Agenda of Policy Committee Meeting

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

8 Business

8.1 Review of the External Representatives' Remuneration Policy - Issues and Options

File Number: A11611457

Author: Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

Keren Paekau, Team Leader: Takawaenga Maori

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To agree options for tangata whenua remuneration in response to a review of the External Representatives’ Remuneration Policy.

Recommendations

That the Policy Committee:

(a) Agree to separate the current External Representatives Remuneration Policy into two policies, one on tangata whenua remuneration and the other external community representative’s remuneration.

(b) Agree that the policy on tangata whenua remuneration include the following:

i. That tangata whenua appointed to Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana receive a set meeting fee, inclusive of any pre-or post-meeting work, of $270 per meeting for members and $365 for the Chairperson.

ii. That tangata whenua appointed to committees (except standing committees of the whole) or advisory groups with joint elected member and tangata whenua membership receive a set meeting fee of $270 per meeting, inclusive of any pre-or post-meeting work.

iii. That tangata whenua appointed to advise on council projects be remunerated at a rate of $150 per hour via an agreed contract with specified responsibilities and deliverables.

iv. That no mileage allowance will be made available to tangata whenua representatives.

v. That no travel time allowance will be payable.

vi. That tangata whenua remuneration will be reviewed upon each update of the Cabinet fees framework.

(c) Note that remuneration for community representatives will be considered at a later date following completion of a review of community advisory groups or as part of planned policy reviews.

Executive Summary

2. The 2009 External Representatives’ Remuneration Policy (the policy) recognises that tangata whenua and community representatives invited to participate in council processes should be “nominally compensated” for their contribution. The policy establishes a set meeting fee of $170 to be paid for representatives on governance-level committees and certain types of projects while outlining where remuneration is at council’s discretion. A copy of the policy is at attachment one to this report.

3. The policy also outlines the scope of the Tangata Whenua Collective (now Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana) and provides for remuneration by way of the set meeting fee. Tangata whenua have requested a review of the set meeting fee, noting that the fees have not been reviewed for some time and may not reflect an appropriate level of remuneration.

4. The policy also provides for community representatives to be nominally compensated for participation in some council processes. However, review of that remuneration will be considered at a later date to allow for the policy to reflect any changes to the community advice model. The Public Art and Use of Toxic Agrichemicals Policies establishing the Public Art Advisory Group and Toxic Agrichemicals Advisory Forum (TAAF) are scheduled to be reviewed in the next calendar year. As such, consideration of the role of those groups and associated remuneration may be considered as part of those reviews.

5. This report requests the Committee agree preferred options for when tangata whenua will be compensated, for what services, and appropriate remuneration for services and advice provided.

Background

6. The policy establishes when community representatives and tangata whenua invited to participate in council advisory forums, committees or projects are entitled to receive the set meeting fee. It also outlines the general purpose and function of Te Rangapū and sets out how Council will support Te Rangapū, including the set meeting fee payment. The policy was last reviewed in 2009 (with a minor amendment in 2010). However, the set meeting fee is present in arrangements for payment to tangata whenua dating to the early 2000s. At the time of policy adoption, the set meeting fee was consistent with the remuneration structure for councillors.

7. Council acknowledged in November 2019 that the set meeting fee was insufficient to attract candidates with suitable skills and experience to positions as tangata whenua representatives on standing committees of the whole. As such, Council agreed to increase the remuneration payable to tangata whenua appointed to standing committees to $8,000 per annum, inclusive of any pre- or post-meeting work. Other recent decisions outside the policy include agreement to pay hapū representatives appointed to the Tauriko planning project $135 per hour. Representatives were also able to claim two hours per meeting for pre and post-meeting work. This payment recognised the importance of hapū input into a significant future planning project.

8. A review of the External Representatives’ Remuneration Policy was included on the policy and bylaw work programme approved by the Policy Committee (the Committee) in June 2020. A request was also made to review the policy and the set meeting fee was made at the June 2020 Tangata Whenua / Tauranga City Council Committee meeting. In response to the Tangata Whenua Committee and additional discussions with Te Rangapū, staff commissioned an external review of tangata whenua remuneration. This review (undertaken by Strategic Pay) recommended using the Cabinet fees framework as a model for determining remuneration as it is designed to ensure consistent remuneration across advisory groups and prudent financial management. It is also flexible to respond to the different skills and expertise required of individuals appointed to provide advice to public sector agencies. This framework informed, in part, the remuneration for tangata whenua on standing committees. A copy of the Strategic Pay report is appended at attachment two.

9. A review of the policy is an opportunity to address the following issues identified through a staff review:

· Whether to create a separate policy outlining tangata whenua remuneration

· The reasons for remunerating tangata whenua providing advice to council (policy purpose)

· The decision-making and advisory forums and roles that should be specified in the policy

· The appropriate remuneration for those decision-making and advisory forums and roles included in the policy

· Any other allowances that should be made available to tangata whenua representatives.

Issues outside scope

10. While the policy needs updating to reflect the current model of advisory groups and specific decisions not to pay some groups, options for addressing community representative remuneration are best addressed once agreement is reached on a preferred model for community advisory groups. The community development team are currently working through recommendations arising from an external review of the disability, positive ageing, and youth advisory groups. Delaying discussion of community representative remuneration also allows for planned policy reviews to consider the role of advisory groups established through the Use of Toxic Agrichemicals for Vegetation Management and Public Art Policies. As such, this policy review only considers tangata whenua remuneration to address the concerns raised through the Tangata Whenua / TCC Committee.

11. As Council only recently decided appropriate remuneration for tangata whenua on standing committees, it is not re-considered through this policy review. However, the policy will capture Council’s previous decision on the matter.

12. Council pays iwi and hapū representatives for cultural monitoring of earthworks and cultural impact assessments. Costs for such are included overall project budgets and are outside the scope of this policy.

Strategic / Statutory Context

13. Councils are required to provide opportunities for Māori to contribute to decision-making. Funding and support for Te Rangapū, tangata whenua representatives on Council committees, and participation in advisory and project groups supports this requirement.

14. Involvement from tangata whenua in the development and implementation of council strategies, plans and policies supports the provision of quality advice and aids decision-making.

Options Analysis

Issue one: Requirement for a policy on tangata whenua remuneration

15. The policy sets out when community representatives and tangata whenua will receive the set meeting fee payment. Other councils maintain separate policies for tangata whenua and community representative remuneration or note the meeting fee for advisory groups in the groups’ terms of reference.

16. A review of the policy provides an opportunity for the Committee to first consider whether a policy (or policies) is the best option for detailing and clarifying when tangata whenua and community representatives will be compensated for participating in council decision-making processes.

17. The Committee could consider the following options for documenting tangata whenua and community representatives’ remuneration:

· Whether to retain a single policy for all external representatives

· Developing a separate, single policy for tangata whenua and a separate, single policy for community representatives

Table one: Advantages and disadvantages of options to clarify and document when remuneration is paid

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
1.1.1	Retain single policy outlining payment for both tangata whenua and community representatives (status quo)	· Provides a position on external representatives’ remuneration · Most external representatives are covered by the one policy · Convenient and simple way to capture all engagement activity where remuneration is outlined.	· Does not recognise the partnership relationship between Council and iwi and hapū · Inconsistent with practices at other councils to document compensation in advisory groups terms of reference
1.1.2	Develop separate, standalone policy for tangata whenua remuneration and rescind those parts of the current policy relating to tangata whenua remuneration (recommended)	· Supported by Te Rangapū · Recognises the partnership relationship between Council and iwi and hapū · Provides for tangata whenua remuneration to be reviewed separately from other community representatives in the future	· Potential for duplication across policies

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

1.1.1

Retain single policy outlining payment for both tangata whenua and community representatives

(status quo)

· Provides a position on external representatives’ remuneration

· Most external representatives are covered by the one policy

· Convenient and simple way to capture all engagement activity where remuneration is outlined.

· Does not recognise the partnership relationship between Council and iwi and hapū

· Inconsistent with practices at other councils to document compensation in advisory groups terms of reference

1.1.2

Develop separate, standalone policy for tangata whenua remuneration and rescind those parts of the current policy relating to tangata whenua remuneration

(recommended)

· Supported by Te Rangapū

· Recognises the partnership relationship between Council and iwi and hapū

· Provides for tangata whenua remuneration to be reviewed separately from other community representatives in the future

· Potential for duplication across policies

Issue two: Purpose of the policy

18. The current policy purpose is to ensure tangata whenua are nominally compensated for their participation in council decision-making. This purpose does not recognise that remuneration is a payment for provision of advice. The Cabinet fees framework recognises that payment to persons on advisory groups is in part recognition of the person’s skills, experience and technical knowledge. Clause 5.3.5 of the current policy recognises that tangata whenua involvement in strategic policy planning is a high priority where council does not retain in-house expertise. This recognises that tangata whenua involvement is more than just participation.

19. In considering the purpose of the policy in remunerating tangata whenua, the Committee could retain the existing emphasis on payment for time and participation or establish in the purpose that payment is in recognition of the skills and experience provided by tangata whenua.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
2.1	Payment is for time and participation (status quo)	· Nil	· Policy purpose may not reflect the role of tangata whenua in providing advice and expertise · Inconsistent with Cabinet fees framework
2.2	Payment is in recognition of skills, experience and technical knowledge (recommended)	· Purpose reflects the role of tangata whenua to provide council with advice and expertise · Consistent with Cabinet fees framework	· Nil

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

2.1

Payment is for time and participation

(status quo)

· Nil

· Policy purpose may not reflect the role of tangata whenua in providing advice and expertise

· Inconsistent with Cabinet fees framework

2.2

Payment is in recognition of skills, experience and technical knowledge

(recommended)

· Purpose reflects the role of tangata whenua to provide council with advice and expertise

· Consistent with Cabinet fees framework

· Nil

Issue three: Decision-making initiatives and activity to be included in policy scope

20. The policy provides for tangata whenua to be paid when participating in meetings of Te Rangapū, project advisory groups for significant projects, and governance-level committees (defined as committees or joint committees established under schedule 7 part 30 of the LGA 02) where tangata whenua are part the membership. The current governance structure and terms of reference include two such committees;

· Tangata Whenua / TCC Committee

· Wastewater Management Review Committee

21. Council’s governance structure includes two other advisory groups (Dive Crescent and Waiari Kaitiaki) as well as Ngā Poutiriao o Mauao where councillors and tangata whenua representatives comprise the membership. While Ngā Poutiriao o Mauao is a joint management board and not a governance-level initiative, the set meeting fee payment is made available to tangata representatives on that board.

22. The current policy notes that tangata whenua may be invited to formally provide advice as part of a formal project technical advisory group. However, staff may also seek advice from tangata whenua outside of a formal project environment.

23. If the Committee agreed to option 3.1, the definition of governance-level initiative in the policy would be amended to reflect any committee or advisory group where membership comprises both elected members and tangata whenua and is formally included in the council governance structure or committee terms of reference.

24. The Committee should consider which decision-making and advisory forums and roles should be included in a policy.

· ·

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
3.1	Include Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana, all committees and advisory groups with joint membership included in the governance structure, and advice on projects in policy (status quo) (recommended)	· All activity where council seeks expertise and advice from tangata whenua captured in the one document · Supports a partnership approach between tangata whenua and council · Consistent with other councils and current practice	· Nil
3.2	Do not reference Te Rangapū in policy	· Nil	· Policy does not cover all advisory or governance roles undertaken by tangata whenua · Inconsistent with current approach
3.3	Do not reference project advisory groups
3.4
Do not reference remuneration for advice provided by tangata whenua on standing committees
3.5
Do not reference remuneration for tangata whenua on other governance-level bodies

Issue four: Appropriate remuneration for tangata whenua representatives

25. As noted in paragraph eight above, an external review confirmed that the Cabinet fees framework provided a model for fairly assessing tangata whenua remuneration. Under the framework, tangata whenua appointed to committees or advisory groups with a mix of tangata whenua and elected member membership would be included in the group four category – “all other committees and bodies”. This category outlines remuneration for persons appointed to bodies to provide general or specific advice on a department’s functions and responsibilities. Remuneration within this category is determined by consideration of skills, knowledge and experience required for members, the function, level and scope of authority, the complexity of issues and the level of public interest and profile. The actual fees “reflect an element of public service and community commitment” as well as “the personal contribution and recognition of intangible benefits to the member”.

Issue 4.1 – Payment for Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana

26. Te Rangapū expressed preference to retain a set meeting fee payment. However, the Cabinet fees framework uses a formula where a daily rate is identified and then paid pro-rata based on an eight-hour workday. The daily rate recommended for Te Rangapū is $250 to $365 for the chairperson and $190 to $270 for members, with Strategic Pay recommending remuneration be at the upper end of those ranges. The strict application of the Cabinet fees framework formula (an hourly rate) may result in representatives being paid less than the current set meeting fee. The external review noted this issue and recommended retention of a set meeting fee, with the fee being the upper end of the recommended daily rate. While some councils pay an hourly rate for similar Māori advisory groups, other councils continue to pay a set meeting fee. At Western Bay of Plenty District Council, a set meeting fee of $250 is paid to its equivalent of Te Rangapū.

27. Te Rangapū are provided an annual budget to cover meeting fees and other agreed activities. Rather than the policy determining the meeting fee, the Committee could decide to provide the Rangapū with flexibility to agree amongst themselves the meeting fee from the overall budget. This is similar to the approach taken to determine councillor salaries from an overall salary pool.

28. The committee could consider the following options regarding payment for Te Rangapū:

· Retaining a set meeting fee of $170

· Increasing the set meeting fee to $250 for chairperson and $190 for members (lower range option in Strategic Pay report)

· Increasing the set meeting to $365 for chairperson and $270 for members with no compensation for pre-and post-meeting work (higher range option in Strategic Pay report)

· Increasing the set meeting fee to $365 for chair and $270 for members inclusive of pre-and post-meeting work

· Providing an hourly rate with time for pre-and post-meeting work

· Providing an hourly rate with no payment for pre and post meeting work

· Allowing Te Rangapū to determine meeting fee from an agreed budget

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
4.1.1	Retain set meeting fee of $170 for Te Rangapū (status quo)	· No impact on budget	· May not attract members with desired skills and experience · Does not address concerns from Te Rangapū that current rate is inadequate · Rate is lower than other councils
4.1.2	Increase meeting fee to $250 for chairperson and $190 for members	· Te Rangapū supported set meeting fee · Consistent with other councils and current practice · Addresses concerns that the set meeting fee is too low	· Minor impact on budget · Does not recognise potential for pre- and post-meeting work.
4.1.3	Increase meeting fee to $365 for chairperson and $270 for members recognising meeting time and pre-and post-meeting work. (recommended)	· Supported by independent external review · Te Rangapū supported set meeting fee · Addresses concerns that the set meeting fee is too low · Recognises that providing meaningful feedback to staff may require pre-and post-meeting work	· Potential impact on budget (proposed budget in long-term plan anticipates increase in remuneration)
4.1.4	Increase meeting fee to $365 for chairperson and $270 for members recognising meeting time but exclusive of any pre-and post-meeting work.	· Supported by independent external review · Te Rangapū supported set meeting fee · Addresses concerns that the set meeting fee is too low · Recognises that providing meaningful feedback to staff may require pre-and post-meeting work	· Potential impact on budget (proposed budget in long-term plan anticipates increase in remuneration) · Does not recognise potential for pre- and post-meeting work.
4.1.5	Pay Te Rangapū an hourly rate based on fees framework daily rate with no remuneration for work outside formal meetings	· Consistent with Cabinet fees framework	· Potential that members could be paid less than current set meeting fee · Te Rangapū expressed preference for set meeting fee payment
4.1.6	Pay Te Rangapū an hourly rate based on fees framework daily rate for up to five hours (per month) including preparation time and work outside formal meetings	· Consistent with Cabinet fees framework · Recognises potential requirement to undertake pre and post-meeting work	· Potential impact on budget for Te Rangapū · Te Rangapū expressed preference for set meeting fee payment
4.1.7	Te Rangapū to determine members’ meeting fee from an overall remuneration pool	· Consistent with how elected member salary is determined and disbursed	· Current budget allocation is based on $170 meeting fee and may require budget increase

29. There is no proposal to reduce or remove the ability to provide additional compensation to the Chairperson. This will remain at the discretion of the Te Rangapū so long as any additional compensation remains within the overall budget allocated to Te Rangapū.

Issue 4.2 -Tangata whenua on committees or advisory groups with joint membership of councillors and tangata whenua

30. The November 2019 resolution to increase the remuneration for tangata whenua appointed to standing committees of the whole did not extend to all committees or advisory groups with membership consisting of both tangata whenua and elected members. This includes, for example, Ngā Poutiriao o Mauao and the Wastewater Review Committee. The external review recommended that remuneration for such committees or advisory groups be the same as recommended for Te Rangapū (a daily rate of $250 to $365 for chairpersons and $190 to $270 for members). As with payment of a pro-rata daily rate to members of Te Rangapū, a pro-rata daily rate may result in members of committees and advisory groups receiving less than the current set meeting fee.

31. With regards to remuneration for tangata whenua on committees or other advisory groups the Committee could consider the following:

· Increase the set meeting fee to the equivalent of the daily rate

· Apply the Cabinet fees framework formula and pay the daily rate on a pro-rata basis, or

· Retain the current set meeting fee.

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
4.2.1	Provide a set meeting fee consistent with that paid for Te Rangapū for all tangata whenua representatives on standing committees (other than of the whole) or other advisory groups with joint membership included in the governance structure (recommended)	· Consistent with proposed remuneration for Te Rangapū members	· Potential minor impact on budget
4.2.2	Pay tangata whenua on non-standing committees of the whole or other advisory groups with joint membership an hourly rate based on fees framework daily rate	· Consistent with Cabinet fees framework	· Potential that members could be paid less than current set meeting fee
4.2.3	Retain current set meeting fee of $170 (status quo)	· No impact on budget	· Inconsistent with proposed remuneration for Te Rangapū members · Does not address concerns that current set meeting fee is inadequate compensation · May not attract members with desired skills and experience

32. The Chief Executive recently used his delegated authority (through the current policy) to approve compensation of $5,000 per annum for the chairperson of the Tangata Whenua Committee. The revised policy will retain this delegation allowing the Chief Executive to negotiate additional compensation for tangata whenua appointed as chairperson of a council committee or advisory group.

Issue 4.3 – Remuneration for advice to projects

33. Tangata whenua invited to participate on projects are entitled to compensation of $170 per meeting. As noted above, it was agreed to pay hapū representatives advising on the Tauriko planning project an hourly rate of $135 per hour. This recognised both the importance of hapū input into that project and the requirement for specialist expertise and knowledge. It is also commensurate with the rate paid by other councils for project advice. Western Bay provides for an hourly rate based on four hours for both meeting time and any pre-or post-meeting work.

34. Any agreed rate for project advice will apply when a tangata whenua representative has been appointed or nominated to provide project advice by an iwi or hapū, Te Rangapū or council committee. Additional specialist technical advice may be procured to support tangata whenua through the use of a professional services contract where required. Providing for tangata whenua remuneration in this policy does not mean a tangata whenua representative will advise on all council projects. In general, tangata whenua representatives will be appointed where the relevant knowledge is not available in-house. Appointment of a tangata whenua representative to advise on a specific project remains at the discretion of the project manager or budget holder.

35. The external review recognised that tangata whenua representatives appointed to advise on council projects would generally have broad community support and substantial knowledge and experience in a field of expertise above that of persons appointed to non-standing committees of the whole or other advisory groups. The report recommended remuneration of $280 to $575 for chairpersons and $205 to $395 for other appointees. Again, this is a daily rate intended to be paid pro-rata based on an eight-hour day. Applying a pro-rata rate will likely result in representatives receiving less than the current set meeting fee and rate paid for some projects.

36. With regards to remuneration for tangata advice to projects, the committee could consider the following:

· Retaining the current set meeting fee

· Increase set meeting fee to $395 either inclusive or exclusive of any pre-and post meeting work

· Establishing an hourly rate based on $395 daily rate pro rata, either inclusive or exclusive of any pre-and post-meeting work

· Establishing an hourly rate, either allowing or disallowing any compensation for pre- and post-meeting work

· Remuneration for tangata whenua to be agreed with project manager or budget holder.

37. It should be noted that where an hourly rate is applied it would be contracted by way of a short form agreement which would specify the responsibilities and deliverables associated with the payment.

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
4.3.1	Retain set meeting fee of $170 for advice provided to projects (status quo)	· No impact on project budgets	· May not attract members with desired skills and experience · Does not address concerns from Te Rangapū that current rate is inadequate · Rate is lower than other councils
4.3.2	Increase set meeting fee to $395 inclusive of pre-and post-meeting work	· Recognises potential requirement for work outside formal meetings (such as consultation with hapū)	· Potential impact on project budgets
4.3.3	Establish an hourly rate based on $395 daily rate recommended by fees framework	· Te Rangapū expressed preference for an hourly rate · Consistent with Cabinet fees framework	· Representatives may be paid less than current set meeting fee · Inconsistent with rate paid by other councils for project advice
4.3.4	Establish an hourly rate based on $395 daily rate allowing for up to two hours pre-and post-meeting work	· Consistent with Cabinet fees framework · Recognises potential requirement to undertake pre-and post-meeting work
4.3.5
Establish an hourly rate of $150 for advice to a project allowing for pre- and post-meeting work (recommended)	· Consistent with other councils and current practice for some projects · Te Rangapū expressed preference for hourly rate · Recognises potential requirement to undertake pre-and post-meeting work	· Potential impact on project budgets · Inconsistent with Cabinet fees framework
4.3.6	Establish an hourly rate of $150 for time spent in meetings (no compensation for pre- or post-meeting work).	· Consistent with other councils and current practice for some projects · Te Rangapū expressed preference for hourly rate	· Potential impact on project budgets · Inconsistent with Cabinet fees framework · Does not recognise potential volume of work undertaken outside of formal meetings (eg; hui with hapū, reading of materials)
4.3.7	Remuneration for tangata whenua on project groups to be agreed with project manager or budget holder	· Nil	· Inconsistent with current policy and other councils · Te Rangapū expressed preference for rate to be included in policy · Potential for tangata whenua advice to be remunerated differently between projects

Issue five – Number of meeting fees that can be claimed in a single day

38. Under the current policy, a tangata whenua representative may only claim one meeting fee per day. This means a representative may attend a Te Rangapū meeting in the morning and a project advisory meeting in the afternoon but only receive $170 compensation. The committee should consider whether to retain or remove this rule.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
5.1	Only one meeting fee or payment can be claimed in a single day (status quo)	· Potential less impact on overall budget costs	· May not adequately compensate for the advice and expertise provided by tangata whenua
5.2	Allow tangata whenua representatives to claim meeting fee and separate hourly payment where representative also provided direct advice to projects outside formal meetings (recommended)	· May better reflect the value of advice and expertise provided by tangata whenua	· Potential impact on budgets

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

5.1

Only one meeting fee or payment can be claimed in a single day

(status quo)

· Potential less impact on overall budget costs

· May not adequately compensate for the advice and expertise provided by tangata whenua

5.2

Allow tangata whenua representatives to claim meeting fee and separate hourly payment where representative also provided direct advice to projects outside formal meetings

(recommended)

· May better reflect the value of advice and expertise provided by tangata whenua

· Potential impact on budgets

Issue six - Other allowances

39. The current policy only provides for tangata whenua appointed to governance-level committees to claim a mileage allowance. No travel time allowance is payable. The external review recommended that mileage be paid at the standard IRD rate for both governance-level committees and advisory groups and advice to projects.

40. The committee could consider whether to continue allowing a mileage claim for governance level meetings, provide for Te Rangapū to similarly claim a mileage allowance, or be consistent with the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy and only provide for a mileage allowance for travel outside the Tauranga area.

Issue 6.1 - Mileage

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
6.1.1	Pay mileage only for governance-level initiatives (status quo)	· Consistent with current policy	· Mileage allowance not made available to tangata whenua providing advice to projects. · Mileage allowance not made available to Te Rangapū · Continued availability of mileage allowance does not take into consideration increase in overall remuneration for tangata whenua appointed to standing committees of the whole
6.1.2	Allow all tangata whenua appointed to Te Rangapū, governance-level committees and advisory groups included in governance structure, or to provide project advice to claim mileage allowance at IRD rate	· Mileage allowance made available to all tangata whenua representatives	· Potential impact on budget · Inconsistent with policy on elected members’ remuneration
6.1.3	Allow all tangata whenua appointed to Te Rangapū, governance-level committees or to provide project advice to claim mileage at IRD for travel outside the Tauranga City Council area only (recommended)	· Consistent with policy on elected members’ remuneration	· Tangata whenua representatives currently able to claim mileage may no longer be entitled to this allowance if they do not travel from outside the Tauranga City Council area. · Potential impact on project budgets
6.1.4	Do not pay mileage	· No impact on budget · Reflects proposed increase in remuneration	· Inconsistent with current policy and approach in Elected Members’ Expenses Policy · Potential perception that tangata whenua are unfairly compensated

Issue 6.2- Travel time allowance

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
6.2.1	Pay travel time allowance	· Recognition that members may be required to travel distance	· Inconsistent with current policy, Elected Members’ Expenses Policy and Cabinet fees framework · Potential impact on budget
6.2.2	Do not pay travel time allowance (recommended)	· Consistent with current policy and Elected Members’ Expenses Policy · No impact on budget	· Nil

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

6.2.1

Pay travel time allowance

· Recognition that members may be required to travel distance

· Inconsistent with current policy, Elected Members’ Expenses Policy and Cabinet fees framework

· Potential impact on budget

6.2.2

Do not pay travel time allowance

(recommended)

· Consistent with current policy and Elected Members’ Expenses Policy

· No impact on budget

· Nil

Financial Considerations

41. Any increase in payment to tangata whenua on governance-level committees (excluding standing committees of the whole) or Te Rangapū will impact on the current financial year budget allocated to support this activity. This may mean an overspend in the budget allocated to this activity in the current financial year with a requirement for an increase in the next long-term plan. The draft budget for Te Rangapū recommends an increase from just over $100,000 to $145,000 per annum.

42. Any amendments to the suggested rate for advice to projects will need to be incorporated into overall project budgets.

Legal Implications / Risks

43. There are no identified legal implications or other risks associated with the recommended options noted above.

Consultation / Engagement

44. Staff meet with Te Rangapū in July 2020 to discuss concerns about the current set meeting fee; the fee being the same for many years, and it not being sufficient remuneration for project groups. Feedback from that meeting is incorporated into the substantive comments and recommendations above.

45. In particular, Te Rangapū expressed interest in an independent assessment of remuneration for project advice and attendance at Te Rangapū. This independent assessment was undertaken by Strategic Pay in September 2020 with the recommendations discussed with Te Rangapū in November 2020. Feedback from those recommendations are incorporated into the above recommendations.

46. As the policy review is of low to medium significance affecting only a subgroup with limited wider public interest, no further consultation or external engagement is recommended.

Significance

47. Under the Significance and Engagement Policy, the recommended decisions are of low significance as they do not have an impact on the wider community. As such, no consultation is required in regard to the recommended decisions.

Next Steps

48. Subject to decisions made at this meeting, a Tangata Whenua Remuneration Policy or a revised External Representatives Remuneration Policy will be presented to the next Committee meeting for adoption.

49. Subject to determination of the preferred model for community advisory groups, the Committee may be asked to address the issue of remuneration for community representatives in 2021 or as part of other policy reviews scheduled for next calendar year.

Attachments

1. External Representatives Policy 2009 - A11641234 ⇩

2. Strategic Pay Recommendation for Tangata Whenua Pay report - A11875796 ⇩

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

PDF Creator

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

PDF Creator

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

8.2 Review of the Procurement Policy - Issues and Options

File Number: A11864725

Author: Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

Angela Murray, Team Leader: Procurement

Authoriser: Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek Council decisions on preferred options in response to issues identified from a review of council’s Procurement Policy (the policy).

Recommendations

That the Policy Committee:

(a) Agree that a draft Procurement Policy be reported back to the committee reflecting the following amendments;

(i) a revised policy purpose recognising the role of sustainable procurement activity in supporting broader social, cultural, economic and environmental outcomes

(ii) including strategic objectives for procurement of xx, xx, xx.

(iii) revised general procurement principles to achieve public value, act in a fair and transparent manner, be sustainable and work together

(iv) increased thresholds allowing direct procurement up to $250,000 and delegating authority to the Chief Executive to exempt certain procurement with a total value of no more than $500,000 from the open competition requirement

(v) increasing the threshold for closed competition to $250,000

(vi) requirement for variations to only be approved where there is no change in project deliverable and there are demonstrated significant logistical, economic, or timing benefits to varying a contract.

(b) Agree to remove the business process guidance included in the current procurement manual to a separate procurement manual.

Executive Summary

2. The Procurement Policy (the policy) (appended at attachment one) was first adopted in 2011 with very minor amendments made in subsequent years. The last substantive review in 2015 was focused on ensuring council procurement adhered to new health and safety at work legislation. However, there has been no comprehensive review of the policy since its adoption. Reviewing the policy provides an opportunity to ensure the policy is appropriate for the scale of council procurement and identify how that procurement activity can influence the broader social, economic, environmental, and cultural outcomes.

3. Regular reviews of procurement policies ensure that agreed approaches reflect changes in the supply market, procurement processes and take into account wider contextual issues. A policy review is an opportunity to address staff concerns that the policy is a barrier to undertaking collaborative and flexible procurement.

4. This report identifies options in response to issues identified through a staff review of the policy. The Committee is asked to agree a preferred response to those options to incorporate into a draft Procurement Policy.

Background

5. The current 2011 policy establishes the purpose of council procurement as achieving value for money and ensuring products, services, and works are bought using “commercially astute and appropriate processes”. Value for money is defined as “the best available outcome for the money spent” and requires consideration of the whole of life cost. It is not necessarily the lowest price. A 2018 Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services (BOPLASS)-commissioned study on sustainable public procurement in the region noted that while value for money was seen to include sustainable considerations, there was concern that price continued to drive selection. The BOPLASS study recommended councils in the region adopt a sustainable procurement approach.

6. In May 2020, the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) issued advice suggesting councils expand their understanding of value to incorporate consideration of social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being outcomes. This reflects the re-introduction of the four well-beings into the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 02) and mirrors the broader outcomes in the Government Procurement Rules (the Rules). The Rules define broader outcomes as the secondary benefits that are generated by the way a good, service or works is produced or delivered. These outcomes can be social, environmental, cultural or economic benefits. A focus on broader outcomes does not mean good financial value or ensuring fit for purpose solutions are not a priority. Rather, the Rules require agencies to seek good public value from procurement activity through consideration of the broader outcomes, the whole of life costs across the contract, and ensuring a fit for purpose solution.

7. Discussion commenced in October 2020 around making the Rules mandatory for local government. However, at present, councils are only encouraged, but not required, to have regard to the Rules. The Rules are informed by clear principles outlining the objectives and values underpinning procurement activity. Some councils also separate business process from policy through the development of staff procurement manuals. In contrast, Council’s policy is a mix of principles and procedural, “how-to”, advice to staff. The policy also contains references to strategic objectives for procurement – achieving local outcomes and sustainability. While some councils include these strategic objectives in their policy principles, the principles in the Rules are separate from the Government’s procurement charter outlining their strategic objectives for procurement.

8. The May 2020 OAG report also noted that procurement policies should be regularly reviewed as procurement processes evolve, new priorities emerge, laws and rules change, and market conditions develop. Council’s policy has not been reviewed since 2015 and remains largely the same as that first adopted in 2011. Feedback from staff at the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) supported moves toward plain language, easy to read procurement policies. Undertaking a policy review now allows for consideration of how the policy can support new, innovative, or flexible procurement processes as well as making it easier to read and understand. Industry feedback suggests that responsive and innovative procurement is required to support economic activity post-COVID 19.

9. Concerns have been raised over the flexibility of the policy, particularly the open competition requirement for all procurement over $100,000 (excluding GST). While this threshold is the same as in the Rules and New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) Procurement Manual, it has remained the same for several years and not been subject to inflation adjustments. The Chief Executive can approve exemptions to this requirement for procurement up to $200,000 (excluding GST) otherwise staff must seek Council approval to directly appoint a contract with a total value of more than $200,000 (excluding GST). In the ten years since this policy was adopted, council’s annual capital expenditure has increased from $78 million to over $200 million. A review of the policy will ensure that our practices are appropriate for procurement of that scale.

10. In summary, contemporary procurement policies:

· Recognise the role of procurement activity in supporting broader well-being outcomes

· Reference strategic objectives for procurement aligned to the broader outcomes

· Include clear general principles supporting good procurement practice

· Encourage flexible and innovative procurement processes

· Exclude procedural guidance from the policy with this guidance incorporated into separate procurement manuals

Strategic / Statutory Context

11. As noted in paragraph two above, the policy review allows for consideration of how council procurement can achieve the broader wellbeing outcomes recently added back into the LGA 02. The LGA 02 also states that councils must undertake “commercial transactions in accordance with sound business practices” and “ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources”. A robust policy supports these requirements.

12. While developing this issues and options paper, staff were aware of concurrent work to establish an independent sustainability advisory board. Any board may be interested in providing advice and feedback on the policy, recognising that procurement activity can contribute to sustainable outcomes.

Financial Considerations

13. Including consideration of broader outcomes through the addition of extra non-financial weighted attributes in procurement plans may increase the overall cost of the product or service. While good procurement outcomes are not necessarily about the lowest price, it is important to note that good procurement outcomes require balanced judgement of financial and non-financial factors related to the procurement. The NZTA Procurement Manual requires a price weighting to be between 10-70%. As noted in issue one below, a public value approach to procurement recognises this need to balance price and fit for purpose products and services with achieving broader outcomes.

14. As noted in issue four below, the policy includes thresholds for open competition with approval for exemptions delegated to the Chief Executive and Council. Issue four outlines the current thresholds for open and closed competition, why they require review, and a recommendation that they be increased to better support flexible and innovative procurement.

15. There are no other financial considerations directly arising from the report. The recommended options in this report uphold the legislative requirement that a “local authority should undertake any commercial transactions in accordance with sound business practices” and the Land Management Transport Act 2003 (LTMA 03) provisions to ensure competitive supplier markets for transport-related procurement.

Legal Implications / Risks

16. There are no legal obligations or risks noted with the recommended options. The recommended options are consistent with agency best practice.

17. Council is classified as an approved organisation under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA 03) for transport procurement. Approved organisations are encouraged to use the NZTA Procurement Manual to ensure they meet the procurement provisions in the LTMA. However, approved organisations may use other methodologies with the agreement of the NZTA and where compliance with the LTMA 03 provisions can be demonstrated. A note will be added to the policy that agreement on the procurement approach is needed from the NZTA before embarking on a procurement process for co-funded or subsidised work.

18. The recommendations in the report do not increase council’s exposure to climate change risk. However, as noted in issue two, there is an opportunity to include reference to transition to a low carbon economy and climate change resilience as strategic objectives for procurement.

Consultation / Engagement

19. The recommendations in the report are informed by conversations and feedback from staff across the organisation. This recognises that any changes to procurement will have implications for the whole organisation.

20. Representatives of the social sector have expressed support for the policy to support social procurement, in particular working with social enterprises. Similarly, a submission from the Sustainable Business Network received during the recent annual plan consultation noted that amendments to the procurement policy were needed to ensure procurement activity had a positive impact on the environment and supported businesses that demonstrated social outcomes.

21. Priority One also encouraged consideration of sustainable, social procurement through the policy review. In particular, they noted supporting procurement that increased employment opportunities as an opportunity for this council.

22. Staff met with colleagues at Bay of Plenty Regional Council who are also reviewing their procurement policy (adapted from this council’s policy). The approved options from this meeting will be shared with staff from the regional council to inform their review process.

23. No specific consultation or engagement has been undertaken with suppliers. However, the supplier market will have been exposed to the Government’s broader outcomes through tendering for central government procurement or through participation in the Construction Sector Accord.

24. As the policy review is of low to medium significance, an assessment as to the need for further consultation will be undertaken before recommending adoption of a final policy.

Options Analysis

Issue one: Policy purpose and alignment to broader outcomes

25. The development of the Rules illustrates a move towards greater recognition of the role procurement activity has in delivering broader social, cultural, economic and environment outcomes. Broader outcomes require consideration of the whole of life cost of the procurement but also the “costs and benefits to society, the environment, and the economy”. Rule 16 of the Rules illustrates that achieving public value requires consideration of the broader outcomes, as well as fit for purpose solutions and price.

26. A focus on achieving public value is replacing the previous concept of “value for money” in procurement policies. While achieving value for money also focused on assessing the whole of life costs and benefits of a procurement, it was often interpreted as lowest price. The NZTA recently updated the definition of value for money in its procurement manual to ensure it captured the wider concept of public value. As noted by the OAG, the re-introduction of the four well-beings to the LGA 02 is also an opportunity for councils to consider how their procurement activity can support broader outcomes.

27. In setting out the expectations for council procurement, the Committee could choose to retain a focus on achieving value for money or recognise in the policy purpose the opportunity procurement has in supporting council to achieve public value and deliver on the broader well-being outcomes.

Table 1: Advantages and disadvantages of amending policy purpose

Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
1.1	Policy purpose specifies achieving value for money through use of “commercially astute practices” as goal of procurement (status quo)	· Reference to LGA 02 requirement for commercial transactions to be undertaken in accordance with good business practices	· No requirement to consider broader outcomes and purpose of local government when making procurement decisions · Inconsistent with Rules, NZTA Procurement Manual and advice from the OAG · May be understood as lowest price, without considering the value of additional public benefits gained from the procurement
1.2	Policy purpose notes role of procurement in delivering public value and delivering on the broader well-being outcomes (recommended)	· Policy expresses the outcomes Council wants from its procurement activity · References the purpose of local government as expressed in the LGA 02 · Recognises the role of council procurement activity in achieving the well-being outcomes · Consistent with the Rules, the NZTA Procurement Manual and advice from the OAG · Does not preclude good monetary value from being a criterion in assessing tenders	· Nil

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

1.1

Policy purpose specifies achieving value for money through use of “commercially astute practices” as goal of procurement

(status quo)

· Reference to LGA 02 requirement for commercial transactions to be undertaken in accordance with good business practices

· No requirement to consider broader outcomes and purpose of local government when making procurement decisions

· Inconsistent with Rules, NZTA Procurement Manual and advice from the OAG

· May be understood as lowest price, without considering the value of additional public benefits gained from the procurement

1.2

Policy purpose notes role of procurement in delivering public value and delivering on the broader well-being outcomes

(recommended)

· Policy expresses the outcomes Council wants from its procurement activity

· References the purpose of local government as expressed in the LGA 02

· Recognises the role of council procurement activity in achieving the well-being outcomes

· Consistent with the Rules, the NZTA Procurement Manual and advice from the OAG

· Does not preclude good monetary value from being a criterion in assessing tenders

· Nil

28. A discussion on the practical objectives that could be included in the policy to demonstrate what the broader outcomes mean for Tauranga is discussed as part of issue two below (strategic objectives for procurement).

Issue two – Specific strategic procurement objectives

29. Procurement policies that reference broader outcomes include specific strategic objectives for procurement that illustrate how broader outcomes can be included in procurement objectives. The Government has seven strategic objectives for agencies to consider in undertaking procurement activity to achieve value. These objectives include reference to low emissions economy and environmental responsibility, ensuring opportunities for New Zealand businesses, and inclusive economic development.

30. The OAG encourages councils to consider their strategic objectives and how they can align these with their intended procurement outcomes. It notes that if councils “want to prioritise using local suppliers, or support suppliers that pay a living wage, councils should be exploring ways to build those objectives into procurement policies and processes”. The current policy statement includes generic references to considering sustainability and local outcomes when undertaking a procurement process. However, the requirement to consider local outcomes only applies where doing so would not compromise value for money. Other councils have more specific objectives in their policies to describe how their procurement impacts the well-being areas.

31. The Committee could consider the strategic objectives for procurement undertaken by this Council. Table two outlines the advantages and disadvantages of some examples of strategic objectives for council procurement. The examples suggest means for procurement activity to support achieving the broader well-being outcomes or value for money. The list takes the existing policy as well as other councils’ objectives as a starting point and is not exhaustive.

Table 2: Advantages and disadvantages of strategic procurement objectives

· ·

Strategic procurement objective	Recommend include	Recommend do not include	Advantages	Disadvantages
Economic Well-being
Foster local business		ü	· Support for efficient and cost-effective local supplier may support Tauranga (and wider western Bay of Plenty) economy	· Potential to be understood as privileging local suppliers which is not permitted · Difficulty in defining “local suppliers”
Encourage procurement that demonstrates positive local economic outcomes	ü		· Recognises that council cannot exclusively procure from local suppliers. · Recognition that council procurement activity should support positive economic benefits beyond simply giving business to locally based business · Consistent with existing policy	· Nil
Social Well-being
Encourage diverse suppliers, including Māori and Pasifika-owned businesses		ü	· Recognises the role of procurement activity in fostering social equity · Consistent with other councils · Supported by social and economic sector representatives	· Potential risk that policy is seen to privilege certain businesses and not giving all suppliers an equal opportunity to bid for contracts · Difficulty in defining terms such as social enterprise
Encourage local social enterprises		ü
Procurement that creates high quality, local employment opportunities
ü		· Alignment to objective in long-term plan to support job creation · Recognises industry feedback on need to increase capacity and capability of workers · Alignment to government commitment made as part of Construction Sector Accord · Potential to increase opportunities for people experience barriers to obtain skills and job training · Consistent with current policy	· Nil
Encourage procurement that creates opportunities to increase access to local training and education programmes that benefit local industry	ü		· Nil
Recognise suppliers that pay a living wage
	ü	· Living wage provisions added to some contracts already as business as usual · Aligns with council position that all directly employed staff be paid the living wage	· Potential reputational risk as council does not require its council-controlled organisations to pay a living wage · May be seen to discriminate against some suppliers
Environmental Well-being
Encourage procurement that demonstrates a positive environmental impact	ü		· Alignment to Government objectives for procurement and consistent with other councils	· Nil
Encourage procurement that supports goal of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP)	ü		· WMMP has specific objective of reducing waste to landfill that could be considered in procurement processes · Links procurement objective to broader council objectives	· Nil
Encourage procurement that supports transition to low carbon economy and building resilience to impacts of climate change	ü		· Recognises that sustainable procurement must include reference to greenhouse gas emissions · Alignment to Government objectives for procurement and consistent with other councils	· Potential reputational risk as Council seen to encourage suppliers to have standard it has not set for itself

Issue three: General Procurement Principles

32. Five general procurement principles reflecting good planning, fairness and transparency, getting the right supplier, sustainability and good financial value underpin the Rules and the overall objective of government procurement to achieve public value (copy of the principles set out in the Rules is appended as attachment two). While Council’s policy principles reference these general procurement principles, they are not expressed as plain language statements about values and behaviours supporting good procurement. Staff from the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) have expressed support for council procurement policies to similarly use plain language and be easy to understand. Other councils have either adapted the general procurement principles into specific values and behaviour statements (as in the Rules) or borrowed wording from the 2008 OAG Procurement guidance for public entities (2008 OAG guidance) (appended at attachment three).

33. This Committee could consider whether the general procurement principles should be expressed as plain language value and behaviour statements or borrow the wording from the 2008 OAG guidance (issue 3.1).

Issue 3.1 – Options for expressing general procurement principles in policy

Table 3: Options for expressing general procurement principles in policy

Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
3.1.1	Express procurement principles as values and behaviour statements. (recommended)	· Clear (plain language) expression of values and behaviours underpinning council procurement activity · Consistent with the approach taken in the Rules	· Nil
3.1.2	Use general procurement principles from the OAG procurement guidance	· Nil	· Inconsistent with the Rules · OAG procurement guidance is from 2008 and does not use plain language for ease of understanding

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

3.1.1

Express procurement principles as values and behaviour statements.

(recommended)

· Clear (plain language) expression of values and behaviours underpinning council procurement activity

· Consistent with the approach taken in the Rules

· Nil

3.1.2

Use general procurement principles from the OAG procurement guidance

· Nil

· Inconsistent with the Rules

· OAG procurement guidance is from 2008 and does not use plain language for ease of understanding

Issue 3.2 – Suggested general procurement principles

34. If the Committee agrees to option 3.1.1 above, the Committee should consider the principles underpinning procurement it wishes to include in the new policy. In general, principles should reflect the 2008 OAG guidance and the Rules by encouraging behaviours that support good procurement planning, fairness and transparency, achievement of public value, accountability and sustainability. Using the existing policy principles as a starting point, table four below lists procurement principles for the Committee to consider including in the policy (issue 3.2).

Table 4: Advantages and disadvantages of suggested general procurement principles

Procurement principle	Recommend include	Recommend do not include	Advantages	Disadvantages
Achieve public value	ü		· Acknowledges that “value” should include consideration of broader outcomes, as well as good financial value · Consistent with language used in the Rules	· Nil
Act in a fair and transparent manner	ü		· Ensures that council procurement adheres to good procurement practice, for example maintaining fair and competitive markets through open competition	· Nil
Be sustainable	ü		· Consistent with current policy to reference sustainability in policy principles · Consistent with OAG guidance and other councils	· Subject to decision on issue two, may be better expressed as a strategic objective
Achieve value for money		ü	· Consistent with current policy	· Can be interpreted as lowest price · Reference to achieving broader outcomes is unclear (subject to a decision on issue one) · Inconsistent with language and understanding of value used in the Rules and NZTA Procurement Manual
Work together	ü		· Consistent with current policy. · Acknowledges that good procurement outcomes are achieved through collaborating across the organisation, with council-controlled organisations, and industry · Provides for council to develop good relationships with potential suppliers · Encourages Council to provide industry with regular updates on projects in the pipeline	· Nil
Health and Safety		ü	· Consistent with current policy	· Health and safety requirements are already in legislation so not required to be repeated in the policy · Inconsistent with Rules · Health and safety business processes may be better placed in the proposed procurement manual (issue six below)

Issue four – Financial delegations and thresholds

Issue 4.1 - Financial Thresholds (Open Competition)

35. The requirement to undertake an open competition process (where the procurement is widely advertised and open to anyone to respond) for all procurement over $100,000 (excluding GST) (unless granted an exemption by the Chief Executive or Council) is consistent with the Rules and the NZTA Procurement Manual. However, there is concern that this threshold is too low given the relative scale of council procurement. This means staff time is used to undertake detailed procurement processes for relatively low value, low risk and uncomplicated procurement. Other councils have higher thresholds for open competition ranging from $200,000 up to $400,000.

36. Low response rates from the market for some procurement indicates that suppliers may not wish to tender for lower value contracts. Ensuring council’s procurement policy and processes provide for best fit procurement and can adapt to the market is necessary to ensure good procurement outcomes. Retaining provision in the policy for direct appointment (by allowing exemptions to the open competition) has the potential to build better relationships with suppliers by reducing the burden of submitting quotes or tenders. Direct appointment allows council to work with one potential supplier without advertising the procurement to other potential suppliers.

37. The Rules recognise that direct procurement is sometimes necessary where the cost of seeking quotes or tenders may outweigh the benefits or is impractical in the circumstances. It also permits direct appointment for “new construction” up to $9 million. New construction is defined “as the goods and services associated with developing new civil or building construction works” such as buildings and roads and includes related services such as design and project management. The NZTA Procurement Manual similarly notes that direct appointment “is permitted where the approved organisation has determined that a competition between suppliers will not help obtain best value for money”.

38. A desktop analysis noted that there have been up to 20 incidences of exemptions being approved from January this year to end of September for procurement less than $200,000. Council has approved six exemptions to open competition for procurement exceeding $200,000. Regardless of the thresholds, staff would still be able to undertake an open competition process where desirable or where the procurement was close to the open competition threshold.

39. The Committee could consider:

· retaining the current thresholds and exemptions for direct procurement, or

· increasing the threshold for direct procurement and allowing exemptions, or

· increasing the threshold and not allowing exemptions (issue 4.1), and

· allowing a higher threshold for direct procurement of “new construction” (issue 4.2).

Staff would still be required to document the reasons for seeking an exemption regardless of the threshold.

40. As an approved organisation under the LTMA 03, council must have regard to the section 25 procurement provisions of that Act to ensure transport procurement delivers (best) value for money. The NZTA Procurement Manual is a tool to ensure compliance with those legislative provisions. While the recommended options below are inconsistent with the NZTA Procurement Manual, they are not inconsistent with the LTMA 03 requirement to encourage competitive markets. Any council staff undertaking transport-related procurement will be required to first agree the procurement approach with the NZTA, including the financial thresholds.

Issue 4.1 – Threshold for open competition

Table 5: Advantages and disadvantages of raising the open competition threshold

Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
4.1.2	Retain $100,000 threshold with Chief Executive delegated approval for exemptions up to $200,000 (status quo)	· Consistent with Rules and NZTA Procurement Manual · Consistent with current policy	· May prohibit collaborative agile procurement · Threshold does not reflect the scale of Council procurement · May be too costly for suppliers to provide quotes or tender for lower value procurement impacting on supplier relationships · Inconsistent with other councils · Staff required to undertake lengthy procurement processes for lower value, lower risk procurement
4.1.2	Raise the threshold for open competition – Allow direct procurement for contracts up to $250,000 in value with exemptions up to $500,000 to the Chief Executive (recommended)	· Better reflects the scale of council procurement · Less staff time used to complete procurement processes for lower value, lower risk procurement · Exemptions provide flexibility where specific procurement is required and recognise that the cost of seeking tenders or quotes can outweigh the benefits. · Potential to foster good supplier relationships by not requiring quotes or tendering for lower value procurement · Potential to support more collaborative, agile procurement	· Partially inconsistent with Rules and NZTA Procurement manual as the thresholds are $100,000. (Rules and NZTA Procurement Manual provide for exemptions). · Potential for perception of less transparency
4.1.3	Raise the threshold for open competition – Allow direct procurement for contracts up to $250,000 in value with no exemptions	· Better reflects the scale of council procurement · Less staff time used developing procurement plans for relatively	· Partially inconsistent with Rules and NZTA Procurement manual · Potential for perception of less transparency · Providing for exemptions recognises that the cost of seeking tenders or quotes may outweigh the benefits or that competition between suppliers might not deliver value

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

4.1.2

Retain $100,000 threshold with Chief Executive delegated approval for exemptions up to $200,000

(status quo)

· Consistent with Rules and NZTA Procurement Manual

· Consistent with current policy

· May prohibit collaborative agile procurement

· Threshold does not reflect the scale of Council procurement

· May be too costly for suppliers to provide quotes or tender for lower value procurement impacting on supplier relationships

· Inconsistent with other councils

· Staff required to undertake lengthy procurement processes for lower value, lower risk procurement

4.1.2

Raise the threshold for open competition – Allow direct procurement for contracts up to $250,000 in value with exemptions up to $500,000 to the Chief Executive

(recommended)

· Better reflects the scale of council procurement

· Less staff time used to complete procurement processes for lower value, lower risk procurement

· Exemptions provide flexibility where specific procurement is required and recognise that the cost of seeking tenders or quotes can outweigh the benefits.

· Potential to foster good supplier relationships by not requiring quotes or tendering for lower value procurement

· Potential to support more collaborative, agile procurement

· Partially inconsistent with Rules and NZTA Procurement manual as the thresholds are $100,000. (Rules and NZTA Procurement Manual provide for exemptions).

· Potential for perception of less transparency

4.1.3

Raise the threshold for open competition – Allow direct procurement for contracts up to $250,000 in value with no exemptions

· Better reflects the scale of council procurement

· Less staff time used developing procurement plans for relatively

· Partially inconsistent with Rules and NZTA Procurement manual

· Potential for perception of less transparency

· Providing for exemptions recognises that the cost of seeking tenders or quotes may outweigh the benefits or that competition between suppliers might not deliver value

Issue 4.2 – Threshold for direct appointment for new construction

Table 6: Advantages and disadvantages of raising the open competition threshold for “new construction”

Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
4.2.1	Raise the threshold for open competition for “new construction” only	· Consistent with Rules	· Potential for perception of less transparent practices · Inconsistent with other councils
4.2.2	Do not raise the threshold for open competition for new construction. (recommended)	· Supports fair and transparent procurement processes · Consistent with other councils	· Inconsistent with the Rules

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

4.2.1

Raise the threshold for open competition for “new construction” only

· Consistent with Rules

· Potential for perception of less transparent practices

· Inconsistent with other councils

4.2.2

Do not raise the threshold for open competition for new construction.

(recommended)

· Supports fair and transparent procurement processes

· Consistent with other councils

· Inconsistent with the Rules

41. If the Committee proceeds with option 4.2.1, the Committee will need to consider the amount at which direct appointment for new construction is permitted. It is also suggested that the definition of new construction in the policy be the same as the Rules (noted in paragraph 37 above). The Committee may wish to expand that definition to include three waters infrastructure.

Issue 4.3 – Financial Thresholds (Closed competition)

42. While the NZTA Procurement Manual provides for closed competition up to $200,000 where there are at least three “willing and able” suppliers, the current policy allows staff only to undertake a closed competition procurement process (where a limited number of invitations to tender are issued and the tender is not publicly advertised) for procurement under $100,000.

43. The committee could retain the current status quo, extend the ability of closed procurement to $200,000, or not allow it at all.

Table 6: Advantages and disadvantages of raising the threshold for closed competition

Options		Advantages	Disadvantages
4.3.1	Allow closed competition for procurement up to $250,000 (excluding GST) where there are at least three suppliers (recommended)	· Provides for competition between suppliers, supporting fairness and transparency · Consistent with recommendation in 4.1.2 regarding direct appointment	· Some tenders will not be publicly advertised
4.3.2	Allow closed competition for procurement of up to $100,000 (excluding GST) (status quo)	· Consistent with the current policy provision requiring open competition for market engagement	· Inconsistent with NZTA Procurement Manual rules for closed competition procurement · Requirements to open tender may delay procurement of some goods and services · Less flexible procurement strategy · Inconsistent with recommendations for direct procurement (issue 4.1).
4.3.3	Do not allow closed competition.	· Ensures that procurement over $100,000 (excluding GST) is openly advertised (except where direct appointment has been approved).

Issue five – Variations

44. Retention of a policy provision allowing for variations supports fair and transparent procurement. However, the addition of clearer criteria will provide staff with greater certainty as to when variations are appropriate or whether it is best to undertake a new procurement process.

Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
5.1	Variations only approved where there are significant logistical, economic or timing benefits (recommended)	· Consistent with other council’s approach to variations	· Nil
5.2	Variations allowed where project deliverable remains the same (no change in scope) (recommended)	· Ensures that procurement for all new projects is subject to policy provisions, including open competition

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

5.1

Variations only approved where there are significant logistical, economic or timing benefits

(recommended)

· Consistent with other council’s approach to variations

· Nil

5.2

Variations allowed where project deliverable remains the same (no change in scope)

(recommended)

· Ensures that procurement for all new projects is subject to policy provisions, including open competition

Issue six: Focus of the policy / Mixing of policy and procedural advice

45. Christchurch City Council notes in its policy that their procurement manual “details the business processes, rules and delegations” underpinning procurement activity. Similarly, central Government outlines the general objectives and values underpinning procurement in a short policy with detailed procedural advice included in the Rules. In contrast, the current policy is a lengthy mix of policy and business procedure. This “how-to” information is the same or substantially similar to the wording in internal procurement guidance documents available to staff.

46. The Committee could decide to develop a policy which outlines the outcomes desired from procurement and values underpinning procurement activity with the detailed business process advice removed to a separate procurement manual or to retain the mix of policy and process in the current policy. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are outlined in the table below.

Table 7: Advantages and disadvantages of developing a procurement manual

Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
6.1	Remove business process content in policy to new procurement manual (recommended)	· Policy only documents the outcomes council expects from procurement activity · Consistent with approach taken by other councils and central government · Separation of governance policy from guidance on operational practice · When minor updates to business practices are identified, it does not necessarily require a policy review · Supports move towards a simpler, plain language policy	· Nil
6.2	Retain business process advice in policy (status quo)	· Nil	· Inconsistent with approach taken by central Government and other councils · No separation of policy from operational practice · Potential that minor updates to business practices will require policy review

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

6.1

Remove business process content in policy to new procurement manual

(recommended)

· Policy only documents the outcomes council expects from procurement activity

· Consistent with approach taken by other councils and central government

· Separation of governance policy from guidance on operational practice

· When minor updates to business practices are identified, it does not necessarily require a policy review

· Supports move towards a simpler, plain language policy

· Nil

6.2

Retain business process advice in policy

(status quo)

· Nil

· Inconsistent with approach taken by central Government and other councils

· No separation of policy from operational practice

· Potential that minor updates to business practices will require policy review

47. If the Committee agreed to the development of the procurement manual, all or part of the current provisions relating to emergency procurement, health and safety and information management will move to the procurement manual. The development of the manual and release of it to the organisation will coincide with the adoption of the revised policy.

Other matters

48. “Good governance for procurement” was one of the issues noted by the OAG in their May 2020 report on local government procurement. This issue will further be addressed through organisational changes and processes improvement planned as part of the development of the Capital Projects Assurance Division (CPAD).

Significance

49. Under the Significance and Engagement Policy, the recommendations in this report are of low significance as it is of not widespread public interest.

Next Steps

50. The agreed options will be incorporated into a draft Procurement Policy 2021 for adoption at an upcoming Committee meeting. Subject to decisions made at this meeting, the policy adoption will coincide with the launch of the procurement manual and training for staff likely to be in early 2021.

Attachments

1. Procurement Policy 2011 - A11645774 ⇩

2. The Five Principles of Government Procurement - MBIE Government Procurement Rules - A11935489 ⇩

3. Basic principles that govern public spending - Office of the Auditor-General Procurement Guidance for Public Entitites (2008) - A11935460 ⇩

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

PDF Creator

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

PDF Creator

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

PDF Creator

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

8.3 Approval of Draft Aquisition and Disposal Policy for Consultation

File Number: A11901744

Author: Sandra Murray, Policy Analyst

Danna Leslie, Senior Strategic Advisor

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. This report seeks approval to publicly consult on the proposed Acquisitions and Disposals Policy.

Recommendations

That the Policy Committee:

(a) Receives the report ‘Approval of Draft Acquisition and Disposal Policy for Consultation’; and

(b) Approve the proposed Acquisitions and Disposals Policy for public consultation

Executive Summary

2. This report seeks approval to publicly consult on the proposed Acquisitions and Disposals Policy (Attachment 1).

3. A single Acquisitions and Disposals Policy (the proposed policy) is proposed, incorporating the substance of three existing policies. If the policy is adopted, the following policies will be revoked:

· Council Land: Recognition of Tangata Whenua Interests and Aspirations Policy

· Property Acquisition and Divestment Road Stopping Policy

· Strategic Acquisitions Fund (SAF) Policy

4. The proposed policy provides clear principles regarding the management and purpose of Council’s property acquisitions and disposals.

5. If adopted, this policy will guide the delivery of Council’s acquisitions and disposals, which is a key part of ensuring that Council plans for and provides affordable fit-for-purpose services and enhances the quality of life for current and future residents.

Background

6. The proposed policy provides Council and the community with guidance regarding Council’s approach to the acquisition and disposal of Council-owned property. The management of Council property and the acquisition of stormwater-affected property are excluded from the proposed policy.

7. The proposed policy has been developed to provide a consistent, transparent and robust approach to Council’s acquisition and disposal of property. It recognises the close relationship between Mana Whenua and the land, and Council’s partnership with Tauranga Moana iwi and hapu.

8. It is proposed that, if the policy is adopted, the following policies will be revoked.

· Council Land: Recognition of Tangata Whenua Interests and Aspirations Policy

· Property Acquisition and Divestment Road Stopping Policy

· Strategic Acquisitions Fund (SAF) Policy

9. The proposed policy includes provisions on road stopping, operational and unscheduled acquisitions and the strategic acquisitions fund. It distinguishes between the disposal of Council property for strategic purposes and the disposal of surplus Council property.

10. The policy proposes the following definitions to differentiate between the disposal of surplus property and strategic disposals:

· Surplus property is defined within the proposed policy as: Property that has been reviewed from a whole of organisation perspective and assessed as no longer required by council for operational, strategic or investment purposes, and has been approved by council as ready for disposal.

· Strategic disposals are defined within the proposed policy as: Disposal of property for the purposes of achieving strategic or operational outcomes for the community

11. Key differences between disposals of surplus property and strategic disposals, are that Council has no requirements or objectives regarding the future use of surplus property; and surplus property will be subject to a right of first refusal.

12. Including these definitions, in the proposed policy formalises some of the approaches to disposing of Council land already taken by Council and provides clarity and transparency.

Right of First Refusal

13. Council recognises the close association that Mana Whenua has with the land in Tauranga Moana. The proposed policy provides Mana Whenua with a right of first refusal for surplus property, suitable for disposal on the open market, which has been approved by Council for disposal. The policy proposes to exclude strategic disposals and road stopping from the right of first refusal process.

14. The concept of right of first refusal was raised by the Tangata Whenua Collective (now, Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana Partnership) (RMW) with Council in 2015 and would recognise the role that Mana Whenua has in building, protecting and celebrating Tauranga, its environment and its people.

15. Throughout the 2018-2020 period, Councillors and RMW engaged in several hui to understand each other’s aspirations and considerations, and to engage directly on the opportunities and concerns which might arise in a right of first refusal process. These conversations have informed the drafting of the policy and right of first refusal flow chart.

16. Both the right of first refusal and the discussions leading to the draft policy acknowledge the importance of partnership between Council and Mana Whenua, while achieving market value for the ratepayer on the disposal of the surplus property.

17. The development of a new Acquisitions and Disposals Policy is the opportune time for Council and the community to consider a right of first refusal for Mana Whenua.

18. The proposed process for the disposal of surplus property under right of first refusal is contained within the proposed policy and reflects the discussion between Council and the RMW regarding how a right of first refusal might operate. The draft policy has been reviewed by representatives of RMW, who support the document being consulted on.

Market Value

19. Under the proposed right of first refusal process, surplus property is to be sold to Mana Whenua at market value, as determined by a registered valuation.

20. Market value is the value that the property could reasonably be expected to achieve if sold on the open market and does not take into account considerations such as cultural value or potential future tenancy agreements. Market value by a registered valuer is an accepted valuation industry approach.

21. To ensure transparency, the proposed process outlined by the proposed Right of First Refusal flowchart specifies that;

· if Iwi or Hapu intend to submit a counter-offer for a property they are to agree the scope of the valuation instruction, and provide a copy of the valuation report (in full) to Council; and:

· if an open market disposal process results in a price which is lower by 10% (or more) than the value determined by the independent valuer through an unsuccessful negotiation with Mana Whenua, then prior to proceeding with an open market transaction, the property is re-offered to relevant Iwi/Hapu at the lower value. The Iwi/Hapu shall have 10 working days to accept or decline in writing such revised offer.

Strategic / Statutory Context

22. If adopted, this policy will guide the delivery of Council’s acquisitions and disposals, which is a key part of ensuring that Council plans for and provides affordable fit-for-purpose services and enhances the quality of life for current and future residents.

Options Analysis

Option 1: Approve the proposed policy for consultation (recommended)

23. The proposed policy is publicly consulted on, in early 2021, and a final proposed policy is presented to Council for consideration upon conclusion of consultation.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Feedback from the community informs the final proposed policy.

· The community is given the opportunity to share their views.

· Provides a proposed process for right of first refusal for community feedback which aligns with discussions held between Council and the Tangata Whenua Committee.

· The proposed content of the policy may be negatively received by some parts of the community.

Budget – Capex: n/a

Budget – Opex: within current resources

Key risks: The proposed content of the policy may polarise the community. This will be mitigated through clear communication of the intent of the policy, to ensure key messages are understood by the community.

Recommended? Yes

Option 2: Status Quo

24. Do not approve the proposed policy for consultation and do not progress the policy for approval.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· No further resources are spent on developing the policy (staff time) or on consulting with the community.

· The following policies (The Council Land: Recognition of Tangata Whenua Interests and Aspirations Policy, the Property Acquisitions and Divestment Road Stopping policy and the Strategic Acquisitions Fund Policy) remain in place, maintaining the existing suite of policies regarding Council property acquisitions and disposals.

· Does not confirm to Tangata Whenua Council’s position on rights of first refusal

· Will impact negatively on Council’s relationship with Tangata Whenua.

Budget – Capex: n/a

Budget – Opex: within current resources

Key risks: If the current policies remain in place, there are risks of delay and uncertainty in being able to dispose of property and no consistency of decision making.

Recommended? No

Financial Considerations

25. The proposed Acquisitions and Disposals Policy will not impact on Council’s acquisitions costs, as the current processes for acquiring property will not be altered by the policy.

26. All disposals of Council property incur costs, including staff time, holding costs and valuation costs, agents’ fees and the cost of completing any legislative or contractual obligations, such as offer back obligations under section 40 of the Public Works Act. It is estimated that on average, the cost of sale is 5% of the sale price.

27. There is potential for additional costs during protracted negotiations for any disposal, including, but not limited to, a right of refusal process. These could include staff time and holding costs for the length of the negotiation.

28. Conversely, if negotiations for the disposal of surplus property are completed swiftly, either on the open market or as part of a right of first refusal process, the disposal may cost less.

Legal Implications / Risks

29. This matter complies with the Council’s legal and policy requirements.

Consultation / Engagement

30. Consultation on the proposed policy is proposed to take place in early 2021. Staff will consider the appropriate time in line with LTP and other consultation activity in this period.

31. A consultation document outlining the proposed policy rules and why they are proposed, along with the proposed policy itself, will be made available with an online submission form in the ‘Have your say’ section of council’s website. Hard copies of the consultation document, proposed policy and submission form will be available at the customer service centre and in libraries.

32. Hearings will be held after the consultation period has finished.

Significance

33. Under the Significance and Engagement Policy this decision is of medium significance, as the proposed policy is anticipated as being of moderate public interest and affects a number of groups including Tauranga Moana iwi and hapu. Council can choose to engage on matters assessed as of medium significance. This report recommends community consultation.

Attachments

1. Aquisitions and Disposals Policy 2020 - for consultation - A11977313 ⇩

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

PDF Creator

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

8.4 Review of the Significance and Engagement Policy

File Number: A11938648

Author: Melony Atkins, Senior Policy Analyst

Ariell King, Team Leader: Policy

Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy and Corporate Planning

Authoriser: Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement

Purpose of the Report

1. To present the findings of the review of the Significance and Engagement Policy, and a draft policy with minor amendments for adoption by the Committee.

Recommendations

That the Policy Committee:

(a) Agree to the proposed amendments to the Significance and Engagement Policy identified by the review.

(b) Adopt the draft Significance and Engagement Policy in Attachment One.

Executive Summary

2. The Significance and Engagement Policy is a key part of Council’s decision-making framework and is a requirement of the Local Government Act 2002. The current policy was adopted in 2014 and given that six years has passed it is appropriate to review the policy and consider if the policy is still fit for purpose and if any changes are required due to legislative changes.

3. In general, the assessment of the policy has found that it meets the legislative requirements and is fit for purpose. Minor changes are suggested to reflect changes to legislation since the adoption of the policy in 2014, changes in names and changes to align with the Councillors’ Community Engagement Charter. The amended policy is provided in Attachment One.

Background

4. The Significance and Engagement Policy is a key part of Council’s decision-making framework. Section 76AA of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) sets out that the purpose of the policy is ‘to enable Council and its communities to identify the significance of a particular issue, proposal, asset, decision and activity; to provide clarity about how and when communities can expect to be engaged; and to inform the Council from the beginning of a decision making process about the extent, form and type of engagement before a decision is made’.

5. The current policy was adopted in 2014. Given that six years has passed it is appropriate to review the policy and consider if the policy is still fit-for-purpose.

6. Recently, the Engagement team have developed the 2020/21 Engagement Framework. This framework supports the Engagement Team’s purpose of enabling strong and trusting relationships between communities and council through purposeful engagement and was endorsed by the Mayor and Councillors in August 2020. There are three workstreams which are:

(a) Improve internal skills and standards

(b) Build engagement into systems and processes

7. These workstreams focus on critical organisation-wide improvements and initiatives and have specific timeframes.

8. The Community Engagement Charter signed by the Mayor and incoming Councillors has a significant focus on how Tauranga City Council engages with the communities of Tauranga. The focus is much wider than the policy under review and while minor amendments have been made to the principles of the policy to further align with the Charter, the greater part of this work falls within the 2020/21 Engagement Framework.

9. It should be noted that this policy does not restrict the ways in which Council may choose to engage with the community and how Council looks to create a long-term approach to information sharing and the gathering of knowledge.

Strategic / Statutory Context

10. The Significance and Engagement Policy is a key part of Council’s decision-making framework and is a requirement of the Local Government Act 2002.

Options Analysis

11. Following consultation with internal stakeholders, reviews of recent independent reports on a range of projects, the Councillors’ Community Engagement Charter, and a workshop with Councillors, in general, the assessment of the policy has found that it meets the legislative requirements and is fit for purpose. Minor changes are suggested to reflect changes to legislation since the adoption of the policy in 2014, changes in names and changes to align with the Councillors’ Community Engagement Charter. The amended policy is provided in Attachment One.

12. The following issues were identified:

· Unclear what ‘significant’ means

· Inconsistent implementation of the policy

13. Improvements to the report template and staff training are proposed to address these two issues. A discussion of ‘significant’ is of note and outlined briefly below.

Significant / Significance

14. Feedback indicated that there was confusion over the term significant; that the perception of significance was different between the community, Councillors and staff; how significance was determined; and confusion over where a matter or proposal may be significant but the decision at hand is not. This was reinforced by the concern that if a decision is identified as being of low significance that this could be seen as diminishing the importance of a particular issue to the public.

15. The LGA provides the definitions for both ‘significant’ and ‘significance’ and there is no scope to amend the definitions of these terms given that they are set out in the LGA.

16. One of the challenges with the definition of significance is that is relates to both the overarching matter at hand e.g. climate change (high significance) and also the specific decision at hand e.g. Council receives a report on climate change (low significance). Minor wording changes to align with the legislation and a change to the Council/Committee report template are intended to address this issue and allow for consideration at both levels.

Proposed specific changes to the current policy and schedules

17. Following the review and in consideration of the issues noted above the following key changes are proposed to the policy:

· Amending the definition of significance to incorporate the legislative change to the Local Government Act 2002, adding a definition for the term Council in alignment with other Council policies

· Minor amendments to the principles to provide further alignment with the Councillors’ Community Engagement Charter

· Updated wording as per the legislation to ensure that issues, proposals, decisions and other matters are each considered on a case by case basis. The issue and the decision may have different levels of significance.

· Deleting part of the background section, a reference to a no-longer-operating council committee and duplication from Section 82 of the Local Government Act

· Addition of relevant references to the Schedules within the policy

· The addition of an explanatory note to Schedule 1

· Including a hyperlink to the Council procedure that is relevant to the Iwi/Hapu protocols and updating the wording to provide a present tense.

· Updated references

· Transfer of the policy into the new policy template

18. Proposed changes to the draft policy are included as track changes to the current policy in Attachment One.

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Adopt the draft Significance and Engagement Policy with the proposed amendments

(Recommended)

Policy is updated to align with the legislation and provide other minor updates.

None

Do not adopt the draft Significance and Engagement Policy with the proposed amendments

None

Policy does not align with the current legislation that has been amended since the policy was written.

Financial Considerations

19. None.

Legal Implications / Risks

20. Minor amendments are proposed to align with legislative changes since the policy was written.

Consultation / Engagement

21. Due to the minor nature of the proposed changes to the policy, no consultation is considered necessary prior to adoption.

Significance

22. The adoption of the amended Significance and Engagement Policy is of low significance. It is unlikely to be of interest to the wider community.

Next Steps

23. If the Committee adopts the amended Significance and Engagement Policy, it will be updated on Council’s website and in internal processes.

Attachments

1. Draft Significance and Engagement Policy 2020 - A11952763 ⇩

PDF Creator

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

8.5 Policy and Bylaw programme

File Number: A11642297

Author: Ariell King, Team Leader: Policy

Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy and Corporate Planning

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To approve the current and proposed policy and bylaw programme for the next six months.

Recommendations

That the Policy Committee:

(i) Approves the current and proposed policy and bylaw programme set out in Attachment One.

Background

2. Council has a number of policies and bylaws which guide decisions on a wide range of matters across the city. A number of these policies require review to ensure that they reflect current legislation and support the community direction and outcomes.

3. It was agreed at the Policy Committee in March 2019 that a prioritised policy and bylaw programme would be brought to the committee for consideration and approval every six months. The previous programme was agreed to by the committee in June 2020.

4. Over the last six months the Policy Committee approved minor amendments to the maps of the Local Elections Policy, adopted the temporary alcohol-free areas as provided for under the Alcohol Bylaw, and adopted two new policies, the Library Archives Policy and LGOIMA charging policy.

5. Part of the review process is consideration of policies which may no longer be required. This is an active programme of work and any policies where it is proposed to rescind will be brought to the Committee for consideration.

Discussion

6. The current and proposed policy and bylaw programme is set out in Attachment One. Table One also sets out the status of the current programme. It illustrates where each project is in terms of the review cycle and provides commentary regarding each project. Table Two sets out the proposed additions to the programme and the reasons why the reviews are required. This programme has been reviewed and approved by the Executive.

7. Two of the reviews are on hold, the Open Space Level of Service Policy; and the Smokefree Policy. It is anticipated that work will begin on the Smokefree Policy within the next six months as the Smokefree Environments and Regulated Products (Vaping) Amendment Act has now received Royal Assent.

8. In the last update a potential review of the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw (2012) had been identified due to the impending decision regarding the kerbside collection proposal. It has been confirmed that no changes are required to the bylaw to facilitate this decision. The review of the bylaw will therefore take place in 2021 to meet the ten-year review requirement.

9. It is proposed to formally commence the following policy reviews, noting that initial research has begun:

(a) Independent Hearings Commissioners Policy

(b) Gambling Venues Policy

10. These reviews are proposed to meet legislative requirements and to address changing needs.

Strategic / Statutory Context

11. Policies and bylaws guide Council’s decision making and ensure that the strategic direction and outcomes sought by Council are consistently implemented.

Options Analysis

12. Option 1: Approve the current and proposed programme set out in Attachment One.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Programme is deliverable and consistent with Executive recommendations.

· Programme can be amended as circumstances dictate.

· None noted.

Budget

Capital expenditure: Nil

Operational expenditure: Covered by operational budgets.

Key risks

Each project will have risks or uncertainties, predominantly related to the issues identified, the proposed responses to those issues, and the community and stakeholder engagement undertaken on those issues. These risks and uncertainties will be highlighted as the policy reviews are considered by the Committee.

Recommended? Yes

13. Option 2: Amend the proposed programme set out in Attachment 1.

Under this option, the Committee would provide detailed amendments to the programme.

Advantages	Disadvantages
· Allows for previously undisclosed elected member priorities to be incorporated.	· Depending on the amendments made, resourcing commitments may need to be reconsidered.

Budget

Capital expenditure: Nil

Operational expenditure: Covered by operational budgets.

Key risks

As for Option 1

Recommended? No

Consultation / Engagement

14. The significance of, and engagement on, bylaws, individual policies and policy issues will be considered on a case-by-case basis during the review of the bylaws and policies and will be in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

15. The approval of the policy and bylaw programme is a matter of low significance in terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy and as such does not require community engagement.

Next Steps

16. Proceed with the agreed policy and bylaw programme as set out in Attachment One.

Attachments

1. Attachment One - Policy work programme Dec 2020 - A11966751 ⇩

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

PDF Creator

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

8.6 LTP 2021-2031 - Workstreams update

File Number: A11916459

Author: Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

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

Recommendations

That the Policy Committee:

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

Background

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

a) describe the activities of the local authority; and

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion

Workstreams

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

6. On 8 September 2020, Policy Committee received a report titled Long-term Plan 2021-2031 - Timeline, Workstreams, Strategic Approach and Level of Service Reviews. That report provided a further workstreams document that aligned each workstream with a committee (or full council) to report the progress of the workstream into was developed and reported.

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

(a) Strategic reviews

(b) Financing and funding

(d) Major projects

(e) Levels of service and options

(f) Mechanics and systems

8. Policy Committee received a report on 22 October 2020, titled Long-term Plan 2021-2031 – Workstreams Update. That report provided a further workstreams document that updated the current status of each workstream.

9. On 17 November 2020, Council was presented with a Report - Long Term Plan 2021 - 2031 Update that provided an update to Council on progress on the 2021-31 Long Term Plan regarding key financial issues and scenarios.

10. This report continues from the previous reports to Policy Committee in providing a further update to the status of each workstreams of the LTP.

Consultation / Engagement

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

Significance

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

Next Steps

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

14. A Council meeting has been scheduled for 10 and 14 December to report to council further on the development of the LTP.

Attachments

1. LTP workstreams list update as at 10 November - A11978470 ⇩

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

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

As at 10 November 2020

	Task	Lead	Status
Strategic Reviews
SR1	LTP Strategic Approach Strategic objectives and fiscal factors – how do they drive the LTP preparation.	Strategy & Finance	Complete: Policy – 8 September
SR2	Community outcomes, vision, strategic direction Reassessment of the strategic framework underpinning Council’s role on behalf of the community. Subject to Council direction may also include the proposed ‘community preferences’ survey that was put on hold in late July.	Strategy	Complete: Policy – 8 September
SR3	Strategy Stocktake A look into all current adopted strategies to see if still relevant and if actions are being carried out. Those no longer relevant decide if to update or combine with another. Final output new strategic framework for LTP.	Strategy	Complete: Policy – 16 June
SR4	Environmental Scan Review of external factors influencing the preparation of the LTP and socialisation with elected members.	Strategy	Complete: Policy – 16 June
SR5	Level of Service / Cost / Productivity Review Review of Councils operational levels of service including costs and delivery.	Executive	Complete: Policy – 8 September
SR6	Engagement Approach Implementation and continued rollout of the new TCC approach to community engagement will affect many projects and activities in the lead-up to the LTP (being ‘pre-engagement’ on the LTP itself).	Communications and Engagement	Workshop held 6 October. Report to Policy Committee on the review of Significance and Engagement Policy on 1 December.
SR7	CCOs · Strategic review of BVL · Key CCO LTP issues identified and addressed (input into draft LTP) ·	GM Community Services	Strategic Review of BVL to be reported to Council in late 2020. CCO Letters of Expectation to be reported to Council 15 December.
SR8	Waters reform Central Government is reviewing how to improve the regulation and supply arrangements of drinking water, wastewater and stormwater (three waters) to better support New Zealand’s prosperity, health, safety and environment. Watching brief to understand and respond to the government’s work.	City Waters	Reported to PSOC on 27 October - Funding Delivery Programme – Procurement Approach.
SR9	Resilience Two-year study of the resilience to natural hazards of Council’s infrastructure and the impact on potential future landform. Impacts on asset-based activity budgets will be significant. Policy decision-making for council is also likely to be significant.	City & Infrastructure Planning	Report to UFTD on the proposed scope and cost on 24 November.
SR10	Natural Hazards/Climate Change (in particular Mount North) Detailed consideration of options to address current and future stormwater and current and future groundwater issues in the Mount North area. Significant first step in council’s ‘adaptive planning’ response to climate change and resilience issues.	City & Infrastructure planning	Report due to Council on 15 December.
SR11	s17A A review of the cost-effectiveness of current arrangements for meeting the needs of communities within its district or region for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions. Activities to be subject to s17A reviews yet to be determined.	Strategy	Report due to Policy Committee on 1 December.
SR12	Sustainability Framework Implement Council direction	Strategy	Update reported to Council on 17 November.
SR13	Community Facilities & Active Reserves Plan Develop Community Facilities Plan and Active Reserves Plan to understand and address community needs in a fast-growing city.	Strategy	Reported to UFTD on 24 November.
S14	City Centre Plan Develop City Plan which identifies needs and responses. Key components: · Private sector investment plan / prospectus · Civic precinct masterplan · Urban Spaces Programme · Waterfront Masterplan · Movement Plan (including parking) · Residential Plan	Strategy	Reported to UFTD on 24 November.
Financing & Funding
F1	Financial Strategy Providing a guide for Council to consider proposals for funding and expenditure against; and provide a context for consultation on the local authority’s proposals for funding and expenditure by making transparent the overall effects of those proposals on the local authority’s services, rates, debt, and investments. Includes: · Revenue & Financing Policy · User Fees strategy · Risk Reserve (noting significant current underfunding) · Debt / Revenue ratio	Finance	Report to Council on 17 November covering the key capital expenditure issues and scenarios. Further reports on rating and revenue options due to Council in December.
F2	Rates Review A rates review is the review of the allocation of rates and what share of the rates each ratepayer should pay. A rating review is NOT about how much should be collected in rates. A comprehensive review would include questions of ability to pay, commercial/residential differentials, targeted rates, uniform charges vs variable charges, etc. Includes consideration of wastewater charging; consideration of capital value vs land value rating (longer term issue).	Finance	Work ongoing.
F3	Alternative / Additional Financing and Funding Opportunities Explore a range of opportunities such as tolling, road pricing, infrastructure bonds, moving current responsibilities off balance sheet for individual / collective partners and other thinking that may require new legislation to implement.	Chief Executive	Work ongoing.
F4	Development Contributions a) Significant review to ensure that key assumptions and logic are relevant and that current issues (including those raised by submitters in previous year) are addressed. b) Issues & Options papers on DC funding on Maori land and (separately) community housing. c) Quantify amount of DC under collection. Financial adjustments. Consider targeted rate option ·	a) Growth Funding · b) Growth Funding c) Finance	Workshop held on 23 September. Report scheduled to FARC on 10 December.
F5	User Fees Review Review specific user fees for activities.	Finance	Work ongoing.
Growth
G1	Growth assumptions / approach Growth assumptions reviewed for long term planning. Impacts expenditure projections for many teams, especially re capex.	City & Infrastructure Planning	Complete: UFTD – 9 June
G2	Te Papa Consultation and plan change project to enable intensification on the Te Papa peninsula. Significant community involvement and capex implications.	City & Infrastructure Planning	Te Papa Spatial Plan approved at UFTD on 13 October.
G3	Parau Farms Land currently zoned for recreational reserve, current investigation into alternative uses (linked to potential alternative sportsfield provision in the Western Bay and Merricks Farm possibility). Linked to Community Facilities work at SR13.	Strategy	Forms part of SR13.
G4	Smiths Farm Master plan for potential housing supply near Bethlehem. Complicated by previous Council decision not to access site off Westridge Drive. Potential joint-venture with external funders.	City & Infrastructure Planning	Report due to UFTD early 2021.
G5	UFTI + Transport Planning Outcomes for urban planning and transport planning will be significant. Impact on LTP planning likely to be significant.	City & Infrastructure Planning	TSP stage one outputs approved by Council on 28 October.
G6	Tauriko West (Social Infrastructure) The social infrastructure planning aspect of the Tauriko West development.	Strategy	Forms part of SR13.
G7	Te Tumu and Tauriko West Consideration of reasonable assumptions regarding timeframes for the development of these urban growth areas, as well as costs and funding models, for appropriate inclusion in LTP.	City & Infrastructure Planning	Growth and land use project progress reported to UFTD 24 November. Next update to first UFTD in 2021.
Major Projects
P1	Potential Major Project Seek EM strategic direction / political appetite on: · Stadium · Mt Visitor Centre · Sustainability Centre · Others that may arise from Activity Planning ·	Executive	Currently in development. Aim to report to Council prior to end of 2020.
P2	Civic Facilities (CBD) Major civic facilities in the CBD including library, museum and performing arts facility.	Strategic Investment & Commercial Facilitation	Briefing held 12 November. Report expected to Council in December
P3	Memorial Park aquatic Consideration of significant upgrade to Memorial Pool facility.	BVL	Forms part of SR13.
P4	Memorial Park / Strand walkway Walkway/cycleway connecting CBD to Memorial Park along the waterfront.	Spaces and Places	Issues and options paper due early 2021.
P5	Elder housing Potential implementation of decision made in last LTP to divest elder housing stock. Significant financial and community considerations involved.	Strategic Investment & Commercial Facilitation	Report to Council due December.
P6	Civic administration building / accommodation Potential project for the development of a new CAB on the Willow/Durham site. Project is part of partnership agreement with Willis Bond. Involves significant consideration of the funding model. In the short-term, consideration of accommodation options until such a new building is built.	Strategic Investment & Commercial Facilitation	Reported to Council 8 September 2020.
P7	Parking Strategy Overall approach to parking. Consideration of whether Council should retain the buildings or sell to a private provider. Linked the parking strategy discussion facilitated through UFTI.	City & Infrastructure Planning	Workshop held 8 October. Work ongoing.
P8	CBD Streetscape Further consideration of a variety of largely CBD-based streetscape projects for inclusion in the LTP.	Spaces and Places	Projects are to be delivered in 2021 year with Strand extension scheduled in 2022.
P9	Solid Waste The roll-out of the kerbside collection is due to take place on 1 July 2021. If it proceeds according to plan the issue for the LTP decision making will be minimal. Ties in with Revenue and Finance Policy conversation in F1.	Waste & Sustainability	Complete Council - 25 August (Decision made and progress of roll out will continue to be reported)
Levels of Service & Options
LOS 1	Activity Areas Plans & Resourcing For each activity prepare Activity Areas Plans	Teams individually	Work ongoing. Due as part of package for review at end of December.
LOS 2	Asset Management Plans Preparation of asset management plans for next LTP, including understanding of levels of service, delivery methods, renewals budgets, etc.	Relevant Teams	Workshop held 15 October. Work ongoing.
LOS 3	Infrastructure Strategy	Policy / Strategy	Workshop held 15 October. Report to Council early 2021.
LOS 4	Reseal LOS The elected members have signalled that they would like to review the reseals level of service logic.	Transportation	Complete Policy Committee - 20 October (Decision made and 2020/2021 ‘fit for purpose’ resurfacing programme will proceed. Funding to address historic backlog being included in the LTP 2021 – 2031 prioritisation process.)
LOS 5	Core Digital systems Digital Systems review of core systems (excluding financial, refer above) and roll out of strategic plan.	Digital	Work ongoing.
LOS 6	Boat Ramps · Assess issues and options re provision · Boat ramp user fees ·	Property	Report to Council on 6 October on the Approach to develop a Marine Facilities Strategy and a Marine Facilities Development and Management Plan. Council resolved to include the boat ramp issues as part of this work (and therefore after the LTP).
LOS 7	Tropical Display House – Robbins Park Issues & Options paper to be considered with the following options: · Upgrade existing facility · Establish tropical display house at another location and demolish existing · Demolish existing and do not replace. ·	Places & Spaces	Issues and options paper due to Council in early 2021.
LOS 8	Town Centre & Neighbourhood Spatial Plans Issues & Option paper on: · Urban spatial plans and / or public realm redevelopment plans · Locational priorities across the city · Timing	Strategy	Reported to UFTD 24 November 2020.
LOS 9	Bulk fund to support social wellbeing Issues and options paper on: · The establishment of a bulk fund to allow funding support for social/cultural organisations · The decision-making framework, including criteria for support and delegation of decision-making · The scale of the bulk fund · Other forms of support provided to social and cultural organisations ·	Community Development	Policy Committee approved on 20 October for a bulk fund proposal to be included as an LTP consultation topic subject to the LTP prioritisation process. Further report back in early 2021.
Mechanics & Systems
MS1	Planning & reporting – KPIs & measures Review of how we set and report against targets and measures. Will include detailed consideration of relevance and use in decision-making.	Corporate Planning	Due as part of package for review at end of December.
MS2	LTP guidance Preparation of ‘how to’ information for all activity areas ahead of LTP processes. Will include ELT understanding and agreeing to approaches to activity and business planning, and messaging around budgetary philosophy and constraints. Will also involve user-focussed information on any new systems to be used for collating LTP information.	Strategy and Corporate Planning	N/A
MS3	Prioritisation process, business cases and activity area templates Finance are working with the infrastructure team to develop the financial overlay on the agreed gateway process. This will ensure appropriate annual budgets, whole of life costings and appropriate contingencies are provided for each project. In addition to the Project Lifecycle Process, the Finance and Strategy teams are jointly working on the development of business case templates for all projects.	Finance, Strategy	Report to Council on 17 November covering the key capital expenditure issues and scenarios. Further reports on rating and revenue options due to Council in December.
MS4	Finance system upgrade IBIS system installed. Likely to have major impacts on the preparation process.	Finance, Digital Services	N/A

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

8.7 Section 17A (LGA) stocktake and forward programme

File Number: A11899228

Author: Ben Burnand, Strategic Advisor

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To provide information to the Mayor and Councillors regarding Section 17A Service Delivery Reviews for Council’s activities. This includes suitable periods for the next assessment point and potential Service Delivery Review (Review) for each activity, and the likely scale of the review should it be required.

Recommendations

That the Policy Committee:

(a) Receives Report – Section 17A (LGA) stocktake and forward programme

Executive Summary

2. Section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) was introduced in August 2014. It places an obligation on local authorities to review their services for cost effectiveness and considers how a service is governed, funded and delivered.

3. A Section 17A Service Delivery Review (Review) must take place every six years, or where a significant change to service levels is considered, or within two years of a contract expiring. A Review can be excluded if the costs of conducting the Review outweigh the potential benefits, and if a contract in place cannot be changed within the following two years.

4. Council underwent a first assessment for all its activities in February 2016. Therefore, the next assessment for the majority of activities is February 2022. Council’s activities have been identified in Attachment 1 along with their recommended time for next assessment.

Background

5. Section 17A (introduced in August 2014) of the LGA places an obligation on local authorities to review their services for cost effectiveness. The reviews provide an opportunity to improve the delivery of services to our residents, ratepayers and visitors.

6. The Review must consider three elements:

(a) How a service is governed

(b) How a service is funded

7. Reviews are required to be completed every six years, or where a significant change to service levels is considered, or within two years of a contract expiring.

8. A Review can be excluded if:

(a) a contract or other binding agreement in place cannot be reasonably changed within the following two years,

(b) or where the local authority is satisfied that the costs of conducting a Review outweigh the benefits of the Review.

(i) When undergoing the first assessment shortly after the legislation came into force, Council agreed an approach (in February 2016) and agreed a forward programme for the Reviews. The approach included setting a limit on contract(s) value of $500,000 (ex GST) whereby any potential savings were deemed to be outweighed by the cost of doing a Review and therefore, no Review would be justified.

9. Council underwent a first assessment for all its activities in 2016

Current status

10. Attachment 1 provides a table for each area of Council business and documents:

(a) the respective activities

(b) the recorded decision made in February 2016

(d) any noteworthy updates in between

(e) and a recommendation for scale and timing of the next assessment and potential Review.

11. For those activities that were assessed in February 2016, the next assessment and potential Review must occur by February 2022 (unless there is an exclusion) or may be triggered earlier by a change to the level of service or where a contract/contracts with value greater than $500,000 (ex GST) is within two years of expiry.

12. An important distinction needs to be made for the terminology that Council adopts when considering Section 17A. Previously, some activities were “reviewed”, and their outcome recorded as “no review”. This leads to confusion as it indicates that an activity has been analysed in terms of its governance, funding and delivery, when in reality, the activity has undergone an initial assessment, and adjudged to not require Review for a particular reason.

13. To avoid this misunderstanding, it is proposed that the first step for any activity is to carry out an initial assessment which will result in the second step to either undertake a Review or to record an exclusion to Review (this includes recording a decision to delay a Review).

14. Therefore, the information relating to Council’s forward programme in relation to Section 17A in Attachment 1 is titled “Recommendation for next assessment”.

Strategic / Statutory Context

15. Section 17A of the LGA requires councils to review their services for cost-effectiveness. By managing and maintaining a forward programme for its activities, Council can remain compliant with this section of the LGA.

Options Analysis

16. No options are presented within this report as the report has been produced for information only purposes.

Financial Considerations

17. The financial impacts of Section 17A are dependent upon the Reviews that may be required and whether they can be undertaken alongside other relating work such as a restructure or external reforms from central government. These associated costs will be incorporated into relevant activities’ budgets.

Legal Implications / Risks

18. There is no legislative penalty to enforce compliance, however, failure to comply with the legislation and actively look at and justify our services in terms of cost-effectiveness is potentially something Audit and the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) may voice an opinion on and risks wider reputational damage. The risk of judicial review is generally low, however in some circumstances the risk is significantly higher, for example a decision to start a new activity, cease an activity or establish a Council Controlled Organisation, or to award a significant contract.

19. Council has discussed with external lawyers to clarify which activities are subject to Section 17A. There are a number of more internal activities that do not directly provide for, or exist to meet, the needs of the community for local infrastructure, local public services or performance of regulatory functions. These have been identified within their relevant business area in Attachment 1 and are documented as not being subject to Section 17A. The legal risk of this interpretation is deemed to be low.

Consultation / Engagement

20. No consultation or engagement is required for this matter. Consultation and engagement will be considered if and when an activity undergoes a Review.

Significance

21. This matter is assessed as being of low significance. This report provides an update to how Council is managing and monitoring its compliance against Section 17A of the LGA.

22. Should an activity undergo a Review, assessment against Council’s Significant and Engagement Policy will be required to ensure affected parties are considered.

Next Steps

23. The management and monitoring of compliance with Section 17A of the LGA will continue with a periodic update to Council every 12 months.

24. Activities that undergo assessment and then require a Review will be brought to Council’s attention in a separate report as and when required.

Attachments

1. S17A history and future programme by Council business area - A11919076 ⇩

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

ATTACHMENT 1 – Section 17A history and future programme by Council business area

Corporate Services

Activity	Last assessment			Updates between Feb 2016 and Sep 2020	Contract(s) >$500k within 2 years expiry	Assessment required by	Recommendation for assessment
Activity	Date	Outcome	Rationale	Updates between Feb 2016 and Sep 2020	Contract(s) >$500k within 2 years expiry	Assessment required by	Comments at Sep 2020	Likely scale	Timing
Airport	Feb 2016	No review	Airport land ownership is shared between TCC, WBOPDC and the Crown. There is a binding agreement for TCC to operate the airport in a way whereby all land-associated revenues are returned to airport operations.		Yes – two year fire service contract due for renewal to start April 2021	Feb 2022	Assessment and potential for review likely to be limited to assessing delivery options only, on the basis that land ownership and a binding agreement restricts governance and funding assessment.	Minimal	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31
Beachside (Mount Maunganui Holiday Park)	Feb 2016	No review	It is a small stand-alone activity, generates revenue for council and moving to other models such as a CCO would reduce revenue due to increase operating cost (boards/governance).		Yes – cleaning contract due to expire June 2022	Feb 2022	Continues to provide revenue and receive national/international recognition for service delivery. In addition, the holiday park sits on reserve land making any change in ownership/governance structure difficult to achieve. Assessment and potential review still required by 6-year point.	Minimal	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31
Elder Housing	Feb 2016	Minimal to medium review	A strategic review was planned for 2015/16.	The Elder Housing portfolio has undergone review and is currently being prepared/assessed for sale.	N/A	N/A	Decision taken to divest. No assessment or potential review required.	N/A	N/A
Marine Facilities	Feb 2016	No review	This is an asset maintenance activity whereby a large part of the budget is asset depreciation.		No	Feb 2022	Assessment and potential review to be included as part of the wider assessment of Council's role and delivery of Marine Facilities.	Large	2022
Marine Precinct	Feb 2016	No review	No review as the marine precinct was under construction at this time.		No, however, operational contracts due to expire end of 2021	Feb 2022	Assessment and potential review to be incorporated with the planned review of Marine Facilities.	Large	2021
Other · Digital Services · Finance · Legal & Commercial · Property Services	Feb 2016	No review	Decision not to review back office services as they are dependent on how council delivers its public facing services before reviewing back office services. A mechanism exists in the form of BOPLASS to continue to drive efficiency gains in back office services. Review of council's resources and efforts on customer facing services due in August 2017.		N/A	Feb 2022	Under Section 17A, these activities do not provide for or exist to meet the needs of the community for local infrastructure, local public services or performance of regulatory functions. Future water reform may necessitate the review of these activities in more detail. Therefore, Section 17A does not apply and no review is required.	N/A	N/A

Strategy and Growth

Activity	Last assessment			Updates between Feb 2016 and Sep 2020	Contract(s) >$500k within 2 years expiry	Assessment required by	Recommendation for assessment
Activity	Date	Outcome	Rationale	Updates between Feb 2016 and Sep 2020	Contract(s) >$500k within 2 years expiry	Assessment required by	Comments at Sep 2020	Likely scale	Timing
City and Infrastructure Planning	Feb 2016	Large review	Service under review under the bay of plenty Local Government Futures.	Initially expected to be investigated at a regional level, by Local Government Futures, however this is no longer going ahead. Staff made the decision to postpone this review until changes to the RMA legislation is made.	No	Feb 2022	Assessment and potential review needed before Feb 2022, however, if the RMA Reform has not concluded by this time then an exception should be documented to justify the delay.	Medium to Large	Post conclusion of central government’s RMA Reform
Economic Development (to include Tourism Bay of Plenty (TBOP) and Mainstreets)	Feb 2016	Large review	A review for Economic Development was conducted assessing the need for change in governance, funding and delivery arrangements for economic development and tourism. It did not include Mainstreets.	Review recommendations were considered by the Joint Governance Committee on 9 December 2015. Further recommendations were considered by Council as part of the 2016/17 Annual Plan. Therefore, the activity must be reviewed before December 2021 unless there is an exclusion.	Yes - the economic development contracts are reviewed annually	Feb 2022	Sub-regional economic development strategy / spatial planning is being initiated and a review could follow this work. If the strategy is not in place and an assessment and potential review cannot occur by the end of December 2021, then an exception should be documented to justify the delay.	Medium to Large	Post development of the sub-regional economic development strategy
Other · Strategy & Corporate Planning · Strategic Investment & Commercial Facilitation	Feb 2016	No review	Decision not to review back office services as they are dependent on how council delivers its public facing services before reviewing back office services. A mechanism exists in the form of BOPLASS to continue to drive efficiency gains in back office services. Review of council's resources and efforts on customer facing services due in August 2017.		N/A	Feb 2022	Under Section 17A, these activities do not provide for or exist to meet the needs of the community for local infrastructure, local public services or performance of regulatory functions. Therefore, Section 17A does not apply and no review is required.	N/A	N/A

Community Services

Activity	Last assessment			Updates between Feb 2016 and Sep 2020	Contract(s) >$500k within 2 years expiry	Assessment required by	Recommendation for assessment
Activity	Date	Outcome	Rationale	Updates between Feb 2016 and Sep 2020	Contract(s) >$500k within 2 years expiry	Assessment required by	Comments at Sep 2020	Likely scale	Timing
Arts and Heritage (including Creative Bay of Plenty, the Elms, the Incubator)	Feb 2016	Minimal to medium review	Medium review due to Creative Tauranga and Art Gallery having the potential to deliver similar outcomes.	Arts & Culture strategy has been completed and was adopted by TCC in September 2017. No further decision whether an S17A review is required has been made.	Yes – contracts with the Elms and CBOP expire end of June 2021.	June 2021 due to contract expiry	Assessment and potential review of Arts and Heritage due in-year (20/21) with Tauranga Art Gallery to be assessed and potentially reviewed separately post adoption of LTP 2021-31.	Medium	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31
Tauranga Art Gallery (CCO)	Feb 2016	Minimal to medium review			No	Feb 2022	Assessment and potential review required before Feb 2022 and to be scheduled post LTP 2021-31 adoption.	Medium to Large	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31
Baycourt	Feb 2016	No review	Service was reviewed in the last two years. Due for review for the next LTP after 2017.		No	Feb 2022	Assessment and potential review required before Feb 2022 and to be scheduled post LTP 2021-31 adoption.	Medium	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31
Cemeteries	Feb 2016	No review	The cost of the review would outweigh any benefit as there is limited cost savings to be made due to the cost structure.		No	Feb 2022	Assessment and potential review required before Feb 2022 and to be scheduled post LTP 2021-31 adoption.	Medium	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31
City Events	Feb 2016	No review	Relatively new service and required more time to enable the service to obtain more data on performance and service delivery.		No	Feb 2022	Assessment and potential review required before Feb 2022 and to be scheduled post LTP 2021-31 adoption.	Medium	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31
Community Development	Feb 2016	No review	Limited cost savings opportunity. This is a new activity highly dependent on developing and maintaining good relationships with communities and needs to be retained in-house..		No	Feb 2022	Assessment and potential review required before Feb 2022 and to be scheduled post LTP 2021-31 adoption.	Medium	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31
Emergency Management	Feb 2016	No review	Joint delivery managements in place following recent review. Governance bound by legislation.		No	Feb 2022	Likely to be bound by legislation still. An assessment required by Feb 2022 to reconfirm this.	No review to minimal	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31
Libraries	Feb 2016	No review	No review as costs would outweigh benefits: - Libraries are under strategic review. - There is no scope for changing the delivery mechanism for libraries as they serve as community hubs and need to stay in house. - Benchmarks suggest Tauranga libraries are run cost effectively. - Funding is being addressed as part of the annual plan process. - There is scope to encourage more collaborative arrangements with other local authorities / libraries, and to investigate in more details co-location of services at libraries (libraries as civic space for learning, connection and community participation). However this does not require a S17A review.		No	Feb 2022	Assessment and review required before Feb 2022. Has potential to be assessed and reviewed in 2021.	Medium to Large	Potential to be reviewed in 2021.
Parks & Recreation	Feb 2016	No review	No review of activity as a whole but consider review of contracts within two years of their expiry dates.	Contracts going to tender May 2018. A review took place over 2015 & 2016 to ascertain the most cost-effective way to deliver parks maintenance contracts.	Yes - some maintenance contracts expiring 2021 and 2022	June 2021 due to contract expiry	Continue same approach as Feb 2016. Review when contracts come up for renewal by undergoing the initial assessment of service delivery.	Minimal	When contracts come up for renewal.
Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services (BOPLASS) (CCO)	Feb 2016	No review	Decision not to review back office services as they are dependent on how council delivers its public facing services before reviewing back office services. A mechanism exists in the form of BOPLASS to continue to drive efficiency gains in back office services. Review of council's resources and efforts on customer facing services due in August 2017.			Feb 2022	Assessment and potential review required before Feb 2022 and to be scheduled post LTP 2021-31 adoption.	Medium	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31
Bay Venues Limited (CCO)	Feb 2016	No review	The service was reviewed in 2014. Further review is unlikely to generate a different outcome and would negatively impact the ability to realise the benefits from the 2014 merger.	In the process of finalising scope. Resolution through the LTP 2015 required BVL to be reviewed to determine if it was the best delivery model going forward, to inform the 2018 LTP.		Feb 2022	Potential to include S17A review with the review of BVL which is already underway.	Large	Now
Urban Spaces	N/A	N/A	N/A	Introduced in 2019 following internal reorganisation.	N/A	Feb 2022	Assessment and potential review required before Feb 2022 and to be scheduled post LTP 2021-31 adoption.	Medium	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31

Regulatory & Compliance

Activity	Last assessment			Updates between Feb 2016 and Sep 2020	Contract(s) >$500k within 2 years expiry	Assessment required by	Recommendation for next assessment
Activity	Date	Outcome	Rationale	Updates between Feb 2016 and Sep 2020	Contract(s) >$500k within 2 years expiry	Assessment required by	Comments at Sep 2020	Likely scale	Timing
Animal Services	July 2017	Minimal to medium review	Service was already under review in terms of delivery. Outcome of review presented to the Community and Culture Committee in July 2017. Review was undertaken alongside WBOPDC. No change in respect of overall service delivery although review emphasised benefits of working together on joint sub region initiatives where possible.		No	July 2023	For assessment and potential review before July 2023.	Minimal to Medium	Before July 2023
Building Services	Feb 2016	Large review	Being reviewed under Bay of Plenty Local Government Futures	Cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken to determine if it is still required. Initially expected to be investigated at a regional level, by Local Government Futures, however this is no longer going ahead. Analysis is to be undertaken to determine if a review is required.	No	Feb 2022	Assessment and potential review required before Feb 2022 and to be scheduled post LTP 2021-31 adoption.	Large	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31
Environmental Planning	Feb 2016	Large review	Being reviewed under Bay of Plenty Local Government Futures	Cost-benefit analysis to be undertaken to determine if it is still required. Initially expected to be investigated at a regional level, by Local Government Futures, however this is no longer going ahead. Analysis is to be undertaken to determine if a review is required.	No	Feb 2022	Assessment and potential review required before Feb 2022 and to be scheduled post LTP 2021-31 adoption.	Large	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31
Environmental Health (including Alcohol Licensing)	Feb 2016	No review	No review as the service is relatively small and primarily driven by individual legislation. Delivery is reviewed as legislation is updated. Opportunities for collaboration with WBOPDC regularly explored.		No	Feb 2022	Assessment and potential review required before Feb 2022 and to be scheduled post LTP 2021-31 adoption.	Minimal	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31
Regulation Monitoring	Feb 2016	No review	Limited scope for cost savings. Cost would outweigh benefits.		No	Feb 2022	Likely to be limited scope for review given the expected cost and perceived benefit. However, no assessment has been carried out since 2016. Assessment and potential review required before Feb 2022.	Minimal	Post adoption of LTP 2021-31

Infrastructure

Activity	Last assessment			Updates between Feb 2016 and Sep 2020	Contract(s) >$500k within 2 years expiry	Assessment required by	Recommendation for assessment
Activity	Date	Outcome	Rationale	Updates between Feb 2016 and Sep 2020	Contract(s) >$500k within 2 years expiry	Assessment required by	Comments at Sep 2020	Likely scale	Timing
Resource Recovery & Waste	Jun 2018	No review	In Feb 2016 a small to medium review was incorporated into the waste minimisation plan. In June 2018 Council approved a full civic service after consultation through the LTP 2018-28.		TBC	June 2024	Contracts to be monitored and remain aware of those within a 2-year expiry. Otherwise assessment and potential review due before June 2024.	Small to Medium	Before June 2024
Transportation	Feb 2016	Large review	Being reviewed under Bay of Plenty Local Government Futures	Work undertaken at a regional level by Local Government Futures. Further consideration may be undertaken. Resolution passed at March 2018 SmartGrowth Committee to commence process to assess Western Bay of Plenty sub-regional options.	Yes – some service/ maintenance contracts	Feb 2022	The TSP has been finalised and is now investment is being prioritised through the LTP process TSP Governance Group and SmartGrowth considering options for partnership approach to transport planning and delivery. .	Medium to Large	Post completion of the TSP
Stormwater	Feb 2016	No review	No review as water management contracts run to 2021.		No	Feb 2022	TCC and WBOPDC are in a Request for Proposal process to have a new single sub-regional maintenance services contract in place by 1 July 2021 for wastewater, stormwater and water supply assets. Three Water Reform programme underway by central government. This will influence service delivery at local government level. Assessment due with review to be considered following completion of the Water Reform Programme.	Large	Post completion of Water Reform Programme.
Wastewater	Feb 2016	Large review	Being reviewed under Bay of Plenty Local Government Futures	Work undertaken at a regional level by Local Government Futures. Progressing the following initiatives: • TCC & WBOPDC have in principle agreed to enter into a contract where TCC provides WBOPDC with laboratory services. • TCC & WBOPDC have prepared a ‘prospectus’ of services and made this available to the Bay of Plenty Councils. Discussions are ongoing.	No	Feb 2022		Large
Water Supply	Feb 2016	Large review	Being reviewed under Bay of Plenty Local Government Futures		Yes – two contracts due to expire June 2021	June 2021		Large
Other · Asset Planning and Information · Infrastructure Delivery	Feb 2016	No review	Decision not to review back office services as they are dependent on how council delivers its public facing services before reviewing back office services. A mechanism exists in the form of BOPLASS to continue to drive efficiency gains in back office services. Review of council's resources and efforts on customer facing services due in August 2017.		N/A	Feb 2022	Under Section 17A, these activities do not provide for or exist to meet the needs of the community for local infrastructure, local public services or performance of regulatory functions. Therefore, Section 17A does not apply and no review is required.	N/A	N/A

People & Engagement

Activity	Last assessment			Updates between Feb 2016 and Sep 2020	Contract(s) >$500k within 2 years expiry	Assessment required by	Recommendation for assessment
Activity	Date	Outcome	Rationale	Updates between Feb 2016 and Sep 2020	Contract(s) >$500k within 2 years expiry	Assessment required by	Comments at Sep 2020	Likely scale	Timing
Democracy Services	Feb 2016	No review	Decision not to review back office services as they are dependent on how council delivers its public facing services before reviewing back office services. Review of council's resources and efforts on customer facing services due in August 2017.		N/A	Feb 2022	Under Section 17A, these activities do not provide for or exist to meet the needs of the community for local infrastructure, local public services or performance of regulatory functions. Therefore, Section 17A does not apply and no review is required.
Customer Services
Communications & Engagement
Strategic Māori Engagement
Human Resources

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

9 Discussion of Late Items

Policy Committee Meeting Agenda

1 December 2020

10 Public Excluded Session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Recommendations

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

10.1 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Policy Committee Meeting held on 20 October 2020

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)(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

[1] Per section 93(6) of the Local Government Act 2002


AGENDA Policy Committee Meeting Tuesday, 1 December 2020
I hereby give notice that a Policy Committee Meeting will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 1 December 2020
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Tauranga City Council Council Chambers 91 Willow Street Tauranga
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz.
Marty Grenfell Chief Executive

Chairperson	Cr Steve Morris
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Dawn Kiddie
Members	Deputy Mayor Tina Salisbury Cr Larry Baldock Cr Kelvin Clout Cr Bill Grainger Cr Andrew Hollis Cr Heidi Hughes Cr John Robson
	TBC – Tangata Whenua representative
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