMA, to the Chief Executive.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receive the Report – Delegations relating to the Resource Management Act 1991.

(b)     Amends the Resource Management 1991 delegations specified in Attachment 1.

 

 

Executive Summary

2.       National Policy Statements enable central Government to prescribe objectives and policies of national significance which are relevant to achieving the purpose of the RMA. A national policy statement may also give particular direction to local authorities as to how they need to give effect, which can include mandatory requirements.

3.       The purpose of staff delegations is to provide appropriate authority to staff to enable them to perform their job to ensure the organisation can function effectively and efficiently.

4.       To ensure the organisation can function effectively and efficiently there is a recommendation to include general delegation to enable Council to undertake its responsibilities, powers and duties under the RMA. The proposed general delegation under the RMA is included as Attachment 1.

5.       The recommendations in this report also seek delegation for specific matter relating to national policy statements. The most recent national policy statements released by central Government, are the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) gazetted on 20 July 2020 and National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management (NPS-FM) gazetted on 3 September 2020.

6.       Section 55 of the RMA requires a local authority to amend a document like the City Plan, if a national policy statement directs so. Section 55 also states, that the local authority must make the amendments without using a Schedule 1 process.

7.       The functions and powers of Council under Section 55 of the RMA rest with Council’s governing body unless and until they are delegated. Existing delegations do not cover Section 55 of the RMA. It is recommended that the functions and powers under Section 55 of the RMA are delegated by Council to the Chief Executive as per Attachment 1.

 

Background

8.       Section 34A of the RMA provides for a local authority to delegate any functions, powers, or duties, except the following:

(a)     The approval of a proposed plan (Tauranga City Plan) under clause 17 of Schedule 1;

(b)     This power of delegation.

 

9.       This report seeks to provide general delegation to the Chief Executive under section 34A of the RMA. In these instances, the Chief Executive may only exercise these broad powers where the matter is not of such significance that it warrants being considered by the full Council and does not include the Schedule 1 process.

10.     Central Government create national policy statements to state objectives and policies for matters of national significance that are relevant in achieving the purpose of the RMA. The following national policy statements have been gazetted:

(a)     National Policy Statement on Urban Development

(b)     National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management

(c)     National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation

(d)     National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission

(e)     National Coastal Policy Statement

11.     It is anticipated that new national policy statements on Highly Productive Land and Indigenous Biodiversity are likely to take effect in the first half of 2021.

12.     National policy statements can set out mandatory directions. The mandatory directions require local authorities to amend their district plans to be consistent with the requirements of the relevant National Policy Statement without a Schedule 1 process (notification, submissions and hearings etc).

13.     Section 55 under the RMA provides for local authorities’ recognition of National Policy Statements. In accordance with section 55, a local authority must amend a document, if a National Policy Statement directs so:

a)      To include specific objectives and policies set out in the statement; or

b)      So that objectives and policies specified in the document give effect to objectives and policies specified in the statement; or

c)      If it is necessary to make the document consistent with any constraint or limit set out in the statement.

14.     The amendments required to implement mandatory directions in a national policy statement must be made without using the Schedule 1 process and give public notice once the amendments have been made to inform the public that this has been completed.

15.     Where this delegation is exercised and an amendment is made to the Tauranga City Plan under section 55 of the RMA, the amendment will be reported to the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee through the quarterly planning update report.

16.     The same level of delegation is already provided in Council’s Delegation Manual for similar requirements under the RMA (where a Schedule 1 process is not required). It is considered appropriate to include the same delegations under Section 55 of the RMA to the Chief Executive as included in Attachment 1.

Strategic / Statutory Context

17.     Necessary to enable Council to operate efficiently.

Options Analysis

18.     The following options are considered:

a)   Pass the resolutions to make the delegations specified in Attachment 1 (recommended).

 

 

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    Enable staff to perform their job in relation to new legislation and amendments to existing legislation.

·    The same level of delegation already sits with the Chief Executive for mandatory requirements under the RMA.

·    None.

 

b)   Do not pass the resolutions to make the delegations.

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    None

·    Meeting mandatory requirements under the national policy statement will be delayed as resolution from Council will be required to give effect to any mandatory requirements where options are not available.

 

Financial Considerations

19.     There are no financial implications to this report.

Legal Implications / Risks

20.     No legal implications or risks are identified with the recommendations.

Consultation / Engagement

21.     Council’s decision to delegate its authority is an administrative/operational matter and therefore does not require community consultation.

Significance

22.     The matters contained in this report have no significance under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Next Steps

23.     Council will progress necessary updates to the Tauranga City Plan to meet the mandatory requirements within a national policy statement.

Attachments

1.       Resource Management Act 1991 Delegations - Section 55 (proposed) - A11960193   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

Attachment 1 – Amendment to Resource Management Act 1991 Delegation

That the Council amends the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) Delegations made by Council on 26 November 2013 (M13/72.7) and amended on 17 November 2014 (M14/83.13), 20 March 2018 (M18/22.), 18 February 2019 (M19/6.2), 21 May 2019 (M19/30.5) and 10 September 2019 (M19/60.13) and 8 September 2020 (CO24/20/1), by delegating to the Chief Executive:

1.    The power to amend a document (including a plan, proposed plan or variation), pursuant to section 55(2) of the Act; and

2.    All responsibilities, powers, and duties of the Council under the Act, that are not already delegated by Council, except the power to approve a proposed plan under clause 17 of Schedule 1 or the power of delegation, pursuant to section 34A.

To reflect these amendments, the following table will be added to the Resource Management Act 1991 Delegation.

Section

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF Delegation

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991

CE

34A

All responsibilities, POWERS, OR DUTIES UNDER THE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991, EXCEPT THE POWER TO APPROVE A PROPOSED PLAN UNDER CLAUSE 17 OF SCHEDULE 1 OR THE POWER of delegation.

 

This delegation, pursuant to section 34a, is subject to any inconsistent specific delegation.

 

This delegation may only be exercised if the CE considers that the matter is not of such signigicance that it warrants being considered by the council

ü

55

the power To amend a DOCUMENT (INCLUDING A plan, proposed plan OR VARIATION) in accordance with section 55(2)

ü

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

10.8       Meetings schedule 2021

File Number:           A11941168

Author:                    Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

Authoriser:             Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       This report recommends the adoption of a meetings schedule for 2021 based on the governance structure and a six-weekly cycle of meetings.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report “Meetings schedule 2021”.

(b)     Adopts Attachment 1 as the meetings schedule for the period January to December 2021.

 

 

 

Background

2.       The Council may adopt a schedule of meetings to cover any future period the Council considers appropriate. It is recommended that the Council adopts a meetings schedule for the period January to December 2021, as included in Attachment 1.

3.       The schedule sets out a six-weekly meeting cycle, with committee meetings to be held in weeks 1-4, followed by week 5 with no meetings, and a Council meeting in week 6.

4.       The Council co-ordinates the joint committee meeting dates with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, the Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Smartgrowth.  For example, Tauranga City Council meetings are held on a Tuesday, Smartgrowth on a Wednesday and joint committees on a Friday.

5.       The Local Government New Zealand Conference, Zone 2 and Metro meeting dates are also included in the schedule.

6.       The following table sets out the  Long Term Plan 2021-31 (LTP) meeting dates in 2021.

Date

Meeting

3 - 4 February 2021

Council

1 March 2021

Council: Adopt LTP Supporting Documents

25 March 2021

Council: Adopt draft LTP and Consultation Document

11 May – 14 May  2021

Council – Hearing of submissions

2 June - 4 June 2021

Council – deliberations on LTP submissions

30 June 2021

Council - Adopt LTP

7.       There is a two week period from 12 to 23 April 2020 where only two meetings have been scheduled to enable the mayor and councillors to have time available during the middle of the LTP consultation/engagement period.

8.       There is also a  two week period from 12 to 23 July 2020 and a week from 4 to 8 October 2020 where no meetings are planned to be scheduled.

Strategic / Statutory Context

9.       Clause 19(6) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides for the Council to adopt a meetings schedule to cover any future period.

Options Analysis

Option 1 – Adopt the meetings schedule for 2021 (preferred option)

10.     The Council has the option of adopting a meetings schedule for the full year 2021.

11.     This option enables the mayor and councillors, staff and the public to know when meetings are scheduled for the year ahead.

12.     The Council has previously adopted a full year’s meetings schedule and this decision would be consistent with this practice. For these reasons this option is preferred.

13.     The Council can decide whether to have a shorter or longer meeting cycle within the year. Currently the six-weekly cycle enables all standing committee meetings to be held a week apart and for any recommendations from these committees to be considered by the Council in week 6. This means that all decisions are completed during that six-week period.  A longer meetings cycle would draw out this decision-making process.  A shorter meetings cycle would provide for a quicker decision-making timeframe. This has to be balanced against the additional pressure on resources within the Council.

Option 2 – Adopt a meetings schedule for a different time period

14.     The Council has the option of adopting a meetings schedule for a different time period; for example, three or six months or longer than one year.

15.     This option would still provide for certainty; however, a reduced timeframe can potentially make it more difficult to schedule meetings later in the year and a longer timeframe can be difficult to co-ordinate with other councils. For these reasons this option is not preferred.

Financial Considerations

16.     There are no financial considerations to adopting a meetings schedule.

Legal Implications / Risks

17.     The legislation provides for the adoption of a schedule of meetings.

Consultation / Engagement

18.     There is no requirement to consult or engage the community when adopting a meetings schedule.

Significance

19.     This matter is not considered to be significant in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

20.     Meetings schedule to be available on the Council’s website.

21.     Calendar requests sent out to Mayor and Councillors.

Attachments

1.       Draft Meetings Schedule January to December 2021 - A11969077   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

10.9       Appointments as a result of Councillor Abrie's resignation

File Number:           A11941182

Author:                    Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

Authoriser:             Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       To replace the vacancies on the Council’s committees as a result of Councillor Jako Abrie’s resignation.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report “Appointments as a result of Councillor Abrie’s resignation”

(b)     Confirms the appointment of Councillor Tina Salisbury as Deputy Chairperson of the Projects, Services and Operations Committee.

(c)     Confirms the appointment of the following councillors to various committees:

Committee

Membership

Tangata Whenua/Tauranga City Council

Councillor Larry Baldock

Regulatory

Councillor Larry Baldock

Wastewater Management Review Committee

Councillor Bill Grainger

Waiāri Kaitiaki Advisory Group

 

Councillor Larry Baldock

Tauranga Moana Advisory Group

 

Councillor Heidi Hughes

 

 

 

 

Background

2.       Councillor Jako Abrie resigned on 15 October 2020 and this has created a series of vacancies on the Council’s committees. 

3.       The Mayor recommends, following consultation with the Chairperson of the Projects, Services and Operations Committee, the appointment of Councillor Tina Salisbury as Deputy Chairperson of Projects, Services and Operations Committee.

4.       The Mayor recommends appointments to the following committees as set out in the table below:

 

 

 

 

 

Committee

Membership

Tangata Whenua/Tauranga City Council

Councillor Larry Baldock

Regulatory

Councillor Larry Baldock

Wastewater Management Review Committee

Councillor Bill Grainger

Waiāri Kaitiaki Advisory Group

 

Councillor Larry Baldock

Tauranga Moana Advisory Group

 

Councillor Heidi Hughes

 

5.       The appointments to these committees can be reviewed following the by-election for the Otumoetai-Pyes Pa ward in February 2021.

6.       The current membership of these committees is set out in the document Governance Structure Terms of Reference available on the Governance page of the Council’s website

Strategic / Statutory Context

7.       Section 41A(3)(b) enables the Mayor to exercise powers to establish standing committees and special committees and appoint committee chairpersons.  It is silent on the appointment of deputy chairpersons.  The Council has previously confirmed committee membership recommended by the Mayor and made changes to the Deputy Chairperson of the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee.

Options Analysis

Option 1 – Appoint to fill vacancies immediately

8.       This option would enable the vacancies to be filled immediately. 

9.       This is the preferred option as it would enable full membership of the committees and allow the Council to be adequately represented as set out in the terms of reference for those committees.

10.     This option does not preclude the Council from reassessing these and other appointments, not just those vacated by Cr Abrie’s resignation, once the new ward councillor has been elected and sworn in.

Option 2 – Delay appointment until after the by-election

11.     This option would leave the vacancies open until after the results of the by-election are known.

12.     The Council can continue to operate its committees with vacancies.  The Projects, Services and Operations Committee has the ability under standing orders to elect a member of the committee to chair the meeting if the Chairperson is unavailable to do so.

13.     This option would enable the Council to reassess all appointments, not just those vacated by Cr Abrie’s resignation, once the new ward councillor has been elected.

 

Financial Considerations

14.     There are no financial implications from filling these vacancies.

Legal Implications / Risks

15.     There are no legal implications or risks from filling these vacancies.

Consultation / Engagement

16.     The community is not required to be consulted or engaged on this matter.

Significance

17.     The item is not considered to be of significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

18.     Update lists of members and terms of reference to reflect the changes to committee membership.

Attachments

Nil


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

10.10     Leave of absence Mayor Powell

File Number:           A11974744

Author:                    Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

Authoriser:             Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       Mayor Tenby Powell has applied to the Council for a leave of absence from the Council for the period 20 November 2020 to 2 February 2021.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     In accordance with Standing Order 13.3, and the conditions of the leave as set out in Mayor Powell’s letter dated 5 November 2020, grants a leave of absence to Mayor Powell for the period 20 November 2020 to 2 February 2021.

 

 

 

Background

2.       Mayor Tenby Powell has applied for a leave of absence from Council for the period 20 November 2020 to 2 February 2021. Refer to Attachment 1 for the letter to the Council dated 5 November 2020.

3.       Mayor Powell has clarified that his leave will be taken without remuneration and in accordance with conditions as set out in the Remuneration Authority’s guidance on a mayor’s leave of absence . This guidance is available on the Remuneration Authority’s website.

4.       Generally an application for leave of absence is considered in public excluded business, however, the Mayor has publicly stated that he will be taking a leave of absence due to a recent diagnosis of prostate cancer.

5.       The Mayor has delegated to the Deputy Mayor Tina Salisbury the authority to carry out all Mayoral duties and responsibilities on his behalf during his absence.

 

Strategic / Statutory Context

6.       Standing Order 13.3 states that the Council may grant an application for leave of absence from the Mayor. A Council resolution is required.

7.       Meeting minutes will record that the Mayor has been granted a leave of absence as an apology for that meeting during the period of absence.

8.       Standing Order 13.5 states that the minutes may record, at the member’s request, if the member is absent due to sickness and other relevant reasons beyond the member’s control.

Financial Considerations

9.       There are no financial impacts from granting a leave of absence for the Mayor. 

Legal Implications / Risks

10.     There are no legal implications or risks from granting a leave of absence for the Mayor.

Consultation / Engagement

11.     There is no requirement to consult or engage on this matter.

Significance

12.     This matter is considered to be of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

13.     Leave of absence for the Mayor is recorded in the minutes of the Council and Committee meetings.

Attachments

1.       Mayor Tenby Powell - letter to Council requesting leave of absence - A11975406   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

17 November 2020

 

10.11     Review and Observer Team Report

File Number:           A11980446

Author:                    Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

Authoriser:             Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       The purpose of the report is to consider and decide on the Review and Observer Team’s options and recommendations.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the Review and Observer Team’s tabled report; and

(b)     Considers and decides on the Review and Observer Team’s options and recommendations as set out in the tabled report.

 

 

Background

2.       On 21 August 2020 Council received a report which addressed matters associated with elected members relationships, performance and behaviour and a letter received from the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) as a consequence of that performance. The DIA requested the Council provide evidence that it was taking steps to “restore trust and confidence in its ability to meet the Crown’s expectations of a high-performing council”.

3.       At that 21 August 2020 meeting Council resolved that:

·    Council initiated action to address the issue of Elected Member relationships is the most appropriate pathway.

·    the action will be a Council appointed Review and Observer Team.

·    the Chief Executive report back to Council as soon as practicable with draft Terms of Reference, recommended appointees, cost estimate and budget approval request.

4.       On 2 September 2020 Council received a report and appointed Peter Winder as the Chair of the Review and Observer Team with the ability to select up to further two team members. Linda Tuhiwai Smith and Basil Morrison were subsequently selected. The Council approved expenditure of $350,000 for costs associated with the Team.  The Council also approved the terms of reference (set out in Attachment 1) which sets out the role, purpose and extent of authority of the Review and Observer Team and includes a reporting requirement that within four to six weeks of their appointment the Review and Observer Team will produce a recommended action plan.

5.       The Council further resolved on 2 September 2020 to:

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

·        Problem definition

·        Diagnosis of cause/s of the problem

·        What does ‘success’ look like going forward?

·        Proposed action plan”

 

Strategic / Statutory Context

6.       Part 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 contains relevant provisions to possible Crown intervention in the affairs and governance of Council.   This was set out in some detail in the report to the Council on 21 August 2020 and is not replicated here.

Review and Observer team options and recommendations

7.       The Review and Observer Team will table and present their options and recommendations at the meeting. 

8.       The Council will consider and decide on those options and recommendations.

Financial Considerations

9.       Unbudgeted expenditure of $350,000 for costs associated with the Council Appointed Review and Observer Team was approved on 2 September 2020 with actual costs reported to Council on a quarterly basis.

Legal Implications / Risks

10.     Refer also to Part 10 of the Local Government Act 2020 for legislative implications and risks related to possible Crown intervention in the affairs and governance of Council.

Consultation / Engagement

11.     It is considered that community engagement on this matter and associated options is not appropriate.

Significance

12.     It is assessed that this matter is of medium significance in accordance with the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

13.     To be determined following the Council’s decisions on the options and recommendations of the Review and Observer Team.

Attachments

1.       Terms of Reference Review and Observer Team - 2 September 2020 - A11862