AGENDA

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

Monday, 26 July 2021

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

Date:

Monday, 26 July 2021

Time:

1.30pm

Location:

Tauranga City Council

Council Chambers

91 Willow Street

Tauranga

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

Marty Grenfell

Chief Executive

 


Terms of reference – Council

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

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

Role

·         To ensure the effective and efficient governance of the City

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

Scope

·         Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

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

·         The powers Council is legally prohibited from delegating include:

o   Power to make a rate.

o   Power to make a bylaw.

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

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

o   Power to appoint a chief executive.

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

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

·         Council has chosen not to delegate the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural matters

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

·         Adoption of Standing Orders.

·         Receipt of Joint Committee minutes.

·         Approval of Special Orders.

·         Employment of Chief Executive.

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

Regulatory matters

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

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 July 2021

 

Order of Business

1          Opening Karakia. 7

2          Apologies. 7

3          Public Forum.. 7

4          Acceptance of Late Items. 7

5          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 7

6          Change to the Order of Business. 7

7          Confirmation of Minutes. 8

7.1            Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 14 June 2021. 8

7.2            Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 24 June 2021. 52

8          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 88

9          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 88

Nil

10       Recommendations from Other Committees. 88

Nil

11       Business. 89

11.1          Adopt Tauranga City Council Long-term Plan 2021-2031. 89

11.2          2021/2022 Rates Resolution. 96

11.3          Adoption of the Final 2021/22 Development Contributions Policy. 103

11.4          Borrowing Programme 2021-2022. 106

11.5          2021-2031 Long-term Plan - Other topics. 110

11.6          Adoption of Community Funding Policy. 117

12       Discussion of Late Items. 142

13       Public Excluded Session. 142

Nil

14       Closing Karakia. 142

 

 


1            Opening Karakia

2            Apologies

3            Public Forum  

4            Acceptance of Late Items

5            Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

6            Change to the Order of Business


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 July 2021

 

7            Confirmation of Minutes

7.1         Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 14 June 2021

File Number:           A12702276

Author:                    Jenny Teeuwen, Committee Advisor

Authoriser:             Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 14 June 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 14 June 2021 

  


UnconfirmedOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes

14 June 2021

 

 

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting

Monday, 14 June 2021

Tuesday, 15 June 2021

Wednesday, 16 June 2021

Thursday, 17 June 2021

Friday, 18 June 2021

 


Order of Business

1          Opening Karakia. 3

2          Apologies. 3

3          Declaration of conflicts of interest 3

4          Business. 4

4.1            2021-2031 Long-term Plan - Hearings 14-18 June 2021. 4

5          Closing Karakia. 43

 

 
MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council Ordinary Council Meeting HELD ON:

Monday, 14 June 2021, 9am                  Te Whetu O Te Rangi Marae, 612 Welcome Bay Road, Tauranga

Tuesday, 15 June 2021, 9.30am            Tauranga City Council, Council Chambers, 91 Willow Street, Tauranga

Wednesday, 16 June 2021, 9.30am       Club Mount Maunganui, 45 Kawaka Street, Mt Maunganui

Thursday, 16 June 2021, 8am                Tauranga City Council, Council Chambers, 91 Willow Street, Tauranga

Friday, 18 June 2021, 8am                     Tauranga City Council, Council Chambers, 91 Willow Street, Tauranga

 

 

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), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Carlo Ellis (Manager: Strategic Māori Engagement), Cynthia Hamel (Kaiarahi Māori), Keren Paekau (Team Leader: Takawaenga Māori), Mererina Murray (Pae Arahi), Joel Peters (Team Leader: Engagement), Brooke Lavery (Team Leader: Communications), Harry Mayer-Singh (Team Leader: Creative & Digital), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor) and Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor)

 

 

Monday, 14 June 2021 at 9am

 

At 9.00am Commission Chair Anne Tolley opened the meeting at the gate of the Te Whetu o te Rangi Marae.

 

At 9.01am, the meeting was adjourned for the powhiri to take place.

 

Ms Rahera Ohia, Ms Matire Duncan and other iwi/hapu speakers addressed the Commissioners regarding the Long-term Plan and other issues.

 

At 10.50am, the meeting resumed.

 

1            Opening Karakia

The 14 June 2021 session was opened with a karakia.

 

2            Apologies

Nil

3            Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

4            Business

4.1         2021-2031 Long-term Plan - Hearings 14-18 June 2021

Resolution  CO10/21/1

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the written submissions to the draft 2021-2031 Long-term Plan.

(b)     Receives and accepts submission numbers 1789-1814 that were received after submissions closed at 4pm on 7 June 2021.

Carried

 

The following members of the public spoke to their submission to the draft 2021-2031 Long Term Plan (LTP).

 

A copy of all presentations and documents tabled at the 2021-2031 LTP submission hearings can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s (TCC) website at the below link:

https://www.tauranga.govt.nz/council/council-documents/long-term-plans/long-term-plan-2021-31/long-term-plan-2021-2031-tabled-documents-and-presentations

 

(1)          Submission 375 – Rolph Hediger – Incubator

Mr Hediger was a young artist and spoke in support of the Incubator.  He had been involved with the Incubator for several years as a volunteer and as part of an art group.  The Incubator had encouraged and enabled Mr Hediger to do things he had thought he would be unable to do.  The Incubator offered a feeling of belonging and offered a way to help young people experiencing social problems. 

 

(2)          Submission 49 – Stephen Lasslett

Mr Lasslett spoke to his submission regarding Taumata School in Pyes Pa and the lack of sporting and recreational facilities for the school.  The school had one playground for 500 plus children.  He suggested the adjacent neighbourhood reserve be split up; one share for reserve and one share for school recreational facilities.  The community was in support of the proposal.  The school was able to provide for parking and would be able to provide funding to set up the recreational facilities.  Access to the reserve would be through the school; however, the school had security monitoring and CCTV cameras and Mr Lasslett believed public access through the school grounds would not be an issue.

Submission 49 - Presentation and tabled document.

 

(3)          Submission 1818 - Chris Nepia - Te Reti B & C Residue Trust

Mr Nepia spoke to the Te Reti B & C Residue Trust submission regarding the Trust land being developed as papakainga.  17 houses were currently on the land but providing additional housing was restricted by the access on to Cambridge Road.  The Trust could provide a further 24 houses if the entrance was widened and was seeking support from Council to construct the widening of the entrance.  There was no timeframe to get the work done but demand for housing was there.  The Trust’s income from rent effectively only covered the rates.

 

(4)          Puhirake Ihaka - Ngāti Tapu – late submission

Mr Ihaka spoke about the 2009 Matapihi Land Use Plan.  The plan was to enable the whenua to be developed as papakainga.  The plan was for 10 years and Mr Ihaka requested that a review be undertaken of the Plan because the original concept did not meet the papakainga requirements of today.  The review would take into account issues experienced over the past 10 years with water, wastewater and roading to bring them up to today’s standards.  Access to the papakainga areas would also need to be addressed.  Reviewed plans were presented to the TCC/Tangata Whenua joint standing committee, and then to council for approval.

 

(5)          Submission 128 – Sally Quaddel

Ms Quaddel spoke to her suggestion for a movable platform/stage in the CBD, possibly in Red Square, where school students could perform.  Ms Quaddel believed this would bring people into the city to see performances, start conversations and get people interested.  It was envisioned that the acts would continually change as different schools became involved.  In terms of transport, faster, speedier transport was required; smaller buses, going to more places, and a bus service that did a continual circuit around the city centre.

 

(6)          Submission 155 – Jodie Robertson - Kāinga Tupu Taskforce

Representatives from Wise Property Solutions, Bay Trust, Te Puni Kokiri and Corrections spoke to the Kāinga Tupu Taskforce submission.  The vision of the Taskforce was that homelessness in the Western Bay of Plenty was prevented where possible or was rare, brief and non-reoccurring.  The Taskforce supported the proposed change to the Development Contributions (DCs) policy but believed that amount proposed to be set aside for social housing would not be enough.  The Taskforce would like to see continued support from TCC for the coordination function.

 

(7)          Submission 415 – Gillian Cook - Society for Co-operative Housing New Zealand (SCoopNZ)

Ms Cook spoke to the lack of social/community housing in Tauranga.  SCoopNZ represented people who were between those that could afford to buy a house and those who couldn’t or were homeless, and wanted people to be more resilient in their homes.  SCoopNZ did not want to see Tauranga City Council (TCC) opt out of elder housing and suggested TCC employ community liaison staff specifically for housing.

 

At 12.30pm, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 1.10pm, the meeting resumed.

 

(8)          Submission 1294 – Janet Freeman  - Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) Tauranga

Ms Freeman took the submission as read and asked if the Commissioners had any questions.

In response to questions

·               CAB wanted to be part of the civic centre redevelopment.

·               The satellite office in Papamoa would be open once a week, starting in July.

·               CAB provided Justice of the Peace (JP) clinics.

·               Additional funding had been requested to replace outdated equipment.

 

(9)          Submission 1508 – David Riley and Dr Lesley Lyons-McAdam - Child Poverty Action Group Western Bay of Plenty

Mr Riley and Dr Lyons-McAdam spoke to the Child Poverty Action Group Western Bay of Plenty submission.  The Child Poverty Action Group wanted to see a greater emphasis on children and young people, particularly those living in material hardship.  They encouraged TCC to look at an approach taken by Porirua City (Porirua City report provided with submission).

 

(10)        Submission 1444 – John Wood

Mr Wood spoke to his submission about Council’s history of spending and wasting public money.  He used the removal of the Maleme Street slip line in to Cameron Road and the black plastic rubbish bags printed with the council logo and rubbish information as examples.  Mr Wood believed an audit was needed on everything that was being proposed to determine whether expenditure was warranted.

 

(11)        Submission 1374 – Ian Skelton

Mr Skelton spoke to the traffic and housing issues Tauranga was facing.  He believed TCC needed to be more creative with transport planning e.g. use light rail.  He suggested alternative options for housing e.g. the racecourse and the airport and requested that the waterfront be revitalised and inner city parks and green spaces be protected.

Submission 1374 - Tabled document.

 

(12)        Submission 1565 – Joel Ngātuere - Whareroa Marae and Community

Mr Ngātuere spoke to the Whareroa Marae and Community submission.  Capital expenditure over the past 60 years for the port, airport, harbour bridge and heavy industry had been to the cost of the Whareroa Marae and community, who were suffering from air pollution.  The Whareroa Marae and Community would like to see the removal of all heavy industry in the area and requested that Council take action and make deliberate decisions to change the outlook of the heavy industrial zone.  The footprint could be better utilised for all people, not just Māori, and could provide more green space and better access to the water.

In response to questions

·               The Whareroa Marae and Community wanted Totara Street, south of Hewletts Road, rezoned to residential so that no more heavy industry could push into the area.

·               A large portion of the airport land was taken under the Public Works Act and any change to the use of the land would need to be unpacked with mana whenua.

 

(13)        Submission 1514 – Andrew Thorpe - Bike Tauranga

Mr Thorpe spoke to the Bike Tauranga submission that was in support of the $185 million provision in the LTP for the accessible streets programme for walking and cycling; it was necessary and appropriate.  Traffic volumes were increasing and cycling was a big part of the solution.  Safe cycle infrastructure was less than 20% of the cost of roading infrastructure per kilometre, and the carbon emission per kilometre of travel on a bicycle was less than one tenth of the equivalent person travelling in car.

Submission 1514 – Presentation.

 

(14)        Submission 1580 – Danielle Fong

Ms Fong spoke to her submission which was in opposition to the Forrester Drive walkway, stating that the sea walls were not fit for purpose and in need of repair.  She suggested Tye Park or the Rangataua Street entry to the estuary be developed as alternative water access points.  She also noted that not much had been allocated to Welcome Bay in the LTP and suggested including an upgrade of Waipuna Park to include a mountain bike track, a skatepark and pump track, a multi-aged outdoor gym, and picnic tables and barbeques.

Submission 1580 – Presentation.

 

(15)        Submission 1660 – Russell Langton

Mr Langton spoke to his submission which was in support of a 50 metre swimming pool complex in Tauranga suitable for hosting and running national and international events; either the expansion of an existing facility or a new facility.  He preferred the expansion of the Baywave facility as this was centrally located and it was probably a more cost effective option.

 

(16)        Submission 1635 – Chris McClimans - ii.coop

Mr McClimans spoke about his Software Blueprint programme and the benefits it could provide to TCC.  He would like to be involved in TCC software discussions.

Submission 1635 - Presentation.

 

(17)        Submission 1282 – Raukura Muller

Ms Muller spoke to her submission that requested Council consider providing a Youth Centre in Arataki; a place for young people to hang out and where food, events, counselling, and health checks were provided.  The Arataki area was chosen as it was central to Tauranga.  Ms Muller requested that young people be included to help design the Youth Centre if it was to go ahead.

 

(18)        Submission 382 – Marie Petersen – Incubator

Ms Petersen spoke in support of the Incubator and arts and culture in Tauranga.  The community’s cultural needs needed to be included in city planning.  Tauranga needed to accept all of its history.  Ms Petersen requested that Council thought bi-culturally when looking at the cultural needs of the city.

 

(19)        Submission 1392 – Raymond Lowe

Mr Lowe spoke to his submission regarding the roading and transport issues Tauranga was facing.  Roads were already cluttered and building more houses would only add to this.  He suggested that the port needed to be encouraged to consider alternatives e.g. inland ports, and use of electric trains to mitigate noise pollution.  He also suggested that Welcome Bay could support more subdivisions if the road out to the east was significantly improved.  Mr Lowe would like to see a supermarket in Welcome Bay.

 

At 3.15pm, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 3.45pm, the meeting resumed.

 

(20)        Submission 1407 – Mary Dillon and Laura Wragg - Envirohub BOP

Ms Dillon  and Ms Wragg spoke to the Envirohub BOP submission.  Envirohub was a small not-for-profit organisation based at the Historic Village and one of 18 independent environment centres around New Zealand.  Envirohub supported over 80 conservation green hands and sustainable living groups throughout the Bay of Plenty through facilitation of training opportunities, promotion of activities and networking opportunities.  Envirohub’s message was well-received by the community.

Submission 1407 - Video presentation.  A copy of the video presentation can be obtained directly from Envirohub.

 

(21)        Submission 1408 – Laura Wragg - Predator Free BOP

Ms Wragg spoke to the Predator Free BOP submission.  Predator Free BOP was a backyard rat and stoat trapping group whose aim was to bring back native birds to Tauranga and the Western Bay.  Rats were widespread across Tauranga and there was currently a wait list for 200 trapping tunnels.  Predator BOP currently had over 1,800 volunteers; 25,000 volunteer hours per year.  The funding requested would enable expansion of the Matua programme to include monitoring and data collection as well as the establishment of a trap library to be rolled out across the city.

Submission 1408 - Video presentation.  A copy of the video presentation can be obtained directly from Predator Free BOP.

 

(22)        Submission 1319 – Karla Akuhata - Waiariki Park Region

Ms Akuhata spoke to the Waiariki Park Region submission.  Waiariki Park Region was a new environmental initiative whose goal was to create a greener, healthier, wilder, more resilient region.  They were developing a regional toolkit to help accelerate environmental action and requested funding from TCC to help establish an eight person team as part of the toolkit.  What work was undertaken and what could be implemented would be dependent on what funding was received overall for the initiative.  The initiative was essentially supersizing what Envirohub and Predator Free were doing while centralising resources to get more efficiency and effectiveness.

Submission 1319 – Presentation.

 

(23)        Submission 1783 – Chris Ingram

Mr Ingram spoke to his submission which was in support of improving safety for recreational cyclists in Tauranga.  There were currently no up-to-date cycleway maps for Tauranga.  Mr Ingram had created 10 maps for the city which included distance, time and amenities.  He was seeking cooperation and assistance from TCC to put these onto a city-wide map to be made available in i-Sites, and on devices etc.

 

(24)        Submission 1601 – Tanya Horo - TM Horo Management and BOPAS LTD

Ms Horo spoke to the TM Horo Management and BOPAS LTD submission which was about the film industry in Tauranga.  BOPAS Ltd was a community endeavour that taught actors in film and TV work, and had also brought TV commercials to Tauranga.  There was overseas interest in what was being done in Tauranga but there was no infrastructure.  Ms Horo requested more inclusion with Council to see what could be achieved together and, in particular, how Council might assist with getting people together to consider the next steps to build the industry in Tauranga.

 

(25)        Submission 1682 – Tauriko Playcentre

Representatives of the Tauriko Playcentre, who were accompanied by many children who attended the Playcentre, spoke to their submission.  The land where the playcentre was currently situated was being redeveloped as part of the Tauriko West development and new premises were needed.  Their current lease ended in 2024.  The Playcentre wanted to work with TCC, Waka Kotahi and the Ministry of Education to find bigger premises in the same community.

Submission 1682 - Tabled documents.

 

(26)        Submission 1629 – Terry Molloy

Mr Molloy spoke to his submission.  A vision and a plan was needed for the CBD.  If the community had confidence in the plan they would support it.  The waterfront was the jewel in Tauranga’s crown and needed to be revitalised and better utilised.  The walkway from Memorial Park to the CBD was a must and needed to happen.  Mr Molloy supported what was being done with transport but considered more buses, bus lanes, cycleways, and a bus interchange were needed.

 

(27)        Submission 1733 – Jo Allum - Venture Centre

Ms Allum spoke to the Venture Centre submission.  Venture Centre represented the entrepreneurs of Tauranga Moana.  Ms Allum encouraged the Commissioners and TCC executives to see the people of the Venture Centre community as a resource to create great things.  Investors interested in investing for outcomes as well as returns were ready to invest in Tauranga and the people here, attracted by the city environment, and the city’s wealth of entrepreneurial human capital.

 

(28)        Submissions 1401, 1403 and 1405 - Jeff Fletcher

Mr Fletcher spoke to submissions 1401,1403 and 1405.  The submissions supported the investment in the LTP for Papamoa East and Te Tumu, in particular, the Papamoa East Interchange (PEI).  The future Kaituna link was critical for the future and planning and the required future land designations should be included in this LTP.  The Tumu Kaituna 14 Trust wanted to work with council for a rates remission under the recently announced Rating of Whenua Maori Amendment Act 2021.  The Te Atea reserve was a proposed multi use reserve, complemented by a small neighbourhood centre and childcare centre, to be developed by Nga Potiki.  It was consented and ready to go.  The submission requested capital investment funding for an increased level of service that the neighbourhood reserve would provide.  If capital investment funding was not provided, the level of amenities provided would have to be revisited.

 

(29)        Submission 1610 – Te Pio Kawe - Reweti & Te Pere Whanau Trust

Mr Kawe spoke to the Reweti & Te Pere Whanau Trust submission regarding the need for more papakainga housing in Tauranga.  The provision for social and affordable housing through the development contributions policy provided great opportunities for Māori land trusts and Community Housing Providers (CHPs) to provide affordable housing options and address an increasing waiting list.  Mr Kawe wanted to highlight that there were Māori Land Trusts that had an income source and those that did not.  All had papakainga housing aspirations, and requested that council take this into consideration when administering the fund.

 

(30)        Submission 1752 – Don Rodee – MARS Matahui Avocado Resort Spa

Mr Rodee spoke to the MARS Matahui Avocado Resort Spa submission regarding the need for an attraction for the city.  He suggested a lighting project for the harbour and rail bridges with instantaneously changing lights in all kinds of colours.  The lights would reflect on the water and would be visual from not only the waterfront but further away.  The project could be community funded by businesses advertising their business through the scheme.

Submission 1752 - Tabled document.

 

(31)        Submission 1609 – Katrina Ramage - The Eye of the Storm

Ms Ramage spoke to her submission about how to make the best of investors coming into Tauranga and making it home, as opposed to investors that did not live here.  She tabled a paper that defined and talked about hard to reach communities; people who were not engaged.  Investment in vision was key and the way forward.  It required a region-wide governance structure with Tauranga as its heart.

Submission 1609 - Tabled document.

 

 

Te Pio Kawe closed the 14 June 2021 session with a karakia.

 

At 6.25pm, the meeting adjourned.  The meeting would resume at 9.30am on Tuesday 15 June 2021.

 

 

Continuation of meeting – Tuesday, 15 June 2021 at 9.30am

 

At 9.30am, the meeting resumed.

 

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston opened the session with a karakia.

 

(32)        Submission 71 – John O'Neill

Mr O’Neill spoke to his submission.  He accepted that rates had to go up but this should not happen because of mistakes made and mismanagement by the previous council.  He requested changing facilities on the Strand for harbour swimmers.  Such a facility would encourage others to come down and swim.

 

(33)        Submission 1436 – Larry Baldock 

Mr Baldock spoke to his submission, in particular that more reserves were needed in Pyes Pa.  He strongly supported the Memorial Park/Strand walkway and strongly recommended that Council take a fresh look at an international hotel/conference centre in the CBD/Durham Street.  Mr Baldock believed the general community feeling on the proposed rates increase was positive but ratepayers wanted to get value for money.

 

(34)        Submission 340 – Kenneth White – Incubator

Mr White spoke in support of the Incubator.  He had been a volunteer at the Incubator since its inception.  The Incubator had thrived in a somewhat challenging environment and had invigorated the arts community and the Historic Village.  The Village was now more vibrant and had more visitors.

 

(35)        Submission 55 – Heidi Hughes - Wednesday Challenge Team

Ms Hughes spoke to the Wednesday Challenge Team submission.  The Wednesday Challenge project promoted alternative ways to travel on Wednesdays.  The project aimed to get 20% mode share shift one day a week within a year.  Carbon emissions could be reduced by 1% if the 20% mode share shift for one day a week was achieved.  An App would be developed to help people choose options, how to car pool, how to get points and rewards.  The Wednesday Challenge Team already had collaborations throughout the city.

In response to questions

·               There was also the opportunity to achieve organisational shift with the increasing significance of working from home.

·               The funding request was for one year only.  Indicative funding from BOPRC was dependent on whether TCC and Waka Kotahi came on board.  The project would not run if funding was not available.

Submission 55 – Presentation.

 

(36)        Submission 70 – Greg Bold - Juted Holdings Ltd. T/as Tauranga Mitre 10 Mega.

Mr Bold spoke to the Juted Holdings Ltd submission regarding the transport and congestion issues facing the city.  He challenged the Commissioners to drive and travel the city at all times of the day to fully understand the transportation crisis.  Mr Bold was disappointed that he had not been consulted on the Cameron Rd Stage One project because his business was not on that part of Cameron Road.  He did not believe that mode shift would give the predicted results and he was not confident that Tauranga was moving in the right direction.

 

(37)        Submission 141 – Hester Sutherland-Stacey

Ms Sutherland-Stacey spoke to her submission.  She did not support the proposed commercial rates differential, but supported the decision to sell off elder housing; however, it was important that they were not sold at a discounted rate but for their best value.

 

(38)        Submission 1625 - Angelina Cooke

Ms Cooke spoke to her submission regarding the footpath on Harbour Drive.  She believed the footpath should be for walkers, not cyclists; and the shared pathway did not work as cyclists very rarely gave way to pedestrians.  Requested that Council separate the walkway and cycleway.

Submission 1625 - Tabled document.

 

(39)        Submission 195 – Noeline Cresswell

Ms Cresswell spoke to her submission regarding the Golden Sands village where she lived.  She could not understand why the rates were so different when all the houses, land and gardens were the same.

 

(40)        Submission 453 – Abhishek Mukherjee

Mr Mukherjee spoke in opposition to the increase in city-wide development contributions (DCs).  He was in the process of having a house built.  The section had already been purchased and he was awaiting building consent.  The increase in DCs would extend his budget by $16,000.  He had already borrowed the maximum from the bank and if the increase in DCs went through, he would not be able to afford the house and would have to go back to renting.  Mr Abhishek requested that Council extend the 1 August deadline for those already halfway through the process.

 

(41)        Submission 456 – Dave White - Water Safety Bay of Plenty

Catherine McCulloch, Community Manager at Sport Bay of Plenty, spoke in place of Dave White who was unable to attend.  Ms McCulloch took the Commissioners through the presentation.

 

In response to questions

·               Water Safety Bay of Plenty worked with schools on water safety and survival skills.

·               Funding from Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) was expected but not yet confirmed.  Funding from BOPRC had been confirmed.

·               Evidence of the programme working would be the decrease in drownings over time.

Submission 456 – Presentation.

 

At 11.19am, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 12.00pm, the meeting resumed.

 

(42)        Submission 426 – Teresa Pettigrew – Incubator

Ms Pettigrew spoke in support of ongoing funding of the Incubator.  The funding they received today would go to the arts for the future.

 

(43)        Submission 463 – John Paine - The ReMaker Space

Mr Paine spoke to the ReMaker Space submission.  The ReMaker Space had been set up a year ago.  The year of experimentation was appreciated and they were now ready to move on to the next steps.  They were working with Priority One for funding and had received Creative NZ funding.  The ReMaker Space needed to find a permanent space and were requesting support from Council to continue.  A new space needed to be secured for at least a year after October.

Submission 463 – Presentation.

 

(44)        Submission 1264 – Pauline Bennett/Lois King - National Council of Women Tauranga

Ms Bennett and Ms King spoke to the National Council of Women Tauranga submission which centred on factors that influenced optimal community and affordable housing.  They would like an increase to the threshold for rates relief, and sought reassurance about the relocation of the elderly from Pitau Road and other elder housing sites.

 

(45)        Submission 1628 – Sonya Korohina

Ms Korohina spoke to her submission and played a brief video.  The project shown in the video was called Echoes Tauranga Moana and was part of the Tauranga Arts Festival.  The project had been in partnership with the Tauranga Library’s digital archive and heritage collection.  It was a fresh way to document our history, places, people and taonga.  Ms Korohina requested that the Commissioners be bold in leadership and decision making for the arts sector and re-consider a museum.

In response to questions

·               A gap for the Toi Moana work in 2017 was a governance/steering group for the implementation of the strategy.

·               Creative Bay of Plenty had been chosen as the agency to deliver the strategy.  In hindsight, if TCC had retained ownership for the strategy delivery, there may have been a better chance to drive the outcomes of the strategy.

Submission 1628 - Presentation.

 

(46)        Submission 355 – Adrian Blake-Palmer

Mr Palmer spoke to his submission and represented skateboard riders of the Bay of Plenty.  Skateboarding was a popular pastime, easy and affordable, and had a loyal following.  It was great for fitness, coordination, friendship, and overall it was fun.  The atmosphere at skate parks was encouraging, supportive and beneficial for youth.  Mr Palmer would like to see a new, larger skatepark build in Tauranga similar to the Victoria Skatepark in Auckland.

Submission 355 – Presentation and tabled document.

 

 

(47)        Submission 379 – Ayesha Kee/Craig Jamieson – Incubator

Ms Kee and Mr Jamieson spoke in support of the Incubator.  There was no need to re-invent the wheel; the Incubator was already there.

 

(48)        Submissions 395 and 556 – Jannine Spiers

Ms Spiers spoke to two submissions; in support of the community cinema at the Incubator, and Tauranga Independent Film which had recently been set up to support grassroots content creators in the Bay of Plenty, concentrating on Tauranga.  Tauranga Independent Film were looking for support from Council to go to next level.

Submissions 395 and 556 - Tabled document.

 

(49)        Submission 1099 – Anne Pankhurst - Tarnished Frocks and Divas, Chamber of Commerce

Ms Pankhurst spoke to her submission.  She welcomed the review of Bay Venues Limited (BVL).  BVL offered the only venue in Tauranga that could take events of size and scale so users tended to be captive customers.  Ms Pankhurst requested consideration be given to an additional pricing structure to BVL’s current pricing structures; one for community sport, one for community activities and events, and the third for commercial activities.

In response to questions

Baycourt was acknowledged as a community facility and seemed to have more discretion.

 

(50)        Submission 401 – Graeme Purches

Mr Purches spoke to his submission in opposition to the increase in the city-wide DCs.  This would increase the cost to build a house by an approximate $20,000 and could negatively impact on housing supply..

 

At 1.43pm, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 2.15pm, the meeting resumed.

 

(51)        Submission 477 – Kelvin Clout

Mr Clout spoke to his submission and commented on the proposed commercial differential.  This should increase from 1.6% by 0.05% every year up to 2%.  The maximum value needed to be extracted for the ratepayer from the sale of the elder housing sites at Pitau and Hinau Streets.  Community funding needed to be de-politicised and allocation determined by a neutral group.  Mr Clout believed that the new civic administration building at 90 Devonport Rd would result in a concentration of workers at the north end of the city centre and this should be spread more evenly throughout the CBD.

In response to questions

The commercial differential could go beyond 2% after 10 years.  This would need to be signalled to the commercial sector now.

 

(52)        Submissions 1646 and 1812 - Joseph (Jos) Nagels

Mr Nagels spoke to his submission, in particular to his ‘omni solution’ included in the submission, which was in response to the proposed capital expenditure in six priority areas.

 

(53)        Submission 201 – Nick Newman - Incubator (Satellite Sessions)

Mr Newman spoke in support of the Incubator and hoped that TCC would continue to fund and support the Incubator.

 

(54)        Submission 1665 – Max Hales - CCS Disability Action

Mr Hales spoke to the CCS Disability Action submission.  CCS Disability Action requested that Baywave be upgraded with accessible changing facilities and a portable hoist.  CCS also requested that the issue of bar and cafe chairs and tables on the footpath beyond what was compliant, particularly on the Mount main street, be addressed.  They suggested that developers be incentivised to build more accessible housing and requested an accessibility infrastructure audit of footpaths, bus stops etc, and better monitoring of the abuse of accessibility car parks.

 

(55)        Submission 601 – Brian Hodge - Sydenham Botanic Park Advisory Group

Mr Hodge provided an update to the Commissioners on what had been happening at the Sydenham Botanic Park over the past year and concluded by inviting the Commissioners to visit, which they would do, post LTP.

Submission 601 - Tabled document.

 

(56)        Submission 118 – Neil McInnes - Water Safety New Zealand

Mr McInnes spoke in support of the submission from Water Safety Bay of Plenty and looked for further support from TCC to help raise awareness of water safety and drowning prevention in the city.

 

(57)        Submission 1785 – Phil Green - Grace Road & Neighbourhood Residents Association

Mr Green read through his submission which was on behalf of the Grace Road and Neighbourhood Residents Association.

In response to questions

·               It was understood that different modes of transport would have to be the norm in the next 20 years or so but the right incentives were not being used e.g. park and rides.

·               People were generally aware of plan change 26 and the proposed intensification but had not really grasped what intensification would look like.

·               It was suggested that maybe white sand could be imported for along the waterfront from Memorial Park to the Strand, rather than an expensive walkway.

·               New bottle stores were not being adequately or noticeably advertised.

·               For a city of Tauranga’s size, there should be one well planned heritage centre.

 

(58)        Submission 1688 – Phil Green

Mr Green read through his personal submission.

 

(59)        Submission 262 – Jeremy Levy

Mr Levy spoke to his submission.  Tauranga city was sprawling and needed to go up instead e.g. go up 10 to 15 stories in downtown Tauranga but only for 20-25% of the land area, and provide green spaces in between.  Close roads in the space and turn the area in to a hub with all facilities and amenities.  This could be replicated for other areas in the city.  Mr Levy suggested that Council did not build more roads but provide more public transport and use of mass transit options.

 

(60)        Submission 225 and 354 – Max and Otto Blake-Palmer

Messrs Blake-Palmer spoke to their submission.  Tauranga needed a new skatepark, similar to the one at Victoria Park in Auckland or the one in Hamilton.  Skateboarding was one of the fastest growing participation sports and was now an Olympic sport.  With a world class skatepark, Tauranga could hold national and international competitions and produce world class athletes.  Waipa District Council had committed $1.7 million to new skateparks.  Hamilton had committed to upgrading two of its skateparks.  Thames/Coromandel District Council had committed to skateparks in Tairua and Pauanui.  Wellington City Council had committed to a $1.5 million investment for skateparks in its 2021-2022 Annual Plan.  The current Arataki skatepark was old, small and busy, and water pooled in the bowl when it rained.

In response to questions

The suggested site in 17th Ave would have the same water level issues as Arataki.  Suggested the small skatepark at Memorial Park could be added to.  The skatepark needed to be central, have no water drainage problems, and be close to food.

 

(61)        Submission 915 – Debz Turner

Ms Turner spoke to her submission and highlighted a number of issues.  She would like to see more artwork displayed in the CBD; people would come in to the city to see it.  The bus service needed a full review to fix it.  Ms Turner was opposed to selling elder housing.  There was need for a community centre in town, giving people a safe place to go during the day.

 

At 4.07pm, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 4.50pm, the meeting resumed.

 

(62)        Submissions 42 and 368 – Buddy Mikaere

Mr Mikaere spoke to his submission 368 in support of the Incubator.  It was important to retain those areas of community life that contributed to health and well-being.  Mr Mikaere also spoke to submission 42 on behalf of Ngai Tamarawaho hapu of Ngāti Ranginui regarding the development of the Te Ranga Reserve as a Historic Park and Native Forest Reserve.  The site was the second most historical site in Tauranga and was of great significance to Tauranga Moana iwi and hapu.  The proposal to establish the reserve to reflect its significance was being progressed by the Pukehinahina Charitable Trust in association with Ngai Tamarawaho and TCC.  The amount of funding requested was set out in the submission.  The site was being commemorated on the following Monday.

In response to questions

·               If popularity of the reserve increased, consideration would be given to providing other facilities.

·               Funding priorities were for basic infrastructure - insert bund (filled by stormwater project fill), and then to install a more imposing memorial which echoed the significance of the site.  Planting would be an ongoing programme.

 

(63)        Submission 371 and 614 – Deb Fleming and Tony Pill – Incubator

Ms Fleming and Mr Pill spoke in support of the Incubator, and the Historic Village.  Most people in the community did not appreciate what the Village had achieved; a more family friendly environment where things were always happening.  Both Ms Fleming and Mr Pill wanted to see the Village and the Incubator grow.

 

(64)        Submission 1262 – Mary Capamagian

Ms Capamagian took her submission as read but wanted to highlight one issue, the need for separate pathways for pedestrians and cyclists/e-scooters.  Some cyclists travelled too fast and without consideration for pedestrians e.g. Harbour Drive.  Footpaths should only be for pedestrians.  Believed e-cycles should be on the road, not on a shared pathway.  There were cycle paths on both sides of Carmichael Road but some cyclists still used the footpaths and at some speed. 

 

(65)        Submission 1170 – Sally Cooke/Brian Berry - Mainstreet Tauranga

Ms Cooke and Mr Berry spoke to Mainstreet Tauranga’s Activate Vacant Spaces proposal.  The programme contributed to the revitalisation of the CBD and amplified cultural and creative expression across the CBD.  It was unique to Tauranga.  Mainstreet Tauranga was seeking funding to deliver the programme over the next three years;  without funding, the programme could not continue.

In response to questions

·               Mainstreet had funded the pilot, and Priority One were funding the programme in the interim period.  The funding from the rating levy was already fully utilised.  It was suggested that Devonport Rd businesses should also be contributing to the costs as they would benefit more from the programme than the general ratepayer.  Clear and consistent data was fundamental to justify any contribution. 

·               The carparking issue had been consistently raised by retailers in Devonport Rd.  One suggestion had been a one way corridor up Devonport Road to Elizabeth Street with angle parking installed.  Mainstreet Tauranga considered that this was probably the best option.  It would provide more parks and could be delivered quickly and at a low cost.

 

(66)        Submission 903 – Liz Cooper

Ms Cooper spoke to her submission and highlighted two points; support for the arts and public transport.  She noted that culture was not in its own right in the well-beings and urged commissioners look at long-term support for the Incubator as well as continued support for the Art Gallery.  Ms Cooper would like to see more incentives for using public transport.

 

(67)        Submission 472 – Heinz Diener

Mr Diener spoke in opposition to the proposed rate increase.  He also suggested that sorting out Fifteenth Avenue was more important than Cameron Road and that rubbish be burned in large incinerators and power be made from this.

 

(68)        Submission 1640 – Noel Peterson

Mr Peterson took his submission as read and spoke to the national significance of the Elms, the Sydenham Botanic Park, the Strand gardens, and the Historic Village Museum.  He suggested that the Village arts and community groups be moved to the CBD, where the Art Gallery was, to create an arts hub.

Submission 1640 – Presentation.

 

(69)        Submission 1249 – Richard Coles and Greg Prescott - Tauranga Marina Society Inc

Mr Coles and Mr Prescott spoke to the Tauranga Marina Society Inc submission regarding where the next marina should be situated.  Tauranga Harbour was a difficult harbour in which to place infrastructure like recreational marinas, and environment and planning legislation made it difficult to obtain the necessary consents for a marina.  The only option was to extend to the south of the existing Tauranga Marina.  The Marina Society suggested working closely with TCC and iwi on a masterplan for a Sulphur Point marine park.  There would be no ongoing costs for the ratepayer once the marina was developed.  The proposal had strong iwi support as they would like to see the seabed re-instated.

Submission 1249 – Presentation.

 

(70)        Submission 919 – Graham Holloway

Mr Holloway spoke to the issues facing Tauranga.  He suggested only spending on infrastructure and to stop social spending.  He was in favour of user-pays and suggested that the roads around and in to the city were tolled.  Many people lived outside of the city and did not contribute to the city’s rates but travelled these roads.  They should have to pay to come into the city.

 

(71)        Submission 1277 - Richard Coles - Lighthouse Group

Mr Coles spoke to the Lighthouse Group submission.  The Lighthouse Group had purchased land at the top of Waitaha Road, Welcome Bay, which was zoned residential and could yield approximately 50 homes.  The target date for required road upgrades and the extension of wastewater to the area was 2027.  The Lighthouse Group was looking to begin earthworks in 2022 with sections available for purchase in 2023 and requested that the budget for the upgrades in 2027 be brought forward to align with this development.

In response to questions

There was potential for more dwellings.  A second phase zoned rural/residential could provide up to 30 lifestyle lots.

 

 

 

(72)        Submission 995 – Jo Wills - Sustainability Options

Ms Wills spoke to her submission and was focussed on equity and measurement.  It was concerning that equity was essentially missing from the LTP.  There needed to be equitable access to housing, affordable housing, transport, amenity, and a sustainable environment.  The only measurements of success was more housing and more roads.  There was no focus on measurements for reducing emissions, reducing living costs, or environmental outcomes.  The rates increases would only increase the inequity.  There needed to be more coming out of business and out of central government.

In response to questions

·                Poor housing was the result of building to the minimum of, or down to, the building code, and was based on profit margins rather than efficiencies.

·                Existing homes could be retrofitted and perform quite well.  Kāinga Ora was doing some good work in this space.

 

At 7.09pm, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 7.40pm, the meeting resumed.

 

(73)        Submission 849 – Maaka Nelson - Papamoa Football Club

Mr Nelson spoke to the Papamoa Football Club submission which was in support of capital investment for Gordon Spratt Reserve.  There had already been significant investment in the reserve but more was needed to cater for the rapidly growing community.  Supported all capital investment projects for the reserve and asked that these be prioritised.  The whole community would benefit.

 

(74)        Submission 605 – Marcel Hediger – Incubator

Mr Hediger spoke in support of the Incubator.  The arts community was accepting of all peoples and encouraged differences.  He would like to see the Incubator acknowledged for what it provided and encouraged council to continue to support the activity.

 

(75)        Submission 1199 – Peter McKinlay

Mr McKinlay spoke to his submission that focussed on rates postponement.  Councils could grant rates postponements at the wish of ratepayers without any particular formality; this could be done with no damage to revenue and council debt ratios, and offered no risk.  Council’s current policy should be replaced with a more simple one.  Mr McKinlay then spoke to his tabled document which provided more detail.

In response to questions

·               From the Audit Office perspective, postponed rates still counted as revenue.  The Local Government Funding Agency’s (LGFA) interest was in net debt, not gross debt.  Rates were the first charge against a property, ahead of any mortgage. 

·               Rates postponement schemes had been done at other councils but generally not well. 

·               The Act allowed the cost of borrowing to make up cashflow to be passed on, but no profit could be made from this.

Submission 1199 - Tabled document.

 

(76)        Submission 1247 – Gordon Spratt and Alice Johnson Facility Group

Representatives of the Gordon Spratt and Alice Johnson Facility Group spoke in support of their collective submission in relation to the Gordon Spratt shared club facility, the court shelter and the multi-sport cricket pavilion.  The group represented the Papamoa Cricket Club, Papamoa Football Club, Papamoa Rugby Club, Papamoa Rugby League Club, Tauranga City Baseball Club, Papamoa Touch, and Papamoa Beach Sports Club.  Collectively they had around 3,740 affiliated members and over 300 coaches and volunteers.  The Group requested that TCC reconsider a third facility to service the needs of rugby and rugby league, move forward the investment in the Gordon Spratt multi-sport and cricket pavilion project (number 456) by one year, and review the sports field layout.

(77)        Submission 1347 – Des Heke 

Mr Heke spoke to his submission relating to the approach to Māori land, particularly by local government, and how they engaged with Māori land owners.  Mr Heke believed that TCC had failed to implement fair policies and practices for the retention of Māori land, and failed to recognise the contribution of Māori land and Māori land owners to municipal infrastructure, community institutions, and the national transportation network.

In response to questions

Mr Heke’s submission was extremely detailed and the Commissioners suggested that they, along with staff, meet with Mr Heke to discuss the detail of his submission.

Submission 1347 - Tabled document.

 

(78)        Submission 1680 – Dan du Bern - Sumer Contemporary Art & ARC Fine Art Services

Mr du Bern spoke to his submission, in particular to the vital role arts and culture played in the city’s expression of self and understanding of its leisure and wellbeing.  There was not enough emphasis placed on the strategic revitalisation of downtown Tauranga and believed Mainstreet Tauranga did not have a good grasp of what was strategically required of them.  The key was that council be aware of the need to make investment in downtown.  A greater emphasis on arts and culture in the city centre would attract more people.

 

(79)        Submission 1200 – Alan Sciascia - Hospitality NZ (BOP Branch)

Mr Sciascia spoke in support of the increase to the rating differential but requested that Council also took into account the large number of businesses that were operating from residential properties, specifically the increasing number of houses being rented for short-term accommodation i.e. Airbnb, Bookabach.  He urged Council to address the issue by creating a policy which ensured this burgeoning section of the accommodation market contributed in the same way that competing businesses were required to do.

In response to questions

A policy would deal with where properties could operate and be based on a criteria of how many nights the property was available, not occupancy.  56 nights was recommended as fair and reasonable.  It was suggested that the Christchurch City Council policy be used as a starting point.

Submission 1200 - Tabled document.

 

(80)        Submission 1310 – Paula Gaelic/Michelle Crook - Western Bay Museum and Western Bay Heritage Trust

Ms Gaelic and Ms Crook spoke to their submission which offered TCC the opportunity to display some of Tauranga’s heritage collection at the Western Bay Museum in Katikati.  The museum had the requirements to display taonga in a world class environment.  A fee would be charged to TCC but entry would be free to Tauranga residents.

Submission 1310 – Presentation.

 

 

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston closed the 15 June 2021 session with a karakia.

 

At 9.25pm, the meeting adjourned.  The meeting would resume at 9.30am on Wednesday 17 June 2021.

 

 

 


 

Continuation of meeting – Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 9.30am

 

At 9.30am, the meeting resumed.

 

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston opened the session with a karakia.

 

(81)        Submission 392 – David Holland

Mr Holland took his submission as read and read through items one to four, and items 13 to 15 of the submission.  Mr Holland tabled an amendment to item 10 which had been amended to “Abide by NZ’s National and international obligations regarding the environment, including “Climate Change””.  His submission was backed by some well-known and respected persons and bodies as well as other submissions received.  TCC must get back to basics and its core responsibilities.

Submission 392 - Tabled document.

 

(82)        Submission 422 – Mark Divehall and Paul Dunn - Papamoa Cricket Club Incorporated

Mr Divehall and Mr Dunn spoke to the Papamoa Cricket Club Incorporated submission regarding the Gordon Spratt Sport and Cricket Pavilion project (project number 456).  The Club would like to see the project renamed to the Alice Johnson Cricket Pavilion to reflect the gift of the land.  The tabled document showed concept images of what the facility could look like.  The project was supported by the community and was ready to go.  Better and more facilities were needed on the western end of the park.  The Club would like to see funding for the whole project brought forward.

In response to questions

·               The Johnson family lived out of Tauranga but came to Tauranga frequently.  The cricket club were fully engaged with the family.

·               The overall cost of the facility would not be known until the design had been confirmed.

·               Additional funding could come from the community once the project was underway.

·               The toilet facilities in the centre of the park were not always open and available.

Submission 422 - Tabled document.

 

(83)        Submission 551 – Brian Cavit - Wairakei Community Centre Trust

Mr Cavit spoke to the Wairakei Community Centre Trust submission regarding the need for a community centre at Papamoa Beach.  The closest community centre was at least 15km away.  It was noted that the LTP did not make provision for this within the next 10 years.

In response to questions

$100 million had been set out in the LTP for the Papamoa East Interchange (PEI) which would give access into the Wairarki town centre, and it was expected that a community facility would be included in the plan for the town centre.  The frustration was the time it would take.

 

(84)        Submission 198 – Alexandra Mostyn, and submission 378 – Sam Allen – Incubator

Ms Mostyn and Mr Allen spoke in support of the Incubator.  It was an integral part of the Tauranga city community and, with continued support, could become the cultural hub of the central North Island.  Previously, young people moved away from Tauranga to pursue their careers in the arts and the Incubator was changing this.

In response to questions

A youth based arts centre could be part of the Incubator/Historic Village but with a separate building of its own.

 

 

 

(85)        Submission 597 – John Douglas

Mr Douglas spoke to his submission, in particular the need to revitalise the CBD, starting with a new civic centre incorporating Baycourt, a library and a museum on the Willow St site; the removal of the carparks on the Strand to make better use of the waterfront; and encourage growth of the university campus with halls of residence.  Consider park and ride facilities at Barkes Corner, Baypark, and Sulphur Point, and a high speed ferry from Omokoroa and between the CBD and the Mount, as well as the use of light rail commuter trains.  Make is easy for people to get around the city, particularly on cycles.

 

(86)        Submission 600 – Isaac Loye, with friends Zac and Curtis

Isaac and his friends were students of Otumoetai College.  They would like to see the Carlton Street park updated to be more of a community base where people of all ages could meet up.  In particular, they wanted to see an upgrade and extension of the skatepark.  The current skatepark was small with only three to four people being able to use it at one time.  The park already had a toilet block plus a small playground for children and plenty of parking.

In response to questions

·               There would often be around seven skaters waiting while three to four were using the skatepark.  There was a skate school every Thursday afternoon that around 40 children attended.

·               The children would like to have a say in any upgrade design.

·               There were eight schools in the Otumoetai area and the Carlton Street park would be quite central.

 

(87)        Submission 1366 – Margaret Murray-Benge

Ms Murray-Benge spoke to her submission regarding Bethlehem Road.  Half of the road had been developed with a median strip and kerb and channel, and the half that led on to the Māori Catholic church and Māori land had not.  The development had been held up for stormwater which had now been resolved.  Ms Murray-Benge also spoke to the need for controlled light signals at the SH29/Cambridge Road intersection and requested that Gargan Road be opened up for cars to ease congestion on the state highway.

 

(88)        Submission 1805 – Sue Hodkinson

Ms Hodkinson spoke to her submission regarding the Mount being neglected in terms of litter in general, but particularly, litter left at the parks over weekends, and by Airbnb and holiday lets.  Ms Hodkinson also spoke about rates sharing fatigue i.e. sharing her rates with newcomers.  She would prefer to have a targeted rates system so her rates went to the area she lived in.  Ms Hodkinson was opposed to the sale of the elder housing properties at Hinau and Pitau Streets.

 

(89)        Submission 1787 – Davina Plummer – Tauranga Community Ministries

Ms Plummer spoke to the submission from the Salvation Army that focussed on the vulnerable in the community and those least able to choose what was available to them.  The Salvation Army supported the initiatives in the LTP in general but wanted more equity.  They thanked TCC for the assistance and resources received via Council’s Community Development team and requested that the Commissioners continue to remember the vulnerable.

 

(90)        Submission 1004 – Bryce McFall - Disability Advisory Group

Mr McFall spoke to the submission from the Disability Advisory Group.  The Disability Advisory Group requested that universal design was embedded totally in all Council’s planning and decision making.  If included in conversations from the start, there would be no barriers.  Mr McFall took the Commissioners through a brief presentation that highlighted areas in the city where universal design had not been considered and the resulting challenges for the disabled.

Submission 1004 – Presentation.

(91)        Submission 5 - Betty J Kurzfeld

Ms Kurzfield spoke to her submission with a focus on housing for the elderly and parking at the Mount.  Ms Kurtzfield believed it was the job of central government to house the elderly and wanted her rates to go towards more facilities for everyone and not towards housing others.  Ms Kurtzfield also commented on the lack of parking at the Mount; all the berms were full with parked cars which made negotiating the streets difficult.

 

(92)        Submission 344 – Annatjie Venter

Ms Venter spoke to her submission that focussed on housing for the elderly.  Ms Venter was opposed to the sale of the elder housing properties and was concerned about what would happen with elderly people who did not have money and were moved on from their homes.

 

(93)        Submission 1212 – Allan Goodhall

Mr Goodhall spoke to his submission and was generally in support of the LTP and the $4.5 billion investment but believed assurance was needed that there was going to be competent delivery.  Residents did not want to see ratepayer money wasted.   Mr Goodhall was in support of the increase to the commercial differential but suggested that this could be increased , to further ease residential rates.  He would like to see innovative payment options e.g. rates payment deferment linked to property title.

 

At 11.40am, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 12.09am, the meeting resumed.

 

(94)        Submission 1798 – Peri Kohu

Mr Kohu spoke to his submission regarding the wharewaka on Tauranga Waterfront.  Originally the wharewaka had been proposed to be sited on the carpark on the Strand and be both a place to store waka and a cultural workspace.  Mr Kohu presented an image of the original concept.  He wanted to bring this project to the attention of the Commissioners as the project had been sitting on the back burner for quite some time now.

In response to questions

·               The project had been in the LTP at one point but had disappeared over time. 

·               The existing shelter was not fit for purpose as it was too far away from the foreshore.  What would happen to it if the project was progressed would need to be discussed.

Submission 1798 – Presentation.

 

(95)        Submission 1101 – John Gordon

Mr Gordon spoke to his submission.  He supported the proposed expenditure, especially on the CBD and amenities, the commercial rate differential, and the development of a civic administration building.  Mr Gordon believed an unitary authority was the best method of governance for the region.

Submission 1101 – Tabled document.

 

(96)        Submission 1094 – Sally Benning - Greerton Village Community Assn. (Main Street)

Ms Benning spoke to the submission from Greerton Village Mainstreet.  She was disappointed that an upgrade or replacement of Greerton Hall was not included under the spaces and places projects as it was the only facility in Greerton.  Ms Benning believed most businesses had become accustomed to the new road layout but was concerned about the general cleanliness of the area.

 

(97)        Submission 637 – Jenny Hedge

Ms Hedge spoke to her submission and, in particular, the development of the current elder housing site on Pitau Road.  The location was currently low density suburban residential and Ms Hedge was concerned that medium density or more would be the objective of any developer, and affordable housing options would not be included.  Ms Hedge urged the Council to engage with the surrounding population by ensuring that any consent application was notified.

 

(98)        Submission 191 – Joel Coppins - Mount Mustangs Inline Hockey Club

Mr Coppins spoke to the Mount Mustangs Inline Hockey Club submission.  While the Club were in general support of what was in the LTP, they were disappointed that the shortfall in individual sport facilities had not been addressed, in particular, there was nothing in the plan for inline skating.  He suggested that an inline skating park could be included in the Memorial Park upgrade.  Mr Coppins had already started conversations with Sport Bay of Plenty to get key stakeholders together.

In response to questions

·               The Mount Mustangs was a small club with around 300 roller sports members.

·               Inline skating could be included in a multi-purpose venue with other sports.

 

(99)        Submission 1790 – Emma Jones - Clear the Air - Mt Maunganui

Ms Jones spoke to her submission regarding the heavy industry next to residential housing at the Mount and the need to address the historical issues of zoning and planning as people’s health was being affected.  Ms Jones took the Commissioners through her presentation showing how heavy industry was affecting the area.  She suggested that funding to redress the disproportionate environmental costs borne by the Mount community should come from the economic benefits realised from the Port of Tauranga and Mount industries.

Submission 1790 – Presentation.

 

(100)     Submission 1202 – Crs Paula Thompson, Stacey Rose, Stuart Crosby, Andrew von Dadelzsen; and CE Fiona McTavish – Bay of Plenty Regional Council(BOPRC)

The above representatives from the BOPRC spoke to their submission.  It was acknowledged that it was important that the BOPRC and TCC work constructively and collaboratively together on shared responsibilities.  TCC was urged to recommence the strategic planning process for the city and greater Tauranga sub-region.  Concern was expressed about the connection between the capital programme and operational costs, especially in light of the significant shortage of capacity currently in the country.  BOPRC was committed to an efficient and effective public transport system and were keen to initiate more bus prioritisation methodologies and suggested TCC look at Christchurch City’s bus prioritisation initiative as an example of what could easily be achieved.  BOPRC supported TCCs focus on resilience but noted it lacked a climate change focus.

Submission 1202 – Presentation.

 

At 1.26pm, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 2.07pm, the meeting resumed.

 

(101)     Submission 407 – Graeme Horsley

Mr Horsley took his submission as read.  He agreed with the overall context of the LTP.  Sound decision making, planning, design, and procurement processes were needed going forward to allow Council to deliver on this ambitious 10 year plan.  Continuation of the previous flip flopping and procrastination would not make this plan possible.  Mr Horsley suggested that TCC make more use of targeted rates e.g. a Tauranga fuel tax targeting users to fund transportation projects.  Ratepayers needed to be assured all funding opportunities were optimised.

 

(102)     Submission 1697 – Brian Berry and Sally Cooke - Mainstreet Tauranga Incorporated

Mr Berry and Ms Cooke spoke to their Mainstreet Tauranga submission.  They encouraged Council to continue to make clear and decisive decisions around the future of Tauranga.  They would like to see the free carparking in the CBD continue with the free time period extended from two hours to three hours.  They would also like to see electronic signage for where carparks were available which included the car park buildings.  Suggested installing a one way system on Devonport Road with angled carparks.  Would like Council to commit to a park and ride shuttle service for access to the CBD that was separate from the public transport system.  Requested an exemption from further rate increases for the next three years for businesses in the CBD.

In response to questions

·               A transport hub needed to be central and close to the cultural hub.  A subterranean hub in the Willow Street to Durham Street area was suggested.

·               A CBD shuttle service could be a good alternative for commuters/workers who were currently parking in the CBD.

·               Carparking was not the only constraint to bringing people in to the CBD.  More vibrancy was also needed e.g. main street at the Mount.

 

(103)     Submission 1808 – Michele Bishop

Ms Bishop read through her submission.  She was in opposition to the proposed rates increase as it was unaffordable and unjustifiable.  She believed the increase in rates would destroy the city, forcing many to move out and preventing others from coming to settle here.

 

(104)     Submission 639 – Kathrina Hagler

Ms Hagler spoke in support of Council support for the arts in Tauranga.

 

(105)     Submission 1231 - (Peter) Ian Willis

Mr Willis spoke to his submission which focussed on cycling.  Tauranga city was overwhelmingly car dominated.  If more people cycled, there would be benefits across the board.  TCC needed to get beyond the paralysis of the past two years and think about a vision for a cycling city and how to make that happen. 

Submission 1231 – Presentation.

 

(106)     Submission 376 – Valerie Steel – Incubator

Ms Steel spoke in support of the Incubator, in particular, the Jam Factory which was a valuable asset for the city.

 

(107)     Submission 1260 – Paul Hickson - Marmatsar Trust and Kiwifruit Coast Property (Mount property owners)

Mr Hickson spoke to his submission.  He was concerned that sale of the elder housing portfolio was for easy money and would set a precedent.  Mr Hickson would like to see the footpaths on Marine Parade upgraded and he was concerned about the continual sand dredging.  He believed Tauranga needed a museum.  There needed to be more equity between WBOPDC and TCC e.g. people who chose to live at Omokoroa (WBOPDC) but worked in the city (TCC)should share the cost of transportation links.

 

(108)     Submission 1222 – Dan Kneebone - Port of Tauranga

Mr Kneebone spoke to the submission from the Port of Tauranga.  He emphasised that the growth volumes of the Port over the last five years did not directly correlate to truck movements on the local road network in and out of the port; a lot of the growth had been through rail and trans-shipment.  Also emphasised the need to continue to invest more in the local road network and the Port welcomed the prioritisation given to the Hewletts Road/Totara Street sub-area in the Transport System Plan (TSP), not just for the benefit of the Port but also for residents of Tauranga.

In response to questions

·               Truck movements data for 2020 data had been skewed by COVID.

·               The Port would like to see more emphasis on rail.  There was an opportunity to increase rail usage when the Ruakura land port came on stream at the end of 2022.

·               There was likely to be a lot more trans-shipment from Tauranga to smaller ports e.g. Timaru.

 

(109)     Submission 1250 – Delwyn Cooper - BOP Badminton Assn

Ms Cooper spoke to the submission from BOP Badminton Association regarding a badminton facility on Tatua Reserve.  5,000 square metres had been put aside on the reserve for this.  A feasibility study had been completed in March at the cost of the Badminton Association which showed that the facility would only be able to house badminton and table tennis.  To accommodate car parking within the 5,000 square metres, the carparking would have to be underneath the facility and this would be cost prohibitive.  It was proposed that as the Playcentre currently located on the reserve was looking to move on to another site, that the full Tatua site be assigned to BOP Badminton.

Submission 1250 - Tabled document.

 

(110)     Submission 1175 – Bruce Farthing, Leanne Hall and Buddy Mikaere - Heritage Bay of Plenty Trust

Mr Farthing spoke to the Heritage Bay of Plenty Trust submission regarding a proposed heritage centre in Tauranga.  There were around 480 museums in Aotearoa, many run by independent trusts.  Independent trusts took the politics out of the museum arena.  The Trust was proposing a heritage centre that was stand-alone but complementary to the proposed civic centre, and was requesting a minimum of $100,000 over the next year towards a feasibility study/business case.

Submission 1175 – Presentation and tabled document.

 

(111)     Submission 1278 – Amorangi Webster and friends

The group were year 10 students in a design learning class at Mount Maunganui College.  They were proposing a rehabilitation centre for post war veterans.  The proposal had been prompted by a project the students had undertaken on mental health of post war veterans.  The group had spoken with the RSA but this project would provide a more meaningful space for war veterans.

 

At 4.13pm, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 4.46pm, the meeting resumed.

 

(112)     Submission 1303 - Dr Terence Jones

Dr Jones read through his submission regarding motor vehicles and roading congestion and ways to mitigate the cost of future expensive road development. 

 

(113)     Submission 1672 - Clinton Butler - Tauranga Hockey Association

Mr Butler spoke to the Tauranga Hockey Association submission.  Hockey was a growing sport with 4,256 players in 2020.  The sport was gender and age neutral with ages ranging from five to 65 plus.  Tauranga Hockey Association had a co-funding agreement in place with TCC for a turf renewal programme.  This would expire in 2022 and the Association would like to see this extended.  Future projects for the Association included water sustainability (bore water), development of a half turf, and redevelopment of the pavilion.

Submission 1672 – Presentation.

 

(114)     Submission 1694 - Philip Brown - Papamoa Resients & Ratepayers Association

Mr Brown read through the Papamoa Residents & Ratepayers Association’s submission.  The Association would like to see the Papamoa East Interchange (PEI) built now before development work began in Te Tumu, and Papamoa arterial roads brought up to modern standards.  The proposed rate increase was too high and would be unaffordable for many.  There was concern that the LTP was all about growth and urban sprawl with no real benefits to existing community and residents.

 

(115)     Submission 1379 – Michael Pugh - Evolution Aquatics Tauranga

Mr Pugh spoke to his submission which supported the development of a 50 metre pool facility and the preference was that this be at Memorial Park.  Swimmers were currently going to Rotorua to be able to train in a 50 metre pool.  Without a 50 metre pool Tauranga would struggle to host events, including the AIMS Games.

 

(116)     Submission 1275 – Michael Roper

Mr Roper spoke to his submission regarding housing in Tauranga.  Mr Roper was currently struggling to buy his first home due to the lack of new sub-divisions.  He would like Council to streamline the consents process to enable more housing ranging from new developments to intensification of existing areas.

 

(117)     Submission 1353 – Nathan York – Bluehaven, and submission 1355 - Jade Murphy – Group Best Land LP

Mr York and Mr Murphy spoke to their submissions which fully supported the investment in Wairakei and Te Tumu.  They spoke about the potential return on investment in infrastructure which included a potential housing supply of 11,000, a retail and commercial hub and community facilities including a 50 metre pool facility which was already designed and consented .  Bluehaven were already consented for 232,000 square metres of space.  Suggested that WBOPDC and TCC also consider Bell Road (in the Western Bay but would ultimately be serviced by TCC) as it was currently under single ownership and could potentially provide a further 2,000 houses.  Requested that Council bring investment in the Papamoa East Interchange (PEI) forward two years to 2024.

In response to questions

Development of Bell Road was currently being held back largely due to the lack of stormwater infrastructure. 

Submission 1353 – Presentation.

 

(118)     Submission 1355 – Bryan Perring - Kaitiaki Property

Mr Perring spoke to his submission.  It was important to have accurate population growth data to guide investment.  It was also important to consider where growth was coming from and why.  Short to medium term growth for Tauranga was going to happen in the eastern corridor.  The PEI was the most efficient spend in the LTP and Mr Perring supported bringing this forward.

Submission 1355 - Presentation

 

(119)     Submission 1738 – Nikki Hansen – Tauranga Arts Festival

Ms Hansen spoke to her submission in support of arts and culture in Tauranga.  Investment in arts and culture needed to start now and TCC’s appointment of an Arts and Culture Manager was a good start.  Supported the civic precinct redevelopment with indoor and outdoor spaces, and a museum to tell our stories.

 

(120)     Submission 1361 – Craig Batchelar and Levin Da Costa - Ultimate Developments

Mr Batchelor and Mr Da Costa spoke to their submission regarding the proposed increase to city-wide development contributions (DCs) which impacted a project to build 34 townhouses that they had been working on for several years.  The development was almost completed and the house prices had been fixed and could not be changed.  29 out of 34 houses had been sold.  The impact of the increase in city-wide DCs placed the project in jeopardy.  There had also been significant impact on other housing developments already underway across the city and it was unfair to make developers pay for the Waiāri Water Scheme through increased DCs.  They requested that TCC consider options in terms of relief that were outlined in the submission and included some kind of transitional policy. 

Submission 1361 - Tabled document.

(121)     Submission 1511 – Jeff Peet

Mr Peet spoke to his submission which was in opposition to the proposed rates increase.  Mr Peet’s property sat on the southern side of Pyes Pa Road where there was no stormwater and wastewater infrastructure.  The area was zoned residential and although the property had been drawn up for two subdivisions, he was unable to develop the property.  Mr Peet had spoken with staff who had informed him that the water/stormwater infrastructure would be completed once the stormwater ponds were done, which was not scheduled to be completed for some time.

 

(122)     Submission 1519 – Harry Oram - Apex Academy

Mr Oram spoke about the film industry in Tauranga.  He had started the Apex Academy after returning from overseas.  The academy was a method acting school with an internationally recognised syllabus.  Mr Oram was currently looking to partner with the University of Waikato to provide a degree around the film industry.  He was looking for help from TCC to find a venue within the city centre, and sought endorsement from TCC to facilitate funding applications for expansion.

 

(123)     Submission 1521 – Mark Allen for Elizabeth Oram - MHO Endeavours Limited

Mr Allen spoke on behalf of Elizabeth Oram who was unable to attend.  MHO Endeavours Ltd were looking for an all-round venue for theatre and film development projects.  They wanted to bring vibrancy back to the city centre and would ideally like to see Tauranga branded as the film industry capital of New Zealand.

 

At 7.10pm, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 7.45pm, the meeting resumed.

 

(124)     Submission 1723 – Scott Adams - Urban Taskforce for Tauranga Ltd (UTF)

Mr Adams spoke to the Urban Taskforce for Tauranga Ltd submission.  The submission catered for a range of UTF members’ views which were not necessarily shared unanimously.  In general, the submission was in support of the LTP’s $4.6 billion capital investment programme.  Mr Adams read through the submission.

In response to questions

·               The Property Council had estimated that approximately 200 new builds were affected by the increase in city-wide DCs.

·               Landlords would pass the commercial rates differential increase on to tenants and this might be the nail in the coffin for some CBD tenants.  In comparison with other councils, Tauranga’s proposed commercial rate differential was still very low.

 

(125)     Submission 1566 – Kim Renshaw - Mount Business Association

Ms Renshaw spoke to the Mount Business Association submission.  The Mount Business Association had restructured and had moved to an executive chair model.  The organisation proposed a co-design approach with TCC for all things that affected the targeted rate zone that the Mount Business Association represented.  Ms Renshaw outlined the organisation’s vision for the Mount over the next 10 years.

 

(126)     Submission 1470 – Keith Johnston

Mr Johnston spoke to his submission.  He was concerned as a resident and ratepayer about the immediate substantial rate increases.  Options for when democracy returned were important as there was a real possibility that future councillors may, at the next LTP review in three years’ time, change what was being proposed today.  Mr Johnston believed community boards that were given the legal mandate to make decisions were much more efficient in getting things done within their own community.

 

 

 

(127)     Submission 1561 – Derek Couvee

Mr Couvee spoke to his submission.  He believed TCC had no interest in democracy and people had had enough of the arrogance and undemocratic elitism of a council that used ratepayers like its own ATM e.g. recycle bins, Māori wards, introduction of the living wage.  It was unfair to charge different rates for the same service.  Council debt was rising every year, and developers were not paying their fair share and were being subsidised by rate payers.

 

(128)     Submission 1572 – Diane Stewart

Ms Stewart spoke to her submission regarding Lees Park.  Lees Park was a beautiful open park  but the playground equipment badly needed updating.  The Brookfield playcentre, primary school and residents would like to see the park upgraded with more play options; however, the park was not due for an upgrade for five years.  Ms Stewart would like Council to bring the upgrade forward and get the community involved in the design.

Submission 1572 – Presentation and tabled document.

 

(129)     Submissions 1568 and 1575 – Stephen Bird - Arataki Community Liaison Group

The Arataki Community Liaison Group spoke to their submission.  The group had been going for six months and was comprised of a diverse group of people.  The group had linked their values to the LTP priorities.  The group felt that the LTP focussed on growth, and the existing parts of the city had been overlooked while still being asked to contribute.  They were looking for a more balanced approach to investment and more community involvement in decisions.  The group’s main local focus was pedestrian road safety, not just from an engineering point of view but from a holistic urban design place-making view point e.g. colourful pedestrian crossing.  The submission outlined the group’s short and medium term aspirations.

Submissions 1568 and 1575 – Presentation.

 

(130)     Submission 1781 – Andrea Howden – Shaker 2007 Ltd (GJ Gardner Homes)

Ms Howden spoke to the submission from GJ Gardner Homes regarding the increase in city-wide DCs.  GJ Gardner Homes spoke on behalf of their clients who would be significantly affected by the fee increase, some to the point of losing homes that had not yet been built.  There were a number of titles that would not be issued before the fee increase come into effect and those clients had not ever expected to have to pay a further $16,000.  Some would be unable to borrow more money from the bank as they would now fall outside the lending criteria.  They would have to walk away from their contracts if they could not afford the increase.  GJ Gardner Homes would like an exception granted for the group of people who had experienced significant delay to titles being issued.

 

(131)     Submission 1648 – Keegan Millar

Mr Millar spoke to his submission.  Mr Millar believed the Council’s current position was due to a lack of government funding and developers who had not paid their fair share in the past.  The real challenge of this LTP was whether it would survive the next LTP with the return of an elected council.  Mr Millar would like Council to investigate community boards and take a more dynamic approach to communications.  Tauranga was quickly becoming the most expensive place to live and Mr Millar proposed an Unoccupied Homes Levy (UHL); a charge that would apply to empty homes that did not meet proposed exemptions e.g. holiday homes.  The intention was to encourage those with homes sitting empty to let the homes out, and the money raised from these rated properties to be ring-fenced for social housing and social development in the area.  Mr Millar would like TCC to engage in a feasibility study to ascertain whether this proposal could be effective.

Submission 1648 – Presentation.

 

 

 

(132)     Submission 1782 – Shane Death and Rob Moore – Bay of Plenty Sport Climbing Association (BOPSCA)

Mr Death spoke to the submission from the BOPSCA.  The club was very active and had been growing by about 50% for the last four years.  Sport climbing was now an Olympic sport, was colourful and dynamic, and was attracting athletes from other sports e.g. gymnastics and dancing.  Clubs in New Zealand had been limited by being associated with a commercial facility.  Tauranga was the first city in New Zealand to build a speed wall and the club was now trying to find a facility that was up to standard for world cups and championships.  The club would like to be part of the process and feasibility for upgrading of other council sporting facilities.

 

 

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston closed the 16 June 2021 session with a karakia.

 

At 9.45pm, the meeting adjourned.  The meeting would resume at 8am on Thursday 17 June 2021.

 

 

Continuation of meeting – Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 9am

 

At 8.00am, the meeting resumed.

 

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston opened the session with a karakia.

 

(133)     Submission 1779 – Grant Downing – Element IMF

Mr Downing spoke to the submission from Element IMF which broadly supported the plan and proposed outcomes.  Growth infrastructure was vital for the city to maintain the supply of land to facilitate economic development in the city.  Element IMF’s main focus was on the provision of infrastructure at Tauriko.  They encouraged Council to continue to pursue off balance sheet funding options and suggested that the proposed city-wide DC and commercial rate increases be transitioned over a period of time.  Element IMF also wanted the SH29 connection at Redwood Lane to be separated from the main road at Tauriko intersection.

 

(134)     Submission 1652 – Michael O’Brien

Mr O’Brien spoke in opposition to the increase in city-wide DCs.  He believed the proposed increase was fundamentally flawed and considered the proposal would affect first home buyers and renters and would have devastating consequences for those already in the process.  Mr O’Brien proposed a significant reduction in citywide DCs for those who were borrowing more than 70% of the house value.  Any increases needed to be introduced more gradually and be more widely spread.

Commission response

The increase in DCs had been signalled for some time, although the amount of increase was not anticipated, partly due to the Waiāri Water Scheme and partly because growth had to be managed.  It was noted that the Waiāri Water Scheme needed to be paid for partly by existing residents and partly by residents of the future.

 

(135)     Submission 1758 – Brian Askin

Mr Askin spoke about climate change.  He believed that climate change was politically driven and based on limited fact, and was becoming a consideration in roading design.  In Mr Askin’s opinion, roading was there to accommodate the efficient transportation of vehicles.  Cameron Road was a main arterial road and should be focussed on accommodating and facilitating all sorts of vehicles.  Considered Council should stop pandering to minority groups of cyclists and pedestrians.

Commission response

The transport changes in Cameron Road underpinned the increase of people living in the area due to intensification.  Te Papa peninsula was Tauranga’s best opportunity for intensification of housing.

 

(136)     Submission 1342 – Peter Cooney – Classic Developments NZ Ltd

Mr Cooney spoke in opposition to the increase in DCs.  Mr Cooney considered that the increased price for the Waiāri Water Scheme was due to bad practice and management and was poor business etiquette.  The business community could not be expected to absorb the increase over a short two month timeframe.  Council should consider that this cost needed to be intergenerational.  He suggested that Council needed to get more business savvy and, if Council did not have the skills in-house, lean on the business sector who had the necessary expertise.

 

(137)     Submission 1813 – Hylton James Rhodes

Mr Rhodes spoke to his submission which was opposed to the proposed rates increase.  The Commission was able to increase rates without the fear of an electoral backlash which  Mr Rhodes believed to be undemocratic.  Mr Rhodes believed that very few people in Tauranga actually knew what was going on.

 

At 8.53am, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 8.56am, the meeting resumed.

 

(138)     Submission 1406 – Theo Ursum - Blue Rovers Football Club

Mr Ursum spoke to the submission from the Blue Rovers Football Club regarding their need for more playing field space.  The club was based in Greerton and serviced a large area, from the city centre down to Pyes Pa and the Lakes, and had around 500 players.  The space that they used was getting crowded.  The club was requesting $50,000 for a feasibility study and business case for an artificial turf in the Te Papa area.  The club’s preferred location for the turf was Morland Fox Park.  Suggested that Sport Bay of Plenty lead the feasibility study and, once completed, the club would then request TCC undertook to provide funding to deliver on the outcomes of the feasibility study and business case.

In response to questions

·               The club’s focus was on Morland Fox Park which they were already using.  If the feasibility study showed that this did not stack up, other options would be considered.

·               TCC’s Reserves Management Plan did not currently indicate any significant development of Morland Fox Park.

 

(139)     Submission 1335 – Tanya Smith - Age Concern Tauranga

Representatives from Age Concern spoke to their submission.  Age Concern had received funding from Council’s Community Grants Fund two years ago for their ‘shopping service for the older community’ initiative.  The funding was only for one year and Age Concern had to close down the service when the funding was exhausted. Age Concern requested that TCC re-fund the service for the next three years.  They would also like TCC to look at a rates postponement scheme that was simple, non-invasive, and easy to access for those on fixed incomes who would not be able to afford the proposed rates increase.

 

(140)     Submission 1671 – Bryan Norton

Mr Norton spoke to his submission.  He believed specific projects in the LTP lacked sufficient detail and analysis, and that outcomes would be reduced to individual or pressure groups preferences.  Mr Norton would like to see a greater focus on the Welcome Bay area which contained over 18% of the city’s population.  Tauranga had a rapid growth problem that was not supported by central government.  Private/public partnerships should be equal across the country, not disproportionately in the Tauranga area.  Rates needed to be reasonable and affordable.

 

 

(141)     Submission 1840 – Mark Wassung, David Ratcliffe, Shaughn Prestidge

Messrs Wassung, Ratcliffe and Prestidge spoke to their submission.  Their proposed project, a gondola across the harbour, would connect the Port, Mount, Bayfair shopping centre and the Strand.  The timeline for the project was around 9 months to 2 years.  The gondola was a pre-fabricated system which could be quickly put together.  It was futuristic and fun.  They would like support from TCC of $70,000 for a feasibility study to be undertaken to move the project forward.

In response to questions

·               A 35 person gondola cabin was being promoted which could achieve 6,500 to 7,000 people movements per hour on the proposed route.

·               The feasibility study would include draft design, numbers of people movements, costs and potential return of investment.

Submission 1840 – Presentation and video presentation.  A copy of the video presentation can be obtained directly from Mr Wassung.

 

(142)     Submission 1647 – Shaughn Prestidge

Mr Prestidge spoke to his submission regarding an animation software that could be used by TCC as a great way to bring people along on the city’s journey.  Mr Prestidge showed a short video showcasing what the animation software could provide.  The software model was a work in progress and used gaming technology that could be easily accessible to the general public.

Submission 1647 – Video presentation.  A copy of the video presentation can be obtained directly from Mr Prestidge.

 

(143)     Submission 1336 – Anna Burns, Eddie Jackson, Cathy Webb - Tauranga Wellness Centre Working Group

Representatives from the Tauranga Wellness Centre Working Group spoke to their submission regarding a wellness centre for the city.  Originally the centre was to be for older adults but the scope had now been extended from a centre for ageing well to a wellness centre.  The centre would provide and deliver a number of social services located under one roof.  An administration support service would be provided for those agencies working in the centre.  A feasibility study had already been completed and the project now required a detailed business case, site identification and costings.  The group were looking for funding support from Council, which could be in the form of provision of land.

 

(144)     Submission 1338 – Heidi Lichtwark and Zane Jensen - Sport Bay of Plenty (SBoP)

Ms Lichtwark and Mr Jensen spoke to the Sport Bay of Plenty submission.  SBoP saw some real tangible outcomes in the LTP.  SBoP would like to see Council pause on the proposed projects for Golf Rd Reserve, Tatua Reserve and Blake Park, all located within a two kilometre area, and look to see how all of these projects might be undertaken in a better coordinated way.  They would also like to see two major user groups of the Gordon Spratt Reserve - rugby and rugby league - included in development plans for the reserve.  SBoP were supportive of the Memorial Park upgrade project but would like to see the staging for the indoor courts brought forward.

 

(145)     Submission 406 – Mary Dillon

Ms Dillon spoke about the city and its future and emphasised the need for more equity in the social and environmental structure of the city.  The city was for everybody and existing areas also deserved consideration, in particular Welcome Bay and Gate Pa.  Supported the Wednesday Challenge project and encouraged Council to seriously look at it.  There was a real opportunity for TCC to take leadership and be innovative with the development of the Pitau and Hinau elder housing sites in terms of affordable and social housing, rather than multi-million dollar apartments.  Ms Dillon urged Council to progress the Memorial Park walkway which would improve people’s connection with the environment.

 

In response to questions

TCC’s previous environment strategy was excellent but had been shelved.  A strategy was important but it needed to be implemented and consciously funded.

 

(146)     Submission 1542 – Mark Allan and Harry Oram - MHO Endeavours Ltd

Mr Allan and Mr Oram spoke to their submission regarding the Third Culture Festival, a film festival which focussed on those who had grown up in an environment outside of their parents’ culture, to help identify where home was.  Mr Oram had successfully run the festival in Hong Kong, receiving 1,800 submissions from all around the world, and had screened 90 films in 3 days.  The intention was to make the festival a destination festival e.g. what the Sundance festival was to Utah.  MHO Endeavours Ltd was looking for external funding opportunities, but many of those approached would first like to see endorsement for the project from TCC before they would commit funding.

 

(147)     Submission 1595 – Jill Brightwell

Ms Brightwell spoke to several issues of concern.  In terms of staffing costs, she noted that more staff would be brought in to take on work directly; however, consulting costs were increasing significantly as well.  Consultancy costs for projects work should be included as part of the capex budget not opex budget, as the consultancy costs should be capitalised at the completion of the project.  Council should ensure all projects were completed within specified timeframes.  Ms Brightwell was concerned about the impact the three waters reform would have on council budgets, especially if a central agency was recreated.  She suggested that any upgrade to Memorial Park could be prone to flooding due to climate change. 

 

(148)     Submission 1346 – Wayne Arthur and seven students (Travel Safety Group) – Tauranga Intermediate School

The students spoke to their submission requesting a light controlled pedestrian crossing on Fraser Street between Sixteenth and Eighteenth Avenues.  Current crossings were at either Fraser Cove or at the Fifteenth Avenue intersection.  Fraser Street was a busy street with many speeding cars and trucks and, every day, around 170 students needed to cross Fraser Street between Fifteenth Ave and Fraser Cove.  The students wanted a safe place to cross.  The students would also like cycle lanes along Fraser Street that were separated from the traffic.

Submission 1346 - Tabled document.

 

(149)     Submission 1341 – Gerald Greig - Papamoa Tennis Club

Mr Greig spoke to the submission from the Papamoa Tennis Club requesting funding towards a total replacement of the club’s lighting system on Gordon Spratt Reserve.  The current lights were at the end of their useful life; the poles swayed in the wind and this was a safety hazard for people playing.  The club’s vision was to play all year round and make the courts available to everyone.  A booking system would be used that switched on the lights automatically when a court was booked.  The club was in discussions with the Papamoa Netball Club with the view to possibly sharing the facility with them.  The club was seeking a 25% investment from council for the new lights.

 

At 11.00am, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 11.20am, the meeting resumed.

 

(150)     Submission 1643 – Jared Baronian – on behalf of Sanderson Group

Mr Baronian spoke on behalf of the Sanderson Group about the elder village at Pitau Street, what should happen to the land and how it could be developed.  Data indicated that there would be a 70% increase in people aged over 65 years over the next 25 years.  Facilities would be needed to accommodate the needs of these people; most current aged care and rest care facilities were at capacity with waiting lists.  The 7,500 square metre Pitau Street site could accommodate a care/rest facility with at least 150 plus beds.  The Sanderson Group would like to see the site sold on to market but for a specific purpose; an integrated rest care facility.

In response to questions

·               The Pitau site was the right size and closer to the nuclei of the Mount.

·               A “neighbourhood” style four level facility was envisioned with a mixture of fully integrated rest beds and some smaller sized apartments.

 

(151)     Submission 1107 – Darlene Dinsdale for Renee Kiriona

Ms Dinsdale spoke for Renee Kiriona who was unable to attend.  Ms Dinsdale spoke as one of the 5,245 owners of ancestral Māori land at Papamoa East that council referred to as Te Tumu (the Whenua), and as a member of the Tukuahau Whānau Trust.  The Trust’s interests equated to 2.84 hectares of the 240 hectare whenua.  The Trust and many other owners viewed the whenua being considered by council as a strategic purchase as a modern day land grab.  There was no mention of housing requirements for Māori in the plan for this whenua.  The Māori representatives from local hapu and iwi on the Combined Tangata Whenua Forum for SmartGrowth did not represent the Trust which was evidenced by the litigation that had taken place in the Māori Land Court for the past two years.  The Trust was not against development but against development that excluded the Trust.  If plans for Te Tumu went ahead as is, it would create further inequities for the owners of this whenua.

 

(152)     Submission 1795 – Garry Webber – Western Bay of Plenty District Council

Mayor Webber spoke to the WBOPDC submission.  The question had been raised why TCC had not considered intensification of the land on either side of Cambridge/Moffat Roads, which was zoned rural/residential, before Tauriko West.  WBOPDC strongly supported the collaborative work between TCC and Western Bay.  Mayor Webber advised that WBOPDC had taken the decision to upgrade the Te Puke pool facility, which would be heated and available all year round; and suggested that decision might be relevant if TCC was considering a pool facility at Papamoa.  WBOPDC wished to make the Commission aware of a confidentiality agreement that had previously been signed by TCC, WBOPDC and BOPRC for the significant development of the Omanawa Falls and noted that this agreement was significantly different from what TCC was currently proposing.

In response to questions

·               Local iwi were not in favour of a commercial operation at Omanawa Falls as it was at odds with the spiritual nature of the place and this needed to be taken into account.

·               There was an opportunity for another sub-regional park on the harbour side of Matakana Island.

·               WBOPDC would welcome discussions with TCC regarding opportunities for Maramatanga Park.

·               There was an agreement already in place that included the review of the Wairoa River Strategy; the agreement would need to be renegotiated before any development could take place in the area.

 

(153)     Submission 1515 – Michael Bayly

Mr Bayly spoke to his submission regarding dealing with Tauranga’s infrastructure issues.  Mr Bayly proposed a rail shuttle service going from one side of the Port to the other by raising the rail above the road so it was not impacting on roading.  Hydraulic lifts would be required on both sides of the harbour to shift the freight.  Most of the rail traffic coming through the Kaimai Ranges could then be stopped at Dive Crescent and backed up down through the Sulphur Point area.  The remaining rail line across the rail harbour bridge could then be used by a suburban light rail shuttle service.

 

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston closed the Thursday 17 June 2021 session with a karakia.

 

At 12.11pm, the meeting adjourned.  The meeting would resume at 8am on Friday 18 June 2021.

Continuation of meeting – Friday, 17 June 2021 at 9am

 

At 8.00am, the meeting resumed.

 

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston opened the session with a karakia.

 

(154)     Submission 1764 – Josia Vickers and Meg Downing – Instep Young Leaders Programme

Mr Vickers and Ms Downing spoke to the submission from the Instep Young Leaders Programme.  The submission was focussed on the first consultation question and supported Option One.  The Instep Young Leaders would like to see a community centre and library in the Tauriko area, co-located with parks and schools, and the Kopurererua Valley developed for recreational purposes.  They supported investment in Hewletts, Hull and Totara Roads and requested that TCC take every opportunity to separate cycle lanes from roads.  They supported the development of the city centre and the intensification of the Te Papa peninsula.  The Instep Young Leaders would like to see Our Place grow, and would like more student accommodation and facilities in the CBD.

In response to questions

·               “The Flat Spot” (Te Papa o Ngā Manu Porotakataka Park) at the Mount was well used by skateboarders.  A similar flat area on the Strand could be developed for skateboarding.

·               The stage at the end of the Strand opposite Starbucks could be utilised for student performances.

·               The Memorial Park facility was good for those who went there for swimming safety or sport.  Most young people would rather go to the beach.

 

(155)     Submission 236 – Whitiora McLeod – Ngati Kaahu a Tamapahore Trust

Mr McLeod took his submission as read and spoke to some additional issues from a climate change focus.  He would like to see investment in a case study for sustainable infrastructure on Māori land and supported funding for Māori Trusts who were ready to build papakainga housing on their land.  Mr McLeod highlighted that during the civil defence emergency in March, marae had been inundated with evacuees.  There needed to be better support, funding and evacuation planning for those facilities that were used as evacuation areas. 

 

(156)     Submission 1819 – Buddy Mikaere – Ngai Tamarawaho and Smith’s Farm, and Pukehinahina Charitable Trust Gate Pa Cultural Centre

Mr Mikaere spoke on behalf of Ngai Tamarawaho and regarding Smith’s Farm, and a proposed cultural centre at Gate Pa.  At the time of the construction of Route K, Ngai Tamarawaho had been promised land on Smiths Farm for a cultural centre.  In 2015, a formal offer was made to council to purchase the land for housing.  There had been no formal response from Council and it was now understood that the land had been set aside for sports fields.  Ngai Tamarawaho recommended that Smith’s Farm be developed for housing rather than sports fields.  The Pukehinahina Charitable Trust were seeking support for the proposed Gate Pa Cultural Centre on the former bowling club land.

Submission 1819 - Presentation and tabled document.

 

(157)     Submission 1695 – Kelvin Jones – Bay Oval Trust

Mr Jones spoke to the Bay Oval Trust submission.  The Bay Oval was recognised as a significant local, regional, national and international facility that Tauranga could be proud of.  However, the Bay Oval was still not complete with the pavilion and toilet block remaining unfinished and no indoor training facility.  $8.6 million was needed to complete the Oval.  $2.4 had already been raised; however, some of this was at risk, in particular $500,000 from Lotteries, if the Trust could not meet funding requirements.  The Trust requested Council support to complete the Oval now.

In response to questions

The Trust would like to see some of the smaller infrastructure projects finished before the Women’s Cricket World Cup and the Boxing Day test.

Submission 1695 – Presentation.

 

(158)     Submission 1753 – Ian McLean

Mr McLean spoke to his submission.  Considered the LTP did not address current issues and was still focussed on growth and expanding the city, and would result in an increased carbon footprint.  Mr McLean did not support the selling of elder village land at the Mount, expanding the city around the fringes, and the redevelopment of Cameron Road.  He supported the rates increase and proposed infrastructure upgrades, and any investment in safe cycleways and community services.  Suggested new builds should all include water tanks.

Submission 1753 – Presentation.

 

(159)     Submission 1806 – Jo Gravit – Tauranga Community Housing Trust (TCHT)

Ms Gravit spoke to the TCHT submission.  TCHT would like to see people factored in to the overarching operating guidelines, along the lines of improving community wellbeing and quality of life.  Suggested TCC considered a housing resource, not for policy making but to make things happen for housing and to be a go to person for housing providers.  They wanted assurance that the proceeds from the sale of elder housing would be used to  provide social and affordable housing.  In regards to the increase in DCs, TCHT urged TCC to look at ways to incentivise CHPs to provide social housing.

Submission 1806 - Tabled document

 

(160)     Submission 1356 – Oliver Boyd - Summerset Group Holdings Limited

Mr Boyd spoke to the submission from Summerset Group Holdings Limited.  Summerset Group developed and operated comprehensive care retirement villages which provided a wide range of living options for residents.  The increase in DCs was not fair and proportionate for the unique characteristics of a comprehensive care elder village.  The relief sought was outlined in the submission and  was largely based on the Auckland Council’s Development Contribution Policy, which was the most up to date and had been robustly tested.

 

(161)     Submission 1789 – Jan Beange

Ms Beange spoke to her submission.  Noted the importance of  the LTP decisions not being derailed by any democratic process in 2022.  Sustainability and coherence going forward for at least the next two electoral cycles were needed.  Ms Beange read from two old newspaper clippings; the first clipping from December 2001 was titled “Beange warns of rates rises”; the second clip was from 2003 and was titled “Walkout as Council flips on water use charge”.  Tauranga already had a history of tension, split votes and the use of casting votes .  Those that failed to learn from history were condemned to repeat it.

 

(162)     Submission 1739 – Ian Brown – Property Connection

Mr Brown spoke to his submission.  Targeted rates were not used to the degree they should be and considered that these were an appropriate way to undertake developments for separate communities.  The commercial differential was used nationally; 50 of 73 councils had applied a differential in 2019 with a median of 2.5.  1.6 was reasonable but there was scope for more.    Emphasised the importance that those paying rates had a good understanding of what they were getting for them.

 

(163)     Submission 1605 – Sameli Tongalea - AvaNiu Pasifika Ltd

Ms Tongalea spoke to the submission from AvaNiu Pasifika Ltd requesting TCC consider a facility specifically for the Pasifika community in Tauranga.  This would enable them to maintain their cultural practices and retain their identity.  AvaNiu Pasifika Ltd were currently renting halls and churches from other fellowship groups.  They would like a hall/meeting space that was central and with easy access, preferably in the Gate Pa area. 

 

(164)     Submission 1802 – Lyndon Marshall and Kevin Atkinson – Generation Homes Tauranga

Mr Marshall and Mr Atkinson spoke to the Generation Homes submission regarding the proposed increase in city-wide DCs.  Generation Homes produced 350 houses per year in Tauranga.  While they accepted that the cost for development needed to be covered, the increase in city-wide DCs would have a significant impact on their business and their customers.  They currently had 55 houses pre-sold awaiting titles that could not be lodged before the 1 August deadline.  Contracts for these houses were unconditionally signed and the extra cost would have to be borne by the business.  Ongoing, the increase would make new houses even more unaffordable and would significantly impact on house buyers.  There needed to be a realistic, detailed and transparent approach to the DCs increase.  Generation Homes proposed a mixture of increased DCs and targeted rates.

 

(165)     Submission 1650 – Bridget Bailey - Mount Maunganui Playcentre

Ms Bailey spoke to the Mount Maunganui Playcentre submission.  The Playcentre had long been told that it would need to relocate from its current Blake Park site; 16 years and there was still no solution.  In 2017 Tātua Reserve was suggested; however, in June they had been told that this was no longer a viable option.  $2,000 of community donations and $30,000 of donated professional services for plans for the Tātua building were wasted.  Either staying at Blake Park or moving to the park on Golf Road were viable options for the Playcentre.  They would be happy with either, but needed certainty.

In response to questions

It would be cheaper for the Playcentre to stay where they were but they were confident that the required money could be raised if they needed to move to Golf Road.  At Blake Park, they were using space that otherwise would not be used during the day; however, Blake Park was classed as an active reserve and this was not a good fit for the Playcentre, and they were concerned that this could be reviewed in the future.  The Playcentre was seeking certainty.

Submission 1650 - Tabled document.

 

(166)     Submission 1687 – Ben Shirley - Waipuna Football Club

Mr Shirley spoke to the submission from the Waipuna Football Club regarding Welcome Bay and Waipuna Park.  A 2020 planning study highlighted that the Welcome Bay and Ohauiti suburbs were under-serviced by commercial centres and lacked amenities.    Waipuna Park was a fantastic green area but only had a small pavilion and poor public toilet facilities.  The vision for Waipuna Park was for a multi-purpose sport facility and destination park, including a pump track, mountain bike track, an outdoor artificial turf, and indoor facilities.  Council had that same vision, as outlined in the Bay of Plenty Spaces and Places Plan, but Welcome Bay had been totally missed.  It was acknowledged that there were transport and access problems and a connection between Welcome Bay and Ohauiti was long past due.  Considered that Welcome Bay had been ignored for too long and action was needed now.

Submission 1687 - Tabled document.

 

(167)     Submission 1378 – Ron Melville

Mr Melville spoke to his submission regarding the quality of resurfacing of roads throughout Tauranga  Like was not being replaced with like.  A targeted rate had been previously suggested by residents but had not been considered by Council.  Mr Melville gave Oriental Parade as an example, where the seal on the street had been badly applied and poorly swept.  He would like Council to consult with residents before any resurfacing work was done and the quality of work monitored and assessed at completion, with contractors made to re-work if the resurfacing was not up to standard.

Submission 1378 – Presentation.

 

(168)     Submission 1581 – Greg Brownless

Mr Brownless spoke to his submission.  The LTP was not sustainable and was focussed on growth.  Tauranga already had as much growth as it could handle.  It was a misconception that previous councils had under-invested in infrastructure and it should be recognised that major projects had been undertaken; however, it was acknowledged that infrastructure was not up to scratch for growth.  Central government needed to invest more in the region.  Mr Brownless believed that the rates increases over the next 10 years had been underestimated by ratepayers; they thought the rise was a one-off.  Mr Brownless preferred that the elder housing sites be leased and not sold, and the council civic administration building should be built on council owned land.

 

(169)     Submission 1397 – Tracy Hampton and Anton Steel - Film Bay of Plenty

Ms Hampton and Mr Steel spoke to the submission from Film Bay of Plenty.  Post COVID, New Zealand had become more of a film destination.  Film Bay of Plenty worked closely with the New Zealand Film Commission, and was the first port of call for film in Tauranga.  Film Bay of Plenty currently had confirmed funding from Western Bay, Rotorua Lakes, and Taupo councils for the next three years, and were awaiting funding decisions from Whakatane, Kawerau and Opotiki councils.  They also received funding from TECT and Bay Trust, and were supported by Priority One.

 

At 11.19am, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 11.30am, the meeting resumed.

 

(170)     Submission 1367 – Nigel Tutt - Priority One

Mr Tutt spoke to the submission from Priority One.  Priority One was happy with the overall plan from an economic perspective and from the perspective of the businesses they talked to.  They supported the increase in the capital spend and the focus on infrastructure.  Feedback from the business community regarding the proposed rates increases had been quite positive and the increases supported; however, this did not come unconditionally.  TCC must deliver.  There was optimism regarding the CBD and Priority One urged Council to progress investments outlined for the city centre and consider incentives to help people to do the right things in the CBD.  Suggestions of what could be done were outlined in their submission.

In response to questions

A mix of commercial use and housing was needed in the CBD.  While investing in student accommodation was not as attractive as investing in offices, this would help with the revitalisation of the CBD.

 

(171)     Submission 1329 – Paul Godwin

Mr Godwin spoke to his submission.   To avoid wasting ratepayer money, Council needed to decide whether projects would happen or not and then go out for public consultation on what the project might look like, not whether it should happen.  Mr Godwin had no issues with the public transport, and found the frequency of buses excellent and the service reliable.  He suggested that buses should run later on Fridays and Saturdays.  The city centre needed to be a point of destination, which meant having first rate amenities.  Current amenities were dated and not fit for purpose, with the exception of the Art Gallery, and needed revitalisation.  Mr Godwin also supported the walkway from Memorial Park to the Strand.

 

(172)     Submission 1362 – Ian Dustin

Mr Dustin spoke to his submission.  TCC currently had a neutral position on the use of methyl bromide and Mr Dustin would like this to be changed.  Mr Dustin suggested Council consider opening up land between the Wairoa River to Omokoroa as a residential zone in preference to Tauriko West and Te Tumu as he considered the development of those areas may never happen.  He would like to see a greater emphasis on community and papakainga housing.  Mr Dustin would also like Council to consider an environmental levy on the tonnage at the Port of Tauranga as a different revenue option; but acknowledged that a change in legislation was needed to make this happen.

Submission 1362 - Tabled document.

 

(173)     Submission 1582 – Chris Longman and Mark Rogers - Tauranga City Basketball

Messrs Longman and Rogers spoke to the Tauranga City Basketball submission.  The sport of basketball had grown in the last 10 years; Tauranga already had court capacity restrictions and this needed to be urgently addressed.  The LTP acknowledged that there was a three court shortage in the city but had provision for only one more court.  The Club was looking to work collaboratively with other stakeholders to build a multi-purpose facility at Toi Ohomai.  The Club was seeking support and funding from council to progress a feasibility study for this.

In response to questions

Tauranga City Basketball had regular conversations with volleyball around needs.  The sporting community as a whole had worked more collaboratively since COVID.

 

(174)     Submission 1596 – Tony Gavin - The Lakes Community Association

Mr Gavin spoke to the Lakes Community Association submission.  There was a need to fast track the Tauriko roading development.  SH29 had become a major route north and south and was over congested.  There needed to be an alternative entry in and out to the industrial area i.e. roundabout at Redwood Lane.  There also needed to be dedicated bus lanes between The Lakes, Tauriko West and Greerton.  Community facilities were needed in The Lakes area; it was not just young families living there.  Timing of the transportation infrastructure in terms of the phasing of Tauriko West residential development was important.  A concept structure would be needed for the whole Tauriko West development that could not be deviated from by developers e.g. the latest developments at The Lakes did not include walkways and parks like the initial development had.  The commercial differential needed to be increased over time.  The Association was not debating that rates needed to go up, but asked that value was delivered and was transparent.

Submission 1596 – Presentation.

 

(175)     Submission 1791 – Gray Southon and Ian McGrane- Tauranga Carbon Reduction Group

Messrs Southon and McCrane spoke to the Tauranga Carbon Reduction Group submission.  Climate change was widely seen as the greatest threat to civilisation so the Group was perplexed at the lack of attention to climate change in the LTP.  The city had a leadership role to play in setting the local framework in which we lived and worked.  Congestion produced an enormous amount of carbon and addressing this needed to be a top priority.  Houses needed to be made more sustainable.  There were some initiatives that could be done now at a low cost and these were outlined in the submission.

Submission 1791 – Presentation.

 

(176)     Submission 1622 – Joy Moir – Sustainable Business Solutions

Ms Moir spoke to the Sustainable Business Solutions submission.  Tauranga had been in shock mode ever since the onset of the city’s rapid growth.  Tauranga needed a long term vision for the future that looked towards providing a new way of living and being.  A city with a strong vision brought people together, not divided.  The city needed a new lens to look through.  There were very capable people locally that could help with this.

Submission 1622 – Presentation.

 

 

(177)     Submission 1579 - Sasho Stosic - Tatai Ora Charitable Trust and the Whalers Sports Club

Mr Stosic spoke to the Tatai Ora Charitable Trust and the Whalers Sports Club submission requesting a dedicated space for rugby league.  The Whalers Club was currently based at Arataki Park.  They liked where they were and would like to stay there; however, the Club did not currently have fair and reasonable use of the Arataki Community Centre.  There was no connection to te reo Māori and nothing that identified the Club.  The Club was requesting a long term lease for 900 square metres of the park for a dedicated facility.  Confirmation of Council’s support was needed for the Trust to access funding for the facility.  The facility would be all-encompassing, not just for sport.

Submission 1579 – Presentation.

 

(178)     Submission 1394 - Greg Orchard and Vicki McClaren - Accessible Properties

Mr Orchard and Ms McClaren spoke to the Accessible Properties submission.    It was suggested that the full proceeds from the sale of the elder housing portfolio be put aside for projects that supported or incentivised social and affordable housing in the city.  Funding for the new community centre at Pukehinahina needed to be brought forward to 2021/22 year; Accessible Properties would offer a site to realise this opportunity.  Accessible Properties would like Council to consider the development of a pop-up park at the vacant site at 899 Cameron Road in partnership with Sport Bay of Plenty and other stakeholders.  The Te Papa Spatial Plan and the plan change for intensification needed to be given the highest priority for implementation.  Accessible Properties’ Pukehinahina vision was ready to realise and they were currently developing business cases with Kāinga Ora.

Submission 1394 – Presentation.

 

(179)     Submission 1606 - Doug Barnes, Tina Salisbury and Rochelle Jensen – Gate Pa Stakeholders Group

Mr Barnes, Ms Salisbury and Ms Jensen spoke to the Gate Pa Stakeholders Group submission.  The Group was in support of the Accessible Properties submission to bring forward funding for the Pukehinahina Community Centre on Accessible Properties land.  Pukehinahina was a community in need with an average income of $23,000.  The proposed community centre would provide access to services and support that this community so desperately needed. 

 

(180)     Submission 1722 – Alan Dickson – Target Rifle Club

Mr Dickson spoke to the submission from the Target Rifle Club regarding issues the Club was having with the new landlord for the property that the Club operated from at 165 Elizabeth Street.  Council was the landowner for this property.  The Club was currently locked out of the hall and toilets.  Council had promised to facilitate a meeting to progress the Club’s sub-lease but to date nothing had happened.

 

(181)     Submission 1604 – Liz Davies – SociaLink

Ms Davies spoke to the SociaLink submission which was based on the views of the social and community sectors in the Western Bay.  People, whanau and communities should be first and foremost for all council activities.  Council needed to actively take into account the needs of low income people and were encouraged to apply an equity lens to decisions being made and planned policies and activities.  Housing was a serious social issue facing Tauranga and Council was urged to be bold, represent the people and intervene to ensure that housing was healthy, affordable and accessible at scale.  It was recommended that Council ring fence the entire money from the sale of the elder housing portfolio to use for social housing.  SociaLink supported community funding but would like to see this allocated more fairly across all sectors, not just to sport and recreation.

 

At 1.38pm, the meeting adjourned.

 

At 2.10pm, the meeting resumed.

 

(182)     Submission 1541 – Sue Pharo

Ms Pharo spoke to her submission in support of the arts and culture in Tauranga.  Tauranga needed leaders who were advocates for arts and culture.  Ms Pharo requested that Council build a new library as a symbol of change and decisive decision making for the city.  She also requested that Council continued the support for the Tauranga Art Gallery and the Incubator.  Tauranga did not have a museum and Ms Pharo would like to see a museum in strategic planning.

 

(183)     Submission 1657 – Ian Stevenson

Mr Stevenson spoke to his submission.  He was concerned at the increase in capital expenditure from the previous LTP to this LTP, it was now at $4.5 billion.  The increase in the Capex budget resulted in an increase in the Opex budget which resulted in the need for a rates increase.  Mr Stevenson believed that TCC had lacked accountability since 2004 onwards and the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee lacked the adequate fiscal and financial know-how and ability needed.  Considered that there were longstanding fiscal issues with Bay Venues Limited.  Money collected for a particular purpose was being diverted elsewhere e.g. DCs and depreciation.  Considered that Council’s debt levels were recklessly high already and any increase to these levels would ultimately cripple the community and city financially.

Submission 1657 - Tabled document.

 

(184)     Submission 1814 – Rob Paterson – Citizens Advocacy Tauranga Inc (CAT)

Mr Paterson spoke on behalf of Citizens Advocacy Tauranga Inc.  The proposed rates increases for the next 10 years would push many residents out.  CAT believed that the proposed Memorial Park/Strand walkway should be canned.  A pay as you throw (PAYT) option should be offered in the future for kerbside recycling and the Maleme Street transfer station should remain in operation.  The submission outlined several solutions to transport and congestion issues.  Considered that a new library and administration block were totally unnecessary.  Developers of sub-divisions must pay their way at the outset. 

In response to questions

CAT had approximately 20 members and was not subscription based.

 

(185)     Submission 1348 – John Bickers

Mr Bickers spoke to his submission regarding water.  He was concerned about Tauranga’s water supply and suggested that it was mandatory for all new builds to have a water tank to collect rain water off the roof, with a minimum requirement of a 1000 litre tank.  He suggested that Council could subsidise the cost of a new tank, for new builds as well as for existing ratepayers. 

Submission 1348 - Tabled document.

 

(186)     Submission 1272 – Stephen Wright

Mr Wright spoke to his submission requesting the upgrading of the western end of Carmichael Road in Bethlehem, particularly for wastewater.  All dwellings in that area were still on septic tanks that drained into soak holes.  Most of the soak holes were failing and often overflowed.  When this happened toilets and showers could not be used.  An upgrade was meant to take place in 2012, and then again in 2018 but nothing had happened.  The upgrade was now planned for 2022.  Mr Wright was sceptical that this would happen and had real concerns about health issues for the residents.  He was seeking the same level of service that the rest of Bethlehem and Tauranga enjoyed. 

 

(187)     Submission 1398 – Carl McComb, Michael Bayly and Douglas Owens – Tauranga Recreation Ground and Racecourse Reserve (TRGRR)

Messrs McComb, Bayly and Owens spoke to the submission regarding the Tauranga Recreation Ground and Racecourse Reserve.  The submission was a collaborative effort between the Tauranga Golf Club, the Tauranga Equestrian Sports Association, Racing Tauranga Incorporated and Ngai Tamarawaho.  The purpose of the submission was to ensure the crown owned recreational reserve was preserved in perpetuity.  The lessees would like their leases, which expired in 18 years, to be renewed so that they could continue on with the development of their facilities and would also like to see recognition of the significant investment by stakeholders in these facilities..  They  encouraged Council to remove all reference to the reserve that described the land as being anything other than a permanent and historically significant reserve from the Te Papa Spatial plan.  It was noted that if the reserve status was changed, tangata whenua, Ngai Tamarawaho, would consider asking for the land back.

 

(188)     Submission  1777 – Matt Cowley – Tauranga Chamber of Commerce

Mr Cowley spoke to his submission from the Tauranga Chamber of Commerce.  Delivery of the LTP was key.  There appeared to be a lack of leadership around public transport from Waka Kotahi, BOPRC and TCC.  In the short term there needed to be more collaboration, and, in the long term, consideration for one entity to run the public transport service.  The Chamber was working with both Hamilton and Tauranga councils as well as central government on the Hamilton/Tauranga corridor to connect the two regional economies.  They would like TCC to consider options for compensation or redress for businesses that were challenged by major projects works e.g. Cameron Road.  Having a stakeholder engagement person for businesses to go to for information and support would be useful.

 

(189)     Submission 1784 – John Robson

Mr Robson spoke to his submission.  When Mr Robson looked at the LTP as it was currently envisaged, he saw broken promises.  It was being promoted as a promise of a better tomorrow but the conditionalities that required its delivery had not been made clear to those who were being asked to support it.  Mr Robson supported the move of the commercial differential from 1.2 to 1.6 and urged TCC to go further to 2.5 like Tauranga’s peers.  The burden of dealing with the city’s growth needed to be more equitable.  Mr Robson also asked that TCC address the fact that the LTP significantly failed to address climate change.

 

(190)     Submission 1584 – David Cosgrove - AMP Capital Bayfair PTY Ltd

Mr Cosgrove spoke to the AMP Capital Bayfair PTY Ltd submission and represented the owners of Bayfair Mall.  Bayfair was a significant contributor to the local economy.  The increase in the commercial differential would be passed on to the Mall’s 150 or so tenants.  This increase had not been foreshadowed, anticipated or forecast by these businesses and some of them would be significantly disadvantaged.  He suggested the Commissioners be more business friendly and reduce the commercial rates increases by reprioritising what was in the LTP – live within your means.  There were other means of income available i.e. public/private partnerships, sale of assets.  Growth should be paid for by growth.  AMP Capital Bayfair PTY Ltd believed the differential was not appropriate and should not be included in the LTP.

 

(191)     Submission 1670 and 1699 – Glen Crowther – Sustainable Bay of Plenty Charitable Trust

Mr Crowther spoke to the submission from Sustainable Bay of Plenty Charitable Trust.  The Trust agreed with the commercial differential and supported infrastructure and intensification of Te Papa but highlighted the need for continued good public consultation.  It was not evident in the LTP and in the budget that caring for the environment was considered as important as providing for growth.  Considered it unlikely this plan would deliver affordable housing.  The lack of carbon targets, a climate change policy, and an environment strategy was  as serious as the housing crisis.  Tauranga was the only city that did not have a sustainability strategy or an environment strategy; it had the worst urban form and transport system and was the worst performing city regarding carbon emissions.

 

At 4.16pm, the meeting adjourned.

At 4.30pm, the meeting resumed.

 

(192)     Submission  1393 – Natalia Tropotova and Morgan Jones – Property Council

Mr Jones and Ms Tropotova spoke to the Property Council’s commission.  The Property Council supported the use of targeted rates to support transportation, stormwater and community amenities, but did not support the proposed increase in the commercial differential from 1.2 to 1.6.  They also recommended that council consider taking on more debt to help deliver the capital programme to keep rates and fees and charges at a reasonable level.  More funding needed to be allocated to the development and revitalisation of the city centre.  Considered that payment for growth should not solely be placed in DC fees and recommended Council consider other funding models e.g. beneficiaries based model. They were concerned about the lack of funding from central government.  The Property Council was concerned about the impact the increase in city-wide DCs would have on around 200 new home owners and recommended council deferred the increase to 2022.

 

(193)     Submission 1603 – Rob Paterson

Mr Paterson spoke to his personal submission which gave his view and opinions on a number of issues and projects outlined in the LTP.

 

(194)     Submission 1426 – Jonathan Insall-Reid

Mr Insall-Reid spoke to his submission.  Mr Insall-Reid considered that investment in Tauranga and its surrounds was overdue and urged the commissioners to continue the progress made to date without delay, particularly in regards to building a cultural and artistic city.  Mr Insall-Reid was also particularly interested in green transport solutions and suggested a second city rail line to Waihi, via Katikati and Omokoroa, and through to Te Puke to Whakatane.  Tauranga and its surrounds urgently needed a museum and further gallery and Māori performance space, built adjacent to the city and close to the water’s edge; suggested Dive Crescent as an appropriate location.

 

(195)     Submission 1437 – Guy Hall

Mr Hall spoke to his submission regarding his home in Bethlehem, which was next to a stormwater reserve.  The property was purchased in 2017 and due diligence had confirmed there were no issues with the property.  However, with proposed Plan Change 27, the property was now designated as flood prone.  A road that had subsequently been put in next to the property was meant to have three culverts but, mistakenly, only two had been installed.  Mr Hall and a number of other property owners in the area had been unfairly impacted by the mistake and requested funding in the LTP to install the third culvert.  Council staff had confirmed that his property would not be designated as flood prone if the third culvert was installed.

 

(196)     Submission 1619 – Carole Gordon – Social Sector Forum

Ms Gordon spoke to the submission from the Social Sector Forum of SmartGrowth.    The Forum was seeking a decision-making climate where the Treaty and social justice prevailed and wanted to see better integration with the Living Standards Framework.  The Forum were concerned about the sale of the elder housing sites and, in particular, what would be done with the land.  The Forum requested that Council did not divest the land at this time and formed a working party to look at the development of an intensification elder housing project and appoint a Housing Manager to help deliver the project in alignment with the SmartGrowth Housing Action Plan.

 

(197)     Submission 1373 – Simone Anderson - The Incubator Creative Hub

Ms Anderson spoke to the Incubator Creative Hub submission regarding the Incubator Strategy.  The document had been in planning and development for over a year and was aligned with the Historic Village Strategy.  The Incubator was grateful for the support and funding received to date, which over the past three years had contributed to the delivery of exceptional outcomes for the community and the Village.  The Incubator was seeking an increased level of investment that was proportionate to their growth and relative to their potential and projected expansion of essential grassroots art infrastructure and amenities for Tauranga Moana.  They requested that the Council consider a fair balance of investment that compared with the funding received by Creative Bay of Plenty and the Tauranga Art Gallery.  They would also like to form a strategic partnership with Council to help achieve their objectives.

 

(198)     Submission 1330 – John Sligo – Tauranga Indoor Sport User Group

Mr Sligo spoke to the Tauranga Indoor Sport User Group submission.  Those that were present with him represented approximately 23,500 active members of the community.  The Group supported the upgrade to the Memorial Park facility but would like the current staged approach to be reconsidered into a concurrent approach.  Current demand was such that waiting was not an option.  The Group would also like to see the future planning of the eastern corridor and for Te Tumu facilities be brought forward. 

 

(199)     Submission 1333 – John Sligo – Parafed Bay of Plenty

Mr Sligo spoke to the submission from Parafed Bay of Plenty.  Parafed Bay of Plenty provided opportunities for physically disabled people to be active.  They currently had just over 140 active members, along with their families, volunteers and coaches, 400 people in total.  Parafed Bay of Plenty relied heavily on hard floor court space for their wheelchair sports and it was difficult to find court space at the Baypark Arena at a time that was suitable.  Parafed Bay of Plenty was based at Memorial Hall but the hall had no fire evacuation plan for disabled people and there were issues with access to disabled toilets and changing rooms.  A speed bump obstacle had recently been installed in the hall carpark which was between the entrance to the hall and the disabled parking spaces.  Wheelchair users struggled to get over the speed bump.

 

(200)     Submission 1794 – Rebecca Ryder – Tauranga Moana Outrigger Canoe Club & Bay of Plenty Dragonboat Club

Ms Ryder spoke to the Tauranga Moana Outrigger Canoe Club & Bay of Plenty Dragonboat Club submission.  Marine Park was the only all-tide deep water access recreation reserve.  The boats for both sports were launched with trolleys and required several people.  The clubs requested that Council invest funds towards investigating and master planning the whole of Marine Park with a recreation focus in mind.  The Clubs were currently in talks with Sport Bay of Plenty regarding a feasibility study for this.

 

(201)     Submission 1778 – Carole Gordon

Ms Gordon spoke to her submission regarding the challenges Council faced today.  She spoke about making Tauranga a smart city which integrated the technology of today in to its planning processes to enable sustainable functionality.  Ms Gordon suggested that it was time to frame Tauranga as a very future focussed smart city which maximised benefits for all residents and visitors.

 

(202)     Submission 1636 – Sue MacArthur, James Hughes and Heidi Hughes – Greater Tauranga

Ms MacArthur, Mr Hughes and Ms Hughes spoke to the Greater Tauranga submission.  Greater Tauranga did not believe that aspects of the current LTP were future fit, specifically the plans for more housing to be built at Tauriko West and Te Tumu.  They believed land inside the city boundary could be used more effectively and efficiently to provide homes and biodiverse green space for residents.  They also believed the LTP would create growth by sprawl that would further degrade Tauranga’s living environment.  Greater Tauranga suggested five projects that would provide a similar amount of housing proposed at Tauriko and Te Tumu as well as a range of other benefits at a lower cost: an urban regeneration project, development of the racecourse for housing and amenities, halt the development of the Te Tumu Regional Park, relocation of the airport and specific heavy industry and use of that area for high density housing, and investment in a rail strategy for passenger and freight.

Submission 1636 – Presentation.

 

(203)     Submission 1654 – Summer Bell – Tauranga Youth Development Team (TYDT)

Ms Bell spoke to the TYDT submissions.  TYDT worked to benefit the wellbeing of young people in Tauranga Moana.  All TYDT initiatives were provided free of charge to the community.  The Team valued the current partnership with TCC and also worked and collaborated with the Tauranga District Health Board.  Investing in the city’s young people now was important so that Tauranga retained them as residents, employees, future leaders and future small business owners.  Access to funding would allow TYDT to develop, deliver and maintain positive youth development initiatives across all young people and whanau.

Submission 1654 – Presentation.

 

(204)     Submission 1741 – Janis and Phil Jameson

Mr and Mrs Jamieson spoke to their submission.  They were concerned about infrastructure investment and council expenditure priorities e.g. the Memorial Park/Strand walkway would cost $19 million for approximately 900metres at $21,000 per metre, compared to the Tauranga Eastern Link which had the same cost per metre.  They were also opposed to the proposed rates increases.  Rates should be fairly shared and people needed to be assured that rates would go towards priorities.  Targeted rates should only be used for essentials; what the city needed to survive.

 

(205)     Submissions 1726, 1730 and 1731 – Rondell Reihana – Ranginui 9B Trust

Ms Reihana spoke to the Ranginui 9B Trust submission.  Ranginui 9B Trust was located  on Ranginui Road in Welcome Bay, had approximately 308 owners and was approximately seven hectares of usable land suitable for terraced housing.  The land had no infrastructure.  To establish papakainga housing on the land feasibility funding was required to get through the required city planning and design steps.  The Trust fully supported DCs being rebated for Māori land. 

Submissions 1726, 1730 and 1731 – Presentation.

 

(206)     Submission 1263 – Malcom Wassung

Mr Wassung spoke to his submission.  He commented on Waka Kotahi’s methods for the slowing down of traffic, and used the narrowing of Fifteenth Avenue in favour of the widened footpath/cycleway, and Greerton, as examples.  He would like to see the rail network used for commuter transport.  An inexpensive trial could be run between Omokoroa to Te Puke through the CBD, with temporary platforms at various suburbs to determine uptake.  Mr Wassung would like to see the partition of wards into geographical areas and the election of the Mayor by elected councillors.

 

(207)     Submission 1013 – Richard Hart

Mr Hart spoke to his submission and focussed on the proposed Te Tumu Kaituna Regional Park.  The park would be a large premier destination park bordering on to the coast and river.  He suggested the proposal needed fresh eyes and requested that an independent study based on the natural attributes of the park be undertaken.

Submission 1013 – Presentation.

 

(208)     Submission 1399 – Sam Newton - New Zealand Recreation

Mr Newton spoke to the New Zealand Recreation submission.  Their mission was to advance wellbeing through recreation.  They acknowledged and thanked TCC as the major provider of the city’s sport and recreation facilities.  New Zealand Recreation supported the prioritisation of investment in walking and cycling routes.  They also supported the accessibility for recreational space and the Memorial Park/CBD leisure hub.

 

 

 

Closing comments

Commission Chair Anne Tolley noted that the Commission had read all written submissions and had heard four and a half days of submissions from a wide variety of people.  Deliberations would take place on Thursday and Friday of the following week, and the final LTP would be formally adopted by Council on 26 July 2021.  Following the adoption of the LTP, everyone who had submitted to the LTP would receive a written response to their submission.

Chair Tolley thanked everyone who had made a submission and particularly those who had come along to speak to the Commission about their wants and desires for the city.  The Commission had been impressed by the passion that people had shown.

Ms Tolley also thanked staff, particularly Democracy Services and the Executive Team, for their work and effort during the five days of submission hearings.

 

Resolution  CO10/21/2

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(a)       Receives and accepts submission numbers 1815 to 1819 that were received after submissions closed at 4pm on 7 June 2021.

(b)       Receives the verbal submissions to the draft 2021-2031 Long-term Plan including all supplementary presentations and tabled documents.

Carried

 

5            Closing Karakia

Commissioner Shad Rolleston closed the meeting with a karakia.

 

 

The meeting closed at 7.27pm.

 

 

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 26 July 2021.

 

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 July 2021

 

7.2         Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 24 June 2021

File Number:           A12704692

Author:                    Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

Authoriser:             Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 24 June 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

1.       Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 24 June 2021 

  


UNCONFIRMEDOrdinary Council Meeting Minutes

24 & 25 June 2021

 

 

MINUTES

Ordinary Council Meeting

Thursday, 24 June 2021; and

Friday, 25 June 2021

 


Order of Business

1          Opening Karakia. 4

2          Apologies. 4

3          Public Forum.. 4

4          Acceptance of late items. 4

5          Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 5

6          Change to the order of business. 5

7          Confirmation of Minutes. 5

Nil

8          Declaration of conflicts of interest 5

9          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 5

Nil

10       Recommendations from Other Committees. 5

Nil

11       Business. 5

11.1          Deliberations Report - Options for the Level of Investment and Implications for Rates and Debt 5

11.2          Deliberations Report - Rating Structure Proposals for the 2021-31 Long-term Plan. 6

11.3          Deliberations Report - Pitau Road Village and Hinau Street Village. 7

11.8          2021-31 Long-term Plan Deliberations - Economic development and growth management matters. 8

11.4          Long-term Plan Deliberations - Draft Community Funding Policy and proposed Community Grants Fund. 12

11.5          Deliberations Report - Location of Civic Administration Premises. 13

11.6          Deliberations Report - Options for the accelerated delivery of the Papamoa East Interchange. 14

11.7          Submissions to the Draft 2021/22 Development Contributions Policy. 15

11.9          2021-31 Long-term Plan Delierations - Community Partnerships. 16

11.10       2021-31 Long-term Plan Deliberations - Spaces and Places: sport 19

11.11       2021-31 Long-term Plan Deliberations - Spaces and Places: other 23

11.12       2021-31 Long-term Plan Deliberations - Other issues and options papers. 25

11.13       Late item - Issues and Options - Remaker Space. 27

11.14       2021-31 Long-term Plan Deliberations - Other issues and options papers (Agenda Item 11.12 continued) 27

11.15       2021-2031 Long-term Plan -  User Fees and Charges 2021/22, Revenue and Finance Policy and Groups of Activities (Agenda Item 11.13) 31

11.16       2021-31 Long-term Plan Deliberations - Spaces and Places - sport (Agenda Item 11.10 continued) 32

11.17       Deliberations Report - Options for the level of investment and implications for rates and debts (Agenda Item 11.1 continued) 33

12       Closing Karakia. 35

 

 
MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council Meeting

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

ON Thursday, 24 June 2021 AT 9.30am and Friday, 25 June 2021 at 9am

 

 

Thursday, 24 June 2021 at 9.30 am

 

PRESENT:                 Commission Chair Anne Tolley, Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston, Commissioner Stephen Selwood, 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), Kathryn Sharplin (Manager: Finance), Tracey Hughes (Financial Insights & Reporting Manager), Jim Taylor (Transactional Services Manager), Andrew Mead, (Manager: City & Infrastructure Planning), Anne Blakeway (Manager: Community Partnerships), Emma Joyce (Policy Analyst), Brigid McDonald (Manager: Strategic Investment & Commercial Facilitation), Jo Stone (Senior Strategic Advisor), Sarah Stewart (Strategic Advisor), Jeremy Boase (Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor)

 

1            Opening Karakia

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston opened the meeting with a karakia.

2            Apologies

Nil

3            Public Forum

Nil

4            Acceptance of late items

Resolution  CO12/21/1

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

Accepts the following late items for consideration at the meeting:

·                Deliberations report – Options for the accelerated delivery of the Papamoa East Interchange;

·                Submissions to the Draft 2021/22 Development Contributions Policy – Attachment C – Details regarding the Waiāri Water Supply Scheme.

 

The above items were not included in the original agenda because they were not available at the time the agenda was issued, and discussion cannot be delayed until the next scheduled meeting of the Council because decisions are required in regard to these items.

Carried

5            Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6            Change to the order of business

Commission Chair Anne Tolley noted that agenda items may be moved within the meeting depending on progress of the deliberations and availability of staff. 

7            Confirmation of Minutes

Nil 

8            Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9            Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

10          Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil

11          Business

11.1       Deliberations Report - Options for the Level of Investment and Implications for Rates and Debt

Staff          Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

                  Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

 

Introduction

·                Commission Chair Tolley noted the huge amount of work entailed in producing the options and recommendations to be considered during deliberations.  The commissioners had been in the community meeting and talking to members of the Tauranga community about the Long-term Plan (LTP), and the costs, benefits and trade-offs required.  The commissioners would bring this broader perspective to the deliberations, considering the views of all the community that has engaged during the consultation period for the LTP.

·                Chief Executive Marty Grenfell noted that the LTP outlined the need to invest in development of the city and was underlined by sub-regional strategies for growth as well as addressing the needs of the current city population while catering for the growing needs of the city .  Since the appointment of the commissioners in February, there had been significant decisions made for the LTP and the commissioners had been fully engaged with the community around the LTP.  Decisions made in this meeting would set the programme and budget for the next 10 years for the city.

·                Staff reports were written to ensure that the decision-making requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) to analyse all options and consider the views of  those impacted were met; if the commissioners made a decision different to the staff recommendations then the rationale for the decision must be provided.  Noted the process for any decisions made that were inconsistent with council policies. The LTP approved council’s budget; a delegation to the Chief Executive to operate within the draft until final adoption of the LTP was also required.

 

Key points

·                The report would be received and discussed and then left to lie until the end of deliberations to allow for any changes made during deliberations to be incorporated.

·                The options that were consulted on with the community were included with detailed finances provided for Options 1 and 2.  There was some limited community support for Option 4 but no detailed workings had been undertaken.

·                The staff recommendation was revised Option 1 of $4.65billion.

·                The report acknowledged some of the risks facing the LTP and the delivery of the capital programme, particularly around the role and funding of Waka Kotahi.

·                There was currently work going on in the funding and financing area, which may impact future years of the  LTP.

 

In response to questions

·         Para 8 – reduction of $7m in Waka Kotahi subsidy rates was for the 3-year period.

Resolution  CO12/21/2

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council receives the Deliberations Report - Options for the Level of Investment and Implications for Rates and Debt.

Carried

 

The remainder of the recommendations for this agenda item were left to lie until the conclusion of deliberations.

 

 

11.2       Deliberations Report - Rating Structure Proposals for the 2021-31 Long-term Plan

Staff          Paul Davidson, General Manager

Jim Taylor, Transactional Services Manager

 

Key points

·                The report covered four major areas:

-               targeted rates – choice whether to ringfence rates into a targeted proposal or leave as a general rate. Submissions received generally favoured use of targeted rates;

-               commercial differential – support to move from 1.2 to 1.6; submissions were mainly in favour, also support for a higher differential;

-               rates postponement options and schemes;

-               need to look for further rating opportunities  with a proposal to do more work in this area over the next 12 months.

 

In response to questions

·                Wastewater charges could also be considered. Options to a “pan tax” could be more equitable.

·                Worth signalling to the commercial sector that there was a high likelihood that commercial rates would increase in future years.

·                A rates postponement scheme could be implemented for July 2022 as it could be consulted on with the community during the Annual Plan process.  Review of existing arrangements should include the process people must go through under the current rates postponement policy.  There were some implications of a successful rates postponement scheme in that council debt rises.  Direct debit options and payment spreading arrangements could be promoted.

Resolution  CO12/21/3

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the Deliberations Report – Rating Structure Proposals for the 2021-31 Long-term Plan.

(b)     Agrees to targeted rates to ring-fence specific investment areas of council vs general rates - option 1.

(c)     Agrees to commercial differential to be applied during the period of the LTP – option 1.

(d)     Agrees to a further $150,000 budget to undertake further work on possible rating categories that reflect different affordability and benefit profiles within the community,  including, but not limited to, the Central Business District, Port and related industries, a wider industry grouping, Airbnb, wastewater charging and location-based groups.  This would also include future changes to differential levels across these categories and is likely to lead to proposals for higher commercial rates in future years.

(e)     Agrees to undertake further work on possible amendment to rates postponement involving both a review of Tauranga’s rates postponement policy including financial implications, and support for the development of a national rates postponement scheme or other third party schemes before February 2022.

(f)      Agrees to contribute $50,000 from existing finance budget to the design of the national rates postponement scheme referred to in resolution (e).

Carried

 

11.3       Deliberations Report - Pitau Road Village and Hinau Street Village

Staff          Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

Key points

·                Substantive issue was around separating out these two properties from the wider elder housing portfolio.

·                Welfare of tenants was the guiding principle; assured they would have safe and affordable housing.

·                Submissions were 75% for and 25% against.

·                If the sale was confirmed, the allocation of the sale proceeds would require consideration; the recommendation was to hold the proceeds in a distinct fund.  A further paper would be brought to Council in August.

 

In response to questions

·                Divestment would not preclude a freedom of action in terms of considering future utilisation e.g. possible joint ventures between private companies and the council.  Decisions on how to utilise the land could be made later. 

·                The draft Acquisitions and Disposals Policy would apply and local iwi had expressed interest. If council decided to use the land for strategic purposes, then the right of first refusal would not apply as the key objective was not limited to financial return but to achieve other strategic outcomes.

·                A transition plan would be created for each tenant.

 

 

Discussion points raised

·                Many submitters noted the lack of diverse types of housing for Tauranga’s aging population.

 

Resolution  CO12/21/4

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a)     Resolves that Pitau Road village and Hinau Street village are separated from the elder housing portfolio and sold for private redevelopment.

(b)     Resolves that the net proceeds from the sale of Pitau Road village and Hinau Street village are retained, together with the net proceeds from the sale of the elder housing portfolio, in an elder housing and social/public housing reserve, until such time as Council confirms its application.

Carried

 

11.8       2021-31 Long-term Plan Deliberations - Economic development and growth management matters

Staff          Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

                  Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

 

Key points

·                Film sector - a substantive submission was received from Film BOP and several other submissions were received that related to the local film industry.  The recommendation was to establish a $100,000 fund for development of the film industry as a contestable fund overseen by Priority 1; with an emphasis on collaboration and bringing the various industry groups together.

·                City Centre Development Fund – would show tangible commitment to the city centre sector but could be seen by developers outside the city centre as inequitable. The recommendation was to create an incentive fund, particularly to encourage residential development.

·                City centre parking – the free parking trial was to provide CBD stimulus post-COVID but there was an impact on revenue from the parking activity.  No clear correlation between increased spending in the CBD and the free parking was evident; spend lift was observed in other parts of the city as well.  However, re-imposing parking charges was likely to create confusion; the recommendation was to leave the free parking in until the wider parking strategy was finalised and implemented.

·                Gloucester Road – noted that this was shared funding with developers and Waka Kotahi.

·                Lakes Community Association – the recommendation was to not bring forward development of a community centre; the request should be considered in the context of the community facilities investment strategy.  Work was in progress looking at the need for community halls and centres across the city.

·                Tauriko Playcentre – current lease expired in 2024 and would not to be renewed as it was not possible for the facility to stay due to  road development requirements for Tauriko.  Any access through the local school required Ministry of Education permission.  Recommended to carry out further investigations and report back to Council.

·                Te Reti Trust funding application -  provided papakainga housing, aspirations to build up to 20 more homes but needed to widen the access road; the recommendation was to contribute funding.

·                Crown-owned land in Greerton (the racecourse) – a range of submissions had been received on this topic.  The land was owned by the Crown but vested in Council; there was about 80ha in total.  The Te Papa Spatial Plan addressed this site and identified the need for a study on the future use of the site; a report had been provided to SmartGrowth partners.  The recommendation was that an assessment be done on all options, including the status quo; redevelopment of the site with the racecourse retained but addition of community facilities and commercial/residential development;  and relocation of the racecourse and use of the site for residential development.  Noted the need to engage with mana whenua.

 

Questions and discussion points

·                Commissioners felt that the local film industry needed a structure before any individual funding was provided and that Priority 1 could help develop that structure.  TCC would specify a strategic approach and provide a clear definition of outcomes required in their contract with Priority 1.

·                Some concern that a city centre development fund might not provide affordable housing outcomes but more luxury properties. The fund would provide a way for Council to influence the way the city centre develops/looks; definition of criteria for the fund critical.

·                The city-wide benefits of having a vibrant city centre were assessed into development contributions(DCs).  DCs were generally a small cost to developers in the overall development cost.  The fund provided some flexibility with other mechanisms apart from DCs.  The Development Contribution Policy already included a deferral process.  Noted that a quicker path through the process could be as important as the actual dollars, could have dedicated staff/resource for large significant projects to provide support throughout the process.

·                Free parking – more signage needed to ensure it was clearly understood by the public.  Need to ensure that the time limits were enforced.  Council had foregone a significant amount of revenue as a result of the trial.

·                Gloucester Rd –was subject to Māori Land Court approval and would still need shareholder sign-off. TCC contribution was $865,000.

·                Lakes Community Association - there were a number of existing budgets and funds available to deliver smaller local recreational facilities.  Key was to develop a working relationship with the Association.  A more detailed understanding of the completion/delivery of  various pieces of work around provision of community facilities to particular city areas such as Welcome Bay would be useful for the commissioners as provision of local community facilities was a common theme throughout submissions.

·                Wairakei Community Centre Trust  - needed to be assessed in context of the wider strategy work around community centres. Possibility of temporarily accommodating at Gordon Spratt Reserve, opportunities to provide short term homes for various organisations could be explored.

·                Tauriko Playcentre – the requirement  to provide a comprehensive business case was considered by the commissioners to be overly onerous for the playcentre.  Playcentre funding and regulatory set-up was different to private early childhood education providers.  Noted frustration of the community about the time and effort taken to try and resolve this issue. Emphasised the need to move forward expeditiously and in full consultation with the playcentre community; clear timeframes were required to find options. The Reserve Management Plan provisions in relation to voluntary groups such as the playcentre should be reviewed.

 

At 12.37pm the meeting adjourned.

At 1.25pm the meeting reconvened.

 

·                Te Reti – was part of a larger block of land that was severed under the Public Works Act for the delivery of Route J. 

·                Racecourse/Greerton land – development of the racecourse was not included in the LTP; however, the use of this land was frequently raised during the consultation process.  Some submitters noted the importance of green space as an amenity when looking at residential intensification.  The racecourse reserve was a significant piece of land in Tauranga City; a conversation with Tauranga residents about their aspirations for the land was needed.  Noted the need to engage with the Trust that managed the land and with mana whenua.

·                Council should lead the conversation with its community and tangata whenua about the future of the reserve.  Engagement and analysis should be led by Council not by a government agency like Kainga Ora. All options should be explored, but in the context of other planned residential development.   Council at the time made the decision not to reflect the view of the Racecourse Trust Board regarding inclusion of the racecourse reserve in the Te Papa Spatial Plan.

·                Iwi did not put in a claim for the racecourse land due to its reserve status; if that status was to change then likely the iwi position would also change.

·                Papakainga housing – noted that this was different to market-driven house ownership as the houses would always stay connected to the land and to those families.

Resolution  CO12/21/5

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

Funding for film sector (Attachment 1)

(a)     Provides Priority One with $100,000 per annum to provide industry co-ordination and distribution to the film and media sector against an agreed set of criteria (Option 3).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/6

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

City centre development initiatives (Attachments 2 and 3 (confidential))

(b)     Creates a $500,000 City Centre Development Incentive Fund with a range of criteria that can target the costs of development, especially promoting affordable residential development, covering the likes of development contributions, consenting fees, parking fees during development and public amenity in the vicinity of developments (Option 6).

 

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/7

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

City centre parking trial (Attachments 4 and 5)

(c)     Retains the two-hour free parking until February 2022 when the parking strategy is implemented (Option 2).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/8

Moved:       Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Gloucester Road link (Attachment 6)

(d)     Approves the request to bring forward funding for the Gloucester Road link, subject to land transfer and with revised conditions for funding contributions (Option 2).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/9

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Lakes Community Association (Attachment 7)

(e)     Does not bring forward development of a community centre in the Western Corridor, at this time (community centre timing – Option 1).

(f)      Does not add $2.5 million funding to deliver dispersed smaller recreational facilities in The Lakes but instead, utilises existing budgets, where possible, to support the delivery of recreational facilities (funding request – Option 1).

(g)     Continues to work with The Lakes Community Association on projects, which may include the establishment of a Council-Residents working group (working group – Option 1).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/10

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Wairakei Community Centre Trust (Attachment 8)

(h)     Undertakes a planned review of community centre provision, services and models, and engages with the Wairakei Community Centre Trust through that process (Option 1).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/11

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Pukehinahina/Gate Pa Community Centre (Attachment 9)

(i)      Undertakes a planned review of community centre provision, services and models, and engages with the Accessible Properties’ Limited through that process (Option 2).

(j)      Supports the development of a pop-up park/play space (P3) at 899 Cameron Road, by providing a $20,000 one-off funding grant (Option 3).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/12

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

Tauriko Playcentre (Attachments 10, 11 and 12)

(k)     Undertakes a two-stage investigation and reporting process:

          Stage One:

i.          Confirms the current Tauriko Playcentre land lease expires in 2024 and that the Playcentre is permitted by that lease remain on site until end of the lease term.

ii.         Commits to working with the Tauriko Playcentre & Tauriko Playcentre Association to investigate options for the continuation of the Playcentre in its current location, relocation of the Playcentre to another Council-owned property, or land provided by another entity or new site (either inside Tauriko West or in proximity), commencing following the adoption of the Long Term Plan.

iii.        Notes that the Tauranga Reserve Management Plan requirement for a business case to demonstrate need for and ongoing viability of a facility has been addressed through the LTP submission process (and accepted by the Council as being met).

iv.        Ensures that the issue of land provision and funding of Playcentres is specifically addressed within the review of the “Community, Private and Commercial Use of Council-Administered Land Policy” which is current underway.

          Stage Two:

          Reports back to Council and seeks direction on findings of investigations regarding the following:

i.          The outcomes roading improvements/State Highway 29 alignments and options being progressed by Council and Waka Kotahi NZTA.

ii.         The pros/cons of those options, including consideration of whether Council funds (in part/whole) any of the options, and whether other funding opportunities are available (if required).

iii.        This occur within the 2021/22 financial year, ready for decision by Council on the outcomes through the 2022/23 Annual Plan development.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/13

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

Grants for development contributions on papakāinga housing and community housing (Attachment 13)

(l)      Agrees to double the two grant funds to $500,000 per annum each for three years (total of $3 million in years 1-3) (Option 2).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/14

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Crown-owned land in Greerton (Attachment 14)

(m)    Engages with existing users, mana whenua, key stakeholders and the Tauranga community to undertake an options study to explore the most appropriate and efficient use of the Recreation Reserve – Tauranga Racecourse land in the short, medium and long term (Option 1).

(m)(2) Includes $100,000 within the 2021/22 financial year to fund engagement with mana whenua, community and key stakeholders and the undertaking of an options study for Greerton Racecourse, noting that there is a possibility of co-funding with central government.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/15

Moved:       Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

Te Reti B&C Residue Trust (Attachment 15)

(n)     Agrees to fund $84,790 in year 1 of the LTP to construct the widening of the entrance to papakāinga housing between Cambridge Road and Waihi Road (Option 1).

Carried

 

11.4       Long-term Plan Deliberations - Draft Community Funding Policy and proposed Community Grants Fund

Staff          Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

                  Anne Blakeway, Manager: Community Partnerships

Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

 

Key points

·                The draft Community Funding Policy (recommendations (c) and (d)) would be deferred to be considered by the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee and/or Council.

·                Financial allocation decisions would be made as part of the LTP deliberations process.  Two options to consider for funding grant operational expenditure – full rates funding or partial loan funding – loan funding spread the cost intergenerationally.  What could be loan funded could not be identified until the applications to the Fund were received.

·                Rating implication of the fully rates funded option was an increase of $500,000.  The staff recommendation was for Option 1.2.2 which had a neutral rates impact in the LTP.  Levels between rates and loan funding would be clarified during the first year of operation of the fund and could then be addressed in the Annual Plan.  If an application was for a community facility, then it made sense for cost to be spread over future generations.

·                Staff would bring a report back to a future Council meeting on the Community Funding Policy 2021.

Resolution  CO12/21/16

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a)     Approves the inclusion of a contestable community grants fund in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031.

(b)     Confirms the amount of the contestable community grant funding that will included in each year of the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 as $1.81m of which $500,000 is loan-funded (with rates-funded amount increasing and loan-funded amount decreasing by $100,000 per annum from year 2 onwards) (option 1.2.2).

(e)     Revokes the Community Investment Policy.

)Carried

 

11.5       Deliberations Report - Location of Civic Administration Premises

Staff          Brigid McDonald, Manager: Strategic Investment & Commercial Facilitation

 

In response to questions

·                Noted the significant level of community support for this proposal; it was an important decision for stimulus of the city.

·                As the design reached finalisation, it would come back to the commissioners for a final check in.

·                Thanked staff for managing being scattered across different locations for a considerable length of time.  Noted the costs incurred from running the organisation across different venues.

Resolution  CO12/21/17

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the Deliberations Report – Location of Civic Administration Premises;

(b)     Approves the selection of 90 Devonport Road as the preferred location for Council's administration premises for the medium term, with updated capital budget of $16.7m over years 2022-2024 of the Long-Term Plan;

(c)     Delegates to the Chief Executive the authority to negotiate an agreement to lease, and development agreement regarding the fit-out of the office space for Council's purposes, with the developer, Willis Bond.

Carried

 

11.6       Deliberations Report - Options for the accelerated delivery of the Papamoa East Interchange

Staff          Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

                  Andrew Mead, Manager: City &  Infrastructure Planning

 

Key points

·                The Papamoa East Interchange (PEI) linked into Golden Sands and Wairakei Town centre and provided access into Te Tumu.  The PEI was part of the transport corridor development plan.

·                Would unlock a significant number of new houses for the city; alleviate transport pressure and link to Rangiuru industrial area.

·                Feasibility of bringing the PEI forward and investigating alternative funding arrangements was being considered.  Council was in positive discussions with Waka Kotahi.  Bringing forward the PEI recognised  the importance of unlocking the residential development opportunities. 

·                Waka Kotahi funding would come out of the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) and be repaid by Waka Kotahi allocated funding.  There was significant advantage in being able to utilise the  HIF for this purpose as HIF funding was interest-free.

·                The installation of another toll gantry would be investigated. A portion of the PEI cost should be fairly recovered by users; mitigated the balance sheet risk.  The balance would be covered by development contributions and sit on council’s balance sheet.

·                Initial works brought forward would be about $4m.  $11.8m allocated funding was potentially at risk if the project never proceeded.

·                Noted that the HIF funding was a loan not a grant and must be repaid, and did not replace need for development contributions.

·                The PEI provided significant additional service for all current Papamoa residents as well as providing for growth.  If such infrastructure was not provided, then lack of housing supply would contribute to house prices continuing to rise.

 

In response to questions

·                Other planned development such as Wairakei Township or Bell Rd required the development of the PEI even if Te Tumu did not proceed; however, there was still an amount of risk if Te Tumu did not open up in the expected timeframe. Ways of mitigating council’s financial risk through use of other financial tools were being investigated.

Resolution  CO12/21/18

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(a)     Notes that the 2018 Housing Infrastructure Fund arrangement between Tauranga City Council, Waka Kotahi (NZTA) and Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment has not been finalised and expires June 2021 (funding was agreed to enable infrastructure to support Te Tumu Urban Growth Area, including delivery of the Pāpāmoa East Interchange);

(b)     Provides in the LTP for the delivery of the Pāpāmoa East Interchange by 2024 (accelerated timing) and continues to actively explore alternative funding and financing options with central government partners (noting that staff will report back to Council with funding and financing options for decision before proceeding past the preloading and design stage) as outlined in Option 4; and

(c)     Approves $4million to be brought forward in the LTP to cover Pāpāmoa East Interchange preloading and design costs in the 2021/22 financial year to allow for delivery in 2024 if appropriate funding and financing is determined.

Carried

 

11.7       Submissions to the Draft 2021/22 Development Contributions Policy

Staff          Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy and Growth

 

Key points

·                A significant amount of feedback was received on the size and impact of the proposed increase in development contributions and the level of knowledge/understanding of the increase.  An increase of between $5000 and $9000 was consulted on as part of the last Development Contribution Policy development.  While larger developers were aware of the signalled change, smaller developers (e.g. one off individual developers) might not have been aware of the proposed increase.  Transitional arrangements were proposed for individual circumstances.

·                Waiāri Water Supply Scheme – citywide ratepayer benefit of about 10% had been assessed; therefore development contributions (DCs) were only attributable for 90% of costs.  Approval of a reduction from 100% to 90% development contribution funded was sought.

·                Growth elements to some community facility development would allow DCs to be charged. 

·                Approval of responses to external submissions received on the Development Contribution Policy (recommendation (b)) was deferred to be considered at a later date as part of the responses provided to all LTP submitters.

 

In response to questions

·                The increase in charges was indicated in the Policy available on TCC’s website.  The Chief Executive had delegated discretion to make decisions in individual cases where the increase may impact more adversely. 

·                Need to balance between perceived unfair application of the increases with the common submission theme of developers bearing more cost.

·                Responses to external submissions to the Policy would be considered along with the responses to all submitters and be issued at the same time.  An indication of decision could be provided to interested parties.

·                Noted the need to communicate the infrastructure breakdown of the Waiāri scheme to all stakeholders.

Resolution  CO12/21/19

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a)     Approves that the 2021/22 citywide development contribution increases be implemented as per Options 3 and 4 being:

(i)      From 1 August 2021 based on an increase of $7,500, for a 3+ bedroom dwelling (and adjusted accordingly for smaller dwellings and non-residential development); and

(ii)     From 1 February 2022 based on a further increase of the lower of $10,500 or approved development contributions for 2021/22, for a 3+ bedroom dwelling (and adjusted accordingly for smaller dwellings and non-residential development); and

(iii)     Delegates authority to the Chief Executive or his sub-delegate to consider and where appropriate approve on a case-by-case basis further exemptions or reductions in situations where there are warranted by exceptional circumstances (as determined at the discretion of CE or his sub-delegate).

 Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/20

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

(c)     Approves the reduction in the funding allocation of Waiāri Water Supply Scheme including associated trunk watermain projects from 100% development contribution funded to 90% development contribution funded.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/21

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

(d)     Notes that where applicable the draft Development Contributions Policy will be amended to reflect other resolutions made through the Long-Term Plan and that changes to Capital Expenditure budgets for growth projects will have an impact on the development contribution levies.

(e)     Signals to the development, building and general community that there may be further increases to city-wide or local development contributions from 1 July 2022 including (but not limited to) the growth share of new community facilities, transport projects and Te Papa investment planned for within the 2021 – 2031 Long Term Plan.

Carried

 

Item - 11.8 2021-31 Long-term Plan Deliberations - Economic development and growth management matters - has been moved to another part of the document.

 

11.9       2021-31 Long-term Plan Delierations - Community Partnerships

Staff          Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

 

Key points

·                Sydenham Botanical Park – request for funds to enable completion of the agreed Park development plan.  The tenure of the Group was about to end; management then returned to TCC.

·                Age Concern – assisted shopping service – recommendation to refer the request to the Community Grant Fund.  Noted the need to refine/approve the Community Grant Fund policy and criteria so that referrals/requests could be processed.

·                Arataki Community Liaison Group – no specific funding requested but there were a number of actions that they would like to be followed up.  There was a feeling that Arataki was being treated like a thoroughfare rather than a place with its own identity where people lived.  Actions requested were covered by activities already included in the LTP.

·                He Kaupapa Kotahitanga Trust – funding sought allowed extension of the Trust’s support for homeless women.

 

Questions and discussion points

·                Noted concerns expressed in submissions about security of tenure of grant funding – e.g. three years rather than annually.  Also some concern about inconsistency or confusion around what could be covered by the Community Grant Fund.

 

·                Arataki Community – had their own community vision – should facilitate their input into council’s visioning process.  Noted the suggestions raised by the Group regarding positioning and visibility of pedestrian crossings.  Noted the importance of proactively engaging with communities on how their local community/neighbourhood should look and work.  Noted a significant shift in approach with council’s engagement processes, and importance of partnering with communities to determine issues, priorities and actions.

·                Kainga Tupu – Community Wellbeing Hub was agreed to in principle and would be followed up with specific details of cost. Current financial commitments should be completed and then revisited to determine an ongoing quantum once feasibility studies were completed. 

·                Kainga Tupu – noted the funding request to look at the issue of people sleeping in cars.  Should also be looking for central government funding but need to be mindful that the target beneficiaries (homeless people) might not want to engage with central government agencies.

·                Kainga Tupu – funding was sought for a full-time equivalent permanent position.  Great initiative by the council to be a facilitator and co-ordinator.  Noted the contribution to this work by former mayor Tenby Powell.

·                Age Concern Wellness Centre – suggestion that this could have been better addressed under council’s strategy for community centres rather than the Community Grant Fund. 

Resolution  CO12/21/22

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

Sydenham Botanical Park (Attachment 1)

(a)     Approves the request from Sydenham Botanical Park for investment in Park development, and Council to complete spatial planning to help guide the future development of the Park once the Trust is formally wound up (Option 2).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/23

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Age Concern – assisted community shopping service (Attachment 2)

(b)     Refers the request from Age Concern Tauranga for an assisted community shopping service to the new Community Grant Fund (Option 1).

Carried

 

Resolution  CO12/21/24

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

Age Concern – Tauranga Wellness Centre (Attachment 3)

(c)     Undertakes a planned review of community centre provision, services and models, and engages with Age Concern Tauranga and others through that process regarding the development of a Wellness Centre.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/25

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Citizens Advice Bureau (Attachment 4)

(d)     Supports the request for partnership funding from the Citizens Advice Bureau Tauranga for ongoing operational funding to the new Community Grant Fund (Option 3).

(e)     Acknowledges the need to work with the Citizens Advice Bureau Tauranga to find a suitable location for their operation, once the civic precinct development commences.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/26

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Water Safety Bay of Plenty (Attachment 5)

(f)      Supports the request for partnership funding from Water Safety Bay of Plenty for $25,000 to the new Community Grant Fund (Option 3).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/27

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Arataki Community Liaison Group (Attachment 6)

(g)     Continues to support the Arataki Community Liaison Group and the associated short- and medium-term work noted in the attachment that is underway.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/28

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Kāinga Tupu – resilience (Attachment 7)

Tauranga City Food Security Hub

(h)     Revisits the decision to provide an in-principle commitment to financially support the Tauranga Food Security Hub project, once the current feasibility study is completed (Option 2); and

Tauranga Community Wellbeing Hub

(i)      Revisits the decision to provide an in-principle financial commitment to the Kāinga Ora Community Wellbeing Hub project, once the commercial and financial feasibility tests are completed (Option 2).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/29

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Kāinga Tupu – community spaces and places (Attachment 8)

People sleeping in private motor vehicles

(j)      Refers the request to support mobile wellbeing checks for people residing in private motor vehicles, in partnership with central government agencies, to the Community Grant Fund.

Increased access to basic amenities

(k)     Requests staff review existing public amenity to look for opportunities to support broader community access, and update Council’s website to provide better information about public access to 24/7 showers, toilets and drinking water (Option 1); and

Paid personnel at destination parks

(l)      Requests staff source existing funding to undertake a feasibility study of activation personnel/organisations at key destinations across Tauranga City, to support active play and mitigate safety concerns (Option 2);

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/30

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Kāinga Tupu – enabling delivery (Attachment 9)

(m)    Confirms a full-time equivalent role (included in the draft LTP) for the ongoing coordination of Kāinga Tupu (Option 1).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/31

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

He Kaupapa Kotahitanga Trust (Attachment 10)

(n)     Supports the request for partnership funding from He Kaupapa Kotahitanga Trust for funding support to the new Community Grant Fund (Option 1).

Carried

 

11.10     2021-31 Long-term Plan Deliberations - Spaces and Places: sport

Staff          Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

 

Key points

·                Common theme of requests for land/space and delays in response from council in providing solutions.

·                Roller sports – proposed to undertake a citywide stocktake of roller sports and facilities, complete short-term upgrades and develop a design for a skatepark facility.

·                Arataki sports/cultural facility – proposed to link in with Bay Venues Limited to see if the existing Arataki facility could be more effectively used than currently and accommodate this request.

·                Basketball – council was aware of the need for further indoor court facilities.  A conversation with Toi Ohomai could be encouraged in the meantime.

·                Welcome Bay had been a neglected suburb; recommendation to provide funding for short-term projects (including provision of cricket nets at Waipuna Park) as well as linking Welcome Bay into the longer term strategies.

·                Gordon Spratt Reserve – there were high levels of demand for limited space.  Council actions had been ad hoc and uncoordinated; various pieces of work needed completion to be able to give consistent direction including the development of a Gordon Spratt masterplan.  Noted that the two facilities of Gordon Spratt reserve and Blake Park were interdependent and would impact on the wider sports field network.  Timeframes would be put in place to complete meaningful consultation with the community clubs and codes to inform the next Annual Plan.

·                Blake Park – several significant submissions were received around Blake Park, there was high interest and a high number of competing demands.  Blake Park was the city’s most significant sports asset, crucial to get the overall planning right.  Various sporting codes had been waiting for some time for decisions and resolution of their issues.

·                Council was working within existing budgets to maintain facilities at Bay Oval.  The Bay Oval Trust was motivated to improve facilities before the Women’s World Cricket Cup; there was currently no extra funding allocated in the LTP for pavilion extension. This could be debt funded.  Council’s commitment would be to a third of the total cost; the opportunity was there to develop the pavilion to access international and national events.

 

Questions and discussion points

·                Further clarification was sought about delivery of the sport, recreation  and active living strategies and appropriate facilities.  Staff were completing a piece of work pulling together all requests/projects/aspirations and co-ordinating work with an agreed timeframe.  For many submissions, these facilities were top priority; need to provide certainty of timing for these groups and submitters.  Noted the substantial effort by many sports clubs and volunteer groups to grow their sports/activities but not with timely support from council.  Council should develop an investment policy to sit behind the investment decisions in this area.

·                Welcome Bay estuary/Forrester Drive walkway – this area should be taken into account in the wider Welcome Bay facilities considerations. The best use of funding for the wider community reserves and facilities should be considered.

·                Gordon Spratt – there was enough money in the LTP budget to be able to fairly deal with the various facility requests, should end up in a better situation.  Noted that timing was critical for some of these organisations.

·                Badminton – were allocated 5000sq metres of Tatua Park but the Association’s changing needs had led to a request for the use of all Tatua Park; had a flow-on effect for Playcentre and the Men’s Shed.  The Association had a narrow focus with only badminton and table tennis catered for; council’s preference was for more multi-use facilities.  If badminton had their own site it would free up booked space in other indoor facilities.   

·                Mount Playcentre would prefer to stay at Blake Park or Golf Road rather than move to Tatua Park; both reserves would need reserve reclassification to accommodate the playcentre.  The Men’s Shed required 500 square metres.  Consideration could be given to co-locating the playcentre and Men’s Shed with the surf lifesaving and bridge clubs on Golf Rd Reserve.  Clear timeframes were needed around this work to provide certainty to the users.

·                Agreed that cricket nets would be provided at Waipuna Park.

Resolution  CO12/21/32

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

Bay of Plenty Sport Climbing Association (Attachment 1)

(a)     Works with the club to investigate options to provide a location for a climbing facility to be constructed for bouldering training and competitions, in parallel to completing a review of the Sport and Active Living Strategy (Option 1).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/33

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Memorial Park Aquatics and Recreation Hub (Attachment 2)

(b)     Retains the current proposed capital expenditure programme and assess opportunities to bring forward the indoor courts project, as the development of the aquatics project progresses (Option 2).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/34

Moved:       Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

Roller sports facilities (Attachment 3)

(c)     Adds $25,000 into year 1 of the LTP to undertake an assessment of the specific needs of outdoor roller sports, which will inform future strategic investment to be delivered through a combination of existing spaces and places projects in the draft LTP, and/or potential new projects in the 2024-34 LTP; and

(d)     Adds $50,000 per annum into the first three years of the LTP to support the community to undertake short-term upgrades to existing skatepark facilities, subject to the demonstration of need for the upgrades, and

(e)     Add $75,000 into year 1 of the LTP to develop the design for a destination skatepark facility for the city, with a further $670,000 provision in year 2 for construction (assumed 50% externally funded); and

(f)      Through implementation of the Community Facility Investment Plan (CFIP) for indoor sports centres, engage with roller sports representatives/stakeholders to ensure their aspirations are reflected in the CFIP and future LTPs (Option 1).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/35

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Arataki Park sports, cultural and wellbeing facility (Attachment 4)

(g)     Requests staff commence a Sport and Active Living Strategy review and Community Facilities Funding Policy review, with urgency, and delays project commitment via a letter of support, pending the review outcomes; and

(h)     Requests staff work alongside the Arataki Community Liaison Group, Tatai Ora Charitable Trust, Tauranga Whalers Sports Club and Bay Venues Limited, to investigate options to enhance/develop the current Arataki community centre to meet the aspirations of all current and potential future user groups.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/36

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

Tauranga City Basketball (Attachment 5)

(i)      Continues to engage with Tauranga City Basketball and other key stakeholders as Council develops plans for the indoor courts network across the city (Option 2).

(i)(2) Agrees to co-fund a feasibility assessment of indoor courts at the Toi Ohomai Windermere campus to a value of up to $35,000.

Carried

At 3.25pm the meeting adjourned.

At 3.45pm the meeting reconvened.

 

Resolution  CO12/21/37

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Welcome Bay reserves investment, including Waipuna Park (Attachment 6)

(j)      Requests staff undertake an active reserve study and review of Sport and Active Living Strategy to inform future investments opportunities:

(i)   within the active reserve network, including Waipuna Park, and

(ii)  for skateparks, pump tracks, mountain bike facilities and outdoor basketball facilities across the City, including Welcome Bay;

(k)     Requests staff work with the Welcome Bay community and key stakeholders to give effect to the objectives and management statements in the Tauranga Reserve Management Plan, including Forrester Drive;

(l)      Adds $309,000 in 2023 FY towards the development of reserves in Welcome Bay, in accordance with the development proposals identified (as per (k) above);

(l)(2)  Makes the Forrester Drive encroachment budget of $443,000 in FY22 available to support outcomes of the engagement (as per (k) above) with the Welcome Bay community; and

(m)    Requests staff identify further development proposals (as per (k) above) for consideration for funding through the 2024-2034 LTP (Option 1).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/38

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

Gordon Spratt Reserve (Attachment 7)

Buildings

(n)     Commences the Sport and Active Living Strategy review, Gordon Spratt and Alice Johnson Reserve future state project, and Community Facilities Funding Policy review. Slightly delay commitment to both the cricket pavilion and shared club facility projects, pending the outcome of the reviews (Option 1); and

Lights and shelter

(o)     Adds $375,000 capex funding into year 1 of the LTP to reflect the full replacement cost of the lights at the Gordon Spratt tennis and netball courts, recognising a 75% club contribution, and delays investment in the shelter structure by one year (Option 1); and

Pump track public facilities

(p)     Retains funding of $235,000 in year 1 to install pump track public facilities, as per the draft LTP (Option 1); and

Supply and demand analysis

(q)     Brings forward to year 1 of the LTP, an operational budget of $45,000 for a citywide supply and demand review, including investigating the potential for an artificial turf (Option 1).

Carried

Recommendation (r) – Blake Park - for this agenda item was left to lie until the conclusion of deliberations.

 

11.11     2021-31 Long-term Plan Deliberations - Spaces and Places: other

Staff          Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

 

Key points

·                Predator Free BOP – would be referred to the Grant Fund when established, but recommended operational funding be provided specifically in the meantime.  There was wide community support for the organisation’s initiatives.

·                Public amenity – the additional funding would deliver two additional toilet facilities in the next financial year.

·                Taumata School – noted the innovative approach from this submitter; council would work with the school to further this idea.

·                Te Ranga Reserve – considered that the cultural and historical significance of the site warranted bringing forward the funding for this enhancement. Funding had also been received from Bay of Plenty Regional and Western Bay of Plenty Councils.

·                Natural burial - currently Whakatane provided the only option for a natural burial.  Legislation was being reviewed centrally; recommendation to wait for the outcome of that review before any further decision was made.

·                Provision of a neighbourhood reserve in Te Atea was considered the responsibility of the developer not of council.

 

In response to questions

·                Waiariki Park Region – challenged TCC policy in that it requested funding for staff wages; the value proposition was not clear.  Responsibility could sit with Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

Resolution  CO12/21/39

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

Predator Free Bay of Plenty (Attachment 1)

(a)     Provides operational funding to Predator Free Bay of Plenty for a three-year period, to be reviewed at the next LTP (Option 1).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/40

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Public amenity in reserves and/or open space network (Attachment 2)

(b)     Retain the drinking fountain budget in the LTP and increase it by $290,000 in year 1 only to include an allocated amount for the installation of additional public amenity/facilities (Option 2).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/41

Moved:       Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Neighbourhood reserve provision in The Lakes (Attachment 3)

(c)     Engages with Taumata School to investigate innovative opportunities for Council and the school to work together on the delivery of community infrastructure in the surrounding area, including the purchase of Neighbourhood Reserve #6.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/42

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Shade provision in open space (Attachment 4)

(d)     Retains the existing project in the LTP to enable shade audits and the installation of artificial shade coverage, but also adds an operational budget of $60,000 for planting more natural shade via larger trees (Option 1).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/43

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Te Ranga reserve (Attachment 5)

(e)     Increases and brings forward budget to support the enhancement of Te Ranga Reserve (Option 1).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/44

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Waiariki Park Region funding request (Attachment 6)

(f)      Refers the request from Envirohub BOP for support for Waiariki Park Region to the new Community Grant Fund (Option 1).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/45

Moved:       Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Welcome Bay estuary/Forrester Drive walkway (Attachment 7)

(g)     Place the project on hold to re-engage with the Welcome Bay community, including Forrester Drive residents, to identify future development opportunities for community amenity in Welcome Bay; using funds allocated per recommendations 11.10  (l) and (l)(2)

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/46

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Natural burial cemetery (Attachment 8)

(h)     Does not agree to co-fund a feasibility assessment for a natural burial cemetery in Tauranga (Option 1).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/47

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

Te Atea neighbourhood reserve in the Manawa subdivision (Attachment 9)

(i)      Agrees to work with the developer to agree a plan for development of Te Atea; however, do not directly fund the development (Option 1).

Carried

 

11.12     2021-31 Long-term Plan Deliberations - Other issues and options papers

Staff          Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

 

Key points

·                Road resealing – there was a level of service discussion between asphalt and chip seal; council policy was to provide “fit for purpose”.

·                NZ War Memorial Museum Trust – considered this should be funded by central government; other priorities for Tauranga City.

·                Western Bay Museum – the museum had offered to display taonga from the Tauranga City collection (for a fee); the staff recommendation was to instead provide funding for a temporary display within the city.

·                Taonga Tu – had an opportunity to explore the use of a soon to be developed CBD building to house and display local taonga.  Asked for commitment to a feasibility study; the staff recommendation was is to establish a small fund to address opportunities that arose in relation to heritage and taonga collections rather than commit to a specific piece of work.

 

Questions and discussion points

·                Road seal was an issue raised by a number of submitters, particularly in Papamoa.  There was concern both about the size of chip and the quality of work done.  The use of chip seal on major collector roads was determined by a level of service with the need to spread funding across an asset every year.   Seal was based on ”fit for purpose” criteria.  Asphalt required a strong pavement underneath it; if the underlying pavement required replacement then costs increased significantly.  Level of service provided depended on the level of funding received; trying to optimise outcomes across the whole roading network.  Was an affordability issue.

·                Papamoa Beach Rd was a good example – usage justified asphalt, but there was no underlying pavement so asphalt would not last; would be spending significant funding on a five-year road life.

·                Contractor quality had been variable; a new contract was to go to market in August and would be prescriptive upfront about council’s expectations.

·                A targeted rate was possible for residents in a particular area but was complicated in terms of the level of the rate and administration of separate targeted rates. Would need neighbourhood agreement; cost could be quite considerable per household.

·                Suggested that the display of Tauranga taonga from the Heritage Collection could be an activation mechanism for the city centre.

Resolution  CO12/21/48

Moved:       Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

New Zealand War Memorial Museum Trust (Attachment 1)

(a)     Declines the request for funds from the New Zealand War Memorial Museum Trust for the development of a museum in Le Quesnoy, France (Option 2).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/49

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Western Bay Museum (Attachment 2)

(b)     Declines the proposal from Western Bay Museum to develop an exhibition of Taonga from the Heritage Collection in Katikati, however, provides a contribution of $100,000 in year 1 of the LTP to the Heritage Collection, to enable temporary exhibition of parts of the collection in Tauranga (Option 3).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/50

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

Taonga Tu/Heritage Bay of Plenty (Attachment 3)

(c)     Establishes a heritage fund of $150,000 for the first year of the LTP, to be managed by Arts and Culture, for the purpose of working with 3rd party organisations, in particular Taonga Tu, to scope and support business case development, for the establishment of a heritage and taonga collection, and display facility (Option 3).

Carried

 

Commissioner Rolleston provided a closing karakia.

 

At 5pm the meeting adjourned.

At 9am 25/6/2021 the meeting reconvened.

 

Friday, 25 June 2021 at 9am

 

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

IN ATTENDANCE:    Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Community Services), Kathryn Sharplin (Manager: Finance), Tracey Hughes (Financial Insights & Reporting Manager), James Woodward (Finance Lead Projects Assurance), Paul Dunphy (Director of Places and Spaces), Doug Spittle (Manager: Planning and Design), Ceilidh Dunphy (Community Relations Manager), Jeremy Boase (Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning), Josh Logan (Team Leader: Corporate Planning), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor)

 

11.13     Late item - Issues and Options - Remaker Space

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

Resolution  CO12/21/51

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

(a)         Accepts the following late item for consideration at the meeting:

·         Issues and Options report – Remaker Space.

The above item was not included in the original agenda because it was not available at the time the agenda was issued, and discussion cannot be delayed until the next scheduled meeting of the Council because a decisions is required in regard to this item.

(b)         Refers the Remaker Space to the Community Grant Fund (Option 1).

Carried

Attachments

1        Issues and Options - 0463 - Remaker Space

 

11.14     2021-31 Long-term Plan Deliberations - Other issues and options papers (Agenda Item 11.12 continued)

Staff          Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

 

Key points

·                Remaker Space – was seeking operational funding for three years; would need to move location.  Could be referred to the Community Grant Fund.

·                Activate Vacant Spaces – was an initiative from Mainstreet Tauranga.  Hard to find data/facts to measure success to justify the quantum of investment but generally supportive of the concept.

·                Mt Maunganui Business Association – considered not appropriate to single out the Mount downtown area for specific capital budget.

·                Papamoa Residents and Ratepayers Association – recommendation was to decline the request for funding to hire consultants to engage in council processes; but to work more closely with the Association regarding Papamoa issues and consult earlier in council processes.

·                Wednesday Challenge –  this was an app-based initiative to incentivise people towards transport mode shift which aimed to connect people and incentivise behavioural change through challenges and rewards.  The app would also gather considerable data around transport use and behavioural change.  Planned to be co-funded – Bay of Plenty Regional Council would provide funding if TCC did, Waka Kotahi had already committed some funds.  This was a one-off request; subsequent years would be self-funding.

·                Marine strategy – funding was already included in the LTP.  Council was working together with the University of Waikato; a new application was required regarding development on Sulphur Point.  Advice had been sought regarding the need for new public consultation.  All groups interested in/affected by in the marine strategy would be included in the consultation e.g. waka ama and dragon boating.

·                Gondola proposal – the fund recommended was not specifically for the gondola project but for innovative transport opportunities.  Staff were also interested in investigating the application of the graphics/animation process used in the gondola submission as a modelling tool; exploring the use of the graphics technology would not be funded from this fund.  Council would work in conjunction with other transport partners.

·                Cultural centre at Gate Pa – council had an obligation to Ngai Tamarawaho to provide a site for a cultural centre as part of the agreement for the development of Route K.  The initial site identified in Kopurererua Valley was not appropriate so an alternative site was needed. 

·                Blue Rovers Football Club - covered as part of other sporting submissions, including artificial turf requests. 

 

Questions and discussion points

·                Incubator – a large programme of capital works was planned for the Historic Village which had been brought forward as part of the prioritising of arts and culture; this will reflect the strategy work completed by council and developed in consultation with tenants.

·                $110,000 additional funding for the Incubator in Years 2 and 3 was not currently included in the LTP so had rating implications.

·                Activate Vacant Spaces – noted that the LTP included $100,000 to support exhibition of Tauranga’s taonga and had also extended the free parking trial; $500,000 was in the budget to support downtown Tauranga.  This initiative could be picked up and continued by Mainstreet Tauranga out of their targeted rate.

·                The completion of current spatial planning work would provide clarity on the nature and scope of development that could occur in the Mt Maunganui town area. Works being undertaken as part of general budget were not precluded.

·                Wednesday Challenge – noted that there was still lack of understanding in the community around the need for transport mode shift and the use of public transport; it would be a generational change – people needed to be pushed towards multi modal options.  Interventions were needed to make people change behaviour; this challenge would make people stop and think.  TCC support would be conditional on other party involvement e.g. Waka Kotahi and Bay of Plenty Regional Council.  Noted this was a pilot project intended to roll out nationwide if successful.  Council as an organisation needed to show leadership with adopting and implementing this initiative and encouraging other partner organisations to do so as well.

·                Tsunami sirens – council needed to consider other forms of warning and emergency response/evacuation process and work with other organisations to develop solutions and evacuation response. 

·                Gate Pa cultural centre – the previous council had not made any other commitments to allocation of land. There were no specific obligations in respect of Smiths Farm; although there may be tangata whenua aspirations, a right of first refusal was not automatically triggered.  Acknowledged the relationship Ngai Tamarawaho had with the Council as part of Route K and the value placed on city sites.  Pukehinahina was a site of regional and national historic significance; there was a need to acknowledge the past and bring these stories to life within the city and Tauranga community.  Noted the lack of visibility of cultural heritage in the city.

Resolution  CO12/21/52

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

The Incubator (Attachment 4)

(d)     Confirms support for the Incubator at the level currently included in year 1 of the draft LTP ($250,000) then, subject to achieving a set of community and arts and culture-focused deliverables/KPIs, increases funding by $110,000 per annum for years 2 and 3 of the LTP (Option 4).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/53

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

Activate Vacant Spaces programme (Attachment 5)

(e)     Declines the request for funding from Mainstreet Tauranga for the continuation of the Activate Vacant Spaces programme (Option 4).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/54

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

Mount Maunganui Business Association (Attachment 6)

(f)      Does not provide for any additional capital budget in the LTP specifically for the Mount Maunganui downtown area, at this time (Option 1).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/55

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Papamoa Residents and Ratepayers Association (Attachment 7)

(g)     Declines the funding request but seeks to establish a more robust structure for greater communication and engagement with the submitter and other community groups (option 3).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/56

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Wednesday Challenge (Attachment 8)

(h)     Approves funding of $146,250 for the Wednesday Challenge subject to the duplication with existing Travel Safe programmes being removed from the proposal, and that data from the Wednesday Challenge app is made available to Council (Option 1).

(h)(2) Funding is contingent on partnership contributions from Waka Kotahi and Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/57

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Road reseals level of service (Attachment 9)

(i)      Confirms the ‘fit for purpose’ level of surface for road resealing (Option 1).

Carried

Note: this resolution was discussed on 24/6/2021

Resolution  CO12/21/58

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Tsunami sirens (Attachment 10)

(j)      Defers the siren project for one year to allow the Commissioners and council staff to engage with the community on all issues and resolutions around tsunami sirens and evacuation, and to continue with education and the public awareness programme (option 1).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/59

Moved:       Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

Envirohub funding request (Attachment 11)

(k)     Supports the request for partnership funding from Envirohub BOP for ongoing operational funding to the new Community Grant Fund (Option 3).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/60

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Marine strategy (Attachment 12)

(l)      Continues with the development of the Marine Strategy project as agreed by Council at its 6 October 2020 meeting (Option 1).

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/61

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Gondola feasibility study (Attachment 13)

(m)    Includes $100,000 in the LTP (split $50,000 in 21/22 and $50,000 22/23) to enable innovative opportunities for transport movement solutions to be explored including risk assessment and, where appropriate, working with other transport partners.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/62

Moved:       Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Cultural Centre at Gate Pa Reserve (Attachment 14)

(n)     Allocates new operating expenditure of $125,000, subject to a briefing and further report to Council, and to a satisfactory funding agreement (Option 1).

Carried

 

11.15     2021-2031 Long-term Plan -  User Fees and Charges 2021/22, Revenue and Finance Policy and Groups of Activities (Agenda Item 11.13)

Staff          Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

 

Key points

·                There were no significant changes to the Schedule of Fees and Charges as a result of submissions, but some changes around sustainability and waste activity fees were suggested by staff.  No submissions were received on the Revenue and Financing Policy.

 

In response to questions

·                Changes to waste activity fees were to encourage behavioural change e.g. higher fees for waste.

Resolution  CO12/21/63

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(a)     In relation to the following matters released for consultation concurrently with the Long-term Plan, resolves the following preferred options:

(i)      Schedule of Fees and Charges 2021/22: Option 1 - Amends the Sustainability and Waste user fees and charges for additional bins charges as proposed in the body of the report at point 19 and approves the draft User Fees and Charges schedule for 2021/22.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/64

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

(ii)     Revenue and Financing Policy: Option 1 - Amends the draft Revenue and Finance Policy with one minor wording change as proposed in the body of the report at point 25.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/65

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

(iii)     Groups of Activities: Option 1: Amends the Groups of Activities to reflect the changes proposed to the descriptions and targets for the key performance indicators for the Stormwater, Wastewater, Water Supply and Environmental Planning activities at point 30 and 32 of this report.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/66

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

(b)     Directs staff to present the final Groups of Activities, Policies and User Fees and Charges 2021/22 documents (as amended by resolution a) for adoption to Council at its meeting on 26 July 2021.

Carried

 

11.16     2021-31 Long-term Plan Deliberations - Spaces and Places - sport (Agenda Item 11.10 continued)

Resolution  CO12/21/67

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

Blake Park (Attachment 8)

(r)      Requests staff commence the future state co-design project for Blake Park, the Sport and Active Living Strategy review and Community Facilities Funding Policy review. 

(s)     Confirms approval for BOP Badminton to use the full site at Tatua Reserve for the development of a multi-use sports facility (including but not limited to use for badminton and table tennis), subject to Council agreement on the multi-use nature of the facility, and brings forward funding of $321,552 from FY 23 to FY 22, to contribute towards Tatua Reserve development costs.

(t)      Investigates the viability of Mount Maunganui Playcentre using Golf Road Reserve for the location of their activities, and brings forward funding of $144,310 from FY 23 to FY 22, to contribute to the potential relocation costs.

(u)     Confirms an annual Council contribution for Tauranga Hockey Association turf renewals, as included in the draft LTP.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/68

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

 

(v)     Confirms a capital grant to the Bay Oval Trust (with the debt to be retired over a period of up to 11 years) as a third contribution to the Stage 2 Pavilion, event-day toilets, generator shelter and broadcast tower projects, as detailed below:

 

Proposed project

Total cost

Bay Oval Contribution

Requested Funds

Contribution by TCC (1/3)

Stage 2 Pavilion

$4,289,000

$1,750,000

$2,539,000

$1,429,667

Event-day toilets

$424,815

$150,000

$274,815

$141,605

Generator shelter 

$108,951

$50,000

$58,951

$36,317

Broadcast towers

$350,000

 

$350,000

$116,667

Total

 

 

 

$1,724,256

 

Carried

 

At 10.15am the meeting adjourned.

 

At 11.05am the meeting reconvened.

 

The members then returned to Agenda Item 11.1 which had been left to lie on the table at the start of the meeting.

 

11.17     Deliberations Report - Options for the level of investment and implications for rates and debts (Agenda Item 11.1 continued)

 

Discussion points raised

·                Savings of $1.7m, from debt and interest savings and staff salaries, had been made from the draft LTP.

·                Deliberation decisions had added in $1.85m of extra general expenditure and an extra $350,000 in economic development.

·                The draft LTP had used an assumed growth rate of 1.6, but the actual growth rate could be as high as 1.9. This would spread cost over future ratepayers which would decrease the individual rate burden.

·                Had added in $1.85m extra spending on community facilities with no significant impact on rating level.  Had supported investment in community facilities and level of service as well as in growth infrastructure.

·                The majority of community feedback supported the expenditure and wanted the changes to happen as long as council delivered what was agreed, on time and on budget.  The importance of delivery was noted -  not just of growth projects but also in service provision for the community. 

·                The rates rebate and deferment scheme helped to address concern around the ability of those on low and fixed incomes to afford rates increases.  Noted that the city was already paying the costs in other ways e.g. rising house prices, ineffective transport infrastructure.  Putting Tauranga back on a sustainable path for the future required investment now and for the future.

·                Noted the challenges around managing the impacts of the city on the environment, especially  air and water quality.

·                It was a requirement for the commissioners to produce the LTP; Commission Chair Tolley noted the work of staff and the co-operative partnership between the commissioners and the executive leadership team which had enabled the delivery of the LTP.

·                The Chief Executive thanked  staff for their work; and thanked the Commissioners for their professional approach to the process and the commitment they had demonstrated to the community, both in the amount of engagement undertaken and the consistent focus on keeping the people of Tauranga at the centre of all decisions.  Now the focus would shift to the successful delivery of the LTP.

Resolution  CO12/21/69

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(b)     Agrees to the proposed level of capital investment for the LTP proposed in Option 1 and detailed in Attachment A, with the associated level of rates and debt in Attachment C.

(c)     Notes that the proposed level of rates and debt in later years of the LTP may be reduced as a result of reforms or alternative funding arrangements and that any such impact would be incorporated in subsequent Annual and Long-Term Plans.

(d)     Agrees to the proposed capital delivery adjustments in Option 1 that have been increased and adjusted to reflect revised assumptions or uncertainty of timing of funding agreements with partners including Waka Kotahi NZTA (Waka Kotahi) and challenges around project readiness regarding resilience projects identified within the bulk fund.

(e)     Agrees that the level of maintenance and renewals to be delivered in the first three years of the LTP will be less than budgeted in the draft LTP based on the lower Waka Kotahi funding.

(f)     Agrees to the list of projects in Attachment B that may be brought forward into 2022 from 2023 and later years to manage deliverability of the overall capital programme and support delivery of key outcomes.

(g)     Notes the reduction from the draft in rates-funded operational costs of $1.7m from lower opening debt position in July 2021 that resulted from slower capital delivery in 2021, and lower salary market movement than assumed in the draft.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/70

Moved:       Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

(h)     Notes other deliberations reports recommend additional operational budgets to be added to 2022 and later years, which offsets the reduction in rates requirement noted in (g).

(h)(2) Notes that deliberation decisions have also increased the economic development rate in 2022 and for the subsequent three years by $350,000 per annum, and costs in the water activity to be covered by water rates and user charges of $500,000 increasing in later years, which will be reflected in user charges in later years. 

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/71

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

(i)      Agrees that the proposed budget includes areas of operating costs to be loan funded including:

i.       Keenan Road and Tauriko Business Estate structure planning and

ii.      Transport System Plan (TSP) programme management and stakeholder engagement and

iii.      A portion of the community grants fund that may relate to capital items purchased through the grant

(j)      Agrees to debt retirement associated with these items over a period of five years to be rate-funded consistent with rate-funding for the appropriate activity.

Carried

Resolution  CO12/21/72

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

(k)     Approves a delegation to the Chief Executive to make minor financial and non-financial amendments to the Long Term Plan to be presented to Audit New Zealand; any significant changes will be reported to Council.  

(l)      Approves a delegation to the Chief Executive to utilise both operational and capital expenditure budgets provided for in the draft Long Term Plan, adjusted for decisions through deliberations, for the period 1 July to 26 July 2021 until the final Long Term Plan is adopted.  Any adjustments to the final plan reflected through the audit process will be reported back to Council and/or adjusted through the remainder of the 2021/22 financial year, or subsequent years, if required.  A borrowing resolution has previously been obtained for $30m for the month of July 2021.

Carried

 

 

12          Closing Karakia

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston provided a closing karakia.

 

 

The meeting closed at 11.36am.

 

 

 

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Council meeting held on 26 July 2021.

 

 

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 July 2021

 

8            Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

 

9            Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

 

10          Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 July 2021

 

11          Business

11.1       Adopt Tauranga City Council Long-term Plan 2021-2031

File Number:           A12691479

Author:                    Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Authoriser:             Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       To adopt the Tauranga City Council 2021-2031 Long-term Plan.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Adopts the Schedule of User Fees and Charges for 2021/22 (Attachment 1) with the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan;

(b)     Approves the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan (including Revenue and Finance Policy, Financial Strategy and Infrastructure Strategy) as set out in Attachment 2;

(c)     Receives the audit report relating to the Long-term Plan, pursuant to section 94(1) of the Local Government Act 2002;

(d)     Adopts the Audited 2021-2031 Long-term Plan pursuant to section 93 of the Local Government Act 2002;

(e)     Authorises the Chief Executive to make any necessary minor drafting or presentation amendments to the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan before going to print.

 

Executive Summary

2.       This report presents to Council the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan for approval.

3.       It also captures the changes made since the deliberations and any other changes made as part of the final audit by Audit New Zealand.

Background

4.       The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires Council to adopt its Long-term Plan (LTP) before the commencement of the first year to which it relates.

5.       However, due to the delays to the process caused by the change in governance, Council decided on 8 February 2021 to extend the timeframe to allow for a late adoption of the 2021-31 Long-term Plan on 26 July 2021. The decision to adopt late was to allow for a more robust preparation and consultation process.

6.       The final Tauranga City Council 2021-2031 Long-term Plan accompanies this report as Attachment 2.

7.       There have been changes to the sections in the plan to reflect Council decisions and to ensure compliance with the LGA. Significant changes from the previously adopted supporting documentation for the proposed 2021-2031 Long-term Plan have been outlined in this report.

8.       The report also presents the Financial Strategy, Revenue and Finance Policy and underlying financial information for adoption.

9.       A summary of key financials changes for the LTP is included in this report as Attachment 3.

10.     Audit New Zealand has audited the final LTP document pursuant to section 94(1) of the LGA.  

Discussion

User Fees and Charges

11.     User fees and charges are updated by Council on an annual basis. Updates reflect changing circumstances, Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments, new or removed fee requirements, or benchmarking with other Councils. Some user fees and charges are set by government legislation. The user fees and charges must fairly reflect the cost of services available and offered by Council.

12.     Fees and charges ensure that the costs of an activity are suitably contributed to by those who benefit from the service.

13.     Setting user fees and charges at the correct level enables Council’s activities to be funded in accordance with the Revenue and Financing Policy. The activities of Council contribute to the delivery of our community outcomes.

14.     At its meeting of 4 May, Council adopted the Statement of Proposal: draft User Fees and Charges for consultation using a Special Consultative Procedure.

15.     Public consultation for the draft LTP was undertaken between 7 May and 7 June 2021.

16.     A deliberations report was presented to Council on 24-25 June 2021 to deliberate on the issues raised and feedback received throughout the consultation period and hearings on draft User Fees and Charges.

17.     Council has made decisions on the Schedule of User Fees and Charges though the deliberation meetings.

18.     The change made by Council at the deliberations has now been made and is now reflected in Attachment 1.

Development of the 2021-31 LTP

19.     Council considered all matters relating to the LTP at a series of meetings since July 2020.  This process culminated in a series of Council meetings between December 2020 and March 2021 to make decisions as to what would be consulted on through the Consultation Document for the proposed LTP. 

20.     On 4 May 2021, Council adopted the consultation document for public consultation, as well as all of the supporting documentation.  The period of consultation commenced on 7 May and closed on 7 June.

21.     Council received 1819 submissions and heard directly from individual and groups of submitters over a number of days. Most submissions were on the key topics outlined in the consultation document:

(a)     Building a great city now, for the future

(b)     Funding the investment priority areas

(i)      Targeted rates

(ii)     Commercial differential

(c)     Other consultation topics

(i)      Sale of Pitau Road Village and Hinau Street village

(ii)     Supporting community-led initiatives

(iii)     Our civic administration building (Council Building)

(d)     Any other comments

22.     Council heard verbal submissions between 14 and 18 June 2021.  Council conducted its deliberations on 24 and 25 June 2021.  On 25 June 2021, Council agreed to incorporate all deliberations decisions into the final LTP document for audit and adoption. Staff prepared the final document on this basis.

23.     Schedule 10 of the LGA sets out the requirements for the final LTP document and the document has been prepared using this schedule as a contents checklist. This document has been reviewed by Audit New Zealand as required by the LGA and feedback and changes have been incorporated to meet requirements.

24.     This report sets out any significant changes to the final LTP document.

Financial Strategy

25.     The LTP recognises the changing nature of our city and the intention to build a great city now and for the future. Council has identified six main community outcomes it wishes to focus on over the next 10 years to develop a city that:

·    We value and protect our environment

·    We have a well-planned city

·    We can move around our city easily

·    We support business and education

·    We are inclusive

·    We recognise we are an integral part of the wider Bay of Plenty region and upper North Island

26.     The Financial Strategy (see section four of Attachment 2) is designed to enable Council to meet its agreed community outcomes; its growing statutory obligations; and its obligations to manage growth effectively. It is underpinned by the principles of financial prudence, financial sustainability, transparency, affordability and fairness and equity.

27.     The table below summarises the LTP financial position regarding projected rates and debt levels.  More detail for each for the ten years is provided as Attachment 3.

Table 1: Key Financials for first three years and final year of LTP

 

2022

2023

2024

2031

Capital Programme $m

303

392

402

527

Net Debt $m (year end)

763

952

1,144

1,845

Debt to Revenue ratio (excl. BVL)

212%

233%

266%

247%

Total Rates $m (incl. metered water)

234

268

292

554

Total rates increase (net growth)

21%

12%

8%

5%

Rates increase (excl. kerbside service)

16%

13%

8%

5%

Rates collected for debt retirement $m*

7.5

14.3

18

88.5

·      Debt retirement may not be required if three waters reform were to remove significant debt from council to a new entity, or other funding and financing initiatives are undertaken.  This would significantly reduce rates increases from 2023.

28.     For year one of the LTP (2022), the agreed rates increase will be 21% on average (16% excluding new kerbside collection costs). With changes to the rating structure, this equates to an average rates rise of 15.6% for residential ratepayers and 34.6% for commercial ratepayers.

Significant changes to investments proposed on key consultation topics in the draft LTP

29.     The adopted deliberations report included an increase in the capital delivery adjustment in the early years of the LTP across transportation and resilience projects.  This reduced capital expenditure in these areas in early years of the LTP and increased it in later years of the LTP with some expenditure moved outside the ten years.  This adjustment reflected funding uncertainty from Waka Kotahi around transportation projects.  There were also cost and timing adjustments primarily as a result of projects not completed in 2021 being rephased.  Overall, the total capital programme over the ten years has increased slightly to $4.64b, from $4.57b. Because of timing changes in resilience and capital expenditure the commencement of some debt retirement was moved to later years.  In 2022 a reduction in interest and depreciation resulted from the lower opening debt levels from slower capital delivery in 2021.

30.     Through Council deliberations on submissions, additional expenditure was included in the LTP for 2022 and subsequent years.  This additional expenditure offset the expenditure reductions in interest and depreciation.  The decisions are summarised in section one of the full LTP document (Attachment 2) on pages 12-25. The main impacts on rates funded expenditure were:

(a)     Reduction in Development Contributions contribution for the Waiari Water Supply Project from 100% to 90% of the capital costs resulting in an increase in ratepayer funded interest (approx. $400k in 2022 increasing over time).

(b)     Additional funding for consultation and community liaison regarding transportation issues at Arataki ($400k in 2022), and the Greerton Racecourse ($100k).

(c)     Various arts and culture, and community grants both through the community grants fund and as additional funding including to showcase the Heritage Collection ($100k), a cultural centre at Gate Pa reserve ($150k) and Taonga Tu ($150k).

(d)     Support through grants to alternative transport initiatives such as Wednesday Challenge ($146k) and innovative transport initiatives ($50k - 2022 and 2023).

(e)     Various additional capital and operational budget to investigate further recreational investment such as basketball, roller sports and needs at Gordon Spratt reserve.

(f)      Additional capital budget ($1.125m in 2022) across a number of community reserves and facilities including skatepark upgrades, planning for a new skatepark facility, Welcome Bay Reserve development, and additional works at Gordon Spratt Reserve.

31.     The commercial rate has increased to support city centre development and funding for the film sector ($350k plus a further $250k for city centre development paid from general rates).

32.     The free parking trial in the city centre has been extended to February ($800k loss of revenue).

Significant changes to financials

33.     Internal review of projections for growth led to adjustments to timing of development contribution revenue.  There have also been adjustments to the portion of interest costs capitalised to growth funded debt.  The overall result of these changes combined with the changes at deliberations has been to reduce rates requirement and increase debt gradually over the ten years.  By 2031 rates revenue is now calculated to be $21m lower and debt $146m higher than in the financials provided at deliberations.

Other significant non-financial changes from the draft LTP

Groups of activities

34.     In the Groups of Activities (GOA) section, under the Economic Development performance measure for “increased visitor spend – international and domestic” during consultation the target was left blank at the time as central government data was and still is delayed due to COVID-19 which meant that a target could not be accurately forecast.

35.     The intention was to update this with a target prior to adoption of the LTP. However, due to the ongoing uncertainty of the impacts of COVID-19 on the travel market in the short to medium term we have decided that we will continue to monitor this measure without a target and will revise and put in place a target when one can be accurately forecast in either future Annual Plans or the next LTP.

36.     During the deliberations a change was made to bring an existing measure from City and Infrastructure Planning activity into Environmental Planning activity as a result of a restructure.

37.     This then left the existing level of service for provision of a Development Contributions Policy without a measure. A new measure has now been added to the City and Infrastructure Planning activity – the measure wording and target are as follows: “Ensure DC policy is current and updated annually with the Annual or Long-term Plan” with a target of 100%.

38.     Also added to the GOA section, as required under Schedule 10 of the LGA, is the disclosure of any variation between council’s Long-term Plan and its assessment of water and sanitary services and waste management plans. With regards to all three there are no significant variations and this has been disclosed as such.

39.     Another requirement under Schedule 10 of the LGA, as part of the information to be included in the final LTP, is information in relation to council-controlled organisations that council is a shareholder. This information is presented at the end of the GOA section.

40.     All other activities and performance measures remain as they were in the GOA section that formed part of the supporting information that was presented alongside the consultation document.

Significant forecasting assumptions

41.     As a result of the work with Audit New Zealand in the final LTP audit, Council have updated the wording of one assumption and created an additional assumption.

42.     Additional wording has been added to the NZTA funding assumptions to make the wording clearer in the detail, risks, level of uncertainty and the mitigation for this assumption.

43.     An additional assumption (38) has been added titled “Memorial Park – Recreation hub and aquatics facility” which highlights that there is a future decision to be made on the transfer of ownership of these assets after the completion of the projects.

44.     Both updates can be found in section seven of Attachment 2.

45.     All other assumptions remain as they were in the significant forecasting assumptions section that formed part of the supporting information that was presented alongside the LTP Consultation Document.

Western Bay of Plenty District Council policies and the LTP

46.     The implementation orders for the boundary changes for Tauriko West and Belk, Keenan and Tara Roads specify that the Western Bay of Plenty District Council LTP and associated policies (including the Revenue and Financing Policy and Development Contributions Policy) apply until the Tauranga City Council LTP is adopted and becomes operative. On adopting the LTP, the WBOPDC LTP and associated policies cease to apply and are replaced in their entirety by the Tauranga City Council LTP and associated policies. Rates for these areas are also payable to Tauranga City Council from 1 July 2021.

Strategic / Statutory Context

47.     This report is prepared as the final step of adopting a new Long-term Plan for Council. The process for preparation of the Long-Term Plan is set out under the Local Government Act 2002

Legal Implications / Risks

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

Consultation / Engagement

49.     Consultation for the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan commenced on 7 May and closed on 7 June.

Significance

50.     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.

51.     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 decision.

(c)   the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

52.     In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of high.

ENGAGEMENT

53.     Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of high significance, and that the LTP has already been subjected to a formal public engagement and consultation process, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

Next Steps

54.     Once Council adopt the Schedule of Fees and Charges, they will take effect on 1 August 2021 and will be included in the LTP. This is with the exception of the price for volumetric water as this is charged as a rate and so will be effective from 1 July 2021.

55.     Publication and implementation of the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan.

Attachments

1.       Attachment 1 - User Fees and Charges Schedule - A12671240 (supplementary document)  

2.       Attachment 2 - Tauranga City Council 2021-2031 Long-term Plan - A12686755 (supplementary document)

3.       Attachment 3 - Summary Financial Information - A12702291   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 July 2021

 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 July 2021

 

11.2       2021/2022 Rates Resolution

File Number:           A12656764

Author:                    Jim Taylor, Transactional Services Manager

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Authoriser:             Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       To resolve to set and assess rates for the 2021/2022 financial year.

 

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)        Sets the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Council's Long Term Plan 2021-2031 and the Funding Impact Statement in the Long Term Plan for the 2021/2022 rating year, on rating units in the city for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2021 and ending on 30 June 2022. 

      The rates and charges specified are inclusive of Goods and Services Tax at the prevailing rate.

I.    General Rate

A general rate set under section 13(2) (b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

·      A rate of $0.00249736 in the dollar of capital value on all residential rateable rating units in the City.

·      A rate of $0.00399578 in the dollar of capital value on all commercial rateable rating units in the City.

 

(“residential” and “commercial” are as defined in the Funding Impact Statement).

II.   Uniform Annual General Charge

A uniform annual general charge set under section 15(1)(b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

·      A rate of $199.00 per separately used or inhabited part of a rateable rating unit.

III.  Waste Collection Rate

A uniform targeted rate for the kerbside waste collection services, set under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on all rating units in the City on which there is one or more residential use and that will be provided with the standard waste collection service, at:

·      A rate of $210 per standard waste service capacity provided for each residential use on each rating unit in the City.

IV.  Garden Waste Rate (optional)

Uniform targeted rates for garden waste collection services, set under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on all rating units in the City used for residential purposes and that will be provided with the garden waste collection service, at:

·    A rate of $95 for each garden waste bin (two weekly collection).

 

·    A rate of $60 for each garden waste bin (four weekly collection).

V.   Wastewater Rate

 

A differential targeted rate for wastewater, set under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

 

·    A rate of $538.88 for each water closet or urinal in a connected rating unit in the city.

 

·    A rate of $269.44 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for any serviceable rating units in the city.

 

(“separately used or inhabited part of a”, “connected” and “serviceable” rating units, are defined in the Funding Impact Statement).

 

A rating unit used primarily as a residence for 1 household will not be treated as having more than 1 water closet or urinal.

VI.  Stormwater Rate

 

A targeted rate for stormwater infrastructure investment, set under section 16(3)(a) and 16(4) (b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

 

·    A rate of $0.00004562 in the dollar of capital value on all residential rateable rating units in the City.

 

·    A rate of $0.00007298 in the dollar of capital value on all commercial rateable rating units in the City.

 

VII. Water Supply Rates

 

Volumetric rate

 

A targeted rate for metered water supply set under section 19(2)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at

 

·      A rate of $2.90 per cubic metre of water supplied.

 

Base rate

 

A differential targeted rate per connection on every rating unit in the City which is provided with a metered water supply service, set under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, calculated on the basis of the nature of the connection size as follows:

 

Meter Size

Amount

20mm

$35.00

25mm

$66.00

32mm

$66.00

40mm

$273.00

50mm

$540.00

80mm

$1,079.00

100mm

$1,329.00

150mm

$1,329.00

200mm

$1,329.00

250mm

$1,329.00

 

VIII.            Water Supply Rates (unmetered)

 

Unmetered rate

 

A uniform targeted rate on every rating unit in the City which is provided with and connected to an unmetered water supply service, set under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, at:

 

·      A rate of $804.00 for each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

IX.  Economic Development Rate

A targeted rate for economic development in the City, set under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

 

·      A rate of $0.00053944 in the dollar of capital value on every commercial rateable rating unit (as defined in the Funding Impact Statement).

 

X.   Mainstreet Rates

 

Targeted rates for Mainstreet organisations, set under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, at:

 

·    A rate of $0.00053479 in the dollar of capital value for every commercial rating unit in the Tauranga Mainstreet rating area as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

 

·    A rate of $0.00084437 in the dollar of capital value for every commercial rating unit in the Mt Maunganui Mainstreet rating area as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

 

·    A rate of $0.00180928 in the dollar of capital value for every commercial rating unit in the Greerton Mainstreet rating area as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

 

·    A rate of $0.00033422 in the dollar of capital value for every commercial rating unit in the Papamoa Mainstreet area as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

 

XI.  Special Services Rates

 

 

 

            ‘The Lakes’ Targeted Rate

A uniform targeted rate for additional levels of service in relation to maintenance and renewal of street gardens, street trees, footpaths and the removal of litter from ponds provided to ‘The Lakes’ subdivision, located at Pyes Pa, set under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, at:

 

·      A rate of $99.90 per rating unit located within ‘The Lakes’ subdivision as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

 

            ‘The Coast Papamoa’ Targeted Rate

A uniform targeted rate for additional levels of service in relation to maintenance and renewal of street trees and footpaths provided to ‘The Coast Papamoa’ subdivision, located at Papamoa, set under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, at:

 

·    A rate of $34.02 per rating unit located within ‘The Coast Papamoa’ subdivision as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

 

            ‘The Excelsa’ Targeted Rate

A uniform targeted rate for additional levels of service in relation to maintenance and renewal of street gardens, street trees and up lights under trees provided to ‘The Excelsa’ subdivision, located at Papamoa, set under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, at:

 

·    A rate of $50.32 per rating unit located within ‘The Excelsa’ subdivision as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

XII. Resilience Rate

A targeted rate for resilience infrastructure investment in Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, Transportation and Emergency Management, set under section 16(3)(a) and 16(4) (b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

 

·    A rate of $0.00001175 in the dollar of capital value on all residential rateable rating units in the City.

 

·    A rate of $0.00001880 in the dollar of capital value on all commercial rateable rating units in the City.

XIII.  Transportation Rate

A targeted rate for Transportation infrastructure investment, set under section 16(3)(a) and 16(4) (b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

 

·    A rate of $0.00004200 in the dollar of capital value on all residential rateable rating units in the City.

 

·    A rate of $0.00006719 in the dollar of capital value on all commercial rateable rating units in the City.

 

XIV.    Community Rate

A targeted rate for Community amenity investment, set under section 16(3)(a) and 16(4) (b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

 

·    A rate of $0.00011959 in the dollar of capital value on all residential rateable rating units in the City.

 

·    A rate of $0.00019134 in the dollar of capital value on all commercial rateable rating units in the City.

 

(b)        That all rates (except the water supply volumetric rate set under section 19 and the water supply base rate for metered connections under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002) be payable in two equal instalments due on:

 

·    31August 2021 and

·    28 February 2022.

 

(c)        That all metered water rates will, except as to high users, be invoiced on a quarterly basis dependant on when the water meters are read, in accordance with the table below headed “Due dates and penalty dates for rates for metered water supply”. The due dates will also be specified on the invoice. Rating units, which are considered high users of water (namely having an average consumption more than 5m3 per day) will be invoiced monthly, and these rates will be due on the first Thursday after 23 days following the date of the invoice.

 

(d)        That the Council authorises the addition of penalties to rates that are not paid by the due date, as follows, in accordance with sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, and delegates authority to the Manager Finance to apply penalties in accordance with this regime:

 

(i)         a charge of 10% on so much of any rates instalment after 1 July 2021 which is unpaid after the relevant due date (except for the volumetric rate under section 19 and the water supply base rate for metered connections under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002) will be applied on:

 

Instalment due date

Penalty Date

31 August 2021

9 September 2021

28 February 2022

9 March 2022

 

(i)         a charge of 10% on so much of any of the volumetric rate under section 19 and the water supply base rate for metered connections under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 invoiced after 1 July 2021 and which is unpaid after the due date will be applied on whichever is the next consecutive date following the due date of the invoice to which the penalty applies, being:

 

Water Penalty Date

28 October 2021

3 February 2022

28 April 2022

28 July 2022

 

 

 

 

 

Due dates and penalty dates for rates for metered water supply and connection

Week

Area

Q1 Due date

Q2 Due date

Q3 Due date

Q4 Due date

1

Mt Maunganui North, Omanu, Arataki

26-Aug-21

11-Nov-21

17-Feb-22

19-May-22

2

Mt Maunganui Industrial, Matapihi, Arataki, Te Maunga, Papamoa West

26-Aug-21

18-Nov-21

24-Feb-22

26-May-22

3

Papamoa West / East

02-Sep-21

25-Nov-21

03-Mar-22

02-Jun-22

4

Papamoa East / South, Kairua, Welcome Bay

09-Sep-21

02-Dec-21

10-Mar-22

09-Jun-22

5

Welcome Bay, Hairini, Poike, Pyes Pa

16-Sep-21

09-Dec-21

17-Mar-22

16-Jun-22

6

Hairini, Maungatapu, Greerton, Gate Pa,

23-Sep-21

16-Dec-21

24-Mar-22

23-Jun-22

7

Tauranga Central/ South, Sulphur Point, Judea

30-Sep-21

23-Dec-21

31-Mar-22

30-Jun-22

8

Te Reti, Brookfield, Judea, Otumoetai

07-Oct-21

13-Jan-22

07-Apr-22

07-Jul-22

9

Bellevue, Otumoetai, Matua

14-Oct-21

20-Jan-22

14-Apr-22

14-Jul-22

10

The Lakes, Bethlehem

21-Oct-21

27-Jan-22

21-Apr-22

21-Jul-22

All (including High users)

Penalty Added Date

28-Oct-21

03-Feb-22

28-Apr-22

28-Jul-22

 

(e)        Where a ratepayer makes any payment that is less than the amount now payable, the Council, will apply the payment firstly to any rates outstanding from previous rating years and then proportionately across all current year rates due.

 

 

Executive Summary

2.       To set rates for the 2021/2022 year in accordance with the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Council's Long Term Plan 2021-2031, and the Funding Impact Statement in the 2021/2031 Long Term Plan.

Background

3.       The total rates requirement is determined through the Long Term Plan.

4.       The total rates increase between the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 years (excluding water volumetric charges) is 19.7% after adjusting for growth of 1.9%. This is supported by growth in the number of rating units and the increase in capital value.

5.       The median increase for residential ratepayers is 15.6% (8% excluding the new kerbside waste collection service) and the median increase for commercial ratepayers is 34.6%.

(includes rating policy changes to the commercial differential on the general rate, the introduction of new targeted rates for stormwater, transportation and community and a full kerbside waste collection service for residential use)

Strategic / Statutory Context

6.       The rates resolution is required to set and assess the rates.

Consultation / Engagement

7.       The community was consulted through the 2021-2031 long term plan.

Significance

8.       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.

9.       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 decision.

(c)   the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

10.     In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision high significance. This decision affects all Ratepayers of Tauranga City. It is a significant funding source ($201 Million rates revenue and estimated $29 Million water volumetric charge revenue for Council).

Next Steps

11.     Rates will be set and assessed for the 2021/2022 rating year.

Attachments

Nil


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 July 2021

 

11.3       Adoption of the Final 2021/22 Development Contributions Policy

File Number:           A12679506

Author:                    Ana Blackwood, Development Contributions Policy Analyst

Authoriser:             Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       To adopt the Final 2021/22 Development Contributions Policy.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Adopts the 2021/22 Development Contributions Policy.

(b)     Delegates to the General Manager: Strategy and Growth the authority to rectify any minor errors or omissions that are identified in the 2021/22 Development Contributions Policy prior to final publication.

 

Discussion

2.       Council reviews and updates its Development Contributions Policy (DCP) on an annual basis. In March 2021 the draft DCP was adopted by Council and circulated for public consultation.

3.       The public consultation process for this DCP was undertaken in much the same manner as in previous years.  However, the timeframe has started and ended one month later than usual in order to tie in with the development and adoption of council’s Long-term Plan 2021/31 (LTP).

4.       The final policy has now been updated to reflect changes made through the LTP deliberations process and a copy of the final DCP attached to this report.

5.       The policy remains largely the same as the draft DCP with only financial changes being made to reflect consequences of decisions made through the LTP deliberations. Changes to capital expenditure budgets have the flow on effect of impacting the development contribution fees. The table below shows a comparison between the fees in the final policy compared to those in the draft policy.

6.       The increases to the Pyes Pa West fees are the result of increased costs for construction of the Kennedy Road embankment dam required to managed stormwater for the catchment. 

7.       Changes to fees for Wairakei development are the result of various relatively minor changes including updates to capital expenditure budgets, corrections to funding apportionments where NZTA funding is assumed, and changes to inflation and cost of capital figures as a result of changes to the timing of delivery.

8.       The other key change to the policy is to account for decisions made by the Council through the LTP deliberations process regarding the citywide development contributions.

9.       The citywide contributions in the draft DCP were an increase of approximatelly $16,000 per household. In response to the submissions on this increase Council decided to implement a transitional regime to delay the full impact of the increases until February 2021. As a result of the decision the citywide development contribution from 1 August 2021 through to end of January 2022 will be $19,708 (incl. GST) for any dwellings with 3 or more bedrooms. This is $7,500 more than the fee in the operative policy.

10.     From 1 February 2021 the citywide contribution fee will increase to its full amount of $28,557 (incl. GST) for 3-bedroom dwellings. This is further increase of nearly $8,900 (including GST).

11.     The final citywide development contribution fee of $28,557 is $398 higher than the amount in the draft Development Contributions Policy. This increase between the draft and final policies relates to increased capital expenditure budgets for Te Maunga Wastewater treatment plant and associated works.

12.     An additional table (Table 1b) has been added to the 2021/22 DCP to clearly show the full citywide development contributions for each development typology that will apply from 1 August 2021 through to 31 January 2022 compared to those applied from 1 February onwards.

 

 

Significance AND ENGAGEMENT

13.     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.

14.     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 LTP.

(c)   the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

15.     In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the DCP is of high significance.   However, given that the policy has already been through a consultation process, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.  

Next Steps

16.     Once the policy is adopted staff will arrange for distribution of the final policy to stakeholders and submitters (electronic or printed depending on preference). Staff will also be working over the next 5 months to ensure that all of submitters and others in the building industry are aware of the increase in the citywide contributions which will become effective February 2022.

17.     Staff also note that we are undertaking further work on funding options including a review of funding for key transportation infrastructure, community facilities and options regarding funding for infrastructure required for intensification. These reviews may lead to further increases in the citywide development contributions (or other contributions) and so staff are developing processes to engage with stakeholders over the potential changes. The submitters and others who engaged in the consultation through this policy will form a base distribution list from which to start future engagement.

 

Attachments

1.       Attachment A – Final 2021/22 Development Contributions Policy - A12702350 (supplementary document)    


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 July 2021

 

11.4       Borrowing Programme 2021-2022

File Number:           A12680722

Author:                    Mohan De Mel, Treasurer

Authoriser:             Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       This report seeks approval for the Borrowing Programme 2021-2022.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)        Receives Report  – Borrowing Programme 2021-2022;

(b)        Approves the Borrowing Resolution for the 2021-2022 financial year:

i.          The borrowing of $193,700,000 (the “Borrowing”).  This Borrowing being made up of:

·    $127,375,000 of new loans approved for the financial year 2021-2022

 in the Long Term Plan 2021-2031;

·    $66,225,000 of maturing loans during the financial year 2021-2022;

·    That in addition a bank overdraft facility of $100,000 be retained.

ii.          The borrowing is to be secured against the rates revenue of Council under the Debenture Trust Deed.

iii.         That the Council may also fund the capital expenditure programme and its working capital requirements from its cash reserves and other internal / external sources of funds.

(c)        Approves that authority is delegated to the Chief Executive and the General Manager Corporate Sevices, subject to the Local Government Act 2002 and the Treasury Policy, to:

i.          determine the details and timing of the Borrowing whether in this financial year or in the future and to raise long or short-term loans, whether by one or more bank facilities or other facilities, or by one or more issues of stock, whether by internal funding or external, and whether by wholesale issue or by private placement to habitual investors, to yield a maximum external borrowing identified in (b)(i) above, of $193,700,000 secured under the Debenture Trust Deed as the Chief Executive and General Manager Corporate Services consider appropriate and in accordance with the Council's Treasury Policy; and

ii.          execute all loan and security documentation in relation to the Borrowing on behalf of Council, including any loan and/or credit agreements and stock certificates, investment statement and any other documents which Council may be required to enter into in respect of the borrowing, and to give one or more certificates in respect thereof for the purposes of Section 118 of the Local Government Act in respect of Council's entry into such borrowing security or related documentation.

(d)        Approves that authority is delegated to the General Manager Corporate Services to borrow internally to manage the funding requirements, subject to availability of internal funding and reassign approved borrowings between activities for approved projects.

(e)        Approves that authority is delegated to the General Manager Corporate Services to enter into interest rate risk management transactions with institutions with whom the Council has interest rate risk management documentation in place as and when he considers appropriate, subject to the limits set out in Council's Treasury Policy.

 

Executive Summary

2.       Council’s external borrowing (net) is forecast to reach $763.0 million by 30 June 2022 as per the Long Term Plan 2021-2031 (LTP).  Intra-year gross debt levels will be higher than closing net debt as at 30 June 2022 due to planned pre-funding of debt maturities.  The borrowing programme allows us to fund the delivery of our capital programme and enables the delivery of our community outcomes.

Background

3.       Council’s total external borrowing requirement is $193,700,000 comprising $127,375,000 of new debt for projects and $66,225,000 of refinancing maturing debt for the year 2021-2022 as per the Long Term Plan 2021-2031.  The existing $100,000 overdraft facility to be retained to manage Council's day to day cash management.

4.       Carry forward projects from Annual Plan 2020-2021 were largely rebudgeted in the LTP and therefore are included in the above borrowing resolution.  Any further carryforward can be managed within the cash held at balance date.

5.       Borrowing by Council activities is funded from both internal and external funding sources.  Internal funding sources are mainly Reserves and Internal Debt Retirement.

6.       The capital programme 2021-2022 excluding non-cash items (vested assets) is $303 million.  This has been reduced by $42.5 million (Capital Delivery Adjustment) to determine the closing debt as at 30 June 2022 from a cashflow perspective.

7.       As per the LTP external debt (net) is forecast at $763.0 million as at 30 June 2022.  During the year the gross debt level will increase above this figure due to planned pre-funding of debt maturities.

 

Interest Rate Management 

8.       Council is exposed to interest rate fluctuations on existing and future borrowings.  Interest rate risk is minimised by managing floating and fixed interest rate exposures within the Treasury Policy limits framework.

9.       The Council has previously resolved to enter into Master Agreements with various institutions which provide the framework under which risk management transactions are carried out.

 

Form of Borrowing

10.     It is planned to source all external funding requirements from both the Local Government Funding Agency, Housing Infrastructure Fund and the wholesale market.  Both short and long term funding can be sourced from the wholesale market by way of wholesale tender, private placement and/or bank funding.

 

Bank Facility

11.     Currently Council has a $70 million undrawn bank facility as at 30 June 2021.  This facility is available to be drawn down at short notice to manage short and long term funding requirements.  The facility maturity is 31 October 2024.  This facility is required to ensure compliance with the Treasury Policy.

 

 

Security

12.     Council’s Treasury Policy states that Council will generally offer security for its borrowing by way of a charge over its rates under the Debenture Trust Deed (Section 5.1.6 Treasury Policy).

 

Purpose of the Loan

13.     The purpose of the loans is to generally finance capital projects and debt repayment as provided in Council’s LTP.

 

Compliance with the Treasury Policy

14.     The Borrowing proposed is consistent with Council’s Treasury Policy.  The Treasury Policy prescribes that net interest expense should not exceed 20% of annual operating revenue and that net external debt should not exceed 300% of the annual operating revenue.  The proposed borrowing will not result in the Council exceeding the above limits.

 

Working Capital for CCO’s

15.     To assist with the smooth financial running of the CCOs, Council provides working capital funding to Bay Venues Limited and BOPLASS.  By the nature of their size and type of businesses, these companies experience “lumpy” cash-flows throughout the year.  It is prudent and cost effective for Council to provide working capital funding.

Strategic / Statutory Context

16.     Council’s external borrowing (net) is forecast to reach $763.0m as at 30 June 2022 as per the LTP.  The borrowing programme allows us to fund the delivery of our capital programme and enables the delivery of our community outcomes.

Options Analysis

17.     There are no options associated with this report.

Financial Considerations

18.     These resolutions are required to enable the delivery of Council decisions as per the adoption of the LTP budgets, and to satisfy the requirements of the Treasury Policy.

Legal Implications / Risks

19.     The Local Government Act 2002 provides the authority to borrow in Section 12.  Borrowing falls within the “full rights, powers and privileges” that a local authority has to undertake any activity, do any act or enter into any transaction for the purpose of performing its role.  The Treasury Policy also requires the approval of all borrowing by Council resolution.

Consultation / Engagement

20.     The LTP budgets to be covered through this borrowing have been consulted on.

Significance

21.     These Borrowing Programme matters are significant.  However, these approvals are a result of prior decision making and allow implimentation of the 2021-2022 year (1st year) of the LTP, which underwent public consultation.  All risk management activities are undertaken in accordance with the Treasury Policy.

Next Steps

22.     Implementation of the Borrowing Programme 2021-2022.

Attachments

Nil


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 July 2021

 

11.5       2021-2031 Long-term Plan - Other topics

File Number:           A12631574

Author:                    Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Ana Blackwood, Development Contributions Policy Analyst

Authoriser:             Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

 

Purpose of the Report

1.       Community engagement on the draft 2021-2031 Long-term Plan (LTP) has been completed.  This report is provided for Council to consider proposed responses to other issues raised through consultation.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Approves staff comments on submissions relating to other topics in Attachments 1.

(b)     Approves staff comments on submissions relating to development contributions in Attachment 2.

(c)     Authorises the Chief Executive and General Managers to make amendments to Council’s proposed response comments to each submission point in Attachments 1 and 2, to refine wording and style prior to responses being sent to submitters no later than one month after the adoption of the LTP.

 

Background

2.       Public consultation for the 2021-2031 LTP was undertaken for a month and ended on 7 June 2021. 1819 submissions were received, with 262 of these submitters choosing to present at Hearings from 14 June until 18 June 2021.  Many topics were covered, including items specifically identified for public feedback in the consultation document.

3.       This report covers the other topics which were not specifically consulted on or which are not covered by other reports which were on the agenda for the deliberations meeting on 24 and 25 June 2021 for the 2021-2031 LTP.

4.       For these other topics, Attachments 1 provides a summary of the points made by the submitter and a proposed Council response.

5.       This report also includes a summary of submissions received regarding the draft Development Contributions Policy 2021/22 and comments from Council responding to each submission Attachment 2.

6.       Where a topic was considered through an issues and options paper at the deliberations on 24 and 25 June 2021, those submissions, will not feature in the attachments to this report.

Strategic / Statutory Context

7.       The 2021-2031 LTP sets out our community outcomes, direction, budgets and work plans for the following 10 years.

Options Analysis

8.       Council has the following options in regard to this report:

·    Accept all of the responses as drafted and approve them for communication back to submitters

·    Formally amend some or all responses before approving them for communication back to submitters.

9.       Further, if Council considers that any of the matters covered in Attachments 1 and 2 warrant a separate decision-making process, those matters should be identified and advice taken on the appropriate procedural route for that decision-making i.e. whether a new report is required and, if so, what the realistic timeframes for that decision-making may be.

Consultation / Engagement

10.     A formal submission process was undertaken for the LTP using the Special Consultative Procedure under the Local Government Act 2002.

Significance

11.     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.

12.     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 LTP.

(c)   the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

13.     In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the LTP is of high significance.   However, the decision sought through this report, to approve or amend commentary response to individual submitters, is considered to be of low significance. 

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

15.     All submitters will be sent a letter or an email advising where they can find a summary of all of the key decisions once the LTP has been adopted on 26th July 2021. All individualised response letters or emails will be sent within one month of adoption of the LTP.

Attachments

1.       Attachment 1 - 2021-2031 LTP Other topics responses - A12700691 (supplementary document)  

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Contributions - A12679342   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 July 2021

 

Attachment 2 - Summary of submissions on development contributions and proposed response

Item

Submission numbers 

Submission topic

Summary of submission point

Proposed response

1

1623

 

 

 

Wairakei infrastructure services and funding 

The submission supports prioritising the proposed capital investments for Wairakei but asks council to reproportion the cost allocations between Wairakei and Te Tumu UAGs to lower Wairakei’s share of the costs for the PEI and the Opal Drive Pump Station.

Staff will continue to engage and work with the submitter regarding the decisions for funding allocations for the Papamoa East Interchange. Funding allocations for this project are currently being reviewed by an external consultant to determine if an amendment is required.  The funding allocations for the Opal Drive Pump Station are based on a benefit analysis undertaken by staff. We can share with the submitter the details on how the funding allocations were based or would welcome information from the submitter on the basis of the 15% funding recommendation.

2

1361

1779

Transitional policies

Submissions request that Council allow or develop a policy that would allow transitional development contributions policies in a range of circumstances. Transitional policies will allow developers to plan with certainty, “Large scale year on year changes should be avoided. Council needs to develop transitional policies to avoid undue negative financial consequences and market uncertainty that cause financial viability risks associated with large swings in costs of development.”

We make every effort to signal increases in development contributions as early as reasonably possible and to the best of our knowledge at that time.  Generally, this is at least a year ahead of any price changes.  We also provided detailed analysis of price changes in our draft Development Contributions Policy 3 - 4 months in advance of any change coming into effect.  Where substantial unanticipated changes are implemented, we endeavour to work closely with developers to minimise adverse effects to developers and property buyers.

Options for transitional implementation of the Citywide development contributions were presented and considered by Council.  The decision was to phase in increased charges with an increase from 1 August 2021 and a further stepped increase from 1 February 2022.

3

289

Policy transparency

The Development Contributions Policy needs to be more transparent, accountable and accurate and needs to provide details about funds collected for catchments and where funds have been allocated, record actual project costs and provide detail of significant estimated projects.

Tauranga City Councils Development Contributions Policy already contains significant amounts of information and detail. Whilst we don’t publish information about funds collected and allocations within the policy, this information can be provided by staff upon request. Project costs are reviewed and updated annually, and costs updated to actual costs as soon as practicable.

4

289

Refunds when DC funded projects are cancelled or removed

Funds are collected for specific projects within the catchment, if these projects do not happen these funds should be returned.

Staff make a case by case decision to determine if a refund of development contributions is appropriate when development contributions have been collected for projects that do not proceed. It is important to note that the fees are collected on a catchment/activity wide basis. So, in some cases a refund may not occur if the projects are replaced by other projects which achieve a similar outcome to the initial project. A refund may also not be considered necessary in the case where the total development contribution for the given catchment/activity has increased as final project costs become realised. If the submitter has a specific project that they feel warrants a refund, we are happy to review the case.

5

289

Interest calculations

Interest and inflation calculations should be adjusted according to what funds have been collected and funds held earning interest if there is a delay in the commencement of the individual project.

Development contribution revenue is held in reserves accounts at a catchment/activity wide level – not each specific project. The development contribution charges are adjusted annually to account for both interest and inflation rates which based on revenue received, planned project delivery timeframes and expected growth projects. Staff can provide the submitter with the relevant inflation and interest spreadsheets if requested.

6

289

Project costing

Would like to see more independent estimates and use of independent project management around the collation of development contribution costs and the execution of projects. Often projects are not accurately estimated and are poorly managed which result in significant and most of the time unnecessary cost overruns.

Development contribution funded projects (as with all other Council projects) are based on the best-known cost estimates at the time of publishing. The level of confidence in the accuracy of costs increases as detailed knowledge of the project increases. Where costs are early in the lifecycle costs estimates are usually based on standardised unit rate costs which have been reviewed by developers and are set out within the Development Contributions Policy. When projects are nearing delivery date and design has been undertaken then costs are usually reviewed by external consultants. Within the last year TCC have been working on processes to improve project costing and introducing quality control processes where selected projects are also reviewed by independent quantity surveyors.

 

7

1393 - 1

1723 – 1

1779

Growth pays for growth principle

Review the concept of growth pays for growth – consider the use of other funding and financing levers to pay for growth. Ensure that councils financial strategy reflects a beneficiary pays model rather than overly relying on DC fees.

Council is working closely with the Crown on the development of other funding tools such as the Infrastructure Funding and Financing proposals. Because these options are complex and result in charges that are backed by legislation, and are relatively new, the arrangements are still being completed. The new funding tools are likely to be utilised for new growth areas and so are unlikely to impact any current DC charges.

8

1393

Community infrastructure

Do not include community infrastructure in development contribution fee and use alternative funding tools.

Council has delayed the expected starting date for collection of development contributions for new community infrastructure projects for a further year beyond what was initially expected to allow staff to completely analyse all funding options. Council will be considering funding options for the community infrastructure projects in the upcoming year.  Staff also note that development contributions for Community Infrastructure and Reserves are not charged for non-residential developments.

9

1361

1393

1723

1412

 

Waiari Water Supply Scheme 

Four submissions received asked for a more robust explanation/transparency on how the Waiari project costs have been allocated.

 

Two of the submission also asked for explanations regarding use of DCs when it was funded by the Housing Infrastructure Fund.

TCC received financing for the Waiari Water Supply Scheme (WWSS) via the Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF). The HIF provides a 10-year interest free loan to Council and the interest free benefit is allocated across of Council debt (not just the WWSS). However, this is still a debt to the Council which is being repaid through use of development contributions. DCs must be funded over the capacity life of the asset which in this case is significantly greater than 10 years, and therefore the recovery period of these assets is much longer than the interest free period.  The interest charged as part of the DC's is still considerable (albeit less than if no HIF had been made available).

 

To calculate the amount payable per household for the WWSS, staff divide the total capital cost of the WWSS (including the expected interest costs to be paid by Council)  by the total number of households over the capacity life of the assets (currently based on approximately 30,000 households).  This is consistent with Local Government Act 2002 which states that development contributions should be determined in a manner that is generally consistent with the capacity life for which they are intending to be used. It should be noted Council has reduced the funding allocation of the costs for Waiari so that 10% of the total capital costs will not be funded via growth but rather through general rates to reflect the network resilience benefit.   Further information on the Waiari Water related costs are included within the Council report and can be found at this link https://infocouncil.tauranga.govt.nz/Open/2021/06/CO_20210624_AGN_2387_AT_SUP_WEB.htm

(Attachment C) .

10

1401 /

1403

Development contributions for Te Tumu Development

Two submissions received are related to projects funded via development contributions to be collected from Te Tumu land development. The submitter has expressed concern on the significant cost increases for several projects and requests information on the reasons for increases. The submissions ask to meet with council to discuss the projects and issues regarding funding and detailed cost breakdowns.

Council staff will contact the submitter directly to arrange a meeting and to provide the information requested.

11

1363

1364

CBD Development Incentives

TCC should provide a DC remission to incentivise development in the CBD.

As part of the Long-Term Plan deliberation a report was considered by Council which included options regarding possible DC remissions for the CBD.   Council resolved to create a $500,000 City Centre Development Incentive Fund with a range of criteria that can target the costs of development, especially promoting affordable residential development, covering the likes of development contributions, consenting fees, parking fees during development and public amenity in the vicinity of developments.

12

1412

Change category of Retail Developments

TCC’s DC policy should recognise that retail developments do not create the same demand for water and wastewater infrastructure as other commercial activities and TCC should amend the development contributions policy to include retail outlets within the low demand category.

The Low Demand business activities category has been created to specifically reflect demand attributes of storage and warehousing facilities along with utilities type buildings which are largely unoccupied.   It is not considered appropriate to group retail activities within the same category as these industries.

 

Citywide DC’s for business activities are charged based on the amount of gross floor associated with the development. This means that larger scale developments pay larger development contributions.  This is because there is a general causal nexus between larger businesses and the demand that they place on infrastructure.  Large high-water using activities and ‘wet industries’ are typically larger industrial buildings and thus by default pay a higher development contribution than many smaller retail outlets.

 

Creating a separate charging category for retail services would make the policy more complex to interpret and potentially less transparent for customers as it would create more situations in which a development contribution would be charged. i.e. if DCs for retail were lower than other activities then a change in use of a building from a retail service would trigger the requirement to pay additional development contributions – which would most likely be unanticipated by the customer.

 

The Local Government Act acknowledges that developments may be collectively grouped provided it is done so in a manner that balances practical and administrative efficiencies with considerations of fairness and equity.

 

The existing policy includes special assessment provisions to account for those development types whose demand does vary significantly from the average development type assumed in the calculations.

 

13

1004 - 1

Development contributions for accessible housing

The submission requests that Council help incentivise accessible new builds by applying a reduction in development contributions if developers build to Universal Design standards and meet Lifemark standard 4.

Council will be undertaking a review of several of the charging aspects of the development contributions policy in the upcoming year and will consider amendments such as this through that process. We have contacted Hamilton City Council to request further information in regard to the discounts they apply for the Lifemark standards.

14

1356

Retirement village development

The submission requests special considerations for Retirement Villages to take into account unique demand characteristics of retirement care facilities. The submission requests lower demand factors for all of the activities for which development contributions are charged for. The submission also requests that water, wastewater and stormwater contributions should be assessed according to factors agreed with Council at resource consent stage.

The submission does not provide enough detail to be able to recommend a change to the policy without further work undertaken by staff on actual demand generated by Retirement Villages.  Calculating an individual charge at resource consent stage is likely to be impractical and inefficient for Council and would likely result in undercollection of development contributions as systems must be designed to cope with peak flows rather than just average.

 

However, staff consider some of the points raised around how we attribute and calculate development contributions for retirement villages may have merit.  We received similar submissions to last year’s DC Policy review and agreed to investigate these matters.  Due to other priorities and resourcing constraints this work has not been completed and will occur over the upcoming 12 months instead, with the aim of making any potential changes through the 22/23 DC Policy.  Staff will engage with you further as this work progresses.

15

1356

Fees applicable to low usage developments

Contends that applicants should be able to request a special assessment where it is evident from the resource consent application that a proposal is likely to have a lesser demand on infrastructure without the need to demonstrate that the demand is either 50% below or 100% above the anticipated average demand.

Development contribution charges are based on averages and most developments to some degree will use either slightly higher or lower than what the fees can account for.  The Local Government Act acknowledges the need to group developments calculating and requiring contributions provided it is a done in a manner that balances practical and administrative inefficiencies with consideration of fairness and equity.  The thresholds are included within the special assessment criteria as it would not be administratively practical to reassess each and every development whose demand characteristics varied from the average demand assumptions. The threshold therefore ensures that only developments which significantly deviate from averages will qualify for reassessment. 

 

16

1356

1361

Timing of payment / land use consents

Two submissions were received that asked for Council to alter the way it charges citywide development contributions for comprehensive developments that require both land use consent and building consent.

The submissions ask that Council amend its policy so that citywide development contributions are required on the land use consent and the fees then locked in at the amounts set out in the operative Development Contributions Policy at the date the land use consent is altered.  The submissions are proposing that the fees would still be payable on building consents.

Charging in this manner would provider developers of large staged projects with more certainty regarding the fees that will be payable.

We recognise the benefit certainty of fees provides to developers and we endeavour to provide clarity regarding the cost of development contributions as soon as is reasonably practicable.  Given the speed at which our city is growing, the infrastructure demands (and associated costs) are dynamic and subject to change over time.  In our experience, the longer the period between consenting and building, the more likely it is underlying costs will change. 

 

Significant developments like retirement villages and town centres can take years or decades to be delivered and which time DCs may change significantly.  Hence while there is benefit of certainty to developer, to Council there is significant risk of under-collection if charges rise.

 

Under the submitters’ proposed system, it is less likely that development contributions would cover the final cost of growth infrastructure.  Any unmet costs are ultimately met by ratepayers through general rates which is considered to be an unequitable outcome not favoured by ratepayers.

17

1415

Local DCs for Retirement Villages

Local DCs for Retirement Villages should be at 0.5 of the fee for 1 allotment as with citywide development contributions to recognise the reduced demand on services including water, wastewater and roading that retirement villages have.

The infrastructure that is funded via local development contributions is planned at an early date and built to service the total developable land within the given catchment. At the time of the planning it is not often known what development typology will occur on the land. The infrastructure must be built to provide for peak expected capacities. The costs of providing this infrastructure remain the same regardless of type of development is built on the land. If local development contribution fees were to be reduced when smaller developments occurred such as retirement village units - there is no ability to recover the costs that are lost as no additional development can occur. The policy has several provisions within it that prevent council from over collecting from charging larger scale developments like retirement villages. For example, the maximum yield rule places a cap on the number of local development contributions that are charged for large scale developments.

18

1300, 1610, 1730, 1731, 1806, 1817, 1243 

Papakainga housing developments

There were several submissions from Iwi groups or representatives in regards to Papakainga housing and relation to development contributions.

Council approved a grant fund of $500,000 per annum (for three years) for the purposes of funding development contributions associated with Papakainga housing.    A policy is being developed, in consultation with Tangata Whenua and Maori Land Trusts, which will determine how applications to the fund and distributions will be made. 

19

1610

Application of Development Contributions Policy to Papakainga housing developments undertaken between 2019 and 2021

Submitter outlines how, in their view, they have overpaid development contributions on the development of four Papakainga properties between 2019 and 2021.

Staff will work with the submitter to investigate the application of the policy to the four properties described and to ensure the policy was applied correctly.  If not correctly applied, staff will reassess development contributions payable and refund any excess contributions paid.

20

1515,

29,

1036

Developers should pay for growth

 There were several submissions which asked for Council to charge the costs of infrastructure to developers or increase costs for developers.

The majority of the growth-related capital expenditure costs incurred by TCC are funded wherever possible using Development Contributions. For example, it is intended that all costs incurred by TCC to enable development in future growth catchments of Te Tumu and Tauriko West will be funded via development contributions charged to land developers. In addition, the intention is that the majority of infrastructure required within the catchments will be constructed and paid for by the developers themselves, reducing the debt sheet requirements that TCC would still usually incur if it has funded via DCs

21

45

Timing of charging

Opposes TCCs DCP methodology of charging DCs on building consents

Tauranga City Councils development contributions policy uses a combination of contribution types. Local development contributions are charged at the first available opportunity - which means that they are usually charged on a subdivision consent and paid for by the land developers. Citywide development contributions (CDCs) are used to fund large infrastructure assets which in general provide benefit or service to all developments in the City regardless of location. TCCs decision is that CDCs are charged on building consents. There is a number of reasons that TCC has elected to use this approach. One of the key benefits for home builders is that the citywide development contribution charged is more specifically targeted towards the development typology that occurs on site - meaning that the charge applied more closely reflects the actual demand generated by the development. For example, smaller residential homes with only 1 or 2 bedrooms will pay a lower development contribution than bigger residential homes. The same with non-residential developments. If the fees were calculated at the time of subdivision, then the fee would likely be based on more generalised assumptions as things like dwelling type and building size are generally not known at the time of subdivision.

22

 

User pays

Waiari costs should be recovered by a user pays system by increasing the water rates to everyone. If everyone benefits, then everyone should pay.

The rationale for using development contributions to fund certain expenditure is based on the assumption that not everyone is benefiting from the expenditure that is needed to enable growth to incur. In the case of the Waiari Water Treatment Plant the need for the new treatment facility is primarily being driven by the growth in the city. In short, if there was to be no further growth in the city then TCC would not need to be build this new facility as the existing water treatment plants could provide the treated water capacity needed to supply all of the existing community (along with a few of the capacity improvement projects which are currently underway and are being funded via rates). DCs are based on principal of attributing costs to those benefit. In this case the beneficiaries of the new water treatment plant are primarily those who are building new houses and adding to the city’s growth levels. 

Council approved a 10% of the Waiari costs as ratepayer funded to reflect the resilience and wider network benefits. 

23

127

Housing supply

Development contributions policy goes against housing shortage issues

Whilst the development contributions fees do increase the cost of building new homes, they are a required funding tool that enables TCC to build and provide core infrastructure that is critical to enable more housing to be built. If funds to build new roads and pipes in areas that currently have no infrastructure were not able to be recovered from developers, then it is likely that significant amounts of infrastructure could not be delivered thus reducing the amount of development that could occur. Increasing housing supply is an important part of meeting market demand for housing and easing upwards pressure on house prices.  Secondly, if Council was not constructing a new water treatment plant funded via DCs then it’s likely that no further development would be able to occur as they would not be able to be provided with a supply of safe potable water for use in the households.

24

74

Timing of fee change and value for money

Submitter asks for:

(i)            a slower transition to the proposed DCs in order to support the building industry and first home buyers; and

(ii)           what value does a home buyer get for the extra cost of the DCs

The proposed increases are primarily required in order to pay for a required water treatment plant. Without the completion of the plant new homes will not be able to be constructed as they would not be able to supply with an adequate water supply. The treatment plant is required to provide for the growth community, and thus council’s position is that it should be primarily funded via growth developments.

 

Options for transitional implementation of the Citywide development contributions were presented and considered by Council.  The decision was to phase in increased citywide charges with an increase from 1 August 2021 and a further stepped increase from 1 February 2022.

25

1779

Tauriko

The submission is largely technical in nature and relates to infrastructure in the Tauriko catchments.

-      Updates to structure plans

-      To review final budgets and timing

-      Update project costs to actual values where possible

-      Update funding apportionments for wastewater pump stations

-      Increased capital expenditure budgets 

Staff will continue to work with the submitter on the technical aspects noted in the submission and will provide updated budgets and timings as requested and review all actual costs and structure plans. Reimbursements for projects have been noted and the current funding aligns with the submitted dates.

Staff have updated the budget for the roundabouts on Taurikura Drive by approximately $700,000.

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 July 2021

 

11.6       Adoption of Community Funding Policy

File Number:           A12691127

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 (Attachment 1).

Recommendations

That the Council:

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

(i)      That the Match Fund will be retained as a separate fund to promote a pathway for projects to be supported from initiation to establishment;

(ii)     That applicants to the Community Grant Fund are not required to “match” any Council funded amount with their own funds, noting that all grants will recognise Council’s role as a complementary funder through prioritising those organisations that have actively sought other funding, prior to approaching Council;

(iii)     That the minimum funding amount for the Community Grants Fund is $10,001;

(iv)    That applications for amounts less than $10,000 will be referred to the Community Development Match Fund; and

(v)     That the policy and the amount of the Community Grant Fund will be reviewed within the next 18 months to align with the Annual Plan planning cycle.

 

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 community grant fund, or to enable longer-term partnerships through multi-year partnership agreements.

3.       This new fund would be in addition to Council’s existing Community Development Match Fund (Match Fund), although both funds would be guided by the draft 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.       Council addressed a number of policy issues at its 12 July 2021 meeting. However, a decision to adopt the policy was reserved until such time as the Commissioners received additional information on the Match Fund. Commissioners requested clarity on why the draft policy did not extend the Match Fund requirement to “match” contributions to the larger Community Grant Fund. Commissioners also sought advice on merging the two funds and removing a minimum funding amount from the draft policy.

6.       This report provides further information on the draft policy as requested by the Commissioners, and also provides an opportunity to make changes to the draft policy prior to adopting the policy.


 

Background

7.       At its meeting on 12 July 2021, Council resolved eight issues relating to the draft policy. These are noted below for information:

That the Council

(a)     Approves 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.

8.       No decision was made on a recommendation to not require Community Grant Fund applicants to “match” any Council contribution. Commissioners noted that this might be viewed as inconsistent and potentially unfair when we require applicants to the Match Fund to do so for smaller amounts than would be granted from the Community Grant Fund.

9.       As well as additional information on the purpose of the Match Fund, Commissioners requested discussion of the following issues before making a decision to adopt the draft policy:

·     Potential to merge the Match Fund with the Community Grant Fund;

·     Reducing the minimum funding amount for the Community Grants Fund; and

·     Requiring applicants to the Community Grant Fund to “match” any Council contribution.

The Community Funding Framework

10.     Figure 1 below provides an overview of Council’s current community funding framework:

Figure 1: Overview of council community funding framework

11.     The draft policy only addresses the funds circled in red in Figure 1, although 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 financially support community organisations.

12.     These three funding mechanisms provide a “pipeline” for community organisations to grow community-led initiatives (other than events). For example, the Turban Day event started as a “good idea” that received financial support from the Match Fund and progressed to being supported as an established event through the Community Event Fund. However, there is currently no similar means for a “good idea” that is not an event to receive additional grant funding once established.

The Match Fund

13.     The Match Fund was established in 2015 to support new, local initiatives identified by the community that would make a difference to that community, but were perhaps not high priorities for council. It acknowledges that the community is best placed to design and deliver projects that benefit them, and that the role of Council is in part to empower our community to deliver valuable community-led projects themselves. The Match Fund is limited to providing one-off support for specific projects. These initiatives are less likely to receive support from larger community funding organisations such as our local philanthropic funders.

14.     The Match Fund comprises small and medium grants. Small grants can be for up to $1,000 and can be applied for at any time during the year, and applicants do not need to be legal entities. The application process is straight forward and a decision is made on the application within one to two weeks. Recent successful applications have been for projects as diverse as a social change project led by young people, an edible garden at a kindergarten and a cultural celebration. Medium grants are for up to $10,000 and there are two medium grant rounds per annum. Applicants do not need to be legal entities but do need to come under the umbrella of a trust or society that is a registered charity.

15.     Applications are welcomed from not-for-profit groups, communities of interest, tangata whenua organisations, and informal and grassroots neighbourhood groups. The Match Fund helps community groups deliver new initiatives by contributing at least 50% of the total value of the project, up to $10,000. Recipients must match the value of the Council contribution through demonstrating in-kind support, volunteer time, donated materials, or dollar value match. For example, the Match Fund recently provided just under $7,000 to support the Shedding Light Homelessness Awareness exhibition, with the recipient (Kai Aroha) matching that contribution through documented volunteer hours (calculated at $23 per hour).

16.     The requirement to “match” council’s contribution mitigates any risk that funds will be expended on projects that have limited support or community investment. It recognises that some applications may be loosely scoped good ideas that need to be tested before meeting the criteria for other grants (either from Council or other providers). Evidence of investment in the idea by the applicant avoids the need to subject organisations to the more stringent reporting measures applied to larger grants. In general, organisations have been able to meet the required matched contribution. Where applications have been declined, this has been as a result of not meeting the funding criteria. 

17.     All Match Fund applications must also demonstrate contribution to at least one of the Principles of Support. Preference will be given to applications that benefit Priority Communities. Attachment 2 illustrates past initiatives funded through the Match Fund.

18.     In September 2020, as part of the wider review of community funding during the development of the draft policy, a review of the Match Fund was undertaken by staff in consultation with community stakeholders. Feedback from the review included:

“I love the concept of matching the donation, it’s great value.” (Pam Bissett)

“Keep it going!” (Paul Curry)

19.     As a result of the review, Council adopted changes in October 2020 to better deliver on Council’s requirement to support social wellbeing.

Community Grant Fund

20.     The proposed Community Grant Fund enables community organisations to deliver community-led projects that align with Council’s strategic priorities and the four well-beings. Examples might include trialling, developing or expanding a new initiative – potentially an initiative that was initially funded by the Match Fund. For example, Age Concern received funding for their assisted shopping service from the Match Fund but would not be able to apply again to that fund for the same initiative. As a tried, tested and successful initiative, it would however be eligible to apply to the Community Grant Fund. Another example might be feasibility studies for the development of recreational facilities or papakāinga housing developments.

21.     Clause 5.1.4 of the draft policy notes that Council is not a primary funder of community organisations. Organisations that have sought funding from other providers will be prioritised for council grants. This recognises that well-scoped projects should attract funding from multiple sources and demonstrate significant investment (including non-financial contributions such as volunteer hours) from the applicant group. While applicants to the Community Grant Fund are not expected to exactly “match” any Council contribution, the draft policy ensures that applicants must demonstrate how their project is supported by other funders and/or in-kind contributions.

22.     Whereas grants are anticipated to be for specific projects, partnership agreements are reserved for select community organisations where Council wants to build and maintain positive relationships that support delivery of programmes and initiatives that deliver against the four well-beings, and the community outcomes. Partnership agreements provide operational funding and are intended to be multi-year (e.g. three years).

Options Analysis

Issue 1 – Retain Match Fund as a separate fund

23.     At present, the Match Fund is separate from the Community Grant Fund. Commissioners could consider merging the funds. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of merging the Match Fund into the Community Grant Fund, or retaining it as a separate fund (but guided by the same policy).

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

1.1

Retain Match Fund as separate fund.

(Recommended)

·    Enables a pipeline of support for community projects similar to the Event Funding Framework.

·    Enables support for new or more loosely-scoped projects that would be unlikely to receive funding elsewhere.

·    This is a well-established fund with strong community support, and a proven record of supporting community-led initiatives.

·    Provides for Council audit of grants to be scaled appropriately, based on the size of the grant.

·    Potential confusion as to what fund is best for a particular project.


 

1.2

Merge Match Fund with Community Grant Fund.

·    Potential for less confusion as to what fund is best for a particular project.

·    Limited opportunities for small projects to receive support and progress to larger grants.

·    Potential increased administration costs for organisations and Council.

·    Potential that community organisations receiving smaller grants are subject to more stringent audit of grant expenditure.

24.    If Council approved option 1.2, references to the Match Fund would be removed from the draft policy.

Issue 2 – Requirement for “match” funding

25.     At the 12 July 2021 Council meeting, Commissioners highlighted the potential unfairness of requiring applications to the Match Fund to “match” Council’s contribution but not extending this provision to the Community Grant Fund. One feedback point was received on this matter during the consultation period.

26.     As noted in paragraph 15 above, the requirement to demonstrate investment as part of receiving a grant from the Match Fund is to both mitigate risk to Council of funding initiatives with limited support, and to recognise that new projects or organisations may not have the capacity to comply with the more stringent reporting that is required of larger grants.

27.     As noted in paragraph 21, the draft policy notes that Council is not a primary funder of community organisations and that organisations that have sought funding from other providers will be prioritised for council grants. It is anticipated that applications to the Community Grant Fund will be for established projects or from organisations with established governance structures in place.

28.     The tables below outline the advantages and disadvantages of requiring applications to “match” Council contribution for both the Match Fund (Issue 2.1) and the Community Grant Fund (Issue 2.2).

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

2.1.1

Require applicants to the Match Fund to “match” Council contribution.

(Status quo) (Recommended)

·    Provides assurance that the project has genuine community support.

·    Risk mitigation mechanism for Council with untested projects and programmes.

·    Continuation of well-established and well-supported Match Fund arrangements.

·    Potential that some projects do not receive support as cannot demonstrate 50% “match” of other investment.

2.1.2

Does not require applicants to Match Fund to “match” Council contribution.

·    Potential that more projects are eligible to receive funding.

·    Potential risk that Council funds projects that have little community support.

 


 

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

2.2.1

Require applicants to the Community Grant Fund to “match” the Council contribution.

·    Provides assurance that applicants have some “skin in the game”.

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

·    Delay to project starting while “match” funding is being sought.

·    Important community groups can’t access much-needed funding and good community outcomes are impacted.

2.2.2

Do not require applicants to Community Grant Fund to “match” Council contribution.

(Recommended)

·    Anticipates that applications are for established projects or programmes, and that organisations have already established formal governance and reporting requirements.

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

·    Applicants will be asked to show other funding sources and/or investment from the applicant group, prior to approval for funding support.

·    Potential risk that Council may fund a smaller project or programme in its entirety.

Issue 3 – Minimum application amount for grant fund

29.     The Commission requested additional information from staff on sections 5.3.3 and 5.3.4 of the draft Community Funding Policy, which referred to the proposed minimum funding amount for the Community Grants Fund of $10,001, and applications for amounts less than $10,000 being referred to the Community Development Match Fund (the Match Fund). (Council approved the maximum amount of $50,000 at its 12 July 2021 meeting).

30.     This amount is suggested as, when considered in tandem with the Match Fund, it provides a more robust funding pathway for new initiatives that might be more loosely scoped (Match Fund), to develop into fully proven projects worthy of larger Council investment. This is consistent with how the Event Funding Framework works in practice.

31.     Clause 5.3.4 of the draft policy states that applications to the Community Grant Fund for less than $10,000 will be referred to the Match Fund.

32.     The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of retaining a minimum funding amount for the Community Grant Fund, with applications for lesser amounts referred to the Match Fund.


 

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

3.1

Minimum amount for funding is $10,001, with applications for less referred to Match Fund.

(Recommended)

·    Reflects the intention that the Community Grant Fund is part of a framework providing pathways to increased funding support.

·    Reflects that the Match Fund is intended to support smaller projects or programmes.

·    Potential that some organisations cannot access funding as unable to demonstrate existing investment.

3.2

No minimum amount for funding.

·    Organisations can access funding without the requirement to demonstrate existing investment.

·    Overall council funding framework does not provide a pathway for projects to receive additional funding over time.

·    Draft policy does not reflect the intention of the Match Fund to support small community projects.

Strategic / Statutory Context

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

Financial Considerations

34.     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.

35.     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 referred or 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.

36.     A number of current community funding agreements expired at the end of June 2021. Staff are meeting with those organisations to discuss next steps in regard to applying to the community grant fund or the possibility of developing a partnership agreement.

37.     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

38.     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.

39.     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.

40.     Staff intend to use the SmartyGrants system to assess funding applications and monitor performance of fund recipients. This will allow council 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).

Consultation

41.     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.

42.     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.

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

44.     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.

45.     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.

46.     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

47.     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.

48.     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 decision; and

(c)   the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

49.     In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the Significance and Engagement Policy, it is considered that the decision is of medium significance as the adoption of the policy would have an impact on a large part of the community.

ENGAGEMENT

50.     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.

51.     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

52.     Following Council approval of the Community Funding Policy, 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 purposes.

53.     Staff will continue to support community organisations through the funding process. Staff are also supporting some organisations that may have a particular project or programme that does not meet the criteria of the Community Grant Fund, or Match Fund, to source other suitable local and national funding streams.

54.     The draft policy states it will be reviewed every three years to align with the LTP planning cycle. However, it is recommended that a review of the policy is undertaken earlier to align with the Annual Plan planning cycle, as part of a comprehensive review of council’s wider funding framework. Such a review could consider options for including rental subsidies and leases, and other council grants fund (e.g. Event Funding Framework).

55.     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 - A12700304

2.       Community Development Match Fund examples - A12693508  

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 July 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda

26 July 2021

 

Attachment 1

 

Some examples of projects recently supported by the Community Development Match Fund that demonstrate the Tauranga community identifying serious social wellbeing issues in the community and addressing them themselves:

 

Applicant

What were funds for

Value approved

Wellbeing

Priority group

Merivale Community Garden

Irrigation system materials
4x Community workshops

$2,060

Social and environmental

Merivale

The Rock: Papamoa Community Garden

Hartford Avenue Community Garden development, renovating two 40’ containers to create usable, aesthetic spaces, building a new Hot House, invigorating the space with Art

$2,500

Social, cultural and environmental

 

Gate Pa School

Community Cycleway and walkway

$5,320

Social

 

Western Bay of Plenty Disabled Persons Assembly

Inclusive Employment Video Project. Developed a series of professionally produced 3-5 minute Internet videos promoting the merits of disabled employees and the value they add to the regular work force

$8,000

Social

Disability

Good Neighbour Trust

This project brings volunteers with time and skills together with those who need help

$6,500

Social

Vulnerable communities

Haeata Charitable Trust

1. Community meals food truck 2. Community garden

$9,605

Social

Vulnerable communities

Papamoa Family Services

For women who have left, or are in the process of leaving, an abusive relationship

$5,400

Social

Vulnerable communities

The Incubator Growing Art & Culture

Sponsored exhibition series: A unique opportunity for emerging local artists to engage with a wide audience in new ways and in a professional environment

$8,408

Social and cultural

 

Te Runanga o Ngati Ranginui

Matariki, the Maori New year: Encourages 1000 school students to participate in Maori movement on the tidal stairs

$7,000

Cultural

Kaupapa Māori

Safe Surfer

Safe Surfing Adventures Online book will benefit Tauranga families, and particularly Tauranga kids aged 4-8 years by teaching them to be savvy, and knowing common sense about how to protect themselves online.

$10,000

Social

Vulnerable communities

Sailability Tauranga Charitable Trust

The project provided a purpose-built pontoon to enable anyone with a disability to be able to access a water-based vessel in a safe and dignified manner.

$10,000

Social

Disability

Curate Church

Supported high needs community with Christmas groceries.

$5,000

Social

Vulnerable communities

Sydenham Botanic Park Funding Trust

This project seeks to add to the park's assets the development of a pergola to support a collection of climbing plant cultivars

$7,000

Social and environmental

 

Tauranga Community Foodbank Trust

Essential pantry supplies boxes

$8,400

Social

Vulnerable communities

BOP Chinese Culture Society

2018 Chinese Mid-Autumn Festival Celebration: To promote Chinese culture to wider community by inviting locals to experience Chinese cultural activities.

$9,934

Cultural

Cultural diversity

Gate Pa School

Battle of Gate Pa-Permanent Battle of Gate Pa Display

$2,310

Cultural

Kaupapa Māori

New Zealand Sikh Community Tauranga Trust

Turban Up (Turban Day): To provide an opportunity for local residents to come along in a friendly, open environment to get a turban tied by our community volunteer

$2,100

Cultural

Cultural diversity

Age Concern Tauranga

A 12-mouth pilot project to provide an Assisted Shopping Service for older residents who meet eligibility criteria for the service and qualify for assistance

$10,000

Social

Aged and vulnerable communities

Tauranga Moana Pride Picnic 2019

Tauranga Moana Pride Picnic 2019, film and event

$7,500

Social and cultural

Vulnerable communities

Homes of Hope Charitable Trust

The Home that Love Built: to soon have one further home to care for more children as there is a growing need for services

$10,000

Social

Vulnerable communities

Huria Trust Ltd

Huria Marae - Tikanga Maori Booklet for Local Schools: Offer the beginning of a great cultural learning experience for all ages and people of the community.

$4,400

Cultural

Kaupapa Māori

Shakti Ethnic Women's Support Group

Unbroken Spirit - Drama Musical: aims to empower and connect migrant women in Tauranga and share stories through drama.

$5,194

Social and cultural

Vulnerable communities

Tauranga Muslim Association

Revitalizing the Women's Space at Tauranga Mosque

$10,000

Social and cultural

Cultural diversity

Clothes on Wheels

The aim to help homeless people, people sleeping rough or any people and families in need with accessible clothing.

$5,000

Social

Vulnerable communities

Halberg Foundation

Trailrider for Disabled People Trailrider for people with physical challenges. They have the chance to visit Mauao

$7,250

Social

Disability

Mount Maunganui College

Traditional Maori Garden

$2,000

Cultural

Kaupapa Māori

One Love Charity

Holi Colour Splash: to create a sense of belonging, civic pride and inclusivity for the South Asian community in the BOP

$8,400

Cultural