Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

9 Recommendations from Other Committees

10.1 2021-2031 Long-term Plan - update and revised working draft

10 Business

Staff Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

In response to questions

· Community outcomes would be included for re-adoption in the 15 March 2021 Council report.

· Noted the ongoing involvement of Ngāti Hangarau in the Omanawa Falls project; they were partners in the governance group and sat at the table for all decisions made by that group.

· All possible options for funding for the Papamoa East Interchange, including tolling, would be included for consideration.

Discussion points raised

· Noted that the level of service proposed for road surfacing was the result of a balancing exercise, with consideration of the costs of the options – asphalt was very expensive to provide. Given the size of funding commitments required through rates, every dollar counted; and it was possible to make savings in this area.

Resolution CO2/21/4

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report ‘2021-2031 Long-Term Plan – Update and revised working draft’.

(b) Notes that to address the transportation, housing and community infrastructure needs of the city the revised working draft Long-Term Plan is based on ‘Scenario C Plus’ and includes further amendments and additions as detailed in this report.

Issue 1: Road resealing

(c) Rescinds the decision of the Policy Committee on 20 October on to ‘Approve option 2 into the LTP prioritisation process and request further advice on funding this through a city-wide or a local targeted rate or combination of both.

(d) Retains the existing ‘fit for purpose’ level of service for road resealing and incorporate this decision into the draft Long-Term Plan process.

(e) Highlights the proposed approach to road resealing in the LTP consultation document and actively seeks community input on it.

Issue 2: City centre stocktake

(f) Supports a stocktake of strategic documents relating to the city centre and allocates $50,000 in the 2021/22 draft budget to complete this work.

(g) Notes that a further report-back on this work will occur before the final Long-Term Plan is adopted.

Issue 3: Tropical display house in Robbins Park

(h) Defers consideration of the future of the tropical display house in Robbins Park until after the completion of the stocktake of city centre strategy.

Issue 4: Omanawa Falls

(i) Amends the budget allocation for the Omanawa Falls project to include a Council contribution of $3.5 million.

Issue 5: Sustainability

(j) Confirms the continuation of the $400,000 annual budget for the development and implementation of a sustainability framework and action plans.

(k) Ceases the process to establish an independent sustainability advisory board.

Issue 6: Rating options

(l) Staff to include the following options in the report to the 15 March 2021 Council meeting:

(i) A commercial differential of 1.6 in 2021/22 (preferred option); and

(ii) A commercial differential of 1.6 phased in over first two financial years as 1.4 in year one and 1.6 in year two (alternative option).

(iii) A fixed charge to include a 10% cap on the UAGC including kerbside waste collection; and

(iv) A fixed charge to include a 10% cap on the UAGC excluding kerbside waste collection thereby increasing the fixed charge.

(v) Introduction of targeted rates for specific areas of expenditure.

(vi) In respect if resilience investment over the 10-year period:

· Increasing the existing targeted rate; and

· Option and implication of including a further $100 million.

Carried

10.2 2021-2031 Long-term Plan - Significant Forecasting Assumptions

Staff Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Jeremy Boase, Manager, Strategy & Corporate Planning

In response to questions

· Noted the high level of uncertainty associated with Assumption 10 that the business and structure of local government would not alter within the lifetime of the LTP. This assumption was drafted based on advice provided by Audit New Zealand.

· Clarification was provided on Assumption 18 and the inclusion of funding for the development of Te Tumu. Commencement of development was considered unlikely to occur within the current LTP, and if it were to occur it would be in the outer years of the LTP lifetime. Staff had chosen to be conservative and not show a revenue stream that was not certain.

· Assumptions 19 and 21 – commentary would be provided in the LTP document regarding possible changes to the ownership of water infrastructure assets.

Resolution CO2/21/5

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report;

(b) Approves the draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions, with an amendment in respect of the timing of the Te Tumu purchase, as set out in Attachment 1;

(c) Agrees the assumption regarding demographics may be updated as necessary to reflect data due to be released by Tatauranga Aotearoa Stats NZ on 31 March 2021;

and

(d) Agrees the actions detailed as mitigations to address risk may be updated to reflect the outcomes of developing the LTP.

Carried

10.3 2021-2031 Long-term Plan - Draft Groups of Activities (including performance measures)

Staff Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Jeremy Boase, Manager, Strategy & Corporate Planning

Key points

· The Groups of Activities document would be included as supporting information on the website for the draft LTP; for the final LTP the document was included in the actual LTP document.

· Inclusion of actual performance measures was tricky in terms of timing; as current actuals would not have been audited in time for inclusion. The preceding year’s audited actuals (2019/20) could be included to provide a comparison and as an indication of trend movement.

Resolution CO2/21/6

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report.

(b) Approves the draft Groups of Activities plans as set out in Attachment 1, in order to form part of the supporting information for consultation on the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan.

(c) That Council notes amendments will be made to the Groups of Activities plans to enable inclusion of key projects by activity (once the draft financials are completed in March 2021), and to outline the funding sources following completion of the revenue and financing policy process.

Carried

10.4 Approval of the draft Revenue and Financing Policy Framework

Staff Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

In response to questions

· Noted that libraries were multi-purpose facilities used for more that providing library materials and resources. The description of the benefits of libraries was not broad enough and could be better defined to capture all uses/benefits.

· A rationale for funding for regulation monitoring and a description of the benefits to the community of providing that funding should be included.

· Tolling was not included in the discussion of transport charging options. Noted that for tolling to be a viable option for council, an order-in-council was required to be in place. If the charges related to a part of the state highway network, that would be captured under NZTA funding mechanisms. Tolling as a charging option could be included but with the limitation that any tolling scheme was subject to an appropriate order-in-council.

Resolution CO2/21/7

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

(a) Approves the draft Funding Needs Analysis (Attachment 1) with amendments as agreed at the meeting and the preliminary draft Revenue and Funding Policy (Attachment 2) subject to decisions on the overall impact of the allocation of liability for revenue.

Carried

10.6 Development Contributions - Papakainga housing

Staff Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Carlo Ellis, Manager: Strategic Maori Engagement

Key points

· No staff recommendation was included in the report as this was a political decision. Development contributions were a cost recovery mechanism; if not received from the developer then generally the cost would be recovered from the ratepayer. It was a decision for the commissioners where recovery of those costs should lie.

· Noted impact of development contributions on the development of Māori land and the constraints imposed; a distinguishing factor with Māori land was multiple ownership.

In response to questions

· The Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) policy was considered to see if its principles could be applied to Tauranga City Council (TCC); there was not significant evidence that the subsidy was removing the barriers to development as expected. There was no explanation of the rationale for adopting the 50% reduction figure.

· A 50% reduction may not necessarily provide enough of an incentive for a family to be able to fund deferred development contributions.

· A solution was needed that enabled housing to be developed, as well as being fair, equitable and transparent.

· There was no existing fund available to be used to offset deferred or subsidised development contributions; any offset would need to be included in rates.

· The establishment of a grant fund to support the development of social housing was possible; a “subsidy fund” was outlined in the report.

· Noted that development contributions might not apply to the iwi or community housing provider (CHP) involved but to the developer of the housing site.

· Considered important to align policies as much as possible with WBOPDC for papakainga and community housing.

Resolution CO2/21/8

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

Leaves the agenda item 10.6 – Development Contributions - Papakainga housing - to lie on the table until the subsequent Council meeting on 15 March 2021.

Carried

10.5 Development Contributions - Community Housing Providers

Staff Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Resolution CO2/21/9

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

Leaves the agenda item 10.5 – Development Contributions – Community Housing Providers - to lie on the table until the subsequent Council meeting on 15 March 2021.

Carried

10.7 Civic Rebuild - Priority Decisions

Staff Brigid McDonald, Manager: Strategic Investment & Commercial Facilitation

Jo Stone, Senior Strategic Advisor

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

Key points

· Outlined previous Council decisions and noted the key decision sought today.

· The report requested that a specific budget for civic rebuild projects be included in the LTP.

· Noted the recommendation to meet with Ngai Tamarawaho to discuss future development of the Civic Precinct.

In response to questions

· Areas 21 and 41 (the TV3 site) were currently used for carparking. Use of that land was to be looked at during the Civic Precinct Master Plan refresh and challenge process.

· The Master Plan refresh process would start in April/May; there would be a report back to Council to determine what further aspects should be consulted with the community.

Discussion points raised

· Certainty of development was fundamental to the revitalisation of the CBD.

Resolution CO2/21/10

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council advances the Civic Rebuild programme as follows:

a) Notes the Council has a key role in supporting City Centre revitalisation through investment in Civic Facilities and amenity and contributing to a City Centre environment which incentivises activity, future private investment, and increased mixed-use development;

b) Confirms the September 2020 decision of Council to refresh and revise the Civic Precinct Master Plan. Approves a revised streamlined challenge process to the existing Master Plan and a subsequent report back to Council;

c) Includes in the draft Long-Term Plan the proposed programme and projected capital expenditure of:

· $45 million to provide the new Community space and Library facility, (commencement August 2021, expected completion December 2023); and

· $11 million to provide enhanced public spaces in the Civic Plaza and surrounding area (including Masonic Park);

· $2 million for temporary relocation and associated fitout costs

· $3 million for demolition of existing buildings on Civic site.

d) Confirms the intent of the Commissioners to meet with Ngai Tamarawaho representatives to discuss arrangements for meaningful engagement regarding the future development of the Civic Precinct

· It is envisaged that Ngai Tamarawaho will be a key partner for the community space and central library facility build programme.

e) Confirms the March 2020 in-principle decision of Council to secure leased interim office accommodation for the purpose of consolidation of Council’s administration staff in a single location and approves negotiations being entered into with third parties to this effect;

f) Approves the demolition of Willow Street Buildings A, B and C (refer Attachment 1) as soon as possible following existing Council services relocating to other temporary premises; and

g) Notes that the capital and operating expenditure forecast in this report includes projected costs relating to the demolition of the Willow Street buildings and temporary premises (relocation, rent, outgoings) whilst the new facilities are built.

Carried

10.8 Financial and Non-Financial Monitoring Report: Period ended 31 December 2020

Staff Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Ben Corbett, Corporate Planner

Rhea Brooks, Corporate Planner

In response to questions

· Currently were tracking favourably to budget; this was affected by revenue being less impacted by COVID-19 than expected.

· There had been a downturn in visitor numbers to The Elms due to COVID-19; other opportunities to assist with moving visitors to key CBD attractions were being investigated.

· The Historic Village strategy recently developed would help drive occupancy and tenancy.

· Bus usage figures were down; a strategic conversation with Bay of Plenty Regional Council was needed to help understand how usage was tracking and what the trends indicated.

· Noted that more commentary on the trends in the “reds” would be useful in ongoing reports, including any indication of corrective actions planned. An overall sense of trend would be useful for the organisation as well as individual activities

Resolution CO2/21/11

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Finance, Audit and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives Report Financial and Non-Financial Monitoring Report: Period ended 31 December 2020.

Carried

11 Discussion of Late Items

The late item Report: Delegation relating to Civi Defence Emergency Declarations was dealt with earlier in the meeting.

12 Public Excluded Session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution CO2/21/12

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

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

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

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
12.1 - Tauranga Northern Link Future Proofing Opportunity	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
12.2 - Elder Housing	s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations) s7(2)(j) - the withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
12.3 - Civic Rebuild - Consolidated Civic Administration Premises	s7(2)(g) - the withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
12.4 - Seismic status and upgrade of the Spring Street and Elizabeth Street carpark buildings	s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
12.5 - Request approval for Exemption to Open Competition for IC23	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

KARAKIA

Commissioner Rolleston closed the meeting with a Karakia.

The meeting closed at 5.30pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 29 March 2021.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes

15 March 2021

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting

Monday, 15 March 2021

Order Of Business

1 Opening Karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Public forum.. 3

3.1 Mr Michael O’Neill – Innovating Streets project 3

3.2 Bay of Plenty Regional Council – Chair Doug Leeder, Crs Paula Thompson, Matemoana McDonald and Andrew von Dadelszen – Long Term Plan presentation. 3

4 Acceptance of late items. 5

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 5

6 Change to the order of business. 5

7 Confirmation of minutes. 5

Nil

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 5

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions. 5

Nil

10 Recommendations from other committees. 5

Nil

11 Business. 5

11.1 Development Contributions - Papakainga housing. 5

11.2 Development Contributions - Community Housing Providers. 6

11.3 2021-31 Long-Term Plan - Outcomes proposal 6

11.4 Innovating Streets at the Mount 8

11.5 2021-2031 Long-term Plan - Draft User Fees and Charges. 9

11.6 2021-31 Long Term Plan Financial Options. 9

12 Public excluded session. 11

13.1 Consolidated Civic Administration Premises. 11

11 Business (Continued) 12

11.7 Submission to Bay of Plenty Regional Council Long Term Plan 2021-2031. 12

13 Discussion of late items. 12

14 Closing Karakia. 13

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

ON Monday, 15 March 2021 AT 10.30am

PRESENT: Commission Chair Anne Tolley, Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston, Commissioner Stephen Selwood and Commissioner Bill Wasley

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Carlo Ellis (Manager: Strategic Maori Engagement), Ross Boreham (Communications Specialist), Jeremy Boase (Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning), Kathryn Sharplin (Manager: Finance), Paul Dunphy (Director of Places & Spaces), Jim Taylor (Transactional Services Manager), Josh Logan (Team Leader: Corporate Planning), Tracey Hughes (Financial Insights & Reporting Manager), Guy Protheroe (Urban Designer), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor) and Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor)

1 Opening Karakia

Carlo Ellis, Manager: Strategic Maori Engagement, opened the meeting with a Karakia.

2 Apologies

Nil

3 Public forum

3.1 Mr Michael O’Neill – Innovating Streets project

Key points

· On behalf of the Mount community and residents involved in the Innovating Streets consultation workshops, offered to Tauranga City Council (TCC) recognition of a job well done. It had been a positive local experience.

· Offered a vote of thanks for the consultation model that captured local interests and enabled real and meaningful engagement with community representatives. Hoped to see the model adopted by other council projects going forward.

· The representation group covered all demographics with wide and varying perspectives.

· Requested that the design be better modified to avoid the loss of vital carparking spaces between the main beach and Tay Street.

The Commission Chair thanked Mr O’Neill for his presentation.

3.2 Bay of Plenty Regional Council – Chair Doug Leeder, Crs Paula Thompson, Matemoana McDonald and Andrew von Dadelszen – Long Term Plan presentation

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

Key points

· Tauranga was pivotal to the success of the region. Conversely, Tauranga was dependent on the success of the region.

· It was important to work collectively and collegially together for the betterment of the region.

· BOPRC was essentially about the environment.

· Currently responding to central government regulatory reform with a focus on the National Environment Standards for fresh water and air quality.

· Focussed on regional recovery post Covid-19.

· The region would be challenged to meet nation climate change targets, particularly for emissions reduction.

· Absolutely focussed on easing the congestion in the city. The priority was to find mode shift change. Believed the public transport “spoke and hub” model was the right model for the city but the model required the right infrastructure to be successful.

· Committed to working with TCC to get good outcomes for the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP).

· Looked to ensure that the Māori view became more recognised and acknowledged. The provisions for Māori coming from central government would be better addressed and supported if councils worked collaboratively together.

· Fortunate to have a range of funding sources. 29% of income came from investment income. This income currently offset general rates by $310 per property.

· Committed to community participation and engagement.

· Acknowledged it was time for transformational shifts to occur, particularly in regards to emissions reductions.

· Proposed spending over the next 10 years was $1.6 billion; three quarters dedicated to transport and urban planning.

· BOPRC’s Financial Strategy aimed to improve resilience to internal and external influences and challenges.

· For the first three years of the Long-Term Plan (LTP), BOPRC will fund the proposed public transport targeted rate increase from general reserves.

· LTP consultation would be around climate change sustainability initiatives, public transport bus fares, and a regional safety and rescue services fund.

In response to questions

· The free school bus trial would continue through to December. The trail had been disrupted last year by the Covid-19 level 4 lockdown.

· The implementation of the National Policy Statement standards for fresh water would be a work in process. The new standards would prevail when current territorial authorities wastewater and stormwater discharge resource consents expired.

· BOPRC was looking at better ways for shared decision making with Māori and providing the space for Tangata Whenua to sit at the decision-making table. More conversations were required inside and outside of council to enable real change in this space. Wider application of matauranga Māori was being considered within BOPRC activities.

· Strategic and spatial planning would provide opportunities for climate change going forward. An integrated way of working was required to meet the aspirations of the current government, particularly in the Western Bay of Plenty’s urban and transport space.

· Infrastructure that supported public transport e.g. hubs and clearways, was key to increasing service development and patronage of public transport.

The Commission Chair thanked Chair Doug Leeder, Crs Paula Thompson, Matemoana McDonald and Andrew von Dadelszen for their presentation.

Attachment

1 Presentation - BOPRC LTP

4 Acceptance of late items

Nil

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6 Change to the order of business

Nil

7 Confirmation of minutes

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions

10 Recommendations from other committees

11.1 Development Contributions - Papakainga housing

11 Business

This item had been left to lie on the table at the 8 March Council meeting as further information had been requested.

A copy of the tabled document for this item and Item 11.2 – Development Contributions (DCs) on papakainga and community housing provider (CHP) developments - can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this committee meeting.

Resolution CO3/21/1

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

a) Provides $250,000 per year for each of the next three financial years to be applied to a Papakainga Development Contributions Grant Fund, with the funding source to be the proceeds of the Elder Housing Portfolio.

b) Notes that the intention is for the Grant Fund to be available to fully subsidise development contributions on Papakainga housing and that a policy will be developed which defines eligibility, application, assessment and approval processes.

c) Incorporates the above decisions into the draft development contributions policy and the draft long term plan for the purposes of consultation.

d) Provides for long term deferral of development contributions of up to 10 years in the event that those contributions are still payable.

Carried

Attachment

1 Tabled document - Development contributions (DCs) on papakainga and community housing provider (CHP) developments

11.2 Development Contributions - Community Housing Providers

This item had been left to lie on the table at the 8 March Council meeting as further information had been requested.

Resolution CO3/21/2

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

a) Provides $250,000 per year for each of the next three financial years to be applied to a Community Housing Development Contributions Grant Fund, with the funding source to be the proceeds of the Elder Housing Portfolio.

b) Notes that the intention is for the Grant Fund to be available to fully subsidise development contributions on community housing and that a policy will be developed which defines eligibility, application, assessment and approval processes.

c) Incorporates the above decisions into the draft development contributions policy and the draft long term plan for the purposes of consultation.

d) Provides for long term deferral of development contributions of up to 10 years in the event that those contributions are still payable.

Carried

11.3 2021-31 Long-Term Plan - Outcomes proposal

Staff Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

Christine Jones, General Manger: Strategy and Growth

Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure Services

Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community

In response to questions

· The benchmarking exercise with other councils requested by the Commissioners would be undertaken utilising existing budgets.

· Information in the consultation documentation on the level of investment in renewals and services would clearly show that investment was not only going to growth, but also to improvements to current levels of service and renewals of existing assets.

· Information in the consultation documentation would clearly show how the Development Contributions (DCs) policy worked and how the load was shared fairly between existing ratepayers, new ratepayers, the business community, and developers. It was also important that the gap between what was estimated to be funded by DCs and what was actually funded, and how to close the gap, was clearly understood.

· What was proposed to be delivered in the next financial year in terms of service delivery through activities would be delivered. In terms of the capital programme, renewals generally sat at around 95% delivery, and historically, the capital programme outside of renewals, sat at around 60-70% delivery.

· Crown Infrastructure Partners (CIP) funding for the Cameron Road project covered stage one, from Harington Street to 17^th Ave. Stage two, 17^th Ave to Barkes Corner was part of the Transport System Plan (TSP) and was a separate deliverable.

· The Strategic Acquisition Fund enabled TCC to acquire land that was related to a strategic direction that had been approved by council, when it became available on the market.

· Any additional infrastructure investment that took TCC over the allowed debt limits would incur a debt retirement levy and this would have a rating impact.

· It was acknowledged that TCC was behind with community facilities in existing areas. Investment in major community amenity facilities e.g. library, aquatic centre was often prioritised over smaller local neighbourhood amenities.

· All projects that had been excluded from funding in the LTP would be included in the public consultation documentation. Residents would be able to make submissions requesting that excluded projects be included, with the knowledge that their inclusion may increase rating levels.

The recommendations for this item were taken in parts.

Resolution CO3/21/3

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

Community outcomes

(a) Amends the community outcome “We have a well-planned city” to read:

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

(b) Amends community outcome “We are Inclusive” to read:

We are inclusive – Tauranga is a city that recognises and promotes partnership with Tangata Whenua, and values culture and diversity, and where people of all ages and backgrounds are included, feel safe, connected and healthy.

We recognise we are an integral part of the wider Bay of Plenty region and upper North Island – Tauranga is a well-connected city having a key role in making a significant contribution to the social, economic, cultural and environmental well-being of the region.

(d) Reconfirms the remaining community outcomes.

Carried

Resolution CO3/21/4

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Proposed long-term plan key investment proposals

(e) Notes that the proposed long-term plan focuses on key investment proposals relating to:

(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

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

Carried

Resolution CO3/21/5

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Capital investment programme

(g) 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, and any other amendments resulting from resolutions adopted after this report:

(i) Additional accessible recreation projects:

- Blake Park shared sports facility

- Te Tumu destination playground development

- Greerton Park development

- Memorial Park to City Centre pathway

- Shared club facility on Gordan Spratt Reserve

- Marine Parade boardwalk

- Accessibility hotspots

- Wairoa River Esplanade improvements

- Gordon Spratt Reserve development

- Ferguson Park Beach Road end public toilet

- Gordon Spratt multi-sport and cricket pavilion

- Welcome Bay Road esplanade development

- Playground shade

- Western Corridor destination playground development

Carried

11.4 Innovating Streets at the Mount

Staff Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

Guy Protheroe, Urban Designer

On behalf of the organisation, Gareth Wallis acknowledged and thanked the 28 members of the Community Co-design Group for their involvement and participation in the project over the past few months.

In response to questions

· Inclusion of a cycleway in the boardwalk extension proposal was unlikely to be achievable; accommodating both road and cycleway elements would be difficult.

· The Innovating Streets project would probably not have gone ahead if Waka Kotahi (New Zealand Transport Agency - NZTA) had not provided funding.

Resolution CO3/21/6

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

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

(b) 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.

Carried

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

Staff Paul Davidson, General Manager Corporate Services

Christine Jones, General Manger: Strategy and Growth

In response to questions

· The technical part of the Parking Strategy had been completed. Work was now underway to ensure there was alignment with the BOPRC’s public transport infrastructure and services.

· There was a need to demonstrate that TCC was operating as effectively and efficiently as it could. It was important that the message was clearly communicated in the consultation documentation that TCC was focussed on driving efficiencies across the organisation.

· It was recognised that user fees did not cover all of the Environmental Health and Licencing and Building Services activities. The deficits represented a public good element for the activity that was not charged and were offset by rates.

Resolution CO3/21/7

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(a) Receives the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan – Draft User and Charges 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.

Carried

11.6 2021-31 Long Term Plan Financial Options

Staff Paul Davidson, General Manager Corporate Services

Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Jim Taylor, Transactional Services Manager

In response to questions

· There would always be some level of risk in DC estimations. Timing, in particular, was difficult to estimate. Risk was being better managed in new greenfield areas through the change from a ‘per lot’ charge to a ‘per hectare’ charge. TCC was one of the most transparent councils in terms of DCs and tried to maximise recovery within the legislative framework but there were limitations and difficulties with the legislation.

· Targeted rates:

- Deletion of a targeted rate would need to go through a consultation process with a council decision, and be based on analysis that showed that the specific purpose of the targeted rate was no longer relevant.

- Changes to proposed targeted rates out for consultation could be made if there was significant feedback through the submission process for a change. It would be difficult to initiate a new targeted rate during LTP deliberations, and the recommendation would be to signal the rate as a possible targeted rate for the future. The differential rate was slightly different in that this could be made higher or lower during deliberations.

- The targeted rate for wastewater was based on the number of toilets (pans), not a volume based charge. It was recognised that the commercial/industrial sector used 30 percent of the water but paid about 20 percent of wastewater charges. A commercial/industrial differential rate was possible but more investigation and evidence would be required before one could be considered.

- It was possible to have a targeted rate for the district plan costs. This was already happening in other areas of the country.

· District Plan review:

- It was recommended that the budget for the District Plan review remain as was to stay within the current legislative framework. This would continue to be monitored, and modified to new/amended legislative requirements as needed.

- TCC worked as much as possible with the Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) on the District Plan review to achieve as much alignment as possible. The opportunity for a joint District Plan review would be explored and the outcome reported back to a future meeting.

The recommendations for this item were taken in parts.

Resolution CO3/21/8

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

(a) Notes the budgets and rating impacts in this report are based on the level of capital investment proposed for the LTP as included in the proposed capital investment programme in the previous report “2021-31 Long-term Plan – Outcomes Proposal”. Any changes to the capital programme made prior to and after the adoption of this report will need to be reflected in updated budgets and rating impacts to those noted in this report.

(b) Confirms that work should continue to explore alternative funding and financing options.

(c) Notes that debt retirement is required to maintain financial sustainability at the capital investment levels proposed and that it should be included in the activities where large infrastructure investment is proposed.

Carried

Resolution CO3/21/9

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

(d) Agrees to the debt retirement proposed in Attachment 1 option A and option B to this report subject to any changes to capital budgets.

(e) Agrees that the operating budgets in Attachment 2 form the basis for the setting of rates for the preferred options for the draft LTP adjusted for any resolutions prior to and after the adoption of the report.

Carried

Resolution CO3/21/10

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

(f) Agrees to loan funded operating expenditure as set out in Table 1.

Carried

Resolution CO3/21/11

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

(g) Agrees to new targeted rates as set out in Attachment 4 option A and option B to this report subject to any changes to capital budgets.

Carried

Resolution CO3/21/12

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

(h) Notes the principles for rating structure in the draft revenue and financing policy approved by Council on 8 March.

(i) Agrees 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, transportation and stormwater.

Carried

Resolution CO3/21/13

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

(j) Agrees the Uniform Annual General Rate and other rates set on a uniform basis, excluding wastewater, should remain at 10% of total rates after the introduction of the full kerbside waste collection service.

Carried

At 12.42pm, the meeting adjourned.

It was agreed that the meeting would resume at 1.30pm and would immediately move into the Public Excluded session. Item 11.7 - Submission to Bay of Plenty Regional Council Long Term Plan 2021-2031, would then be taken at the conclusion of the Public Excluded session.

At 1.30pm, the meeting resumed.

12 Public excluded session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution CO3/21/14

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That:

(a) the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

(b) David Lambie, TwentyTwo Property Consultants, be permitted to remain at this meeting after the public has been excluded, because of his knowledge of the item to be discussed.

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
13.1 - Consolidated Civic Administration Premises	s7(2)(i) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

At 1.43pm, the meeting resumed in the Open session.

11 Business (Continued)

11.7 Submission to Bay of Plenty Regional Council Long Term Plan 2021-2031

Staff Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

A copy of the tabled document for this item – Submission to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council Long term Plan 2021-2031 - can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this council meeting.

Amendments requested

· Add front-end paragraph regarding working collaboratively at a governance to governance level.

· Remove:

- Paragraph 7

- Paragraph 8

- Paragraph 9

- Paragraph 29 – bullet point A

· Paragraph 16 – add preference to work collaboratively to achieve mode shift.

Resolution CO3/21/15

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a) Approves the submission to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council Draft Long Term Plan with the following amendments / additions:

(i) Add front-end paragraph regarding working collaboratively at a governance to governance level.

(ii) Remove:

- Paragraph 7

- Paragraph 8

- Paragraph 9

- Paragraph 29 – bullet point A

(iii) Paragraph 16 – add preference to work collaboratively to achieve mode shift.

Carried

Attachment

1 Tabled document - Submission to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council Long Term Plan 2021-2031

13 Discussion of late items

Nil

14 Closing Karakia

Carlo Ellis, Manager: Strategic Maori Engagement, closed the meeting with a Karakia.

The meeting closed at 1.50pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 29 March 2021.

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

CHAIRPERSON

15. Legislative issues are considered in the Background and Strategic/Statutory Context sections to this report.

29 March 2021

11 Business

11.1 2021-2031 Long-term Plan - Adoption for Audit of draft Long-term Plan Consultation Document

File Number: A12349560

Author: Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To gain approval to provide the draft 2021-31 Long-term Plan Consultation Document to Audit NZ.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report.

(b) Approves the draft 2021-31 Long-term Plan Consultation Document (Attachment 1) for the purposes of submitting it to Audit New Zealand for the audit process.

(c) Delegates authority to the Chief Executive to make editorial amendments to the draft 2021-31 Long-term Plan Consultation Document, if required, prior to them being submitted to Audit New Zealand.

(d) Notes the final version of the draft 2021-31 Long-term Plan Consultation Document, following any amendments required by Audit New Zealand and for graphic design purposes, will be provided to Council for its approval at the meeting in early May 2021.

Executive Summary

2. This paper recommends adoption of the draft Consultation Document for the 2021-31 Long-term Plan (LTP), to enable auditing of the documents along with the consultation document and enable progress towards the Special Consultative Procedure and eventual adoption of the 2021-31 Long-term Plan.

3. This document has been prepared based on guidance received from Commissioners at a workshop on 8 March 2021 and through Council decisions throughout 2020 and early 2021.

4. The results of the audit will be provided to Council in early May 2021, at which time Council will be requested to approve the document for consultation. During 7 May 2021 to 7 June 2021, Council will receive public submissions and then hold hearing and deliberations in June 2021.

Background

5. The purpose of a Long-term Plan is to:

(a) describe the activities of the local authority; and

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

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

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

(e) provide a basis for accountability of the local authority to the community[1].

6. An LTP is prepared every three years, covers ten years (and includes an infrastructure strategy that covers 30 years), must include specific information described in the Local Government Act 2002, must be audited, and can only be adopted after a period of public consultation on a consultation document which itself also needs to be audited[2].

7. The consultation document is an important milestone in the development of the 2021-31 Long-term Plan. It sets out our broad direction over the next ten years, with a focus on the next three, how much that will cost, and the effects we will achieve. It asks the public to provide their views on key issues facing Council. It is the legal basis for consultation on the Long-term Plan, and thus must be audited by Audit New Zealand.

Strategic / Statutory Context

8. Council is required to have a Long-term Plan under section 93 of the Local Government Act (LGA). As part of this, it is required to utilise the Special Consultative Procedure, which at s93(c)(4) requires audit of the draft Consultation Document.

Draft Consultation Document

9. The consultation document for an LTP must be presented in as concise and simple a manner as possible, while still achieving its purpose. It must not be a draft LTP and must not include a full version of any of the draft supporting documents. It must clearly show to affected communities, using graphs and charts where appropriate, what is changing, with a particular focus on rates and debt levels.

10. Council must include a preferred option for any topic on which it is seeking community views and cost its budget to that option. Commissioners will be asked to adopt the consultation document only after having adopted all of the supporting information.

Options Analysis

11. There are two options for consideration:

Option 1: Council adopts the draft consultation document for submission to Audit NZ for formal audit.

12. Council approves the draft consultation document as proposed in Attachment 1.

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Keeps within the current timeframes agreed to at the Council meeting on 22 February 2021.		· Potential opportunities for amendments to the consultation document may not have been considered.
Recommended?	Yes

Option 2: Council does not adopt the draft consultation document for submission to Audit NZ for formal audit.

13. Council does not approve the draft consultation document as proposed in Attachment 1.

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Potential opportunities for consultation document to be amended and reconsidered.		· Delay in adopting the consultation document (depending on the duration) may delay preparation of the LTP.
Recommended?	No

Financial Considerations

14. There are no specific costs associated with option one, however pursuing option two could lead to time delays as processes and decision-making may need to be revisited.

Legal Implications / Risks

Consultation / Engagement

16. The draft 2021-31 LTP Consultation Document is scheduled to be adopted in early May 2021. After that adoption it will be consulted on with the community between 7 May and 7 June 2021 using the special consultative procedure outlined in section 93A of the LGA.

Significance

17. The 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.

18. 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

19. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the LTP and its contents is of high significance. However, this decision is considered to be of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

20. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, and the draft consultation document is scheduled to be adopted along with supporting documentation in early May 2021, no further engagement is necessary at this preliminary stage. After that adoption in early May, all will be consulted on with the community in accordance with section 93A of the LGA.

Next Steps

21. Once adopted, the draft consultation document will be provided to Audit New Zealand for their audit.

22. Once that audit is completed, the draft consultation document will be revised and presented to Council for adoption in May 2021, along with the supporting documentation and Statement of Proposal for Fees and Charges. If adopted, the Consultation Document, supporting documentation and the Fees and Charges Statement of Proposal will be used for the Special Consultative Procedure required by the LGA.

1. Attachment 1 - 2021-31 LTP Consultation Document - Draft for Audit - A12374775 ⇩

1. To gain approval to provide the draft 2021-2031 Long-term Plan supporting documentation to Audit NZ.

29 March 2021

11.2 2021-2031 Long-term Plan - Adoption for Audit of Long-term Plan supporting documentation

File Number: A12349490

Author: Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

Recommendations

That the Council:

a) Receives the report.

b) Adopts the draft Groups of Activities plans as set out in Attachment 2, for submission to Audit New Zealand, incorporating the new community outcomes approved on 15 March 2021.

c) Adopts the following documents as supporting documents for the draft LTP for submission to Audit New Zealand, incorporating the following strategies, analysis and policies:

(i) Summary financials (Attachment 1)

(ii) Draft Financial Strategy (Attachment 3)

(iii) Draft Infrastructure Strategy (Attachment 4)

(iv) Draft Revenue and Finance Policy (Attachment 5)

(v) Revenue and Financing – Funding Needs Analysis (Attachment 6)

d) Delegates authority to the Chief Executive to make editorial amendments to the draft 2021-31 Long-term Plan supporting documentation, if required, prior to them being submitted to Audit New Zealand.

e) Notes the final version of the 2021-31 Long-term Plan supporting documentation, following any amendments required by Audit New Zealand and for graphic design purposes, will be provided to Council for its approval at the meeting on Monday 3 May 2021.

Executive Summary

2. This paper recommends adoption of the draft supporting documentation for the 2021-31 Long-term Plan (LTP) to enable auditing of the documents along with the consultation document and enable progress towards the Special Consultative Procedure and eventual adoption of the 2021-31 Long-term Plan.

3. Key content includes:

(i) Draft Financial Statements and Funding Impact Statement (Attachment 1)

(ii) Draft Groups of Activities (Attachment 2)

(iii) Draft Financial Strategy (Attachment 3)

(iv) Draft Infrastructure Strategy (Attachment 4)

(v) Draft Revenue and Finance Policy (Attachment 5)

(vi) Revenue and Financing – Funding Needs Analysis (Attachment 6)

4. These documents have been prepared based on guidance received from Commissioners at a workshop on 8 March 2021 and through Council decisions throughout 2020 and early 2021, including the meeting of 15 March 2021. They must be available to Audit New Zealand as part of their statutory audit.

5. The results of this audit will be provided to Council in early May 2021, at which time Council will be requested to approve revised documents for consultation. During 7 May 2021 to 7 June 2021, Council will receive public submissions and then hold hearing and deliberations in June 2021.

Background

6. The purpose of a Long-term Plan is to:

o describe the activities of the local authority; and

o describe the community outcomes of the local authority’s district; and

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

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

o provide a basis for accountability of the local authority to the community[3].

7. An LTP is prepared every three years, covers ten years (and includes an infrastructure strategy that covers 30 years), must include specific information described in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), must be audited, and can only be adopted after a period of public consultation on a consultation document which itself also needs to be audited[4].

8. This paper seeks Council adoption of the relevant draft supporting documents for the LTP required for audit.

LTP material for adoption for audit

Draft Financial Statements and Funding Impact Statement

9. This material is prepared based on the preferred investment options adopted on 15 March. Other options will also be discussed in the consultation document with further explanation of options included as additional supporting documentation. This will be developed during the audit period and presented for adoption by Council on 3 May 2021.

10. At present financial information in the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expense and the Statement of Financial Position is shown excluding inflation, but the final version will be inflation adjusted. The cashflow statement will be prepared during the audit period.

Groups of Activities Plans

11. The Groups of Activities Plans were reviewed and approved by Council on 8 March.

12. However, changes made to the Community Outcomes by Council on 15 March has meant that these plans have been re-worked to incorporate those changes and are presented to council again to adopt for audit.

13. These changes have now been incorporated into the plans in Attachment 2.

Draft Financial Strategy

14. Council is required to adopt a Financial Strategy (Attachment 3) pursuant to LGA section 101A. The purpose of the Financial Strategy is to facilitate prudent financial management and provide a guide against which to consider proposals for funding and spending. The strategy also provides a framework for engaging with the community on the impact of the proposals. It includes statements on factors that could have significant impact on Council; quantified limits on rates and debt; and an assessment of Council’s ability to provide and maintain levels of service.

15. The development of the Financial Strategy has taken place since a workshop that occurred in September 2020 and then a subsequent report to Finance, Audit and Risk Committee titled ‘Funding and Financing for the Long-term Plan’ in September 2020.

16. The report to Council on 15 March “2021-31 Long Term plan Financial Options” summarised the options for funding and financing the LTP and key issues and commissioner decisions have been reflected in the strategy.

17. The limits on borrowing in the draft statement are the borrowing covenants set by the Local Government Funding Agency.

18. The limit on rates increases has been identified for general rates only at the level of 12% which is the highest annual rates increase identified in the draft financials. Targeted rates have not been included in this financial limit as they are based around either:

(i) covering costs of specific services including water supply, wastewater services, kerbside collection, economic development, mainstreet and various specific levels of service in spaces in places, or

(ii) covering costs of delivering additional capital investment in priority areas and including debt retirement. Consultation will occur directly on the level of the investment and therefore targeted rates proposed for the agreed level of investment. The rates increases proposed as a result of these targeted rates are shown separately in the financial strategy.

Draft Infrastructure Strategy

19. Section 101B of the LGA requires Council to prepare and adopt an Infrastructure Strategy (Attachment 4), covering a period of at least 30 years. The strategy identifies significant infrastructure issues and options for managing these, including estimating costs.

20. Council has a number of plans and strategies that provide the foundation for the Infrastructure Strategy. These include asset management plans, the Water Safety Plan, the Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) Final Report, the Tauranga Reserve Management Plan, the Community Facilities Investment Plan, the Te Papa Spatial Plan, and the Western Bay of Plenty Transport Systems Plan.

21. The key issues that we are looking to address over the coming years are:

Growth and infrastructure planning

A rapidly growing population means that we need to facilitate urban development with the right infrastructure at the right time. This includes infrastructure for new houses, intensification in existing urban areas, improved transport choices, and social infrastructure that supports our community to connect, learn, play and stay healthy.

Climate change, natural hazards and creating resilience

We know that the Bay of Plenty’s climate is changing, and these changes will continue for the foreseeable future. We also have a number of natural hazards that have the potential to affect our infrastructure. Understanding how we mitigate risk from natural hazards and adapt to climate change is a key focus for Council.

Three waters legislative reform and what it might mean for Tauranga

There is a significant level of change to the legislative framework for the management of the three waters. One of the key changes is the introduction of Te Mana o Te Wai which recognises that there is a hierarchy for the health and use of water. In addition, there are significant proposed changes regarding responsibility for drinking water safety and regulation; and oversight of the regulation and management of wastewater and stormwater networks.

Draft Revenue and Finance Policy

22. Sections 102 and 103 of the LGA require Council to adopt a Revenue and Financing Policy. The Revenue and Financing Policy sets out how Council will fund each of its activities and the rationale for these choices.

23. The draft Revenue and Financing Policy (Attachment 5) is supported by the draft Funding Needs Analysis (Attachment 6). The draft Revenue and Financing Policy was agreed by council on 8 March 2021. It has since been updated based on direction from Council at its meetings on 8 and 15 March 2021. It also now includes specific reference to debt retirement funded through rates or user fees to enable further capital investment given existing financial constraints particularly regarding borrowing covenants.

24. Some minor wording changes to both the draft policy and Funding Needs Analysis may be made following the legal compliance review.

Revenue and Finance Policy – Funding Needs Analysis

25. This draft Funding Needs Analysis supports the draft Revenue and Financing Policy providing the background and analysis to explain Council’s funding decisions, which are yet to be finalised. It is guided by the financial principles documented in the draft Financial Strategy.

26. Council must comply with section 101(3) of the LGA. For each activity Council must determine the appropriate sources of funding that will meet the funding needs of each activity. Council will take into consideration:

· The community outcomes to which the activity primarily contributes;

· The distribution of benefits between the community as a whole, any identifiable part of the community and individuals;

· The period in or over which those benefits are expected to occur;

· The extent to which the actions or inaction of particular individuals or a group contribute to the need to undertake the activity;

· The costs and benefits, including consequences for transparency and accountability, of funding the activity distinctly from other activities;

27. Once the above analysis is done, Council must then consider the overall impact of any allocation of liability for revenue needs on the community.

28. This was carried out at the Council workshop on the 8 March 2021 and the Council meeting on the 15 March 2021. In response to the impact on the community, Council resolved to increase the commercial differential to 1.6 to apply to the general rate, resilience and the proposed new targeted rates in community, transportation and stormwater. These new targeted rates ensure that the rate collected for these new infrastructure and amenity investments will be ring fenced for these purposes and increases transparency.

29. The draft Funding Needs Analysis has also been updated based on guidance from Council at its meeting on 8 March 2021 and also incorporates the changes to the LTP Community Outcomes made by Council on 15 March 2021.

Strategic / Statutory Context

30. Section 93(G) LGA 2002, requires that before adopting a consultation document under s93(A) that a local authority must prepare and adopt the information that:

a) is relied on by the content of the consultation document adopted under section 93A; and

b) is necessary to enable the Auditor-General to give the reports required by sections 93C(4) and 93D(4); and

c) provides the basis for the preparation or amendment of the long-term plan.

Options Analysis

31. There are two options for consideration:

Option 1: Council adopts the draft supporting documentation for submission to Audit NZ for formal audit.

32. Council approves the draft supporting documentation as proposed in Attachments 1-5.

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Keeps within the current timeframes agreed to at the Council meeting on 22 February 2021.		· Potential opportunities for amendments to the supporting documentation may not have been considered.
Recommended?	Yes

Option 2: Council does not adopt the draft supporting documentation for submission to Audit NZ for formal audit.

33. Council does not approve the draft supporting documentation as proposed in Attachments 1-5.

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Potential opportunities for supporting documents to be amended and reconsidered.		· Delay in adopting the supporting documentation (depending on the duration) may delay preparation of the LTP.
Recommended?	No

Financial Considerations

34. There are no specific costs associated with option one, however pursuing option two could lead to time delays as processes and decision-making may need to be revisited.

Legal Implications / Risks

35. Legislative issues are considered in the Background and Strategic/Statutory Context sections to this report.

Consultation / Engagement

36. The LTP Consultation Document and supporting documentation 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 LGA.

Significance

37. The 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.

38. 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

39. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the LTP and its contents is of high significance. However, this decision is considered to be of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

40. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, and the draft supporting documents are scheduled to be adopted as supporting material alongside the LTP consultation document in early May 2021. After that adoption all will be consulted on with the community using in accordance with section 93A of the LGA.

Next Steps

41. Once adopted, the supporting documentation will be provided to Audit New Zealand for their audit.

42. Once that audit is completed, the supporting documentation will be revised and presented to Council for adoption in early May 2021, along with the draft consultation documentation and Statement of Proposal for Fees and Charges. If adopted, the supporting documentation, consultation document and the Fees and Charges Statement of Proposal will be used for the Special Consultative Procedure required by the LGA.

1. Attachment 1 - Financial Statements - A12363798 ⇩

2. Attachment 1 part 2 Funding Impact Statement - What does this mean for rates - A12363876 ⇩

3. Attachment 2 - Draft - Groups of Activities Plans - A12363484 ⇩

4. Attachment 3 - LTP 2021-31 Draft Financial Strategy - A12363792 ⇩

5. Attachment 4 - Draft Infrastructure Strategy - A12374750 ⇩

6. Attachment 5 - Draft Revenue and Financing Policy 2021 - A12363917 ⇩

7. Attachment 6 - DRAFT Funding Needs Analysis 2021 - A12363916 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

29 March 2021

PDF Creator

29 March 2021

11.3 Expected increases to the development contribution fees in 2022 financial year

File Number: A12259278

Author: Ana Blackwood, Development Contributions Policy Analyst

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To highlight to the Council the expected changes to the 2021/22 Development Contributions Policy compared to the operative policy.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Notes the contents of the report and that a draft 2021/22 Development Contributions Policy which includes the fees discussed in the report will be brought to the Council to consider for adoption in May 2021.

Executive Summary

2. Tauranga City Council uses Development Contributions to fund growth related capital expenditure. Development contributions are set on a cost recovery basis in line with the expected cost of infrastructure, hence as infrastructure costs rise so do development contribution charges. A new Development Contributions Policy (DCP) is adopted each financial year to ensure that the fees charged are reflective of adopted capital expenditure budgets.

3. The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires that a draft version of the DCP is circulated for public consultation prior to being adopted. A draft 2021/22 DCP will be brought to Council to adopt in May this year and will then be circulated for public consultation alongside the Long-Term Plan alongside targeted engagement on the DCP with the development and building community.

4. There will be several relatively minor changes to the content of the draft 2021/22 DCP compared to the operative DCP. These changes will be outlined within the Statement of Proposal prepared for consultation but should not have any significant affects to the overall implementation.

5. The only significant changes to the DCP relate to the development contribution fees.

6. Attachment A shows a comparison of the fees in the operative 2020/21 DCP compared to the expected fees for the 2021/22 DCP. Most of the fees will fluctuate within a margin of 0 and 2% however there is a significant increase in the Citywide development contributions and in local development contributions for both the Pyes Pa West and the Wairakei catchments.

7. The causes for the increases in the Wairakei and Pyes Pa West fees are essentially increased capital expenditure costs for a few specific capital projects remaining to be delivered in those catchments. Specific details regarding which projects have increased and by how much will be detailed within the Statement of Proposal which will be issued alongside the Draft DCP. The developers in those catchments who will be impacted by the changes will have the opportunity to review these costs and can submit through consultation process if they wish to do so. However, it is noted that most development in these catchments is completed, underway or already consented and therefore not subject to any increase in charges.

8. The rest of this report focuses on the increase in the citywide development contributions.

9. TCC have been signalling an expected increase in the citywide development contributions payable of building consents for several years. The operative DCP indicates that the increase was expected to be between $5,000 and $9,000 per residential dwelling compared to the 2020/21 citywide development contribution fee. However, based on latest costs the quantum of the increase is now in the ballpark of $14,000 per dwelling (plus GST).

10. The primary cause of this increased citywide contribution is that we will start collecting for the Waiari Water Supply Scheme (WWSS) as the capacity of the existing water treatment plants has now been reached. The total capital cost related to the WWSS which is funded by development contributions is over $254 million. At the time of putting together last year’s DCP is was around $100m less.

11. $50 million of this relates to increased costs of construction and $50 million is because the scope of works being funded via development contributions has expanded to include a large water main required to feed water into Mount Maunganui to complete the scheme. This water main was previously costed much lower and was scheduled to be constructed outside of the 10-year plan period and was to be funded via contributions introduced at a later point. The works are now being completed in this long-term plan period and it is appropriate to fund them as part of the same package of works.

12. The increased capital costs and change in scope triggered staff to review the funding methodology to ensure that the principals adopted were still appropriate.

13. Section 197AB (B) of the LGA states that…”development contributions should be determined in a manner that is generally consistent with the capacity life of the assets for which they are intended to be used and in a way that avoids over-recovery of costs allocated to development contribution funding:”

14. It is difficult to determine an exact capacity life for the works as it will depend on several factors including average water demand, future growth projections, household occupation levels, and potential future limits on water take. Assumptions on these issues can be varied but all models show that the expected capacity life of the full package of works will be between 30 and 50 years.

15. Table 2 below shows a comparison of the citywide contribution charge per household using 30-year capacity life, 40 years and 50 years. Essentially, extending the capacity life will decrease the base charge paid per household but this is offset by an increase in interest costs associated with extending the debt repayment period.

16. The longer capacity life also increases balance sheet risks associated with the debt, increases interest rate risk and the risk that some of the costs will not be paid for by the growth community (i.e. if the project has reached capacity before the 50-year period then could not continue to collect costs from the growth community).

17. For these reasons the fee that is proposed to be used in the 2021/22 DCP is based on the fee shown in Option 1.

Table 2. Models on Waiari Water Supply Funding – 100% growth funding

	Capacity life/funding period	Growth (HUEs)	Base cost per HUE	Total costs of capital, inflation & low demand costs	$ per household [5]
Option 1	30 years (2022-2052)	30,685	$10,902	$5,582	$16,484
Option 2	40 years (2022-2062	35,437	$ 9,796	$5,951	$15,747
Option 3	50 years (2022-2072	40,000	$ 8,981	$6,411	$15,392

18. Staff also looked at models for the costs if the project was not entirely funded by development contributions. In the table below the same assumptions have been used as above but only funding 90% of the costs with development contributions. This model would assume that 10% of the costs are funded via other sources – most likely to be borne by rates.

Table 3. Models on Waiari Water Supply Funding – 90% costs funded via growth

	Capacity life	Growth (HUEs)	Base cost	Total costs of capital, inflation & low demand costs	$ per household - with 90% growth funding
Option 4	30 years (2022-2052)	30,685	$10,077	$5,059	$15,136
Option 5	40 years (2022-2062	35,437	$ 9,081	$5,391	$14,472
Option 6	50 years (2022-2072	40,000	$ 8,347	$5,786	$14,133

19. This option of non-growth funding has not previously been explored by the Council as it is not in line with the growth pays for growth principal The need for the WWSS is driven entirely by the growth community and if no further growth was to occur then it is unlikely these works would be required unless significant reductions were made to existing water take consents through upcoming reconsenting processes. However consideration will be given to whether the wider community will receive some benefits from the WWSS for example through better resilience and security of supply.

20. Given the significance of the increase and the likely opposition from the building community, staff have sought external consultant advice regarding the funding and cost allocation of the project – in particularly to consider the concept of using a portion of non-growth funding. We are awaiting advice and recommendations on this matter but expect that there will remain a solid rationale for at least the vast majority of project costs to be funded via development contributions.

Increase in the wastewater charge

21. It should be noted that there has also been an increase of nearly $1,000 for the citywide wastewater charge. This increase is due to increased capital expenditure budgets related to the Te Maunga Wastewater Treatment Plant and starting the collection of contributions for a third clarifier required to provide for further growth.

Significance

22. 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.

23. 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

24. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the issue is of medium significance. This is because the matter will form part of the draft DCP which will be consulted on

Next Steps

25. The fees stated within this report will be included within the Draft Development Contributions Policy which will be brought to Council to adopt early May 2021. The draft policy will be circulated for public consultation with the key message being the increase in the citywide development contribution.

26. It would be expected that this increase will receive significant attention as the quantum of the increase far exceeds any figure that has been signalled in past years. Some in the building community offer fixed priced housing developments meaning that any unexpected cost increases will be borne by the building contractors.

27. The development community will have the opportunity to submit on the matter through the consultation process and the Council can consider if it wants to make any potential changes to the funding methodology following the consultation process.

1. Council Report - March 2021 - Increased citywide DC fees - A12356516 ⇩

19. Including consideration of broader outcomes through the addition of extra non-financial weighted attributes in procurement plans may increase the overall cost of the product or service. While good procurement outcomes are not necessarily about the lowest price, it is important to note that good procurement outcomes require balanced judgement of financial and non-financial factors related to the procurement. A public value approach to procurement recognises this need to balance price and fit for purpose products and services with achieving broader outcomes.

29 March 2021

11.4 Adoption of the Procurement Policy 2021

File Number: A12090560

Author: Angela Murray, Team Leader: Procurement

Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

Authoriser: Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To adopt the draft Procurement Policy 2021 (the draft policy) (attachment one).

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Adopts the draft Procurement Policy 2021.

(b) Delegates authority to staff to undertake minor editorial changes for the purposes of correction or clarification.

Executive Summary

2. Council’s current Procurement Policy is ten years old and required review to ensure it remained fit for purpose and reflected contemporary procurement practices. The Policy Committee (the Committee) agreed preferred options in response to issues with the current policy at its December 2020 meeting. The preferred options have been incorporated into the attached draft policy for adoption.

3. The draft policy also includes a clause requiring staff to have regard to including Māori, Pasifika and social enterprises in contract opportunities. As this issue was not addressed in the December 2020 report, this report includes commentary in this regard and recommends that this matter be included in the draft policy for adoption.

Background

4. The current policy was adopted in 2011 and reflects the “value for money” approach to procurement of the time. At its December 2020 meeting, the Committee agreed to update the policy to better reflect public value, including a broader outcomes approach to procurement preferred by the Government and other local authorities.

5. A copy of the resolutions is provided below (PO13/20/7);

That the Policy Committee:

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

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

(ii) including strategic objectives for procurement as recommended by staff and to include “Recognise suppliers that pay a living wage”

(Staff recommendations are:

· Encourage procurement that demonstrates a positive environmental impact

· Encourage procurement that supports goal of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP)

· Encourage procurement that supports transition to low carbon economy and building resilience to impacts of climate change

· Procurement that creates high quality, local employment opportunities

· Encourage procurement that creates opportunities to increase access to local training and education programmes that benefit local industry

· Encourage procurement that demonstrates positive local economic outcomes)

In Favour: Crs Larry Baldock, Bill Grainger, Heidi Hughes, John Robson and Deputy Mayor Tina Salisbury

Against: Crs Steve Morris, Dawn Kiddie, Kelvin Clout and Andrew Hollis

CARRIED 5/4

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

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

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

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

(b) Agree to remove the business process guidance included in the current procurement manual to a separate procurement manual.[6]

CARRIED

6. These options have been incorporated into the draft policy to be adopted.

7. The Government introduced a new target for Māori procurement in December 2020 after the issues and options report had been drafted and considered by the Committee. This target emphasises the need for public sector agencies to consider Rule 17 of the Government Procurement Rules (the Rules) to support Māori and Pasifika businesses and social enterprises when undertaking procurement processes. While the December 2020 Committee resolutions to include broader outcomes in the policy suggest alignment with this rule, it is recommended that Council consider making an explicit provision in the draft policy supporting Māori and Pasifika businesses and social enterprises. This is discussed at option one below.

8. An external peer review of the draft policy recommended including a statement in the policy requiring procurement plans to be prepared for high risk and high value procurements. The addition of this provision (clause 6.7.4 of the draft policy) recognises that the proposed new financial thresholds require increased accountability and transparency.

9. Similarly, feedback from a peer review of the draft policy by staff at the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment highlighted the need for robust policy direction to satisfy audit requirements. In response to that advice, option two discusses whether to amend the draft policy provisions on variations.

10. While no other changes to the draft policy were made as a result of the two external peer reviews, feedback on handling risk and conflicts of interest will be captured in the procurement manual.

Options Analysis

11. The draft policy includes a statement noting that procurement should have regard to opportunities for social enterprises and Māori and Pasifika businesses as per rule 17 of the Rules. This ensures that council’s approach to procurement is consistent with the Rules and the overall policy purpose to deliver public value (incorporating the broader outcomes).

12. Local authorities are not required to adhere to the Rules. However, the draft policy is generally consistent with the Rules as they represent good procurement practice.

Issue 1 – Including provision requiring staff to have regard to opportunities for Māori and Pasifika businesses and social enterprises

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Include explicit provision requiring having regard for Māori and Pasifika businesses and social enterprises

(recommended)

· Consistent with recommendation to include broader outcomes in the policy

· Consistent with other councils and the Government Procurement Rules

· May be seen to privilege certain suppliers

Do not include explicit provision requiring having regard for Māori and Pasifika businesses and social enterprises

· Nil

· Inconsistent with broader outcomes approach in the draft policy.

· Inconsistent with other councils and the Government Procurement Rules

Issue 2 - Variations

13. The Committee resolved to only allow variations where there was no change in scope. However, the draft policy has now been amended to provide for variations where there is a “justifiable change in scope” and demonstrated significant logistical or economic advantages. This is in response to staff concerns that only allowing a variation where there is no change in scope would be impractical, particularly an engineer’s variation under a New Zealand Standard (NZS) 3910 contract for building and civil engineering construction. Variations first require the approval of the procurement team before approval from the Chief Executive or their delegate.

14. While the external peer reviews gave no specific feedback on variations, both reviews emphasised the importance of robust policy direction and documenting all parts of the procurement process. Providing for variations subject to conditions is consistent with this recommendation.

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
1	Allow variations where there is a “justifiable change in scope” (as in draft policy) (recommended)	· Recognises that variations are sometimes required in response to the on the ground activity	· Potential to receive variation requests where there is significant change in scope
2	Allow variations where there is no change in scope (as agreed in December 2020)	· Limiting variations and requiring new procurement process may support transparent procurement	· May not provide for engineer’s variation under a NZS 3910 contract, necessitating new procurement process.

Issue 3 – Policy adoption

15. Council could choose to

· adopt the policy,

· adopt the policy subject to amendments agreed at this meeting,

· adopt the policy subject to public consultation, or

· not adopt the policy.

16. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are outlined in the table below.

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
1	Adopt the draft policy as appended at attachment one (recommended)	· Ensures council procurement activity supports broader outcomes · Consistent with procurement approach by government and other councils to seek public value from procurement activity · Supports good procurement practice · Policy limits procedural detail · Consistent with decisions made at December 2020 Policy Committee meeting	· Nil
2	Adopt the draft policy subject to any amendments made at this meeting.		· Nil
3	Adopt the draft policy subject to public consultation	· Provides opportunity for public to give feedback on draft policy	· Decision to adopt policy is of low significance · Potential delays in taking smaller value projects to market that would be subject to the revised thresholds in the draft policy.
4	Do not adopt the policy (retain current policy)	Nil	· Inconsistent with current procurement approach · Policy retains a focus on value for money and limited attention to broader outcomes · Limited separation of policy considerations from procedural (operational guidance) · Inconsistent with decisions made at December 2020 Policy Committee.

Other issues

17. The Committee agreed in December 2020 that the Chief Executive be delegated authority to exempt procurement from the open competition requirement up to $500,000. In order to be consistent, the draft policy also delegates this authority for closed competition procurement.

Strategic / Statutory Context

18. The draft policy helps ensure council meets its legislative obligation to undertake “commercial transactions in accordance with sound business practices” and “ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient and effective use of its resources”. The incorporation of the broader outcomes into the policy also recognises the re-introduction of the four well-beings to the Local Government Act 2002.

Financial Considerations

Legal Implications / Risks

20. The draft policy requires staff to seek approval from the NZTA to use the provisions of this policy when undertaking transport-related procurement. As an approved organisation under the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA 03), council must meet the provisions of that Act to achieve best value for money and uphold competitive supplier markets. The NZTA Procurement Manual ensures approved organisations meets those provisions. However, approved organisations can use other procurement methodologies with the approval of the NZTA and assurance that they meet the LTMA 03 provisions.

21. The recommendation to adopt the draft policy does not increase council’s exposure to climate change risk. However, the policy includes strategic objectives encouraging procurement that supports low carbon outcomes.

Consultation / Engagement

22. Feedback from the social, environmental and economic sectors was incorporated into the December 2020 issues and options report. In particular, the draft policy has a larger recognition that procurement can support broader social and environmental outcomes such as job creation and low carbon procurement.

23. The December 2020 issues and options report was informed by discussions with staff from across the council organisation. Staff supported increasing the thresholds for open and closed competition noting that these thresholds set in 2009 were relatively low given the scale of current council procurement.

24. No additional consultation or engagement is recommended.

Significance

25. The recommendations are of low significance, do not affect the wider public and are a logical extension of previous decisions.

Next Steps

26. The draft policy will come into effect on 3 May 2021. This provides procurement staff with sufficient time to make consequential amendments to existing staff guidance and the procurement manual arising from the policy adoption.

6.2.1 All procurement decisions must consider how the procurement will positively impact the economic, environmental, social and cultural well-being of Tauranga.

1. Draft Procurement Policy 2021 for adoption - A12362143 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

29 March 2021

Draft Procurement Policy 2021

Policy type	City
Authorised by	Council
First adopted	15 June 2011	Minute reference	M11/39.01
Revisions/amendments	10 April 2012 9 October 2012 9 November 2015 28 July 2016 x x 2021	Minute references	M12/17.2 M12/65.3 M15/79.7 M16/49.4
Review date	This policy will be reviewed every three years or earlier if required.

1. Purpose

1.1 To support Council to achieve public value through consideration of broader outcomes and ensuring value for money and fit for purpose products, services, or works.

1.2 To establish a clear framework of good procurement practice, accountability, and sustainability that supports a consistent approach to procurement across the council organisation.

2. Scope

2.1 The policy applies to all procurement of any value for products, services, or works, undertaken by or on behalf of Tauranga City Council.

2.2 The policy does not apply to the following activities:

· Employment (excluding the engagement of contractors and consultants to supply services)

· The acquisition, disposal or lease of land or buildings (except the design, construction or refurbishment of buildings)

· Disposals and sales of Council assets

· Investments, loans, guarantees, or other financial instruments

· Gifts, donations and grants

· Acquisition of art and similar unique items of interest

· Licenses and agreements regarding commercial operations carried out by third parties (traders) on Council property

· Non-contractual agreements between public sector agencies, such as memorandums of understanding

· Statutory or ministerial appointments.

2.3 Council may depart from this policy to undertake urgent procurement required to provide emergency assistance and welfare relief. In the context of this policy an emergency is defined as an event which results in one or more of the following;

· Employees, public, supplier, property or equipment being placed in immediate risk

· Standards of health, welfare or safety having to be re-established without delay

· The significant impairment of the Council’s delivery if the Council failed to respond promptly

· Emergency works authorised under section 330 of the Resource Management Act 1991

· A declared or undeclared response to an emergency as defined in the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002.

2.4 Any departure from this policy due to an emergency must be fully justified and documented during or after the event. A lack of planning does not constitute an emergency for the purposes of this policy.

3. Definitions

Term	Definition
All of Government (AOG) Deal	a supply arrangement established by the Crown for selected common products and services purchased across Government.
Broader outcomes	the secondary benefits that are generated from the procurement activity. They can be environmental, social, economic or cultural benefits.
Closed competition	where a limited number of known suppliers are invited to respond to a contract opportunity. The invitation is not openly advertised.
Council	Tauranga City Council - the elected member body representing Tauranga City
Direct Procurement	where a single supplier is approached and engaged to provide products, services or works. The contract opportunity is not advertised.
Framework Agreement	an umbrella agreement which governs the relationship between TCC and the supplier(s). It sets out the terms and conditions which the parties agree to contract on in the event that the supplier is allocated a contract for supplying the covered goods, services or works.
Market Engagement Approach	a formal process of inviting potential suppliers to make a submission to supply Council with products, services or works. Submissions sought from suppliers are typically in the form of tenders, quotes, proposals or registrations of interest. The process used in the market engagement involves Open Competition, Closed Competition or Direct Procurement.
Open Competition	a competitive procurement process where all potential suppliers in a market are offered an opportunity to respond to a supply opportunity.
Panel	a list of suppliers which AOG or council has pre-approved, via an open competitive process to supply particular goods, services or works.
Procurement	all aspects of acquiring and delivering products, services and works.
Public Value	public value means the best available result for the money spent. It includes using resources effectively, economically, and responsibly, and taking into account the purpose of local government and the total costs and benefits of a procurement (total cost of ownership). The principle of public value when procuring goods, services or works does not mean selecting solely based on lowest price but rather the best possible outcome for the total cost of ownership (over the whole-of-life of the goods, services or works).
Supply Arrangement	an arrangement between Council and a supplier for the provision of products, services or works.
Sustainable Procurement	securing products, services, or works in a way which recognises the whole of life costs, benefits of the goods or service and delivers broader outcomes for the local Tauranga and the wider Bay of Plenty community, economy and environment.
Total Value	the value of the Supply Arrangement over its entire term, including all renewal periods (where applicable). Where the Supply Arrangement is governed by separate contracts, the total value of the supply arrangement is the combined value of all the contracts.

4. Strategic Procurement Objectives

4.1 Council has adopted strategic procurement objectives to support achievement of public value:

· Encouraging procurement that demonstrates a positive local economic outcome

· Procurement that creates high quality, local employment opportunities

· Encourage procurement that creates opportunities to increase access to local training and education programmes that benefit local industry

· Encouraging procurement that demonstrates a positive environmental impact

· Encourage procurement that supports the goal of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP)

· Encourage procurement that supports transition to low carbon economy and building resilience to impacts of climate change

· Recognition of suppliers that pay a living wage.

These objectives will be supported by the following general procurement principles.

5. Principles

5.1 The following principles underpin procurement at Tauranga City Council

· Achieve public value

· Be sustainable

· Work together

· Act in a fair and transparent manner

6. Policy Statement

6.1 Achieve public value

6.1.1 Public value is achieved by considering the contribution the goods, services or works make to achieving Council’s community outcomes, strategic direction, and the strategic objectives for procurement included in this policy.

6.1.2 Achieving public value requires Council to promote open and effective competition between capable suppliers.

6.1.3 Broader outcomes to be achieved through the procurement activity are identified early in the project and procurement planning stages. Procurement assessments will not always default to the cheapest solution at the cost of promoting social, economic, environmental, or cultural outcomes.

6.1.4 Delivering broader outcomes requires consideration of how to effectively involve small to medium-sized businesses, Māori and Pacific businesses and social enterprises in procurement opportunities.

6.1.5 Achieving public value also requires consideration of the costs and benefits over the lifetime of the goods, services or works, being open to new and innovative solutions and seeking opportunities to promote local outcomes.

6.2. Be Sustainable

6.2.2 Sustainable procurement principles will be considered when planning and undertaking all procurement, including when undertaking cost-benefit analyses or weighted attributes assessments of potential goods and service suppliers.

6.2.3 Council encourages suppliers it works with to have a sustainability policy.

6.3 Work Together

6.3.1 Council values effective and honest relationships with suppliers and other stakeholders involved in procurement activities. Developing long term and mutually beneficial relationships with potential suppliers will support Council in achieving public value.

6.3.2 Council acknowledges that procurement processes can be time-consuming and costly for suppliers. Council will endeavour to design its market engagement approaches and processes so that it is easy to do business with.

6.3.3 Council will consider collaboration with other similar organisations and its council-controlled organisations when planning procurement.

6.3.4 Council actively seeks and supports innovative, agile, and collaborative supply arrangements from the supply market.

6.3.6 Council recognises its role in supporting suppliers (particularly new or local suppliers) to become familiar with its procurement processes to ensure ongoing competition in the market and to support local broader outcomes.

6.4 Act in a fair and transparent manner

6.4.1 Council remains impartial and actively identifies and manages any actual or perceived conflicts of interest. All employees, consultants, and contractors involved in procurement processes must register any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

6.4.2 Council will meet its legislative requirements under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. All suppliers who undertake contract works that present a health and safety risk must be pre-qualified under council’s approved health and safety requirements.

6.4.3 Council will not intentionally avoid applying the open competition requirement by dividing a planned procurement into separate components.

6.5 Financial thresholds and exemptions

Procurement Value (excluding GST)	Procurement Method	Conditions and exemptions
$0 to $250,000 (excluding GST)	Staff may use direct procurement, closed competition or open competition.	For the avoidance of doubt open competition is still possible at these amounts, and the higher the value, the more consideration should be given to open competition (in accordance with the principles of this policy). Staff should also consider workload and impact on the supplier market when considering use of open competition processes for lower value procurements.
$250,000 to $500,000 (excluding GST)	Open competition is required unless exemption approved by the Chief Executive.	The use of direct procurement or closed competition must meet one or more of the valid exceptions to open competition listed in schedule one to this policy.
Total value greater than $500,000 (excluding GST)	Open competition is required unless exemption approved by Council.	Council (or a subordinate Council decision-making body delegated authority for approving financial expenditure) may determine the use of direct procurement or closed competition. The use of direct or closed procurement must meet one or more of the valid exceptions to open competition listed in schedule one to this policy.

6.6 Variations

6.6.1 All variations to agreed supply arrangements must meet the criteria outlined at schedule two of this policy and follow the process outlined in the Procurement Manual.

6.7 Other matters

6.7.1 Where the procurement is part-funded by Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency, agreement from the agency is required before applying this policy, including the financial thresholds for direct appointment and closed competition.

6.7.2 The participation in and use of all of government (AOG) deals or syndicated deals (where a group of organisations with common needs have aggregated their requirements under a single contract) satisfies the requirement for open competition where the applicable deal was established as a result of an open competitive procurement process.

6.7.3 The use of an AOG or council panel of suppliers or framework agreement satisfies the requirement for open competition where it was established as a result of an open competitive process.

6.7.4 All procurements over $100,000 (excluding GST), or determined to be high risk and high complexity, must have a documented procurement plan authorised by the Procurement team, the person with delegated financial authority for the contract and relevant senior manager.

Note: Please refer to the Procurement Manual for guidance on what may be a high risk procurement.

6.7.5 Throughout the procurement process, risk must be identified and managed in accordance with the Risk Management Policy.

7. Relevant Delegations

7.1 The Chief Executive or their sub-delegate is delegated authority to implement this policy.

8. References and Relevant Legislation

· Local Government Act 2002

· Land Transport Management Act 2003

· Health and Safety at Work Act 2015

· Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002

· Government Policy Statement on Transport

· The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) Government Procurement Rules: rules for sustainable and inclusive procurement and the Principles of Government Procurement

· The Office of the Auditor-General’s (OAG) Procurement Guidance for Public Entities 2008

· The NZTA Procurement Manual for activities funded through the National Land Transport Programme

· NZS 3910:2013 – Conditions of contract for building and civil engineering construction.

· Construction Sector Accord.

9. Associated Policies/Procedures

· Procurement Manual

· Risk Management Policy

· Sensitive Expenditure Policy

· Significance and Engagement Policy

· Staff Financial Delegations

· Tauranga City Council Corporate Conflicts of Interest Policy

· Waste Management and Minimisation Plan

10. Schedules

Schedule one: Valid reasons for exemption to open competition

Valid reasons for exemption to open competition
If only one supplier, or certain suppliers are able to meet highly specialised or technical requirements and it can be verified that there are no reasonable alternatives.
If only one supplier, or certain suppliers are in a unique position to minimise cost or risks and it can be verified that there are no other reasonable alternatives to minimise cost or risk.
If a certain supplier or suppliers are in a unique position to assist Council achieve a strategic objective and it can be verified that there are no reasonable alternatives.
If no acceptable responses were received through open competition for the same core requirements, carried out within the last 12 months.
If the products, services or works are an addition to, and necessary for the complete delivery of an existing supply arrangement, provided that; the original supply arrangement was openly advertised; and a change of supplier cannot be made for economic, technical or practical reasons.
If the purchase is for a prototype for research, experiment, study or original development.
Products purchased on a commodity market.
Procurement in exceptionally advantageous conditions that only exist for the very short term.
The contract is awarded to the winner of a design contest.

Schedule two: Valid reasons to approve a variation

Valid reasons to approve a variation
Whilst undertaking a properly procured contract for Council it becomes apparent that an extension/variation to the scope of contract would provide significant economic, logistical and/or timing benefits.
A justifiable change in project scope.
Where an Engineer’s variation is recommended under a New Zealand Standard 3910 building and engineering construction contract.

29 March 2021

11.5 Adoption of the draft Community Funding Policy 2021 for consultation

File Number: A12167244

Author: Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

Ariell King, Team Leader: Policy

Anne Blakeway, Manager: Community Partnerships

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To adopt the draft Community Funding Policy 2021 (attachment one) for community consultation as part of the draft Long-term Plan 2021-31 process.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Adopts the draft Community Funding Policy 2021 for consultation as part of the draft Long-term Plan 2021-31 process.

Executive Summary

2. The draft Long-term Plan 2021-31 (LTP) includes a draft budget to establish a community grant fund to enable Council to better support community organisations. In developing the proposed fund, staff sought approval to develop a new Community Funding Policy to guide administration of council funding provided to community groups or iwi and hapū organisations.

3. The value of the proposed fund is $1.81 million based on the Policy Committee recommendation from 20 October 2020.

4. This report requests that the draft policy be adopted for community consultation. Consultation is planned to be undertaken alongside the consultation for the LTP.

Background

5. At its 20 October 2020 meeting, the Policy Committee agreed to set aside $1.81 million in the draft LTP (subject to the prioritisation process) to establish a contestable grant fund (PO12/20/4). This fund would provide support to community organisations that aligned with council’s strategic vision and outcomes.

6. A paper to Council in December 2020, sought approval to proceed with the development of a Community Funding Policy to support administration of the proposed grant fund.

7. The unconfirmed minutes from the December 2020 Council meeting are set out below:

That the Council:

(a) Supports the draft Community Funding Policy (Attachment 2).

(b) Agrees to the following:

(i) The scope of the policy is limited to the Contestable Grant Fund, the Community Development Match Fund and partnership agreements

(ii) The minimum grant amount for the Contestable Grant Fund be $10,001

(iii) The maximum grant amount for the Contestable Grant Fund be $50,000

(iv) Support the definition of community organisations

(v) The general criteria to be used for assessing applications for community grant funding (set out in Schedule One of the draft policy)

(vi) The exclusions from community grant funding (set out in Schedule Two of the draft policy)

(vii) Council is a complementary funder and does not provide seed funding

(viii) If the fund is underspent in one year, the balance will be rolled over to subsequent years.

Clout/Robson unanimous

Changes since December 2020 draft report

8. Following an external peer review of the draft policy, additional clauses have been added to better clarify how council will prioritise organisations for potential partnership agreements and what may be considered when Council assesses applications for these agreements.

9. Other changes to the draft policy include:

(a) Allowing no more than 60% of the fund to be allocated in the first round of funding (increased from 50%). This recognised that there may be a larger number of applications for the first funding round than the second. It also ensures that there is funding available for further rounds

(b) Changes to the proposed assessment panel to include a representative appointed by Te Rangapū and senior Council staff, and the removal of Councillor representatives.

10. This report provides an opportunity to approve the draft policy for consultation alongside the LTP. Any consideration of the proposed value of the grant fund itself will be through the draft LTP development process.

Strategic / Statutory Context

11. The draft Community Funding Policy is intended to support Council and the community to achieve strategic priorities and community outcomes.

Options Analysis

12. Council could choose to adopt the draft policy or not adopt for consultation. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are outlined below.

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

Adopt the draft policy for consultation.

(Recommended)

Opportunity to receive community feedback on the policy, at the same time as consulting on the proposed grant fund.

Consistent with previous decisions.

Nil.

Do not adopt the policy for consultation.

Nil.

Inconsistent with previous decisions.

Financial Considerations

13. The development of the draft policy supports administration of the proposed $1.81 million contestable grant fund and $150,000 community development match fund included in the draft LTP.

14. This level of funding has been included in the draft budget and is subject to the LTP prioritisation process (not this report).

15. Funding has been set aside to provide for the continuation of existing service level agreements based on the individual requirements of each. In the future, some of these agreements may transition to partnership agreements. Council could consider including additional budget in the draft LTP to provide for new partnership agreements that may eventuate over the next three years.

Legal Implications / Risks

16. As noted previously, there are no immediate issues which may arise for Council as the recommendations do not require changes to current funding arrangements.

Consultation / Engagement

17. Community consultation on the draft policy will be undertaken in conjunction with the LTP, noting that the policy depends on approval of the grant fund included in the draft LTP.

18. Staff held two informal meetings with representatives of local environmental and sustainability organisations. Feedback was that Council funding for environmental groups was comparatively low and they would be interested in pursuing formal partnership agreements. Staff noted this feedback and suggested that it also be provided through the submission process.

19. Representatives of Te Rangapū gave general support for the policy and grant fund prior to the December 2020 report. Staff introduced the draft policy to Te Rangapū at their March 2021 meeting. Support was received for including a representative from Te Rangapū on the on the application assessment panel (as noted above).

Significance

20. 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.

21. 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; and

22. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of low significance as the intention is to ensure commissioners are satisfied with the content of the draft policy before it goes out for wider public consultation.

Next Steps

23. Consultation on the draft policy will be undertaken alongside the LTP.

5.4.6 Decisions on applications for the Community Development Match Fund will be made by an assessment panel of an independent representative from one of the community philanthropic funding organisations and at least two senior members of staff from Council.

1. Draft Community Funding Policy 2021 for consultation - A12169096 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

29 March 2021

Draft Community Funding Policy

Policy type	City
Authorised by	Council
First adopted	XXX	Minute reference	XXX
Revisions/amendments	NA	Minute references	NA
Review date	This policy will be reviewed every three years to align with the long-term plan.

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To ensure a structured, transparent, and fiscally prudent approach to the fair distribution of funding assistance to eligible entities for the contestable grants fund, the community development match fund, and partnership agreements.

2. SCOPE

2.1 This policy applies to community grant funding allocated by Tauranga City Council through the following methods:

· Contestable Grants Fund

· Community Development Match Fund

· Partnership Agreements

2.2 Events funding and the Stewart and Carruthers Funds are outside the scope of this policy.

2.3 All monies provided by central government for council to distribute (for example, Creative Communities) are outside the scope of this policy.

3. DEFINITIONS

Term	Definition
Community Development Match Fund	A sub-set of community grant funding and specifically refers to two funding windows of up to $1,000 (small grants) and up to $10,000 (medium grants) that aim to support community initiatives that promote social, cultural and environmental wellbeing. The match fund requires that the applicant match the funds provided by council with funds, volunteer contribution or in-kind contribution of at least equal value to the funds provided by council.
Community grant funding	Financial contribution to a community organisation, group or sector of the community to achieve a specified outcome. This includes the Contestable Grant Fund, the Community Development Match Fund and Partnership Agreements.
Community organisation	A voluntary or not-for-profit organisation that serves a public benefit; and that relies on volunteers for at least its governance; and has values, purpose and objectives independent of government or commercial institutions. It must be a registered trust or incorporated society with Charities Commission charitable status. Unless there are clearly justified reasons, membership or participation in its activities should be available to everyone who wishes to join.
Contestable grant funding	Refers to the following: · Funding to support the delivery of a clearly defined activity, project or initiative · Monies awarded through a publicly contestable process · An assessment panel assesses funding applications and allocates limited funds as fairly and strategically as possible · Applications are invited through scheduled funding round(s), which are publicly advertised and have an opening and closing date · Eligible applicants have an equal opportunity to be considered for a grant · A clearly defined assessment process is applied to all applicants in a transparent manner · Financial allocation is discoverable and public
Partnership Agreement	Refers to non-contestable, multi-year agreements with select community organisations, with generally long-standing relationships with Council to deliver actions and programmes that align with community outcomes and council’s strategic priorities.

4 PRINCIPLES

4.1 The following policy principles will guide council’s decision-making process, and inform the design and implementation of council’s community grant funding programme:

· Transparency

· Equity

· Accountability; and

· Recognition of our partnership relationship with iwi and hapū from Tauranga Moana.

5. POLICY STATEMENT

5.1 General

5.1.1 Community organisations support council to promote the social, economic, cultural and environmental wellbeing of Tauranga residents.

5.1.2 Community grant funding will build upon and support community-led initiatives, which create positive change in the community, enhance the community’s ability to meet its own needs, and develop local community leadership.

5.1.3 Tauranga City Council allocates community grant funding from a limited pool of money.

5.1.4 Council is not a primary funder of community organisations. All grants will recognise council’s role as a complementary funder through prioritising those organisations that have actively sought other funding before approaching Council.

5.1.5 Grants will be targeted to achieve council’s strategic priorities, community outcomes, principles of support, and be appropriate to the purpose and role of a local authority.

5.1.6 The total financial assistance provided through the Contestable Grants Fund, Community Match Fund, and Partnership Agreements is agreed every three years through the Long-term Plan.

5.1.7 All requests for community grant funding received as a submission to the Annual Plan or Long-term Plan will be referred to the Contestable Grants Fund, Community Development Match Fund, or for discussion regarding a Partnership Agreement.

5.1.8 Council does not fund limited liability companies or incorporated societies that are not registered charities. The only exceptions to this are iwi or hapū organisations requesting funding to deliver kaupapa Māori outcomes.

5.1.9 An organisation yet to register as a trust with Charities Commission charitable status or an incorporated society with Charities Commission charitable status, may use an umbrella organisation to receive funds where there is clear evidence that the organisation intends to register as a trust or incorporated society with charitable status. This excludes small grants received through the Community Development Match Funds, which may be directly given to unregistered groups.

5.1.10 In general community funding will not be provided where delivery of the project is outside the Tauranga City Council area.

5.1.11 Any monies in the community grant funding budget not allocated at the end of the council financial year will not be carried forward.

5.2 General funding criteria

5.2.1 The general funding criteria are outlined in schedule one. These criteria will be considered when assessing applications to determine their relative merit and assist decision-makers to prioritise between applications of similar merit. Applicants must also have regard to the specific fund requirements in the schedules.

5.2.2 All applications for community grant funding must demonstrate how the activity promotes one or more of the well-beings (social, economic, environmental, cultural) of the local community, and the community outcomes included in the Long-term Plan applicable at the time of the application. Preference will be given to those organisations that demonstrate that funding will promote more than one of the well-beings and community outcomes.

5.2.3 Funding will not be provided for any of the goods, services or activities listed at schedule two to this policy. Council may specify additional exclusions for funding.

5.2.4 Council (or committee of Council with delegated authority) may amend the schedules at any time via resolution.

5.3 Contestable Grants Fund

5.3.1 The Contestable Grants Fund is open to applications from community organisations. Organisations, including iwi and hapū organisations, delivering kaupapa Māori outcomes may also apply to the fund.

5.3.2 The minimum funding amount for the Contestable Grants Fund is $10,001 and the maximum amount is $50,000.

5.3.3 Applications for amounts less than $10,000 will be referred to the Community Development Match Fund.

5.3.4 The Contestable Grants Fund will be distributed through two funding rounds, spread equally throughout the year. No more than 60% will be allocated in the first funding round to ensure sufficient funds are available for future rounds.

5.3.5 All decisions on applications for the Contestable Grant Fund will be made by an assessment panel consisting of at least two senior Council staff, a representative appointed by Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana and an independent representative from one of the community philanthropic funding organisations, based upon recommendations from technical experts on Council staff.

Note: Refer to schedule three of this policy for principles of support to be considered.

5.4 Community Development Match Fund

5.4.1 The Community Development Match Fund is open to applications from community organisations, not for profit groups, communities of interest, iwi and hapū organisations, informal and grass root neighbourhood groups.

5.4.2 Groups with no formal legal structure may apply for grant funding when an umbrella organisation that meets this policy’s definition of a community organisation has been nominated and agreed to receive and administer the funds.

5.4.3 Community Development Match Fund medium grants of between $1,000 and $10,000 are distributed through at least two funding rounds per year.

5.4.4 Applicants need to provide a match of at least 50% of the total value of the project of in-kind support, volunteer time or money.

5.4.5 Small grants of up to $1,000 are distributed throughout the year. Decisions on applications for small grants are made by the Community Partnerships Team.

Note: Refer to Schedule four for specific requirements.

5.5 Partnership agreements

5.5.1 Council will pursue partnership agreements with organisations that have a track record of delivering actions and programmes that align with community outcomes and Council’s strategic priorities. Other characteristics these organisations will have are:

· Key capacity building organisations

· Cornerstone providers within their sector

· Robust strategic and business plans are already in place.

5.5.2 In most cases, partnership agreements will be for a minimum of three years and are designed to provide financial certainty and a longer time horizon for the recipient organisation’s planning and programming. We aim to support recipients to increase their capacity and expand their activities with the goal of achieving financial sustainability.

5.5.3 The parties will enter into a formal funding agreement that articulates clear performance objectives. Funding will be paid on a six monthly basis subject to performance (i.e. achievement of agreed outcomes).

5.5.4 Any funding provided to support a partnership agreement may not be used for any of the activities included at schedule two of this policy.

5.5.5 All partnership agreements will meet the general criteria and eligibility for funding outlined in this policy.

5.6 Decisions on funding applications

5.6.1 The extent of the due diligence undertaken by Council staff and the amount of information requested from applicants will be relative to the amount of community grant funding being requested.

5.6.2 In a competitive funding environment, the following will be a lower priority for funding:

· Travel and accommodation outside Tauranga or the western Bay of Plenty sub-region, unless Council is convinced there will be a tangible benefit for Tauranga communities

· Retrospective costs (where the activity has already taken place), unless this is necessary as a condition of the grant or Council is satisfied there are other mitigating circumstances

5.6.3 Preference will be given to community-led or iwi/ hapū led organisations that demonstrate genuine engagement with local communities or tangata whenua and encourage participation across diverse communities.

5.7 Transparency and accountability

5.7.1 Council will ensure that all administrative and decision-making processes about community grant funding are presented in such a way that they can be easily understood by the community.

5.7.2 The extent of the due diligence undertaken by Council staff and the amount of information requested from applicants will be relative to the amount of community grant funding received.

5.7.3 Any form of community grant funding will be described in a funding agreement commensurate with the level of funding provided. The agreement will contain the roles and responsibilities that both the Council and the organisation receiving funding agree upon, and the project, activity or service that the organisation will provide to the community. The agreement may vary depending on the amount of support provided and the type of support.

5.7.4 Council is reminded of its requirement to be financially prudent and undertake transactions with good business practice. This applies to the distribution of community grant funding under this policy. Council upholds its statutory responsibility to ensure the lawful, transparent and prudent expenditure of public funds.

5.7.5 Community grant funding recipients are required to acknowledge publicly (at a scale commensurate with the level of funding received) the receipt of Tauranga City Council community grant funding by the appropriate methods outlined in the recipient’s individual funding/partnership agreement.

5.7.6 Acknowledgment in the organisation’s annual report is mandatory (where an organisation prepares one).

5.7.7 All recipients of community grant funding must ensure that the funded activity remains compliant with all relevant legislation, regulations and terms and conditions, including health and safety legislation.

5.7.8 A failure to meet all relevant terms and conditions associated with Council community grant funding may result in all or one of the following:

· termination of funding

· decline of future funding

· repayment of part or all of the allocated funding.

5.7.9 All recipients of community grant funding are required to complete an accountability report (at a scale commensurate with the amount of funding provided) and provide any other funding expenditure or evaluation documentation requested by Council. These must be completed either as soon as the funds are spent, or within one calendar year of receipt of grants funding, whether allocated funds were spent or not.

5.7.10 A failure to return required funding accountability or evaluation documentation may result in a denial of funding in future grants applications.

5.7.11 Any unspent funds must be returned to Council within one year of receipt unless there is prior agreement with the Council to carry over such funds.

5.7.12 Any discrepancies in funding (e.g. funds spent on activities other than those specified in the approved grants funding application) may result in an audit of the recipient’s accounts and the funded activity, and the potential return to the Council of grants funding received.

5.7.13 Funding allocation may be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, in order to evaluate project outcomes, assess the extent to which the funding achieved Council’s strategic objectives, and ensure the grants programme continues to reflect community needs.

5.7.14 Conflicts of interest will be identified and appropriately managed.

5.7.15 Adequate records are kept at each stage of the funding lifecycle to support internal and external audit requirements and evaluate the impact of the grants programme.

5.7.16 Methods of monitoring will be proportional to the amount of funding and the funding recipient and not impose an unnecessary burden on recipients.

6. DELEGATIONS

6.1 The implementation of this policy is delegated to the Chief Executive and their sub-delegates.

7. REFERENCES AND RELEVANT LEGISLATION

7.1 Local Government Act 2002

8. ASSOCIATED POLICIES/PROCEDURES

· Procurement Policy

· Stewart Trust and Carruthers Trust Funds Policy

· Events Funding Framework

· Active Reserves Level of Service Policy

9. SCHEDULES

Schedule one: General criteria to be considered in assessing applications for the Contestable Grants Fund, Community Development Match Fund, and Partnership Agreements

Has the application…….

Made a compelling case for how the proposal aligns to the funding priorities established?

Clearly defined the purpose, expected community outcomes, and expected achievement of social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of the local community of the project, activity, or service, for example the need they are meeting and why this is important?

Clearly described the project, activity or service, what will be delivered, and satisfied council that it is viable?

Demonstrated the capability, capacity and experience to deliver the project, activity or service to an appropriate standard, evidenced by a relevant track record of successful delivery?

Presented a realistic, evidenced-based budget for the project, activity or service, and identified exactly how the council grant would be spent?

Given thought to how the community organisation will show the grant has benefited the community (or for larger grants, identifying how the organisation will evaluate the success of the project, activity or service)?

Identified who the project, activity or service will benefit and where in Tauranga City Council area these people are likely to come from?

Provided evidence of community support for, and/ or involvement in, the project, activity or service, and/or evidence of support from the recognised regional or national body (where relevant)?

Shown that the project, activity or service will support multiple funding priorities (this is not required, but may affect the relative merit of the project)?

Disclosed all council funding (financial or otherwise) e.g. current council funding, rental subsidies, previous grants, leases, licenses to occupy?

Schedule two: Activities that will not be funded through community grant funding

Commercial activity

Debt servicing or repayment

Legal expenses (for example, to defend an organisation in Court or to challenge a decision in the Environment Court)

To employ individual persons

Building consent fees and resource consent fees

Activities that promote religious ministry, or political purposes and causes

Medical expenses

Public services that are the responsibility of central government (e.g. core education, healthcare, social work, whanau ora services) except where Council has identified it as a strategic outcome e.g. homelessness, or it addresses a need in a priority community.

Physical works where relevant consent or permit has not yet been issued. Council may agree to a grant subject to consents or permits being granted. The funding would be released on receipt of the required consents or permits.

Purchase of tobacco, alcohol, vape supplies or other psychoactive substances

Development of clubrooms on active reserves (based on requirements in the Active Reserves Level of Service Policy)

Schedule three: Principles of support to be considered when applying to the Contestable Grant Fund

Communities of need and social equity

We want to our city to be a great place to live for everyone. We are committed to ensuring that those who need support most receive it by providing financial and other support for initiatives focused on areas of high deprivation and priority communities of interest.

Encourage Kaupapa Māori Outcomes

We value the importance of strengthening and supporting Kaupapa Māori outcomes and acknowledge the need for nurturing strong relationships founded on Māori values, principles and practices.

Community pride and belonging

Celebrating identity, heritage and cultural diversity, and feeling of a sense of belonging and inclusion. We are committed to celebrating our diverse cultural identities and fostering the creative arts to enhance the wellbeing of our community.

Wellbeing and participation

So that Tauranga is an inclusive and accessible city that enables healthy living and recreation to support improved wellbeing. Note that this includes healthy and active communities - supporting healthy living and physical activity and having access to health services for all ages, cultures, and disabilities.

Safe and resilient communities

People are safe and feel safe in their homes, neighbourhoods and public places.

Environmental sustainability

Environmental restoration, helping minimise our impact on the environment and promoting sustainability of our resources in Tauranga Moana.

Schedule four: Community Development Match Fund

What can get funded?

• All Match Fund applications must demonstrate a contribution to at least one of the Principles of Support.

• Preference will be given to applications that benefit Priority Communities.

How much and when?

	Small grants	Medium grants
Funds available	Applications – up to $1,000	Applications – up to $10,000
When you can apply	Anytime	Twice a year – see TCC website for details
When you will get a decision	Within three weeks of receipt of application	Within two weeks of the Match Fund Panel meeting

Who can apply?

The Community Development Match Fund is open to applications from community organisations, not for profit groups, communities of interest, tangata whenua organisations, informal and grass root neighbourhood groups.

Council will administer funds directly to unregistered groups for small grants. For medium grants, unregistered group applicants are required to identify a legally constituted organisation such as a charity, incorporated society or Trust to act as an “umbrella organisation” willing to receive and monitor funds on your behalf. You will need to obtain the umbrella organisation’s approval for this and provide details of the umbrella organisation in your application form.

Match Fund Principles of Support

The below Principles of Support demonstrate how Tauranga City Council understands and approaches community wellbeing. Any project must demonstrate that it contributes to at least one of the Principles of Support. The more and better that a project application aligns with Council’s Principles of Support, the more likely the project will be supported by the Match Fund.

1. Communities of need and social equity: We want to our city to be a great place to live for everyone. We are committed to ensuring that those who need support most receive it by providing financial and other support for initiatives focused on areas of high deprivation and priority communities of interest.

2. Encourage Kaupapa Māori Outcomes: We value the importance of strengthening and supporting Kaupapa Māori outcomes and acknowledge the need for nurturing strong relationships founded on Māori values, principles and practices.

3. Community pride and belonging: Celebrating identity, heritage and cultural diversity, and feeling of a sense of belonging and inclusion. We are committed to celebrating our diverse cultural identities and fostering the creative arts to enhance the wellbeing of our community.

4. Wellbeing and participation: So that Tauranga is an inclusive and accessible city that enables healthy living and recreation to support improved wellbeing. Note that this includes the principle of Healthy and active communities: Supporting healthy living and physical activity and having access to health services for all ages, cultures, and disabilities.

5. Safe and resilient communities: People are safe and feel safe in their homes, neighbourhoods and public places.

7. Environmental sustainability: Environmental restoration, helping minimise our impact on the environment and promoting sustainability of our resources in Tauranga Moana.

Priority Communities

The Match Fund recognises that, from a social wellbeing and equity perspective, some communities face higher need than others, require more support, and are less likely to access council or other support. We have identified the areas of interest that we recognise need priority support and funding – Priority Communities.

Note: Importantly, the Match Fund decision panel will not exclude any communities (not otherwise excluded – see below). However, in deciding to allocate limited funds, it will prioritise the below Priority Communities to be as effective as possible.

Match Fund decisions will be weighted towards these areas of interest and we recommend that all applicants take the time to meaningfully address the relevant areas in their application.

• Support in areas of high deprivation (those communities with a deprivation index of 7-10 or are otherwise identified as the communities of highest deprivation in Tauranga).

• Increase access to community facilities and services.

• Reduce homelessness.

• Decrease inequity by providing opportunities for everyone to participate and be included in programmes, services, events and initiatives.

• Welcome newcomers and embrace and celebrate cultural diversity.

• Encourage social connectiveness in order to reduce social isolation.

• Ensure our community has access to the history and stories of Tauranga.

• Provide infrastructure and services that support healthy and active living for all ages and abilities.

• Increase community resilience and preparedness.

• Improve safety – either family, home or community.

• Improve the level of engagement amongst community organisations operating for a similar purpose and their collective impact on the community.

• Tauranga values strong partnerships with community organisations which are sustainable and supporters of our community wellbeing outcomes. We encourage collaboration with and between organisations.

• Promote and improve youth engagement and advocacy.

• Improve tools and resources for community organisations to provide a better experience for our communities.

• Help minimise our impact on the environment and promote sustainability of our resources in Tauranga.

What we don’t fund

Support is not available to:

• Individuals

• Political parties

• Commercial entities

• Projects or programmes with any religious proselytization.

• Maintaining ongoing programmes, events or services

• Operating expenses of organisations including funding permanent staff

• Maintenance or deferred maintenance

• Purchase or improvement of privately-owned facilities

• Funding activities that involve any alcohol, tobacco, substances and gaming

• Professional fundraising services

• Activities/projects already completed

• Projects that have already been funded or part-funded by Council

• Projects, initiatives or programmes which could be deemed anti-competitive

• Internal applicants from Council

• Council-controlled organisations (CCOs)

• Other local authorities, government agencies or public sector entities

• Projects or programmes which are to be delivered ostensibly outside the geographic area of Tauranga City

Support will also not be granted to applicants that:

• are not aligned to Council’s Principles of Support

• require debt servicing assistance or have outstanding debt with Tauranga City Council

• whose activities or behaviour could be deemed discriminatory, racist or illegal

• have breached previous support agreements with Tauranga City Council, including post-event reporting requirements and where no commitment has been made to rectify this situation

Types of things we fund include:

• Professional Services such as consents; professional consultants (landscape architect, graphic designer, web designer, educators); artists (DJ, performing artists); services (translation, interpretation, printing, advertising, filming); insurance for project if required.

• Supplies and Materials such as landscape materials; tools; paint; books, appropriate manuals; facility rental; playgroup equipment; marketing material; equipment hireage; food; event and volunteer costs.

• Construction/Capital such as demolition, grading and other activities related to site preparation; utilities work (water retention, sewer connection); electrical work (site lighting, electrical service, transformer) concrete work (sidewalks, ramp, seat walls); irrigation (connections, piping, spray sprinklers).

Community contributions – the match

You need to provide at least 50% of the value of the project in in-kind support or volunteer time or money as your match.

• materials and supplies: valued at their retail or rental prices. Donors must document this value of the match.

• cash donations: from fundraising or donations with evidence such as a bank statement.

• professional services: valued at a maximum of $100 per hour. Donors must document on letterhead the value of the services being donated.

• volunteer labour: valued at 15% above the minimum wage per hour for participants over 16-years of age.

Match Fund – other information

• Events: Projects that are events must provide “free or low cost (i.e. $10 or under) admission to the public”

• Opportunity to Pitch: Applicants are welcome to pitch their projects to Panel representatives, please contact the Community Development Advisor for the Match Fund

• The Match Fund Panel has the discretion to fund projects that are ongoing programmes, events or services, however, this is only available for applications from unregistered organisations.

• An applicant is only eligible for one small grant and one medium grant in the same financial year (July to June).

29 March 2021

11.7 Dive Crescent - Ownership of Reclaimed Land

File Number: A12178765

Author: Brigid McDonald, Manager: Strategic Investment & Commercial Facilitation

Gert van Staden, Senior Strategic Advisor

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek approval to transfer a 50% share in the reclaimed land at 9 Dive Crescent to Otamataha Trust, in line with the existing Memorandum of Understanding between Tauranga City Council and Otamataha Trust.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Agrees to transfer a 50% interest in the reclaimed land at 9 Dive Crescent, identified as Lot 1 Deposited Plan 450624, to the Otamataha Trust.

Executive Summary

2. The property at 9 Dive Crescent (‘Property’) is located within the city centre, on the eastern waterfront. It was originally reclaimed by the Government’s Public Works Department. There is no record of title.

3. In recognition of Ngai Tamarawaho and Ngati Tapu, and their mana whenua in respect of the area, Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Otamataha Trust in May 2010 (M10/24.22) (‘MOU’), which sets out protocols regarding joint management of the reclaimed land and the intention of the parties to jointly own the Property, in two equal shares.

4. The Otamataha Trust represents the interests of both Ngai Tamarawaho and Ngati Tapu. The MOU has been executed by the Trust and Council.

5. An investigation by Land Information New Zealand (‘LINZ’) confirmed that there is no impediment to Council applying for the title as provided for in the MOU.

6. To honour the intent and terms of the MOU, it is recommended that Council resolve to transfer 50% of its interest in the Property to Otamataha Trust, contemporaneously with obtaining the record of title.

Background

Reclamation

7. From 1917 and through the 1920’s, the Tauranga Harbour Board and Public Works Department reclaimed land for the purposes of supporting the Main East Coast Trunk Railway through Tauranga.

8. The road corridor within the reclamation would become known as Dive Crescent and was a collaboration between the Tauranga Harbour Board and the Public Works Department. The reclamation was authorised by Order in Council (NZ Gazette 7 January 1925, page 59). The reclamation included a wharf, railway line and road, which would later become Dive Crescent.

9. A cultural report, provided on behalf of Otamataha Trust in 2020, advises that some of the fill required for the reclamation was cut from the northern end of the former Otamataha Pa site and from the Cliff Road land, below the Monmouth Redoubt, a lot of which was undertaken by hand. The report states that fill was also sourced from dredging the Tauranga Harbour, which was required to complete the reclamation.

10. Ngai Tamarawaho and Ngati Tapu whanau were involved in the project (and others) supplying labour and transporting soil and rocks for the construction of the reclamation.

11. The activity on the reclamation over the years was largely managed by the Tauranga Harbour Board, including the construction of the Cargo Shed and wharf. It is understood that at the time the land between the road and rail corridors was legalised (and title issued to the Harbour Board) an area of land was not legalised, as it was not required for subdivision or leasing. This area of land is the area the subject of this report – the Property.

12. The reclamation has an area of 3,442m² and has been surveyed for reclamation purposes and created parcel Lot 1 Deposited Plan 450624, see Attachment A.

Memorandum of Understanding between Council and Otamataha Trust

13. In recognition of Ngai Tamarawaho and Ngati Tapu, and their status as tangata whenua of the area, Council entered into the MOU, which sets out protocols regarding joint management and the intention of the parties to jointly own the Property, in two equal shares.

14. According to the terms of the MOU, cost and profit sharing, management and development of the Property will be overseen by the Dive Crescent Governance Group. This governance group consists of two members of the Trust and two members of Council.

Application to LINZ for legalisation

15. On 10 April 2012, the Crown Property Manager for LINZ acknowledged receipt of Council’s application for a grant of interest in the Property under section 35(10) of the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011.

16. What followed was a discussion surrounding the value of the Property, and Council’s position that the Property would be transferred at nil consideration, taking into account the tangata whenua partnership and potential public benefit of developing the waterfront area.

17. On 22 December 2020, the investigation by the Crown Property Group was finalised, it was determined that the Council, as the successor to the Tauranga Harbour Board, owns the Property with no consideration payable to the Crown. An excerpt reads: “…reclaimed land never became subject to the Foreshore and Endowment Revesting Act 1991 whereby it revested in the Crown. In other words, the reclaimed land is not land of the Crown under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011…”

18. Subject to Council approval, to formalise the findings of the investigation and the MOU, Council will apply for title to the Property and will contemporaneously transfer 50% of its interest in the Property to Otamataha Trust.

Strategic Context

19. Due to the Property being without title, Council and has not formally planned for the site’s redevelopment, for example, master planning, significant investment in geotechnical investigations etc.

20. It is anticipated that the wider Dive Crescent area will form part of discussions and planning for further waterfront and city centre master planning and strategic investment decisions. All planning and development option discussions regarding the Property and Dive Crescent area will occur in partnership with Otamataha Trust.

Options Analysis

21. Upon the application to order a new record of title, Council can:

(a) Transfer a half share of the whenua to Otamataha Trust as tenants-in-common in equal shares, as recommended; or

(b) Retain ownership of the land in Council’s name.

22. The recommended option is to transfer a 50% share in the whenua to the Otamataha Trust, as was originally contemplated by the parties to the MOU and has been the focus of the work of the Dive Crescent Governance Group and Council staff over recent years.

Financial Considerations

23. There are no significant financial considerations regarding the issuing of title and transfer of ownership of the Property, as no consideration is payable to the Crown. Administrative costs regarding the application for title will be paid out of existing budget.

24. Any further work on the land and/or buildings on the Property will require additional financial resources, for example, upgrades to the Cargo Shed building and underlying land. This will be the subject to further reporting to the Executive and/or Council if such work is recommended as unbudgeted expenditure.

Legal Implications / Risks

25. Council may resolve to retain a 100% of its interest in the Property, however, there would be reputational and relational consequences as this would be a significant change from the existing understandings between the parties. Additionally, the hapu could elect to have their (currently paused) claims to the whenua adjudicated by the Waitangi Tribunal, which would further delay planning for and development of the land, to the detriment of the city and ongoing relationships with the Trust.

26. It is recommended that the title be issued with council transferring 50% of its interest to Otamataha Trust.

27. Cost and profit-sharing arrangements are still to be finalised by the Dive Crescent Governance Group.

Significance

28. The transfer of a 50% interest in the Property is rated as having low to medium significance with reference to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy matrix, the following being relevant considerations:

a) The title will be issued for nil consideration, consequently there is no impact on existing budget;

b) The proposed transfer of a 50% interest in the land to the Trust has been Council’s intention from date of execution of the MOU and in the years since;

c) Targeted engagement, with tangata whenua, as represented by Otamataha Trust, has been ongoing;

d) The transfer is likely to be of moderate public interest due to interest in the use and development of this area of the city;

e) The transfer would be difficult to reverse.

29. At this point in time, there is no requirement for consultation or engagement. Community engagement will form part of future planning for this area. Engagement will take place in seeking to understand community aspirations for this area and the city waterfront (and connections with the city centre), to inform planning processes.

Next Steps

30. Instruct Council’s solicitors to apply for title to the Property, with a contemporaneous transfer of a 50% interest in the Property to Otamataha Trust.

1. FINAL Survey Plan - S & L Consultants Ltd - Reclamation Survey - LT 450624 - Dive Crescent - Otamataha Trust - A12372069 ⇩

Dive Crescent Governance Group (DCGG)

29 March 2021

11.8 Governance Structure - establish a Regulatory Hearings Panel and make appointments to governance groups, funding panels and organisations

File Number: A12243636

Author: Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

Cindy Gillman-Bate, Corporate Solicitor

Authoriser: Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to establish a Regulatory Hearings Panel and make appointments to governance groups, funding panels and organisations.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report “Governance Structure – establish a Regulatory Hearings Panel and make appointments to governance groups, funding panels and organisations.”

(b) Pursuant to clause 30(1)(a) Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, establishes a Regulatory Hearings Panel as a subordinate decision-making body (that is neither a committee nor subcommittee) of the Council.

(c) Adopts the Terms of Reference for the Regulatory Hearings Panel in Attachment 1 and delegates to it the role, scope and powers specified therein (pursuant to clause 32 Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002).

(d) Appoints three members to the Regulatory Hearings Panel, after considering the candidates in the public excluded part of the agenda and releases those names into the public arena once the members have been advised of their appointment. The members appointed will be external independent persons with the skills, attributes or knowledge that will assist the work of the panel.

(e) Appoints the following persons as the Tauranga City Council representatives/members to these governance groups, funding panels and external organisations instead of the Tauranga City Council elected members who were discharged from these groups/organisations on 22 February 2021. The staff appointees to the Event Funding Panel and Community Development Match Fund Panel are delegated the authority specified.

Group/organisation	Membership on behalf of Tauranga City Council
Dive Crescent Governance Group	Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston Commissioner Bill Wasley
Omanawa Project Governance Group	Director of Spaces and Places Manager: Strategic Māori Engagement
Tauranga Western Bay Safer Communities	General Manager: Community Services (assumes Chairperson role) Alternate: Team Leader: Community Development
Event Funding Panel	General Manager: Community Services (assumes Chairperson role) Manager: Venues and Events Council subject matter expert(s) dependent on genre/type/nature of event. (The two Council representatives/members appointed above are delegated authority to appoint, by consensus, an appropriate expert or experts to the Panel on a per event basis).
Community Development Match Fund Panel	Manager: Community Partnerships Team Leader: Community Development The three existing external appointees (one each from TECT, Bay Trust and Acorn Foundation) are reconfirmed. The Manager: Community Partnerships is delegated authority to approve small grants of up to $1,000 with the number of grants approved not to exceed the total amount budgeted annually for small grants.
Tauranga Creative Communities Scheme Funding Panel	Manager: Arts and Culture

(f) In respect of each of the Tauranga City Council staff appointees specified in resolution (e), if their position title changes or their position is disestablished, a staff member who performs or exercises the same or substantially similar role or function to that position will, upon confirmation by the Chief Executive, be deemed to be the Council’s appointee to the group/panel/organisation without further resolution of the Council being required.

(g) Adopts the amended Terms of Reference for the Event Funding Panel and the Community Development Match Fund Panel as set out in Attachment 3, and delegates to them the role, scope and powers specified therein (pursuant to clause 32 Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002).

(h) Removes the Event Funding Panel and the Community Development Match Fund Panel from the Governance Structure Terms of Reference and includes information on these panels on the relevant pages of the Tauranga City Council’s website.

(i) Approves the amended Terms of Reference for the Dive Crescent Governance Group as marked-up in Attachment 4, and recommends these amendments be referred to the Group’s next meeting for agreement along with a recommendation that the Group consider meeting quarterly or as required.

Executive Summary

2. This is a follow-up report to the Governance Structure report presented on 22 February 2021.

3. A Regulatory Hearings Panel is recommended to be established to hear all regulatory matters that can be delegated to it, apart from RMA and sale of alcohol hearings.

4. It is recommended that Commissioners be appointed to the Dive Crescent Governance Group and that staff members are appointed to the other groups and funding panels.

5. Some minor amendments to the Terms of Reference for the Dive Crescent Governance Group, the Event Funding Panel and the Community Development Match Fund Panel are also recommended.

Strategic / Statutory Context

Regulatory Hearings Panel

6. The Council resolved on 22 February 2021 to discharge the Regulatory Hearings Committee. The proposed Regulatory Hearings Panel is the recommended replacement for that committee.

7. The recommendation to establish a Regulatory Hearings Panel that is neither a committee nor subcommittee of the Council is based on the following considerations.

8. Committees and subcommittees of the Council are a subset of the term “subordinate-decision making body”. Clause 30 (1) (a) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) empowers the Council to establish other types of subordinate decision-making bodies that are neither committees nor subcommittees of the Council.

9. The Schedule 7 LGA requirements relating to committees and subcommittees do not apply to these other types of subordinate decision-making bodies. As such, a Commissioner will not need to be appointed to the proposed Regulatory Hearings Panel (as would be the case if it was to be established as a committee of the Council by clause 31(4) (a)). The constraint against the appointment of an employee of Council contained in clause 31 (4) (b) of Schedule 7 is also not applicable.

10. Pursuant to clause 32 (1) of Schedule 7 of the LGA, the Council may (unless expressly provided otherwise in the LGA or any other Act) delegate to these other types of subordinate decision-making bodies any of its responsibilities, duties or powers except for certain specified exceptions. Subordinate decision-making bodies that are delegated authority to conduct hearings are often called hearings panels.

11. We have received legal advice that it is appropriate to delegate the hearings and decision-making role for regulatory matters (excluding Resource Management Act 1991 and sale of alcohol matters) (that were previously delegated to the Regulatory Committee) to the Regulatory Hearings Panel as set out in its recommended terms of reference in Attachment 1.

12. The Terms of Reference also grant the Panel the ability to make recommendations to the Council if it considers it is appropriate to do so.

13. The Council’s Standing Orders, as adopted, will apply to the Regulatory Hearings Panel because it will have the power to make decisions on behalf of Council. It is noted that if a standing order is specific to a committee or a subcommittee, it will not apply to the panel.

14. Standing Order 3.6 also allows meeting procedures to be amended for quasi-judicial proceedings and will apply to regulatory hearings of the panel. The panel’s proposed Terms of Reference delegate authority to the panel to establish and amend hearings protocols in accordance with the applicable legislation and the principles of administrative law and natural justice. Hearings protocols will be developed and recommended to the panel for adoption at its first hearing.

15. The position description for the Panel Members is set out in Attachment 2. The Chief Executive approached suitable candidates who met the position description attributes and is recommending the appointment of three members. Information on the proposed panel members is set out in the public excluded part of the agenda and once the decision has been made to appoint the panel members, and they have accepted the appointment, their names will be released publicly.

16. It is recommended that the Chief Executive be given delegated authority to determine the contractual terms and conditions of appointment and the remuneration of the Panel members.

GOVERNANCE GROUPS

17. On 20 May 2010, Tauranga City Council (TCC) signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Otamataha Trust (the Trust) confirming the aspiration to apply for joint ownership and management of a portion of reclaimed land along Dive Crescent, approximately 3440 m² as shown in Figure 1 in the Terms of Reference (TOR) in Attachment 4.

18. The MOU between TCC and the Trust provides that a formal governance group will be established for the purpose of dealing with the management and development of the land. The Trust stakeholders include Ngāti Tapu and Ngai Tamarawaho.

19. The reclamation land does not yet have a certificate of title. This is discussed in a separate report on this agenda.

20. The DCGG has been working towards the development of a joint management agreement between the Trust and TCC to progress development of the land once title is issued that includes civic, commercial and cultural objectives.

21. Once the joint management agreement is in place, the DCGG may decide to disestablish in lieu of forming a management group as dictated by the joint management agreement, or the DCGG may continue if it decides that the structure is sufficient for future management. This is stipulated in the current Terms of Reference (TOR).

22. An amended version of the TOR was approved by Council’s City Transformation Committee and subsequently adopted by the DCGG at its meeting on 31 July 2017. However, prior to adopting the TOR, the DCGG agreed to appoint an independent chairperson rather than the co-chairing arrangement detailed in the draft TOR that was presented to them for adoption. At the same meeting, Alan Tate was nominated and appointed as the independent chairperson. To the knowledge of staff, an updated version of the TOR was not created to reflect this change.

23. It is noted that the version of the DCGG TOR in the Tauranga City Council Governance Structure Terms of Reference and Delegations Manual that was presented to Council on 22 February 2021 was the previous version that was superseded by the current version adopted by the DCGG on 31 July 2017.

24. The marked-up changes to the DCGG TOR in Attachment 4 indicate the suggested amendments to the current (31 July 2017) version. The recommended changes are:

a) Changes to clauses 8 and 16 to reflect the DCGG’s 31 July 2017 decision to appoint an independent chair, instead of a co-chairing arrangement.

b) Including the standard table at the start of the TOR detailing the chairperson, members, quorum and meeting frequency. The quorum specified in the table is consistent with clause 13. The Otamataha Trust members and the independent chair are those already appointed to the DCGG, with the Council members updated as recommended in this report. This table includes the recommendation (to be discussed with the DCGG) that the DCGG meet quarterly or as required.

c) Replacing the reference in clause 23 to the disestablished City Transformation Committee, with “the Council (governing body) or a relevant Standing Committee or Subcommittee”.

25. If approved by the Council, these amendments will be recommended to the next meeting of the DCGG for agreement. As per clause 25, the DCGG can agree to amend the TOR at any of its meetings.

26. Previously two councillors were appointed to the DCGG and the TOR state that two elected members (with experience in the areas of economic development and investment, strategic planning and urban design), must be appointed to represent TCC (clause 10 and 11).

27. It is therefore recommended that Commissioners Shadrach Rolleston and Bill Wasley be appointed to the DCGG to represent TCC to progress the development of the joint management agreement and obtaining joint title of the land.

28. Reporting on the Dive Crescent land will come through to the Council.

Omanawa Project Governance Group

29. The Omanawa Falls area falls within the rohe of the hapu of Ngāti Hangarau and iwi of Ngāti Ranginui and is part of an area with significant historic, ecological and cultural features, located in the lower Kaimai area within the Western Bay of Plenty District Council area. Tauranga City Council owns 6.6154 hectares of land at 1031 and 1041 Omanawa Falls Road and it is managed in association with McLaren Falls Park. The Falls and Omanawa River are administered by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

30. There is currently no safe access to the site and public access is currently restricted. Despite this, the public still access the reserve, the pool and the waterfall (at peak periods up to 300 people per day have been estimated to visit the Falls). A number of serious injuries and two fatalities have occurred. Since December 2020, in conjunction with TCC, Ngāti Hangarau have provided a physical kaitiaki presence at the site to educate and deter people from visiting the Falls.

31. In response to the situation, the Omanawa Project Governance Group (OPGG) was established with partners Ngāti Hangarau and Tourism Bay of Plenty, working together to deliver culturally and physically safe access to the site. OPGG is also considering Ngāti Hangarau’s aspiration for the return of the land.

32. The OPGG membership includes two members from Ngāti Hangarau, one from Tourism BOP, previously two councillors from TCC, and two staff from TCC, the General Manager: Community Services and Manager: Strategic Maori Engagement.

33. It is recommended that TCC representatives on the OPGG are the Manager: Strategic Māori Engagement and the Director of Spaces and Places. Ngāti Hangarau and Tourism BOP have been consulted on this change in TCC representation and agree that two staff members from TCC is sufficient TCC representation on the OPGG.

34. Reporting on the Omanawa project will come through to the Council or relevant standing committee.

SAFER COMMUNITIES

Tauranga Western Bay Safer Communities

35. Tauranga Western Bay Safer Communities (TWBSC) is a joint Tauranga City and Western Bay district programme that advocates and enables safety, injury and violence prevention initiatives at community level. In 2008, Tauranga received formal designation as an International Safe Community; administered by the Safe Communities Foundation NZ. Western Bay of Plenty District Council joined the programme in 2014.

36. One elected member represented Tauranga City Council on the TWBSC with that representative appointed as the Chair under the TOR. Membership of the TWBSC includes the following:

· Tauranga City Council

· Western Bay of Plenty District Council

· Bay of Plenty District Health Board

· New Zealand Police

· Fire and Emergency New Zealand

· Bay of Plenty Regional Council

· Emergency Management

· Department of Corrections

· Family Works (TMAPS)

· Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Te Rangi Iwi Trust

37. The TWBSC met on 5 March 2021 and members advised that they were comfortable with TCC staff representation on the TWBSC.

38. TWBSC’s Terms of Reference specify additional roles, responsibilities and decision-making tasks that TCC agreed to take on, which include acting as Chair of the group. It is recommended that the General Manager: Community Services be appointed as the TCC representative on the TWBSC and will continue to chair the meetings. It is also recommended that the Team Leader: Community Development be appointed as the alternate TCC representative.

39. Reporting on the TWBSC will come through either the Chief Executive’s report or as a separate report to Council or relevant standing committee.

FUNDING PANELS

Events Funding Panel

40. On 19 July 2018, Council adopted an Event Funding Framework (EFF) – a strategic model to guide Council’s investment in events and provide financial support to events that champion Council’s event funding values and priorities. The EFF was designed to be a responsive and customer-focused funding model, capable of adapting over time as the needs and priorities of the city inevitably evolve.

41. Two decision-making panels were established to consider applications submitted under four funds as follows:

Fund	Maximum Grant (excl. GST)	Decision-making Panel
Community Event Fund	$4,000 per event	Council EFF Officers*
Event Support Fund	$15,000 per event	Council EFF Officers*
Legacy Event Fund	$100,000 per event	Event Funding Panel^
Major Event Fund	$100,000** per event	Event Funding Panel^

* Manager: Venues and Events, Event Development Manager and Event Facilitation Manager, or similar roles.

^ Four Elected Members and Chief Executive representative.

** In exceptional circumstances this can be increased at the discretion of the Event Funding Panel.

42. Subject to confirmation through the LTP, an amount of $1.075 million is proposed to be reinstated and available to support events across the city with approximately 60% going to the Legacy and Major Event Funds.

43. Previously there were five members appointed to the Event Funding Panel (EFP) consisting of four elected members (with an alternate member) and the Chief Executive Representative.

44. As the EFP is a subordinate decision-making body of the Council that is neither a committee or subcommittee, no elected member (Commissioner) appointments to the panel are required, and staff appointments may be made (for the same reasons outlined in the Regulatory Hearings Panel section of this report).

45. In order to more appropriately reflect the nature and scale of the financial decisions being made, empower staff and facilitate some process efficiencies, it is recommended that the current EFP membership be replaced with three staff members:

· General Manager: Community Services (assumes Chairperson role)

· Manager: Venues and Events

· Council subject matter expert or experts dependent on genre/type/nature of event. This person would be chosen by the other two members depending on the event e.g. if it’s an arts event being considered then the Manager: Arts and Culture would be invited to join the EFP to assess that particular application. If it’s a sporting event, the appropriate person from the Spaces & Places division would be invited, and if there is a complex and significant application there may be more than one expert appointed.

46. The standard conflict of interest rules would apply to any members of the EFP. It would meet six monthly or as required to take advantage of any unforeseen event opportunities and also expediate time-sensitive decisions, if necessary.

47. The current terms of reference (TOR) for the EFP were approved by the Council on 22 February 2021. Some minor changes are proposed in Attachment 3 to reflect the new Panel. It is recommended the EFP be removed from the Governance Structure. Information and the TOR will be included on the EFP page of the TCC website.

48. Reporting on the EFP will come through either the Chief Executive’s report or as a separate report to Council or relevant standing committee.

Community Development Match Fund Panel

49. This fund was established in 2014 for the Council to provide Match Fund grants to community projects that improve social, cultural and environmental wellbeing as expressed through the Principles of Support and Priority Communities. Refer to the website for further details. https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/Portals/0/data/community/community_dev_match_fund/files/match-fund-guidelines.pdf

50. There are small and medium grants available:

· Small grants of up to $1,000 (community groups can apply any time) are considered by the Community Development Team and currently these are signed off by the General Manager: Community Services. It is recommended that these be approved by the Manager: Community Partnerships.

· Medium grants of up to $10,000 are considered by an assessment panel with applications due in by 31 May and 10 November.

51. There is $20,000 provided each financial year for the small grants fund and $80,000 for medium grants. The Panel used to report annually to the now disestablished Projects, Services and Operations Committee and it is recommended the Panel report annually to the Council or relevant standing committee.

52. As the Panel is a subordinate decision-making body of the Council that is neither a committee or subcommittee, no elected member (Commissioner) appointments to the panel are required, and staff and external appointments may be made (for the same reasons outlined in the Regulatory Hearings Panel section of this report).

53. Panel members previously included two elected members along with one staff member from TECT, Bay Trust and Acorn Foundation. Having other funding bodies present has provided useful insights and made connections to refer some applicants to other funding options and it is recommended that these external members continue.

54. In order to more appropriately reflect the nature and scale of the financial decisions being made, empower staff and facilitate some process efficiencies, it is recommended that:

(a) the Manager: Community Partnerships approve small grants of up to $1,000

(b) that the following two staff members be appointed to replace the two TCC elected members on the assessment panel to assess medium grants of up to $10,000:

· Manager: Community Partnerships

· Team Leader: Community Development

55. The current terms of reference (TOR) for the Community Development Match Fund Panel were approved by the Council on 22 February 2021. Some minor changes are proposed in Attachment 3 to reflect the new Panel. It is recommended the Community Development Match Fund Panel be removed from the Governance Structure. Information and TOR will be included on the Panel’s page on the TCC website.

Tauranga Creative Communities Scheme Funding Panel

56. Creative New Zealand spends over $3.2 million each year supporting around 1,800 projects nation-wide through the Creative Communities Scheme (CCS). Creative Bay of Plenty, on behalf of Tauranga City Council (TCC) and Western Bay of Plenty District Council, administers the CCS for our districts. The scheme aims to increase participation from the local community in the arts sector, support the diversity of local cultural traditions and encourage and engage young people to participate in local arts. The term ‘arts’ is broadly defined to mean all forms of creative and interpretative expression.

57. The Council enters into a funding agreement with Creative New Zealand to receive the CCS funding (the current agreement expires on 30 June 2022). The funding agreement permits Council to sub-contract to a third-party (Creative Bay of Plenty) to administer the Scheme on Council’s behalf, including forming an assessment committee (i.e. the Tauranga CCS Funding Panel) for the allocation of CCS funds. Council has a separate funding agreement with Creative Bay of Plenty covering this sub-contracting arrangement (expiring on 30 June 2021). Under Council’s agreement with Creative NZ, Council remains responsible for the acts or omissions of its sub-contractor, Creative Bay of Plenty, in relation to administration of the CCS Scheme.

58. Two rounds of CCS funding are allocated each year. Once applications for a funding round close, the Tauranga CCS Funding Panel assesses the applications received for projects that fall within Tauranga City Council’s limits and decides which projects will receive funding, and how much money will be granted. There is a separate Western Bay CCS Funding Panel (with different members) that assesses applications for projects that fall within the Western BOP District Council’s limits.

59. The Council previously appointed two councillors, and one TCC staff member, to represent TCC on the Tauranga CCS Funding Panel. The councillors ceased to act as members of the Panel when the Commission was appointed. The current TCC staff appointee is the Manager: Arts & Culture (who is also the Deputy Chairperson of the Panel). There are also currently four independent persons appointed from the community who have the skills, attributes or knowledge to assist the work of the Panel. The Governance Structure for TCC does not include the terms of reference for this Panel.

60. Although the Council’s funding agreement with Creative New Zealand specifies some requirements relating to the assessment committee, there is no requirement for elected member representation on it. The agreement requires that the assessment committee is reflective of the diversity of the local communities that the Council represents (irrespective of age, gender, ethnic affiliations, physical or other disability, sexual orientation or religion) and includes at least one person of Māori descent, with knowledge of the local Māori arts activity and knowledge of local Māori communities.

61. Creative Bay of Plenty report to the Council on a regular basis. The Manager: Arts and Culture currently sits on the Panel and provides the linkage and relationship with TCC.

62. Given that there is one funding round that is remaining under the existing agreement with Creative Bay of Plenty before this is reviewed, and that TCC currently has representation on the Panel, it is recommended that no new appointments be made to the Panel on behalf of TCC at this stage.

63. Creative Bay of Plenty may, at its option, choose to co-opt two community members to replace the two councillors for the one remaining funding round (if they decide seven members are necessary) or proceed with the remaining five members. If they choose to co-opt two other members, this will require agreement of a quorum of the Tauranga CCS Panel.

Financial Considerations

64. There are no financial impacts on the changes to the Governance Structure. Any remuneration would come from existing budgets and has been budgeted for.

Legal Implications / Risks

65. Legal advice has been sought in relation to the establishment of the Regulatory Hearings Panel.

Significance

66. 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.

67. 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

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

ENGAGEMENT

69. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

70. Members, groups and organisations impacted by this decision have been consulted.

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

71. Advise appointees to the Regulatory Hearings Panel, and Chief Executive to agree with them the contractual terms, conditions and remuneration of their appointment.

72. Inform the affected groups and organisations.

73. Update Governance Structure Terms of Reference.

74. Update TCC website.