Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

UNCONFIRMED Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes

21 June 2021

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting

Monday, 21 June 2021

Order of Business

1 Opening Karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Public Forum.. 3

3.1 Paul Billinghurst - Liquor Ban 12th Ave. 3

4 Acceptance of late items. 4

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 4

6 Change to the order of business. 4

7 Confirmation of Minutes. 4

7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 31 May 2021. 4

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 4

9 Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 4

Nil

10 Recommendations from Other Committees. 4

Nil

11 Business. 5

11.1 Alcohol Control Areas. 5

11.2 Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee - Remuneration for appointed members. 5

11.3 Lime e-scooter trial update. 6

11.4 Arataki Bus Facility. 6

11.5 Draft submission to Transport Emissions: Pathways to Net Zero by 2050. 7

11.6 Links Avenue Safe System Review and Recommendations. 8

11.7 Consultation Summary for Futureproofing Cameron Road to Date. 8

12 Discussion of Late Items. 9

13 Public excluded session. 9

13.1 2021 Appointment of Directors to the Board of Bay Venues Limited. 10

13.2 Marine Precinct Proposed Lot Sale. 10

13.3 Procurement of Cameron Road Wastewater Renewals. 10

13.4 Direct procurement for Cameron Road and Fraser Street Pedestrian Crossings. 10

14 Closing Karakia. 10

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

ON Monday, 21 June 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), Jane Barnett (Policy Analyst), Andy Vuong (Programme Manager: Cycle Plan Implementation), Alistair Talbot (Team Leader: Transport Strategy & Planning), Peter Siemensma (Senior Transport Planner), Gregory Bassam (Principal Transport Planner), Brendan Bisley (Director of Transport), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor), Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor)

Commission Chair, Anne Tolley, acknowledged the battle of Te Ranga which was being commemorated today.

1 Opening Karakia

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

Nil

3 Public Forum

3.1 Paul Billinghurst - Liquor Ban 12th Ave

Key points

· The recommendation for item 11.1 – Alcohol Control Areas, to not place an alcohol ban in Twelfth Avenue was noted.

· Mr Billinghurst debated there was insufficient evidence to support an alcohol ban. He had observed drinking every day outside his business.

· There was one homeless person permanently outside his business, who was joined on a daily basis by a half dozen to a dozen others to drink.

· Workers did not feeling safe.

· Mr Billinghurst believed an alcohol ban would make a difference and requested that the Commission consider Option 3 – Temporary Ban, to determine whether a ban would in fact make a difference.

In response to questions

· It was acknowledged that putting in place a ban could just shift the problem to somewhere else; however, Mr Billinghurst just wanted the problem away from his business.

The Commission Chair thanked Mr Billinghurst for his presentation.

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

7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 31 May 2021

Resolution CO11/21/1

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 31 May 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Commisioner Shadrach Rolleston declared a conflict of interest for item 13.2 - Marine Precinct Proposed Lot Sale, and stated that he would withdraw from the conversation for that item.

9 Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

10 Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil

11 Business

11.1 Alcohol Control Areas

Staff Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance

Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst

Paul Mason, Safe & Resilient Communities Advisor

Key points

· The Police did not support an alcohol ban at Twelfth Avenue.

· The Police would increase their presence in the area and would be informing residents and business people in the area about the increased presence.

In response to questions

· A temporary ban to enable the police to take some action and give some assurance to the businesses and residents was an option; however, the Police did not support a ban in the area.

· A community action plan would include staff working with Police and other community support organisations, as well as the Police increasing their presence with reassurance patrols. The reassurance patrols would start this week.

· If Option Three – Temporary Ban – was chosen, staff would need to investigate what timeframe for the temporary ban would be appropriate and report back to council.

Resolution CO11/21/2

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That Council:

a) Does not put in place an alcohol ban in the Twelfth Avenue at this time, but investigates the process and conditions for such a ban.

b) Continues to work with the Police to implement an action plan for Twelfth Avenue.

c) Requests staff report back on progress in 6 weeks’ time.

Carried

11.2 Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee - Remuneration for appointed members

Staff Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement

In response to questions

· It would be made explicit in the Terms of Reference, under the role of the committee that the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee was a recommendatory committee.

Resolution CO11/21/3

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report “Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee – Remuneration for appointed members”.

(b) Approves the remuneration of $22,000 per annum for the external members appointed to the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee who have voting rights.

(c) Approves the remuneration of $12,000 per annum for Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana Chairperson appointed to the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee.

(d) Approves the remuneration of $26,400 per annum for the Deputy Chairperson of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee.

Carried

11.3 Lime e-scooter trial update

Staff Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure Services

Andy Vuong, Programme Manager: Cycle Plan Implementation

Key points

· The update covered the first seven months of the trial period.

· Public consultation to obtain feedback on the impacts of the trial would be undertaken in August.

In response to questions

· It had been noted that, in general, riders were parking correctly but scooters were being subsequently moved e.g. people moved them, blown over in the wind etc. Infrastructure that could help with this and parking zones were being considered.

· The trial had a natural curiosity peak with ridership peaking early.

· There had been heavy use over the December/January summer season but numbers had dropped dramatically since the weather had changed.

· Data suggested that other centres using scooters had experienced increased usage after trials were completed; however, it was noted during COVID lockdowns, most operators had stayed off the streets.

· Since the end of the tourist season, a change to usage being more of a transport choice rather than recreational was being observed. A question regarding transport vs recreation would be included in the public consultation to be undertaken in August.

· It was requested that in the final report, data on how many e-scooters had been privately purchased during the trial period be noted.

· Reports of injuries or accidents had been low with Tauranga City Council (TCC) only receiving five incident reports. To understand if under reporting had occurred, staff would work with ACC and Police to determine if their data painted a different picture. This information would be included in the final report.

Resolution CO11/21/4

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council receives the report "Lime e-scooter trial update".

Carried

11.4 Arataki Bus Facility

Staff Alistair Talbot, Team Leader: Transport Strategy & Planning

Peter Siemensma, Senior Transport Planner

In response to questions

· It was important that public safety was included in the options assessed, not just transport safety.

· Under the review of public transport being undertaken by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC), Bayfair was being considered as a transfer hub. Given the key destination that Bayfair was, a facility of some sort would still be needed in Arataki. TCC staff were working closely with BOPRC to get more clarity around the number and regularity of buses through the area to help determine the size of a facility. A dual facility may need to be considered.

· In the meantime, while the business case was still in progress, the network would continue to be monitored and a programme of minor safety improvements would be undertaken.

· A facility of some kind on the Bayfair site would require lease arrangements and reasonable site changes to their operation; however, a more temporary solution would be worth exploring.

· Concern was raised regarding the cost of the business case (around 10% of budget) and the length of time it was taking (over 10 months). This had been raised with Waka Kotahi (New Zealand Transport Agency - NZTA), as well as the possibility of a slipstream process for projects that had been supported by the Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) and the Transport System Plan (TSP).

· If Arataki was the chosen site, how to move people across Girven Rd would be one of the key considerations.

· Urban design and public amenities would be considered as part of the project.

· Progress of the project would stay aligned to requirements for the future.

· Community consultation and engagement would include the Arataki Reference Group as well as the wider community.

Resolution CO11/21/5

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report “Arataki Bus Facility”.

(b) Notes that Waka Kotahi New Zealand Transport Agency co-investment to develop a business case to identify a preferred site for a facility has been confirmed.

(c) Notes the Next Steps, Issues and Estimated Timeframes associated with developing the business case to support funding decisions, and likely statutory consents and approvals for a bus facility at the preferred site.

Carried

11.5 Draft submission to Transport Emissions: Pathways to Net Zero by 2050

Staff Alistair Talbot, Team Leader: Transport Strategy & Planning

Gregory Bassam, Principal Transport Planner

In response to questions

· It was suggested that paragraph 18 be teased out to outline how the city was connected to UFTI and also make the point that Tauranga city was rather compact and had a smaller footprint than other cities, rather than the widely held belief that Tauranga was sprawling.

· It was also suggested to add detail around the differences for Tauranga relative to perhaps Wellington in terms of worker public transport requirements – Wellington being mostly centralised, whereas Tauranga worker destinations were much more diverse - and therefore the importance and relevance of pricing.

Resolution CO11/21/6

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

(a) Approves the draft submission to ‘Transport Emissions: Pathways to Net Zero by 2050’, included as Attachment 1 to this report, for submission to the Ministry of Transport.

(b) Authorises the Chief Executive to approve any minor typographical or textual amendments identified as being necessary prior to submission.

Carried

11.6 Links Avenue Safe System Review and Recommendations

Staff Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure Services

Brendan Bisley, Director of Transport

Key Points

· This was not an easy corridor and no matter what was done in the corridor, there would be an effect.

· A reduction in traffic volume was the only way to seriously tackle the safety issue.

· The safe systems review picked up the cul-de-sac option as being worth a trial as it was the only option that got the volume of traffic back to the point where you could safely mix vulnerable users and traffic.

· A cul-de-sac would add a five to ten minute delay in the morning peak on Oceanbeach Road and Maunganui Road.

In response to questions

· The Commissioners agreed with the direction taken as safety from a Links Ave point of view was paramount.

· The additional 10 minute commute also needed consideration.

· It was also important to bear in mind that Links Ave was a street where people lived.

· It was acknowledged that there was no easy answer that would work for everyone, hence the importance of community consultation.

Resolution CO11/21/7

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a) Receives the safe system review report on Links Avenue.

(b) Directs staff to undertake consultation with the wider community on the recommendations of the report.

(c) Sets aside a $400,000 budget in the LTP to undertake an innovative streets style consultation with the community regarding trialling the recommended solution.

Carried

11.7 Consultation Summary for Futureproofing Cameron Road to Date

Staff Brendan Bisley, Director of Transport

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

In response to questions and Commissioner observations

· It was suggested that people who were interested in the corridor be encouraged to comprehensively read through the consultation summary as it showed consultation had been extensive and thorough to date.

· Ongoing communication and telling the story were both a key challenge and an opportunity to ensure that the community had a clear understanding of what the big picture was and what the benefits of the change would be.

· It was important that communication, language and imagery for the project was clear e.g. the imagery on the front of the report and on billboards around the city; whilst the imagery depicted two lanes, this was very hard to see and the perception was that there was only one lane.

· As construction commenced it would be disruptive for a long period. To ameliorate the pain as much as possible and give people some choice of how they travel through the corridor, it was suggested that alternative public transport options be considered, with the support and collaboration of BOPRC, and be put in place e.g. park and ride options along Cameron Road and the frequency that could be provided. TCC was currently modelling what the transport impact could be and looking at options.

· The business case needed to take into account all the needs of not only the people who lived there but also the people moving through the corridor every day.

· The impact on people living in side streets off Cameron Road and beyond the corridor itself needed some consideration. TCC was actively looking at some mitigation measures on side roads in the event that rat running and increased parking did occur.

· In terms of the broader impact on the Cameron Road corridor when tolling ceased on Takitimu Drive, it was noted that the toll scheme was for around 30 years and the debt was not expected to be repaid until around 2035 to 2040.

Resolution CO11/21/8

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council receives the information contained in the report: Consultation Summary for Futureproofing Cameron Road to Date.

Carried

Attachments

1 Futureproofing Cameron Road - Engagement Report - December 2020

12 Discussion of Late Items

Nil

13 Public excluded session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution CO11/21/9

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

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
13.1 - 2021 Appointment of Directors to the Board of Bay Venues Limited	s7(2)(a) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.2 - Marine Precinct Proposed Lot Sale	s7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information	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
13.3 - Procurement of Cameron Road Wastewater Renewals	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
13.4 - Direct procurement for Cameron Road and Fraser Street Pedestrian Crossings	s7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities	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 12.52pm, the meeting resumed in the open session.

14 Closing Karakia

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston closed the meeting with a Karakia.

The meeting closed at 12.53pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 12 July 2021.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

12 July 2021

10 Recommendations from Other Committees

10.1 Representation Review - Approve options for pre-engagement

File Number: A12678913

Author: Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

Authoriser: Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement

Purpose of the Report

1. To adopt the recommendations of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee and approve options for pre-engagement with the community on the representation arrangements for the 2022 elections.

Recommendations

That the Council adopts the recommendations of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meetings of 21 and 28 June 2021 and:

(a) Adopts the timeline for the Representation Review process as set out in Attachment 1.

(b) Agrees to pre-engagement with the community for the period 16 July to 13 August 2021

(c) Approves the following Options for pre-engagement with the community on the representation arrangements for the 2022 election:

(i) Option 1 – Mixed model (wards and at large) with 10 Councillors - 7 councillors from 3 general wards, 1 Māori ward councillor and 2 at large councillors

(ii) Option 2 – Two wards model with 10 Councillors - 1 general ward with 9 councillors and 1 Māori ward councillor

(iii) Option 3 – Wards only model with 12 councillors - 11 councillors from 6 wards and 1 Māori ward councillor, subject to a change to the Wairakei ward boundary to be consistent with Option 4.

(iv) Option 4 – Wards only model – single member wards with 12 councillors - 11 councillors from 11 wards and 1 Māori ward councillor.

Background

2. The Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee (the Committee) considered a report on the representation review at its meeting on 21 June 2021 and resolved the following:

“That the Committee recommends that the Council:

(a) Adopts the timeline for the Representation Review process as set out in Attachment 1.

(b) Agrees to pre-engagement with the community for the period 16 July to 13 August 2021.”

Recommendation (c) below was left to lie on the table pending a report to be presented at the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting on 28 June 2021 along with a further option 2B, single member wards.

3. The Committee recommended a number of changes to the options that were presented on 28 June 2021 and resolved:

“That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee recommends that the Council approves the following options for pre-engagement with the community on the representation arrangements for the 2022 election, subject to compliance:

a) Option 1: 10 Councillors – 7 from 3 general wards, 1 Maori ward councillor and 2 at large councillors.

b) Option 2A: 12 councillors – 11 from 6 general wards, 1 Maori ward councillor.

c) Option 2B: 12 councillors – 11 from 11 general wards and 1 Maori ward councillor, with an adjusted Brookfield/Judea ward boundary.

d) Option 3: 10 councillors – 1 general ward with 9 councillors and 1 Maori ward councillor

4. This report provides an update of the options that were requested by the Committee. All options are presented again for ease of reference and have been renumbered Options 1-4 to avoid confusion.

5. This report does not repeat other information that was included in the previous reports to the Committee and therefore needs to be read in conjunction with the reports on 21 and 28 June 2021.

Options Analysis

6. Four options are presented below:

Option	Description	Previous option reference
Option 1	Mixed model (wards and at large) with 10 Councillors 7 councillors from 3 general wards, 1 Māori ward councillor and 2 at large councillors	Option 1
Option 2	Two wards model with 10 Councillors 1 general ward with 9 councillors and 1 Māori ward councillor	Option 3
Option 3	Wards only model with 12 councillors 11 councillors from 6 wards and 1 Māori ward councillor	Option 2A
Option 4	Wards only model – single member wards with 12 councillors 11 councillors from 11 wards and 1 Māori ward councillor	Option 2B

7. All options comply with the +/- 10% rule and community boards can be established with any of the options.

Option 1 – Mixed model (wards and at large) based on status quo - 10 Councillors

(7 elected from 3 general wards, 2 elected at large, 1 elected from Māori ward).

8. Option 1 is based largely on the current representation arrangements with changes to two of the ward boundaries to meet the +/- 10% rule. Two councillors have been added with seven (7) elected from three (3) general wards, two (2) councillors elected at large and one (1) councillor elected from a Māori ward.

9. Previously referred to as Option 1 there have been no changes to the ward map, however the number of at large councillors has been reduced from four to two as resolved by the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee on 28 June 2021.

10. The following general wards are set out in the table and the map below:

Ward Name[1]	Number of Councillors	General electoral population estimates	Population per councillor	Deviation from city average per councillor	% deviation from city average per councillor
Mount Maunganui-Papamoa	3	55,300	18,433	-1,052	-5.40
Otumoetai-Pyes Pa	2	42,300	21,150	1,664	8.54
Te Papa-Welcome Bay	2	38,800	19,400	-86	-0.44
Total	7		19,486

11. This option recognises that there are distinct communities of interest based on geographical areas that can be identified as follows:

Mount Maunganui-Papamoa

This ward includes Mount Maunganui, Papamoa, Matapihi, Kairua, Wairakei and Te Tumu. It covers the coastal strip and recognises the unique feature of Mauao which is an important cultural, historic and geographical feature. This ward has a focus on leisure and tourism, faces increased tsunami risk, sea level rise and coastal hazards due to its location. Transportation links to the City via state highways and the construction of a direct link to the Tauranga Eastern Link via the Papamoa East Interchange are of importance to residents. Accelerating population growth in the east and infill housing in established areas create related infrastructure and community amenity issues of interest to local residents.

Otumoetai-Pyes Pa

This ward includes Otumoetai, Brookfield, Bellevue, Judea, Matua, Bethlehem, Gate Pa, Pyes Pa, The Lakes, Oropi and Tauriko. With a large population living close to the city centre, the residents of this ward are impacted by the increase of infill housing, are interested in safer transport options and the development of community facilities.

The expansion of the city to the west has seen boundary changes with Western Bay to facilitate the development of business, industry and residential growth. It is estimated in the next 10 years that 3-4,000 new homes will be built, improvements will be made to SH29 and connections to it, and an additional 100-150 hectares of business land will be provided creating an additional 2,000 jobs.

Te Papa-Welcome Bay

This ward includes Te Papa Peninsula, Greerton, Welcome Bay, Ohauti, Harini and Poike. The Te Papa Spatial Plan, with its focus on increased density and city-living type housing, is estimated to increase the number of residents on the Te Papa Peninsula by 15,000 by 2050. The Cameron Road redevelopment project with improved passenger services and transport choices will have a major impact on residents. The development of community facilities, spaces and places and the inner city revitalisation are of importance to residents. The eastern areas of this ward have a reliance on services and facilities located in other suburbs and transportation to the city centre is an important issue for local residents. More rural based residents have specific needs related to rural living.

12. Summary of advantages and disadvantages of this option are set out below:

Advantages	Disadvantages
Both Māori and general electors vote for between 3-5 councillors out of 12.	Not all councillors represent the same number of electors as at large councillors not subject to +/- 10% rule.
This continues the mixed model arrangement which is familiar with the public as it has been in place since 2010.	Mixture of two systems (wards and at large) could be confusing to voters.
Provides for the geographical coverage of communities of interest with ward-elected members.	May not represent the current communities of interest.
Provides for communities of interest spread across the city to be represented.	Potential for perception by public that the ward member is there to represent their ward only and is captured by the interests of their ward electors.
Potential for more diversity of at large councillors to be elected.	Possibility of division between councillors in terms of perceived elector representation and accountability.
Allows residents to have a choice of who to approach, at large or ward based members.	The Review and Observer Team considered this arrangement contributed to the Council’s dysfunction.

Option 2 – Wards only model – 10 Councillors – 1 general ward with 9 councillors and 1 Māori ward councillor

13. Option 2 is a wards based approach. Nine councillors are elected from one general ward with each councillor representing a general population of 15,155 and one (1) councillor elected from a Māori ward representing a Māori electoral population of 15,300. No at large councillors would be elected in this option.

14. This option was resolved by the Committee on 28 June 2021 in response to the advice from the Local Government Commission that the at large option (Option 3) was invalid.

15. This option recognises that communities of interest are spread across the city rather than in geographical locations.

16. Summary of advantages and disadvantages of this option are set out below:

Advantages	Disadvantages
Recognises shared common community of interest at city level for general electors.	Inequitable model with general voters able to elect up to 9 councillors and Māori electors able to elect 1 councillor.
General electors can elect 9 out of 10 councillors.	No guaranteed representation of geographic communities of interest on council.
Potential for candidates standing in the general ward to represent sector or interest groups spread city-wide.	Electors have a less direct relationship with councillors elected from a city-wide ward.
STV suited to wards with larger number of councillors and has potential to deliver a diverse range of councillors in the general ward.	Potential for higher costs for all candidates as they campaign city-wide.
Allows general electors a choice as to which councillors to approach.	This arrangement may not address the previous Council’s challenges.

Option 3 – 12 councillors – wards based option (11 elected from 6 general wards and 1 elected from Māori ward)

17. Option 3 is a wards based approach. 11 councillors are elected from six (6) general wards and one (1) councillor elected from a Māori ward that would cover the city. No at large councillors would be elected in this option.

18. Previously referred to as Option 2A, it is proposed that the Wairakei ward boundary be amended to be consistent with Option 4. This is not reflected in the figures or map below.

19. The following general wards would be established as set out in the table and the map below:

Ward Name	Number of Councillors	General electoral population estimates	Population per councillor	Deviation from city average per councillor	% deviation from city average per councillor
Mauao	3	37,600	12,533	129	1.04
Wairakei	1	12,550	12,550	145	1.17
Otumoetai	3	35,300	11,767	-638	-5.14
Te Papa	1	12,600	12,600	195	1.58
Welcome Bay	2	26,800	13,400	995	8.02
Tauriko	1	11,600	11,600	-805	-6.49
Total	11		12,405

20. This option recognises that there are distinct communities of interest based on geographical areas that can be identified as follows:

Mauao	This ward includes Mount Maunganui, Omanu, Arataki, Te Maunga, Matapihi, Palm Beach and Papamoa Beach North. It covers the coastal strip and recognises the unique feature of Mauao which is an important cultural, historic and geographical feature. This ward has a focus on leisure and tourism, faces increased tsunami risk, sea level rise and coastal hazards due to its location. Improved transportation links to the City via state highways are of importance to residents.
Wairakei	This ward includes includes Papamoa Beach South, Motiti, Golden Sands, Wairakei and Te Tumu. This coastal strip area will continue to have accelerating population growth. In the next 10 years an estimated 2-3,000 new homes will be built in the areas already zoned for housing and 7-8,000 homes once Te Tumu is zoned for housing. It also faces increased tsunami risk, sea level rise and coastal hazards due to its location. Improved transportation links to the City as well as the construction of a direct link to the Tauranga Eastern Link via the Papamoa East Interchange are of importance to residents.
Otumoetai	This ward includes includes Bethlehem, Brookfield, Judea, Te Reti, Bellevue, Otumoetai and Matua. With a large population living close to the city centre, the residents of this ward are impacted by the increase of infill housing, are interested in safer transport options and the development of community facilities.
Te Papa	This ward includes Te Papa Peninsula, Sulphur Point, Tauranga South, Greerton (east of Cameron Road), Merivale and Yatton Park. The Te Papa Spatial Plan, with its focus on increased density and city-living type housing, is estimated to increase the number of residents on the Te Papa Peninsula by 15,000 by 2050. The Cameron Road redevelopment project with improved passenger services and transport choices will have a major impact on residents. The development of community facilities, spaces and places and the inner city revitalisation are of importance to residents.
Welcome Bay	This ward includes Bay Park, Kairua, Welcome Bay, Maungatapu, Hairini, Poike, Oropi, Greerton (south of Poole and Chadwick Streets) Kaitemako, Ohauiti and Pyes Pa. These areas have a reliance on services and facilities located in other suburbs and transportation to the city centre is an important issue for local residents. More rural based residents have specific needs related to rural living.
Tauriko	This ward includes Pyes Pa West, Gate Pa, Greerton (west of Cameron Road), The Lakes and Tauriko. The expansion of the city to the west has seen boundary changes with Western Bay to facilitate the development of business, industry and residential growth. It is estimated in the next 10 years that 3-4,000 new homes will be built, improvements will be made to SH29 and connections to it, and an additional 100-150 hectares of business land will be provided creating an additional 2,000 jobs.

21. Summary of advantages and disadvantages of this option are set out below:

Advantages	Disadvantages
Increases geographic representation of communities of interest than current 3 wards.	Does not identify and represent communities of interest that are city-wide.
More easily understood system and direct relationship with electors and ward councillor(s).	Potential for perception by public that the ward member is there to represent their ward only and be captured by the interests of their ward electors.
Considers iwi and hapū boundaries.	Not based on specific hapū boundaries.
All councillors in general wards fairly represent the same number of electors.	Electors only able to vote for a minority of councillors. Māori electors would elect only 1 councillor out of 12 (the Māori member). General electors would elect 1-3 councillors out of 12 depending on the ward they were in.
Potential for less costs for candidates standing in general wards.	Potential for higher costs for candidates standing in Māori ward.
This arrangement may address the previous Council’s challenges.	Less potential for electing a more diverse set of councillors than options 1 and 2.

Option 4 – 12 councillors – wards based option (11 elected from 11 general wards and 1 elected from Māori ward)

22. Option 4 is a wards based approach. 11 councillors are elected from eleven (11) general wards and one (1) councillor elected from a Māori ward that would cover the city. No at large councillors would be elected in this option.

23. Previously referred to as Option 2B, the map and wards have been modified from the one presented at the 28 June Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting to meet the +/- 10% rule.

24. The following general wards would be established as set out in the table and the map below:

Ward	Number of councillors	General Electoral Population	Population per councillor	Deviation from city average per councillor	% deviation from city average per councillor
Mauao	1	11,950	11,950	-464	-3.73
Arataki	1	12,650	12,650	236	1.90
Papamoa	1	12,550	12,550	136	1.10
Wairakei	1	13,550	13,550	1,136	9.15
Welcome Bay	1	13,300	13,300	886	7.14
Pyes Pa	1	13,450	13,450	1,036	8.35
Matua	1	11,350	11,350	-1,064	-8.57
Otumoetai	1	11,300	11,300	-1,114	-8.97
Bethlehem	1	11,500	11,500	-914	-7.36
Te Papa	1	12,600	12,600	186	1.50
Tauriko	1	12,350	12,350	-64	-0.51
Total	11		12,414

25. This option recognises that there are distinct communities of interest based on geographical areas that can be identified as follows:

Mauao	This ward includes Mount Maunganui and Omanu. It forms part of the coastal strip and recognises the unique feature of Mauao which is an important cultural, historic and geographical feature. This ward has a focus on leisure and tourism, faces increased tsunami risk, sea level rise and coastal hazards due to its location. Improved transportation links to the City via state highways are of importance to residents.
Arataki	This ward includes Arataki, Te Maunga and Matapihi and Bayfair. It forms part of the coastal strip. Like Mauao ward, the residents have strong links to the unique feature of Mauao and the ward has a focus on leisure and tourism, faces increased tsunami risk, sea level rise and coastal hazards due to its location. Improved transportation links to the City via state highways are of importance to residents.
Papamoa	This ward includes Palm Beach, Papamoa Beach North and Kairua. This forms part of the coastal strip and faces increased tsunami risk, sea level rise and coastal hazards due to its location. Improved transportation links to the City as well as the construction of a direct link to the Tauranga Eastern Link via the Papamoa East Interchange are of importance to residents.
Wairakei	This ward includes Papamoa Beach South, Motiti, Golden Sands, Wairakei and Te Tumu. This coastal strip area will continue to have accelerating population growth. In the next 10 years an estimated 2-3,000 new homes will be built in the areas already zoned for housing and 7-8,000 homes once Te Tumu is zoned for housing. It also faces increased tsunami risk, sea level rise and coastal hazards due to its location. Improved transportation links to the City as well as the construction of a direct link to the Tauranga Eastern Link via the Papamoa East Interchange are of importance to residents.
Welcome Bay	This ward includes Kairua, Welcome Bay, Maungatapu and Kaitemako. These areas have a reliance on services and facilities located in other suburbs and transportation to the city centre is an important issue for local residents. More rural based residents have specific needs related to rural living.
Pyes Pa	This ward includes Pyes Pa, Hairini, Poike, Oropi, Ohauiti, Greerton (south of Sheppard and Yatton Streets). These areas have a reliance on services and facilities located in other suburbs and transportation to the city centre is an important issue for local residents. More rural based residents have specific needs related to rural living.
Matua	This ward includes Matua and Bellevue. With a large population living close to the city centre, the residents of this ward are impacted by the increase of infill housing, are interested in safer transport options and the development of community facilities.
Otumoetai	This ward includes includes Otumoetai, Brookfield and the northern part of Judea. With a large population living close to the city centre, the residents of this ward are impacted by the increase of infill housing, are interested in safer transport options and the development of community facilities.
Bethlehem	This ward includes includes Bethlehem and Judea. With a large population living close to the city centre, the residents of this ward are impacted by the increase of infill housing, are interested in safer transport options and the development of community facilities.
Te Papa	This ward includes Te Papa Peninsula, Sulphur Point, CBD, Fraser Cove, Tauranga South, Merivale and Yatton Park. The Te Papa Spatial Plan, with its focus on increased density and city-living type housing, is estimated to increase the number of residents on the Te Papa Peninsula by 15,000 by 2050. The Cameron Road redevelopment project with improved passenger services and transport choices will have a major impact on residents. The development of community facilities, spaces and places and the inner city revitalisation are of importance to residents.
Tauriko	This ward includes Gate Pa, Greerton (west of Cameron Road), The Lakes and Tauriko. The expansion of the city to the west has seen boundary changes with Western Bay to facilitate the development of business, industry and residential growth. It is estimated in the next 10 years that 3-4,000 new homes will be built, improvements will be made to SH29 and connections to it, and an additional 100-150 hectares of business land will be provided creating an additional 2,000 jobs. This ward includes rural based residents that have specific needs related to rural living.

26. Summary of advantages and disadvantages of this option are set out below:

Advantages	Disadvantages
More equitable model as both general and Māori electors vote for one councillor.	Electors vote for only one councillor out of 12 councillors.
More geographic representation of communities of interest than other options.	Does not identify and represent city-wide communities of interest.
More easily understood system than other options and direct relationship with electors and ward councillor.	Potential for perception that the ward member represents their ward only.
This arrangement may address the previous Council’s challenges.	Less potential for electing a more diverse group of councillors than options 1 and 2.
Potential for less costs for candidates standing in general wards.	Potential for higher costs for candidates standing in Māori ward.

engAGEMENT

27. The pre-engagement phase comprises a four-week digital, social media and print campaign from 16 July to 13 August 2021 to encourage the community to complete a short survey (online and hard copy), where individuals can select their preferred representation option and express their view on whether community boards should be established.

28. There will be space for additional comments as required. Background information will be supplied alongside the survey, including potential advantages/disadvantages of each option and community boards. This will be supported by a list of Frequently Asked Questions.

29. In-person engagement will focus on iwi and hapū, business and youth.

30. We will also hold general community drop-in sessions to educate and seek feedback on:

· Tuesday, 27 July - 3:30 pm to 5:00 pm - Greerton Library

· Wednesday, 28 July – 5:00 pm to 6:30 pm - Kaimai Room - Willow Street

· Thursday, 29 July – 12:30 pm to 2:00 pm - Papamoa Library

31. Media releases alongside print and digital advertising will support the education focus of the campaign.

32. The results of this pre-engagement phase will be collated and reported back to the Council on 23 August 2021 to inform its consideration of the Initial Proposal that goes out for formal consultation. The public submission period will run from 27 August to 28 September 2021.

Attachments

1. Representation Review Timeline - A11564969 ⇩

Date	Activity	Comments
18 June 2020 and 24 July 2020	Tangata Whenua/TCC Committee	Report on Māori Representation. Recommend to Council to establish a Māori ward
29 June 2020	Council Briefing	Representation Review – set the scene, timeframes and Māori Representation
25 August 2020	Council	Resolved to establish a Māori ward
31 August 2020	Public Notice	Advising public of right to demand a poll. Must be signed by at least 5 percent of electors, a minimum of 4,742 signatures.
12 February 2021	Public Notice	Valid demand for a poll received on 29 January 2021. Public notice required to be given that poll will be held with voting closing on 8 May 2021 even though Bill about to be passed that would revoke poll provisions.
9 March 2021	Public Notice	Poll cancelled due to legislative change – Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Act 2021, came into force on 2 March 2021, amended the Local Electoral Act 2001 removed poll provisions and demand for a poll to be disregarded.
29 March 2021	Tangata Whenua/TCC Committee	Commissioners now appointed to this committee. Report on Māori wards and options available to the Council under the Amendment Act to confirm decision, revoke decision or hold a non-binding referendum before making a decision by 21 May 2021. Recommendation to Council to confirm decision to establish a Māori ward.
12 April 2021	Council	Confirmed decision to establish a Māori ward.
21 June 2021	Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee	Report on Representation Review – recommend to Council timeline, engagement plan, options for public to consider and provide feedback.
23 June 2021	Tangata Whenua/TCC Committee	Update on representation review timeline, early engagement and options.
12 July 2021	Council	Consider recommendations of Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee and adopt timeline, engagement plan and options for the public to consider and provide feedback.
16 July – 13 August 2021	Early engagement	Pre-engagement with public.
23 August 2021	Council meeting	Consider feedback from public. Adopt an initial proposal for public consultation (this must be completed by 31 August 2021 – sec 19H of LEA)
27 August 2021	Public Notice	Public notice of initial proposal (within 14 days of resolution – and must be given no later than 8 September 2021 – sec 19M of LEA) - one-month consultation period. Other local authorities with a direct interest in the proposal get copies of the public notice. Public notice of initial proposal must go to the LGC, Surveyor-General, Government Statistician and Remuneration Authority.
27 August to 28 September 2021	Submission period	Public submission period closes on initial proposal. (note: under LEA latest date for submission period to close is 8 October 2021)
1 October 2021	Public notice if no submissions received	If no submissions received to the Initial Proposal – the Initial Proposal becomes the basis of election for 2022 and 2025 elections (sec 19Y (1) of LEA).
11 October 2021	Council meeting	Hear public submissions on Initial Proposal. (Section 19N of LEA).
26 October 2021	Council meeting	Deliberate on public submissions on Initial Proposal and make decision on final proposal. (Section 19N of LEA).
1 November 2021	Public Notice	Public notice of final proposal – within 6 weeks of closing date for submissions and this must be given by 19 November 2021 – sec 19N of LEA). One-month appeal/objection period. Other local authorities with a direct interest in the proposal get copies of the public notice.
1 November to 1 December 2021	Appeal/objection period closes	Appeal – a person can appeal if they have already submitted to the Initial Proposal. Objection – a person can object to the final proposal even if they did not submit to the Initial Proposal. (sec 19V – LEA) – closing date for appeals/objections must be no later than 20 December 2021.
15 December 2021	Appeals/objections considered by LGC	Appeals and objections are sent to the Local Government Commission (this must be sent to the LGC by 15 January 2022 – sec 19Q of LEA). Note: there is no provision in LEA for accepting late appeals or objections. Information required to accompany appeals and objections include public notices, resolutions of the Council, submissions to the initial proposal, detailed maps of existing and proposed wards and community board areas, officer reports, copies of public discussion or consultation documents, information on communities of interest and population.
by 11 April 2022	LGC holds public hearing and makes final Determination	LGC may hold a public hearing. This is usually held in the Council Chambers. The Council outlines its proposal and has a right of reply. Appellants and objectors have an opportunity to speak to matters raised in their appeal or objection. The LGC will consider and make the final Determination. LGC must rectify any element of the proposal it considers does not comply with the statutory provisions, whether or not this was the subject of an appeal or objection, in particular compliance with the +/- 10% rule. LGC is required to form its own view on all aspects of the Representation Review. The LGC Determination applies to 2022 and 2025 elections (the determination must be made before 11 April 2022 – sec 19R of LEA).
By 11 April 2022	Public Notice of final determination	Determination setting out reasons given by LGC to Council and by public notice. Copy of public notice sent to Surveyor-General, Government Statistician, Remuneration Authority and Secretary for Local Government.
Within a month of LGC Determination	Appeals to High Court lodged	Appeals to the LGC Determination on points of law can be lodged with the High Court Determination – must be within one month of the LGC Determination (Schedule 5 of LEA). Subject to Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016.
April to June 2022	Boundary adjustments	If any adjustments are required to ward/community board boundaries the LGC will instruct the Surveyor-General to draw up the amended maps.
8 October 2022	Local Government election day	Either LGC Determination comes into force or Council final proposal comes into effect.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

12 July 2021

11 Business

11.1 Executive Report

File Number: A12563538

Author: Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement

Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance

Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Authoriser: Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

Purpose of the Report

1. To provide updates on key projects and activities.

Recommendations

That the Council receives the Executive Report.

Infrastructure Group

Kerbside Collection update

2. The new kerbside waste collection service commenced on 1 July 2021.

3. In the run up to go-live, 47 new EnviroWaste staff were employed, trained and ready to go. During induction (pictured below), we met the new EnviroWaste staff and gained an appreciation of the wide variety of skills, backgrounds and previous experience people had.

4. We have further exceeded our garden waste opt-in target of 10,000 pickups each month, with 12,200 properties signed-up for this service at the time of writing. Residents can continue to sign-up to the scheme and will pay by invoice for the first year, rather than via rates.

5. We have continued to host a number of community events, where we have been able to show the new trucks to the public and answer any queries.

6. Since the decision to proceed with the service in August last year, our project team has met with more than 75 separate organisations/community groups and met in person with 3700 customers. This is in addition to calls received by our contact centre and visitors to the TCC service centre.

A picture containing text, floor, indoor, area

Description automatically generated

Te Maunga Wastewater Plant Upgrade Programme

7. The Te Maunga wastewater treatment plant is being upgraded to cope with demand. All new growth areas in Tauranga will have their wastewater flows directed to the Te Maunga plant.

8. The Bioreactor 2 Ground Improvements contract (Value $10m) has been awarded to Brian Perry Civil. Preparations are underway to confirm concrete mix and strength and to install monitoring equipment on-site. Site trials are expected to commence in September 2021, with production works starting about 7 weeks later.

9. The tender evaluation team has identified a preferred contractor for the Bioreactor 2 Above Ground Works (value $21m). Pending the outcome of negotiations, it is anticipated that an award will be made by the end of July 2021.

10. Additional Geotechnical and groundwater investigations will be required for Clarifier 3, due to the challenging ground conditions, high groundwater and proximity to existing structures.

11. Pond 1 desludging has been delayed in order to remove a fibrolite diversion wall that contains asbestos. The team is working with asbestos specialists and Beca to develop a methodology for sludge removal.

Waiāri Water Supply Scheme Update

12. Good progress is being made on the Water Treatment Plant (WTP), Membrane and Automation Contracts. Particular focus is being given to sourcing water for trunk main flushing and to support initial WTP testing, prior to commissioning with water from a Western Bay of Plenty District Council bore.

13. The risk adjusted programme has been updated following programme integration and risk workshops. This has confirmed the scheme will be online by November 2022 and remains on budget at $185.8 million.

14. The Waiāri Kaitiaki Advisory Group (WKAG) resolved at its 9 June 2021 meeting for “Staff to provide a report, including cost implications or otherwise, at the next WKAG meeting regarding Tapuika Iwi Authority receiving a percentage of the WBOP and TCC Waiāri water take”. Staff are currently progressing this action.

15. A planting day was held at the Intake works in May, with another planned planting day at the Water Treatment Plant site in July.

16. The Waiāri water supply scheme project has been deemed as an essential service, meaning work can continue during any future COVID lockdowns. The two current streams that supply water to the city are experiencing historic low flows, resulting in water restrictions being in place to manage demand. This is the longest-ever period of water restrictions for Tauranga City. The restrictions were lifted on 28 June.

Photo of the reservoir platform at the Waiāri WTP site, with the sludge thickener balance tanks in the foreground.

A picture containing sky, boat

Description automatically generated

Photo of the construction of the Waiari WTP membrane machine hall and clarifier.

Transport System Plan (TSP) update

17. Preliminary work has been undertaken on the top five priority projects, to allow them to get underway as soon as the Long-term Plan and National Land Transport Fund are confirmed in mid-August.

18. The top five priority projects are:

(1) 15^th Ave and Turret Road

(2) Hewletts Road and sub-area

(3) Bus fares and parking policy

(4) Travel demand and travel behaviour

(5) Bus service and infrastructure review.

19. The preliminary work includes the drafting of project plans, scope and objectives and the draft point of entries. The point of entry documents have been circulated to partners for review.

Point of Entry flowchart (Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency)

20. Once funding is confirmed for each project, tenders will be prepared for the specialist services needed to deliver the business cases.

21. In addition to the top five priority projects, work is also underway on the Low Cost Low Risk (LCLR) programme to ensure these projects can progress to consultation, design and construction once funding is confirmed.

22. Another preliminary project that has been completed is a full stock-take of the existing bus infrastructure, which has assessed all bus stops across the city. A programme for installing new bus shelters will be developed, as well as upgrades to existing bus shelters to cater for better mobility access. Our stocktake found that some shelters (approximately 20) need to be replaced, but in general, most shelters were in good condition.

Future-proofing Cameron Road update

23. Several workstreams are underway on the Cameron Road project, including finalising the detailed design, gearing up for the sewer replacement works and developing tender documents for the main works. Detailed planning is also underway to look at the temporary traffic management regime during construction, to minimise the impact of construction on the public and businesses.

24. In addition, communications and engagement work for this project is ongoing, to ensure people understand how Cameron Road fits into the bigger picture.

25. Construction on the main works is expected to commence on 1 September 2021 and will continue through to October 2023. Individual blocks will be completed progressively, to ensure we minimise the impact on businesses in each area.

3 Waters Operation and Maintenance Contract project

26. Last month we completed our current 8-year waters operations and maintenance Contract with Downer NZ Ltd. Since 2013, TCC has issued 65,261 work orders and spent $66.5 million to maintain the water, wastewater and stormwater networks in the city.

27. On 1 July 2021, a new generation contract went live. This was procured in partnership with the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, with Downer successful in securing the contract. This contract has a 5-year value of $80 million, with opportunity for a further 5-year extension.

28. Downer will be employing 90 staff to cover the requirements of our combined sub-region.

29. TCC and WBOPDC made the strategic decision to work with Watercare around the provision of business systems for 3 waters assets and contract management. This project has over 40 people working short-term on delivering the requirements and saw TCC and WBOPD go-live with entirely new business systems and processes on 1 July 2021.

Waterline Facebook Competition

30. As part of a tailored stormwater module delivered to Papamoa Primary, the Waterline programme ran a competition for students to design artwork that would remind our community that the drains are just for rain. The winning artwork, which receives the most likes, will be painted around the school’s stormwater system as a permanent reminder that everything that goes down our stormwater drains goes straight out to sea.

31. As part of the competition, over 200 students created artwork, with the head teacher submitting the top ten designs to be showcased as part of the Waterline Facebook competition. The Facebook competition ran for over a week, had over 25,000 engagements and 53 shares, with many parents and family members getting involved.

32. One Papamoa Primary teacher mentioned that her grandmother, who is based in Edinburgh, had seen the post – which shows the power of sharing a post.

33. As the post was getting so many likes from around the globe, students (and some parents) questioned if robots were generating likes for certain artworks. We were in uncharted waters when asked this question and asked the digital team to investigate – who knew that $50 could buy you 20 likes for a page. Our digital team confirmed that robots were not involved.

34. We ended up opting to have the three artworks with the most likes (pictured below) painted. The school is delighted and so is the community. Parents were posting positive sentiments about the children, TCC and the Waterline programme.

35. The artworks will be painted by talented TCC staff around the school’s three stormwater drains in the upcoming school holidays.

A picture containing text

Description automatically generated

People and Engagement

Community Relations

36. Media reporting in May was the most positive for Council since September last year, with LTP consultation and proactive commentary and responses around environmental, recreation, civil defence, water, safety, and kerbside collection matters contributing. Negative commentary focused on house and rental costs and coverage of the Tauranga Ratepayers’ Alliance. Transport issues featured a mix of positive and negative sentiments.

Te Pou Takawaenga

37. Tangata Whenua have focused on quality feedback into key processes for the city to clearly articulate aspirations that align with improved and enhanced communities. Key processes have included:

(i) The addition of highly-qualified and experienced Māori representation on the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee, Hearing Panel and other nominated positions, leading to valued input to decision-making.

(ii) Dedicated City Plan engagement workshops facilitated by resourced facilitators enables collection of valuable direction from iwi, hapū, marae, and Māori communities. This enhanced clarity and understanding will assist planners to create more holistic plans that can take advantage of the Māori community’s offerings, especially regarding historical and cultural richness.

These improvements are designed to create a more conjoined approach to Tangata Whenua relationships and issues and contribute to more-synergised progress for the City. Better information input into planning processes should lead to fewer delays and obstacles as we forge our way forward together. Whanake te tai.

Democracy Services

38. The Council is about to undertake pre-engagement with the community on representation arrangements for the 2022 election. This will run from 16 July to 13 August 2021 and involves a four-week digital, social media, and print campaign on the purpose and scope of the representation review, and encourage feedback on the options being considered, along with the potential for community boards.

39. The Epidemic Preparedness Notice has been further extended, from 21 June to 20 September 2021. This means that legislation amendments will continue to enable remote attendance at council and committee meetings via audio or visual link to be counted towards the quorum of the meeting; council/committee meetings to be open to the public through online access; and meeting agendas, reports, and minutes to be posted on council websites, rather than placed in physical locations. There are several other provisions relating to by-election timing, new members’ oaths of office and rates rebate declarations.

40. Interactive half-day sessions were held in May with Tangata Whenua representatives on standing committees and staff, focusing on Local Government 101, Decision Making and Standing Orders. This was the first in a series of professional development and training sessions for Tangata Whenua representatives.

Human Resources

41. The Holidays (Increasing Sick Leave) Amendment Bill passed its third reading on 19 May 2021 and then received Royal Assent on 24 May, increasing the minimum employee sick leave entitlement from 5 days to 10 days per year. Law changes come into effect on 24 July 2021. Council is well-prepared to ensure compliance with the change in legislation, having adopted an approach to credit employees with 10 days sick leave upon commencement. Work is progressing to secure a variation in our Collective Employment Agreements (CEAs) with the Public Service Association (PSA).

42. The review of our induction process has concluded, and we are working through the findings and recommendations for change. Scoping and planning are now underway, ahead of beginning the development of our Leadership Development framework. Phase one of this development is focused on basic fundamentals of leadership and people management, with a focus on the seven key areas of importance identified through the learning needs analysis.

43. An external specialist has been engaged to support the organisation to implement a new approach to remuneration, which is one of our people-related goals within the Executive Business Plan. This follows a series of recommendations considered and proposed by a Remuneration Working Group consisting of staff and union representatives. This project is ongoing and any changes we make to the way we remunerate our people will not be implemented in time for this year's remuneration review. The goal is to have any changes to remuneration and reward agreed and communicated before the end of the year.

Customer Services

44. The property market continues to be very buoyant in Tauranga. LIM application numbers have not declined with the onset of winter as they normally would. We are on track to receive 20% more applications this year (3759) than the previous year (3155), which would be the highest number on record.

45. Kerbside collection enquiries have been steadily increasing over the past few months as the date for the new service nears. Current call volumes prior to the service going live averaged 300 per day.

Health and Safety

46. A partnership approach to managing health and safety is being trialled with a key contractor, to collectively respond to events in a manner that focuses on systemic solutions and agrees minimum health and safety standards for use across our projects.

47. During May, we had two occupational health nurses onsite at Cameron Rd and Willow St offices administering flu vaccinations for approximately 200 staff. For staff based at satellite sites, we provide flu vaccination vouchers.

48. A COVID-19 Vaccination Plan has been developed to support the goal of the Government to ensure that all those who can, are vaccinated. The focus of the plan is to maximise staff vaccination uptake, while managing health and safety in the workplace by providing our people with access to information that supports informed decision-making.

Regulatory and Compliance

Regulation Monitoring

49. The Bylaws Team continues to work closely with internal teams and external support agencies to look for innovative solutions and ways to better support vulnerable members of our community who are experiencing homelessness, and to support people who are being affected by homelessness - i.e. businesses, residents and our wider community.

50. The following teams are working together to support and respond to homelessness and the effects of antisocial behaviour.

(a) Community Development Team (i.e. Safe City and Kāinga Tupu strategies)

(i) Outreach support for vulnerable people

(ii) Safety strategies linking in partner agencies to assist communities, business and vulnerable people.

(b) Spaces and Places Team (i.e. Sport, Recreation and Community Facilities)

(i) Collaboration with Asset owners and NGOs regarding homelessness within and on TCC land assets

(ii) Feedback and meaningful education regarding due process and preferred outcomes when engaging with vulnerable people (homeless).

(i) Monitoring of homeless sites that require frequent clean-ups

(ii) Efficient and effective service delivery responses for waste collection and sanitation issues resulting from homelessness and antisocial behaviour near businesses, residential areas and our open spaces.

51. We are also working more closely with Police and external support networks to find accommodation and support for vulnerable people, and to assist in preventing anti-social behaviour and alcohol-related harm in specific areas across Tauranga. We have already (with police) started to engage and monitor more closely the 12th Avenue/Cameron Rd business area in relation to alcohol-related harm (and homeless) complaints to police and council.

Animal Services

52. A dog safety and bite prevention programme was delivered to Brookfield School in June. Four separate classes were involved, totalling 124 children aged six to eight, with key learnings focused on:

(a) Never approach a dog on its own

(b) Always ask before patting/stroking a dog

53. Some of the children had received the presentation two years ago and it was great to see they had retained the key messages. These students were then used to help reinforce the messaging with their peers.

54. Compliance strategies implemented over recent years, including neutering of menacing dogs, education programmes and a robust compliance model, are continuing to show benefits. In the last five years, instances of aggression against people have reduced by 31%, attacks on domestic animals by 12%, barking dogs by 14% and roaming dogs by 27%. At the same time, dog numbers have increased by 17.6%.

55. Dog Registration for the 2021/22 year is well underway, with 4,499 dogs registered so far, 1,300 more than the same time last year. We currently have 14,700 known dogs in the city and are projected to have 15,400 by this time next year.

Environmental Health and Licensing

56. An audit assessment was completed by staff from the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand (JAS-ANZ) in relation to the Quality Management System (QMS) used by the Environmental Health team for Food Control Plans and National Programmes. The assessment identified three minor (administrative) findings, which were corrected at the time, and one finding in relation to overdue verifications. We are required to prepare an action plan to outline how these overdue verifications will be addressed. Two obvious reasons that we are behind are the fact we couldn’t undertake inspections for an 8-week period during the COVID lockdown and some staff recruitment issues (as below).

57. Recruitment for an Environmental Health Officer to cover parental leave has been difficult recently, due to a lack of suitably-qualified applicants wanting to be employed on a short-term contract.

58. As a result of the continuing rollover of The Epidemic Preparedness (Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012-Licence Application Inquiries) Immediate Modification Order 2020 (which allows Police and Ministry of Health an extended time to report on applications for liquor licenses and manager certificates), there have been delays in the processing these applications.

59. Police and MoH staff are currently holding 36 and 32 applications respectively that fall into this category, and more applications will be sent to them in the general course of business over the coming months. The Order has recently been extended to 20 September 2021. We will continue to work with these agencies to see how we can help to ensure that they report as quickly as possible, so that we don’t hold up our customers.

60. Integration of a new digital system for food premise verification and administration has been challenging and we are working-out the various nuances in the system with the Digital Services Team. There will be benefits in using the new system for staff and customers alike, once the testing and implementation phase is finalised in the near future.

Emergency Management

61. The decision to have a Tauranga City Council Emergency Operations Centre has been implemented; with 33 function managers trained, standard operating procedures developed or reviewed, and other internal staff resources identified.

62. The engagement process and work plan development has begun to support iwi, hapu and marae with regard to emergency preparedness and resilience. The key outcomes sought are:

(a) To gain insights into what additional pathways will be beneficial for te hau kāinga (local people of a marae), to further enhance the ability of marae to support their whānau and communities; and

(b) To co-identify opportunities to reinforce marae infrastructure for use as a hapori kāinga haumaru (community-led centre for emergency relief) as part of the structured emergency management response and recovery facilities.

Building Services

63. We reported last month that a the number of building consent applications received in March was the highest since 2007. The volume of building consent applications received in May (323) was again higher than the same month in the previous year. The first two weeks of June were comparatively light, but the second half of the month was tracking to be higher than previous year’s.

64. The volume of consents granted in May was slightly below the monthly average (249) with 235 consents issued. Unfortunately, compliance with the statutory timeframe also dropped in May - down to 84%. Analysis of those consents that have gone over time shows that the two main reasons are increased workload and delays in specialist input due to staff vacancies and a lack of consultants available to assist (particularly engineering).

65. Inspection wait times have decreased over the past few weeks. At the end of June, the standard inspection wait time is less than a week citywide, while commercial inspections are at 6 days and final inspections are sitting at 2.6 weeks (13 days).

66. This decrease in wait time appears to be related to a greater number of cancelled inspections with more than 24 hours lead time, which allows our building support officers to rebook inspections in that slot. We have recently introduced a text message that is sent to the builder three days prior to their inspection. This text message reminds them that they have an inspection scheduled, making it easy for them to cancel or rebook if they will not be ready.

67. Recruitment to fill Inspector, Processor and new CCC Team positions is proceeding well and provided we don’t have unexpected resignations, we may be soon be close to fully-staffed for the first time in at least two years. While having the required staff numbers is a fantastic step forward, we still have staff who are not yet fully-trained.

Note: the darker bar shading in the graph above is the number of consent applications, the lighter shading is the number of amendments to consents.

68. Our most recent update to IANZ following last year’s audit was positively received. This is a good sign leading into our next audit in September.

Environmental Planning

69. Resource consent applications continue to be high and follow the trend in building consents received by building services.

70. The team has been engaging with developers and consultants to frontload the process and encourage putting more work into the pre-application process. Improvements have been made in the pre-application process, including basic information requirements, recording meetings, allocating effectively and ensuring the right people are in the room. The team will focus on using the tools within the RMA to return applications that do not provide the relevant detail and information. To date, between three and five applications have been returned per month.

71. Environmental monitoring continues to receive a high number of general complaints and incidents relating to potential noncompliance with the RMA and City Plan. A lot of resource has gone into resolving these and has detracted from the requirement to monitor resource consent conditions. A recent review will allow processes to be improved and has identified new focus areas going into the new financial year.

72. There are still a number of vacancies within the team. The continued lack of senior staff and Development Engineers has resulted in the level of service being negatively-affected. Different approaches to recruitment are underway.

Transpower Hearing

The High Court recently released its judgement on the Transpower application. Both TCC and BOPRC were consenting authorities. Historically, Ngati Hē was dispossessed of most of its ancestral lands, but retains the Maungatapu Marae and beach at Rangataua Bay, on Te Awanui Tauranga (Tauranga Harbour). Ngāti Hē has a long-standing grievance about the location of electricity transmission lines across the Bay from the Maungatapu Peninsula to the Matapihi Peninsula. Some of the transmission poles will require replacement. In 2016, to address Ngāti Hē’s grievance, Transpower initiated consultation with iwi about realignment of the transmission lines, including at Rangataua Bay. Ngāti Hē supported removal of the existing lines and initially did not oppose their proposed new location. However, when it became clear that a large new pole would be constructed right next to the Marae, the proposal was opposed.

Consents were granted for the proposed realignment, which the Environment Court subsequently upheld. Tauranga Environmental Protection Society Inc. appealed the decision of the Environment Court, supported by the Maungatapu Marae Trustees from Ngati Hē. The High Court upheld the appeal, effectively quashing the Environment Court’s decision and requiring them to reconsider it. Following is an extract from the High Court decision: “With goodwill and reasonable willingness to compromise on both sides, it may be possible for an operationally feasible proposal to be identified that does not have the adverse cultural effects of the current proposal.” The parties were in the process of reviewing the decision at the time of writing this report.

73. Note: More detailed benchmarking for Regulatory functions will be presented to the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee.

Community Services

Arts and Culture

74. A pilot programme has commenced with the Giblin Group, which will see four Tauranga arts, culture and heritage organisations receiving capacity and capability-building support through an online coaching programme. Known as “Funding HQ”, the programme supports community organisations to build a comprehensive funding and development strategy, and upskills board and management across private philanthropy, Trusts and Foundations, Central and Local Government funding and corporate sponsorship. The Incubator, The Elms, Tauranga Art Gallery and Tauranga Musical Theatre will all receive a one-year coaching programme, with opportunities to share learnings and insights back to the group. With many community organisations currently heavily reliant on Council as a majority source of funding, the intention of this programme is to grow capacity in the sector to enable organisations to have a more robust and diversified revenue strategy.

75. Creative NZ has recently published the results of its flagship national research study into attitudes to, and participation in the arts. The “New Zealanders and the Arts” research is undertaken by Colmar Brunton every three years, with the data used by CNZ to guide arts policy, advocacy and investment. Whilst the research covers the Bay of Plenty as a region, staff took the opportunity to take part in a more detailed and targeted extension of the research, to gain greater insight into Tauranga residents’ engagement and participation in the arts. The headline results showed growing levels of participation and strong support of the role that the arts play in creating a vibrant and liveable city. Amongst a comprehensive set of outcomes, the study reported that 76% of Tauranga residents had attended or participated in arts events in the past year, 60% of residents feel that the arts contribute positively to the local community, and 57% of residents agree that the arts should receive public funding.

76. Heritage Collection staff have worked with the Historic Village to re-clad the entire roof of the historic Faulkner House, which had problems with leaks. Staff took the opportunity to add interpretation material at Faulkner House, including a video interview of Faulkner family members at the house, which had been recorded during their family reunion in 2020.

77. Heritage Collection staff have continued work on the digitisation of the collection, with nearly 9,000 objects from the collection now available for the public to view online. Other projects undertaken at the Heritage Collection include the establishment of a wet organics laboratory, a first-of-its-kind in the Bay of Plenty. The laboratory accommodates the requirement for artefacts found in swamp/wetland areas to undergo treatment to increase durability.

Community Partnerships

78. The new Bay Venues Limited Board - Simon Clarke (Chair), Julie Hardaker (Deputy Chair) and directors Jeremy Curragh, Adam Lynch and Nick Lowe - were confirmed by Council on 21 June. They commenced their roles on 1 July, following a whakatau in Council Chambers and a comprehensive induction programme. They join TCC General Manager: Community Services, Gareth Wallis, who was appointed to the BVL Board in May 2021.

79. Interviews have taken place for the new General Manager of Tourism Bay of Plenty, with due diligence on preferred candidates now being undertaken. Oscar Nathan continues to cover the acting CE role in the interim.

80. The appointment of a mana whenua representative on the Tauranga Art Gallery Board is on the agenda for the meeting of Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana Partnership on 26 August.

81. Tauranga Art Gallery launched its 2021/22 programme on 22 June, confirming Project Tauranga partner, Cooney Lees Morgan, as Principal Exhibition Partner and Annual Strategic Sponsor of the Gallery for the next three years.

82. TCC has engaged Max Pedersen to undertake a section 17A review of the four Mainstreets: Downtown, the Mount, Greerton and Papamoa. All four Mainstreets have provided feedback to the draft Terms of Reference and will be included in the review, along with a number of other key stakeholders.

83. 21 applications totalling $161,789 were received in the May round of the Match Fund Medium Grants scheme, covering a wide range of community activities and initiatives from community pride, cultural events and music education to an art exhibition raising awareness on homelessness and mental wellbeing. The Funding Panel allocated $78,250 to 12 successful applications that met the Match Fund criteria.

84. One successful Match Fund application from Gate Pā School was for $10,000 towards two swamp kauri poupou, designed and carved by Whare Thompson. A well-attended formal blessing and unveiling of the poupou was held at dawn on 22 June, completing a significant front entrance that reflects the cultural narrative and tells the story of the school and the land it sits on.

85. The Kāinga Tupu taskforce has secured $180,000 of funding from the Acorn Foundation, BayTrust, Bay of Plenty District Health Board, Kāinga Ora, Ministry of Housing & Urban Development, Ministry of Social Development and TECT to support the upcoming strategic priorities of the Kāinga Tupu work programme for the 2021-2022 financial year.

86. Through the Kāinga Tupu kaupapa, it was identified that many practitioners in the homelessness space cannot always access workforce development opportunities, particularly for those that work with Māori whanau. ‘Kaupapa Māori-centred’ training was provided to improve knowledge and increase the confidence of practitioners to engage with whānau Māori in a culturally-inclusive and mana-enhancing way – using the Whānau ora approach.

87. On 24 June, the Kāinga Tupu Taskforce launched “When the Dominoes Start to Fall” – a book of homelessness stories from Tauranga. This book is a NZ first and allows the reader to discover first-hand the various causes of homelessness, and the complex journey of being homeless in Tauranga. The book has been supported from planning to publishing by 18 community providers and covers 18 local stories of various types of homelessness.

88. The accessible bathroom project located at Mount Drury is progressing well. The project team has been working closely with Tauranga Special School, the Disability Advisory Group and the wider Tauranga community to finalise the details of the design. The unit will be placed on site on 30 June 2021 and then some finishing work will be required to make it operational, including drainage works, concrete paths, connection of services, planting and externally wrapping the facility. The onsite works will be completed by mid-August, so that the facility is fully operational in spring 2021.

89. Welcoming Communities has been assisting with a number of workshops and events, including assisting the Kerbside team with a workshop for ethnic and migrant communities, a workshop with multicultural communities to assist with the Food Security Consultation workstream, a Religious Diversity workshop in collaboration with the Tauranga Moana Interfaith Council and University of Waikato, and a community-led Festival of Cultures in Katikati, to be held on 26 June.

90. The successful deployment of security guards by BOPRC continues at the Willow Street, Farm Street and Greerton bus interchanges. TCC staff meet regularly with counterparts from the Tauranga Traffic Operations Centre, BOPRC and Nutech Security, and the NZ Police. BOPRC is investigating the feasibility of ongoing security and a focus of the City Safety Advisory Group is to identify other interventions that would enhance safety in these particular areas.

Libraries

91. The Programmes team’s focus has been on Matariki Tauranga Moana. Libraries partnered to support the citywide festival, with some of our key events being Pō Pūrākau ki Tutarawānanga, night time stories at Greerton, an exhibition of photographs by Brad Burch, and Matariki Kite Day at Ferguson Park.

92. To better serve our community, the Libraries team is learning te reo Māori and tikanga Māori. Twenty-seven te reo Māori pronunciation sessions have been achieved, with 70% of staff attending the monthly sessions. Initially planned as a six-month trial, the sessions will carry on until December, reflecting increasing staff interest and requests for more learning opportunities. As at the end of June 2021, 84 library staff have completed a full-day Wānanga mai – marae-based learning workshop.

93. Library capex projects for the year have all been completed on time, including installing supplementary air-conditioning and an automated returns system at Papamoa Library.

94. Work continues on planning to relocate the central Library and all of its functions to a temporary location by early-2022, to allow the Civic precinct site to be demolished and prepared for the building of a new community hub facility and library. Many potential CBD sites have been considered, with a preferred site now undergoing comprehensive due diligence.

Spaces and Places

95. Renewals for the Elizabeth Street Upgrade project have now been completed on First Avenue and Devonport Road and are due to be completed on Elizabeth Street in July.

96. Streetscape works are underway on First Avenue, Devonport Road, the laneway and Elizabeth Street, with a focus on the construction of pedestrian crossings, landscaped kerb build-outs and stormwater treatments. Daytime road closures are anticipated on Devonport Road to enable the completion of the raised crossings. Elizabeth Street is likely to reduce to one-way access in July, to enable a crane required for the Farmers development to be placed on the street. The crane is likely to be in place until February 2022.

97. Completion of the overall project is tied to completion of the Farmers development, now called ‘38 Elizabeth’. The Farmers retail store is planned to open for Christmas shopping, whilst construction of the towers and fit out of the apartments will be ongoing into next year. Hawkins, Farmers and TCC continue to work closely together to coordinate work programmes.

98. A project team has recently been set-up with the objective of looking at the area around Dive Crescent, on both sides of the road, to see what short-term enhancements are possible. Members of this project team attended the most recent Dive Crescent Governance Group meeting to provide an update to representatives from the Otamataha Trust and Commission, and discuss a partnership structure for working on this project together. In December 2020, a building consent was lodged for seismic strengthening of the Cargo Shed building to allow the building to be refurbished and made available for public use.

99. Construction of the Kulim Park upgrade is scheduled to commence at the end of August, with the bulk of works (including alterations to the existing road, carparking and new pathway) planned to be completed in December 2021.

100. Our Place (including the Re-maker Space) will continue to operate at the Civic Precinct site until the end of October 2021. Our Place will then be decommissioned to make way for demolition activity ahead of redevelopment of the site.

101. In partnership with Sport Bay of Plenty, staff are commencing a future state analysis with user groups of Blake Park. This exercise will also be undertaken with user groups at Gordon Spratt/Alice Johnson Reserve. There will be an iteration between these projects and the wider Sport and Active Living Strategy Review work, also about to commence.

102. The Kopurererua Valley stream realignment earthworks tender was released at the end of June. Detailed design is progressing well, with a review undertaken by TCC stakeholders to confirm stream and cycleway realignment options.

103. The Omanawa Falls partnership continues to work closely together on the three dedicated streams of work: Physically and Culturally Safe Access, Ownership and Commercial Experience. The programme is dependent on the consenting process, which will now be publicly-notified. Resource consent will be lodged in July with a decision anticipated in December 2021/January 2022. Engagement with neighbours and other stakeholders continues, including a meeting with residents which took place at the Omanawa Hall on 16 June. A kaitiaki programme, similar to last summer’s successful programme, will be rolled-out again this coming summer, to manage visitors while construction is completed in stages.

104. The trig station at the summit of Mauao was removed in mid-June. This was in preparation for a ‘cultural compass’ that is planned to be installed in the coming financial year. The trig was removed prior to Matariki, so that a karakia could be performed with the two Mauri stones which will be buried under the new cultural compass. The purpose of the compass is to recognise and celebrate the mana of Te Tihi o Mauao (the summit of Mauao). This compass will feature touchstones at the centre, which carry mauri (lifeforce) to maintain the mauri of Mauao. Radiating from the touchstones, the compass design will identify significant sites on the maunga, outlying landmarks and islands, and select star and sun positions.

105. Work has begun to restore the Waipatukakahu Puna (stream) on Mauao and re-establish the site for its traditional cultural purpose. Eight exotic trees have been successfully removed from the site and work will begin soon to prepare the site for the first stage of planting.

106. The Elmes to Bay Street boardwalk construction is commencing; piles have been strategically dropped via helicopter into the reserve to limit disturbance. Project delivery is expected to take approximately four weeks, based on timelines for similar previous projects.

107. A wide variety of renewals and minor capital projects are underway and/or have been recently completed by the Parks & Recreation team, including:

· Five new bench seats and two picnic tables have been installed along the length of the Wairoa Esplanade Reserve. More trees have been planted to provide shade in the future. Another set of stairs has been installed to stop the erosion effect caused by dogs accessing the river and the wetland around the latest stretch of boardwalk has been prepared for planting, which will occur before the end of July;

· Tidal surges in May and June 2021 have resulted in a number of repairs being carried out on harbour erosion protection structures across the city;

· Completion of a new playground, pathways and seating at Parewaitai Reserve;

· Extensive renewal of the Omanu carpark, fences, sand-ladders and signs, to make the area safer and more aesthetically pleasing.

108. New CCTV cameras have been installed at McLaren Falls Park, to provide better management and discourage antisocial behaviour, along with the installation of new gates and a redeveloped entrance to provide a safer environment. Food-providing trees have been planted for the wider community to enjoy, with over 50 planted in recent months.

109. The city’s specimen tree planting and replacement tree planting programmes are now underway. The focus will continue to be on appropriate species in appropriate places, with an emphasis on shade for playgrounds, parks and reserves. Staff and contractors will be planting over 800 trees this planting season.

110. As part of this year’s international Arbor day celebrations, the urban forest team visited Papamoa College to undertake some tree planting and education work with a group of students. A selection of native trees, kindly donated by Tauranga Tree Company, were planted on the grounds with some great assistance from the Year 7 students.

Venues and Events

111. Baycourt hosted two sold-out shows for UK comedian Ben Elton in mid-May. This success, coupled with two sold-out shows for fellow UK comedian Russell Howard in January, demonstrates to promoters the strong appetite for high-profile international comedians in Tauranga. Whilst it is expected the regions may not continue to experience this level of commercial programming when ‘normal’ international touring recommences, staff remain optimistic that recent sales have helped to change promoter perceptions around regional audiences for the better.

112. The development of the Events Strategic Plan is well underway, with an in-depth workshop held with key city stakeholders on 23 June that worked through the findings from the event industry workshops held in May. Wider community consultation will begin in July, with the strategy expected to be completed by year-end.

113. The inaugural Ultimate Athlete event was held on Mount Maunganui’s Main Beach on Friday 11 and Saturday 12 June. Obstacle course racing is one of the fastest-growing participation sports in the world and Ultimate Athlete provided a race programme for secondary school students through to professional athletes. This off-season event received funding through the Event Support Fund and exceeded the organisers’ expectations, with over 700 participants in its very first year.

114. Event team staff have supported Tourism BOP with the development of the guidelines, application and evaluation criteria for the Coastal Bay of Plenty Regional Events Fund. This fund is administered by TBOP on behalf of the NZ Government to stimulate domestic tourism. TBOP has allocated $500,000 to the contestable fund, which will be open for expressions of interest from 28 June to 16 July.

115. Bookings for Tauranga’s public open spaces are continuing to increase and are back on par with pre-COVID-19 numbers, with filming activity increasing. This resulted in 495 bookings for the year to 30 June, with an additional 40 events cancelled at late notice due to COVID and alert level changes.

116. The Historic Village is going to break its annual attendance record with 2020/21 visitation at 261,787 entries through the main gate, with still five days to go, including a busy Matariki event weekend. This is up from the previous high in 2019 of 250,480. 2020 had 214,556 entries through the gate, despite the impact of COVID-19.

117. On 30 May, the Historic Village exhibited for the first time at the Bay of Plenty Wedding Show. This was a joint venture with two other tenants, The Whipped Baker and White Silk Bridal. There has already been a return on this investment, with three secured bookings and two strong enquiries coming directly from the show.

Corporate Services

Digital

118. Digital’s Geospatial team has continued to support the organisation to deliver on large-scale initiatives. Their work demonstrates the importance of accurate geospatial insights to support good decision-making and planning. The recent work programme includes providing our kerbside collection contractors with spatially-defined collection data, ensuring accurate and timely collection; helping manage risk by providing surveying services to monitor settlement during the construction of the Te Maunga Outfall; helping transform our 3 Waters GIS asset data and migrate to Watercare systems as part of the 3 Waters Collaboration; assisting the Democracy Services team with Tauranga’s Representation Review.

119. To support the efficient management of approximately 680,000 TCC assets, the digital team worked with the Asset Planning and Information team to successfully upgrade and migrate council’s asset management system, Accela, to a managed cloud environment. This work has been part of Digital’s programme of work to remove organisational risk by ensuring our core systems are up-to-date, supported, secure and fit-for-purpose. Moving to a cloud-based environment allows us to flex capacity up and down as organisational needs change; provides the ability to leverage the large security investments made by the likes of Microsoft and Amazon Web Services; and significantly simplifies future maintenance of the system through the adoption of a Software as a Service model. Next steps will see a new user interface being introduced to further enhance usability.

120. Digital assurance, education and change support is going through strategic planning and prioritisation to maximise synergies in the way that we engage with our people and ensure we realise value in the solutions we are delivering.

121. Our Retention & Disposal Schedule for records management is now officially in place and the associated activities in the Human Resources area are underway. There are a lot of historic records to be sorted and grouped in a way that means they can be effectively managed or disposed of. The project is on schedule and we are looking forward to the first disposal of records, as this has never been done before at TCC. This programme will roll-out across all departments over the coming months.

Marine Precinct – Vessel Works

122. A recent survey of Bridge Wharf has identified several piles and supporting members that require replacement. The critical components will be replaced (at a cost of $250k-$400k), buying us time to complete the strategic review and develope a long-term plan for Bridge Wharf and the Tauranga Marine Precinct.

123. Last month we saw a decrease in hardstand occupancy and bookings look light for the winter (which is expected). One of the factors involved is that several New Zealand boatyards have purchased, or are in the process of purchasing, large travel lifts. The newcomers to the market have been making deals to fill their yards and are pushing outside of their ideal markets to promote their facilities. In response, we have increased our online marketing and have started advertising a ‘sale’ for July and August. We are also investigating new marketing channels to increase our bookings.

Beachside Holiday Park

124. Beachside Holiday Park occupancy continues to reach new heights, currently up 27% for the year to date.

125. For the 1 July 2020 – 31 May 2021 period, the park had 80,688 customers, compared to 63,562 in the 1 July 2019 – 31 May 2020 period.

126. Record-breaking occupancy has generated over $2M in revenue, year-to-date.

Airport

127. 87,632 passengers passed through the terminal during April and May 2021, compared to 3,525 during April and May 2020 and 91,614 in 2019, the opening of the trans-Tasman bubble has seen an increase in international check-ins, with Air NZ operating at 70% of pre-Covid services across the Tasman.

128. Air NZ operated 1790 services at a load factor of 85%. These loadings are on par with the same period in 2019.

129. There have been no emergency situations during the period, apart from one suspicious bag which appeared to have been hidden. However, CCTV footage enabled security staff to identify and talk to the owner.

130. Airways’ runway lighting failed on the afternoon of 19 June, which resulted in two cancelled arrivals and departures.

Finance

131. The financial year-end is 30 June and work has commenced on 2020-21 Annual report financial and non-financial information. Audit New Zealand is currently reviewing data migrated from Ozone to SAP. This will be the first year the annual report is produced from the SAP financial system.

132. Closing gross debt is $635m, with net debt close to $600m, which is significantly below the annual plan budget of $686m. This lower forecast has been signalled previously and results from lower capital delivery and higher revenues than anticipated in the post Covid-19 budget.

133. Revaluations for land and buildings and three waters assets are currently being received and loaded into the asset and financial systems. In total, the revaluation of land has increased by $200m, while three waters assets have increased by $317m. In total, these movements represent an increase of $511m, which is 12% of the total value of property, plant and equipment at the end of June 2020.

134. LTP budgets are being updated to incorporate deliberation decisions and Audit New Zealand has been on site since 5 July undertaking the final audit of the LTP.

Strategy and Growth

Strategy Finance & Risk Committee

135. With the establishment of the Strategy, Finance & Risk Committee, most of the matters associated with the Strategy & Growth portfolio are now reported through that Committee. Rather than duplicate content, only matters not addressed in the Strategy, Finance & Risk Committee will be reported via the Executive Report. The 28 June 2021 Strategy, Finance & Risk Committee agenda included the quarterly reports on Urban Planning and Transport Planning. There are no additional matters to report within this Executive Report.

Attachments

Nil

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

12 July 2021

11.2 Adoption of Community Funding Policy

File Number: A12655271

Author: Anne Blakeway, Manager: Community Partnerships

Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To adopt the Community Funding Policy 2021 (the policy) (attachment one).

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Adopts the Community Funding Policy 2021, noting the following:

(i) that the fund will be retained in house;

(ii) that the maximum available grant for the contestable grant fund is $50,000;

(iii) that partnership agreements may be for any amount (provided it is within the overall amount allocated to the fund);

(iv) while the fund will give consideration to the four well-beings, it is not required to be apportioned equally across them;

(v) that the funding criteria gives consideration to kaupapa Māori initiatives, but no funding is ringfenced for kaupapa Māori initiatives;

(vi) that schools, not-for-profit early childhood education providers and kura are able to access the Community Grant Fund (for defined purposes);

(vii) that social enterprises are unable to access the Community Grant Fund;

(viii) that individuals are unable to access the Community Grant Fund; and

(ix) that applicants to the Community Grant Fund are not required to “match” any Council funded amount with their own funds.

(b) Notes that additional work will be undertaken to determine if all council funding streams should come under the auspices of the Community Funding Policy, including consideration of Council funding for community facilities.

Executive Summary

2. Consultation on the Long-Term Plan 2021–31 (LTP) included a proposal to establish a new grant fund to support community organisations for either one-off projects through a contestable grants fund, or to enable longer-term partnerships through multi-year partnership agreements.

3. This new “bulk fund” would be in addition to Council’s existing Match Fund, although both funds would be guided by the proposed Community Funding Policy.

4. A draft policy was developed to ensure robust and transparent administration and distribution of the fund. Consultation on the draft policy took place, alongside consultation on the draft LTP, with submissions to the draft LTP also commenting on issues addressed (or to be addressed) through the draft policy.

5. This report enables deliberations on submissions to the draft policy and also provides an opportunity to make changes to the draft policy, prior to adopting the policy. It also addresses fund and policy matters that were raised during LTP deliberations.

Background

6. As part of its deliberations on the Annual Plan 2020/21, Council requested staff investigate the creation of a dedicated “bulk fund” to provide support to community organisations. Referring community requests for funding received through the annual plan or long-term plan to a specific bulk fund, would reduce the risk of adhoc and potentially unfair decisions on support for community organisations being made via the annual plan or long-term plan process.

7. At the time of that annual plan decision, staff were also reviewing Council’s entire funding framework to ensure consistency, fairness and transparency in how community organisations are supported. Council funding, inter alia, could be a direct grant through the annual plan or LTP, a grant from a specific fund established for a specific purpose (e.g. a grant from the Events Fund to support an event), or leases of council-owned buildings or land. This framework enables community organisations to receive additional funding as initiatives develop, for example, the Turban Day event was initially funded through a small grant from the Match Fund but is now supported through the Event Funding Framework as a community event.

8. The diagram below provides an overview of Council’s current community funding framework. Given the direction of the Annual Plan 2020/21 to establish a new grant fund, it was decided to postpone the work reviewing the entire funding framework, to focus instead on ensuring the new grant fund was established for this current LTP. This included developing a draft policy to ensure robust and transparent administration and distribution of the grant fund. As such, this policy only addresses the funds circled in red in the below diagram that are covered by the draft policy.

9. Attachment two provides an overview of what can and cannot be funded under the different funding types. This includes funding for events (both small community events and large, ticketed events) and for waste minimisation programmes. There is no specific fund to support capital development of community facilities (either on Council land or non-land), However, Council does provide one-off discretionary grants to community organisations for facilities.

Figure 1: Overview of council community funding framework

Community Funding Policy

10. As part of its deliberations on the LTP, Council approved the establishment of a $1.81 million Community Grant Fund (in addition to $150,000 of existing funding allocated to the Match Fund) and revoked the existing Community Funding Policy. As such, this report only considers matters relating to the draft policy.

11. The draft policy has been deliberately written so in the future, it could serve as an “umbrella” policy providing general guidance as to Council’s expectations and decision-making around how we support community organisations. However, at present, it only covers the new Community Grant Fund, the existing Match Fund, and the proposed partnership agreements.

12. The Community Grant Fund and Match Fund are intended to provide one-off support for specific projects (such as two pou installed recently at Gate Pā School). While the draft policy does not prohibit multi-year funding for specific projects, the more multi-year agreements that are put in place, the more funding for new initiatives will be reduced in future years.

13. Partnership agreements are reserved for select community organisations where Council wants to build and maintain positive relationships that support delivery of the four well-beings and the community outcomes. Partnership agreements provide operational funding and are intended to be multi-year (e.g. three years).

14. The table below outlines the key points of the three funding streams covered by the draft policy, and provides examples of what is anticipated will be funded under the three funds.

Funds included in the Community Funding Policy
Fund type	Proposed amount	What can be funded (examples only)	What cannot be funded (examples only)
Community Grant Fund (large community grants) (project specific)	$10,001 to $50,000	Support for feasibility study of a wellness centre or papakāinga development. Installation of pou at local school. Establishment of a community low carbon project.	Large capital grants for community facilities (incl. on Council land), such as a sports club building. Employment of individual persons (see paragraph 16 below). A school camp.
Match Fund (small grants) (project specific)	Up to $10,000
Partnership Agreements (relationship focused, multi-year funding)	Any amount	Citizens Advice Bureau (example only). Organisation who is a local leader in youth development.	Large capital grants for development of community facilities (incl. on Council land).

15. Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) is provided as an example of an organisation Council would potentially support with a partnership agreement. CAB provide an important role in the community as information brokers and it is likely that if they were unavailable, this work would be undertaken by Council library and/or customer services staff. They also currently share space with Council. Commissioners also supported CAB for partnership funding through the LTP process.

16. Under the current draft policy criteria, applications that are primarily to employ and pay individual persons are ineligible. However, applications could be made that relate to a specific project (such as Waiariki Park Region) requiring coordinators to deliver the project. In contrast, a specific request for funds to pay an organisation’s administrator would not meet the criteria.

17. The draft policy does not envision grants from the fund being used to build community facilities. In line with Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy, and recognising that such requests are generally for large amounts, applications for funding facilities are negotiated and approved by Council as separate line items. However, this does not mean the fund could not be used to support community facilities. For example, applications seeking support for feasibility studies related to the development of a papakāinga or recreational facilities would be accepted. The limited amount of funding available would enable minor capital works (such as minor works on a marae) but would not support large capital projects.

Issues raised through submissions

18. A total of 15 submissions were received on the draft policy itself, with a number of submissions making comments on policy-related matters through their LTP submissions. A summary of submission feedback points is provided as attachment three and submissions to the policy are provided as attachment four.

19. Submitters both for and against the fund noted that there are other existing community funders, such as Tauranga Energy Consumer Trust (TECT), Acorn and BayTrust. While some submitters suggested that these other funders provided sufficient funding and a separate council fund was not necessary, other submitters suggested council work alongside these organisations to ensure the best outcomes for the community. A formal position on this matter should be resolved, noting that decisions made at the LTP deliberations suggest a preference to retain administration of the fund in-house (see issue one below).

20. In supporting the establishment of a grant fund, some submitters noted that it needed to be underpinned by robust and transparent policy to ensure it was not captured by the “loudest” community organisations.

21. Some submitters to the policy supported a $50,000 maximum whereas others did not (but did not note whether they sought a higher or lesser amount).

22. For some submitters, enabling the best outcomes for the community meant allocating any fund to specific “buckets” to ensure equity of funding between different sectors (see issue three below). Submissions also included requests for specific consideration of funding for Māori initiatives (issue four), including funding to enable feasibility work for potential papakāinga development.

23. Other issues raised in individual submissions were what organisations were eligible to apply for and whether applicants should have to “match” any Council contribution (see issues five, six, seven and eight).

Matters raised during deliberations

24. During the consultation and engagement with community organisations on the draft policy and fund, staff advised community organisations not to put forward specific applications for funding in their submissions on the LTP, and instead to wait for the first formal funding round to open. However, some community organisations did make such requests which were subsequently considered as separate issues and options reports. This resulted in some organisations being “supported” or “referred” for funding while other organisations who did not make a specific request for funding (such as Ngāti Kaahu a Tamapahore Trust, Sustainable Bay of Plenty, Good Neighbour and The Elms all of whom who have expressed their intention to apply), did not receive the same opportunity.

25. Under the draft policy, all disbursement of monies from the fund will be based on an assessment of the application submitted as part of the funding round. This means that applications “supported” for funding are still required to apply and may not receive funding or the full amount requested when assessed against the funding criteria, and other applications. Staff have noted those organisations “supported” by Commissioners when identifying and confirming organisations for partnership agreements. This is further discussed in the financial considerations section below.

26. Inconsistent or unclear processes for funding community facilities (including recreational facilities) was identified as an issue within Council’s wider funding framework. The Active Reserves Level of Service Policy states that if a community organisation (such as a football club) owns a facility on our land, Council will provide funding for shared facilities such as toilets and changing rooms. A project established as part of the LTP deliberations to address community facilities funding will address these issues (amongst potentially other issues).

Options Analysis

27. As noted above, issues arising from submissions to the draft policy are as follows:

· retaining administration of the fund in-house;

· maximum grant amount allowable under the policy, for both grants and partnership agreements;

· apportioning fund equally across the four well-beings;

· ringfencing a portion of the fund for kaupapa Māori initiatives;

· allowing education providers to apply to the fund;

· allowing social enterprises and individuals to apply to the fund; and

· requiring applicants to match requested council contribution.

Issue 1 – Retain fund administration in Council or merge with other community providers

28. Some submissions cited the existence of other community funding providers and suggested council funding could be merged with those funds. The draft policy notes that the assessment panel will include an independent person from one of the community funding organisations.

29. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of merging the fund with other community providers.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
1.1	Merge fund with other community funding providers.	· Reduces administration costs. · It could be argued that the philanthropic funding organisations have more technical skills/expertise in this area.	· Limited visibility of Council support (may be interpreted as TECT or Acorn funding). · Funding decisions may not align with Council outcomes. · Potential that some organisations receive reduced funding.
1.2	Do not merge fund with other community funding providers. (Recommended)	· Visibility of Council funding in the community. · Funding decisions align with Council outcomes. · Inclusion of representative from community providers ensures collaboration on disbursement of fund and external expertise.	· Duplicated administration costs.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

1.1

Merge fund with other community funding providers.

· Reduces administration costs.

· It could be argued that the philanthropic funding organisations have more technical skills/expertise in this area.

· Limited visibility of Council support (may be interpreted as TECT or Acorn funding).

· Funding decisions may not align with Council outcomes.

· Potential that some organisations receive reduced funding.

1.2

Do not merge fund with other community funding providers.

(Recommended)

· Visibility of Council funding in the community.

· Funding decisions align with Council outcomes.

· Inclusion of representative from community providers ensures collaboration on disbursement of fund and external expertise.

· Duplicated administration costs.

Issue 2.1 – Maximum grant allowable under the policy

30. The draft policy proposes that the maximum grant available through the grant fund is $50,000. This figure was reached by determining that most applications for council funding are for less than $50,000. Partnership agreements may be for higher amounts and the draft policy does not stipulate a maximum amount.

31. The advantages and disadvantages of the options regarding the maximum available are outlined below.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
2.1.1	Maximum grant available is $50,000 (as in draft policy). (Recommended)	· Anticipated that most applications will be for an amount less than $50,000. · Recognises that Council is not the sole source of community funding.	· Some community organisations may desire more than $50,000.
2.1.2	Increase the maximum grant available.	· Nil	· Previous community grants rarely exceed $50,000 (except for capital grants). · Does not recognise that there are other community funding providers.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

2.1.1

Maximum grant available is $50,000 (as in draft policy).

(Recommended)

· Anticipated that most applications will be for an amount less than $50,000.

· Recognises that Council is not the sole source of community funding.

· Some community organisations may desire more than $50,000.

2.1.2

Increase the maximum grant available.

· Nil

· Previous community grants rarely exceed $50,000 (except for capital grants).

· Does not recognise that there are other community funding providers.

Issue 2.2 – Amount of partnership agreements

32. At present, the policy does not specify a maximum amount of any partnership agreements. Current funding agreements are for differing amounts reflecting the value and expectations of the relationship Council has for that organisation. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of specifying a maximum amount for partnership agreements in the policy.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
2.2.1	Policy does not specify maximum amount of partnership agreement (Recommended)	· Ensures that partnership agreements reflect the value and expectation of the relationship.	· Community organisations have less clarity on how much Council can fund.
2.2.2	Policy specifies a maximum amount of a partnership agreement	· Community organisations have clarity on how much Council can fund.	· Partnership agreements may not reflect the value and expectation of the relationship.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

2.2.1

Policy does not specify maximum amount of partnership agreement

(Recommended)

· Ensures that partnership agreements reflect the value and expectation of the relationship.

· Community organisations have less clarity on how much Council can fund.

2.2.2

Policy specifies a maximum amount of a partnership agreement

· Community organisations have clarity on how much Council can fund.

· Partnership agreements may not reflect the value and expectation of the relationship.

Issue 3 – Apportioning fund equally across the four well-beings

33. In developing the draft policy, it was noted that there is a perception that some sectors receive a disproportionate amount of council funding and therefore, the draft policy should respond to that perception by allocating the fund equally over the four well-beings. This view was shared in some submissions, for example, from Socialink.

34. While this perception was noted in a December 2020 Council report on community grant funding and the proposed fund, no recommendation was made on the issue. A matrix of existing community funding attached to that report showed that most grants were for projects with multiple well-being outcomes.

35. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of apportioning the fund over the four well-being areas.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
3.1	Apportion fund equally over the four well-beings.	· Perception that no area (for example, environment) receives less funding.	· Does not recognise that some projects may impact multiple well-being areas. · Potential to overspend in one area due to demand but underspend in a different area. · Potential increased administration costs for applicants to identify appropriate outcome area and staff to determine if that is the correct area.
3.2	Do not apportion fund equally over the four well-beings. (Recommended)	· Recognises that potential projects may have multiple outcomes. · Potentially less administrative burden for applicants as funding applications do not have to align with a particular outcome area.	· Potential perception that some areas receive less funding.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

3.1

Apportion fund equally over the four well-beings.

· Perception that no area (for example, environment) receives less funding.

· Does not recognise that some projects may impact multiple well-being areas.

· Potential to overspend in one area due to demand but underspend in a different area.

· Potential increased administration costs for applicants to identify appropriate outcome area and staff to determine if that is the correct area.

3.2

Do not apportion fund equally over the four well-beings.

(Recommended)

· Recognises that potential projects may have multiple outcomes.

· Potentially less administrative burden for applicants as funding applications do not have to align with a particular outcome area.

· Potential perception that some areas receive less funding.

Issue 4 – Ringfencing a portion of the fund for kaupapa Māori initiatives

36. While some feedback recorded opposition to initiatives that were seen to only benefit Māori, other submissions noted that kaupapa Māori initiatives could have wider benefits, particularly tourism projects. While the draft policy provides for iwi and hapū organisations to apply for funding, there is no provision ringfencing a portion of the fund for kaupapa Māori initiatives.

37. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of ringfencing a portion of the fund for kaupapa Māori initiatives.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
4.1	Ringfence a portion (10%) of the fund to support kaupapa Māori initiatives.	· Acknowledges obligations under Tiriti o Waitangi. · Acknowledges kaupapa Māori initiatives can have benefits for the wider community, such as tourism.	· Opposition to specific funding for Māori projects. · Potentially less funding available for other community-led projects.
4.2	Do not ringfence a portion of the fund to support kaupapa Māori initiatives. (Recommended)	· All funding remains available for community-led projects. · Acknowledges community opposition to funding for Māori projects. · Enables the fund to allocated based on the merits of the application which may be more or less than a specific ring-fenced portion.	· Limited acknowledgement of obligations under Tiriti o Waitangi.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

4.1

Ringfence a portion (10%) of the fund to support kaupapa Māori initiatives.

· Acknowledges obligations under Tiriti o Waitangi.

· Acknowledges kaupapa Māori initiatives can have benefits for the wider community, such as tourism.

· Opposition to specific funding for Māori projects.

· Potentially less funding available for other community-led projects.

4.2

Do not ringfence a portion of the fund to support kaupapa Māori initiatives.

(Recommended)

· All funding remains available for community-led projects.

· Acknowledges community opposition to funding for Māori projects.

· Enables the fund to allocated based on the merits of the application which may be more or less than a specific ring-fenced portion.

· Limited acknowledgement of obligations under Tiriti o Waitangi.

38. Should Council decide to ringfence a portion of the fund for kaupapa Māori initiatives, an additional provision will be added to the policy noting that “a portion of the community grant fund will be ring-fenced for kaupapa Māori initiatives”. This is shown highlighted at clause 5.3.7 in the attached draft policy.

Issue 5 – Allowing schools, not-for-profit early child education providers and kura to access funds

39. The definition of community organisations in the draft policy is “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 registered under the Charities Act 2005. Unless there are clearly justified reasons, membership or participation in its activities should be available to everyone who wishes to join”. This definition could exclude schools and early childhood education providers from accessing the fund.

40. The table below considers the advantages and disadvantages of allowing schools, not-for-profit early childhood education providers and kura to access the fund by noting them as an exception to the general provision that funding is only available to registered charitable entities.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
5.1	Allow schools, not-for-profit early childhood education providers and kura to access funding for initiatives that are not the core business of the institution or funded as part of the curriculum. (Recommended)	· Recognises the role of education providers in supporting wider community outcomes. · Aligns the Community Grant Fund to the current Match Fund criteria, where schools can access support from the Match Fund. · Acknowledges that council has provided funds to schools in the past. · Provides support for community-led projects in schools in our communities.	· Schools are funded by central government and potentially have access to other sources of funding.
5.2	Do not allow schools, early childhood education providers and kura to access funding (as in draft policy).	· Acknowledges that schools have other potential sources of funding.	· Some education-led projects with wider community outcomes may not be funded. · Does not acknowledge that council has provided funds to schools in the past.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

5.1

Allow schools, not-for-profit early childhood education providers and kura to access funding for initiatives that are not the core business of the institution or funded as part of the curriculum.

(Recommended)

· Recognises the role of education providers in supporting wider community outcomes.

· Aligns the Community Grant Fund to the current Match Fund criteria, where schools can access support from the Match Fund.

· Acknowledges that council has provided funds to schools in the past.

· Provides support for community-led projects in schools in our communities.

· Schools are funded by central government and potentially have access to other sources of funding.

5.2

Do not allow schools, early childhood education providers and kura to access funding (as in draft policy).

· Acknowledges that schools have other potential sources of funding.

· Some education-led projects with wider community outcomes may not be funded.

· Does not acknowledge that council has provided funds to schools in the past.

41. Should Council agree to option 5.1, “schools, kura and not-for-profit early childhood education providers” will be added to draft clause 5.1.8 to note that both schools, and iwi and hapū organisations are exceptions to the general rule that only community organisations able to call themselves registered charitable entities are able to access the grant fund. This recommended change is highlighted in the attached draft policy. A new provision (5.3.2 – highlighted) has been added clarifying that any funding for schools will be for projects outside the institution’s core business or not normally funded through curriculum or operating budgets.

Issue 6 – Allowing social enterprises to access funds

42. Clause 5.1.8 of the draft policy states that “Council does not fund limited liability companies or incorporated societies that are not registered charities”. This may exclude social enterprises from accessing the fund. Social enterprises are ‘hybrid organisations that trade goods and services in order to achieve their social, environmental, economic or cultural goals’. The December 2020 report recommended excluding social enterprises from being eligible from the fund. This recommendation reflected that the draft policy (and fund) is intended to provide funding to projects that originate from the community. However, submitters noted that social enterprises may be just as invested in delivering for the community as not-for-profit community organisations. Accountability measures could be put in place to ensure any profits from social enterprises were re-invested in the community.

43. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of allowing social enterprises to access the fund.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
6.1	Allow social enterprises to access funds by amending draft clause 5.1.8 to include an exception for social enterprises.	· A subset of groups with priorities and objectives that may support and achieve Council’s strategic priorities, and the community outcomes, would be able to potentially access funding from Council.	· Funding may be provided to projects that do not originate from the community. · Council could be seen to be providing funding to private enterprises, including companies with a for profit purpose.
6.2	Do not allow social enterprises to access funds. (Recommended)	· Ensures funds are directed to projects that originate from the community. · Council is not seen to be potentially providing funding to private enterprises.	· Social enterprises who may support priorities and objectives aligning with Council strategic priorities cannot access funding.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

6.1

Allow social enterprises to access funds by amending draft clause 5.1.8 to include an exception for social enterprises.

· A subset of groups with priorities and objectives that may support and achieve Council’s strategic priorities, and the community outcomes, would be able to potentially access funding from Council.

· Funding may be provided to projects that do not originate from the community.

· Council could be seen to be providing funding to private enterprises, including companies with a for profit purpose.

6.2

Do not allow social enterprises to access funds.

(Recommended)

· Ensures funds are directed to projects that originate from the community.

· Council is not seen to be potentially providing funding to private enterprises.

· Social enterprises who may support priorities and objectives aligning with Council strategic priorities cannot access funding.

Issue 7: Allowing individuals to apply to the community grant fund

44. One feedback point was noted suggesting individuals should be allowed to apply for funding. The advantages and disadvantages of this are outlined in the table below.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
7.1	Allow individuals to access funding.	· Potential that some projects with good community outcomes are supported.	· Risk to Council that an individual does not have the same structure for ensuring transparency and accountability of funds. · Assumption underpinning policy is that funded projects have wider community support and originate from the community.
7.2	Do not allow individuals to access funding. (Recommended)	· Mitigates any risk that individuals do not have the structure to ensure transparency and accountability of funds. · Ensures funded projects have wider community support.	· Potentially some projects with good community outcomes not supported.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

7.1

Allow individuals to access funding.

· Potential that some projects with good community outcomes are supported.

· Risk to Council that an individual does not have the same structure for ensuring transparency and accountability of funds.

· Assumption underpinning policy is that funded projects have wider community support and originate from the community.

7.2

Do not allow individuals to access funding.

(Recommended)

· Mitigates any risk that individuals do not have the structure to ensure transparency and accountability of funds.

· Ensures funded projects have wider community support.

· Potentially some projects with good community outcomes not supported.

Issue 8 – Requiring organisations to “match” the requested council funding

45. One feedback point was recorded suggesting that applicants should “match” any council contribution with their own funds. While this is fundamental to the Match Fund, the draft policy does not envision this applying to the Community Grant Fund given the higher amount of available funding. However, the draft policy encourages community organisations to not see Council as a seed and/or sole funder, and to seek complementary funding from other providers.

46. The advantages and disadvantages of requiring organisations to match funding is outlined in the table below.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
8.1	Require applicants to the Community Grant Fund to “match” any requested council funding.	· Ensures that Council is not funding all of a project.	· Applicants may not be able to “match” funds due to larger amounts being sought.
8.2	Do not require applicants to the Community Grant Fund to “match” any requested council funding. (Recommended)	· Acknowledgement already in draft policy that applicants to the Community Grant Fund should apply to other funders, as well as Council.	· Council may fund all of a project.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

8.1

Require applicants to the Community Grant Fund to “match” any requested council funding.

· Ensures that Council is not funding all of a project.

· Applicants may not be able to “match” funds due to larger amounts being sought.

8.2

Do not require applicants to the Community Grant Fund to “match” any requested council funding.

(Recommended)

· Acknowledgement already in draft policy that applicants to the Community Grant Fund should apply to other funders, as well as Council.

· Council may fund all of a project.

Strategic / Statutory Context

47. The proposed fund and draft policy are intended to support Council and the community to achieve strategic priorities and community outcomes.

Financial Considerations

48. An amount of $1.81 million was approved through the LTP for the operation of the community grant fund and partnership agreements, with an additional $150,000 allocated to support Match Fund applications. Initially, $1.31 million of the $1.81 million commitment will be rates-funded and $500,000 will be loan-funded, with the rates-funded portion increasing by $100,000 each year until the fund is fully rates-funded by the 2027 financial year. The loan-funded opex can only be expended on asset development, which may make disbursement of the fund difficult if few applications meet that criteria.

49. Through LTP deliberations, Council “referred” or “supported” several community organisations for funding to the value of $430,000 in year one of the LTP. As the distribution of the fund is contestable and based on criteria agreed through the policy, organisations supported for funding will still be required to submit an application. Those organisations may not receive funding or funding at the requested amount. This ensures that organisations (such as the Tauranga Youth Development Trust and Sustainable Bay of Plenty), who indicated they intend to apply to the fund but did not make a specific funding request, are considered on the same basis as those organisations (such as Age Concern) who put forward a funding request during the LTP.

50. A number of current community funding agreements expired at the end of June 2021. Staff will meet with those organisations to discuss next steps in regard to applying to the community grand fund or for a partnership agreement.

51. Depending on the number of applications and funding amount sought, the total amount of budget allocated to support the community grant fund and partnership agreements may need to be adjusted in future years through subsequent annual plan or long-term plan processes.

Legal Implications / Risks

52. A robust policy mitigates the risk of the fund being captured by community organisations with the “loudest” voices. The policy also addresses concerns raised by submitters that the fund could be used by staff or future elected members to fund their preferred projects.

53. In identifying additional funding for the Incubator Creative Hub, a suggestion was made that this money come from budget allocated to the community grant fund. There is a risk that guaranteeing a certain amount of money for one organisation from the fund goes against the general policy principles of fairness, transparency and equity, with other organisations potentially seeking the same treatment in the future.

54. Staff intend to use the SmartyGrants system to assess funding applications and monitor performance of fund recipients. This will allow us to have better oversight of those organisations receiving funding (avoiding potential double-dipping) and to ensure that applicants have met all the criteria of their grant before being approved for a grant in future years (or from a different council grant fund).

55. There are no legal implications arising from the recommendations or draft policy.

Consultation / Engagement

56. For expediency, consultation on the draft policy was run in parallel with the LTP consultation. A total of 15 submissions were received as part of the policy consultation.

57. Submissions on the proposed grant fund received through the LTP consultation also commented on issues addressed through the policy. These issues included the need for a robust and transparent process to allocating monies to community organisations.

58. A considerable amount of engagement with community organisations, philanthropic funders and Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana Partnership has taken place over the last two years through the development of the proposed fund and policy.

59. Through this engagement, it was proposed that the assessment panel should include an independent panel member from the philanthropic funders, and a panel member from Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana.

60. In February, the Community Partnerships team hosted two workshops for community organisations to introduce the fund and policy. Approximately 40 organisations attended the workshops. In addition, numerous communications explaining the proposed fund and policy were emailed out to the Community Partnerships database.

61. In developing the draft policy, staff met with representatives of the environmental and social sectors. Strong support was received for including partnership agreements in the draft policy.

62. Some issues raised in commentary on the proposed fund (such as provision of community facilities, playcentre funding or skate parks etc.) were resolved or advanced through the LTP deliberations process.

Significance

63. 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.

64. 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

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

66. A decision to allow schools to access the fund may be considered of medium significance as it affects a sub-group of the community, with the community grant fund itself being of moderate public interest.

ENGAGEMENT

67. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the matters are of medium significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision. The report and associated recommendations only address matters raised through the consultation and engagement process.

68. If the Commissioners decide to make additional changes to the policy (particularly changes that were not raised in submissions or addressed in earlier reports), consideration will need to be given to whether further engagement is required under the Local Government Act 2002.

Next Steps

69. Should the proposed fund be confirmed through the LTP, it is anticipated that the first Community Grant Fund round will be held in September 2021, with funds disbursed prior to Christmas 2021. The assessment panel’s decision on funding recipients will be provided to Council for information.

70. The draft policy states it will be reviewed every three years to align with the LTP planning cycle. However, there may be a need to review the policy earlier as part of a comprehensive review of council’s funding framework. Such a review could consider, inter alia, options for specific funds to support Māori outcomes and marae development, rental subsidies and leases, and other council grants fund (e.g. Event Funding Framework).

71. An earlier review of the policy many also be required, once we understand community need and interest, particularly interest in partnership agreements. Any review of community funding will be led by the Community Partnerships team supported by other council teams as necessary.

Attachments

1. Draft Community Funding Policy 2021 - A12682088 ⇩

2. Community funding framework - A12682255 ⇩

3. Summary of feedback points - A12628042 ⇩

4. Submissions to Community Funding Policy - A12681222 ⇩

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

12 July 2021

Attachment three: Summary of feedback points on supporting community grant fund

Submission number	Issue	Response
20, 48, 56, 78, 104, 115, 128, 130, 167, 225, 243, 255, 309, 320, 354, 355, 357, 358, 390, 398, 405, 411, 417, 456, 498, 822, 1167, 1231, 1239, 1278, 1279, 1315, 1344, 1397, 1411, 1432, 1453, 1512, 1514, 1517, 1519, 1553, 1556, 1562, 1565, 1567, 1581, 1609, 1629, 1642, 1687, 1689, 1696, 1700, 1705	General support	A decision to have a community grant fund of $1.81 million was made during the LTP deliberations. 1.
2, 94, 131, 401, 477	Support the new approach, noting that in the past the “loudest” organisation have received the most support or will improve transparency
7, 84, 679, 682, 725, 920. 1227, 1369, 1373, 1604, 1630
Support but suggests the amount is low
103, 155, 158, 163, 233, 703, 1172, 1644	Support but should be increased
259, 347	Support but have a cap or limit on the fund amount
83, 163, 210, 238, 255, 259, 723, 831, 924, 1215, 1261, 1304, 1309, 1400, 1546, 1617, 1626, 1638, 1659, 1685, 1739	Supports but with transparency and clear benefits to community, and criteria	No separate discussion on this issue. However, the draft policy is intended to ensure that there is appropriate transparency and oversight of the community grant fund.
212, 258, 259, 347, 402, 911, 1444	Conditional support (eg, independent assessment, duplication of funding with other charities) flexibility
39, 109, 407, 531, 570, 591, 1392, 1429, 1512, 1611, 1671, 1699	Combine the funds with existing community funders such as TECT or Acorn and / or collaborate with these providers	This issue is discussed as part of issue 1 – retaining fund in Council or merging with other community funding providers
72	Support but fund should be independently administered
570	Distribute through lotteries
1784	Support but fund should be distributed through lead sector agencies
1512, 1519	Organisations should also have funds raised	The Match Fund guidelines require that organisations put up a similar contribution to the requested funding amount. Issue 8 considers whether this should also be a requirement of applicants to the proposed community grant fund.
1131	Supports as other charitable funds (gambling trusts) hard to get	No specific comment.
417, 1036, 1104	Support but notes limited info understanding of current situation	No specific comment.
1172, 1724, 1175	Notes existing funding or support and signals intention to apply to fund	Funding for existing organisations is noted in the report and attachment 1.
131, 1172, 1300, 1373	Supports longer-term relationships	Partnership agreements are supported through the draft policy (draft provision 5.5).
410	Do not support but supports strategic partnerships
4, 456, 1175, 1319, 1407, 1408, 1694, 1724	Specific request for funding or acknowledgement of existing funding	Specific requests for funding were addressed during the LTP deliberations with some referred to the community grant fund.
41, 83, 145	Support but note increased administration costs	This issue is discussed as part of issue 1– retaining fund in Council or merging with other community funding providers
593, 1671	Support but start with lower amount	A decision to have a community grant fund of $1.81 million was made during the LTP deliberations.
766	Support but notes other council priorities as well
41	Prioritise smaller clubs and organisations	Ringfencing of funds for specific purposes is discussed as part of issue 3 – Apportioning fund equally across the four well-beings 2.
406	Designated “bucket” of funds for community purposes
1604, 1699
Balanced amongst the well-beings
21, 702, 1111
Targeted support for environment and climate change projects
701, 703, 732	Targeted support for arts
236, 1371, 1243,1538	Funds should be made available to support projects with Māori outcomes (such as tourism projects or feasibility works to establish papakainga)	This issue is discussed as part of issue 4 – Ringfencing a portion of the fund for kaupapa Māori initiatives
478, 656, 716	Targeted funds for community sport or community facilities	Investment in community facilities is subject to separate issues and options reports. Provision for skate parks was considered as part of the LTP deliberations.
225, 354, 398	Funds should be made available for a skate park
99, 1282, 1306, 1687	Support and note specific projects
1100	Support but allow schools to apply	This issue is discussed as part of issue 5 – allowing schools, kura and not for profit early childhood education providers
702, 1605, 1644, 1733	Support but allow social enterprises to apply	This issue is discussed as part of issue 6 – allow social enterprises to access funds
1611	Support but allow individuals to apply	This issue is discussed as part of issue 7 – allow individuals to access funds
24, 29, 37, 60, 63, 66, 70, 113, 117 169, 179. 183, 222, 590, 595, 730, 1211, 1258, 1259, 1273, 1381, 1570, 1603, 1701, 1702, 1741	Do not support – other investment priorities and not council core business	A decision to have a community grant fund of $1.81 million was made during the LTP deliberations. 3.
1233	Do not support as not transparent in the past
8
Do not support – local business should support
5, 396, 1343,
Do not support – charities should seek support from community
45
Do not support – individual should support through their preferred charity
263
Do not support as charities should raise own funds
831
Targeted rate for community grants
296
Do not support as amount should be decreased
290, 706, 1423	Do not support as other funders	This issue is discussed as part of issue 1 – Retaining administration of fund in Council or merging with other community funding providers
1387	Do not support as needs robust rules	No separate discussion on this issue. However, the draft policy is intended to ensure that there is appropriate transparency and oversight of the community grant fund.
568	Do not support as might be way to fund museum	No discussion on this issue as part of this report but addressed elsewhere as part of the LTP deliberations.
256, 580, 1543	Do not support as will fund Māori	This issue is discussed as part of issue 4 – Ringfencing a portion of the fund for kaupapa Māori initiatives
23, 137, 189, 192, 421,588, 1178	Do not support as no information on existing funding	4. Information on the fund, impact on rates, and associated policy were included as part of the LTP consultation document.
9, 71, 137, 192, 421, 596, 660, 661, 918, 1659	Neutral – more fund or cost information
442,	Neutral – there are other priorities	A decision to have a community grant fund of $1.81 million was made during the LTP deliberations.

[1] Ward names are placeholders only and feedback on names of wards can be asked for during the pre-engagement phase.


AGENDA Ordinary Council Meeting Monday, 12 July 2021
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held on:
Date:	Monday, 12 July 2021
Time:	10.30am
Location:	Tauranga City Council Council Chambers 91 Willow Street Tauranga
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz.
Marty Grenfell Chief Executive

Chairperson	Commission Chair Anne Tolley
Members	Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston Commissioner Stephen Selwood Commissioner Bill Wasley
Quorum	Half of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.
Meeting frequency	As required

· To ensure the effective and efficient governance of the City

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

· Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

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