|
|
|
AGENDA
Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee Meeting
Monday, 16 August 2021
|
|
I hereby give notice that a Strategy, Finance and
Risk Committee Meeting will be held on:
|
|
Date:
|
Monday, 16 August 2021
|
|
Time:
|
10.30am
|
|
Location:
|
Tauranga City Council
Council Chambers
91 Willow Street
Tauranga
|
|
Please
note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be
publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz.
|
|
Marty Grenfell
Chief Executive
|
Terms of reference – Strategy,
Finance & Risk Committee
Membership
|
Chairperson
|
Commission
Chair Anne Tolley
|
|
Deputy
chairperson
|
Dr Wayne
Beilby – Tangata Whenua representative
|
|
Members
|
Commissioner
Shadrach Rolleston
Commissioner Stephen Selwood
Commissioner Bill Wasley
|
|
|
Matire Duncan, Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga
Moana Chairperson
Te Pio Kawe – Tangata
Whenua representative
Rohario Murray – Tangata
Whenua representative
Bruce Robertson – External
appointee with finance and risk experience
|
|
Quorum
|
Five (5) members must be physically present, and at least
three (3) commissioners and two (2) externally appointed members must be
present.
|
|
Meeting
frequency
|
Six weekly
|
Role
The role of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee (the
Committee) is:
(a)
to assist and advise the Council in discharging
its responsibility and ownership of health and safety, risk management,
internal control, financial management practices, frameworks and processes to
ensure these are robust and appropriate to safeguard the Council’s staff
and its financial and non-financial assets;
(b)
to consider strategic issues facing the city and
develop a pathway for the future;
(c)
to monitor progress on achievement of desired
strategic outcomes;
(d)
to review and determine the policy and bylaw framework
that will assist in achieving the strategic priorities and outcomes for the
Tauranga City Council.
Membership
The Committee will
consist of:
·
four commissioners with the Commission Chair
appointed as the Chairperson of the Committee
·
the Chairperson of Te
Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana
·
three tangata whenua representatives
(recommended by Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga
Moana and appointed by Council)
·
an independent external person with finance and
risk experience appointed by the Council.
Voting
Rights
The tangata whenua representatives and the independent
external person have voting rights as do the Commissioners.
The Chairperson of Te Rangapu Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana
is an advisory position, without voting rights, designed to ensure mana whenua
discussions are connected to the committee.
Committee’s
Scope and Responsibilities
A. STRATEGIC ISSUES
The
Committee will consider strategic issues, options, community impact and explore
opportunities for achieving outcomes through a partnership approach.
A1 – Strategic Issues
The Committee’s
responsibilities with regard to Strategic Issues are:
·
Adopt an annual work
programme of significant strategic issues and projects to be addressed. The
work programme will be reviewed on a six-monthly basis.
·
In respect of each
issue/project on the work programme, and any additional matters as determined
by the Committee:
·
Consider existing
and future strategic context
·
Consider
opportunities and possible options
·
Determine preferred
direction and pathway forward and recommend to Council for inclusion into
strategies, statutory documents (including City Plan) and plans.
·
Consider and approve
changes to service delivery arrangements arising from the service delivery
reviews required under Local Government Act 2002 that are referred to the
Committee by the Chief Executive.
·
To take appropriate
account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
A2 – Policy and Bylaws
The Committee’s
responsibilities with regard to Policy and Bylaws are:
·
Develop, review and
approve bylaws to be publicly consulted on, hear and deliberate on any
submissions and recommend to Council the adoption of the final bylaw. (The
Committee will recommend the adoption of a bylaw to the Council as the Council
cannot delegate to a Committee the adoption of a bylaw.)
·
Develop, review and
approve policies including the ability to publicly consult, hear and deliberate
on and adopt policies.
A3 – Monitoring of Strategic
Outcomes and Long Term Plan and Annual Plan
The Committee’s
responsibilities with regard to monitoring of strategic outcomes and Long Term
Plan and Annual Plan are:
·
Reviewing and
reporting on outcomes and action progress against the approved strategic
direction. Determine any required review/refresh of strategic direction or
action pathway.
·
Reviewing and
assessing progress in each of the six (6) key investment proposal areas within
the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.
·
Reviewing the
achievement of financial and non-financial performance measures against the
approved Long Term Plan and Annual Plans.
B.
FINANCE AND RISK
The Committee will review the
effectiveness of the following to ensure these are robust and appropriate to
safeguard the Council’s financial and non-financial assets:
·
Health and safety.
·
Risk management.
·
Significant projects and programmes of work
focussing on the appropriate management of risk.
·
Internal and external audit and assurance.
·
Fraud, integrity and investigations.
·
Monitoring of compliance with laws and regulations.
·
Oversight of preparation of the Annual Report
and other external financial reports required by statute.
·
Oversee the relationship with the
Council’s Investment Advisors and Fund Managers.
·
Oversee the relationship between the Council and
its external auditor.
·
Review the quarterly financial and non-financial
reports to the Council.
B1 - Health and Safety
The Committee’s responsibilities through regard to
health and safety are:
·
Reviewing the effectiveness of the health and
safety policies and processes to ensure a healthy and safe workspace for
representatives, staff, contractors, visitors and the public.
·
Assisting the Commissioners to discharge their
statutory roles as “Officers” in terms of the Health and Safety at
Work Act 2015.
B2 - Risk Management
The Committee’s responsibilities with regard to risk
management are:
·
Review, approve and monitor the implementation of the Risk
Management Policy, Framework and Strategy including the Corporate Risk
Register.
·
Review and approve the Council’s “risk
appetite” statement.
·
Review the effectiveness of risk management and internal control
systems including all material financial, operational, compliance and other
material controls. This includes legislative compliance, significant projects
and programmes of work, and significant procurement.
·
Review risk management reports identifying new and/or emerging
risks and any subsequent changes to the “Tier One” register.
B3
- Internal Audit
The Committee’s responsibilities with regard to the
Internal Audit are:
·
Review and approve the Internal Audit Charter to confirm the
authority, independence and scope of the Internal Audit function. The Internal
Audit Charter may be reviewed at other times and as required.
·
Review and approve annually and monitor the implementation of the
Internal Audit Plan.
·
Review the co-ordination between the risk and internal audit
functions, including the integration of the Council’s risk profile with
the Internal Audit programme. This includes assurance over all material
financial, operational, compliance and other material controls. This includes
legislative compliance (including Health and Safety), significant projects and
programmes of work and significant procurement.
·
Review the reports of the Internal Audit functions dealing with
findings, conclusions and recommendations.
·
Review and monitor management’s responsiveness to the
findings and recommendations and enquire into the reasons that any
recommendation is not acted upon.
B4
- External Audit
The Committee’s responsibilities with regard to the
External Audit are:
·
Review with the external auditor, before the audit commences, the
areas of audit focus and audit plan.
·
Review with the external auditors, representations required by
commissioners and senior management, including representations as to the fraud
and integrity control environment.
·
Recommend adoption of external accountability documents (LTP and
annual report) to the Council.
·
Review the external auditors, management letter and management
responses and inquire into reasons for any recommendations not acted upon.
·
Where required, the Chair may ask a senior representative of the
Office of the Auditor General (OAG) to attend the Committee meetings to discuss
the OAG’s plans, findings and other matters of mutual interest.
·
Recommend to the Office of the Auditor General the decision
either to publicly tender the external audit or to continue with the existing
provider for a further three-year term.
B5
- Fraud and Integrity
The Committee’s responsibilities with regard to
Fraud and Integrity are:
·
Review and provide advice on the Fraud Prevention and Management
Policy.
·
Review, adopt and monitor the Protected Disclosures Policy.
·
Review and monitor policy and process to manage conflicts of
interest amongst commissioners, tangata whenua representatives, external
representatives appointed to council committees or advisory boards, management,
staff, consultants and contractors.
·
Review reports from Internal Audit, external audit and management
related to protected disclosures, ethics, bribery and fraud related incidents.
·
Review and monitor policy and processes to manage
responsibilities under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings
Act 1987 and the Privacy Act 2020 and any actions from the Office of the
Ombudsman’s report.
B6
- Statutory Reporting
The
Committee’s responsibilities with regard to Statutory Reporting relate to
reviewing and monitoring the integrity of the Annual Report and recommending to
the Council for adoption the statutory financial statements and any other
formal announcements relating to the Council’s financial performance,
focusing particularly on:
·
Compliance with, and the appropriate application of, relevant
accounting policies, practices and accounting standards.
·
Compliance with applicable legal requirements relevant to
statutory reporting.
·
The consistency of application of accounting policies, across
reporting periods.
·
Changes to accounting policies and practices that may affect the
way that accounts are presented.
·
Any decisions involving significant judgement, estimation or
uncertainty.
·
The extent to which financial statements are affected by any
unusual transactions and the manner in which they are disclosed.
·
The disclosure of contingent liabilities and contingent assets.
·
The basis for the adoption of the going concern assumption.
·
Significant adjustments resulting from the audit.
Power
to Act
·
To make all
decisions necessary to fulfil the role, scope and responsibilities of the Committee
subject to the limitations imposed.
·
To establish
sub-committees, working parties and forums as required.
·
This Committee has not
been delegated any responsibilities, duties or powers that the Local Government
Act 2002, or any other Act, expressly provides the Council may not
delegate. For the avoidance of doubt, this Committee has not
been delegated the power to:
o
make a rate;
o
make a bylaw;
o
borrow money, or purchase
or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the Long Term Plan (LTP);
o
adopt the LTP or Annual
Plan;
o
adopt the Annual Report;
o
adopt any policies required
to be adopted and consulted on in association with the LTP or developed for the
purpose of the local governance statement;
o
adopt a remuneration and
employment policy;
o
appoint a chief executive.
Power
to Recommend
To Council and/or any standing committee
as it deems appropriate.
7 Confirmation
of Minutes
7.1 Minutes
of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee Meeting held on 28 June 2021
File
Number: A12681657
Author: Jenny
Teeuwen, Committee Advisor
Authoriser: Robyn
Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support
|
Recommendations
That the Minutes of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee
Meeting held on 28 June 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.
|
Attachments
1. Minutes
of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee Meeting held on 28 June 2021
|
 Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Minutes
|
28 June 2021
|
[
|
|
|
MINUTES
Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee Meeting
Monday, 28 June 2021
|
Order of Business
1 Opening
Karakia. 3
2 Apologies. 3
3 Public
forum.. 3
4 Acceptance
of late items. 3
5 Confidential
business to be transferred into the open. 3
6 Change to
order of business. 3
7 Confirmation
of Minutes. 4
7.1 Minutes
of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting held on 21 June 2021. 4
8 Declaration
of conflicts of interest 4
9 Business. 4
9.1 Outline
work programme for the Committee. 4
9.2 Strategic
Framework for Tauranga City Council 5
9.3 Sustainability
Stocktake and Next Steps. 6
9.4 Legislative
Reform Update. 6
9.5 Growth
& Land Use Projects Progress Report - June 2021. 7
9.6 Transport
Strategy and Planning Progress Report - June 2021. 7
9.10 Representation
Review - Options for pre-engagement 8
9.7 Submission
on the Infrastructure Commission's Draft Strategy. 9
9.8 Three
Waters Reform Programme Update. 10
9.9 2021
Q2 Mental Health and Wellbeing. 10
9.11 Audit
New Zealand - report to the Commissioners on the audit of the LTP Consultation
document 2021-31. 11
10 Discussion of late items. 11
11 Public excluded session. 11
11.1 Cyber
Security Update. 11
12 Closing Karakia. 12
MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council
Strategy, Finance
and Risk Committee Meeting
HELD AT THE Tauranga
City Council, Council Chambers, 91 Willow Street, Tauranga
ON Monday, 28 June
2021 AT 10.30am
PRESENT: Commission
Chair Anne Tolley, Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston, Commissioner Stephen
Selwood, Commissioner Bill Wasley, Dr Wayne Beilby, Mr Te Pio Kawe, Ms Rohario
Murray, Mr Bruce Robertson and Ms Matire Duncan
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),
Jeremy Boase (Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning), Anne Payne
(Strategic Advisor), Sarah Searle (Strategic Advisor), Andy Mead (Manager: City
& Infrastructure Planning), Alistair Talbot (Team Leader: Transport Strategy & Planning), Ross Hudson (Strategic Advisor), Carlo
Ellis (Manager: Strategic Maori Engagement), Steve Burton (Director of City
Waters), Angelique Fraser (Health & Safety Change Manager), Kathryn
Sharplin (Manager: Finance), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn
Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support), Raj Naidu (Committee Advisor) and
Jenny Teeuwen (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
Nil
5 Confidential
business to be transferred into the open
Nil
6 Change
to order of business
Nil
7 Confirmation
of Minutes
8 Declaration
of conflicts of interest
The following conflicts
of interest were declared:
(a) Ms Rohario Murray declared a conflict of interest in relation to
item 9.4 – Legislative Reform Update, as she was an employee of the
Ministry for the Environment.
(b) Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston declared a conflict of interest in
relation to item 9.4 – Legislative Reform Update, as he was currently a
contractor for the Ministry for the Environment.
9 Business
Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive, reported that due to timeframes,
the Non-Financial Monitoring Report was not included in the agenda. This
report would be made publicly available on Tauranga City Council’s (TCC)
website for the Committee to refer to. The next Non-Financial Monitoring
Report would be reported back to the Committee as part of the Annual Report.
|
9.1 Outline
work programme for the Committee
|
|
Staff Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy and Growth
Jeremy
Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning
At 10.39am, Te Pio Kawe entered the meeting.
Questions and discussion points
·
The matters included in the work programme were not currently
listed in priority order. It was suggested that in the next report,
some of the key early priorities be listed first and then the reminder of the
list phased down from there.
·
The environment strategy was a refresh and update of work done
earlier.
·
It was suggested that a risk analysis for the next elections be
included in the work programme for discussion by this Committee around the
end of the March quarter.
·
The Marine Strategy included the Marine Precinct.
·
The Wairoa River strategy was a separate joint piece of work
with Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) and Bay of Plenty
Regional Council (BOPRC).
|
|
Committee Resolution SFR3/21/2
Moved: Commission Chair
Anne Tolley
Seconded: Commissioner
Stephen Selwood
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee receives the
outline work programme for the Committee per Attachment 1, and requests that
staff provide a revised version to the next meeting of the Committee, taking
into account any feedback during or subsequent to the meeting, and including
any responses provided to the Long-Term Plan (LTP) submissions.
Carried
|
|
9.2 Strategic
Framework for Tauranga City Council
|
|
Staff Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy and Growth
Jeremy
Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning
Anne
Payne, Strategic Advisor
Questions and discussion points
·
It was suggested that a short and sharp city vision
consultation be undertaken along the lines of Christchurch’s
“Share an idea” engagement process. This approach might
reach a broader audience in a reasonably compressed timeframe. It was
important to get alignment and traction for the vision of the city with the
wider community and not just groups of interest. Any engagement must be
meaningful and needed to be carried through.
·
It was suggested that care be given to the use of the phrase
“out of scope” as this suggested that what was out of scope was
not up for discussion.
·
It was also suggested that the term “Strategic
Framework” may not capture the interest of the intended audience.
·
An external reference group of some kind would be needed.
It was expected that some or all of those on the City Futures governance
group may flow through to the new group.
·
Measures for what success looked like were important. The
community needed to be able to identify with a goal, a target, a measure and
an outcome that they could align to.
·
Time constraints were a concern particular in terms of engaging
with Tangata Whenua.
·
It was noted that TCC had a large resource to use, while some
iwi did not, and it was a challenge for them to respond in a meaningful way
to any engagement/consultation.
·
A key message received from all groups that TCC were working
with was that they were keen to participate but wanted assurance that
something would come from it.
|
|
Committee Resolution SFR3/21/3
Moved: Dr Wayne Beilby
Seconded: Mr
Bruce Robertson
That the Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee:
(a) Supports
a focussed Council-led approach to the development of a city vision, drawing
on information received through prior engagement processes and seeking
further community input through a further defined engagement process.
(b) Approves
a strategic framework refresh for Tauranga City Council, building on existing
strategies, plans and information received through prior engagement
processes, and identifying and filling key gaps in the existing strategic
framework.
(c) Approves
the previously planned multi-partner citywide City Futures Project being
superseded by the strategic framework refresh for Tauranga City Council, with
elements of the City Futures Project being incorporated into the latter
project as noted in this report.
(d) Recognises and sincerely thanks
contributors to the City Futures Project to date for their time and
input. Members of the governance group and the wide range of workshop
participants have provided valuable insights that will be used as input to
Tauranga City Council’s strategic framework refresh work.
Carried
|
|
9.3 Sustainability
Stocktake and Next Steps
|
|
Staff Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy and Growth
Jeremy
Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning
Sarah
Searle, Strategic Advisor
Questions and discussion points
·
A mixture of desktop research and speaking with other councils
in New Zealand had been undertaken, looking to benchmark against councils of
a similar size. One of the key findings was that TCC was one of the few
councils that did not have a dedicated statement around climate change and
how that was being approached.
·
Although challenging in some places, in terms of how TCC was
perceived by some key stakeholders, the report was a great platform to move
forward from.
·
If the proposed approach was approved, engagement plans and
governance structures would be created and brought back to a future meeting
of this Committee for direction.
·
As an organisation, TCC needed to take the lead and show
leadership in this space.
·
The lens that Tangata Whenua had regarding sustainability was
important.
·
The performance snapshot on page 49 provided a good
baseline. It was suggested that care be given to the placement of some
of the terms around marae, and reference to the Tangata Whenua of Tauranga
Moana be included.
|
|
Committee Resolution SFR3/21/4
Moved: Commissioner
Stephen Selwood
Seconded: Commissioner
Bill Wasley
That the Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee:
(a) Receives
this report and the attached Sustainability Stocktake.
(b) Endorses the approach and next
steps for development of the council’s sustainability framework as
outlined in this report.
Carried
|
|
9.4 Legislative
Reform Update
|
|
Staff Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy and Growth
Jeremy
Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning
Questions and discussion points
·
It was important that oversight of the reforms was not lost in
the overall work programme.
·
There was concern that the reforms, while necessary, were not
being managed in a connected and co-ordinated manner.
·
It was requested that the Committee be updated regularly on the
legislative reforms as things were likely to change.
·
The timeframes were a risk and the organisation needed to be
nimble while continuing with the work programme.
|
|
Committee Resolution SFR3/21/5
Moved: Commissioner Bill
Wasley
Seconded: Commission
Chair Anne Tolley
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee receives the
report titled ‘Legislative Reform Update’.
Carried
|
|
9.5 Growth
& Land Use Projects Progress Report - June 2021
|
|
Staff Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy and Growth
Andy
Mead, Manager: City & Infrastructure Planning
A copy of the tabled
map for this item can be viewed on Tauranga City Council’s website in
the Minutes Attachments document for this committee meeting.
Questions and discussion points
·
The changes from the freshwater reform needed to be known to
complete technical reporting and to finalise the identification of protected
areas. Once draft provisions were notified, how and what progress could
be made would be known. Progress on how this was looking would be
reported back to the next meeting of this Committee.
·
A project plan for the spatial planning for
Otumoetai/Brookfield/Mount/Arataki areas would be similar to the plan for Te
Papa. The Otumoetai/Brookfield spatial plan was likely to be first.
·
The SmartGrowth joint spatial plan tied together all the
information that already existed and identified gaps, so a consultative
process was not required.
·
An update of the Tauriko West urban area structure planning and
the proposed direction for key issues would be provided later in the year.
·
Development feasibility work for intensification had already
been done so there was a good understanding of the cost structure and prices
required to make those types of projects viable.
·
The Te Puna greenfield area had been identified by the Urban
Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) for possible development post 30
years. The Committee would be updated on the UFTI work done for this at
the next meeting.
·
The Tauriko West planning strategy included a green corridor
between the river and where the urban development started. It had been
identified that the river edge needed to be protected in a much broader way
than just a standard 20 metre esplanade strip and this would be updated as
planning work progressed.
·
Growth areas had already been signalled with iwi and hapu
through Smartgrowth and the UFTI work.
|
|
Committee Resolution SFR3/21/6
Moved: Commissioner
Stephen Selwood
Seconded: Dr
Wayne Beilby
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee receives the
Growth & Land Use Projects Progress Report – June 2021.
Carried
|
|
Attachment
1 Tabled
map - Tauranga Urban Growth
|
|
9.6 Transport
Strategy and Planning Progress Report - June 2021
|
|
Staff Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy and Growth
Andy
Mead, Manager: City & Infrastructure Planning
Alistair
Talbot, Team Leader: Transport
Strategy & Planning
In response to questions, suggestions and discussion
points
·
Concern was expressed that the emphasis was still on business
cases, in particular for the SH29/Tauriko, Hewletts/Totara/Hull, and Turret
Road/15th Ave projects. There seemed little prospect of
these projects being delivered within the next ten years. Staff were
looking to work as efficiently as possible through the business case process
for those projects and continued to look at what could be done in the
interim. It was suggested that perhaps alternative funding mechanisms
needed to be found to make these projects happen sooner. Private
financing with revenue streams to repay debt was suggested.
·
TCC was currently awaiting an update from the Ministry of
Transport in regards to the investigation for a rapid rail link to Tauranga.
·
The Takitimu North Link (TNL) stage two had included a new
highway out to Omokoroa with an interchange at Omokoroa; however, Waka Kotahi
now had no funding to deliver that project. There were no short to
medium term replacement improvements for the intersection. Active
discussions were underway between WBOPDC and Waka Kotahi to find a solution.
|
|
Committee Resolution SFR3/21/7
Moved: Commissioner Bill
Wasley
Seconded: Ms
Rohario Murray
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee receives the
Transport Strategy and Planning Progress Report – June 2021.
Carried
|
At 12.33pm, the meeting adjourned.
At 1.16pm, the meeting resumed.
Item 9.10 - Representation Review -
Options for pre-engagement, was taken next, as Donald Riezebos, Principal
Advisor to Local Government Commission, who was attending via video link, was
only available at that time.
|
9.10 Representation
Review - Options for pre-engagement
|
|
Staff Susan
Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement
Carlo
Ellis, Manager: Strategic Māori Engagement
Coral
Hair, Manager: Democracy Services
External Donald
Riezebos, Principal Advisor to Local Government Commission (via video link)
A copy of the staff
presentation and tabled map for this item can be viewed on Tauranga City
Council’s website in the Minutes Attachments document for this
committee meeting.
In response to questions, suggestions and discussion
points
·
An “at large” type option that was one general ward
with up to 10 councillors, plus one Māori ward would be compliant;
however, the downside to this was that voters on the general roll would be
able to vote for up to 10 councillors while those on the Māori roll
could only vote for the one Māori ward councillor.
·
Trends indicated that there were very few councils taking up a
completely at large system; around half a dozen councils had a mixed system,
but the large majority had an all ward system.
·
All proposed options had the number of councillors
increasing. It was suggested that there needed to be at least one
option where the number of councillors was the same as currently, plus one Māori
ward councillor.
·
Electors only had the option to move from one roll to another
every six years. There would be no opportunity for this prior to the
next election.
·
It was suggested that the extra numbers required for
Judea/Brookfield under Option 2B be taken from Otumoetai/Matua rather than Te
Papa to keep the boundaries better in line with the State Highway.
·
There was general consensus for four options to be presented
for public consultation.
·
A question regarding community boards would be included in the
public consultation.
·
The options for public consultation would be approved by
council on 12 July, with public consultation beginning on 15 July.
·
Iwi and hapu boundaries had been taken into consideration for
Option 2B.
·
The possibility of changes to ward names would be part of the
community consultation.
|
|
Committee Resolution SFR3/21/8
Moved: Commission Chair
Anne Tolley
Seconded: Commissioner
Stephen Selwood
That the Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee recommends that the Council approves the following
options for pre-engagement with the community on the representation
arrangements for the 2022 election, subject to compliance:
a)
Option 1: 10
Councillors – 7 from 3 general wards, 1 Māori ward councillor and
2 at large councillors.
b)
Option 2A: 12 councillors – 11
from 6 general wards, 1 Māori ward councillor.
c)
Option 2B: 12 councillors – 11
from 11 general wards and 1 Māori ward councillor, with an adjusted
Brookfield/Judea ward boundary.
d)
Option 3: 10
councillors – 1 general ward with 9 councillors and 1 Māori ward
councillor.
Carried
|
|
Attachments
1 Presentation
- Representation Review
2 Map
- Option 2B
|
Item 9.7 was taken next.
|
9.7 Submission
on the Infrastructure Commission's Draft Strategy
|
|
Staff Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy and Growth
Ross
Hudson, Strategic Advisor
Questions and discussion points
·
The following changes were suggested:
-
C2:5 – TCC should push back on this and
highlight the risks of having six different Acts and the need for a more
joined up legislative planning law Local Government reform agenda.
-
Add in that spatial planning needed to be
locked into local, regional or central government funding.
|
|
Committee Resolution SFR3/21/9
Moved: Commissioner
Stephen Selwood
Seconded: Commissioner
Bill Wasley
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee endorses the
draft submission to the Infrastructure Commission’s draft strategy
‘Infrastructure for a Better Future’, incorporating amendments
agreed at this meeting.
Carried
|
|
9.8 Three
Waters Reform Programme Update
|
|
Staff Nic
Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure
Carlo
Ellis, Manager: Strategic Māori Engagement
Steve
Burton, Director of City Waters
Questions and discussion points
·
The Mayors, CEs and staff of 16 councils had been working
together to present a collective case to the Minister. There was
confidence that TCC was in step with Tangata Whenua but this was not
consistent across all of the 16 councils.
·
An announcement was expected on Wednesday of this week.
·
There was concern regarding stormwater as it was an essential
part of a city’s design and would be difficult managed from a
distance.
·
It was important that Tangata Whenua were able to continue to
monitor consents through advisory groups post the reforms.
·
There was good alignment amongst the 16 councils to make the
transition process happen.
|
|
Committee Resolution SFR3/21/10
Moved: Mr Bruce
Robertson
Seconded: Commissioner
Bill Wasley
That the Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee:
a) Receives
the report; and
b) Endorses
TCC’s continued involvement in the collaborative workstreams being
undertaken by the Waikato/Bay of Plenty
Three Waters Reform Consortium (WaiBoP), the intent of which is to be an “early adopter” of a multi-regional water entity
approach.
Carried
|
|
9.9 2021
Q2 Mental Health and Wellbeing
|
|
Staff Susan
Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement
Angelique
Fraser, Health & Safety Change Manager
In response to questions, suggestions and discussion
points
·
It was suggested that TCC look at some kaupapa Māori
mental health and wellbeing models.
·
The one-off snapshot survey was by Local Government New Zealand
(LGNZ) and was specific to mental health and wellbeing. TCC would
undertake a much broader survey in September that would have elements of
those types of questions to enable some benchmarking.
·
There was a raft of initiatives planned, including mental
health advocates who would be trained in mental health first aid.
·
TCC’s overall survey score of 68% was middle of the road
for the participating councils.
·
It was acknowledged that stable governance had made a
difference to the wellbeing of the Executive Team and staff. It was
suggested that this trend needed to be seen in the report.
|
|
Committee Resolution SFR3/21/11
Moved: Commissioner
Shadrach Rolleston
Seconded: Commissioner
Stephen Selwood
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee receives the
report: 2021 Q2 Mental Health and Wellbeing.
Carried
|
|
9.11 Audit
New Zealand - report to the Commissioners on the audit of the LTP
Consultation document 2021-31
|
|
Staff Paul
Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services
Kathryn
Sharplin, Manager: Finance
|
|
Committee Resolution SFR3/21/12
Moved: Dr Wayne Beilby
Seconded: Commissioner
Stephen Selwood
That the Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee:
(a) Receives
the report from Audit New Zealand on the audit of the 2021-31 LTP
consultation Document.
(b) Notes
the audit findings to be taken into account in preparation of the final LTP.
Carried
|
10 Discussion
of late items
Nil
11 Public
excluded session
RESOLUTION TO
EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
|
Committee
Resolution SFR3/21/13
Moved: Ms Rohario Murray
Seconded: Mr
Bruce Robertson
That the public be excluded from the following parts of
the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject matter of each matter to be considered
while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in
relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing
of this resolution are as follows:
|
General subject of each matter to be
considered
|
Reason for passing this resolution in
relation to each matter
|
Ground(s) under section 48 for the
passing of this resolution
|
|
11.1 - Cyber Security Update
|
s7(2)(c)(ii) - the withholding of the information
is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of
confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide
under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the
information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest
s7(2)(e) - the withholding of the information is
necessary to avoid prejudice to measures that prevent or mitigate material
loss to members of the public
s7(2)(j) - the withholding of the information is
necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for
improper gain or improper advantage
|
s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant
part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the
disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist
under section 6 or section 7
|
Carried
|
At 2.48pm, the meeting resumed in the open session.
12 Closing
Karakia
Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston closed the meeting with a
karakia.
The meeting closed at 2.49pm.
The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and
correct record at the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting held on 16
August 2021.
...................................................
CHAIRPERSON
9 Business
9.1 Amendments
to the Use of Toxic Agrichemicals for Vegetation Management Policy
File
Number: A12395409
Author: Emma
Joyce, Policy Analyst
Paul Dunphy, Delivery Manager
Authoriser: Gareth
Wallis, General Manager: Community Services
Purpose of the Report
1. To approve
amendments to the Use of Toxic Agrichemicals for Vegetation Management Policy
(the policy) (attachment one).
|
Recommendations
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:
(a) Receives the Amendments to
the Use of Toxic Agrichemicals for Vegetation Management Policy report.
(b) Agrees to amend the Use of
Agrichemicals for Vegetation Management Policy by:
(i) Replacing the current
provision requiring Council to approve amendments to ‘Schedule 1
– List of Approved Products’, with a provision that amendments to
Schedule 1 can be made where staff and TAAF agree.
(ii) Adding a provision that
approval of the Chief Executive is required for amendments to ‘Schedule
1 – List of Approved Products’ where staff and TAAF disagree.
(iii) Adding a provision to
allow for trials of new agrichemicals to determine efficiency and
effectiveness of a product in controlling unwanted vegetation.
(iv) Requiring TAAF to provide input
into the objectives, parameters and timeframes for any trial of a new
agrichemical.
(v) Deleting references to all
signage provisions except a statement noting compliance with regional air
rules.
(vi) Deleting references to
“toxic” from the policy.
(vii) Revising the layout of Schedule 1 to
the policy to better illustrate that a common product name is provided as a
reference only and Council may use a different product name with the same
active ingredient.
(viii) Revising Schedule 1 to allow
oxadiazon to be used on Links Avenue Reserve for the purposes of completing
the trial and delete the reference in Schedule 1 of the policy to oxadiazon
only being used in the 2018/2019 financial year.
|
Executive Summary
2. The Projects
Services and Operations Committee (PSOC), upon the recommendation of staff and
Council’s Toxic Agrichemicals Advisory Forum (TAAF), requested a review
of the policy in late 2020. Work on the review commenced in early 2021 with
discussions held with TAAF and key staff to identify any issues with the
current policy.
3. Staff and TAAF
agreed that the policy remains fit for purpose and there was no cause for a
major review of the policy. While the policy mandates a more precautionary approach
to agrichemical use than other local authorities, council’s overall
approach to agrichemical use remains consistent with other councils. This
report recommends some minor amendments to the policy to allow for increased
operational efficiency and to reflect recent changes in regional rules for
agrichemical use.
4. A copy of the
policy with recommended amendments showing as tracked changes is appended as
Attachment One.
Background
5. The primary
objective of the policy is to protect the public health of Tauranga residents
through implementing controls on agrichemicals used to control weeds and manage
unwanted vegetation. Other objectives are the protection of the environment
from agrichemical use and enabling council to undertake effective vegetation management.
6. Recognising that
agrichemicals can have a harmful impact on people and the environment, the
policy ensures Council takes a precautionary approach (“prudent
avoidance”) to the use of agrichemicals by limiting agrichemicals to
those on the list of approved products (Schedule 1). The policy also mandates
TAAF to represent community views on agrichemicals use and requires staff to
seek feedback from TAAF before recommending to Council any amendments to
schedule 1.
7. The policy has been
reviewed once (in 2014) since its adoption in 2009. The finding of that review
was the policy was fit for purpose but recommended some changes to internal
processes to support better record keeping, and to implement a standard
procedure for determining if a product should be added or removed from the
schedule of approved products. New products have been added to the schedule
almost annually since 2014.
8. Staff supported
TAAF’s request for a review of the policy through their 2020 annual
report to PSOC. The review commenced in early 2021 with a series of focused
discussions with staff and TAAF to identify any areas where the policy was not
achieving its objective to protect public health or impacting on
council’s ability to undertake vegetation management and weed control.
Staff also reviewed policies and practices of other local authorities to
identify any inconsistences with this council’s policy. As in 2014,
Tauranga’s policy was found to be broadly similar to that of other
councils but exhibited a stronger precautionary approach.
9. TAAF contacted
staff in March 2021 requesting that the policy review not be progressed. They
noted that that there were no major issues with the policy, that amendments to
Schedule 1 do not require a full policy review, and that the community would be
busy preparing submissions to the draft long-term plan.
10. In general, staff agreed that
there are no issues driving a major review of the policy. Staff supported
retention of the policy as it ensured the community had visibility over weed
control and vegetation management practices. However, there are minor
amendments to the policy that would make it more efficient for operational
staff. Issues for consideration through this policy review are as follows:
· allowing
products to be added to Schedule 1 where staff and TAAF are in agreement
without seeking Council approval;
· providing
for trials of new products;
· signage
provisions in the policy;
· requirements
for notification of intended agrichemical use; and
· removing
use of the word “toxic”.
11. This
draft report and the draft policy were provided to TAAF for their feedback and
comment. This feedback is appended as Attachment Two and incorporated into the
discussion where relevant.
Strategic / Statutory Context
12. Councils across New Zealand
are interested in ways to reduce the use of agrichemicals. This Council
supported a 2019 remit to the Local Government New Zealand conference on
reduction of agrichemical use.
13. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is statutorily responsible for approving
all agrichemicals used in New Zealand.
Options Analysis
Issue 1:
Process for amending Schedule 1 (list of approved products)
14. At present, Council (or the
relevant Committee) is required to approve all additions or deletions to
Schedule 1 following consideration of advice from TAAF and staff. The draft
policy amendment suggests that the schedule can be updated where TAAF and staff
agree to a proposed addition or deletion to schedule 1.
15. The amendment is 5.3.2 of the
draft policy.
16. Table
1 below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding with the
amendment or retaining the status quo.
Issue 1.1 – Amendments to schedule 1
where staff and TAAF agree
|
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
1.1.1
|
Amendments to Schedule 1 can be made where staff and
TAAF agree
(Recommended)
|
· Better reflects the operational nature of the
decision.
· Supported by TAAF as reduces burden of reporting to
Council.
· Consistent with other councils.
|
· May not provide assurance of governance oversight of
agrichemical use.
|
|
1.1.2
|
All amendments to Schedule 1 require Council
approval
(status quo)
|
· Provides assurance of governance oversight of
agrichemical use.
|
· Operational decision made at governance level.
· Inconsistent with other councils to seek governance
approval for operational matter.
|
Issue 1.2 – Amendments to schedule 1 where
staff and TAAF disagree
17. Should Council agree to option
1.1.1 above, the policy needs to outline a process when staff and TAAF disagree
on amendments to Schedule 1. This decision could be delegated to the Chief
Executive as an operational matter, or retained by Council to be consistent
with the current policy.
|
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
1.2.1
|
Decision on amendments where staff and TAAF disagree
delegated to Chief Executive.
(recommended)
|
· Better reflects the operational nature of the
decision.
· Consistent with other councils.
|
· Not supported by TAAF.
· No governance oversight of new products added to Schedule
1.
|
|
1.2.2
|
Decisions on amendments to Schedule 1 where staff
and TAAF disagree made by Council (or committee with delegated authority)
(status quo)
|
· Provides assurance of governance oversight of
agrichemical use.
· TAAF’s preference is to have Council approve
amendments to Schedule 1 where there is disagreement between staff and TAAF.
· Consistent with current policy.
|
· Operational decision made at governance level.
· Inconsistent with other councils to seek governance
approval for operational issue.
|
18. There
are no changes proposed to the criteria (outlined at clause 5.3.4) used to
assess whether a product should be added or removed from Schedule 1.
Consideration must be given to any or all seven criteria before determining if
a product should be added to or removed from Schedule 1. Provision (clause
5.3.5) is retained in the policy for products to be approved subject to certain
conditions, such as only using a certain application method or only to control
a specific plant pest.
Issue 2: Trials
Issue 2.1
– Providing for trials
19. In line
with the principle of “prudent avoidance” (avoiding the use of new
to market agrichemicals), there is currently no policy provision allowing
council staff to trial a new product to determine its effectiveness in controlling
unwanted vegetation. At present, undertaking trials (such as the recent trial
of oxadiazon at three sportsfields summarised in the other matters section
below) requires the product to be added to Schedule 1 for a specific time
period. Trials may provide information that enables staff and TAAF to assess
the product for permanent addition to Schedule 1.
20. There are three options
Council could consider in determining whether to allow for trials of products
(noting only EPA approved products are permitted to be used).
· provide for trials
with assessment based only on effectiveness and efficiency in controlling
unwanted vegetation; or
· provide for trials
with assessment based on effectiveness and efficiency in controlling unwanted
vegetation and information on human health effects; or
· do not provide for
trials (status quo).
21. Table 2 outlines the
advantages and disadvantages of providing for trials in the policy or retaining
the status quo.
|
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
2.1.1
|
Add provision to the policy allowing for trials of
products to determine effectiveness and efficiency in controlling unwanted
vegetation.
(recommended)
|
· Ensures the policy allows flexibility to trial
potentially more efficient, cost effective products before seeking addition
to Schedule 1.
· Aligns with policy objective to enable effective
vegetation management.
· Recognises the responsibility of the EPA to identify
any human health effects.
· Allows for optimisation of reserves (particularly
active reserves) resulting in less turnaround time between seasons.
· Containment of defined trial area can be controlled
to address access or time concerns if required.
|
· Not supported by TAAF.
|
|
2.1.2
|
Add provision to the policy allowing for trials of
products to determine effectiveness and efficiency in controlling unwanted
vegetation and human health effects.
|
· Supported by TAAF.
· More in line with the principle of prudent avoidance
and protection of public health.
|
· Scientific testing for human health effects outside
Council’s operational scope (human health effects addressed by EPA).
· High costs of testing.
|
|
2.1.3
|
Do not provide for trials of new products in the
policy.
(status quo)
|
· In line with principle of prudent avoidance.
|
· Requires staff and TAAF to undertake full process to
add a product to schedule for limited trial.
· Not allowing trials potentially limits time
available for sports turf due to turnaround times between seasons.
· Council may miss opportunities to trial products
that are lower cost, more effective, or supporting sustainability objectives.
· Ability to optimise the use of available community
space may be lost.
· Potential that Council does not meet policy
objective to provide for effective vegetation management.
|
Issue 2.2 – TAAF
approval of trial objectives and parameters
22. The
draft policy provides for TAAF to have input into the objectives, parameters
and timeframes of trials (draft provision 5.2.3). However, there is no
requirement for TAAF to approve a trial. While TAAF note their support for
trials, their preference is that the policy requires their approval before
proceeding with trial.
|
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
2.2.1
|
Require TAAF approval for all trials.
|
· Reflects intention of policy for decisions on
agrichemical use to be made collaboratively with TAAF.
|
· Some trials supported by staff may not proceed.
|
|
2.2.2
|
TAAF to only have input into the objectives,
parameters and timeframes of the trial.
(recommended)
|
· Ensures TAAF have reasonable input into decisions
about trials.
|
· Trials may go ahead without TAAF support.
· TAAF’s preference is that the parameters
(particularly time limits) are agreed with them before proceeding.
|
Issue 3 – Signage
23. The attached draft policy
removes the current signage provisions requiring signage advising of recent
spraying to remain in place for a minimum of 48 hours after application.
Reference is retained to requiring compliance with regional rules set through
the Regional Natural Resources Plan (Plan Change 13 – Air Quality). Signs
are required to remain in place while spraying is in progress, until all
airborne spray has settled, and the agrichemical has dried on its target
surface. All signs must be removed within five days.
24. The current provision for
signs requires them to remain in place for a minimum of 48 hours after
applications. While this is in line with the overall precautionary nature of
the policy, it is more efficient for contractors to remove signs once spraying
is concluded or within 24 hours.
25. There are two options available
to the Council – remove signage provisions noting that the regional rules
apply or to retain the current provisions.
|
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
3.1
|
Remove all signage provisions from the policy except
for reference to compliance with regional rules.
(recommended)
|
· Achieves compliance and consistency with regional
rules.
· More operationally efficient to remove signs within
24 hours of application.
· Minimises risk of casual visitors assuming
agrichemical application is ongoing, or area remains unsafe.
|
· Not supported by TAAF.
· May be considered not in line with the overall
precautionary nature of the policy.
|
|
3.2
|
Retain current signage provisions, including
requirement for signs to be in place for 48 hours after spraying.
|
· Maintains awareness that agrichemicals have recently
been used.
· Achieves compliance with regional rules.
· TAAF preference is to retain current rules.
|
· Inconsistent with regional rules (i.e. more
demanding than regional rules).
· Casual visitors may assume agrichemical application
is ongoing or area remains unsafe.
· Operationally inefficient.
|
Issue 4 – Use of
“toxic”
26. Staff note that the use of
toxic is redundant as most agrichemicals are by definition toxic to vegetation.
It is also highly emotive language. Council could choose to retain or delete
the references to toxic.
|
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
5.1
|
Delete references to “toxic” from the
policy. (recommended)
|
· Consistent with other councils.
· Removes redundant and emotive language from the
policy.
|
· Nil
|
|
5.2
|
Retain references to “toxic” in the
policy (status quo).
|
· TAAF prefer to retain “toxic” in line
with overall precautionary nature of the policy.
|
· Inconsistent with other councils.
· Use of redundant and emotive language.
|
Other matters
27. In 2018, the Environment
Committee approved a trial of oxadiazon for use on Blake Park and Oceandowns
Reserve by amending Schedule 1 to allow for the product to be used until 2020.
The trial sought to identify if using the pre-emergent to control weed species
would enhance the establishment of warm season grasses. Developing more active
reserves with warm season grasses addresses climate change effects (drought
resistance) and supports sustainability objectives. Although there is evidence
of public health effects of pre-emergent in food crops, TAAF supported a trial
that would determine if the product behaved as predicted by the manufacturer,
in a local context and when used on sports turf fields. The cost of the trial
of oxadiazon at three reserves was approximately $70,000 excluding GST.
28. Schedule 1 currently notes
that oxadiazon can only be used during the 2018/2019 financial year in two
reserves. However, the Oceandowns development was delayed a year requiring the
product to be used outside that time period. With the agreement of TAAF, the
trial of this product was extended to Links Avenue Reserve. It is recommended
that the schedule be updated to confirm the use of oxadiazon at Links Avenue
Reserve and to delete reference to the financial year.
29. The layout of Schedule 1 has
been altered so that the column providing an example product name is not placed
first. This makes it clearer to the casual reader of the policy that other
product brand names may be used where the active ingredient is the same. This
statement has previously been captured as a footnote. The change in layout is
supported by TAAF.
30. Under new regional rules, a
notice on Council’s website meets requirements for public notice of
agrichemical use. As such, the policy has been updated to reflect this change.
However, the policy continues to note the option of additional notification channels
to acknowledge other methods people can receive information.
31. Where necessary, references
used in the policy have been updated to reflect changes in the title and
definitions used in applicable Bay of Plenty Regional Council plans.
Financial Considerations
32. There are no financial
considerations arising from the recommended options.
Legal Implications / Risks
33. There are no legal
implications or other risks arising from the recommended options.
Consultation / Engagement
34. Staff first met with TAAF in
March 2021 to discuss the policy review and got an initial understanding of the
issues they wanted considered through a review. A follow up email from TAAF
indicated that they did not see a full review as being necessary with issues around
signage and amendments to schedule 1 able to be actioned outside a review
process.
35. A copy of this report and the
draft policy were provided to TAAF for feedback in late May 2021. Their views
are incorporated above and provided as attachment two.
36. No other external consultation
or engagement was undertaken.
Significance
37. 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.
38. In making this assessment,
consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:
(a) the current and future social,
economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region
(b) any
persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the
issue, proposal, decision, or matter
(c) the
capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and
other costs of doing so.
39. In accordance with the
considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered
that the issues addressed, and recommendations made, in this report are of low
significance. However, it is acknowledged that agrichemical use, particularly
glyphosate, is of high significance to many in our community.
ENGAGEMENT
40. Taking into consideration the
above assessment that the issues are of low significance, staff are of the
opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a
decision.
Next Steps
41. The policy will be amended in
accordance with the decisions made at this meeting.
42. Council is currently reviewing
how it supports community advisory groups. Subject to the outcomes of that
review, there may be a requirement to review the role of, and Council support
to TAAF.
Attachments
1. Use of
Agrichemicals for Vegetation Policy 2021 (draft June 2021) - A12639300 ⇩ 
2. TAAF Commentary
on 2021 policy review - A12633828 ⇩
|
Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda
|
16 August 2021
|
|
Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee
Meeting Agenda
|
16 August 2021
|
9.2 Resource
Management Issues and Options for the Tauranga City Plan
File
Number: A12608002
Author: Janine
Speedy, Team Leader: City Planning
Authoriser: Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth
Purpose of the Report
1. The purpose of this
report is to endorse options to engage with stakeholders, tāngata whenua
and the community on key issues identified previously by Council as part of the
City Plan Review or future plan changes should the City Plan Review not
proceed.
|
Recommendations
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:
(a) Receives the Resource
Management Issues and Options for the Tauranga City Plan report.
(b) Endorses the options to be
considered for key resource management issues for the City Plan set out in
Attachment 1.
(c) Notes that options to
address each key issue will be included in a discussion document seeking
community, tāngata whenua and stakeholder feedback and may be altered or
amended in respect of feedback received.
|
Executive Summary
2. The next Tauranga City Plan will address an array of
issues in accordance with the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1991
(RMA), national policy direction and the National Planning Standards 2019. As
part of the City Plan Review process key issues were identified by the previous
Council and through key stakeholder feedback.
3. There is significant uncertainty around whether the
City Plan review will be completed due to the current resource management
reforms. Should this be the case, this preliminary issues and options
work on key issues would be utilised instead to consider future plan changes
and the development of a new (likely regional) plan under the proposed Natural
and Built Environments Act.
4. Issues and options papers have been prepared to confirm options to be
considered for each key issue, where Council has a choice as to whether and how
the City Plan might address that issue. In some cases a combination of options
may be appropriate.
5. This report seeks
endorsement of options for these key issues, included as Attachment 1. These
key issues and options will be included in a discussion document for engagement
in October 2021. Feedback received through engagement will inform
Council’s direction on these issues.
6. At this point,
staff are not seeking direction on the preferred option for each issue, but
confirmation of the options that have been identified. Staff will come back to
the Committee following the completion of stakeholder, tāngata whenua and
community engagement to seek direction on next steps.
Background
7. The Urban Form and
Transport Committee approved a list of key issues for the City Plan review at
its meeting on 24 November 2020, following a Council workshop held on 23
September 2020. The key issues cover the areas of managing growth, built
environment, natural environment and sustainability, cultural values and
infrastructure.
8. Each of the key
issues identified is categorised into the following three groups:
(a) Significant or complicated
issues where Council has discretion on how to address the issue, or the role of
the City Plan is unclear. In some cases, progressing a particular option may
require unbudgeted investigation or technical work.
(b) Other issues where Council
also has discretion on how to address the issue, and whether the City Plan has
a role.
(c) Issues where Council has no
option, such as managing natural hazard risk, with direction set through
national and/or regional policy.
9. Options papers for each of the issues under group
‘a’ and ‘b’ above have been prepared and included as
Attachment 1. This is to assist in further investigation and
technical work to be undertaken around any particular option. Options papers for group ‘c’ are not considered
necessary.
10. Papers have been prepared for each key issue,
outlining what the issue is, how it fits in the strategic context and
considering the possible options. The pros and cons and whether the option has
been implemented elsewhere are considered as part of the options. An example
paper is included as Attachment 2.
11. Endorsement is sought from the Committee on the options for key
issues as these are considered significant to implementation of higher order
documents and the direction for the discussion document.
Strategic / Statutory Context
12. The Resource Management Act
1991 (RMA) sets out the management of subdivision, use and development for
Tauranga City through the City Plan. The City Plan must also give effect to
current national policy statements and the regional policy statement and must
adhere to the National Planning Standards.
13. The role the City Plan can
take in addressing some issues for the City may be limited or is better
addressed through other legislation or Council strategies and policies, or by
other parties.
14. The government is currently
advancing significant resource management reforms which put in doubt whether
the City Plan review project will be progressed to notification. We are
awaiting more definitive advice on this matter. At this stage a ‘no
regrets’ approach to advancing the City Plan review is being undertaken
and no formal process would be commenced until there is certainty on this
matter.
Financial Considerations
15. There are no financial
considerations associated with this report. The cost associated with the City
Plan Review is proposed through the Long-Term Plan 2021-2031 as agreed by the
Urban Form and Transport Development Committee on 21 July 2020.
Legal Implications / Risks
16. Section 32 of the RMA requires
Council to evaluate options to address resource management objectives. The
options for key issues identified will form part of the section 32 report on a
chapter by chapter basis.
17. Some options have legal
implications for Council, and these are noted in the options papers.
Consultation / Engagement
18. Workshops with stakeholders
were held in early March 2021 to identify issues and possible solutions or
opportunities. Two hui have been held with iwi and hapu on 30 March and 20
April 2021 to identify issues for tāngata whenua, and specifically those
key issues within the ‘Cultural Values’ section of the key issues
table included as Attachment 1.
19. A second series of workshops
is planned for July to consider in more detail how the City Plan might address
stakeholder and tāngata whenua issues and concerns.
20. Key issues and options are to
be presented to the community, tāngata whenua and stakeholders in
late-September 2021 through a set of topic-based discussion documents.
Significance
21. 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.
22. 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
matter.
(c) the
capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and
other costs of doing so.
23. In accordance with the
considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, the City Plan
Review has been identified as high significance that has high public interest,
however confirmation of options to address key issues provided in this report
is of low significance.
ENGAGEMENT
24. Taking into consideration the
above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, the proposed
engagement on key issues and options is an appropriate response.
Next Steps
25. The options to address the key
issues will form part of the topic-based discussion documents to be made
available for stakeholder, tāngata whenua and community feedback in
late-September 2021. Feedback will inform the development of the draft City
Plan (or alternative future plan changes) and shape how each issue is
addressed. Information in the discussion documents will be prepared for the
community and key stakeholders to be interactive with feedback sought through
an online survey and other means.
26. Once feedback has been
received, direction will be sought from the Committee on next steps.
Attachments
1. Summary Table -
Key Resource Management Issues and Options - 1 June 2021 - A12603108 ⇩
2. Key Issues and
Options - Housing Affordability - May 2021 - A12619892 ⇩
|
Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda
|
16 August 2021
|
|
Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee
Meeting Agenda
|
16 August 2021
|
9.3 Three
Waters Reform Programme Update
File
Number: A12695030
Author: Steve
Burton, Director of City Waters
Kathryn Sharplin, Manager:
Finance
Authoriser: Paul
Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services
Purpose of the Report
1. To inform the
Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee (SFRC) of the direction, issues,
opportunities, and matters relating to the national Three Waters Reform
Programme, which is being led by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA); and
2. To share
information about regional and local collaborative initiatives involving
Tauranga City Council (TCC) which are linked to readiness for water reforms.
|
Recommendations
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:
(a) Receives the report Three
Waters Reform Programme Update; and
(b) Recommends to Council that
it continue to support Tauranga City Council’s involvement in
collaborative workstreams with other local authorities in the Water Entity B
area, as proposed by the Department of Internal Affairs.
|
Discussion
Background
3. The Three Waters
Reform Programme Update presented to the SRFC on 28th June 2021
signalled significant decisions and announcements would be forthcoming from
Cabinet during late June / early July 2021.
4. This paper
summarises the key steps taken by DIA since the last report was tabled, as well
as the ongoing collaborative work undertaken by the Waikato/Bay of Plenty
Three Waters Reform Consortium (WaiBoP) of which TCC is a member.
Central
Government / DIA update
5. On 30th June 2021, the Minister of Local Government
Hon. Nanaia Mahuta announced the Cabinet proposal to establish four water entities
across New Zealand to deliver the three water services currently delivered by
67 local authorities.
6. An overview of the
proposed new system for three waters service delivery is summarised in the
diagrams below:
7. Tauranga is
proposed to be part of Entity B, together with 22 TLAs from the Waikato, Bay of
Plenty, Taranaki and Manawatu regions.
8. While Councils in each
entity’s region would be the legislated owners on behalf of their
communities, they will not be ‘shareholders’ and will not derive
dividends from that ownership status.
9. The DIA also
released dashboards for each local authority as part of the announcement of
entity boundaries. These dashboards were “… created to help
councils and their communities understand how elements of the three waters
system are performing at a glance and the potential opportunities of reform for
individual councils. They pull together information from across a number of
sources into a consolidated evidence base for three waters reform”.
10. The Tauranga dashboard is
included below:
11. The detailed financial
modelling and assumptions undertaken by the Water Industry Commission for
Scotland (WICS) on behalf of DIA, and on which the national proposal is based,
has been individualised for each Council so that financial sensitivities can be
better understood. The financial gains identified in the dashboard above are
based on WICS assumptions for the region. These have not been verified by
TCC staff because the regional detail has not been provided. However,
staff have applied our final LTP budgets and assumptions to the model, which
supports savings in the future from reforms compared with TCC alone. The
modelled savings seem realistic based on potential benefits of scale and
expertise that are assumed to be associated with a regional entity.
12. On 15th July 2021
the DIA announced the “Three Waters Reforms Programme – Support
package” at the Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) conference.
Refer Three Waters Reform Useful Links, below.
13. The package has been developed
by Government in partnership with LGNZ and is intended to support the sector
through the transition to the new water services delivery system.
14. The package proposes to
provide Tauranga $ 48,405,014 of financial support from the total national
package of $2.5 Billion.
15. At the time of writing this
report, the detailed terms and conditions associated with this support package are
unknown. Once further information is received, this will be reported to
this Committee in more detail.
Partnership
with Tauranga Moana tangata whenua
16. We have committed to working
closely in partnership with Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana (RMW)
as information regarding the Three Waters Reforms becomes more available. TCC
has involved mana whenua early, face to face and sharing as much information as
possible as soon as it is received.
17. RMW have received regular
information updates from TCC staff and have advised clear principles they are
advocating for in the reforms. In particular the preservation of mana whenua
relationships with taonga is a high priority as well as the inclusion of
mātauranga Māori to inform future management and provision.
18. With Māori capability and
capacity as a constant barrier and challenge, TCC has resourced a dedicated
programme of Māori engagement to ensure any developments are well advised,
well considered and that any potential solutions are well presented for
consideration.
WaiBoP Consortium Work
19. As previously reported, the
work undertake WaiBoP partners is considered to compliment the work undertaken
at a national level by DIA, not to replace it.
20. Four WaiBoP workstreams have
continued over the intervening period to develop a better understanding of the
transition challenges across the participating Councils. Some work is in a
holding pattern awaiting further Cabinet decisions and DIA announcements.
21. The consortium is also
starting to focus more time and effort on the development of a “balanced
scorecard” approach to understanding the water services opportunities and
challenges more comprehensively. This goes beyond a purely financial
consideration, and aims to bring important service, community, cultural,
customer, environmental, asset and other considerations into the conversation.
This is a work-in-progress and will be built around the following key elements:
22. On 7th July the Chief Executives of the original 16 WaiBoP Councils held a video
conference meeting and agreed to reach out to the Taranaki and Manawatu
Councils with the view to re-set the program. Following on from this, a face to
face hui of the 22 TLAs was arranged to be held in Taupo on 5th
August 2021.
Next Steps
23. Central
government has indicated the following upcoming milestones:
(a) A Cabinet meeting is likely to
be held before the end of September to address implementation issues
(“how” the reform will be done). Until this step is completed,
there will be several unanswered questions for staff. A key question will be
whether the reform will be compulsory or voluntary for Councils, and this may
have significant implications on how the change is communicated and implemented.
(b) The
four proposed entity boundaries require further clarification for some Councils
(not TCC) - consultation with affected councils is expected to be completed
before the actual boundaries are confirmed by September 2021.
(c) The
overall water reform program is still on track to have future water services
entities operational by July 2024.
24. TCC will seek
further clarification on the terms and conditions associated with the
Three Waters Reforms Programme Support Package during August 2021.
25. The
WaiBoP consortium’s Chief Executives will be meeting with Taranaki and
Manawatu counterparts to reset and align future readiness work along the Entity
B proposal boundaries.
26. As further
Cabinet decisions on water reforms get announced, these will be workshopped
with Commissioners and Rangapū, as well as any key
findings emerging from the WaiBoP consortium’s
workstreams.
27. A summary of
the balanced scorecard, work with mana Whenua, as well as other updates will be
reported to Strategy Finance and Risk Committee on 20 September.
Three Waters Reform Useful Links
Three
Waters Reforms Programme - Local dashboard FAQs announced on 30th
June 2021
Three
Waters Reforms Programme – Support Package announced on 15th July
2021
Attachments
Nil
9.4 Revocation
of policies
File
Number: A11859099
Author: Ariell
King, Team Leader: Policy
Jeremy Boase, Manager:
Strategy and Corporate Planning
Vicky Grant-Ussher, Policy
Analyst
Authoriser: Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth
Purpose of the Report
1. To consider
rescinding a number of Council policies.
|
Recommendations
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:
(a) Rescind the
Māori Roadways Policy 1993
(b) Rescind the Car
Parking Building Policy 1996
(c) Rescind the Guarantees
Loan Funding Policy 1999
(d) Rescind the Interpretive
Signage Policy 2005
(e) Rescind the Tauranga
Marina Policy 2000
(f) Rescind the Petitions
Policy 2001
(g) Rescind the Project Management
Structure Policy 2005
(h) Rescind the Petitions
in Council Public Places Policy 1991
|
Executive Summary
2. A review of
existing Council policies has been undertaken. The review process has
identified eight Council policies that are out-of-date, no longer adding value,
or are covered by other legal instruments or agreements. Therefore, it is
recommended that these policies are rescinded. The policies recommended to be
rescinded are provided in Attachment 1.
3. Work has started on
a second tranche of policies which require further analysis before rescinding.
This analysis will be provided to the Council for consideration in late 2021.
Background
4. All adopted Council
policies are presented on the council website: http://www.tauranga.govt.nz/council-documents-reports/bylaws-policies/policies.aspx.
5. Regular reviews are
undertaken to ensure policies that are no longer required are rescinded.
Discussion
6. Four policies have
been identified that are out of date and no longer adding value (See Table
One). These policies are rarely used and the policy team, in conjunction with
the relevant business units, consider a council policy is no longer needed to
achieve the desired outcome. Similar results could be achieved through existing
council processes or by considering requests on a case by case basis.
Table One: Out of date policies
|
Policy
|
Advantages of
rescinding
|
Disadvantages of rescinding
|
|
Māori Roadways 1993
|
This policy was created in response to several Māori
roadways that needed upgrading that have now become formed roads. The policy
has had little recent use as lately road upgrades have been through
subdivision processes. The council can continue to consider requests for Māori
roadways to be upgraded but on a case by case basis.
Recommended to rescind.
|
Nil
|
|
Car Parking building 1996
|
This policy was adopted in 1996 and is used one or two times
a year. When council receives a proposal to use a carparking building outside
of opening hours in future we propose the property team consider the request
on a case by case basis. This would include considering any recovery of
operational costs involved.
Recommended to rescind.
|
Nil
|
|
Guarantees Loan Funding 1999
|
This policy sets out specific loan conditions required when
council acts as a guarantor to community groups seeking loan funds to protect
the council’s investments. We have received one request for a loan
guarantee in the last three years and the loan and the conditions were
considered by Council as part of the Annual Plan. It is expected similar
outcomes would be achieved by the finance team assigning appropriate loan
conditions on a case by case basis when providing loans for Council approval.
Recommended to rescind.
|
Nil
|
|
Interpretive Signage 2005
|
This policy was adopted in 2005 when a heritage trail and
museum were being considered. Core aspects of the policy such as when to use
signage, the placement and content of signage and consultation procedures are
now considered early in project planning for council projects to ensure
consistency and appropriate content.
Recommended to rescind.
|
Nil
|
7. Table
Two sets out the policies that are now covered by other agreements meaning the
policies are no longer required.
Table
Two: Policies now covered by other agreements
|
Policy
|
Advantages of rescinding
|
Disadvantages of rescinding
|
|
Tauranga Marina 2000
|
This policy sets out council's position on the Marina and
form of licence agreement with the Tauranga Marina Society in order to
provide affordable facilities for boat owners and Marina users. A renewed
Marina agreement covers the content of the policy and the agreement is valid
until 31 August 2050 making this policy redundant.
Recommended to rescind.
|
Nil
|
|
Petitions 2001
|
This policy sets out the protocol for council to receive
petitions. Similar rules for managing petitions are now included in the
Council standing orders. Removing the policy will clarify the Council’s
process for petitions and better reflect current practice.
Recommended to rescind.
|
Nil
|
|
Project Management Structure 2005
|
Successful delivery of projects and realisation of their
intended benefits is one of the ways that Council can achieve its strategic
direction and meet the needs and wants of our communities. Council’s
existing project governance framework policy and procedure was developed and
adopted in 2005. It reflected what was intended at that point in time and has
not been subject to a review. In practice it has been superseded by the
development of the Project Lifecycle Process which is an internal system
including templates and resources for project management at Council.
Over the past 18 months a significant amount of time and
effort has been undertaken to create and implement a new approach to project
management. This has included the creation of the Capital Programme Assurance
Division (CPAD). CPAD will support and enable all project delivery teams
across Council with good industry practice frameworks, systems, reporting,
processes, procedures and advice. The aim of CPAD is to become a centre of
excellence for programme and project management so that guidance and support is
provided for anyone undertaking a project or building a programme within
Council. The Project Lifecyle Process will remain as the default project
management framework until the CPAD introduces the new framework to the
organisation. To ensure that there is no confusion regarding the correct
framework it is necessary to rescind the outdated 2005 policy.
Recommended to rescind.
|
Nil
|
8. Analysis of the
Petitions in Council Public Places policy is provided in Table Three. We
recommend rescinding this policy as the core aspects of the policy are covered
through the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw. There is a minor implication of
rescinding the policy (that orderly petitions could take places in council
public places) however we do not consider this justifies retaining this policy.
Table Three: Policies now partially
covered by other legal instruments
|
Policy
|
Rationale for
rescinding
|
Implications of rescinding
|
|
Petitions in Council Public Places 1991
|
This policy sets out that petitions are not permitted in any
council public places.
However, the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw provides for
‘events, parades and assembly’ in public places subject to a
number of conditions that would ensure people gathering signatures for a
petition do not impede pedestrian access, create a nuisance or display
unauthorised signage or structures.
Public Place is defined as following in the bylaw: means
a place under the control of Council that at any time is open to or is being
used by the public, whether free or for payment of a charge and includes
every road, street, Footpath, court, alley, pedestrian mall, cycle track,
lane, accessway, thoroughfare, Reserve, park, domain, beach, foreshore, and
any other place of public recreation or resort.
Recommended to rescind.
|
Would allow orderly gathering of signatures for a petition
in council public places.
|
Significance
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. In
accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the
policy, it is considered that the recommendations are of low significance.
Consultation / Engagement
12. Based on the low level of
significance of the recommendations it is not considered necessary to undertake
community engagement as there is no significant anticipated impact from
rescinding the policies.
Next Steps
13. The council website will be
updated to reflect the decisions.
14. Analysis on a second tranche
of policies that could potentially be rescinded will be provided to Council for
consideration in late 2021.
Attachments
1. Appendix
- policies to rescind - A12736277 ⇩
|
Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda
|
16 August 2021
|
9.5 Draft
Parking Strategy
File
Number: A12730700
Author: Peter
Siemensma, Senior Transport Planner
Authoriser: Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth
Purpose of the Report
1. To provide an overview of the draft Parking Strategy and to
seek approval for public consultation.
|
Recommendations
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:
(a) Receives the Draft Parking
Strategy Report.
(b) Approves the draft Parking
Strategy for public consultation.
|
Executive Summary
1. Parking management plays an important role in the
successful functioning of a City and its transport network. Successful parking
management can contribute to:
· Improving
the vibrancy of centres and people’s access to them;
· Enabling a
multi-modal transport system;
· Enabling a
more compact urban form;
· Supporting
access for all, by helping to prioritise space for those with the greatest need
(e.g. mobility parking);
· Ensuring
value for money and best use of resources by making sure that parking revenues
cover the costs and that future investments would provide value for
money.
2. The Urban Form &
Transport Initiative (UFTI) and the Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan
(TSP) identify that parking management is a key lever to support the delivery
of the Connected Centres programme and achieving its benefits. The direction
provided by UFTI and the TSP is supported by the National Policy Statement on
Urban Development 2020 (NPS-UD) which strongly encourages Councils to “manage
effects associated with the supply and demand of car parking through
comprehensive parking management plans”.
3. The draft Parking
Strategy has been developed to guide Council’s approach to the management
of Council controlled parking spaces across the City. It provides an
over-arching approach to guide Parking Management Plans for areas of the city
that need specific attention due to existing high occupancy and/or areas where
occupancy levels are expected to change in the near future due to significant
planned land use change.
4. The draft Parking
Strategy proposes a ‘graduated approach’ to parking management
whereby it looks to achieve a balance between occupancy and turnover of spaces,
particularly in busy centres. A benchmark for optimal occupancy is around 85%
of available spaces. This occupancy level means spaces are well used but people
can still find a space if needed (i.e. 15% of spaces should be available).
Pricing or time controls tend to be the approach applied to manage occupancy
and availability of spaces where demand is regularly higher than the 85%
benchmark.
5. The draft Parking
Strategy also proposes an integrated, incremental and responsive approach to
its implementation. This means that changes to parking management should be
linked to desired changes to the general transport system, or to the appeal of
key centres as locations for higher density development, or increased activity
and vibrancy. In terms of responsive, this means that management approaches
will be considered where parking issues are more pressing or where
opportunities are presented. The ongoing monitoring and review of the parking management,
including through community feedback, is important to delivering a responsive
approach to parking.
6. The draft Parking
Strategy outlines the way it is intended to manage parking in a range of
circumstances and settings, covering:
· Parking
on residential streets
· Kerbside
space allocation, cycle parking and berm parking
· Parking
in centres
· The
prioritisation of parking space by vehicle type/reason for parking
· Park
and ride facilities
· Parking
enforcement and monitoring
7. The draft Parking
Strategy has been developed through technical analysis, examination of best
practice in New Zealand and overseas, and parking surveys and perception
surveys. The package of analysis that has
supported the development of the draft Strategy is available online on
TCC’s website. The draft National Parking Management Guidance, provided
by Waka Kotahi, as well as recently developed parking strategies from other
cities have been used to inform the development of the draft Parking Strategy.
8. The draft Parking
Strategy recommends implementing the strategy through area-based ‘Parking
Management Plans’ (PMP). A PMP is a location-specific plan that
recommends changes to how parking management is undertaken, for example, in a
centre, a neighbourhood, a reserve, or near a large employment site. It
recognises that priority should be given to areas with high parking demand,
which typically include centres. A PMP will include measures such as pricing
and time limits. The ‘next steps’ section below provides an
indicative programme for the development PMPs.
Strategic / Statutory Context
9. UFTI identifies that
parking management is a key lever to support the delivery of the Connected
Centres programme and realising its benefits. This is supported by the National
Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020 (NPD-UD) strongly encourages
councils to “manage car effects associated with the supply and demand of
car parking through comprehensive parking management plans”.
Financial Considerations
10. Budget for implementation of
the draft Parking Strategy, through detailed parking surveys, consultation and
the development of Parking Management Plans (PMPs) has been included in the
Long-Term Plan.
11. Future parking management,
including pricing and time limits, once implemented, is likely to have costs
and revenue implications and can be identified through the development of PMPs.
Consultation / Engagement
12. The Bay of
Plenty Regional Council and Waka Kotahi have had involvement in the development
of the draft Parking Strategy.
13. Subject to Council approval of
the draft Parking Strategy the following consultation is proposed:
a. Workshop with key
Stakeholder Group; and
b. Internet based
surveys with the wider community to seek feedback on direction and approaches
in the draft Strategy.
14. The feedback from this proposed
consultation and engagement will help to identify any further changes to the
draft Parking Strategy prior to it being reported to Council for final
approval.
15. It is also noted that
consultation and engagement will be undertaken as part of the development of
the area (e.g. CBD) or topic based PMPs.
Significance
16. 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.
17. In making this assessment,
consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:
a. The current and future
social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or
region
b. any persons who are
likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the issue, proposal,
decision, or matter
c. the capacity of the
local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing
so.
18. In accordance with the
considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered
that the matter is of low to medium significance. The draft Parking
Strategy is aligned to direction provided by UFTI and the TSP and is also
intended to support the City’s well-being. Consultation on the draft
Strategy is proposed allowing people to provide comment on the direction it
proposes.
Next Steps
19. Subject to approval of the
draft Parking Strategy, staff propose to undertake the following next
steps.
|
Step
|
Description
|
Timing
|
|
1.
|
Consultation on the draft
Parking Strategy including:
· Providing Draft Parking Strategy and all background information
on TCC Website
· Undertake Consultation as outlined above
· Review, and summarised in a submission report. This will
also include an update of the strategy to reflect the input from the
consultation.
|
September/October
|
|
2.
|
Council approval of final
Parking Strategy post consultation.
|
October/November
|
|
3.
|
Development of Parking
Management Plans (PMP).
Implementation of the City
Centre PMP is likely to be prioritised for development first as the current
CBD parking trial is planned to end in February 2022.
|
Subject to Council approval of
the Parking Strategy
|
Attachments
1. Draft
Parking Strategy - A12736628 ⇩ 
|
Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda
|
16 August 2021
|
9.6 Submission
on changes to Māori and constituency processes
File
Number: A12704757
Author: Robyn
Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support
Authoriser: Susan
Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement
Purpose of the Report
1. To recommend a
submission be sent to the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) on aligning Māori and general ward
processes in the Local Electoral Act 2001.
|
Recommendations
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:
(a) Receives the report
“Submission on changes to Māori
ward and constituency processes”; and
(b) Recommends that the Council
approves the draft submission in Attachment 1 to be sent to the Department of
Internal Affairs on the discussion document “Changes to Māori ward and
constituency processes.
|
executive summary
2. The DIA is
consulting on aligning Māori
wards and general ward processes. It is recommended that the Council make
a submission. The Committee is asked to consider the draft submission and make
any changes before the Council approves it to be sent.
Background
3. The DIA is
consulting on the second stage of changes following the removal of the binding
poll provisions from the Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA), which will see 35
councils having Māori representation at
the 2022 elections.
4. Having two different processes is seen as confusing and DIA
want to know how the separate processes can be brought closer together to make
it easier for councils to make decisions about how communities are represented,
so everyone understands how the system works.
5. Requiring the two
processes to be aligned would make the establishment of Māori wards easier to understand and
easier for councils to consider and implement and there would be improved
community consultation on decisions but provides less flexibility for councils.
The DIA discussion document states that maintaining separate processes would
require new decisions on how these processes are sequenced. With two separate
processes councils would have a higher degree of flexibility about how they
consult and make decisions, but some people could feel like they’ve been
left out of the consultation process.
6. DIA has identified
six key differences between the Māori wards and general wards process that
they are consulting on:
· The
requirements for councils to consider ward systems;
· The
timing of decisions;
· Opportunities
for public input;
· Decision-making
rights and the role of the Local Government Commission;
· How
and when wards can be discontinued; and
· The
types of polls that councils can hold.
7. The discussion
document released by the DIA is set out in Attachment 2 and sets out in more
detail the six key differences that they are seeking feedback on. This
feedback will help to determine how the law is improved.
8. Further information
is available on the DIA website https://www.dia.govt.nz/maori-wards
including a regulatory impact assessment that provides a more detailed analysis
of the possible options the Government could consider and an introductory video
by the Minister of Local Government Nanaia Mahuta is available on:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqiRGZf4pRg.
Strategic / Statutory Context
9. The
Council has the ability to submit on discussion documents released by the
Government. This is optional however the subject matter is considered to
be of interest to the Council and feedback to the Government is recommended.
Issues
Issue 1 –
Requirement to consider
10. The discussion document asks
whether councils should be required to consider Māori wards and if yes, how often.
11. It is recommended that the
response be yes, every council should consider Māori wards every six years (the same as general
wards). This would ensure that no communities miss out on Māori wards being considered
by their council.
Issue 2 – Timing of
decisions
12. The discussion document asks
whether Māori ward
decision-making should continue to take place in two stages.
13. It is recommended that the two
stages be kept (same as the current law) and that the time between 23 November
and 1 March be used to provide more time for councils to decide about general
wards. This time was previously set aside for the public to demand a poll and
councils could not begin the representation review until after 1 March.
14. The decision to establish
Māori wards is needed prior to undertaking a representation review. It is
a fundamental decision that warrants careful consideration taking into account
the council's obligations to Māori
under the Local Government Act 2002.
15. The decision also impacts on
the representation arrangements available to councils. Knowing in advance that
a Māori ward has been
established or not established gives councils certainty on this aspect of the
representation review and has a direct impact on the options available to
councils.
Issue 3 –
Opportunities for public input
16. The discussion document asks
whether councils should be required to engage with their community when
considering Māori
wards. Currently there is no requirement to consult the public.
17. It is recommended that wider
public consultation is undertaken alongside targeted iwi/hapū
consultation (the same as general wards). This would be consistent with the
decision-making process for all matters considered to be significant and would
enable the council to hear a range of views before making a decision. It is
important that councils are required to consult iwi/hapū as the decision impacts
those of Māori descent
and is a decision made with consideration of the Treaty of Waitangi partnership
responsibilities between iwi/hapū and the council.
18. There is concern that opening
up the matter for wider public consultation could lead to vitriol and racist
sentiment being publicly expressed. This needs to be balanced against the
rights of the public to be able to put their views forward and be heard on any
council decision, including Māori
representation.
Issue 4 –
Decision-making rights and role of Local Government Commission
19. The discussion document asks
what the role of the Local Government Commission (LGC) should be in relation to
Māori wards.
20. It is recommended that the LGC
has no role and people cannot appeal a council’s decision to create/not
to create Māori wards
(the same as the current law).
21. The decision should sit with
the council as it does at present.
Issue 5 –
Discontinuance process and period in force
22. The discussion document asks
what a council should be required to do if it wishes to no longer have Māori wards and how long
decisions to create Māori
wards should stay in place.
23. It is recommended that the
council must consult with its community (the same as general wards) if it
wishes to discontinue Māori
wards.
24. It is also recommended that
the decision to create Māori
wards stays in place until the council decides otherwise, but at least two
election cycles (same as the current law).
Issue 6 – Types of
polls
25. The discussion document asks
whether a council should retain the ability to initiate binding polls on
general wards.
26. It is recommended that the
ability to initiate binding polls on general wards be removed (the same as Māori wards). Councils
may still undertake non-binding polls if they choose.
Further Comments
27. The discussion document asks
for any further comments about how the Māori wards process and general wards process can be brought
closer together.
28. It is recommended that the
following comments be included in the submission to highlight some of the
anomalies of the current legislation around the creation of Māori wards.
29. The formula for establishing
the number of Māori members can result in some councils not being able to
establish a Māori ward. It is recommended that the requirements to
adhere to this formula be reviewed to enable a minimum of one Māori member
for any council who chooses to establish a Māori ward, irrespective of the
formula results.
30. It is also recommended that
the exclusion of "at large" councillors from the formula to establish
a Māori member be removed. This would enable councils to choose an
"at large option" e.g. Tauranga City Council must have six ward
councillors to qualify for one Māori member which prohibits the at large
option.
Options Analysis
31. The
Committee has the option to recommend that the Council:
(a) Make a submission to the DIA
(recommended option)
This option provides for the
Council to participate in the consultation process and express its views.
(b) Not make a submission to the
DIA.
This option would prevent the
Council from putting forward its views.
Financial Considerations
32. There
are no financial considerations in making a submission to the DIA.
Legal Implications / Risks
33. There
are no legal implications or risks in making a submission to the DIA.
Significance
34. 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.
35. 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
matter.
(c) the
capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and
other costs of doing so.
36. In accordance with the
considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered
that the matter is of low significance.
ENGAGEMENT
37. Taking into consideration the
above assessment, that the matter is of low significance, officers are
of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a
decision.
Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy
Next Steps
38. Council considers
recommendation on 23 August and approves submission to be sent to DIA to meet
the deadline of 27 August 2021.
Attachments
1. Submission on
changes to Māori ward and constitency processes - A12706275 ⇩ 
2. Changes to Māori
ward and constituency processes discussion document - Department of Internal
Affairs July 2021 - A12689008 ⇩
|
Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda
|
16 August 2021
|
|
Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee Meeting
Agenda
|
16 August 2021
|
9.7 Submissions
to the Proposed Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development,
the Select Committee Inquiry on the Natural and Built Environments Bill:
Parliamentary Paper, and Proposed Change 5 (Kaituna River) to the Bay of Plenty
Regional Policy Statement.
File
Number: A12729208
Author: Simon
Banks, Project Leader: Urban Planning
Authoriser: Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth
Purpose of the Report
1. To report to the
Committee on the submissions lodged on the Proposed Government Policy Statement
on Housing and Urban Development, the Select Committee Inquiry on the Natural
and Built Environments Bill: Parliamentary Paper, and the Proposed Change 5
(Kaituna River) to the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement.
|
Recommendations
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:
(a) Receives the submission
(Attachment 1) on the Proposed Government Policy Statement on Housing and
Urban Development lodged with Te Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga –
Ministry of Housing and Urban Development on 29 July 2021;
(b) Receives the submission
(Attachment 2) to the Inquiry on the Natural and Built Environments Bill:
Parliamentary Paper lodged with the Environment Select Committee on 4 August
2021; and
(c) Receives the submission
(Attachment 3) on the Proposed Change 5 (Kaituna River) to the Bay of Plenty
Regional Policy Statement lodged with Bay of Plenty Regional Council on 10
August 2021.
|
Discussion
Proposed
Government Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development (GPS-HUD)
2. Te
Tūāpapa Kura Kāinga – Ministry of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) is leading the development of the GPS-HUD, which is intended
to communicate the long-term vision and change needed in housing and urban
development in New Zealand.
3. The discussion
document for the proposed GPS-HUD proposes a vision, outcomes, focus areas,
actions, and ways of working to shape housing and urban development over the
next 30 years. It sets out how Government and others will work together
to make this happen, and shape future government policy, investment, and
programmes of work.
4. As with other high
growth councils around New Zealand, TCC has struggled to respond effectively to
urban development pressures under the current system. A GPS that seeks to align
the wide array of work programmes, policy, and actions across government in
support of achieving housing and urban development outcomes is therefore
welcomed.
5. TCC is largely
supportive of the vision, outcomes, and focus areas – which are by nature
high level and aspirational. However, we have some concerns over the
actions required to deliver these outcomes, and have highlighted a number of
specific matters that we think need to be addressed or focussed on in the final
GPS-HUD, relating to:
(a) Housing and Urban Development Toolkit
for Local Government;
(b) Infrastructure Funding;
(c) Roles and Responsibilities in
the System;
(d) GPS-HUD Direction and Support;
(e) Development Costs and Economic
Feasibility;
(f) Alignment of Policy and
Reform across Government; and
(g) Central Government Agencies
and Investment.
6. A copy of the draft
submission was distributed to the Commissioners on 23 July 2021 for review and
comment. The consultation period closed on 30 July 2021 prior to the
Strategy, Finance, and Risk Committee Meeting on 16 August 2021. As a
result, the submission was finalised by staff and lodged with HUD on 29 July
2021.
7. A copy of the
submission is included as Attachment 1.
Select Committee Inquiry
on the Natural and Built Environments Bill: Parliamentary Paper
8. On 29 July 2021, public
submissions were called for the Select Committee Inquiry on the Natural and
Built Environments Bill: Parliamentary Paper. This inquiry is the first
part of reforming the resource management (RM) system and replacing the Resource
Management Act 1991 (RMA) with three new pieces of legislation.
9. The Parliamentary
Paper includes an “Exposure Draft” of the Natural and Built
Environments Bill (NBA). The process is intended to test and improve the
contents of the Bill before it goes into the formal Parliamentary process.
The exposure draft provides an early look at key aspects of this legislation
including:
(a) the purpose of the NBA
(including Te Tiriti o Waitangi clause) and related provisions;
(b) the National Planning
Framework; and
(c) the Natural and Built
Environments plans.
10. The purpose of the Inquiry is
to provide feedback to the Government on the extent to which the provisions in
the exposure draft of the NBA will support the resource management reform
objectives to:
(a) protect, and where
necessary, restore the natural environment, including its capacity to provide
for the well-being of present and future generations
(b) better enable development
within environmental biophysical limits including a significant improvement in
housing supply, affordability and choice, and timely provision of appropriate
infrastructure, including social infrastructure
(c) give effect to the
principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and provide greater recognition of te ao
Māori, including mātauranga Māori
(d) better prepare for adapting
to climate change and risks from natural hazards, and better mitigate emissions
contributing to climate change
(e) improve system efficiency
and effectiveness, and reduce complexity, while retaining appropriate local democratic
input.
11. The select committee is also
asked to collate a list of ideas (including considering the examples in the
parliamentary paper) for making the new system more efficient, more
proportionate to the scale and/or risks associated with given activities, more
affordable for the end user, and less complex, compared to the current system.
12. TCC supports in principle the Government
objectives for RM reform. We welcome a reformed system that seeks to
better enable development within environmental limits, better prepare for
adaptation to climate change and risks from natural hazards, and to improve
efficiency and reduce complexity.
13. However, based on the proposed
framework set out in the exposure draft (and discussed in the parliamentary
paper), we are concerned that the objectives for reform will not be met and
that existing challenges will be perpetuated. A summary of our key issues
is outlined below:
(a) The proposed system is
unbalanced, focussing primarily on the natural environment and ignoring the
built environment.
(b) The proposed system is
unlikely to improve efficiency and reduce complexity.
(c) The regional framework for
drafting Regional Spatial Strategies and NBA Plans will make it difficult to
resolve significant housing and urban development challenges.
(d) A more developed vison for the
resource management system is required, which we have provided.
(e) Partnership and resourcing of
local government and tangata whenua must be appropriate for the scale of the changes
proposed.
(f) Further detail and
engagement with local government is required to ensure the effectiveness of the
proposed system.
14. The working draft of the key
issues table was discussed with the Commissioners on 20 July 2021, and an
updated draft distributed to Commissioners on 23 July 2021 for review and
comment. The final draft of the submission was distributed to the
Commissioners on 29 July 2021.
15. The submission period closed
on 4 August 2021 prior to the Strategy, Finance, and Risk Committee Meeting on
16 August 2021. As a result, the submission was finalised by staff and
lodged with the Environment Select Committee on 4 August 2021.
16. A copy of the submission,
including an A3 executive summary outlining our developed vision for the RM
system and highlighting our key issues, is included as Attachment 2.
Proposed Change 5
(Kaituna River) to the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement
17. Kaituna He Taonga Tuku Iho
– A Treasure Handed Down (The Kaituna River Document) was a requirement
of the Tapuika Claims Settlement Act 2014.
18. The Kaituna River Document was
prepared by Te Maru o Kaituna River Authority (a co-governance entity of iwi
and council representatives) in consultation with iwi, hapū and the wider
community. The Kaituna River Document’s purpose is to promote the
restoration, protection and enhancement of the environmental, cultural, and
spiritual well-being of the Kaituna River and its tributaries.
19. Bay of Plenty Regional Council
(BOPRC) is required to change the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement (RPS)
to recognise and provide for the vision, objectives and desired outcomes of the
Kaituna River Document to the extent that contents relate to resource
management issues.
20. Proposed Change 5 (Kaituna
River) has been prepared under the RMA and is specific to the Kaituna River and
its tributaries. The proposed change relates to freshwater so it must
follow a new Freshwater Planning Process which is overseen by the Chief
Freshwater Commissioner.
21. TCC has previously provided
feedback on the draft of Proposed Change 5, in October 2020. TCC noted
their support for the Proposed Change and suggested changes to the significant
issues statements, objectives and policies.
22. Our suggested changes reflect
significant projects which in some way will interface with the Kaituna River.
These include the progression of growth planning in Papamoa East, including for
the Te Tumu Urban Growth Area, the implementation of the Waiari Water Supply
Scheme and continued provision for municipal water supply from this catchment
to the communities.
23. As part of the consideration
of the Change to the RPS, we have considered the Objectives and Policies and
whether a submission should be made. TCC’s position is largely
supportive of the proposed change however, we have identified concerns over the
objectives and policies, and have highlighted a number of specific matters that
could be addressed or focussed on to improve clarity and focus. The position
taken is not to oppose these, rather support in part suggesting constructive
changes to improve the objective and policy wording.
24. The working draft of the was
shared with Commissioners on the 6 August 2021 for review and comment.
The final draft of the submission was distributed to the Commissioners on the
10 August 2021, prior to lodgement.
25. The submission period closed
on 10 August 2021 prior to the Strategy, Finance, and Risk Committee Meeting on
16 August 2021. As a result, the submission was finalised by staff and
lodged with BOPRC on 10 August 2021.
26. A copy of the submission is
included as Attachment 3.
Next Steps
Proposed Government
Policy Statement on Housing and Urban Development (GPS-HUD)
27. HUD will use the feedback provided
to help inform the final GPS-HUD. A summary of submissions will be
published alongside the final GPS-HUD before 1 October 2021.
Select Committee Inquiry
on the Natural and Built Environments Bill: Parliamentary Paper
28. The Environment Select Committee
will hear submissions from those parties who wish to speak in support of their
submission. Our tangata whenua partners have requested that submissions are
heard in Tauranga, and we have endorsed and supported this request.
29. After the committee has
considered the public submissions and advice, it will share its findings and
any recommendations in a report to Parliament. The deadline for the
Select Committee to report back to parliament is 18 October 2021.
30. It is anticipated that ongoing
engagement with Ministry for the Environment staff will continue following the
Inquiry, as the bulk of the NBA and the accompanying Strategic Planning Act
(SPA) are drafted. The full Bills for the NBA and SPA are expected to be
introduced to Parliament in early 2022.
Proposed Change 5
(Kaituna River) to the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement
31. The freshwater planning
process (FPP) provisions are set out in Section 80A and Part 4 of Schedule 1 to
the RMA. This process is overseen by the Chief Freshwater Commissioner who has
been appointed by the Minister for the Environment. Regional councils are
required to use this planning process for any change to a regional plan or
regional policy statement if it ‘otherwise relates to freshwater’.
32. Following closure of
submissions, the Chief Freshwater Commissioner will convene a freshwater
hearings panel to hear submissions, report on the hearing, and make
recommendations to the Regional Council. The Regional Council must decide
whether to accept or reject each recommendation and notify the public and those
who made submissions of its decisions. Appeal rights are restricted
compared to the standard plan-making process.
33. It is anticipated that BOPRC
will issue an updated timeline for Proposed Change 5 following the closure of
submissions.
Attachments
1. Submission on
proposed GPS for Housing and Urban Development - A12734229 ⇩ 
2. Submission to
Inquiry on the Natural and Built Environments Bill: Parliamentary Paper -
A12749985 ⇩
3. Submission on
Proposed Change 5 (Kaituna River) to the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy
Statement - COVER LETTER and SUBMISSION - A12771221 ⇩ 
|
Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda
|
16 August 2021
|
|
Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee
Meeting Agenda
|
16 August 2021
|
|
Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee
Meeting Agenda
|
16 August 2021
|
9.8 Infrastructure
Acceleration Fund
File
Number: A12753484
Author: Andy
Mead, Manager: City & Infrastructure Planning
Authoriser: Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth
Purpose of the Report
1. To inform the
Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee of the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund
and to seek direction on applications.
|
Recommendations
That the Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee:
(a) Notes
that Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council
will submit a collective response that contains the individual proposals
supported by the SmartGrowth partner Councils.
(b) Notes
that these Infrastructure Assistance Fund applications from the SmartGrowth
Council Partners are consistent with the agreed Priority Development Areas
and Housing Action Plan.
(c) Delegates
to the Chief Executive and the General Manager: Strategy & Growth
authority to work with the Tauranga City Council Chairperson, Western Bay of
Plenty District Council Mayor, Bay of Plenty Regional Council Chairperson (or
their nominees) to:
(i) Agree
and submit the infrastructure Acceleration Fund Programme Path applications
of Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council and their
relative priorities; and
(ii) Determine
whether approaches from developers and/or Maori with respect to applications
to the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund Project Path will be supported.
|
FUND PURPOSE
2. The
Housing Minister, Hon. Dr Megan Woods announced on 22 June 2021 that at least
$1 billion of grant funding is available under the Infrastructure Acceleration
Fund (IAF). The IAF is designed to allocate funding to new or upgraded
infrastructure (being transport, three waters and flood management
infrastructure) that unlocks housing development in the short to medium-term
and enables a meaningful contribution to housing outcomes in areas of need.
3. Funding
will typically be in the form of grant funding to the relevant Territorial
Authority (or other vehicle), which will own and operate the
infrastructure. Developers and landowners are expected to contribute
their fair share to the costs of the Eligible Infrastructure Projects, and
Territorial Authority contributions are not to be displaced.
4. By increasing the supply of build ready
land, the IAF will help to increase the numbers of homes that can be built,
particularly in locations of high housing demand and with good access to public
transport, jobs, education, and amenities.
5. Infrastructure funding is a significant
constraint in the Tauranga context to delivering sufficient zoned and serviced
development capacity. As such, we welcome the opportunity of the
Infrastructure Acceleration Fund. However, we note that at a national
scale the size of the fund remains insufficient to address existing
infrastructure funding constraints and that more substantial funding tools and
reforms are required to address underlying issues in this area.
PROCESS
OF APPLICATION & assessment criteria
6. The
fund is contestable and territorial authorities, developers and iwi are
eligible to apply.
7. To
be eligible, infrastructure projects must be:
· new
or upgraded infrastructure for:
o transport (including
local roading, state highways, public transport infrastructure, footpaths, and
cycleways),
o three waters (water
supply, wastewater, and stormwater)
o flood-management infrastructure.
· Wholly
or primarily for the purpose of building new or additional houses in the short
to medium term; and which are expected to add 200 additional dwellings in tier
one urban environments like Tauranga (under the National
Policy Statement on Urban Development), 100 additional dwelling in
Tier Two urban environments or 30 additional dwellings elsewhere.
8. There
is a two-stage application process:
· Stage
one – Expressions of Interest (EOI), High level information on the
housing development and the eligible infrastructure projects enabling the
housing development (Proposal).
· Stage
two - following an assessment of the Proposal submitted at the EOI stage
against the evaluation criteria, a reduced number of applicants will be invited
to submit a full proposal in response to a Request for Proposal (RFP).
9. The
RFP stage will involve a two-path approach:
· Programme
Path; for main urban areas where infrastructure investment is more complex and
Urban Growth Partnerships exist; and
· Project
Path; for all other parts of New Zealand, and for all proposals from developers
and Maori (including those in Urban Growth Partnership areas).
10. Tauranga
City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council are required to apply
through the Programme Path. Territorial Authorities applying in the
Programme Path are encouraged to work collectively with each other in preparing
their EOI’s.
11. Kāinga
Ora will evaluate proposals against the evaluation criteria as follows:
a) Housing
outcomes (40%); how will the Proposal, if delivered, contribute to the housing
outcomes that are the purpose of the Infrastructure Fund?
b) Impact
of funding (20%); how critical is this funding to advancing the infrastructure
and housing development?
c) Cost
and co-funding (20%); how cost effective is the Proposal and is everyone paying
their fair share?
d) Capability
and readiness (20%); if funding is approved, how certain is it that the project
will advance, and at what pace?
TIMELINES
AND DECISIONS
12. The key IAF milestones are
outlined in the table below.
|
Step in the IAF process
|
Date
|
|
EOI Invitation released
|
30 June 2021
|
|
Closing date for EOIs
|
5:00pm 18 August 2021
|
|
Applicants notified of outcome (with invitation to
RFP Stage and RFP document provided for successful
Proposals)*
|
15 October 2021
|
|
Debriefs to unsuccessful Applicants (as
requested)
|
Following 15 October 2021
|
|
Closing date for RFP Proposals
|
Late December 2021
|
|
Evaluation and due diligence of RFP Proposals*
|
Early 2022
|
|
Negotiation commences
|
Early 2022
|
|
Funding Agreements and Housing Outcome
Agreements concluded
|
March - October 2022, as and when
agreements are concluded
|
|
Final Ministerial funding decisions sought
|
*Fast-Track Proposals
13. A
fast-track process will be used to accelerate a limited number of Proposals
through the RFP Stage, Negotiation and final funding decision by
Ministers. Following the EOI evaluation period, Kāinga Ora will
engage with each Applicant with a Proposal identified as a fast-track candidate
to undertake the RFP Stage due diligence and negotiate a Funding Agreement and
Housing Outcome Agreement as soon as reasonably possible.
14. Proposals
expedited through the fast-track process are expected to be those where:
· the
quality of the Proposal has already been well validated, such as through previous feasibility analysis by
Government agencies; or
· the
Proposal is straightforward such that the evaluation and due diligence work can
be done very quickly; and
· in
each case, the Proposal scores highly against the Evaluation Criteria.
Evaluation,
Due Diligence, Negotiation & Decision Process
15. The
key steps in the evaluation, due diligence, negotiation and decision process
are:
· Kāinga
Ora evaluates each proposal against the evaluation criteria and undertakes due
diligence.
· For
Programme Path proposals there will likely be a high level of engagement with
the applicant to fully understand and possibly refine proposals.
· Kāinga
Ora Board Committee will:
o decide which proposals
advance to RFP stage;
o provide advice to
Ministers as to which proposals should advance to negotiation and receive IAF
Funding;
o where appropriate,
provide advice to Ministers on broader considerations, in particular those
relating to the balance of the funding package as a whole, to ensure alignment
with the objectives for the IAF. Broader considerations include matters such as
the balance between greenfields and brownfields development, and near- term and
medium-term delivery, construction sector capacity, capacity of the IAF and
regional spread.
SMARTGROWTH
PARTNERSHIP APPROACH TO INFRASTRucture Accelaration FUND
16. The
SmartGrowth Partnership has agreed arrangements for working together to
optimise the opportunity which the IAF offers the sub-region. The
following extracts from the IAF Expression of Interest are relevant:
· Kainga
Ora and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development place-based teams work
with Urban Growth Partnerships. These teams will be looking to build on
and leverage prior work with applicants within those partnerships, with a view
of ensuring that IAF funding is, to the extent possible, aligned with
government investment in infrastructure.
· At
the RFP Stage, Territorial Authorities which fall within
the Programme Path are strongly encouraged to submit a collective response that
contains the individual Proposals supported by that group of Territorial
Authorities. This collective response will also include an indication of
the respective priority of each Proposal.
· In
exceptional circumstances, where collective agreement cannot be reached, an
individual Territorial Authority within the Programme Path is able to submit a
Proposal without collective support. However, it should be noted that this lack
of support will be a relevant factor considered when the Proposal is evaluated
at the RFP Stage.
· Developers
and Māori will proceed on the Project Path at the RFP Stage. They will be
requested to obtain (and evidence) Territorial Authority support (or lack
thereof) and submit this with their RFP Proposal. This reflects that
Territorial Authority support will be a key factor when evaluating Proposals,
and there would need to be very clear justification for advancing an RFP
Proposal to Negotiation without this support.
17. The
SmartGrowth partnership has agreed the Priority Development Areas and the
Housing Action Plan. Given this, it logically flows that the
partnership should continue to collectively support these areas for application
to the IAF. Staff consider that:
· Council
and developer proposals should be consistent with the growth areas identified
as Priority Development Areas or specified in the Housing Action Plan.
· Maori
proposals should deliver on the housing outcomes identified in the Housing
Action Plan.
18. At
this stage TCC has had no approaches from developers looking to make an
application and one approach from Maori landowners. This has been
deferred to the separate process for Maori land for which further information
is expected to be available later in August.
19. Council
staff have identified the following projects for application to the IAF
Programme Path (in no particular order):
· Tauriko
West
· Wairakei
· Te
Papa / Cameron Road intensification
· Omokoroa
· Parau
Farms
20. The
Regional Council Chair, TCC Chair and WBOPDC Mayor have been meeting to discuss
the opportunity of the IAF and how to move forward. At the 26 July
SmartGrowth Leadership Group meeting it was agreed that this group (or their
nominees) would be delegated to:
(a) Agree
the infrastructure Acceleration Fund Programme Path applications of Tauranga
City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council and their relative
priorities; and
(b) Determine
whether approaches from developers and/or Maori with respect to applications to
the Infrastructure Acceleration Fund Project Path will be supported.
21. They
will also consider whether there are relative priorities amongst the five
applications, or whether some are of similar / equal priority.
Summary
of project applications
Te Papa
peninsula intensification
22. This application is targeted at
funding active and public transport and three waters infrastructure necessary
to enable intensification in the Te Papa peninsula. In particular, the
infrastructure to be delivered is focussed on the southern portion of the peninsula:
Merivale and Gata Pa where regeneration of social housing is planned. Key
projects include delivery of Stage 2 of the Cameron Road multi-modal project,
an active transport bridge supporting movement between Merivale and Gate Pa and
extensive stormwater works to removing flooding constraints.
23. We
are preparing this application with input from Accessible Properties Limited
(APL). APL are working jointly with Kainga Ora (and TCC) on housing
opportunities including substantial delivery of social, community and
affordable housing outcomes. Much of the planned development is intended to be
at a higher density than existing housing stock which will be supported by Plan
Change 26 Housing Choice.
24. Without
assistance from the IAF we rely of funding from Waka Kotahi, Infrastructure
Funding & Financing levies and more traditional sources such as rates and
development contributions. There is significant uncertainty around some
of these funding sources. Recognising this uncertainty, we anticipate
applying to the IAF for approximately half of the current cost estimates for
these projects.
Tauriko West
25. This application is targeted at
funding transport access and water supply/wastewater for the proposed
development at Tauriko West to enable development of the first 2,000
homes. This includes two access points from the existing state highway,
water & wastewater mains, wastewater storage and wastewater pump
stations.
26. We
are preparing this application with input from the three largest landowners in
Tauriko West.
27. Given
the uncertain state of funding for this development, we are applying for IAF
funding to cover:
(a) Any
shortfall that may arise in Waka Kotahi funding
(b) The
upfront costs of delivering waters infrastructure for the second stage of
housing development in Tauriko West (which is likely to be some years away once
more significant transport invest occurs) and
(c) Funding
shortfalls anticipated from schools and other activities that cannot be charged
development contributions or infrastructure funding and financing levies.
28. We
currently anticipate development to commence in Tauriko West around 2025.
Wairakei Town Centre
29. This
project is targeted at catalysing development of the Wairakei Town Centre,
including 1,500 medium and high density dwellings in and around the town centre
through delivery of the Papamoa East Interchange and associated transport and
three waters projects.
30. We
have prepared this application with support from the developer that owns the
land.
31. If
successful, this funding will complement a range of possible other funding and
financing mechanisms being investigated currently including the interest free
Housing Infrastructure Fun loans and potential toll funding. If
successful, IAF funding will significantly de-risk the project, especially in
relation to costs allocated to the future Te Tumu urban growth area. Our
application also recognises the current uncertainty of Waka Kotahi and toll
funding for this project and the impact an absence of funding would have on
TCC’s ability to proceed with the project.
Parau Farms
32. This
application is targeted at funding transport access and three waters
infrastructure for the potential development at Parau Farms. This
includes transport access from the existing road network and water supply and
wastewater infrastructure including a pump station.
33. We
are preparing this application alongside the development of a memorandum of
understanding between TCC (as current owner), and a possible developer, and we
are engaging with mana whenua. The principles underpinning this agreement
and its ongoing development have guided our application.
34. We
are applying for IAF funding to cover additional infrastructure costs required
for site development not previously envisaged due to the site being earmarked
for sports field development. High pressure on housing supply in Tauranga
has resulted in TCC reconsidering the best use of this landholding.
35. We
anticipate development of this site will deliver between 500 and 700 housing
unit equivalent by 2029.
36. We
acknowledge that investigations are at an early stage. Engagement has yet
to occur with the community and significant process steps are required such as:
(a) Formal
consultation under the Local Government Act
(b) Public
Works Act land acquisition processes
(c) Rezoning
or consenting processes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
37. The recommendations seek
approval to lodge the applications and progress decision making on applications
to the fund, noting that the applications will be consistent with the Housing
Action Plan and Priority Development Areas.
Next
Steps
38. The next step is to submit our
applications by 18 August.
Attachments
Nil
9.9 2021
Q2 Health & Safety Report
File Number: A12732825
Author: Angelique
Fraser, Health & Safety Change Manager
Tracy Dragovich, Health Safety
& Wellness Design Lead
Authoriser: Susan
Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement
Purpose of the Report
1. To provide a
summary of Health and Safety activities over the April to June 2021 quarter.
|
Recommendations
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:
(a) Receives the 2021 Q2 Health
and Safety Report.
|
Executive Summary
2. This
is a quarterly report provided to the committee, designed to monitor Health and
Safety activities and share learnings.
3. Any
feedback regarding content or topics that the Committee would like is welcomed.
Attachments
1. 2021
Q2 Health & Safety Report - A12732803 ⇩ 
|
Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda
|
16 August 2021
|
9.10 Q4
2020/21 Final Quarter LGOIMA and Privacy Requests
File
Number: A12696916
Author: Kath
Norris, Team Leader: Democracy Services
Authoriser: Coral
Hair, Manager: Democracy Services
Purpose of the Report
1. The
purpose of this report is to update the Committee on Local Government
Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) and Privacy requests as well as the
Commissioners’ queries.
|
Recommendations
That the Strategy,
Finance and Risk Committee:
(a) receives
the report: Q4 2020/21 Final Quarter LGOIMA and Privacy Requests.
|
Discussion LGOIMA and PRIVACY REQUESTS
2. 78
requests were received in Q4, compared with 53 requests received in Q3. This is
an increase of 47% from the previous
quarter.
3. A
total of 310 information requests were received over 2020/21, compared with 285
in 2019/20. This is an increase of 9%. Requests received in 2020/21 are
summarised by type and quarter in Table 1 below.
|
Table
1 – Type of requests received in 2020/21
|
|
Quarter
|
LGOIMA
|
Privacy
|
Both
Acts
|
Totals
|
|
1
|
110
|
7
|
1
|
118
|
|
2
|
56
|
1
|
4
|
61
|
|
3
|
52
|
1
|
0
|
53
|
|
4
|
75
|
3
|
0
|
78
|
|
Totals
|
293
|
12
|
5
|
310
|
4. The
origin of the 310 requests received over 2020/21 (individual, organisation or
media) is summarised by quarter in Table 2 below.
|
Table
2 – Origin of requests received in 2020/21
|
|
Quarter
|
Individual
|
Organisation
|
Media
|
Totals
|
|
1
|
75
|
27
|
16
|
118
|
|
2
|
45
|
9
|
7
|
61
|
|
3
|
35
|
12
|
6
|
53
|
|
4
|
46
|
20
|
12
|
78
|
|
Totals
|
201
|
68
|
41
|
310
|
5. A
breakdown of the business group allocations for requests received in Q4 and in
2020/21 overall is detailed in the pie graphs at the end of this report.
6. 12
requestors made multiple official information requests (two or more) in Q4. Of
these requestors, one made five or more requests. Requests from multiple
requestors comprised 46% of the total requests received in Q4.
7. 34
requestors made multiple official information requests (two or more) in
2020/21. Of these requestors, 12 made five or more requests. Requests from
multiple requestors comprised 60% of the total information requests received in
2020/21.
8. Seven
requests made in Q4 had response times extended, compared with three in Q3.
Extensions were for requests containing an ‘all correspondence’ or
the collation of large amounts of information.
9. In
the 2020/21 financial year 44 requests had their response time extended. 29 of
the 44 extensions were for requests containing an ‘all
correspondence’ question.
10. Two
requests made in Q4 (both LGOIMA) are still to be finalised.
11. We
are unable to compare TCC data across other local government agencies as there
is no national data compiled.
12. Themes among requests received in 2020/21 are
outlined in Table 3 below. For the purpose of this report, a theme is a topic
about which we have received three or more official information requests.
|
Table
3 – Themes among requests received in 2020/21
|
|
Themes
|
No.
|
%
|
|
Amended
response process (one individual)
|
22
|
7%
|
|
Mayor
and Councillor governance issues
|
13
|
4%
|
|
Staff
employment matters (e.g. salary, numbers, contractors)
|
11
|
4%
|
|
Bella
Vista matters
|
8
|
3%
|
|
Kerbside
bin service
|
8
|
3%
|
|
Otamataha
Trust (Dive Crescent and 11 Mission Street)
|
6
|
2%
|
|
TCC
wage subsidy
|
4
|
1%
|
|
13th
Avenue avocado tree removal
|
4
|
1%
|
|
Harington
Street Transport Hub
|
3
|
1%
|
|
TCC
Commissioners (e.g. expenses, appointment, exit plan)
|
3
|
1%
|
13. 330 information requests were responded to
over 2020/21 (some of these requests were received in the previous financial
year), compared with 282 in 2019/20. This is an increase of 17%. 2020/21
responses are summarised by type and by quarter in Table 4 below.
|
Table
4 – Type of requests responded to in 2020/21
|
|
Quarter
|
LGOIMA
|
Privacy
|
Both
Acts
|
Totals
|
|
1
|
100*
|
3
|
0
|
103
|
|
2
|
81
|
5
|
4
|
90
|
|
3
|
46
|
0
|
1
|
47
|
|
4
|
87
|
3
|
0
|
90
|
|
Totals
|
314
|
11
|
5
|
330
|
*Includes 31 LGOIMA carried over from 2019/20 year.
14. The
outcomes of requests responded to in 2020/21 are detailed by quarter in Table 5
below.
|
Table
5 – Outcomes of requests responded to in 2020/21
|
|
Quarter
|
Provided
|
Partially
refused
|
Refused
|
Cancelled
|
Transferred
|
Totals
|
|
1
|
72
|
18
|
9
|
3
|
1
|
103
|
|
2
|
47
|
28
|
13
|
2
|
0
|
90
|
|
3
|
34
|
9
|
3
|
1
|
0
|
47
|
|
4
|
59
|
24
|
3
|
4
|
0
|
90
|
|
Totals
|
212
|
79
|
28
|
10
|
1
|
330
|
15. Common grounds for refusing all or part of a
request are to protect individual privacy, avoid prejudice to commercial
activities, maintain legal privilege or when the requested information does not
exist. If any part of a request is refused it is recorded as ‘partially
refused’. Requests containing an ‘all correspondence’
question are typically ‘partially refused’, as redactions to the
correspondence are often necessary to protect individual privacy.
16. There was a 2% reduction to 96% in Q4
responses made within statutory timeframes, compared with 98% in Q3.
17. In 2020/21 96% of requests were responded to
within statutory timeframes, this did not meet the 98% key performance
indicator. There were 13 responses that were responded to outside the
legislative timeframe. The delays were due to administrative errors in
recording data correctly and timeframes that were underestimated.
18. The outcomes of complaints, in relation to
official information requests, notified to us in 2020/21 by the Offices of the
Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner are summarised by quarter and outcome in
Table 6 below.
|
Table
6 – Outcomes of Ombudsman and Privacy Commission complaints notified in
2020/21
|
|
Quarter
|
LGOIMA
|
privacy
|
Total
|
Resolved
(LGOIMA)
|
Resolved
(privacy)
|
Resolved
(total)
|
|
1
|
4
|
1
|
5
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
|
3
|
4
|
0
|
4
|
4
|
0
|
4
|
|
4
|
4
|
0
|
4
|
3
|
1
|
4
|
|
Totals
|
12
|
2
|
14
|
7
|
2
|
9
|
19. We are awaiting responses from the Office of
the Ombudsman for the five open LGOIMA complaints they have under
consideration. There are no unresolved privacy complaints.
20. Eight of the complaints closed in 2020/21
were closed with no further action required by TCC. One complaint was closed by
staff meeting with the complainant.
21. We continue to proactively publish LGOIMA responses
on the TCC website. Only responses that are of public interest to the community
are uploaded
DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER QUERIES
22. Democracy Services received 3 Commissioner
queries in Q4 compared with 11 in Q3. Overall, 14 were received in 2021/21. One
query from Q4 is still open.
23. Outside of residents contacting the
Commissioners directly via correspondence, queries are managed through the
Commissioners clinics, which provide residents with the opportunity to speak to a commissioner
directly. The clinics are held once a month.
Charts – Q4 and 2020/21 LGOIMA and Privacy Act
requests
Attachments
Nil
9.11 Deep
Dive - Capital Project Delivery
File
Number: A12730710
Author: Chris
Quest, Team Leader: Risk
David Moore, Manager: Capital
Projects Assurance Division
Authoriser: Nic
Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure
Purpose of the Report
1. To
provide the committee an opportunity to gain a fuller understanding of this
area of risk.
|
Recommendations
That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:
(a) Receives the Deep Dive - Capital
Project Delivery report
|
Executive Summary
2. The
purpose of a deep dive is to provide the committee an opportunity to more fully
understand how a particular area of risk is viewed. In particular, it is an
opportunity for the committee to be assured as to management controls and
planned actions to address risk.
3. Officers
directly involved in aspects of managing this risk will present to the
committee.
Background
4. The
organisation has established the Capital Projects Assurance Division (CPAD) to support and enable all project
delivery teams across TCC.
5. In
conjunction with the creation of CPAD, the project delivery function has
transferred to the relevant activity areas e.g. City Waters, Transportation,
Spaces and Places.
6. This
intention of this structure is to allow CPAD to become the centre of excellence
for project delivery at TCC, with accountability for successfully delivering
each project resting with activity areas.
7. The
intention of this deep dive is
(a) To explain the current
understanding of the risk to capital programme delivery
(b) To explain how CPAD and the
activity areas are working together to reduce that risk
(c) To highlight the potential
risks that may constrain or inhibit the delivery of the immediate 2021/22
annual capital works programme and the mitigations being undertaken to reduce
the immediate risk
8. The deep dive will
be presented by risk owners with a slide presentation to be tabled at the
Committee meeting.
Strategic / Statutory Context
9. The
Long Term Plan 2021/31, adopted 26 July 2021, contains the most significant
programme of capital works that TCC has ever embarked upon. The effective
management of the risks to capital programme delivery will be key to delivering
the outcomes to the community.
Significance
10. 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.
11. 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
matter.
(c) the
capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and
other costs of doing so.
12. In
accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the
policy, it is considered that the issue is of high significance, however
the decision proposed in this report is of low significance as it is to
receive an update on a particular work stream
ENGAGEMENT
13. Taking
into consideration the above assessment, that the issue is of high
significance, however the decision proposed in 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
14. Officers will continue to
implement actions to manage the risks to the delivery of the capital programme
as presented to this Committee.
Attachments
Nil
10 Discussion
of late items
11 Public
excluded session
RESOLUTION TO
EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
|
Recommendations
That the public be
excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.
The general subject
matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the
reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the
specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as
follows:
|
General subject of each matter to be
considered
|
Reason for passing this resolution in
relation to each matter
|
Ground(s) under section 48 for the
passing of this resolution
|
|
11.1 - Public Excluded Minutes of the
Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee Meeting held on 28 June 2021
|
s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information
is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of
confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide
under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the
information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest
s7(2)(e) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to avoid prejudice to measures that prevent or mitigate material
loss to members of the public
s7(2)(j) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for
improper gain or improper advantage
|
s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant
part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the
disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist
under section 6 or section 7
|
|
11.2 - Corporate Risk Register -
Quarterly Update
|
s7(2)(b)(i) - The withholding of the information
is necessary to protect information where the making available of the
information would disclose a trade secret
s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information
is necessary to protect information where the making available of the
information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial
position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the
information
s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or
disadvantage, commercial activities
s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
|
s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant
part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the
disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist
under section 6 or section 7
|
|
11.3 - Internal Audit Report -
Quarterly Update
|
s6(b) - The making available of the information
would be likely to endanger the safety of any person
s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary
to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased
natural persons
s7(2)(d) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of
members of the public
s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to maintain legal professional privilege
s7(2)(j) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for
improper gain or improper advantage
|
s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant
part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the
disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist
under section 6 or section 7
|
|
11.4 - Litigation Report
|
s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of
deceased natural persons
s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to maintain legal professional privilege
s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage,
negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)
|
s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant
part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the
disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist
under section 6 or section 7
|
|
12 Closing
Karakia
