Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

15 March 2021

11 Business

11.1 Development Contributions - Papakainga housing

File Number: A12237387

Author: Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy and Corporate Planning

Carlo Ellis, Manager: Strategic Maori Engagement

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To consider alternative approaches to development contributions payable on papakainga housing.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Adopt the following approach to the matter of development contributions on papakainga housing:

(i) Option (a) – status quo – case-by-case consideration (no special provisions in the policy for papakainga housing); OR

(ii) Option (b) – subsidise development contributions on papakainga developments by 50% with an annual rate funded budget of $200,000 and a fund cap of $500,000; OR

(iii) Option (c) – fully subsidise development contributions on papakainga developments with an annual rate funded budget of $400,000 and a fund cap of $1 million; OR

(iv) Option (d) – provide for long-term deferral of development contributions on papakainga developments

(b) Incorporates the above decision into the draft development contributions policy and draft long-term plan for the purposes of consultation.

Executive Summary

2. Council has received submissions and representations relating to the levying of development contributions on papakainga housing developments on multiple-owned Maori land for some time. Fundamental to these discussions is a recognition that the nature of multiple-owned Maori land is unique, both in the connection between mana whenua and their land and in the legal requirements and constraints on that land.

3. Development contributions are a mechanism used by council to recover the costs of infrastructure required to enable growth. The principle underlying council’s development contributions policy is that all new developments should contribute fairly to the funding of that new infrastructure. To this extent, papakainga housing is not treated differently to other new housing.

4. This report considers options that would allow for papakainga housing development to be treated differently. These options involve either subsidising development contributions from a separate funding source (typically general rates) or deferring the payment of development contributions over an extended period.

5. While options have been provided, no formal recommendations are included in the report. This is because the balancing of various, and at times competing, advantages, disadvantages, opportunities and risks is considered a political rather than technical assessment.

Background

Development contributions

6. Development contributions are a mechanism to recover the capital cost of growth-related infrastructure. As this is a cost-recovery process, any approach that reduces development contribution revenue requires council to find an alternative funding source (usually the general ratepayer) or to continue to carry the associated debt until such a source is identified.

7. Under the operative development contributions policy there is a requirement to pay both a citywide and a local development contribution.

8. The citywide development contribution is currently $10,615 per residential dwelling ($6,900 for a two-bedroom and $5,307 for a one-bedroom dwelling). All fees are excluding GST. The contributions are lower in rural areas where reticulated wastewater (and in some cases potable water) is not provided. This citywide development contribution is expected to increase significantly in the 2021/22 financial year due to the costs associated with the Waiari water treatment investment.

9. Local development contributions vary significantly depending on where the development is situated. This is because of the different actual costs that council has incurred to service those growth areas.

Development contributions policy regarding papakainga housing

10. Council has received requests to review the provisions of the development contributions policy in relation to papakainga development with a view to reducing or removing the requirements.

11. Examples of local development contributions in areas where papakainga development is more likely include:

(a) Tauranga - $3,614

(b) Papamoa - $8,728

(d) Bethlehem - $12,550

(e) West Bethlehem - $27,620

12. These fees are per the current policy and are subject to change when an updated policy is adopted alongside the 2021-31 long-term plan.

13. Development of papakainga housing on multiple-owned Maori land is subject to the same development contributions as other forms of residential development with two specific exclusions. Those exclusions are:

(a) local development contributions are not payable for reserves and community infrastructure costs in Rural Marae Community, Urban Marae Community or Ngati Kahu Papakainga Zones (or for development of multiple owned Maori land within 500m of these zones); and

(b) the citywide development contribution payable for a Ngati Kahu Kaumatua household unit is the amount that would usually be payable for a one-bedroom dwelling.

Development contributions policy approach to remissions and deferrals

14. In general, the development contributions policy makes very limited provision for remissions. Section 2.14 of the current policy states:

2.14.1 Refunds of development contributions will be made in accordance with sections 209 and 210 of the Local Government Act 2002.

2.14.2 There will be no remission or postponement of development contributions except in exceptional circumstances at the sole discretion of the Chief Executive or his or her nominated representative that are consistent with the principles or broad intent of the Policy, or direction provided by elected members. Any such request for remission or postponement shall be made to Council in writing. (emphasis added)

15. There is also a specific opportunity for grants to be provided to ‘community groups’ to offset development contributions:

2.14.4 Council will consider making grants to offset development contributions payable in relation to developments undertaken by or for the benefit of community groups through submissions received to the Annual Plan or Long-Term Plan processes

16. Note that there is no definition of ‘community group’ included in the policy. A separate definition of ‘community organisation’ does not include papakainga development.

17. With regard to deferrals, the development contributions policy provides for deferrals subject to specific conditions and for a maximum of six months from the date of a building consent being issued. Additional deferrals can be considered upon application as long as the arrangements ‘have no financial cost to council and incorporate sufficient security to recover deferred development contributions in the event of payment default’^{^[1]}.

Development of Maori land for residential purposes

18. The unique nature of the tenure applying to multiple owned Maori land is that the development of this land is subject to additional consideration and processes under the Te Ture Whenua Act. The purpose of this Act is to promote the retention of Maori land and its use for the benefit of its owners, whanau and their hapu.

19. Multiple owned Maori Land is usually owned by a number of owners who hold shares in the land in question. Individual shareholders wishing to build a house/develop papakainga on the land must gain permission from most of the other shareholders to build and this can include applications to the Maori Land Court to secure such permission.

20. The permission to build a house/develop papakainga does not automatically create new land parcels/titles. The creation of a new Maori land parcel/title also requires permission under the Te Ture Whenua Act. Multiple owned Maori Land parcels cannot be brought or sold on the general real estate market.

Housing affordability

21. While affordability of housing generally, and development contributions specifically, is a significant issue across the wider Tauranga community, it is particularly significant in regard to multiple owned Maori land because:

(a) raising mortgage finance is a challenge because the land cannot be used as security;

(b) development on Maori-owned land is not being on sold to private owners and therefore there is a limited ability to recoup costs;

(c) the manner in which Maori land is valued means that the development contribution is not reflected in the subsequent valuation of the land to a level that enables recovery through equity, if at all;

(d) coupled with point (a) above, any equity achieved is irrelevant because lending facilities are largely unavailable or severely restricted;

(e) as noted above, there are often additional complexities involved with development of Maori land which can add to costs, processes and timeframes such as Maori Land Court processes. In addition, in seeking to utilise multiple owned lands for the establishment of papakainga a resource consent may also be required through the City Plan (developed under the Resource Management Act);

(f) some Maori Land Trusts own land but lack capital finance and need to seek central and regional funding for the building and servicing of developments. There are issues with the required timing of development contribution payments in relation to when central government funding can be drawn down.

Tangata Whenua views

22. Tangata Whenua views recorded in paragraphs 23 to 26 below reflect consultation with Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana, iwi and hapu visits by the Manager: Strategic Maori Engagement, and from communications from individual trusts with aspirations to progress papakainga developments^{^[2]}.

23. The tangata whenua view is that Maori land has significant and unique restrictions^{^[3]} that warrant the consideration of alternative options to remove or reduce barriers to Papakainga development.

24. Tangata whenua are acutely aware of the housing pressure that has built up especially for low to medium cost housing. Enabling the development of papakainga will allow tangata whenua to contribute solutions to the current housing crisis in Tauranga, with a particular focus on providing for wider whanau members and their families, for low to middle income earners and in a supportive and proven model that is culturally appropriate^{^[4]}. The removal and/or reduction of development contribution payments will address one of the barriers to papakainga development.

25. The tangata whenua view of development contributions is a long-term perspective that encompasses the greater development of Tauranga starting with the many acts of kindness and generosity alongside the forced acquisitions, confiscations and subsequent trail of legislation that created the collective contribution tangata whenua have made. These contributions are still very real and raw for tangata whenua as direct descendants of the people of the time and there is no dispute that this has led to great benefit and growth for Tauranga over time.

26. The papakainga model represents an opportunity to develop Maori land for the benefit of landowners whilst restricting further alienation of the little land that remains in Maori ownership. In doing so this adds to the pool of housing available for City needs. However, this comes with the restrictions outlined in paragraph 21 above. Tangata whenua have previously submitted to Council on a number of occasions seeking removal or reduction of development contributions (see below for examples of recent submissions on the subject).

Submissions to 2020/21 Annual Plan

27. Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana’s submission included the following relating to the development contributions policy.

Engage with an external consultant to work alongside Policy team following the approval of an external consultant to develop the Maori Housing paper, inclusive of this policy.

To ensure that, when applying the policy multiple owned Maori land, TCC fully recognise that Tangata Whenua have contributed enough to the development of this city over the years. And especially when applied to rural land we do not have many of the infrastructure and services provided

Development contributions policy and its mechanisms must reflect the historical and ongoing contribution made by Maori that has enabled the development of the District. Council has a liability to ensure charges, fees and contributions are fairly adjudicated and targeted.

Council should work with mana whenua to co-construct a policy and implementation design.

28. Separately, the Ranginui 12 Trust made a specific submission relating to development contributions on their papakainga development in Welcome Bay. This included the following general statements about development contributions.

In summary, the Trust seeks that Council include specific policy relating to Papakainga development in the wider Tauranga City Council District into the Annual Plan and Development Contributions Policy and allow for reductions and or methods for calculating reductions where appropriate.

The development of Papakainga on Maori land has a wide range of benefits including:

§ Modern, quality housing for the landowners

§ Unlocking/freeing up current housing supply in urban areas where future residents currently reside, providing additional housing stock in urban areas

§ Provision of additional housing stock on currently underutilised land

§ Providing cultural connections to the land (whenua).

Scale of opportunity

29. Over the period of 2015-19 there have been four resource consents granted for papakainga housing, accommodating 60 dwellings across Tauranga.

30. Estimating short to medium term demand going forward there is significant potential supply available given the large tracts of land in multiple ownership across the city. Council has received expressions of interest from iwi and hapu groups as well as individual land blocks with intentions to build facilities of 15-30 homes each.

31. A coordinated approach to papakainga development also has the potential to attract significant central government investment that the City would not usually have access to. For example, one Papakainga development of 20-30 houses has secured around $650,000 of infrastructure funding from Te Puni Kokiri.

32. With 17 iwi and hapu groups across the city there is the potential to unlock a large number of new homes by working alongside tangata whenua to enable their housing aspirations.

33. Based on the above it is not unreasonable to estimate approximately 10-15 dwellings per year on average delivered via papakainga developments.

34. Remodelling the approach to development contributions for papakainga developments on multiple owned Maori land has the potential to bring the following benefits to Tauranga City.

(a) Recognises the contribution tangata whenua have made to the development of Tauranga city both voluntarily and involuntarily.

(b) Assists in unlocking previously unutilised Maori land for residential development.

(c) Facilitates culturally appropriate housing solutions in the face of a housing crisis and building social issues that accompany this.

(d) In doing the above it may have a modest impact on relieving pressure on the open housing market leaving more options available for the general population.

(e) Assists post settlement entities to engage business and investment into areas of mutual interest and benefit i.e. to tangata whenua and the wider city alike.

(f) Facilitates the attracting and securing of central government funding that would otherwise be unattainable e.g. Te Puni Kokiri infrastructure funding.

(g) Adds rating units to the Tauranga City rating base.

Options Analysis

35. There are a number of potential options to address development contributions on papakainga developments and tangata whenua views on same. For simplicity, these options have been limited to the following four, the effective of which are to:

(a) retain the status quo

(b) subsidise development contributions on papakainga developments by 50%

(d) provide for long-term deferral of development contributions on papakainga developments.

36. The consideration of advantages, disadvantages, risks and opportunities across the options is considered to be political rather than technical in nature. As such, a formal recommendation has not been provided.

37. Note that this report and the options that follow relate to the development of papakainga housing only. This report does not relate to other residential or commercial developments that may occur on multiple-owned Maori land

Option (a) Status quo – Case by case consideration (no special provisions for papakainga housing)

38. Under this option, development contributions continue to be assessed and levied on papakainga developments and, in accordance with the current policy, remissions are not provided and deferrals beyond six months are considered on a case-by-case basis and subject to appropriate security being available. Case-by-case requests for grant funding to cover full or partial development contributions are considered through the Annual Plan or LTP process. For clarification, a specific reference to the opportunity for case by case consideration of specific Papakainga proposals would be added into the Development Contributions Policy (similar to community groups).

39. The advantages and disadvantages of this approach include:

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Maintains the integrity of the development contributions policy and provides transparency. · Allows Council to make case-by-case decisions based on the merits of each papakainga development. · Flexibility in decision-making enables grants at any level. · By making decisions during the annual plan or long-term plan process financial implications are automatically built into that year’s budget, therefore no risk of unbudgeted expenditure. · From the narrower perspective of infrastructure demand, it would not create inequality in charging of development contributions with other forms of development that have similar effects/demands on infrastructure requirements and servicing.		· Lack of certainty for Maori landowners regarding the level of development contributions payable during the project development phase. · Missed opportunity to improve relationship with tangata whenua and to recognise the unique difficulties relating to the development of multiple-owned Maori land · Potential reduction in (or lack of increase in) the future level of papakainga development · Reduced ability to leverage central government infrastructure funding for Papakainga development (due to lack of certainty).
Budget - Capex	$0
Budget - Opex	$0 provided for in 2021-31 LTP. Budgeted on case by case basis if approved through Annual Plan or LTP process subsequent to specific request being considered.
Key risks	Impacts on papakainga development proposals and broader tangata whenua / Council relations.

Option (b) Subsidise development contributions on papakainga developments by 50%

40. Under this option, development contributions are assessed and levied as normal on papakainga developments, but a separate funding source is used to reduce the amount payable by the development entity^{^[5]}. The separate funding source would typically be general rates.

41. An annual contribution to a ‘subsidy fund’ would be budgeted, with the ‘fund’ capped to a set amount if not drawn down. Distributions in any financial year would be limited to the amount available in the ‘subsidy fund’.

42. This is similar to the system used by Western Bay of Plenty District Council (“WBoPDC”) as part of their financial contributions regime. Subsidies are provided if the applicant has worked their way through the Papakainga Toolkit programme^{^[6]}. Applicants are also encouraged to apply for a Kainga Whenua Infrastructure Grant for the remaining 50%, though the published information does not specifically state that financial or development contributions are eligible for such grants.

43. The advantages and disadvantages of this approach include:

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Opportunity to improve relationship with Tangata Whenua by positively assisting with their housing aspirations · Recognises the unique difficulties relating to the development of multiple-owned Maori land · Possible increase in the future level of papakainga development which would contribute to better social and health outcomes for this part of the community · Adds housing to Tauranga City to assist in managing the city’s rapid pace of growth · Provide consistency in policy with the WBoPDC approach		· Tangata Whenua who are unable to raise the security for the full DC fee may find it equally as challenging to raise 50% and therefore may not be an advantage or achieve the outcome of enabling Papakainga development · Any fee reduction must be subsidised by an alternative funding source – most likely to be a burden which is transferred to general ratepayers. · From the narrower perspective of infrastructure demand, it would create inequality in charging of development contributions in relation to other forms of development that have similar effects/demands on infrastructure requirements and servicing · Potentially creates inequality in charging in relation to other organisations or individuals that have similar financial and affordability constraints (e.g. community housing organisations, voluntary organisations)
Budget - Capex	$0
Budget - Opex	Difficult to quantify. It would depend on the level of papakainga development going forward, its location and the degree to which development contributions were reduced by. A 50% subsidy on development contributions using the 2020/21 fee structure equates applied to 15 two-bedroom units per annum equates to between $79,000 and $259,000 per annum depending on location. Staff suggest an annual rate funded budget of $200,000 and a fund cap of $500,000.
Key risks	May result in requests for reduced development contributions from other social / community-based organisations which face financial constraints. However, the Council may choose to distinguish papakainga development from these other activities due to the unique limitations faced by Maori landowners.

Option (c) Fully subsidise development contributions on papakainga developments

44. Under this option, development contributions are assessed and levied as normal on papakainga developments, but a separate funding source is used. Therefore, the development entity is effectively not required to pay development contributions. The separate funding source would typically be general rates.

45. Again, an annual contribution to a ‘subsidy fund’ would be budgeted, the fund would be capped to a set amount if not drawn down, and distributions in any financial year limited to the amount available in the fund.

46. This option is similar, other than by way of scale, to option (b) above. It ensures that development contributions are not a barrier to the development of papakainga housing.

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Opportunity to improve relationship with Tangata Whenua by positively assisting with their housing aspirations · Recognises the unique difficulties relating to the development of multiple-owned Maori land · Possible increase in the future level of papakainga development which would contribute to better social and health outcomes for this part of the community · Adds housing to Tauranga City to assist in managing the city’s rapid pace of growth · Provide consistency in policy with the WBoPDC approach		· Any fee reduction must be subsidised by an alternative funding source – most likely to be a burden which is transferred to general ratepayers. · From the narrower perspective of infrastructure demand, it would create inequality in charging of development contributions in relation to other forms of development that have similar effects/demands on infrastructure requirements and servicing · Potentially creates inequality in charging in relation to other organisations or individuals that have similar financial and affordability constraints (e.g. community housing organisations, voluntary organisations)
Budget - Capex	$0
Budget - Opex	Difficult to quantify. It would depend on the level of papakainga development going forward, its location and the degree to which development contributions were reduced by. A 100% subsidy on development contributions using the 2020/21 fee structure equates applied to 15 two-bedroom units per annum equates to between $158,000 and $518,000 per annum depending on location. Staff suggest an annual rate funded budget of $400,000 and a fund cap of $1 million.
Key risks	May result in requests for reduced development contributions from other social / community-based organisations which face financial constraints. However, the Council may choose to distinguish papakainga development from these other activities due to the unique limitations faced by Maori landowners.

Option (d) Provide for long-term deferral of development contributions on papakainga developments

47. Under this option, development contributions would be assessed and levied as normal on papakainga developments and would be ultimately payable. However, that payment would be deferred for a significant time period (say 10-15 years).

48. This approach requires that those undertaking papakainga development will need to make the standard contribution to the costs of infrastructure servicing those developments. However, it also recognises the unique nature of Maori land and the difficulty in raising finance against it. Deferring development contributions removes an ‘up-front’ cost and allows the development entity to recover these costs over time before passing them onto council.

49. The current deferral provisions of six months or, separately, providing appropriate financial security are less applicable to multiple-owned Maori land than fee simple land. As such, if this option was preferred specific provisions relating to papakainga housing on multiple-owned Maori land will need to be incorporated in the policy. Policy matters to be addressed would include the extent of any security required and how interest on deferred fees would be dealt with.

50. The advantages and disadvantages of this approach include:

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Clearly recognises that papakainga housing on multiple-owned Maori and requires different treatment in the policy · Development contributions would still be paid, just at a later point in time · Opportunity to improve relationship with Tangata Whenua by positively assisting with their housing aspirations · Likely increase in the future level of Papakainga development which would contribute to better social and health outcomes for this part of the community · Adds housing to Tauranga City to assist in managing the city’s rapid pace of growth		· Potential risk of payment default given the long deferral periods and therefore non-recovery of development contributions · Potential risk that interest costs associated with deferring the receipt of development contribution revenue may have to be rate funded · Additional administrative burden associated with managing deferment arrangements · Council continues to hold debt that, without a deferral, would ordinarily be paid down
Budget - Capex	$0
Budget - Opex	Assuming payment default was not an issue and deferment arrangements could be managed within existing staff resources, opex costs would be little or none.
Key risks	Identifying a suitable manner in which security can be provided in the event of payment default. Determining the funding source for interest costs over the deferment period. Administrative burden of managing deferment arrangement not being able to be managed within existing staff resources.

Financial Considerations

51. Financial considerations are identified in the individual options above.

Legal Implications / Risks

52. Key risks are identified in the individual options above.

Consultation / Engagement

53. The development contributions policy is subject to the special consultative procedure when it is adopted or amended. This will occur alongside the 2021-31 long-term plan consultation. Any changes to the policy relating to papakainga housing will be consulted on.

54. Should council prefer an option that does not require a change to the policy, a decision will be required as to whether to consult on that preference through the long-term plan process.

Significance

55. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

56. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the issue, proposal, decision, or matter

57. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the matter is of medium significance.

Next Steps

58. Council’s preferred approach will be incorporated into the draft long-term plan and/or draft development contributions policy as appropriate. Consultation relating to those documents will commence in early May 2021. Specific engagement on this matter will occur with Te Rangapu and other interested parties.

Attachments

Nil

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

15 March 2021

11.2 Development Contributions - Community Housing Providers

File Number: A12259559

Author: Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy and Corporate Planning

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To consider a request to amend the development contributions policy to specifically address relief for registered community housing providers.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Does not provide special provisions in the development contributions policy for community housing providers and that any grants to such organisations to offset development contributions continue to be considered under section 2.14.4 of the policy (option (a) – status quo)

Executive Summary

2. A request was received through the 2020/21 Annual Plan process to consider amending the development contributions policy to provide guaranteed discounts to community housing providers.

3. While a subsidy was granted by Council in regard to the specific development to which that submission related, the underlying issue of a discount system being embedded formally in the policy was not.

4. The policy currently allows for such requests to be made on a case-by-case basis. Because of the significantly different scale of community housing trusts operating or potentially operating in the city, and of the significantly different scale of potential developments, the staff recommendation is to retain the case-by-case approach to considering subsidies.

Background

2020/21 Annual Plan

5. During the 2020/21 Annual Plan process the following submission point[7] was received from the Tauranga Community Housing Trust (“TCHT”), a registered community housing provider (“CHP”).

Amendment of the Development Contributions Policy this year to give at least 50% relief of TCC charges for registered CHP’s who are developing new homes to permanently add to their community housing stock. As you know, entities such as TCHT find it very difficult to fund building projects when having to raise all the capital themselves without Government loans or grants. There is precedent for this policy as a “community good” and we now seek certainty through a specific statement in the DC policy so that the current delegated power can be applied automatically when the waiver/relief application is received.

6. Through the 2020/21 Annual Plan process, this submission was treated as a one-off decision as to whether or not to provide a grant to TCHT for their then-current development proposal in Greerton. Council resolved to provide a grant of 50% of the development contributions payable on that development, capped at a maximum of $40,000.

7. While this resolution dealt with the specifics of the TCHT development it didn’t address the request for an amendment to the development contributions policy to cover all CHPs.

Development contributions

8. Development contributions are a mechanism to recover the capital cost of growth-related infrastructure. As this is a cost-recovery process, any approach that reduces development contribution revenue requires council to find an alternative funding source (usually the general ratepayer) or to continue to carry the associated debt until such a source is identified.

Development contributions policy

9. Section 2.14 of the development contributions policy covers remissions and refunds. Within that section, sub-section 2.14.4 states:

Council will consider making grants to offset development contributions payable in relation to developments undertaken by or for the benefit of community groups through submissions received to the Annual Plan or Long-Term Plan process.

10. While ‘community group’ is not defined in the policy, it is this clause that was used to consider the TCHT development.

11. When developing the policy, this approach of using council-determined grants to provide relief against development contribution charges rather than embedding discounts in the policy itself was preferred. This was because of the increased transparency that the grant process provides, and because this approach allows development contributions to be charged and then paid in full (as for all other developments), albeit with some of that payment coming from a separate council grant.

Community housing providers

12. TCHT is not the only CHP currently operating in Tauranga or that could potentially operate in the city in the future. The Community Housing Regulatory Authority currently lists 58 CHPs, of which seven are shown as operating in Tauranga or the wider Bay of Plenty[8] on its website. These CHPs vary significantly in scale of operation and ambition. They also vary significantly in their asset base and financial structures.

13. For the avoidance of doubt, Kāinga Ora is not a CHP.

Strategic / Statutory Context

14. Housing supply and housing affordability are acknowledged issues for Tauranga. Community housing providers supply and manage social housing in the city, for which there is also an acknowledged shortage.

15. In 2020, the Kāinga Tupu Mayoral Taskforce[9] developed the Kāinga Tupu: Growing Homes strategy. That strategy included actions under four headings: prevention; support; supply; and, system enablers. A priority action under the ‘support’ heading is:

Consider incentivising the development of social and affordable housing

Options Analysis

16. The key issue to be considered is whether there should be separate provisions in the development contributions policy in regard to CHPs. A secondary issue is, if so, whether similar provisions should apply to other similar developments not undertaken by CHPs.

17. The following options are provided for consideration:

(a) Status quo

(b) New provisions for CHPs

Option (a) – status quo (Recommended)

18. Under this option, CHPs would continue to be able to submit to the annual plan or long-term plan process for grants in relation to development contributions.

19. The advantages and disadvantages of this option include:

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Allows Council to make case-by-case decisions based on the merits of each development. · By making decisions during the annual plan or long-term plan process, financial implications are automatically built into that year’s budget, therefore no risk of unbudgeted expenditure. · Flexibility in decision-making enables grants at any level up to and including 100%. · A more transparent approach than the embedding discounts in the policy. · Retains the integrity of the development contributions policy by treating all developments equally, while allowing a separate mechanism by which council can provide relief from those charges if it chooses.		· Lack of certainty for CHPs regarding the level of development contributions payable during the project development phase. · Potentially inconsistent decision-making by council between developments and over time. · Annual decision-making round may not be agile enough for property development proposals. · May not be considered to be fully aligned with the Kāinga Tupu action to ‘consider incentivising the development of social and affordable housing’.
Budget - Capex	$0
Budget - Opex	Entirely dependent on applications received and supported by the council of the day
Key risks	None identified

Option (b) – new provisions in the development contributions policy for CHPs

20. Under this option, specific provisions for the subsidisation of development contributions payable by CHPs would be written into the draft development contributions policy.

21. If this option is preferred, direction will be sought from Council regarding the scale of the subsidisation. Reference is made to 50% below, though it should be noted that the original request from TCHT was for ‘at least 50%’.

22. The advantages and disadvantages of this option include:

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Provides certainty to CHPs when planning for new developments. · Ensures consistent decision-making for all CHPs and over time. · If the policy provided for a 50% discount, CHPs could still apply under section 2.14.4 for a grant for the balance. · Consistent with the Kāinga Tupu action to ‘consider incentivising the development of social and affordable housing’.		· Difficult for council to budget for as the extent of applications in any one year may not be known at the time budgets are approved. · Increase in general rates to reflect the subsidies provided. · A blanket policy for subsidies does not provide discretion to target support to those organisations and developments in most need of support. · Undermines the integrity of the development contributions policy by treating developments differently depending on who is undertaking the development. · A less transparent form of subsidy than a separately determined grant.
Budget - Capex	$0
Budget - Opex	Entirely dependent on applications received during any year
Key risks	Applications under this clause exceed expectations and create an unreasonable impact on general rates. Funding is provided to organisations and developments that will likely be successful without such ratepayer support.

Option (c) – new provisions in the development contributions policy for CHPs and other organisations

23. Under this option, the provisions introduced for CHPs (as outlined in option (b) above) would be extended to other organisations delivering social or community or emergency housing (clear definition would be required within the policy).

24. The advantages are as for option (b) but the disadvantages and risks are exacerbated due to a wider pool of potential applicants.

Financial Considerations

25. The financial impact of this decision is dependent on:

· the extent of demand for subsidies; and

· the level of subsidies provided for in the policy (under option (b) and (c)) and,

· under option (a), the decisions made by the council of the day.

Significance

26. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

27. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the issue, proposal, decision, or matter

28. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the matter/ of social housing is of high significance. However, the specific decision sought regarding the approach to development contribution subsidies is of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

29. The draft development contributions policy will be updated for any changes made as a result of this paper. The draft policy will be consulted on alongside the 2021-31 long-term plan, providing interested parties with the opportunity to submit on any matter, including the provision or otherwise of subsidies for community and social housing provision.

Next Steps

30. The draft policy will be prepared for formal adoption by Council prior to the public consultation process.

31. Community housing providers will be advised of Council’s decision on this matter and invited to submit to both the development contributions policy and the long-term plan.

Attachments

Nil

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

15 March 2021

11.3 2021-31 Long-Term Plan - Outcomes proposal

File Number: A12299586

Author: Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy and Corporate Planning

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To consider the issues and opportunities facing the city, the outcomes sought on behalf of the community, and the capital investment programme required to deliver on those outcomes.

Recommendations

That the Council:

Community outcomes

(a) Reconfirms the community outcomes and principles adopted by the Policy Committee on 8 September 2020; OR

(b) Amends the community outcomes and/or principles as follows: (details included as appropriate)

Proposed long-term plan key investment proposals

(i) residential and business land supply investment

(ii) transport investment

(iii) community facilities investment

(iv) city centre investment

(v) resilience investment

(vi) enabling delivery

Resilience capital investment programme

(d) Supports a capital investment programme of $100 million over 10 years for resilience (as currently included in Attachment 1); OR

(e) Supports a capital investment programme of $200 million over 10 years for resilience (requiring a $100 million increase to Attachment 1)

Capital investment programme

(f) Confirms the proposed capital investment programme of $3.476 billion over ten years (in 2021 dollars) as included at Attachment 1, with the following amendments: (list as necessary).

Executive Summary

2. The process to develop the 2021-31 long term plan (“LTP”) has been underway for many months and draws on a number of critical workstreams that have been underway for, in some cases, years.

3. This report follows a report to the 8 March 2021 Council meeting and builds on, and formally presents, material considered during a workshop session held as part of that meeting. In particular, this report includes consideration of the capital investment programme proposed to be included in the LTP. Consideration and ultimately approval of that programme is sought, with or without amendments identified by Council during the meeting.

Background – this report

4. This report follows on from a report to the Council meeting of 8 March 2021 [10]. Background on the long-term plan and the development process is included within that report.

5. This report should be read in conjunction with a parallel report on this agenda titled ‘2021-31 Long Term Plan – Financial Options’. During the meeting it is expected that the two reports will be taken together, with decisions on either only made after consideration of both.

6. This report is broken into three substantive parts:

· Part 1 covering the challenges and opportunities facing the city

· Part 2 reflecting the desired community outcomes that reflect those challenges and opportunities

· Part 3 identifying the proposed investment response through the LTP in response to those challenges, opportunities and desired community outcomes.

PART 1: Challenges and opportunities for the city

7. Tauranga has been on a fast growth track for much of the past 40 years and this is expected to continue.

8. However, during that time the city’s supply of housing and business land, its transport options, its water and wastewater networks, and its community facilities have not kept pace. A legacy of underinvestment has brought Tauranga to where it currently is, under-performing as a city and not meeting the needs of its residents, businesses and visitors.

9. In general, Tauranga’s infrastructure is running at or beyond its capacity. Nowhere is this more evident than on its transport system. But population growth and increased community demands are also putting increased pressure on other asset types and services. For instance, the city’s community facilities, the places that support the things we love to do, are often old and under-capacity; Baycourt was opened in 1983 and is half the size that might be expected for a city of 150,000 people; Memorial Park pool was opened in 1955; and the Domain grandstand was built in 1962 and has significant seismic issues. And while council is currently constructing a third water supply on the Waiari Stream, modelling shows that planning needs to start now to secure a fourth supply.

10. The Local Government Act 2002 requires that councils:

‘promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future’.[11]

11. In terms of the Local Government Act requirement, it is arguable that the city is currently able to promote the well-being of communities in the present. It is certain that without significant investment it will not be able to promote those same well-beings ‘for the future’.

Planning for the future – subregional and local

12. With its partners, council has spent a great deal of time and care over recent years in planning for the future. Many of these plans were identified and briefly described in a report to council on 14 December 2020 and are repeated here for completeness.

(a) Urban Form and Transport Initiative (“UFTI”) Report, approved and endorsed for inclusion in the LTP process by Council on 1 July 2020. This is a programme business case setting out the integrated land use and transport programme and high-level delivery plan for the western Bay of Plenty sub-region over the next 30-70 years.

(b) Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan and the Transport System Operating Framework, approved for the purposes of the development of the LTP by Council on 28 October 2020. This framework is intended to guide the development and implementation of transport projects identified under the UFTI programme business case.

(c) Te Papa Spatial Plan and Implementation Plan, approved, with funding subject to the LTP process, by the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee on 13 October 2020. This provides a 30-year blueprint of the strategic direction for growth in the Te Papa peninsula, forming the basis for the co-ordination of decision making across multiple agencies in a growth context.

(d) Community Facilities Investment Plan, adopted as the basis for consideration of such facilities in the LTP by the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee on 24 November 2020. This builds on existing strategies and recent needs assessments to provide investment priorities across the library, community centre, indoor court, aquatic centre, and sports field networks.

(e) Infrastructure Resilience Projects report, approved for use in the development of the LTP by the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee on 24 November 2020. This report follows a three-year process of identifying natural hazard risks and asset vulnerabilities and identifies the priority projects needed to improve the resilience of city-wide infrastructure.

(f) Eastern Corridor Wastewater Study, endorsed in principle with delivery subject to LTP funding by the Urban Form and Transport Development Committee on 9 June 2020. This programme, supporting a strategy developed in 2018/19, provides for the network improvements needed to service existing areas of the corridor as well as the Wairakei and Te Tumu growth areas.

(g) Western Corridor Wastewater Study, endorsed in principle with delivery subject to LTP funding by Council on 5 May 2020. This strategy considers the requirements to be able to service not only short-term developments in the corridor, but also longer-term areas identified for future growth.

13. The various planning studies all build on the concept of creating well-serviced, connected communities to enable communities to thrive. Collectively these and other plans emphasise:

· the need for greater transport choices

· the need to invest in housing intensification

· the need to invest in facilities, not just transport corridors and pipes

· the need to future-proof investments in long-life capital assets

· the need to be resilient to climate change and other natural hazards.

Planning for the future – National

14. The National Policy Statement – Urban Development (NPS-UD) requires ‘sufficient’ residential and business land capacity to meet expected demand.

15. ‘Sufficient’ land capacity is defined as:

· plan-enabled; and;

· infrastructure-ready; and

· feasible and reasonably expected to be realised; and

· for high growth Councils (including Tauranga), meet the expected demand plus 20% competitiveness margin over the 10-year period, (15% margin in the 10 yr to 30 yr period.)

16. ‘Infrastructure ready’ under the NPS-UD for the 10-year LTP period means:

o Short term (1-3 yrs) adequate existing development infrastructure to support the development of the land; and

o Medium term (4- 10 yrs) either adequate existing infrastructure or funding for adequate infrastructure to support development of the land is identified in a long-term plan.

17. The current planning and infrastructure barriers mean that the short-term demand is unable to be met. Under the LTP proposal there is insufficient ‘infrastructure ready’ land to meet the 20% competitiveness margin required by the NPS-UD in both the short and medium term. Tables 1 and 2 below show the shortfall based on different assumed levels of intensification / greenfield development. Included on the right is a column showing impact if Te Tumu and Tauriko West infrastructure investment does not occur and therefore greenfield growth is not enabled.

Table 1: Shortfall assuming 15% intensification, 85% greenfields

	Estimated Dwelling Shortfall
	Short term (1 – 3 yrs)	Medium Term (4 – 10 yrs) with Te Tumu & Tauriko West	Medium Term No Te Tumu & Tauriko West
Projected Dwellings (Citywide)	3,590	7,880	7,880
City Shortfall	580	460	3,460
City Shortfall including NPS-UD Competitiveness Margin (+20%)	1,300	2,030	5,030

Table 2: Shortfall assuming 25% intensification, 75% greenfields

	Estimated Dwelling Shortfall
	Short term (1 – 3 yrs)	Medium Term (4 – 10 yrs) with Te Tumu & Tauriko West	Medium Term No Te Tumu & Tauriko West
Projected Dwellings (Citywide)	3,590	7,880	7,880
City Shortfall	220	-330	2,670
City Shortfall including NPS-UD Competitiveness Margin (+20%)	940	1240	4,240

18. The NPS-UD requires that where a local authority determines there is insufficient development capacity the Council must notify the Minister for the Environment. It is recommended that this occur when the Council has adopted a draft LTP for audit as at that point the proposed infrastructure ready land will be known.

Action through investment

19. While planning should and will continue, there is now sufficient information about the problems the city faces and the potential solutions and priorities to enable action to be progressed.

20. Decisions are required to turn planning into investment, and investment into positive outcomes for the city. The 2021-31 LTP is the mechanism by which council decides on the actions it needs to take and the investments it needs to make in those actions. The opportunity presented by the 2021-31 LTP to reset the city’s direction and to better provide for the well-being of its communities ‘in the present and for the future’ is real and significant.

21. The growth and historical under-investment issues that the city faces are a long time in the making and will not be solved quickly. When in ‘catch-up’ mode, there is rarely a ‘quick fix’. Implementing the preferred solutions will take time to physically deliver and then for those solutions to collectively deliver the benefits sought.

PART 2: desired community outcomes

What our community has told us

22. During and prior to the development phase for the draft LTP, council has undertaken a number of engagement processes with the community. Of these the most comprehensive regarding the community’s ambitions for the city was the Vital Updates project[12] undertaken in late 2019 and early 2020. This project, which included responses from over 5,000 people across a broad spectrum of demographics, told us that the community want:

· better roading infrastructure and less traffic congestion

· more affordable housing

· more and better public transport options

· a greater focus on planning and a revitalised city centre

· to protect and enhance our green spaces – parks, reserves and walkways

· clean waterways

· to preserve and enhance Māori cultural features in our communities.

Community outcomes

23. Community outcomes are ‘the outcomes that (council) aims to achieve in order to promote the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of (the city) in the present and for the future’[13].

24. Building on the Vital Update work and other valuable information[14], council proposed refreshing its community outcomes.

25. Following community feedback during a period of public consultation, the Policy Committee adopted the following community outcomes in September 2020. These help form the basis of the proposed approach to the draft LTP. The adopted community outcomes are:

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

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

· We can move around our city easily – Tauranga is a well-connected city, easy to move around in and with a range of sustainable transport choices.

· We support business and education – Tauranga is a city that attracts and supports a range of business and education opportunities, creating jobs and a skilled workforce.

· We are inclusive, and value our culture and diversity – Tauranga is a city that recognises and values culture and diversity, and where people of all ages and backgrounds are included, feel safe, connected and healthy.

26. Alongside the community outcomes, the Policy committee also developed, consulted on, and ultimately adopted a set of five operational principles that underpin how council will work to deliver on the community outcomes. These principles are:

· We deliver value for our communities through prudent financial management, ensuring we plan and provide affordable fit-for-purpose services.

· Sustainability and resilience underpin our decision making and service delivery, protecting the future of our city

· We work in partnership with Tangata Whenua, our communities, sub-regional stakeholders and central government.

· We manage the balance between social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing of our communities.

· We listen to our communities and make transparent, evidence-based decisions.

27. Given the revised council governance model, and the importance of the community outcomes to the LTP[15], it is timely to ensure that the adopted community outcomes and principles are supported.

28. Note that there is no statutory requirement to adopt operational principles supporting the community outcomes, that was a choice made by the Policy Committee.

Options analysis

29. There are two principal options for consideration:

· Option 1: reconfirm community outcomes and principles as previously adopted for the LTP.

o Under this option, any reconsideration of the outcomes and principles would occur during the next LTP and/or Annual Plan process.

Advantages	Disadvantages
Current outcomes adopted following community engagement (81% support from 535 submissions).	New governance body may have concerns that there are some gaps in the outcomes.
LTP supporting documentation built on existing five outcomes.

· Option 2: amend community outcomes and/or principles

Advantages

Disadvantages

Enables omissions in the adopted outcomes to be addressed by council.

Substantive changes to community outcomes would require reassessment of:

- the contribution of each group of activities to the community outcomes, and

- the revenue and financing policy for each group of activities.

Reports covering both of these matters were included on the 8 March 2021 Council agenda and resolutions passed. Once the necessary rework was completed, those reports would need to be represented to, and reconsidered by, council.

30. If substantive changes are made to the community outcomes, the next steps will be to re-work the groups of activities material and the revenue and financing policy to reflect those changes. These will be represented to council at its 29 March 2021 meeting.

part 3: Key LTP investment proposals

31. There are six key investment proposals included in the LTP working draft. Together with ongoing investment in the renewal of existing assets, these six key investment proposals form the majority of the proposed capital investment programme.

32. Investments are planned across the whole city, encompassing both the existing urban areas and new growth areas, with the intention to provide all communities with high quality services.

33. The full proposed capital investment programme totalling $3.476 billion over ten years is included as Attachment 1 to this report.

34. Note that all figures quoted in this report are uninflated i.e. they are in 2021 dollars.

Key investment proposal 1: Residential and business land supply investment

35. The supply of zoned and serviced residential and business land is critical to the city. Council’s investment in this area is focused in four areas:

· Tauriko and the western corridor

· Te Tumu and the eastern corridor

· Te Papa intensification

· city-wide infrastructure required to service all new growth.

36. Investment in Tauriko and the western corridor, including the Tauriko West development and an expansion of the Tauriko Business Estate, is expected to lead to:

· the construction of 3,000 to 3,500 new homes

· improvements to the state highway network (SH29, SH36 and connections between)

· an additional 350 hectares of business land in two tranches which will, when fully developed, provide for an additional 5,300 jobs.

37. The proposed LTP includes investment of $252 million in Tauriko and the western corridor over ten years. This includes $125 million of transport investment and $68 million related to community facilities (see key investment proposals 2 and 3 below for further details on these).

38. Investment in Te Tumu and the eastern corridor, including the development of the Golden Sands town centre and of Te Tumu, is expected to lead to:

· the construction of 2,000 to 3,000 homes in currently zoned areas

· the construction of a further 7,000 to 8,000 homes in Te Tumu once it is zoned

· the construction of a direct link to the Tauranga Eastern Link via the Papamoa East Interchange

· the development of 57 hectares of employment land.

39. The proposed LTP includes investment of $407 million in Te Tumu and the eastern corridor over ten years. This includes $138 million of transport investment and $29 million related to community facilities. There are also substantial investments in community facilities in the eastern corridor planned for the years immediately after the LTP period.

40. Investment in Te Papa intensification is expected to lead to:

· an additional 15,000 residents in the area by 2050

· an additional 4,000 jobs in the city centre by 2063

· an improved passenger transport route from Tauriko to the city centre, and improved transport choices throughout the peninsula.

41. The proposed LTP includes investment of $625 million for Te Papa intensification over ten years. This includes $391 million of transport investment and $74 million related to community facilities. Direct investment in the city centre, described below, is not included in the Te Papa intensification total but will have flow-on benefits to the peninsula. Similarly, the proposed $90 million investment in the city-wide Memorial Park aquatics and indoor sports facility is not included in the $625 million total despite being located in the Te Papa peninsula.

42. Investment in city-wide infrastructure is predominantly related to upgrades and capacity improvements in the water and wastewater networks. These improvements will enable the development of 35,000 new homes across the city, including those in the new growth areas and through intensification of existing areas as detailed above, by providing sufficient safe drinking water and sanitation services in ways that protect the natural environment.

43. The proposed LTP includes $145 million for the development of the Waiāri water supply, including completion of stage 1 and then further staged development, and $181 million for further development of the Te Maunga wastewater treatment plant and associated assets.

44. While investment in growth infrastructure is required to enable residential and business land supply it does present real risk for Council. If the anticipated growth does not occur, or the growth is slow than predicted, the debt on Council’s balance sheet will grow and put increasing pressure on the debt to revenue ratio. As is noted in the Finance report on this agenda, that has the consequence of transferring that growth burden to ratepayers due to the need to increase rates to stay within acceptable debt/revenue levels.

Key investment proposal 2: Transport investment

45. Traffic congestion and the way and ease that people and goods move around are key challenges for the city. Without significant investment, transport outcomes are poor:

· population and business growth, coupled with limited transport choices, mean that congestion will increase

· car-dominated travel choices continue to dominate

· travel-time predictability worsens

· safety risk remains high in places

· increasing difficulty accessing the Port of Tauranga and other business hubs, thereby impacting on business prosperity.

46. The Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan (“TSP”) that was endorsed by council and other project partners in October 2020 seeks to provide for safe, sustainable and efficient movement of people and goods around and through the city.

47. The TSP takes a network system approach and supports both greenfield development and increased intensification of the existing urban footprint. The TSP includes a prioritised investment programme, agreed by all of the partner agencies.

48. That investment programme, and other transport investments proposed by council, are expected to lead to the following positive outcomes:

· population and business growth is supported by a multi-modal transport system

· increased levels of public transport and active travel will deliver health and environmental benefits

· safety risks are addressed and crash rates will reduce, in turn encouraging further participation in active travel modes

· improved accessibility and amenity will support quality urban form in activity centres and supporting business growth.

49. Note though that by its nature, changes to transport outcomes take time, both to build infrastructure and to adapt the community’s transport behaviours to new opportunities. In short, there are no quick fixes and many of the current transport-related challenges in the city will remain for some time.

50. The proposed LTP includes $1.43 billion of investment in transport movement solutions. This includes:

15^th Avenue / Turret Road corridor	$55 million
Hewletts Road / Totara Street / Hull Road sub-catchment	$118 million
Bus infrastructure	$52 million
Accessible streets, including walkways and cycleways	$165 million
Te Tumu and eastern corridor growth projects*	$138 million
Tauriko and western corridor growth projects*	$125 million
Te Papa intensification (including Cameron Road)*	$391 million
Renewals of, and minor safety upgrades to, existing roads	$159 million
* = these investments are also included in the residential and business land supply totals (key investment proposal 1)

51. These totals include the $1.065 billion of projects identified in the first ten years of the TSP for which council is the lead or partner agency.

52. It should be noted that much of council’s investment in transport outcomes assumes cost-share funding availability from Waka Kotahi NZTA. If that funding is not available, positive outcomes will be diminished.

Key investment proposal 3: Community facilities investment

53. Significant investment in community facilities is intended to:

· provide for facilities on both sides of the harbour, enabling communities easier access and reducing cross-city transportation movements

· catch up on under investment over recent years, so better servicing existing communities and the 36,000 people who have arrived in the city in the last 10 years

· replace end-of-life facilities that no longer provide the level of service that the community expects

· secure land now for future community facilities to be fully developed beyond the ten years of the LTP.

54. Key elements of the proposed investment in community facilities include:

Re-development of the Memorial Park aquatics facility	$45 million
Re-development of the Memorial Park indoor sports facility	$45 million
Development of a new active reserve and associated facilities in the west of the existing urban area	$49 million
Development of a new active reserve in the western corridor*	$10 million
Development of a community centre in the western corridor*	$11 million
Development of a library in the western corridor*	$12 million
Development of community centres in existing urban areas (including $15 million in Te Papa*)	$25 million
Parks developments and upgrades	$50 million
Strategic land purchases for future community facilities in both the eastern and western corridors*	$50 million
Ohauiti active reserve development	$7 million
City centre community spaces and library^	$47 million
* = these investments are also included in the residential and business land supply totals (key investment proposal 1) ^ = this investment is also included in the city centre investment totals (key investment proposal 4)

Key investment proposal 4: City centre investment

55. The Tauranga city centre is the heart of the city and sub-region and, with the Port of Tauranga, arguably of the wider Bay of Plenty region.

56. Investment in the city centre is required to support the revitalisation of the city centre and to promote economic growth. It is expected that civic investment in the city centre will lead to further private investment as the investment and development community regains confidence in the city centre.

57. The proposed investments in the city centre are intended to replace aging, end-of-life facilities and to create modern and engaging facilities and public spaces.

58. Key elements of the proposed investment in the city centre include:

· Community spaces and library - $47 million

· Civic plaza and surrounding public spaces - $11 million

· Other city centre public spaces and streetscapes - $18 million

· Strand extension boardwalk replacement and associated streetscape - $5 million

· New civic administration building – costs commercially sensitive at this stage.

Key investment proposal 5: Resilience

59. Through the 2018-28 LTP, council initiated a project looking at the resilience of its infrastructure. That project culminated in a report to the Urban Form & Transport Development Committee in November 2020 which identified a programme of 315 projects intended to improve the resilience of the city’s core infrastructure against individual or combined natural hazards including:

· sea level rise

· tsunami

· land slide

· flooding

· liquefaction

· inundation

· erosion.

60. The programme proposed in the November report has an estimated total investment of $850 million to $950 million and was originally proposed to be undertake over 30 years (approximating $30 million per annum).

61. The proposed investment through the LTP focuses initially on high-priority projects relating to water supply trunk main resilience ($29 million over first four years).

62. Over the ten years of the LTP the total proposed investment in infrastructure investment projects is $100 million.

Further options

63. During the 8^th March 2021 meeting, Council resolved to request further consideration of:

a) In respect of resilience investment over the 10 year period:

· Option of increasing the existing targeted rate; and

· Option and implication of including a further $100m

64. The currently-modelled targeted rate for resilience covers the depreciation and interest on the current capital expenditure programme.

65. Because Council’s overall debt exposure is reaching prudent limits, any additional capital expenditure of scale triggers the need to increase revenue to pay-down debt through a debt retirement charge. Therefore, if the capital expenditure programme increases by $100 million over ten years the additional costs to be funded would include interest and depreciation, as on the $100m already in the budget, but also a debt retirement charge.

66. Comparing the two options for the resilience capital programme:

· Option 1: Capital investment programme of $100 million over 10 years

o This option is currently as modelled in the proposed LTP

o At this rate of funding, the wider resilience programme would take approximately 90 years to deliver

o Resilience targeted rate would cover depreciation and interest on the specific projects only

o Rating implications in the table below

· Option 2: Capital investment programme of $200 million over 10 years

o This option doubles the capital programme modelled in the proposed LTP

o At this rate of funding, the wider resilience programme would take approximately 45 years to deliver

o Resilience targeted rate would cover depreciation and interest on the specific projects, together with a debt retirement charge on the additional $100 million to ensure that council’s prudent financial management ratios are maintained

o Rating implications in the table below.

67. The resilience targeted rate required under the two options for the ten years is identified below.

Targeted rates	2022	2023	2024	2025 to 2031
Option 1 - $100m capex	$0.1m	$0.3m	$0.3m	$0.7m rising to $2.7m
Option 2 - $200m capex	$3.9m	$5.0m	$5.8m	$7.1m rising to $14.6m

68. Note that on a base of $190m of rates, $0.1m in year 1 equates to an average rates increase of 0.05% while a $3.9m increase equates to 2.05%.

Key investment proposal 6: Enabling delivery

69. The capital investment programme proposed through the 2021-31 LTP is by far the biggest such programme ever proposed for the city; the transport programme alone constitutes more than the entire 2015-25 LTP capital investment programme.

70. Such a capital programme requires significant investment in the organisation to ensure it can be delivered.

71. Similar investments are required in other areas of the organisation to enable delivery of council’s work programme to meet community expectations. This includes the consideration of new premises allowing all city-based council staff to operate from a single building and therefore to negate the inefficiencies inherent in working across three city centre locations. This project is covered under key investment proposal 4 above.

72. Overall, additional investment in enabling delivery is required to:

· improve performance across the capital project delivery programme

· replace consultants with salaried staff

· resource for the in-house delivery of kerbside waste services

· increase the scale and quality of communication and community and stakeholder engagement activities

· address the reversal temporary Covid-19-related savings implemented in the 2020/21 budget

· address market movement in salaries

· ensure adequate digital systems, security and performance.

73. From a capital investment programme perspective, the other main element of enabling delivery involves investment in council’s digital platforms and delivery. Across the ten years of the LTP that capital investment is $151 million.

74. From an operational investment perspective, the main impact is in the staff costs budget. The key changes there are identified below.

Core salaries budget from 2020/21	$64.7 million
New positions covering project delivery, the replacement of consultants, the City Plan review project, increased investment required by the Transport System Plan, and infrastructure delivery	$4.8 million
Market movement, including market catch-up following the Covid-19 salary freeze, and an allowance for ‘movement in band’ for some staff	$4.2 million
Additional roles approved and implemented in 2020/21 but not included in the 2020/21 budget (including roles related to the delivery of kerbside waste services)	$2.3 million
Building organisational capability, including the reinstatement of the training budget removed as a temporary Covid-19 saving	$2.1 million
Other personnel costs including ACC, FBT, insurance, etc	$2.7 million
Total	$80.8 million

Other notes on the proposed capital investment programme

75. The capital investment programme also includes significant investment to ensure that existing assets are able to continue to provide the current level of service to the community. These projects include upgrade and renewal projects.

76. Within the transport investment programme this includes the $159 million of renewals, and minor safety projects, identified in key investment proposal 2.

77. Similar renewals budgets are identified for other significant asset types. Those not covered elsewhere in this report include:

· Water supply - $130 million

· Wastewater - $137 million

· Stormwater - $32 million

· Parks and related property - $40 million.

Projects currently excluded from the capital programme investment

78. The proposed capital programme does not include approximately $618 million of identified projects over the ten years of the LTP. Within this total, the key elements are:

(a) Transport projects – $41 million, including accessible streets projects in the Hairini/Welcome Bay corridor ($31 million) and various local road upgrades ($10 million)

(b) Digital capacity - $112 million of accelerated delivery of system improvements and replacements and business support

(c) Infrastructure resilience - $208 million of accelerated delivery of identified resilience projects (see key investment proposal 5 above)

(d) Dam safety upgrades - $16 million

(e) ‘Like for like’ resealing of local roads - $27 million

(f) Stormwater and amenity projects related to the intensification of Mount Maunganui and Otumoetai - $50 million

(g) Major Spaces & Places projects - $46 million[16] including the Memorial Park to Strand walkway ($17 million), a shared sports facility at Blake Park ($8 million) a shared club facility on Gordon Spratt Reserve ($4.8 million), accessibility hotspots ($4 million) and the development of Windemere Park ($3 million). The potential to include some or all of these projects in the draft LTP, funded via a targeted rate, is addressed in the LTP Finance report also on this agenda.

(h) Minor Spaces & Places projects – net $14 million (there are $19 million of projects listed while the proposed LTP includes $0.5 million per annum as a bulk fund; therefore $14 million of identified projects are unfunded).

(i) Further capacity for stormwater upgrades - $14 million

(j) Te Papa intensification – further $37 million of projects covering stormwater improvements and open space projects.

(k) A second eastern water supply reservoir - $15 million

(l) Automated city-wide water meters - $10 million

79. A full breakdown of the projects not currently included in the proposal is included as Attachment 2.

80. In addition, there are some significant investments included in years 11, 12 and 13 (beyond the ten years of the proposed LTP). These include:

· Development of an indoor pool, indoor sports centre, community centre, library, and an active reserve in the eastern growth corridor (total of $76 million).

· Development of an indoor pool and indoor sports centre in the western growth corridor (total of $44 million)

· Development of a new Greerton community centre ($5 million)

· Construction of the first part (Tauriko Business Estate to State Highway 36) of the western corridor ring-road ($84 million)

· Construction of the Greerton area transport hub ($16 million).

Significance

81. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

82. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the issue, proposal, decision, or matter

83. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the matter of this report, being the outcomes sought for the city and the proposed capital investment programme to achieve those outcomes, is of high significance.

ENGAGEMENT

84. The LTP, including the full capital investment programme, will be the subject of public consultation starting on 7 May 2021. Final decisions on the outcomes sought through the LTP and the capital investment programme intended to deliver those outcomes will only be made after that period of public consultation has been completed and considered by council.

Next Steps

85. Following consideration or and decisions on this report and the report titled ‘2021-31 Long Term Plan – Financial Options’ on the same agenda, staff will prepare a full suite of documents supporting the LTP for consideration by council on 29 March 2021. Once approved, those documents will then be subject to the audit process[17]. Further important milestones include:

· Adoption of the audited consultation document – 3 May 2021

· Public consultation – 7 May to 7 June 2021

· Hearings – mid-June 2021

· Deliberations – late June 2021

· Adoption of the final LTP – week commencing 26 July 2021.

Attachments

1. Projects included in proposed LTP as at 9 March 2021 - A12315993 ⇩

2. Projects not included in proposed LTP as at 9 March 2021 - A12316025 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

15 March 2021

11.4 Innovating Streets at the Mount

File Number: A12240292

Author: Guy Protheroe, Urban Designer

Doug Spittle, Team Leader: Urban Spaces

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To provide background information on the progress of the Innovating Streets at The Mount project, including community engagement outcomes.

2. To approve the scope of works and proceeding to implementation for the Innovating Streets at The Mount project.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the Innovating Streets at the Mount report.

(b) Approves the trial of a temporary shared path and altered traffic arrangements for the section of Marine Parade from Pacific Avenue through to Tay Street intersection.

AND / OR

(c) Approves undertaking work to investigate feasibility and cost estimates for an extension to the Marine Parade boardwalk, from the Cenotaph to Oceanbeach Road roundabout, for potential inclusion in the Long-term Plan 2021-31.

Executive Summary

Summary of issue	Waka Kotahi is providing 90% of the funding of this $990,000 project to trial temporary changes to Marine Parade at Mount Maunganui. Funding ceases on 30 June 2021. The design for the trial has been prepared after extensive public engagement and a co-design exercise, with the proposals receiving good support, including from Waka Kotahi as the principal funding source. Strong community support was also received during the community consultation/co-design process for extending the existing boardwalk on the coast side of Marine Parade.
Broader benefit/impact	The project will allow for a comparatively low cost, quick test of the benefits and issues associated with establishing a shared path along a section of one of the most highly-used public amenities in the city. The project has also allowed for a public engagement co-design approach with significant lessons learnt for future such approaches in the planning for facilities within the city.
Strategic context	The project is aligned with the Smart Growth Agenda and Urban Form and Transport Initiative, along with the approved Cycle Plan.
Next steps	Finalise detailed plans, confirm contract with recommended supplier, undertake implementation, monitoring and sentiment testing.

Background

What is ‘Innovating Streets at The Mount’?

3. Waka Kotahi (WK) NZ Transport Agency announced the Innovating Streets for People Pilot Fund in April 2020 and invited councils throughout New Zealand to apply for part of the $7m that was initially made available. The maximum any project would be funded was $1m.

4. The fund is primarily about creating safe and attractive streets for all users including pedestrians, cyclists and other non-car modes of travel. The fund does not seek to fund permanent treatments but does aim to demonstrate the value of potential future permanent changes to the community. This ‘tactical urbanism’ is about quick, cheaper approaches to trial new ideas and see what works in our city’s spaces.

5. Four trial areas were submitted to WK for consideration in the first round of applications to the contestable fund. These four areas were endorsed by resolution at the 5 May 2020 Council meeting. WK requested that three of the trial areas submitted in the application be amalgamated in the one project. In response to this request, the extent of the project study area was confirmed to include the routes shown in the diagram below:

6. In June 2020, WK confirmed that it would provide 90% funding assistance to the Innovating Streets at The Mount project, providing a total project budget of $990,000.

7. The expectation from WK was that proposals be developed through a co-design approach that allows the community to be directly involved in the way the project is shaped, created and delivered.

8. Funding from WK runs until 30 June 2021, although subject to guidance from the community and final decision by Council, the trials could be in place beyond this date.

9. To assist in the project, engagement, communications, design and transport engineering consultants have been engaged. The design and transport engineering consultants were chosen after an RFP weighted attributes tender process.

Co-design process

10. The co-design process to develop interventions was undertaken from August 2020 to January 2021 and involved the following elements:

(i) two rounds of public submissions;

(ii) establishment of a Community Design Group (CDG) and four workshops of that group; and

(iii) various other engagements e.g. schools, drop-in sessions etc.

11. Attachment A outlines the co-design process in detail.

Recommendation

12. Attachment A also outlines the options considered for each of the routes in the project area. The project team worked through the feedback from public submissions and from the CDG workshops. Other factors in developing the recommended option include feasibility for delivery, risk, cost and the overall objectives of the Innovating Streets for People initiative as outlined by WK.

13. The recommendation is to consider progressing the Tay Street link and Tay Street intersection components only. This would involve the following elements:

Tay Street link (Marine Parade from Pacific Avenue to Tay Street intersection)

· Two-way traffic retained.

· New two-way shared path on beach side in part on the carriageway and in part on the grass areas adjoining.

· Most of the parallel parking would be removed on the residential side with angle parking on beach side displaced towards the centre of road to allow for the shared path, this angle parking would be changed from 60 degrees to the kerb to mostly 45 degrees.

· A short section in the Pacific Avenue to Banks Avenue block will have car parking retained on the residential side to trial an alternative layout.

· The centreline to be moved towards the residential side.

· The number of carparks would be reduced from 698 to approximately 434 which represents 37% along this stretch.

· Two new pedestrian crossings – one at the intersection of Grove Avenue and one at the intersection of Sutherland Avenue.

· Speed limit reduced from 50km/hr to 30km/hr.

Tay Street intersection

· Construction of a temporary roundabout with two new pedestrian zebra crossings, one on Marine Parade to the east of the roundabout and one on Tay Street approaching the intersection.

· The number of carparks in the immediate vicinity of the intersection would

be reduced by 23.

14. Both above routes will also have elements of placemaking to complement the changes to the transport arrangement. These interventions will give opportunity for the community, including local schools, to be involved in creating various elements and activities. Interventions could include:

· On-street ‘plaza’ spaces including outdoor dining, bike/scooter parking, plants etc.

· Bus stops and shelters designed and/or built by the local community.

· Barriers decorated to be unique to the Mount.

· Creative design for pedestrian crossing and roundabout installations.

· Sections of the painted shared path painted by locals in a range of designs.

15. The Tay Street link and Tay Street intersection interventions will use the available budget for the project. Attachment A outlines other routes that were considered but were not recommended due to budget constraints, or due to lack of support from public and/or CDG.

16. The recommended route for implementation was part of the proposal considered in 2018, which was ultimately not supported by the Council at the time. The 2018 proposal was to implement a similar treatment for Marine Parade to that now recommended, although the 2018 proposal included the Main Beach section of Marine Parade, which is not recommended for this project.

17. The 2018 proposal also sought to trial a one-way system with segregated pathway along Pilot Bay. The Pilot Bay route has not been recommended for this project due to concerns similar to those raised back in 2018, and the level of opposition to all the proposed trial layout options for that route. Concerns for the Marine Parade route have been considered and addressed in the design that is recommended to progress to trial.

Timeline for implementation and decommissioning

18. WK have reconfirmed that funding ceases on 30 June 2021 with no scope for extensions.

19. It is anticipated there might need to be ‘tweaks’ and adjustments to the proposals once they have been observed and monitored in real life applications. The programme has always allowed for up to two months for this to occur before external funding finishes. This time allows for several weeks to observe on-site functioning, undertaking any design modifications and or modelling, undertaking any demolition/removals and implementing replacements that might be required.

20. Fulton Hogan (FH), one of the Council’s regular suppliers of street maintenance works, have been approached to quote for most of this work. They have indicated they will require in the vicinity of 4-6 weeks to install the trials as now detailed. Consequently, to realistically meet the programme noted above, FH need to be onsite from the beginning of April.

21. The duration of the trials will in part be determined by the use and success or otherwise of the proposals. As a bare minimum, it is hoped that they run through the summer months of December 2021 to late February 2022 in order to test the implications of a shared space; reduced carparking along Marine Parade, higher profile bus stops, a new roundabout and narrower carriageway space during peak anticipated usage.

Monitoring

22. Monitoring and evaluation are a crucial component of the trial. It will comprise quantitative and qualitative surveys undertaken both prior to implementation and during operations.

23. WK have been engaged in the design of the evaluation methods to ensure useful data is gathered consistent with other trials occurring concurrently around New Zealand.

24. Data will be collected on the following for a variety of different times of the day and week:

· counts for all modes of transport using the carriageway and cycle lanes;

· parking utilisation;

· vehicle speeds; and

· perception/‘sentiment’ assessments on perceived changes resulting from the trials.

25. To get a baseline, monitoring on the above items has already begun and subject to the agreed extent and duration of any trails, will be continued during operation.

26. It has been agreed with WK that a core group of between 50–100 participants will be approached to provide perception/sentiment responses, pre, during and post-trials. The CDG member will be invited to participate as will other members of the public who expressed an interest in being involved with the co-design process at the time of the first round of public engagement. In addition to these other key stakeholders such as immediate residents to the route where work is to occur, cycling representatives, school pupils and youth representatives will be invited to participate.

27. A further round of public engagement could also occur, post implementation and operations. The exact nature of the public engagement will be tailored to the duration, extent and nature of the trials, and will be integrated with the monitoring and evaluation that is required.

Community support for extension of Marine Parade boardwalk

28. A recurring theme during the public consultation and co-design workshops was strong support for extending the Marine Parade boardwalk from the Cenotaph to the Marine Parade/Oceanbeach Road roundabout. This feedback was most relevant to the Tay Street link that is recommended for consideration to progress to trial, given there is no boardwalk through the reserve for that stretch of Marine Parade.

29. The boardwalk is out of scope for the Innovating Street project itself given WK funding can only be used for work within the road reserve. Nonetheless, given the strong level of support for extending the boardwalk facility, it is recommended consideration is given to investigate costs and feasibility for this project to potentially be included in the Long-term Plan 2021-31.

Strategic / Statutory Context

30. The project is aligned with the SmartGrowth Agenda and Urban Form and Transport Initiative, which aims to grow walking and cycling and create more vibrant and livable cities.

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

32. The project also has the longer-term opportunity to integrate with proposals for the cycle path to be constructed in 2021-22 along Totara Street. The Banks/Salisbury Avenues route, which was originally proposed as part of the overall scheme, is no longer recommended for this trial. Cycling connections for the Mount North area forms part of the Councils Accessible Streets programme that will enable connections between Marine Parade and the wider network. This would then provide a comprehensive separated cycle path from the central city to the Mount beaches.

Financial Considerations

33. WK is funding 90% of the project’s $990,000 budget and covers external costs including community engagement, consultancy and construction costs.

34. The WK funding of $891,000 runs until 30 June 2021 and will be fully invoiced by that time.

35. Costs to date cover engagement, communications and design services, and represent approximately 24% of the $990,000 budget, which is in line with the original cost plan.

36. The current cost plan allows $580,000 for construction and restoration to pre-trial conditions, including traffic management and contingency.

37. FH have provided an estimate based on the most recent plans and it is within this allowance.

38. WK have agreed that the majority of the Council contribution of $99,000 can be used for restoration works post 30 June 2021. This is beneficial as WK funding cannot be used after 30 June 2021 so would not be able to contribute to reinstatement works. Based on the most recent plans, restoration is estimated to be $150,000. A majority of this would be covered by Council’s above noted contribution with any balance coordinated with the renewal programme from existing budgets to complete any necessary resealing work.

Legal Implications / Risks

39. On approval of the plans, the Safety Engineering Team of the Council will draft Bylaws covering the implementation of a ‘shared path’ and 30km/hr speed limit along the route, which will allow for the enforcement of parking requirements. Because of the extensive public consultation already undertaken as part of the project development, it will not be necessary to undertake any further engagement other than informing all residents fronting the route concerned of the proposal.

40. The key risks in summary are:

· Public opposition to the trial particularly from those persons concerned about a reduction of car parking, new road alignments and speed limits.

· The project does not meet expectations of the public when the scheme is implemented. While it has always been made clear to the public that the project must work within a defined and small budget, the engagement that has been undertaken has always looked at a broad scale exploring the opportunities for proposals along Main Beach, Pilot Bay and Banks Avenue.

· That with the change of approval processes, the project is stalled and the funding available from WK ceases to be available to fully implement the scheme.

Significance

41. Tauranga’s Significance and Engagement Policy determines whether a matter is significant. In making the assessment against this policy, there is no intention to assess the importance of this item to individuals, groups or agencies within the community and it is acknowledged that all reports have a high degree of importance to those affected by Council decisions. Materiality is defined as being something that would influence the decisions or assessments of those reading or responding to the consultation document.

42. The matters outlined in this report are likely to be of moderate significance and public interest, as they relate to a highly-used and high-profile location and could lead to significant longer-term investment in the public realm within the Mount Maunganui area. The transport impacts of the proposal will also be of moderate significance and public interest.

Next Steps

· Finalising detail design – March 2021

· Monitoring of traffic and parking in pre-trial conditions – March 2021

· Sentiment testing – March 2021

· Construction and initial community placemaking to commence – March to May 2021

· Launch event and activation activities – May 2021

· Monitoring of traffic and parking in trial conditions – May 2021 to February 2022

· Third round of community engagement – May 2021

· Investigate feasibility and cost estimates for a Marine Parade boardwalk extension from the Cenotaph to the Oceanbeach Road roundabout, to inform the draft Long-term Plan 2021-31.

Attachments

1. Supplementary Background Information - A12231339 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

15 March 2021

ATTACHMENT A

Innovating Streets at the Mount

Supplementary Background Information

(DC Enter No.)

File Number:

Author: Guy Protheroe, Urban Designer

Doug Spittle, Team Leader: Urban Spaces

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

SUBJECT	Page
Community Engagement that has been undertakeN	2
FEEDBACK FROM THE FIRST ROUND OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT	2
PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF DESIGN OPTIONS	3
DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE SECOND ROUND OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT	3
FEEDBACK FROM THE SECOND ROUND OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT	3
SHORTLISTING OF OPTIONS FOR THE TRIAL	5
SHORTLISTED OPTIONS FOR THE TRIAL	6
OPTIONS NOT CONSIDERED FOR THE TRIAL	6
PROPOSED PHYSICAL CHANGES TO THE STREET	7
SAFETY IN DESIGN WORKSHOP FINDINGS	7
WAKA KOTAHI (NZTA) FEEDBACK ON THE DESIGN	8
TRAFFIC MODELLING FINDINGS	9
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS	10
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION	11
1. PLACEMAKING AND ACTIVATION OPPORTUNITIES	11
2. MODIFICATIONS TO TRIALS ONCE INSTALLED	11
COMPLETION OF THE TRIAL	12
MEASURES OF SUCCESS	13

Community Engagement that has been undertakeN

1. The community co-design process involved three phases of public consultation, alongside co-design workshops held with a 28-member Community Design Group.

2. The first round of public consultation was undertaken in August and September 2020 and informed the public about what the project might comprise, why the project was proposed, when it might be undertaken, where it could occur, how people could contribute and who was paying for it.

3. The second round of public consultation was undertaken in November 2020 and provided options and proposals for public feedback.

4. The third, subject to a decision on whether to proceed, is proposed to commence from April 2021 and is to gather feedback on the actual responses from the public on the success (or otherwise) of any scheme implemented.

5. The first and second phases of community engagement comprised the following:

(a) Communications via numerous repeating advertisements and sponsored articles in the Bay of Plenty Times and Sunlive, on radio, Facebook, Neighbourly and LinkedIn.

(b) Regular updates on council website with an online feedback form.

(d) Media briefings and releases.

(e) Brochure distribution to all dwellings and businesses to the north of Tweed Street to Mauao. Brochure, printed feedback form and posters also made available at Mount library, Mount Hot Pools and Surf Club, Baywave and local schools.

(f) Individual approaches by project team to all businesses fronting the proposed routes and other businesses in the immediate vicinity.

(g) Visits with Travel Safe Team to four local schools with workshops held.

(h) Public drop-in sessions held on Marine Parade and also the Little Big Market in Coronation Park.

(i) Presentations and workshops with Mount Ratepayers, Residents and Retailers Association.

(j) Individual presentations and meetings with key stakeholders including the TCC Takawaenga unit, Tourism Bay of Plenty and Mount Mainstreet.

(k) Email approaches to approximately 350 key stakeholders for each engagement phase.

6. Formal community feedback via electronic and written submissions was received:

(a) 19 August to 7 September 2020. A total of 1,236 people and organisations provided feedback.

(b) 12 to 29 November 2020 and for residences on Marine Parade and Pilot Bay from 21 December 2020 to 18 January 2021. Approximately 1,200 people and organisations provided feedback. Approximately 300 informal submissions and feedback responses were also received during the drop-in sessions.

FEEDBACK FROM THE FIRST ROUND OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

7. A summary report on the findings from the first round of engagement held in August and September 2020 was prepared with the two key findings being:

(a) there is a significant amount of people that do not think these routes are safe for people on bicycles, scooters, skateboarders and other wheeled devices; and

(b) the majority of the general public, Mount Maunganui residents, businesses in the area, and people who visit the area would like TCC to trial some improvements to these routes.

PROCESS FOR THE PREPARATION OF DESIGN OPTIONS

8. In line with the expectations of Waka Kotahi (NZTA) (WK), the proposals for the second round of public engagement were developed through a co-design approach allowing the community to be directly involved in the way the project was shaped, created and delivered.

To facilitate co-design, a Community Design Group (CDG) was established to work alongside the engagement, design and transport engineering consultants (Viewpoints, Isthmus Group, Gap Filler and Flow), and the Council team to assist in preparing proposals. 10. To form the CDG, the public was invited during the first round of public engagement in August and September 2020, to register interest to be part of the group. Over 180 registrations were received. All were asked whether they were broadly in favour of undertaking trials or not.

11. To ensure the group was a manageable size and that there was a fair cross section of viewpoints, the engagement consultant devised an impartial selection method which was overseen by the local Police.

12. The group eventually comprised 28 members. Approximately half were residents on the routes directly affected by the proposals, with half of these broadly in favour of change and half opposed. The balance of the group comprised of representatives from: Mana whenua; Mount Mainstreet; local retailer; campground operator, hot pool and surf lifesaving club; local primary school teacher; several high school students; Bike Tauranga; representative from the Mount Ratepayers, Residents and Retailers Association; Ports of Tauranga; Tourism Bay of Plenty and three representatives of the disabled community. Within the overall group approximately 25% were over 65 years old, which was a fair representation of the local community age profile.

DESIGN OPTIONS FOR THE SECOND ROUND OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT

13. Following three workshops with the CDG, the design team prepared between two and four options for each of the four routes and prepared three options for the Tay Street intersection with Marine Parade. All these options were illustrated in an online and paper survey document through the second round of public submissions. The public was asked to give responses to the options from ‘Really Bad’ through to ‘Awesome’. Written comments were also asked for.

14. As illustrated in the attached feedback report (pages 91-110) the options illustrated included:

· separated cycleways;

· shared surface solutions where different modes of transport jointly use the street environment;

· placemaking opportunities including creating conditions for ‘activation’ – community participation in making changes to the street environment.

FEEDBACK FROM THE SECOND ROUND OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

15. A summary report on the findings from the second round of engagement held in November 2020 and for residences on Marine Parade and Pilot Bay from 21 December 2020 to 18 January 2021 is provided on the project website at https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/our-future/projects/transportation-projects/innovating-streets-at-the-mount.

16. There was overall support for undertaking at least one trial on most routes with strongest in favour for Route 1-Main Beach; Route 3 - Banks and Salisbury Avenues and Route 4b - Tay Street Intersection routes and areas. For more detail refer to the Feedback Report. Below is a summary of the results specific to all proposed routes:

Route 1 - Main Beach

Three options were presented.

· Option 1 was for one-way traffic plus a dedicated cycleway on the beach side of the road.

· Option 2 was for two-way traffic and a dedicated cycleway on the beach side of the road.

· Option 3 was for partial road closure and a ‘shared surface’ mixing traffic/cyclists/pedestrians.

Option 2 received the strongest support with 54% noting that the scheme is either ‘awesome’ or ‘works’. The largest number of detailed comments expressed concerns about loss of carparking as well as concerns that it ‘wasn’t doing enough’

Route 2 - Pilot Bay

Four options were presented.

· Option 1 was for two-way traffic plus a dedicated cycleway on the beach side of the road and parallel parking on the residential side of the road.

· Option 2 was for one-way traffic plus a dedicated cycleway on the beach side of the road with angle parking on the residential side.

· Option 3 was for one-way traffic plus a dedicated cycleway on the residential side of the road and angle parking on the beach side.

· Option 4 was for one-way traffic plus a dedicated cycleway and angle parking on the beach side of the road.

Overall there was stronger opposition than support for all the options. Opposition ranged from 61% opposed to Option 2 to 69% opposed to Option 3. Principal concerns across all options being loss of carparking and concerns about inconvenience caused by one-way traffic flow

Route 3 – Banks Avenue/Salisbury

Three options were presented.

· Option 1 was for two-way traffic along Banks Avenue plus traffic calming measures including formalising pedestrian crossings and installing additional roadside build outs

· Option 2 was for two-way traffic along Banks Avenue and a dedicated cycleway on the north side of the road. Most existing car parking would be removed.

· Option 3 was for a new roundabout at the Banks Avenue / Marine Parade intersection

Option 3 received strong support (64%) because it was seen as making it safer and easier to negotiate the intersection

Option 2 received the strongest support of the two sets of proposals (57% v 46%) specifically for Banks Avenue.

The largest number of comments received were on concern about loss of carparking and also that it makes the route safer for people on bicycles.

Route 4a – Tay Street Link

Two options were presented.

· Option 1 was for two-way traffic along Marine Parade plus a shared user path (wheels and pedestrians) and angle parking on the beach side of the road, while retaining the pedestrian path on the residential side of the road.

· Option 2 was for two-way traffic along Marine Parade and a dedicated cycleway and angle parking on the beach side of the road, while retaining the pedestrian path on the residential side of the road.

Both options proposed removal of the parallel parking on the residential side.

Considering all feedback, both options had even support and opposition with primary concerns about loss of carparking and potential safety issues of pedestrians using the cycle lane when exiting vehicles in carparks

Route 4b – Tay Street intersection

Three options were presented.

· Option 1 was for two-way traffic along Marine Parade plus a narrowing of the intersection with a roadside build out on the beach side

· Option 2 was for two-way traffic along Marine Parade plus a new roundabout and pedestrian crossings at the intersection.

· Option 3 was for two-way traffic along Marine Parade plus a narrowing of the intersection with a roadside build out on the beach and residential sides creating a chicane

Option 2 received the strongest support (57% ‘awesome’ or ‘works’) because people liked the roundabout although there was concern about the loss of carparking.

15. The survey also asked for responses to other ways to improve the streets. Three sets of ideas for traffic calming and making the street environment more attractive were presented:

1. Making the streets functional with bollards, signs, speed humps etc

2. Involving the community and making it fun with the use of colour, painting, planting, fun elements

3. A mixture of the above for whatever works best

There was very strong support for both making it fun and also having a mixture of functional and fun community participation solutions

SHORTLISTING OF OPTIONS FOR THE TRIAL

17. A final workshop with the community design group (CDG) was held on 15 December 2020 at which the members were presented with a summary of the feedback received from the second round of consultation and asked to respond to the updated proposals prepared by the consultants in response to that feedback.

18. The members were also asked to rank the priorities for trial, bearing in mind the likelihood that once more detailed proposals were prepared, the available funds would not allow for all the routes and works to be implemented.

19. Overall, the large majority of the CDG endorsed the recommendations. The primary ongoing concern was about the loss of carparking in Route 4a Tay Street link and also about access difficulties into adjoining residential properties on that route.

20. Main Beach was the most favoured route for undertaking the trial followed by the Tay Street link; Pilot Bay; Tay Street intersection and with Banks Avenue the least favoured.

21. With these recommendations from the CDG; the consultant team proceeded to prepare more detailed proposals to allow for safety in design audits; WK(NZTA) feedback; traffic modelling implications; monitoring requirements; further community engagement and communications; programming needs; and costings

SHORTLISTED OPTIONS FOR THE TRIAL

22. Taking into consideration the community feedback during the second round of public engagement; the CDG recommendations and the overall objectives of the Innovating Street for People initiative, together with what is achievable within the budget, the following route proposals have been shortlisted for further development:

OPTIONS NOT CONSIDERED FOR THE TRIAL

23. Primarily because of limitations of the budget the following route proposals are not proposed to be undertaken as part of this trial. However, if they were to proceed, they would comprise the following:

(a) Route 1 - Main Beach

· Two-way traffic retained

· New two-way cycle lane on beach side in part on carriageway and in part on grass areas adjoining

· Most of the angle parking retained on residential side with angle parking on beach side displaced towards centre of road to allow for cycle lane

· The number of carparks would be reduced from 241 to 198

· Removal of existing cycle lanes

· The centreline would be moved towards the residential side

· Relocating the food trucks to the Mount Drury/ Hopukiore side of the road

(b) Route 3 – Banks Avenue/ Salisbury Avenue

· Two-way road traffic retained

· New two-way cycle lane on south side

· Some parallel parking retained at the Maunganui Road end but otherwise all parking removed

· The number of carparks would be reduced from 67 to 13

· Build-up of cycle path through mid-section where it there are retaining walls either side of the road

· The centreline would be moved towards the north side

This proposal was favourably received by the CDG and had good wider public support, however in addition to funding constraints it had technical difficulties at the Maunganui Road roundabout. Therefore, after discussion with WK this proposal is not being pursued as part of this project.

24. In addition to funding constraints, the level of opposition to proposals during the second round of community engagement associated with the Pilot Bay route were such that the modest changes proposed at the fourth CDG workshop are also not recommended to proceed. The items proposed to be trialled at the workshop comprised:

· temporary pedestrian crossings be installed on the streets adjoining The Mall on Pilot Bay. These were to be primarily as traffic calming measures.

PROPOSED PHYSICAL CHANGES TO THE STREET

25. As illustrated in the attached plans, there are several changes to the street environment proposed in order to undertake these temporary trials.

26. The temporary changes include:

· Painting over symbol; lane and parking bay markings

· New road symbol lane and parking bays markings

· Repositioning of bus stops signs

· Removal of street signs, some seats and rubbish bins

· New street signs and repositioning some seats and rubbish bins

· Removal of some planting in existing buildouts

· Construction of temporary ramps and asphalt surfaces across build outs and adjoining grass areas

· Temporary additional cycle/scooter racks, seating and planter boxes

· Installation of temporary wheel stops and barrier on roundabout

· Installation of temporary speed cushions and humps

· Installation of temporary lighting at the four new pedestrian crossing points

SAFETY IN DESIGN WORKSHOP FINDINGS

27. On the advice of WK(NZTA), because the project is being undertaken as a trial with a limited timeframe and with the opportunity to make quick physical environment changes if necessary after implementation, the road safety audit has been held as an internal council workshop rather than being contracted out to a professional consultancy.

28. The hazard identification register identified the following as high risk items being:

1. Accessibility to underground services being impeded

2. Location of service covers creating slip hazard on cycle way

3. Service vehicles obstructing traffic on narrowed carriageway

4. Maintenance of temporary wheel stops in the event of damage

5. Bus stop locations especially in relation to pedestrian crossings

6. ‘Ghosting’ of painted out road markings especially if wet and at night

7. Trip and slip hazards with wheel stops

8. Conflict between pedestrians and cyclists on shared path

9. Vehicles reversing out of angle parking crossing paths with road cyclists and oncoming traffic

10. Vehicles encroaching into cycle ways

29. Other hazards identified include:

11. Closer proximity of traffic lanes to existing pedestrian footpaths on the streets

12. Accessibility to residences for emergency vehicles being impacted upon

13. Road cyclists and other recreational micro wheel users continuing to use

carriageway but with reduced width available

14. Compliance with tactile paving; accessibility; lighting at crossing points and

other standards might be compromised by temporary nature of installations

15. Slip resistance of painted over surfaces

16. Management of public safety during construction and deconstruction phases

30. It is recognised that there are a number of hazards identified that if the project was for a permanent or even longer-term duration would need to be fully mitigated. However, given the ‘quick learn or fail’ philosophy of the project, these risks are considered manageable and if need be quickly rectified in the course of monitoring of the works.

31. WK (NZTA) have instructed us that we need to ensure compliance to standards which we will comply with.

WAKA KOTAHI (NZTA) FEEDBACK ON THE DESIGN

32. WK have had a close and continuing involvement throughout the project providing advice and guidance on engagement and communications strategies; design techniques and well as appraisal and critique of designs.

33. WK key feedback to the designs have related to the following matters with design team response in Italics:

· The angle of carparking and narrowing of carriageway on sections of the routes is leading to the removal of the existing buffer between reversing cars and road cyclists

The angle of car parking on the beach side is being altered from 60 degrees to 45 degrees and in some instances to 30 degrees. This reduced angle significantly improves visibility for reversing vehicles and consequently reduces the risk of conflict with road cyclists. The speed limit is to be reduced from 50km/hr to 30km/hr supported by speed management tools (refer below) which will also significantly decrease safety risks to cyclists using the carriageway

· Recommendation to use wheel stops rather than flexible marker posts to define the edge of the cycleways

Wheel stops are proposed for all angle car parking bays with flexible marker posts used for parallel parking bays or where the shared path needs clear edge definition

· Parallel parking adjoining cycle lane / shared path and close to through vehicle traffic create the risk of doors being opened into the path of cyclists and vehicles

The proposed shared path will generally be 3m wide but will increase to 4m minimum when adjacent parallel parking, to allow space for car doors to open. No buffer is proposed between parallel parking spaces and the traffic lane, and this is consistent with existing parallel parking on Marine Parade and elsewhere. While the width of the traffic lane is being narrowed to 3m, the speed environment is similarly reducing, mitigating risk. Traffic modelling also suggests a small reduction in traffic volumes on this route, further mitigating any risk

· Concern conflicts on cycle lane/ shared paths between pedestrians and cyclists co using the space

Regular surface markings alerting pedestrians of the shared path will be painted along its length, particularly at conflict points where pedestrian desire lines will cross the shared path. Red paint bands will also be applied to the shared path in these conflict areas. Between Grove and Sutherland streets it is proposed as part of the trial to have an extra wide shared path of approximately 4.5m wide

· The materials to be used where cycle lane/shared path runs over existing grassed areas needs to be compatible with recreational wheeled traffic

Only one area is proposed to go on the grass which will comprise asphalt laid as a temporary finish over the grass surface. This will be suitable for all wheel traffic including mobility devices.

· What measures will be used to keep vehicle speeds down at 30km/hr or less

Signage at the entrance to the zone both on Marine Parade and side streets joining, reinforced with 30km/h road markings within red paint blocks. Other tools include narrowing the traffic lanes, increased zebra crossings (reinforced with red paint and speed humps), kerb extensions at courtesy crossings, and higher-frequency centreline markings. The roundabout at the Tay Street intersection should also be effective as a gateway treatment.

· Who has priority at situations where cycle lanes cross over zebra crossings?

There are only 2 such locations, as most of the route have a shared path rather than a cycleway. At the Tay St intersection, there is an existing boardwalk next to the kerb, so the shared path will become a cycleway for this 100m section. Conflict will be addressed with red pavement bands

· Potential safety issue where opposing direction cyclists on shared path negotiate meandering path on grass.

Only the Pacific to Tay section of shared path is likely to proceed at this stage, and as a shared path rather than a cycleway. As such there is only 1 ‘meandering bend’ on the shared path, at Banks Ave. Again, red pavement bands will indicate to users that there is conflict in this area, and we note that the radii are less than is the case elsewhere where shared paths turn a 90-degree corner at an intersection

· Bus stop configuration in relation to the cycleway and zebra crossings

Separation provided between bus stops and pedestrian crossing points

TRAFFIC MODELLING FINDINGS

34. While at the initiation of the project, the full scope of works was not confirmed as it had to be confirmed following community engagement and the co-design process, provision was made as a provisional sum in the consultant’s contract for traffic modelling to be undertaken.

35. On confirmation in January of the routes to be further developed, Flow transportation specialists have prepared a report on the traffic implications.

36. In summary their findings are as follows:

· The proposed speed reductions on Marine Parade (Tay Street link) are predicted to result in additional travel time in both directions, by approximately 1-1.5 mins in both pm and weekend peak period.

· The roundabout layouts proposed at the Marine Parade/Tay St and Marine Parade/Banks Avenue (subsequently not proceeding) intersections are predicted to result in negligible changes to the traffic delays experienced at both intersections

· Both intersections are predicted to operate at LOS A with the proposed roundabout layout (LOS A being free-flow conditions, LOS D-F generally indicating congested conditions). This is consistent with the existing priority-controlled intersections’ performance.

· The above proposed changes are predicted to result in reduced traffic volumes along Marine Parade (with possible re-routing onto Maunganui Rd). However, travel time results collected along Maunganui Road indicate that the existing travel times are unlikely to be affected by the proposed changes. Any re-routing onto Maunganui Rd is predicted to be negligible.

· Our conclusion is that the proposed changes will have no noticeable impact on traffic conditions within Mt Maunganui (above what could be expected when reducing the speed environment down from 50 to 30 km/h). There are no changes that we would recommend be made to the proposed design for traffic purposes.

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Impact on trees

37. The shared path will need to be brought up onto the grass near the Marine Parade and Banks Avenue intersection. A consultant arborist has been engaged to prepare proposals to ensure the path minimises any potential risk to the adjoining mature Norfolk Island Pine tree.

Triathlon Tauranga

38. Triathlons are a regular and highly popular activity at The Mount drawing thousands of participants and supporters over the summer months. Triathlon Tauranga have reviewed the proposals in respect of their events and indicated that they can operate within the rearranged road layout of the trial and shared path proposal.

Shuttle bus service

39. A recurring comment received during the two rounds of public engagement was that because car parking was at near full capacity over the summer months around the main beach area from Banks Avenue north, many people did not visit the area when in fact they wanted to.

40. The trials with the potential reduction of car parking along Marine Parade was therefore often seen as worsening this situation. In response, park and ride proposals were often mentioned to address these concerns with locations such as Coronation Park and in the vicinity of Blake Park frequent suggestions. Such solutions are beyond the scope of this project however the concept shuttle bus or van service which would circulate around The Mount and especially along Marine Parade, is not unrealistic and received almost universal support during both rounds of public engagement and also during the CDG workshops.

41. While such a service is at present unlikely to be well patronised outside peak summer months or long weekends such as Easter, there is a general belief that if well designed and of regular frequency it could successfully compliment the shared pathway proposal and help alleviate some of the most serious car parking concerns. While not resolved discussions have been held with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council about their current bus services in the area and about opportunities to offer such a supplementary service over peak usage occasions. Further to this, investigations are ongoing with private operators currently under-utilised because of the absence of cruise liner passengers.

Any such service would only occur late in 2021 or early 2022. Subject to progression in discussions, this matter will be reported back to the commission

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

42. Fulton Hogan (FH) have been recommended as having the track record and resources available to undertake most of the works. They have been recently approached to assist in the preparation of proposals and provide estimates for the works as detailed. The estimate prepared is based on their standard rates for street maintenance works as part of their supply contract with Council.

PLACEMAKING AND ACTIVATION OPPORTUNITIES

43. In addition to physical changes to the street environment to accommodate the shared pathway undertaken by FH as the contractor; it is proposed that a number of complementary activities be implemented by the broader public. This is seen as important in engaging the community in the project giving it a sense of ownership but also as a highly useful means of gathering immediate feedback on its functioning and appropriateness.

44. Four schools in the vicinity were engaged with during the first and second rounds of consultation with several hundred pupils at both primary and secondary level participating. It is proposed that these same schools be re-approached and asked to contribute to road art in the newly created spaces along the route.

45. Similarly, these school communities will also be invited to participate in trial usage of the routes via Safer Schools programme of activities.

46. Some opportunities also exist for other community groups to become involved both in running trial activities such as bikeathons along the route but also in constructing temporary installations. The most likely contribution would be associated with the bus stops which are proposed to be made much more visible along Marine Parade. Here temporary planters, seating and shelters could be built. All structures would need to be fit for purpose although the exact nature of these proposals is still to be resolved and would be dependent upon the scheme that proceeds and community groups availability.

MODIFICATIONS TO TRIALS ONCE INSTALLED

47. In setting up the fund, WK have always recognised that because the proposed works are trials and somewhat ‘experimental’ there might need to be refinements once works have been installed and observed functioning in real life situation. The contract with the design and transport engineering consultants has included provision for such refinements which if required would ideally occur in May and June 2021 while funding from WK was still available.

48. FH as contractors undertaking the initial works have been informed of the need to potentially be available to undertake this work at short notice.

49. Any modifications past 30 June 2021 will need to be undertaken at Council’s expense coming from Council’s 10% contribution to the project. This would also be undertaken by FH if required

COMPLETION OF THE TRIAL

50. There is currently no definitive deadline for the trial to be completed although it is intended to last for enough duration to test it in peak conditions. This has been the message given to both the wider community during the two public engagement rounds as well as to the CDG during workshops.

51. The nature of the proposed road markings, cycle lane surfacing in the grass areas and wheel stops are such that they are only to be temporary. While we are confident the materials will remain serviceable (albeit with some maintenance) for at least until the end of February 2022, it is anticipated they will not be appropriate to remain in place for significantly longer duration. Subject to the eventual decision on whether to transition to permanent solutions, it is currently proposed to remove the temporary constructions and revert to the current road layout in the first quarter of 2022.

52. The reconstruction works will involve removal of the following temporary installations:

· Road markings and repainting of original markings

· Wheel stops and backfilling of drill hole

· Street signs and reinstallation of original signs

· Pathways across grass areas and restoration of surfaces

53. Subject to the effect of ‘ghosting’ caused by painted over existing road markings, resurfacing of the carriageway might be brought forward. Ideally this would be done in summer construction months of March 2022 or the following season.

MEASURES OF SUCCESS

54. If the whole project, or at least aspects of it, prove to be highly successful as indicated by measures such as : significant increase in the usage of the area by bicycle and scooter users as well as skateboarders; reduced traffic speeds from Tay Street to Banks Avenue on Marine Parade; increased perception of safety for all users; greater community cohesion (did the community come together to solve problems); consistent or improved road safety as measured by CAS (Crash Analysis System), then proposals for permanent modifications will be brought forward for approval and funding.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

15 March 2021

11.5 2021-2031 Long-term Plan - Draft User Fees and Charges

File Number: A12252571

Author: Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Ben Corbett, Corporate Planner

Authoriser: Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to present the proposed draft User Fees and Charges Schedule for Council to consider for adoption to form part of the supporting information for the consultation on the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan (LTP).

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receive the report.

(b) That Council approve the draft User Fees and Charges as set out in Attachment 1, in order to form part of the supporting information for consultation on the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan.

Background

2. User fees and charges are updated by staff on an annual basis. Changes to pricing may be necessitated by one or more of the following influences: changing costs of providing the product or service, inflationary adjustments, new or removed fee requirements, statutory requirements or alignment with market prices.

3. Significant or material changes are consulted on annually alongside the LTP or Annual Plan (as applicable in any given year). The financial implications of proposed fee changes have been included in the working draft LTP revenue figures.

4. Attachment 1 to this report sets out the current fees and the proposed fees going forward.

Discussion

5. Tauranga City Council’s user fees and charges enable the actual and reasonable costs of council’s services to be suitably contributed to by those who directly benefit from the service.

6. The current and the draft revenue and finance policies guide the determination of funding sources for council activities. These five key principles include:

· Accessibility

· Affordability

· Benefit

· Exacerbators

· Practicalities

7. Council must apply judgment in assessing many options to determine the appropriateness in its development of budgets.

8. Council’s general approach is to reduce burden on the ratepayer by utilising a ‘user pays’ approach. Therefore, where a service user can be identified, they will pay for that service through a user fee or charge. This approach requires a greater percentage of the costs of an activity to be recovered from service users.

9. Fees and charges forecast revenue for 2021/22 totals $51.7 million, (this total excludes water by meter and Bay Venues Ltd fees revenue) which is 20% of the total revenue forecast for 2021/22.

10. Of the $51.7 million of projected revenue mentioned above, 71% of the fees and charges revenue is attributed to the following six activities:

· Airport

· Beachside Holiday Park

· Building services

· Environmental Planning

· Parking Management

· Wastewater

11. Detailed in Attachment 2 is a summary of the key user fee movements from current 2020/21 to those proposed for 2021/22. The table also shows how user fees compare to similar charges or other entities.

12. Usually Water Supply charges are presented in the draft User Fees and Charges document. The water by meter revenue accounts for 9% of forecast revenue for 2021/22 and is proposed to increase in the draft. Further commentary on this has been included along with the other six activities mentioned above and in the detailed summary in Attachment 2.

13. Only those fees that contribute over 5% of the activity revenue are included. These are colour coded to further highlight fees that have greater revenue implications.

14. Most fees are increasing at least in line with inflation. In many cases, the impact of
COVID-19 on Council’s revenues has caused deficits in the current year. Therefore, several of the of the activities are expecting a significant improvement in operating revenues without the need for a large increase in individual charges.

15. For many activities, volumes are predicted to return to pre-COVID levels, which has caused both costs and revenues to increase without the need for the significant increases in user fees.

16. There are reviews currently underway in relation to Parking and Marine Facilities that have meant that fees in these areas have not been amended. Future budgets will incorporate the outcome of these reviews.

17. Whilst Marine Facilities is currently in deficit this reflects the nature of services provided and its current cost structure. Fees have been externally benchmarked and future changes to fees will be an outcome of the strategic review mentioned above.

18. Most of the fees set are comparable to those charged by other, similar, organisations.

19. Below is a summary of the major movements and comparisons of the six main fee generating activities highlighted above and water supply:

Airport

· There are no proposed fee increases in 2021/22 for the airport. This be because Airport car park charges were last increased in December 2018 and are currently slightly above regional airports on average.

· Landing charges for light aircraft are due for review in 2023 at present we are 20% above the average price of regional Airports

· A regular review of landing fees is carried out every 5 years and the review is not due this year.

· Charges for regular passenger transport aircraft are agreed upon with operators based on an industry recognised pricing model based on individual Airports costs.

· It should be noted that the airport generates significant revenue from the leasing of land. These leases incorporate escalations which are included in budgets.

Beachside Holiday Park

· With the increase in volumes to pre-COVID levels, this means that the user fees do not need to increase significantly to ensure an increase in profitability.

· Fees are in line with other Holiday Parks in surrounding areas.

Building Services

· Building services is 10% rates funded, which recognises the public good element of this activity.

· Regarding plan processing fees increasing – as different entities charge on different bases (e.g. fixed price vs hourly rates) it is difficult to compare. However, Tauranga hourly rates for Building Officers ($234) compares with Hamilton charges of $185 per hour, Western Bay $170 and Christchurch $210.

· Tauranga’s residential charges for inspection fees increase compares with other councils at $190 per 0.75 hours, compared to Hamilton $200 per hour, and Christchurch $210 per hour (charged after $200 - $255 base fee charge which covers the first hour).

· For Issue Code of Compliance Certificates increase, (Project value $100,000 - 499,999) it is difficult to compare directly to other councils due to different pricing structures, however TCC pricing is comparable to other councils. Tauranga charges $563 compared to Western Bay $500, and Christchurch $550 plus $180 for additional time. Hamilton charge $250 per hour.

Environmental Planning

· The sole purpose of a Resource Management Act 1991(RMA) charge is to recover the reasonable costs incurred by the Council in respect of the activity to which the charge relates. Section 36 of the RMA enables these charges to be set. The charges set are in most part deposit fees (unless otherwise stated as fixed fees), with a refund granted if the total deposit is not used or additional charges are invoiced based on the hourly rate included.

· Charges have mostly been set based on 80% of the actual average costs from 2019/20 or an average for grouped application types (reducing the complexity of the charges). This has been taken as an accurate estimation of the likely cost to an applicant.

· In addition to the above method a comparison has also been used against Auckland, Christchurch and Wellington Councils. Where using the 80% method resulted in higher fees than other Councils, the fees have been amended to align more closely with those Councils (note each Council has a different fee structure and fees have been aligned as closely as possible).

· Fees have been added to functions undertaken by Council previously not included and for monitoring of all consents, previously only land use consents were monitored. Costs have not been set to cover staff costs, but rather as a reflection of actual cost likely to be incurred by an applicant.

· The hourly rates have been restructured and simplified, previously each position title was included with a wide range of hourly rates included. These are slightly higher than other Councils, however, have been reduced from 2019/20 when they were increased to match other teams in Council.

Marine Precinct

· User fees have recently been reviewed in consultation with the marine industry and in-line with market rates; at present there is little capacity for further increases. A more detailed strategic review of this activity is underway which will assist in future fee changes if required.

Parking Management

Off Street Parking

· No proposed increasing due to previous council decisions and awaiting results of the parking strategy. The last increase was introduced in with the 2019/20 Annual Plan. Revenue increase reflects COVID recovery as 2021 included a budget adjustment for 20% downturn in parking revenue.

· Again, as part of the analysis we have compared our off-street parking fees to Hamilton and Wellington Councils. Tauranga has a graduated pricing model depending on the hours spent in the building. Hamilton's depends on where you park but it appears to be cheaper in Hamilton if parking all day. Wellington is $4.50/hour flat rate or $18 per day compared to TCC all day rate of $14.

On street Parking

· No proposed increase due to previous council decisions and awaiting results of parking strategy. The last increase was introduced in with the 2019/20 Annual Plan. Revenue increase reflects COVID recovery as 2021 included a budget adjustment for 20% downturn in parking revenue.

· Also, part of the analysis we have compared our on-street parking fees to Hamilton and Wellington Councils. Tauranga and Hamilton both currently offer two hours free. Tauranga is then $2.50/ hour after the first two hours compared to Hamilton's $6/hour. The temporary two-hour free offer will be reviewed in the 2020/21 year therefore the LTP parking budget assumes this will not continue.

Wastewater

· Whilst the activity costs have gone up 10%, tradewaste costs are not going up to that extent, therefore, the proposal is to have a smaller fee increase. Most tradewaste increases for 2021/22 fall between 4-5%.

Water Supply

· The substantial increases in annual debt retirement ($3.5m) are accounting for the surplus in the Water Supply activity.

· The increase to $2.90 per m2 is driven by: moving infrastructure planning budgets to water supply activity; increased overhead allocations and increase in depreciation and maintenance charges relation to the growing and ageing asset base.

· Tauranga's combined Water and Wastewater revenue per customer per 200m3 treatment is approximately 30% lower compared to the average between Auckland, Western Bay of Plenty, Hamilton, Dunedin, Whangārei, Christchurch & Wellington Councils.

Strategic / Statutory Context

20. Setting fees and charges at the correct level enables the funding of council’s activities. These activities help deliver out community outcomes and facilitate improved quality of life, quality of economy and sound city foundations.

Options Analysis

Option 1: Council approves the draft User Fees and Charges Schedule

21. The Council approves the draft fees and charges as proposed in Appendix 1.

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Managers have reviewed the fees and charges and have made recommendations based on actual and reasonable costs · Proposed fees and charges align with the current draft LTP budgets · Preparation of the Statement of Proposal and engagement planning can begin.		· Potential opportunities for fees and charges may not have been considered.

Key risks	Further opportunities for fees and charges may have to wait until the 2022/23 Annual Plan.
Recommended?	Yes noting flexibility in option 2.

Option 2: Council requests further changes to the draft User Fees and Charges Schedule

22. The Council does not approve the draft fees and charges and either rejects suggested changes or requests further analysis be undertaken.

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Potential opportunities for fees and charges may be raised and considered.		· Delays to the development of the Statement of Proposal · Delays in finalising the draft Long-term Plan budgets.

Key risks	Potential delays in preparing the draft LTP financial forecasts.
Recommended?	This option allows flexibility to consider variations to the fees noting that significant changes and the introduction of new fees may delay adoption of a draft fee schedule.

Financial Considerations

23. The financial implications of the proposed fees and charges are included in the initial drafting of the 2021-31 Long-term Plan.

Consultation / Engagement

24. The User Fees and Charges Schedule represent fees proposed to be charged to the community. They will be consulted on alongside the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan process.

Significance

25. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

26. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the issue, proposal, decision, or matter

27. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of medium significance.

ENGAGEMENT

28. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of medium significance, the draft User fees and Charges is scheduled to be adopted as supporting material alongside the LTP consultation document in May 2021. After that adoption it will be consulted on with the community using in accordance with sections 82 and 150 of the LGA.

Next Steps

29. Draft Fees and Charges Schedule and a Statement of Proposal will be brought back to Council for approval to consult as part of the supporting information for the 2021-2031 LTP Consultation Document.

30. Once finalised, updated fees will come into effect upon the adoption of the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1- Draft User Fees and Charges Schedule - A12270979 ⇩

2. Attachment 2 - User Fee Summary Table - A12301246 ⇩

29. User fees and charges revenue does not increase proportionately to the cost increases as the major cost increases over the ten years occur in the infrastructure-based activities of three waters transportation and spaces and places which are primarily rates funded. Water volumetric revenue, consistent with rates, increases in relation to the increase in costs.

30. Attachment 2 shows the overall council budget proposed for the draft LTP in the format of the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expense (SOCRE). It shows both the operating revenue and expenditure and the capital revenue budgeted for the next ten years. The proposed debt retirement is not directly shown in the SOCRE but is included in the operational surpluses budgeted in later years of the LTP.

31. Water by meter revenue is budgeted to increase significantly in 2021-22 from $2.23 per m3 to $2.90 per m3 (GST inclusive) to cover increasing operating costs and to fund debt retirement to support significant new investment proposed in the water activity over the next ten years. Prior to the proposal to increase the water by meter charge the cost of water supply to Tauranga ratepayers was considerably below comparator councils. With the increase the cost is similar to comparator councils.

32. Attachment 3 provides further detail of the capital investment proposals and operational budgets for major activities of council.

Loan Funded Operational Costs

33. The balanced budget approach encourages operational revenue to be raised to fund operational expenditure. However, the revenue and financing policy recognises that there may be occasion where expenditure identified as operational yields benefits over a longer timeframe. as long as they are specifically identified and approved by council. Within this LTP there are operational projects where funding is through short term borrowing with associated debt servicing and debt retirement paid through rates. These areas of expenditure are identified in Table 1 below for specific council approval.

34. Table 1: New Operating Expenditure to be Loan Funded

Expenditure Item to be loan funded	Year expenditure commences	Total expenditure over the ten years $m	Duration of debt retirement (years)
District plan review & new growth area planning	2022-2026	20	5
TSP Business Cases	2022-2024	14	5
Grant to NZTA for TNL future proofing	2026	6	5

Paying for the Increased investment – Rates Funding Options

35. The overall impact on rates is broken down in Table 1 below. General rates are the rates collected to cover most of the business of council. General rates have increased reflecting the increasing costs of depreciation arising from capital investment as well as the need to further resource to deliver planning and capital investment and services to a growing city.

36. The challenge of paying for the required investment in Tauranga city is framed in the Revenue and Financing Policy which was considered at the council meeting on 8 March (Report 10.4 Approval of the Draft Revenue and Financing Framework).

37. As our expenditure is increasing the council is considering alternative approaches to fund this expenditure where this is through rates, considering principles including fairness and affordability in the way the rates are allocated. Key decisions to be made regarding how rates are set:

(a) Greater use of targeted rates which relate to areas of increased investment

(b) Increase in the commercial differential and application of the differential across new targeted rates and the resilience targeted rate

38. Table 2: Breakdown of rates increases by type

Targeted rates

39. Targeted rates can be used where either the beneficiaries are identified, or where revenue collected is targeted to agreed expenditure. The latter approach to targeting rates has been considered in this draft LTP for the large additional investment proposed in transportation, community amenity activities and resilience.

40. Targeted rates already ring fence revenue collected in the areas of wastewater, water supply and resilience. This means that these rates can only be spent on the activities and capital investment programmes identified when setting the rate. These rates will increase over time to allow for debt retirement to provide capacity for further capital investment. In stormwater, there is currently a levy collected through the general rate that funds stormwater capital investment. It is proposed to move this stormwater levy to a targeted rate for better transparency. Over time, debt retirement in stormwater will also be needed to enable the proposed investment for the LTP. A targeted rate for resilience was established in the previous LTP. This rate initially funded the planning costs of resilience. In this LTP a significant programme of capital investment for resilience is proposed. The resilience rate is proposed to be extended to cover the costs of this investment.

41. In transportation and community amenity activities (including libraries and spaces and places) there is currently no significant targeted rate. The draft budget proposes to establish a targeted rate in both these areas from 2022 to cover the cost of new capital investment including debt retirement. The amount of the rate will increase over the LTP. In the first and second year, the costs of planning and designing these investments would be recovered and then once ready for construction, debt retirement charges are proposed be added to enable the projects involved to be funded over 20-30 years. The targeted rates therefore increase over the period of the LTP consistent with the timing of investment.

42. Targeting rates in this way would ring-fence these funds to be spent on investment for the agreed transport, resilience and community outcomes. These rates have been calculated on capital value using the same differential as applied to the general rate for equity reasons. The resilience rate was established based on capital value but not differentiated. It is proposed to move this targeted rate to also be differentiated for equity reasons.

43. Attachment 4 shows the amount of targeted rate charges proposed. Option A shows the targeted rates to support the proposed capital investment. Option B shows additional targeted rates to support increased investment options.

44. Targeted rates may also recognise greater benefits accruing to the commercial sector from some investments. This needs further analysis and engagement with the commercial sector to ensure it is an equitable distribution of costs. It is proposed this occurs over future budgets.

Commercial differential

45. Increasing the contribution to rates from the commercial sector above the existing 1.2 differential has been further considered. Tauranga City continues to maintain a commercial differential significantly below that of other metro councils. That means that the portion of the rates bill paid by the residential sector is considerably higher in Tauranga than for comparator councils. To achieve a move to the average across metro councils an increase in the differential to 2.8 would be required.

46. A 1.6 commercial differential reflects a “tax neutral” position against residential ratepayers. This neutrality arises because commercial entities can claim GST against their costs and deduct rates costs from income for tax purposes. A differential of 1.6 therefore is proposed for equity reasons. Attachment 5 explains this calculation. The impact of increasing the commercial differential will be to increase the costs from rates faced by the commercial sector. Council can consider options to phase in this increase over time. The impact on properties of the differential and targeted rates is shown in Attachment 6.

Maintaining the rates set on a uniform basis excluding wastewater at 10% of total rates

47. Council moved the rates set on a uniform basis to 10% in the 2020-21 Annual Plan. This followed previous reductions in the uniform rates through the 2018-28 LTP from 30%, which is the legislative maximum. The purpose of the reduction was to assist affordability of rates for ratepayers of lower value properties.

48. The introduction of a fixed kerbside waste collection charge from 2021-22 means that the portion of general rates that are fixed needs to reduce in order to retain the rates set on a uniform basis excluding wastewater at 10% of total rates.

49. The impact of retaining the 10% cap including the kerbside rate is to increase the share of rates paid on a capital value. This will impact the commercial sector which on average has a higher average capital value.

50. Attachment 6 shows the impact on ratepayers on options of including or excluding kerbside from this cap on fixed rates.

Strategic / Statutory Context

51. This report is a requirement for development of financial budgets and options for the LTP as set out in the Local Government Act 2002.

Options Analysis

52. There are several decisions required in this report which are broken down below, with options and a description of the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

53. Decision one: agree to rate-funded debt retirement

· Option A: agree to rate-funded debt retirement as set out in Attachment 1 option A

Advantages

Disadvantages

TCC will have adequate debt capacity to finance the capital investment proposed. The cost of borrowing for these investments can be repaid over the life of the projects.

Additional rates are required to be paid by current ratepayers to provide financial capacity to undertake further capital investment over the ten years.

· Option B: agree to additional rate-funded debt retirement above that in Attachment 1 option A (e.g. also include option B additional debt retirement)

Advantages

Disadvantages

TCC will have adequate debt capacity to finance the capital investment proposed plus additional investment as discussed in the previous report. The cost of borrowing for these investments can be repaid over the life of the projects.

Additional rates are required to be paid by current ratepayers to provide financial capacity to undertake further capital investment over the ten years.

· Option C: do not agree to rate-funded debt retirement

Advantages	Disadvantages
Rates will be lower than if debt retirement is funded	The capital investment programme will need to be reduced by $1.5b to reflect the lower financing capacity of council with associated non-achievement of desired outcomes

54. Decision two: Agree to the draft LTP operating budget

· Option A: Agree to the draft budget set out in Attachment 2, with the overall rating impact

Advantages	Disadvantages
The agreed budget supports the proposed capital investment programme.	The rates impact of the proposed budget is a significant increase on the current year, with continued increases through the LTP.

· Option B: Do not agree to the draft budget set out in Attachment 2, with the overall rating impact shown in Table 2

Advantages

Disadvantages

More time could be taken to consider options

The timeframe for adoption of the LTP may not be met, with consequences for setting rates for the 2021-22 year.

There is likely to be further delay in commencing city investment to achieve the proposed outcomes

55. Decision three: Agree to loan funded operating expenditure

· Option A: Agree to loan funded operating expenditure as set out in Table 1.

Advantages

Disadvantages

Operating expenditure that has benefits to ratepayers over several years is contributed to by those later ratepayers who benefit from the expenditure

Rates is lower in the year the expenditure is incurred than it would be if fully rate funded in that year.

Debt is increased to fund the expenditure in the short term

· Option B: Do not loan fund the expenditure but instead rate fund it in the year it occurs

Advantages

Disadvantages

Debt is not increased

Higher rates in the current year provide more revenue to support project financing in the future

Rates would be higher in the year expenditure occurred as a one-off

Beneficiaries of the expenditure would not contribute to funding

56. Decision Four: Agree to new targeted rates for stormwater, transportation, and community and to extend the resilience targeted rate to include capital investment.

· Option A: Agree to new targeted rates for stormwater, transportation, and community and to extend the resilience targeted rate to include capital investment to a total revenue level as set out in Attachment 4 option A

Advantages

Disadvantages

Targeted rates can be ring fenced for the investment purposes for which rates were collected

The outcomes for which rates are collected are more transparent to ratepayers

Rating and accounting for revenue is more complex

Council has less flexibility to use funds in other ways

· Option B: Agree to new targeted rates for stormwater, transportation, and community and to extend the resilience targeted rate to include capital investment and debt retirement to a total revenue level that reflects a different level of investment such as that set out in Attachment 4 option B

Advantages

Disadvantages

Targeted rates can be ring fenced for the investment purposes for which rates were collected

The outcomes for which rates are collected are more transparent to ratepayers

Council could fund a higher level of investment & service in the areas where additional investment is supported

Rating and accounting for revenue is more complex

Council has less flexibility to use funds in other ways

· Option C: Do not target rates but continue to collect through general rates

Advantages

Disadvantages

Rating and accounting for revenue and expenditure are simpler

Use of revenue is more flexible

The purpose for which rates are collected is less clear and there is a risk that funds are diverted to other purposes

Higher risk of capital investment being cancelled in future if revenue collected is not ring fenced

57. Decision five: Agree to increase the commercial differential to 1.6 in 2021-2022, to apply to the general rate, resilience rate and proposed new targeted rates in community and transportation.

· Option A: Agree to increase the commercial differential to 1.6 in 2021-2022, to apply to the general rate, resilience rate and proposed new targeted rates in community and transportation

Advantages

Disadvantages

Based on a tax neutral position the 1.6 differential meets equity considerations of the overall rating contribution

The differential moves Tauranga city closer to the relative contributions of commercial and residential ratepayers in other metros

Commercial ratepayers have cost increases

There is limited time to adjust to the increase in differential from 1.2 to 1.6 which would apply from July 2021

· Option B: Agree to phase in the increase the commercial differential to 1.6 so that in 2021-2022 the differential would be 1.4 and in 2022-23 and onwards the differential would be 1.6, to apply to the general rate, resilience rate and proposed new targeted rates in community and transportation

Advantages

Disadvantages

Based on a tax neutral position the move towards the 1.6 differential meets equity considerations of the overall rating contribution

The differential moves Tauranga city closer to the relative contributions of other metros so that the share of rates paid by residential ratepayers is reduced

Phasing of the differential provides more time for the commercial sector to budget for the rates increase.

Commercial ratepayers have cost increases

· Option C: Do not increase the commercial differential from 1.2 to apply to the general rate, resilience rate and proposed new targeted rates in community and transportation rates but continue to collect through general rates

Advantages	Disadvantages
The commercial sector does not face such a large rate increase	Residential ratepayers continue to carry a larger share of rates costs than in other metro councils, which does not reflect equity based on tax neutrality

58. Decision six: Agree the Uniform Annual General Rate and other rates set on a uniform basis, excluding wastewater, should remain at 10% after the introduction of the full kerbside waste collection service,

· Option A: Agree the Uniform Annual General Rate and other rates set on a uniform basis, excluding wastewater, should remain at 10% after the introduction of the full kerbside waste collection service,

Advantages

Disadvantages

Objective of greater affordability for owners of lower value properties is maintained

Commercial ratepayers pay more of their rates on a capital basis which will affect affordability objective for lower value commercial property owners.

It will also impact small businesses leasing part of higher value commercial properties

· Option 2: Do not include kerbside waste collection rate as part of the 10% limit for the Uniform Annual General Rate and other rates set on a uniform basis, excluding wastewater.

Advantages	Disadvantages
Ratepayers will not have more of their rates set on a capital value basis	Lower value properties will face higher rates increases as the fixed charge portion will be increased above 10% as a result of kerbside being a fixed charge.

Financial Considerations

59. This report covers the financials for the LTP. While operational costs have been presented uninflated, the modelling of debt to revenue ratios and the capital programme have been undertaken inflation adjusted.

Legal Implications / Risks

60. The Local Government Act 2002 sets the requirements for preparation of the LTP.

Consultation / Engagement

61. The decisions from this report will form the basis of preparation of the financials and rating options to be presented as part of the consultation on the LTP. The LTP consultation document is scheduled to be adopted in early May 2021. After that adoption it will be consulted on with the community using the special consultative procedure outlined in section 93A of the Local Government Act 2002.

62. There has been and will continue to be engagement with key stakeholders to support this wider consultation process.

Next Steps

63. The key financials and options for rating will be prepared for the council meeting on 29 March where the Commission will approve the draft consultation document for audit by Audit New Zealand.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1 Debt Retirement - A12316015 ⇩

2. Attachment 2 Proposed budget and Water by Meter impact - A12317576 ⇩

3. Attachment 3 Operational budgets and capital investment for major activities - A12322965 ⇩

4. Attachment 4 Targeted Rates - A12315775 ⇩

5. Attachment 5 Tax Impact on Commercial Ratepayer - A12316084 ⇩

6. Attachment 6 Rates impact for options under consideration - A12317560 ⇩

[1] Section 2.10.2(d), 2020/21 Development Contributions Policy

[2] Hairini 6D1B, Reweti and Te Pere Whanau Trust

[3] For example, Te Ture Whenua Act restrictions on sale, valuation rules for Maori land.

[4] Proximity to support structures in the form of whanau members as neighbourhood support, marae, hauora (health clinics), kura (schools), kohanga reo (preschools) and other community resources linked by whakapapa (genealogy)

[5] Levying but then subsidising development contributions is a more transparent approach to identifying and allocating fairly the costs of growth than simply exempting such developments from the development contributions regime.

[6] A process to help applicants work through the feasibility and practicality of a proposed development of papakainga housing, prepared jointly by WBoPDC, TCC, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Te Puni Kokiri, the Maori Land Court, Housing NZ and other agencies

[7] As part of a broader, multi-point submission – see Policy Committee, 2 July 2020 for full submission (#132)

[8] Accessible Properties New Zealand Ltd; Habitat for Humanity New Zealand Limited; LinkPeople Limited; Mangatawa Papamoa Blocks Inc; TCHT; Homes of Choice Ltd; Manawa Community Housing Trust

[9] Organisations involved in the taskforce include the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Te Pūni Kōkiri, Ministry of Social Development, Kāinga Ora: Homes and Communities, NZ Police, Ministry of Education, Department of Corrections, BOP District Health Board, Wise Group, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi te Rangi Iwi Trust, Ngāti Ranginui Iwi Society Trust, BayTrust, EmpowermentNZ, Under the Stars, Accessible Properties, Huria Marae, and Tauranga City Council

[10] Report titled ‘2021-2031 Long-term Plan – Update and revised working draft’, Council, 8 March 2021 (A12263838)

[12] Undertaken in association with the Acorn Foundation, the Tauranga Energy Consumer Trust, and BayTrust, published 2020 (www.vitalupdate.org.nz)

[14] See Setting the Strategic Direction for the Long Term Plan, Policy Committee, 16 June 2020

[15] One of the purposes of an LTP is to ‘describe the community outcomes’ (sec 93(6)(b), of the Local Government Act (“LGA”) 2002); funding decisions about activities need to follow consideration of community outcomes (sec 101(3)(a)(i) LGA 2002); the LTP needs to identify the community outcomes to which each group of activities contributes (Sec 2(1)(b), Schedule 10, LGA 2002)

[16] 8 March 2021 report to council noted $38 million but the categorisation in this report also includes the Blake Park project ($8 million)

[17] Section 93C(4) of the Local Government Act 2002 requires that the LTP consultation document must contain a report from the Auditor-General on whether the consultation document gives effect to its statutory purpose and on the quality of the information and assumptions underlying the consultation document.


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Monday, 15 March 2021
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held on:
Date:	Monday, 15 March 2021
Time:	10.30am
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	Commission Chair Anne Tolley
Members	Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston Commissioner Stephen Selwood Commissioner Bill Wasley
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	As required

· To ensure the effective and efficient governance of the City

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

· Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

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