|
|
|
AGENDA
Ordinary Council meeting
Monday, 13 September 2021
|
|
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of
Council will be held on:
|
|
Date:
|
Monday, 13 September
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
|
Membership
|
Chairperson
|
Commission Chair Anne Tolley
|
|
Members
|
|
|
Quorum
|
Half of the members physically present, where the
number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority
of the members physically present, where the number of members (including
vacancies) is odd.
|
|
Meeting
frequency
|
As required
|
Role
·
To ensure the effective and
efficient governance of the City
·
To enable leadership of the City
including advocacy and facilitation on behalf of the community.
Scope
·
Oversee the work of all
committees and subcommittees.
·
Exercise all non-delegable and
non-delegated functions and powers of the Council.
·
The powers Council is legally prohibited from delegating include:
o Power to make a
rate.
o Power to make a
bylaw.
o Power to borrow
money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the
long-term plan.
o Power to adopt
a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report
o Power to
appoint a chief executive.
o Power to adopt
policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act
2002 in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the
local governance statement.
o All final
decisions required to be made by resolution of the territorial
authority/Council pursuant to relevant legislation (for example: the approval
of the City Plan or City Plan changes as per section 34A Resource Management
Act 1991).
·
Council has chosen not to delegate the following:
o Power to
compulsorily acquire land under the Public Works Act 1981.
·
Make those decisions which are required by legislation to be made
by resolution of the local authority.
·
Authorise all expenditure not delegated to officers, Committees
or other subordinate decision-making bodies of Council.
·
Make appointments of members to the CCO Boards of
Directors/Trustees and representatives of Council to external organisations.
·
Consider any matters referred from any of the Standing or Special
Committees, Joint Committees, Chief Executive or General Managers.
Procedural matters
·
Delegation of Council powers to Council’s committees and
other subordinate decision-making bodies.
·
Adoption of Standing Orders.
·
Receipt of Joint Committee minutes.
·
Approval of Special Orders.
·
Employment of Chief Executive.
·
Other Delegations of Council’s powers, duties and
responsibilities.
Regulatory matters
Administration,
monitoring and enforcement of all regulatory matters that have not otherwise
been delegated or that are referred to Council for determination (by a
committee, subordinate decision-making body, Chief Executive or relevant
General Manager).
7 Confirmation
of Minutes
7.1 Minutes
of the Council meeting held on 30 August 2021
File
Number: A12872347
Author: Jenny
Teeuwen, Committee Advisor
Authoriser: Robyn
Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support
|
Recommendations
That the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 30 August
2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.
|
Attachments
1. Minutes of the Council
meeting held on 30 August 2021
|
 Ordinary
Council meeting Minutes
|
30 August 2021
|
|
|
|
MINUTES
Ordinary Council meeting
Monday, 30 August 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 the
order of business. 3
7 Confirmation of
Minutes. 4
7.1 Minutes
of the Council meeting held on 2 August 2021. 4
8 Declaration of
conflicts of interest 4
9 Deputations,
Presentations, Petitions. 4
Nil
10 Recommendations from Other
Committees. 4
Nil
11 Business. 4
11.1 Executive
Report 4
11.2 Amendments
to the Airport Bylaw 2016. 7
11.3 Temporary
Road Closure Report - Annual Events 2021 2022. 7
11.4 City
Vision Update. 8
11.5 Representation
Review - public feedback and adoption of Initial Proposal 9
12 Discussion of Late Items. 13
13 Public excluded session. 13
13.1 Public
Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 2 August 2021. 13
13.2 Tauranga
Women’s Refuge – lease of property. 14
13.3 Appointment
of hearings panel for Plan Changes 26, 27, 30. 14
13.4 Request
for Additional Leased Parking Spaces – 2 Devonport Road. 14
13.5 Approval
to award Cameron Road construction contract 14
14 Closing Karakia. 14
MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council
Ordinary Council
meeting
HELD AT THE Tauranga
City Council, By video conference
ON Monday, 30
August 2021 AT 10.30am
PRESENT: Commission
Chair Anne Tolley, Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston, Commissioner Stephen
Selwood and Commissioner Bill Wasley
IN
ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul
Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General
Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People
& Engagement), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine
Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Gareth Wallis (General Manager:
Community Services), Angela Pointon (Community Relations Advisor), Coral Hair
(Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support) and
Jenny Teeuwen (Committee Advisor)
Commission Chair Anne Tolley commented that the meeting was
being conducted remotely due to COVID level four restrictions. She
thanked staff, particularly those who were deemed essential and were carrying
on essential works for their community, and also the rest of the staff who were
working from home. She also thanked all essential workers in the community
in all their various guises that were carrying on to make sure that essential
services were taking place.
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 the order of business
Nil
7 Confirmation
of Minutes
8 Declaration
of conflicts of interest
Nil
9 Deputations,
Presentations, Petitions
Nil
10 Recommendations
from Other Committees
Nil
11 Business
|
11.1 Executive Report
|
|
Staff Marty
Grenfell, Chief Executive
Paul Davidson, General Manager:
Corporate Services
Barbara Dempsey, General Manager:
Regulatory & Compliance
Susan Jamieson, General Manager:
People & Engagement
Nic Johansson, General Manager:
Infrastructure Services
Christine Jones, General Manager:
Strategy & Growth
Gareth Wallis, General Manager:
Community Services
Chief Executive Marty Grenfell reiterated the earlier
comments of the Commission Chair and thanked staff for the remarkable way
that they had responded to the COVID lockdown to ensure council services and
business continued.
Key
points
·
Community Services
-
The Arts and Culture team were preparing for the Arts Festival
which would hopefully still go ahead in October.
-
A review of the four Mainstreet organisations was currently
underway.
-
A new Chief Executive had been appointed to Tourism Bay of
Plenty.
-
The new Bay Venues Ltd Board were interviewing for a new Chief
Executive this week.
-
Planning was underway for a temporary library location from
early next year when the Willow Street campus would be closed down.
-
Work on Kulim Park had been delayed but it was hoped to still
be completed and open prior to Christmas.
-
Elizabeth Street was progressing as planned. Workers
would make the most of quiet CBD conditions under level three. The
Farmers retail offering was on track to be opened by Labour weekend.
-
The AIMS games had been cancelled for the second year in a row
due to COVID.
·
Infrastructure Services
-
The Water and Wastewater teams were commended for continuing to
work through COVID level four restrictions.
-
Due to COVID restrictions, the start date for the Cameron Road
street works was pushed out to 13 September. Works could not be started
under essential work criteria and definitions for COVID this time around.
-
Tenders for the road maintenance contracts would close on 13
September. Negotiations would be undertaken through September and
October with contracts awarded by 1 November. Commencement dates for
the contracts would be 1 December or early December.
-
The Street Design Toolkit was launched last month and would
give guidance for street design, from strategy through to implementation.
·
People and Engagement
-
There would be an ongoing Service Centre presence in the
Papamoa library for two days a week beginning in September 2021.
-
Recruiting for the new Community Relations roles was nearly
concluded with only two roles still to fill.
-
A Māori Language Strategy, Te Koruru, had been developed
to provide guidance for the best practice use of Te Reo Māori
in Tauranga City Council’s (TCC)
communications and documentation.
-
A snap survey on how staff were coping during lockdown was
currently being undertaken.
·
Regulatory & Compliance
-
The number of building consents received during June and July
had added pressure to the Building Services and Environmental Planning
teams. Overtime was being offered to all staff and contractors, where
possible, to ensure consents were delivered as soon as possible.
International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ) had confirmed that its
assessment would take place mid-September and it was concerning that
percentages for building consents would be dropping during this time due to
consent numbers and resourcing issues.
·
Corporate Services
-
The four significant pieces of work being undertaken at the
Marine Precinct – wharf development, marine facility strategy, spatial
planning, and ownership options – were progressing well and would
continue to be progressed though COVID.
-
The Holiday Park and Airport had been performing well prior to
the lockdown.
-
Digital Services continued to keep the business running in
spite of supply issues due to COVID.
-
The Finance team were working through the audit process with
Audit New Zealand. This work was continuing remotely during the
lockdown.
·
Strategy and Growth
-
The report included key sustainability initiatives that were
underway.
-
The Chief Executive Forum of SmartGrowth was working on the
development of a streamlined priority development area reporting template
which would provide a ‘glance on a page’ for each priority
development growth area. This work would be presented at the 17
September SmartGrowth Leadership meeting.
In
response to questions
·
Community Services
-
The ‘HeretoHelpU’ service would be in action during
lockdown. It had been developed by the Wise Group during the last
lockdown and was a one stop shop for those that needed help in times like
COVID. It had been launched a week ago and had already had significant
pick up.
-
The first master planning session for Blake Park had occurred
prior to lockdown and work would continue during lockdown. Not being
able to meet in person would not hold the project up.
-
The Historic Collection staff and the volunteers working in
that space were commended for their work, in particular the digitising and
recording of taonga that had come in via the community. It was hoped
that some of the taonga could be displayed in the new temporary library
space.
-
An update on what was happening at Tye Park would be provided
to Commissioners.
-
Dive Crescent - The refurbishment of the cargo shed was still
planned to be completed prior to Christmas; however, earthquake strengthening
seismic issues with the structure could influence whether or not this would
happen. The old wharf would be resurfaced and be available for
use. The building close to Trinity Wharf between the railway line and
the road was planned to be demolished.
·
Infrastructure Services
-
Work on the Cameron Road and Waiāri projects could
continue under level three COVID restrictions.
-
Auckland remaining at COVID level four for at least another two
weeks would have a compounding effect on supply chain costs and risks already
outlined in the report.
-
Suppliers across the city would continue to undertake critical
roading maintenance work until contracts were awarded and commenced in
December.
-
TCC’s new contract model, which brought more control of
the process and decision making in house, was expected to address the recent
issues with road re-sealing.
-
The Street Design Toolkit would take into account the views of
those living in streets being built for the future, especially in terms of
greater density.
·
People and Engagement
-
The Papamoa Ratepayers Association and the local MP would be
advised of the service centre initiative commencing in the Papamoa Library in
September.
-
It was pleasing to see that positive media coverage was on the
increase.
-
The partnership focus and direction between Council and tangata
whenua, especially in terms of strategic decision making through the Local
Government Act 2002 (LGA), the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and the
Three Waters reform, was strongly encouraged by the Commissioners.
-
The 70% response rate to date of the snap staff survey showed
that staff were engaged and happy to share how things were going for them
during lockdown.
·
Regulatory & Compliance
-
Tsunami preparedness would be city-wide but with a strong focus
on Mount Maunganui and Papamoa coastal areas.
-
The environment incidents graph referred to general complaints
and incidents for work that was being undertaken that was not in accordance
with the city plan. The upwards trend over the past six to eight months
meant that, with no change in staff levels, it was challenging to get through
the schedule for resource consents.
-
‘R3’ building inspection referred to the third
level of residential applications. There were three levels with level
three having the highest level of complexity for design and building.
-
It was acknowledged that the increase in the number of building
consents could, in part, be as a result of the proposed increase in
fees. There was reluctance from the industry to re-timing applications
or putting applications on hold.
-
In terms of emergency management planning for natural
disasters, the individual business plans for the Port and Industrial area and
their emergency management responses needed to be understood to then work out
what effect this could have on the wider community.
·
Corporate Services
-
The Marine Precinct spatial plan would be completed by the end
of the calendar year.
-
The SAP platform could provide a high level analysis and
insight for community surveys that was not skewed by a particular view or age
or gender. It was more about how the questions were delivered rather
than the technology in the background.
·
Strategy and Growth
-
The Energy Advisor position to help the Council and Bay Venues
deliver 2GWh energy savings across the portfolios was for a two-year fixed
term. It was expected that the role would identify opportunities and
have these embedded within the two years.
-
The new direction of the environment strategy being more action
focussed was acknowledged and commended.
|
|
Resolution CO16/21/2
Moved: Commissioner Bill
Wasley
Seconded: Commissioner
Stephen Selwood
That the Council:
(a) Receives
the Executive Report.
(b) Rescinds
the recommendation from 21 August 2018 in regard to the need to demolish the
building located at 10 Dive Crescent, and enters into a five-year lease with
Fixation Coffee Ltd, subject to a six-month redevelopment clause.
(c) Approves the appointment of Barbara
Dempsey as Council’s Emergency Management Recovery Manager.
Carried
|
|
11.2 Amendments to the
Airport Bylaw 2016
|
|
Staff Paul
Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services
|
|
Resolution CO16/21/3
Moved: Commissioner Bill
Wasley
Seconded: Commissioner
Stephen Selwood
That the Council:
a) Approves
the following amendments to the Airport Bylaw 2016
(i) Addition
of clause 7.9.2 allowing for recovery of costs for removing a vehicle in
breach of the Bylaw provisions;
(ii) Addition
of clause 7.9.3 noting that appropriate care must be taken when removing and
storing a towed vehicle but Council is not liable for any loss or damage
(except if the result of negligence);
(iii) Addition
of “small passenger vehicles” to clause 7.5.1 to provide for a
designated stopping area for small passenger vehicles; and
(iv) Addition
of “vaping” to the provisions in clause 9.1 prohibiting smoking.
b) Notes the minor and
consequential changes to the Airport Bylaw 2016 outlined in paragraphs 13 to
17 of this report.
Carried
|
|
11.3 Temporary Road Closure
Report - Annual Events 2021 2022
|
|
Staff Nic
Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure Services
Gareth Wallis, General Manager:
Community Services
|
|
Resolution
CO16/21/4
Moved: Commissioner
Stephen Selwood
Seconded: Commissioner
Shadrach Rolleston
That the Council:
(a) Receives
the report of Temporary Road Closures for Annual Events 2021-2022.
(b) Pursuant to Clause 11(e) of the
Tenth Schedule of the Local Government Act 1974, grants approval to close the
roads and car parks listed on Attachment A to ordinary vehicular traffic on
the dates and during the hours stated for the purposes of facilitating safe
and successful operations during the following events in Tauranga.
Carried
|
|
11.4 City Vision Update
|
|
Staff Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy and Growth
Angela Pointon, Community Relations
Advisor
The staff presentation for
this item was included in the livestream for this council meeting and can be
viewed at the following link at the time 1:14:22:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=jBLswRpqK2Q
At
11.53am. the meeting adjourned.
At 12pm,
the meeting resumed.
In
response to questions
·
The work undertaken to date had encapsulated the thinking of
the Commission and their desire to involve the community so that they had
ownership.
·
The work had also built on, and was linked to, work that was
already in place, in particular SmartGrowth, the Urban Form and Transport
Initiative (UFTI), the Transport System Plan (TSP) and the National Policy
Statement for Urban Development (NPS-UD). Gaps identified through the
sustainability stocktake around transport, housing areas and climate change,
would also become key aspects to work on through the vision and strategy
refresh.
·
Steps one to nine of the process and approach would be reviewed
and refreshed after the completion of each step to take into account any
issues highlighted or feedback received through the process.
|
|
Resolution CO16/21/5
Moved: Commissioner
Stephen Selwood
Seconded: Commissioner
Shadrach Rolleston
That the Council:
(a) Notes that the City Vision
project aims to be delivered by December 2021; and
(b) Approves the concept design
and the proposed method for the City Vision Project.
Carried
|
|
11.5 Representation Review -
public feedback and adoption of Initial Proposal
|
|
Staff Coral
Hair, Manager: Democracy Services
Key
points
·
Four options had been offered in the pre-engagement with the
community.
·
825 survey responses had been received.
·
The survey respondents were not a demographically
representative sample of the city’s population.
·
The survey results, legislative requirements, and the issues
and concerns raised by the Review and Observer Team needed to be considered
in decision-making.
·
Survey results showed Option Two as the most preferred option
– one general ward with nine councillors, one Māori ward
councillor from one Māori ward, plus a mayor.
·
74% of respondents preferred 10 councillors or less.
·
46% of respondents were against community boards, 38% in
favour, and 16% unsure.
·
The naming of the Māori ward would be gifted by Te
Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana via the submission process.
·
Feedback on the names of wards would be part of the submission
process.
·
As well as the previous four options, two new options were
presented – 4A and 4B:
-
4A – eight councillors from eight general wards, one
councillor from one Maori ward (nine councillors) plus a mayor (10 elected
members).
-
4B – nine councillors from nine general wards, one
councillor from one Māori ward (ten councillors), plus a Mayor (11
elected members). This option was non-complying for the Mauao, Arataki
and Papamoa wards and would need to go to the Local Government Commission for
their determination.
·
Next steps:
-
3 September to 4 October 2021 – public submission period.
-
18 October 2021 – Council meeting to hear public
submissions.
-
8 November 2021 – Council meeting to deliberate on public
submissions and resolve final proposal.
-
12 November 2021 – public notice of final proposal and
appeal/objection period for a month.
-
13 December 2021 – appeal/objection period ends and any
appeals and objections are sent to the Local Government Commission by 15
December 2021.
-
Final decision by April next year.
In
response to questions and discussion points raised
·
Although the low number of submissions received could not be
ignored, care was needed for decision-making as they could not be taken as
representative of the whole city.
·
The numbers for the drop-in sessions were low - four at
Greerton, ten at Papamoa and twelve at Willow Street.
·
As all expenses in local body elections were borne by
candidates, standing for election and campaigning in one ward across the
whole city would be very expensive and this option would likely reduce the
number of candidates able to stand.
·
There was the risk that ward councillors could misunderstand
their role as a councillor, which was to make decisions on behalf of the
whole city, and tend to take the view and voice of the ward they represented
when making decisions.
·
The desire not to increase the number of councillors was very
clear.
·
The Commissioners preferred option 4A for the following
reasons:
-
The most fair and equitable option, particularly for Māori
- all electors, whether on the general roll or on the Māori roll, would
vote for one councillor and the mayor.
-
Provided a better representation across the city with each ward
being similar in terms of population representation.
-
There was significant passion and positive work happening in
communities that needed and deserved expression in terms of representation at
the council table.
-
Placed the mayoral position very strongly in a leadership role.
-
Better enabled a smaller council.
-
There would be no need for community boards with multiple
communities represented through this option.
-
It was a complying proposal.
-
More equitable in terms of the cost to stand.
-
Put everybody in the same boat and treated the same way.
|
|
Resolution CO16/21/6
Moved: Commissioner
Stephen Selwood
Seconded: Commissioner
Shadrach Rolleston
That the Council:
(a) Receives the report
“Representation Review – Public Feedback and Adoption of Initial
Proposal”; and
(b)
Having reviewed its representation arrangements in accordance with
sections 19H and 19J of the Local Electoral Act 2001, determines that the
following proposal applies for the Tauranga City Council for the elections to
be held on 8 October 2022:
(i)
The Tauranga City Council shall comprise a Mayor and nine councillors.
(ii)
Eight of the proposed members of the Tauranga City Council are to be
separately elected by the electors of eight general wards and one member is
to be separately elected by the electors of one Māori ward. The Mayor
will be elected at large by all the electors of Tauranga City.
(iii)
Notes that the proposed name of the Māori ward will be gifted by
Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana through the submission process
on the Initial Proposal.
(iv)
The proposed names of the wards, the number of members to be elected
by the electors of each ward, and the population each member will represent
are set out in the table below together with the compliance with the fairness
population rule for the general wards.
|
Ward Name
|
Number of
Members to be elected
|
Population
Per Member
|
+/- 10%
|
|
Māori ward
|
1
|
15,300
|
N/A
|
|
Mauao/Mount Maunganui
|
1
|
16,500
|
-3.26
|
|
Arataki
|
1
|
17,150
|
0.55
|
|
Pāpāmoa
|
1
|
16,850
|
-1.21
|
|
Welcome Bay
|
1
|
18,000
|
5.53
|
|
Matua
|
1
|
18,050
|
5.83
|
|
Bethlehem
|
1
|
17,550
|
2.89
|
|
Te Papa
|
1
|
16,400
|
-3.85
|
|
Tauriko
|
1
|
15,950
|
-6.49
|
|
Total
|
9
|
|
|
(v)
In accordance with section 19V(2) of the Local Electoral Act 2001, the
population that each member of a general ward represents is within the range
of 17,056 +/- 10% (15,350 to 18,762).
(vi)
The proposed boundaries of each ward are those set out in the map
below.
(vii) That
in accordance with sections 19H, 19K and 19T of the Local Electoral Act 2001,
the wards reflect the following identified communities of interest:
|
Ward Name
|
Description
of communities of interest
|
|
Māori
ward
|
This ward reflects the community of interest for Māori electors and those
in the Māori community.
|
|
Mauao/Mount Maunganui
|
This ward includes Mount Maunganui, Omanu,
Bayfair and Matapihi. It forms part of the
coastal strip and recognises the unique feature of Mauao which is an
important cultural, historic and geographical feature. This ward has a
focus on leisure and tourism, faces increased tsunami risk, sea level rise
and coastal hazards due to its location. Improved transportation links to
the City via state highways are of importance to residents.
|
|
Arataki
|
This ward includes Arataki, Te Maunga,
Palm Beach and Kairua. It forms part of
the coastal strip. Like the Mauao/Mount Maunganui ward, the
residents have strong links to the unique feature of Mauao and the ward has
a focus on leisure and tourism, faces increased tsunami risk, sea level
rise and coastal hazards due to its location. Improved transportation links
to the City via state highways are of importance to residents.
|
|
Pāpāmoa
|
This ward includes Pāpāmoa, Golden
Sands, Wairakei and Te Tumu. This coastal strip area will continue
to have accelerating population growth. In the next 10 years an
estimated 2-3,000 new homes will be built in the areas already zoned for
housing and 7-8,000 homes once Te Tumu is zoned for housing. It also faces
increased tsunami risk, sea level rise and coastal hazards due to its
location. Improved transportation links to the City as well as the
construction of a direct link to the Tauranga Eastern Link via the
Pāpāmoa East Interchange are of importance to residents.
|
|
Welcome Bay
|
This ward includes Welcome Bay,
Maungatapu, Kaitemako, Poike and Ohauiti. These areas have a
reliance on services and facilities located in other suburbs and
transportation to the city centre is an important issue for local
residents. More rural based residents have specific needs related to
rural living.
|
|
Matua
|
This ward includes Matua, Otumoetai, Bellevue and
Brookfield. With a large population living close to the city centre, the
residents of this ward are impacted by the increase of infill housing, are
interested in safer transport options and the development of community
facilities.
|
|
Bethlehem
|
This ward includes includes Bethlehem and
Judea. With a large population living close to the city centre, the
residents of this ward are impacted by the increase of infill housing, are
interested in safer transport options and the development of community
facilities.
|
|
Te Papa
|
This ward includes Te Papa Peninsula,
Sulphur Point, CBD, Fraser Cove, Tauranga South, Merivale, Yatton Park and
Greerton (north of Chadwick Road). The Te Papa Spatial Plan, with
its focus on increased density and city-living type housing, is estimated
to increase the number of residents on the Te Papa Peninsula by 15,000 by
2050. The Cameron Road redevelopment project with improved passenger services
and transport choices will have a major impact on residents. The
development of community facilities, spaces and places and the inner-city
revitalisation are of importance to residents.
|
|
Tauriko
|
This ward includes Pyes Pa, Hairini, Oropi,
Gate Pa, Greerton (south of Chadwick Road), The Lakes and Tauriko.
The expansion of the city to the west has seen boundary changes with
Western Bay to facilitate the development of business, industry and
residential growth. It is estimated in the next 10 years that 3-4,000 new
homes will be built, improvements will be made to SH29 and connections to
it, and an additional 100-150 hectares of business land will be provided
creating an additional 2,000 jobs. This ward includes rural based residents
that have specific needs related to rural living.
|
(viii) That no
community boards be established.
(c)
That in accordance with section 19K of the Local Electoral Act 2021,
the reason for the proposed changes are:
(i)
This proposal recognises the distinct communities of interest in the
City based on geographical areas and provides for fair and effective
representation of those communities of interest.
(ii)
This proposal is seen as more equitable as both general and Māori
electors vote for one councillor.
(iii)
This proposal has a more even distribution of electors per councillor
for the general wards than other options.
(iv)
This proposal has the potential for a more efficient governance model
with a reduction in the number of councillors from ten to nine.
(v)
This proposal is more easily understood than other representation
arrangements and has a direct relationship between electors and the ward
councillor.
(vi)
This has the potential for less costs for candidates standing in
general wards.
(vii)
This proposal may address the concerns and issues raised by the Review
and Observer Team.
(viii)
This proposal provides the Mayor with a clear leadership role across
the city as elected at large.
(d)
As required by sections 19T and 19W of the Local Electoral Act 2001,
the boundaries of the nine wards coincide with the current statistical
meshblock areas determined by Statistics New Zealand.
(e) In accordance with section
19M of the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Council will give public notice of
this proposal on 3 September 2021 (within 14 days of the resolution being
made and before 8 September 2021) and that interested people can make
submissions on this proposal until 4 October 2021.
(f) Approves changes to the
timeline for the representation review with the Council hearing submissions
on 18 October 2021 and deliberating on submissions and adopting a Final
Proposal on 8 November 2021.
Carried
|
12 Discussion
of Late Items
Nil
13 Public
excluded session
RESOLUTION TO
EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
|
Resolution CO16/21/7
Moved: Commissioner Bill
Wasley
Seconded: Commissioner
Stephen Selwood
That:
(a) the public be excluded from
the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.
(b) Hazel Hape, Tauranga
Women’s Refuge, be permitted to enter the meeting for the discussion of
item 13.2, because of her knowledge of the item.
The general subject
matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the
reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the
specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official
Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as
follows:
|
General subject of each matter to be
considered
|
Reason for passing this resolution in
relation to each matter
|
Ground(s) under section 48 for the
passing of this resolution
|
|
13.1 – Public Excluded Minutes
of the Council meeting held on 2 August 2021
|
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)(h) – The withholding of the
information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice
or disadvantage, commercial activities.
|
s48(1)(a) – the public conduct of the
relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result
in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding
would exist under section 6 or section 7
|
|
13.2 – Tauranga Women’s
Refuge – lease of property
|
s6(b) – The making available of the
information would be likely to endanger the safety of any person.
|
s48(1)(a) – the public conduct of the
relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result
in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding
would exist under section 6 or section 7.
|
|
13.3 – Appointment of hearings
panel for Plan Changes 26, 27, 30
|
s7(2)(a) – The withholding of the
information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons,
including that of deceased natural persons.
|
s48(1)(a) – the public conduct of the
relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result
in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding
would exist under section 6 or section 7.
|
|
13.4 – Request for Additional
Leased Parking Spaces – 2 Devonport Road
|
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.
|
|
13.5 – Approval to award Cameron
Road construction contract
|
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.
|
s48(1)(a) – the public conduct of the
relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result
in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding
would exist under section 6 or section 7.
|
Carried
|
At 12.40pm, the meeting adjourned.
At 1.15pm, the meeting resumed in the Public Excluded session.
At 2.05pm
the meeting resumed in the open session.
14 Closing
Karakia
Commissioner
Shadrach Rolleston closed the meeting with a Karakia.
The meeting closed at 2.06pm.
The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and
correct record at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 13 September 2021.
.....................................................................
CHAIRPERSON
11 Business
11.1 Deliberations
on the draft Tauranga City Council Acquisitions and Disposals Policy
File
Number: A12667479
Author: Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth
Authoriser: Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth
Purpose of the Report
1. To
deliberate on and then adopt the Property Acquisitions and Disposals Policy.
|
Recommendations
That the Council:
(a) Adopts
the Property Acquisitions and Disposals Policy with:
(i) Proposed
amendments in red contained in Attachment 1; and
(ii) Inclusion
of the ‘atypical’ property category as highlighted in orange in
Attachment 1; or
Exclusion of the
‘atypical’ property category as highlighted in orange in
Attachment 1;
(b) Revokes
the following policies:
(i) Council
Land: Recognition of Tangata Whenua Interests and Aspirations Policy
(ii) Property
Acquisition and Divestment Road Stopping Policy
(iii) Strategic
Acquisitions Fund Policy
(c) Requests
staff undertake further work to determine if leases and/or easements could or
should be included in a future version of the policy.
|
Executive Summary
2. This
report seeks to deliberate on submissions on the draft Property Acquisitions
and Disposals Policy (the Policy) and adopt the Policy (Attachment 1).
3. A
single Property Acquisitions and Disposals Policy (the policy) is proposed,
incorporating the substance of three existing policies. If the policy is
adopted, the following policies will be revoked:
· Council
Land: Recognition of Tangata Whenua Interests and Aspirations Policy
· Property
Acquisition and Divestment Road Stopping Policy
· Strategic
Acquisitions Fund (SAF) Policy
4. The
proposed policy provides clear principles regarding the management and purpose
of Council’s property acquisitions and disposals.
5. If
adopted, this policy will guide the delivery of Council’s acquisitions
and disposals, which is a key part of ensuring that Council plans for and
provides affordable fit-for-purpose services and enhances the quality of life
for current and future residents.
6. The
policy also aims to recognise the close association that Mana Whenua has with the
land in Tauranga Moana. The proposed policy provides Mana Whenua with a right
of first refusal for the purchase of surplus property, suitable for disposal.
Background
7. The
Strategy and Policy Committee at their 9 May 2016 meeting resolved to leave the
reviewed Council Land: Recognition of Tangata Whenua Interests and Aspirations
Policy on the table. This policy was again placed on the Policy
Prioritisation in 2017. Through this ongoing review it was considered
beneficial to consider the way in which Council acquires and disposes of
property and to consolidate relevant policies to ensure transparency. The
Property Acquisition and Divestment Road Stopping Policy and Strategic
Acquisitions Fund Policy were therefore included in the review.
8. Council
recognises the close association that Mana Whenua has with the land in Tauranga
Moana. The proposed policy provides Mana Whenua with a right of first refusal
for surplus property, suitable for disposal on the open market, which has been
approved by Council for disposal. The proposed policy excludes strategic
disposals and road stopping from the right of first refusal process.
9. The
concept of right of first refusal was raised by the Tangata Whenua Collective
(now, Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana Partnership) (Te Rangapū)
with Council in 2015 and would recognise the role that Mana Whenua has in
building, protecting and celebrating Tauranga, its environment and its people.
10. Throughout
the 2018-2020 period, Councillors and Te Rangapū engaged in several hui to
understand each other’s aspirations and considerations, and to engage
directly on the opportunities and concerns which might arise in a right of
first refusal process. These conversations have informed the drafting of
the policy and right of first refusal flow chart.
11. The
Strategic Acquisitions Fund Policy was originally adopted by Council on 22 May
2018 with the substance of that policy now included in the proposed
policy.
12. The
Property Acquisition and Divestment Road Stopping Policy was originally adopted
by Council on 18 May 1998. The policy has been updated and included in the
proposed policy.
13. Council
on 1 December 2020 adopted the draft Acquisitions and Disposals Policy for
consultation.
14. Public
submissions on the proposed policy were sought from 15 March 2021 to 15 April
2021. Two drop-in sessions were held, the first on 7 April 2021 and the second
on 15 April 2021.
15. A total of 104 submissions were
received. Hearings took place on 31 May 2021 with 11 submitters speaking.
Strategic / Statutory Context
16. If
adopted, this policy will guide the delivery of Council’s property
acquisitions and disposals, which is a key part of ensuring that Council plans
for and provides affordable fit-for-purpose services and enhances the quality
of life for current and future residents.
17. A
right of first refusal would recognise Council’s ongoing commitment to
working with Mana Whenua and the significant relationship Mana Whenua of
Tauranga Moana have with the land.
ISSUES Analysis
18. From the submissions the following
issues and concerns were raised:
(a) Confusion
regarding terminology
(b) The
inclusion of leases/easements in the policy
(c) Who
makes the decision whether land considered for disposal is strategic or surplus
(d) Whether
market value can be established by way of valuation assessment from a
registered valuer
(e) Concerns
over the proposed right of first refusal
(f) Offering surplus property back to iwi/hapu after an open market
process
minor amendments to the policy
19. When
reviewing the submissions there was some concern regarding the terminology used
in the policy. We have proposed changes to the policy to assist in the
readability of the policy. The proposed changes to the policy have been track
changed in Attachment 1.
20. One
of the changes to the policy is to clarify the scope of the policy at clause
2.1. The draft policy previously referred to excluding operational management
of property, however this was not as clear as it could be and was compounded by
the inclusion of leases and easements in the definition of acquisition and
disposal. As discussed below in this report, further work is required before
leases and easements could be included in the policy.
21. Another
example of misunderstanding that came through submissions is that strategic and
surplus property were used interchangeably. To provide clarity, minor
wording changes are proposed for the definition of surplus property and
strategic disposal. Changes were also made at 5.7.2 and 5.8.1 of the
policy. The following are the proposed definitions in the policy:
(a) Surplus property:
Property that has been reviewed from a whole of organisation perspective and
assessed as no longer required for strategic or operational purposes.
(b) Strategic disposals:
Disposal of property for the purposes of achieving strategic or operational
outcomes for the community.
22. Some
submitters referenced the sale of the 11 Mission Street site to the Otamataha
Trust as an example of selling surplus land and how the right of first refusal
process would work. If that property was to be disposed of under this policy it
would be considered a strategic disposal, not a sale of surplus property.
The reason it would be considered a strategic disposal is that Council was trying
to achieve a strategic outcome for the community by the continued access to the
Elms and it allowed for the Elms to expand. The property was bought for a
specific purpose and the conditions on its disposal ensured that it would be
utilised in that way.
23. Alternatively,
an example of surplus property is the five residential lots located at the
corner of Sandhurst Drive and Grenada Street. Council has considered this
property is no longer required. Council purchased the original land parcel that
the sections were created from in 2011 as part of land required for the
Sandhurst Drive extension. Following the completion of the Sandhurst Drive
extension, the balance was subdivided into five residential sections with the
intention of sale to recoup the cost of the original purchase.
24.
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Amend the policy to
make the changes for clarity.
(recommended and
incorporated in Attachment 1)
|
· Assists in the
readability of the policy.
· Makes the
differences between surplus and strategic property clearer.
|
· Nil
|
|
Do not make the changes
to the policy
|
· Nil
|
· Continued
misunderstanding of the policy.
|
Inclusion of Leases and
Easements
25. As
mentioned previously, it has become clear through the submission process that
further work is required on the inclusion of leases and easements in the
policy. The definitions of ‘disposal’ and ‘acquisition’
in the draft policy included “grant of easement, lease”. It
is proposed that leases and easements are removed from the policy and that the
scope of the policy be amended to clarify that granting interests in land are
not included in the policy.
26. Leases
was not an area of discussion that was explicitly explored when the policy was
developed and further discussion as to the impact of how the inclusion of
leases and easements would work is required before they could be included in
the policy.
27. Further
work on this issue will look to understand leases and how they interact with
the disposal of land. Further, other work, currently being undertaken, is
likely to assist in determining when a lease would be considered strategic for
example. For instance, a long-term lease could be considered strategic
and therefore the process set out in the policy would be undertaken. This would
be a change in how leases are currently considered.
28. Direction
is sought for staff to further investigate the inclusion of leases and
easements in the policy for the next policy review in two years’
time.
29.
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Remove the reference
to leases and easements in the Policy and request staff to undertake work to
determine if leases or easements could or should be included in the policy.
(recommended and
incorporated in Attachment 1)
|
· Removes the
confusion between what is operational versus strategic.
· Allows Council
staff to continue to investigate ways to include leases and easements in the
Policy which align with other reviews.
· Further work can
be undertaken to understand how a long-term lease could be considered a
disposal or acquisition of property.
|
· Doesn’t
acknowledge the potential that a long-term lease could be considered a
disposal.
|
|
Retain the reference to
leases and easements in the Policy
|
· Allows for Mana
Whenua to be informed of Council leases.
|
· The process in
the Policy does not reflect how leases are reviewed currently and would
therefore increase the workload for staff and Mana Whenua.
· Leases and
easements were not fully considered in discussions with Mana Whenua and how
that would work, and it has the potential to raise expectations when Council
is not currently able to deliver.
|
the decision to determine
whether land is strategic or surplus
30. Submitters
raised concern regarding who was going to make the decision on the
classification of strategic or surplus land and the final disposal of the
property. Changes have been made in the policy to clarify that Council
(Commissioners or Councillors) will make the decision on the classification and
the disposal of property.
31.
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Amend Policy to
provide clearer statements on the decision making
(recommended and
incorporated in Attachment 1)
|
· Makes the policy
clear on Council’s role.
|
· Could be
considered repetitive of legislation.
|
|
No changes to policy
|
· Nil
|
· Continued
confusion regarding who makes the decision to classify and dispose of land.
|
Open Market Value or Right of
Refusal Valuation approach
32. One
of the repeated concerns by submitters was the ability to determine market
value through the proposed valuation assessment, by a registered valuer. Many
of those submitters felt that the only way to determine market value was for
all surplus properties to be sold through an open market process, such as an
auction.
33. There
are three issues arising from these submitter concerns for consideration:
(a) In
principle should a Right of Refusal (RFR) for Mana Whenua be provided?
(b) If
yes to (a), should this apply to all surplus properties or should some be
subject to Open Market?
(c) If RFR applies, should market
value be determined by one or more independent valuations.
Right of Refusal (RFR) for Mana
Whenua
34. Council
recognises the close association that Mana Whenua has with the land in Tauranga
Moana. The proposed policy provides Mana Whenua with a right of first refusal
for surplus property, suitable for disposal on the open market, which has been
approved by Council for disposal. The policy proposes to exclude strategic
disposals and road stopping from the right of first refusal process.
35. The
proposed process for the disposal of surplus property contained within the
policy reflects the discussion between Council and Te Rangapū regarding
how a right of first refusal might operate. The policy acknowledges the
importance of partnership between Council and Mana Whenua, whilst also
achieving market value for the ratepayer on the disposal of the surplus
property.
36. As
discussed in this report (paragraphs 41 – 43) a new policy purpose is
proposed to recognise the significant role Mana Whenua have in Tauranga and
their connection to the land. If no RFR existed and an open market approach was
taken for all surplus properties as suggested by some submitters, that would be
inconsistent with this proposed purpose of the policy.
37. Of
the 104 submissions received, 52 supported the proposed right of first refusal
process. Some submitters suggested the right of first refusal should go
further and raised concerns over Mana Whenua being required to pay for the land
especially for waahi tapu sites. For clarity, when the property is being
assessed as either surplus or strategic, the cultural significance of the
property would be considered as part of that assessment, however, it is not the
only factor. Council must balance this with its obligations under section
14 of the Local Government Act, to ensure prudent stewardship and the efficient
and effective use of its resources.
38. Some
submitters did not support the policy and expressed concern about a
‘race-based’ policy, others just do not wish Council to sell any
land.
39. The
proposed right of first refusal is for surplus land only. It is proposed to
apply to the partners to the Treaty based on that agreement and its principles
as opposed to race. As defined in the policy, surplus property is land (and any
improvements) that Council no longer requires for any purpose. As a general
rule, the sole objective of the disposal of surplus property is the realisation
of a financial return and the removal of the unrequired asset from the property
portfolio. Applying a right of first refusal process to this land, whilst still
achieving market value, allows Council to recognise the partnership with Mana
Whenua. Council has an ongoing commitment to working with Mana Whenua, and the
opportunity to provide Mana Whenua with the possibility of purchasing land in
their rohe, whilst also achieving a financial return can be seen as a positive
step for Tauranga.
40. If
RFR is supported in principle, then some type of valuation or non-market
process is required to be followed for the following key reasons:
(a) Council
would be exposed to a reputational risk if property was taken to the open
market to determine the RFR value, but then not offered for sale. It would also
be unlikely to attract genuine purchasers if purchasers were aware that their
price was to be offered to Mana Whenua first.
(b) Principle
4.5 of the policy recognises the partnership between Mana Whenua and Council.
Taking the property to the open market defeats the concept of first right of
refusal and therefore affords no tangible recognition of the partnership. It is
acknowledged that Mana Whenua have difficulty in being able to purchase
property at an auction. The use of the registered market valuation allows for
Council to provide an opportunity for Mana Whenua to purchase property.
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Include the proposed
right of first refusal to Mana Whenua for surplus property
(recommended and
retained in Attachment 1)
|
· Recognises Mana
Whenua and the important role they play in Tauranga.
· Provides an
opportunity for iwi or hapu to purchase land in their rohe.
· Ensures a
financial return for Council on surplus land.
· Provides a
transparent process.
|
· May take longer
to achieve a financial return, than a standard open market process.
· The open market
does not determine the market value, but a registered valuation.
|
|
Remove the right of
first refusal from the Policy.
|
· Surplus property
would be sold at open market, allowing the open market to determine the
value.
· May be faster to
achieve a financial return.
|
· Does not
recognise the important role of Mana Whenua in Tauranga.
· Does not support
Mana Whenua’s aspirations.
|
Additional
Policy Purpose
41. Considering
the above, the submissions have also highlighted the need to link the purpose
of the policy with the right of first refusal, and the intention to recognise
Mana Whenua’s role in Tauranga. With that, it is proposed to include an
additional policy purpose at 1.4 as follows:
“To recognise the
historical and cultural connection Mana Whenua have to the land and acknowledge
the role that Mana Whenua have in building, protecting and celebrating
Tauranga.”
42. This
purpose reflects the language used in the consultation document and provides a
clear connection to including a right of first refusal and Mana Whenua’s
involvement when Council dispose of property. It highlights the important
relationship between Council and Mana Whenua, Mana Whenua’s strong
connection to the land and the important role they play in Tauranga.
43.
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Include the proposed
additional policy purpose
(recommended and
incorporated in Attachment 1)
|
· Recognises the
important role Mana Whenua play in Tauranga.
· Links the right
of first refusal to the purpose of the policy.
|
· Nil
|
|
Do not include the
proposed policy purpose
|
· No change
required to policy.
|
· No clear link
between policy purpose and the right of first refusal
|
Should Right of First refusal
apply to all Surplus properties?
44. If
RFR is approved in principle, then should / can the concerns of submitters re
the appropriateness of market value be addressed in same manner? At the
request of the Chief Executive this report addresses this question by
considering whether all surplus properties should be subject to the
RFR.
45. The
policy could include an additional category of property in response to a
concern about properties where it may be difficult for a registered valuation
to reasonably accurately ascertain the market value of a property. Such
properties may have unique characteristics, be an anomaly in the market, have a
variety and range of possible uses and attributable values, or because the
value to specific purchasers can be distinguished from the wider market. To
mitigate the potential risk of not achieving a fair and accurate value for such
‘atypical’ properties, they could be excluded from the right of
first refusal process.
46. Atypical
property is proposed to be defined as property with the following
characteristics:
(i) Unique
property, where there has been a lack of similar sales to inform the assessment
of market value; and/or
(ii) Properties
with a range of possible uses with a significant range of values associated
with each of those uses; and/or
(iii) Properties
where the value to a sub-section of the market differs from the value of the
property to the market as a whole.
47. If
Council did incorporate provisions relating to atypical property, further
amendments to reflect the new category of property, and its exclusion from the
right of first refusal process, would be made to sections 5.6.3.4 and 5.6.3.7
of the policy.
48. Determination
of what an atypical property is may be problematic for those seeking clarity on
the likely application of the policy, including staff. If this definition is
included, there will need to be further discussion and guidance as to likely
qualifying properties. This could be informed by early discussions with a
valuer and other property professionals.
Previous
Consideration of Atypical Properties
49. The
issue of atypical properties was raised in a report to the 19 March 2019 Policy
Committee meeting. The report was removed from the agenda at the meeting due to
insufficient consultation with Mana Whenua. The inclusion of atypical
properties was then raised with Councillors and Mana Whenua at a hui in August
2020. It was agreed at that hui that the inclusion of atypical properties
category was unnecessary and was strongly opposed by Mana Whenua. The draft
policy, when adopted for consultation on 1 December 2020, did not include the
‘atypical’ property category and as such the views of the wider
community are unknown regarding this potential addition.
50. Valuers
are required to value in accordance with accepted standards and
guidelines. In most cases, these refer to the valuer assessing the
highest and best use of the property, and valuing accordingly. Many properties
are worth more to one sector of the market, or individual buyer, than
others. These buyers are usually the successful buyers which reflects the
concept of highest and best use. These transactions become the sales on which
valuers base their valuations.
51. It
is acknowledged that for some valuation assessments there may be limited
comparable sales. In those circumstances, market evidence may come from further
afield geographically, older sales, or sale of less similar properties with
adjustments made.
52. The
previous discussion on ‘atypical properties’ often referred to the
disposal of an 8,100 square metre site at 384-410 Maunganui Road to Zespri in
2015. The site was large and unique with a range of potential development
opportunities.
53. Council
obtained independent valuation advice on the Maunganui Road site which explored
a range of possible purchasers and those purchasers’ likely ‘highest
and best use’ of the property. That analysis included consideration
of previous sales, market demand assessment, development feasibility analysis,
and a broad range of alternative uses. The graphic in paragraph 72 below,
was provided by the independent advisor to illustrate that a higher value
(x-axis) would be supported by higher tier purchasers, and those higher tier
purchasers would be a smaller number of market buyers.
54. The
property at 384-410 Maunganui Road was sold by way of an open market
offer. The value achieved was substantively higher than the ‘Tier
1’ estimated market value assessed by the independent advisor.
Atypical Properties – Risks and Issues
55. Section
14 of the Local Government Act requires opportunities for Maori to contribute
to its decision-making processes. Te Rangapū have been involved in every
step of this policy development process. In August 2021 the Te Rangapu
were informed of the re-inclusion of the atypical property in the policy
development considerations, however this was not consultation or
discussion. Mana Whenua have consistently been clear that they do not
support atypical properties being defined in the policy and excluded from the
RFR.
56.
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages /Risks
|
|
Amend the Policy to
include the “atypical property” category and for these properties
to be excluded from the right of first refusal process
|
· Is consistent
with the purpose of the policy to deliver best value to residents.
· Addresses the
difficulty of using a registered valuer to determine market value for unique
properties and provides an alternative of an open market process.
· Removes the risk
of an alternative purchaser demonstrating that they would have paid a
considerably higher price, had they been given the opportunity.
· Partially
responds to the concerns of those submitters who supported an open market
process to determine market value.
|
· Is inconsistent
with some of the purpose and principles of the policy.
· Mana Whenua have
consistently advised that they do not support inclusion of atypical property
category.
· This draft
policy engagement with Mana Whenua did not include this option.
· Mana Whenua
concern of a reduction in the pool of surplus properties available to Mana
Whenua to purchase under right of first refusal.
· Is inconsistent
with how property is purchased under the Public Works Act.
|
|
No change to the policy,
do not include “atypical property”.
|
· Reverse of the
above
|
· Reverse of the
above
|
valuation Approach
57. Submitters
raised concerns around the reliance on an independent valuation to determine
the price in an RFR situation. If RFR applies, should market value be
determined by one or more independent valuations.
58. The
policy proposes to mirror the Treaty of Waitangi claims settlement process use
of market valuations. Market valuations are used in many other situations
such as determining value under the Public Works Act, or for insurance and
mortgage purposes. Valuation assessments are required to conform to
accepted international and national standards and procedures. Registered
valuers are required to meet certain education and experience standards to be
registered and to undertake continuing professional development.
59.
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Retain the requirement
to obtain a market valuation from a registered valuer.
|
· Used and
accepted in a variety of situations.
· Consistent with
the purpose and principles of the policy.
· Allows Mana
Whenua to participate in the process.
· Ensures a
tangible opportunity to represent the partnership
|
· Risk that a
registered market valuation is not considered by some in the community as an
accurate value of the property.
|
|
Require two
registered valuations to determine market value
(recommended and
incorporated in Attachment 1)
|
· Provides further
assurance that the market value as determined in the valuation is reflective
of the market value.
· Reduces reliance
on only one independent valuer.
|
· Increased cost.
· Increase in
administration and time to complete market value assessment.
· Mana Whenua can
already obtain a valuation if the first valuation is not acceptable, and
therefore a total of three valuations would have been undertaken in the
process.
· Inconsistent
with the process when acquiring land under the Public Works Act.
|
A
Bright-line Type Test
60. A
submitter suggested a bright-line type test be considered. The bright-line test
would be a condition preventing the property being on sold within a certain
timeframe.
61. Council
has already assessed that the property is surplus property and determined that
the property is no longer required. As the property is no longer required, the
purpose of the sale is to achieve a financial return and the removal of the
unrequired asset from the property portfolio. To place further conditions on
the sale of the property is likely to negatively impact the purchase
price.
62. A
bright-line test would potentially provide a level of protection from the lack
of an open market process and ‘windfall’ gains through rapid
purchase and subsequent disposal. It would go some way to mitigate the
associated reputational risk that Council sold the property ‘too
cheaply’.
63. There
is, however, a question of fairness relative to open market purchases which are
subject to rapid price increases. With all property transactions there is an
element of risk, that the property could potentially be worth more for instance
if you waited a short time and then sold.
64. There
was no suggestion that any bright-line type test would apply if the property
was sold at open market, and therefore this would only apply to Mana Whenua as
purchasers. The proposed right of first refusal process is to allow
Council to recognise the important role Mana Whenua play in Tauranga.
65. If
Council chooses to apply the ‘atypical properties’ definition
and exclude these from the RFR, then the benefit of a brightline test would be
significantly reduced.
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Do not include a
bright-line test in the policy restricting the timing of subsequent sale
of property purchased through Right of First Refusal process.
(recommended and no
change to Attachment 1)
|
· Consistent with
engagement with Mana Whenua through policy development
· Does not
introduce a condition which will likely negatively impact on the price.
· If
‘atypical properties’ including in policy, lower likelihood of
non-market based windfall gains.
|
· Risk of short
term ‘windfall’ gains through purchasing and quickly on-selling
the property, and perceived loss of best value opportunity for ratepayers.
|
|
Include a bright-line
test to require a profit share after a specified time period.
|
· Potentially
provide a level of protection from ‘windfall’ gains through rapid
purchase and subsequent disposal.
|
· Inconsistent
with engagement with Mana Whenua through policy development.
· Likely to impact
negatively on the price of the property.
· Not consistent
with commercial best practice
· Would require
further staff time to administer
· No guidance
provided as to what would be considered a reasonable time period.
· Only applies to
surplus property sold by way of right of first refusal and is not suggested
to be contained in any other disposal.
· Perceived
unfairness that Council would not be sharing in any potential loss only
profit.
|
Right of
First Refusal Process Timeframes
66. Submitters
did express concern that the length of time set out in the flow chart appended
to the policy is too long for a property to be sold. The timeframes
included in the flow chart have been discussed at length with Te Rangapū,
Councillors and staff and enable appropriate consultation at each step. No
changes are proposed to the timeframes set out in the flow chart.
67. The
number of properties that are likely to be declared surplus property will vary:
there are currently only two properties that would be considered surplus
property. Given the small number of properties we are considering, the
process allows for trust and confidence to build between Mana Whenua and
Council.
68. The
Treaty settlement process in the Tauranga Moana settlement provides a 30 day
timeframe. A 30 day timeframe is not recommended here, as it does not allow for
iwi or hapu to undertake adequate due diligence. Through the Treaty settlement
negotiation process iwi are aware, well in advance, of the properties that are
available for right of first refusal; that would not be the case with Council.
69.
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
No changes to the right
of first refusal timeframes
|
· Allows
appropriate consultation at each step
· Transparent
· Can be varied by
agreement with the relevant iwi or hapu.
|
· Is perceived to
take a long time.
|
|
Shorten the
timeframes provided in the right of first refusal process to 45 days.
(recommended and
incorporated in Attachment 1)
|
· Provides a
shorter timeframe.
|
· May cause
ongoing issues with Mana Whenua being able to fully participate in the
process
· Would undermine
the purpose of the policy.
· Change in
timeframe is not done with the agreement or input of iwi and hapu.
|
|
Shorten the timeframes
to 30 days.
|
· Is the same
timeframe as those contained in Treaty settlements.
· Potential to
achieve a quick settlement
|
· The Treaty
settlement process already has the disclosure requirements before the
timeframe begins. This timeframe therefore does not allow iwi/hapu the
opportunity to undertake adequate due diligence, like they can in the Treaty
settlement process.
· Doesn’t
reflect the timeframes developed between staff and Mana Whenua.
· May cause
ongoing issues with Mana Whenua being able to fully participate in the
process
|
Resolving
Disputes
70. A
final concern with the right of first refusal process is how will disputes be
resolved regarding the most appropriate iwi or hapu for Council to offer the
property to. The right of first refusal process sets out that surplus property
would be offered in the first instance to the relevant iwi or hapu as
identified in the iwi and hapu maps. These iwi and hapu maps have been
developed and provided to us by iwi and hapu. Where there is crossover and
therefore uncertainty as to who is the most appropriate purchaser, the position
is that the iwi/hapu will determine who the iwi/hapu purchaser is within the 60
working day timeframe outlined in the policy flowchart. It is the
responsibility of iwi and hapu to inform Council as to who the most appropriate
purchaser is.
71.
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
No changes to the policy
(recommended and no
change to Attachment 1)
|
· Allows for Mana
Whenua to resolve any disputes through a tikanga process
· Clear timeframes
are provided in the policy to resolve timeframes
· Is the agreed
approach with Mana Whenua
|
· Disputes may not
be resolved within the timeframe.
|
|
Consider alternative
ways to resolve any disputes
|
· There may be
alternative ways to resolve the dispute.
|
· Would require
further investigation and consultation.
· Would delay the
implementation of the policy.
|
Offer back
to Mana Whenua after Open Market process
72. To
ensure transparency, the proposed process outlined by the proposed right of
first refusal flowchart specifies that if an open market disposal process
results in a price which is lower by 10% (or more) than the value determined by
the independent valuer through an unsuccessful negotiation with Mana Whenua,
then prior to finalising an open market transaction, the property is re-offered
to relevant Iwi/Hapu at the lower value. The Iwi/Hapu shall have 10
working days to accept or decline in writing the revised offer.
73. One
of the complexities with this step in the process is that some of the surplus
properties have constraints or issues e.g. weathertightness. The extent of
these constraints or issues may not be known at the time of valuation and may
require further due diligence. It is at this point that Mana Whenua may have no
further interest in the property regardless of price. It is therefore
beneficial to both Mana Whenua and Council that time and energy is not wasted
continuing a process if Mana Whenua have no further interest.
74. To
mitigate the risk of unnecessary process, it is proposed to amend the policy to
include “unless iwi/hapu have already advised they have no further
interest in the property”. This inclusion is to allow Council to continue
with the open market process when iwi have indicated they have no further
interest in the property regardless of the price.
75. The
proposed offer-back step in the policy does come with a potential reputational
risk, in that the property that is being offered to the open market is still
subject to the condition of going back to Mana Whenua. This may raise the issue
that the property is not genuinely for sale and may reduce the number of
potential purchasers.
76.
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
Amend the Policy to
include “unless iwi/hapu have already advised they have no further
interest in the property”
(recommended and incorporated
in Attachment A to Attachment 1)
|
· Allows for
certainty to be provided that iwi or hapu have no further interest in the
property.
· Allows for
transparency in process.
· Removes
unnecessary process.
|
· Can still allow
for uncertainty in the open market process.
· Reputational
risk that the property is not genuinely for sale.
|
|
No changes to the policy
|
· Allows for
transparency in process
|
· Additional time
required unnecessarily if there is no further interest in the property.
· Reputational
risk that the property is not genuinely for sale
|
|
Remove the offer back
requirement from the policy.
|
· Provides
certainty when going to the market that no further offer back situation is
required.
|
· Is inconsistent
with the discussions between Council and Staff.
· Does not provide
for that transparency and building of trust between Mana Whenua and Council.
· Likely to
require further consultation with Mana Whenua.
|
Financial Considerations
77. The
proposed Acquisitions and Disposals Policy will not impact on Council’s
acquisitions costs, as the current processes for acquiring property will not be
altered by the policy.
78. All
disposals of Council property incur costs, including staff time, holding costs
and valuation costs, agents’ fees and the cost of completing any
legislative or contractual obligations, such as offer back obligations under
section 40 of the Public Works Act. Such costs are generally a very small
percentage of the sale price.
79. There
is potential for additional costs during protracted negotiations for any
disposal, including, but not limited to, a right of refusal process. These
could include staff time and holding costs for the length of the negotiation.
80. Conversely,
if negotiations for the disposal of surplus property are completed swiftly,
either on the open market or as part of a right of first refusal process, the
disposal may cost less.
Legal Implications / Risks
81. This
matter complies with the Council’s legal and policy requirements. Legal advice
has been sought throughout the development of this policy, except for the
inclusion of the ‘atypical’ property category or the introduction
of two valuations, a change in timeframe or a bright-line test.
82. The
risks, such as the reputational risks have been discussed previously in this
report.
Consultation / Engagement
83. Public
submissions were sought from 15 March 2021 to 15 April 2021. Two drop-in
sessions were held the first on 7 April 2021 and the second on 15 April 2021.
84. The
consultation was advertised widely through council libraries, on the website
and through social media.
85. A
total of 104 submissions were received. Of the 104 submissions 38 indicated
that they wish to be heard, with 11 submitters speaking at the hearings on 31
May 2021.
Significance
86. 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.
87. 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.
88. In
accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the
policy, it is considered that the decision is of medium significance.
ENGAGEMENT
89. Taking
into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of medium
significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is
required prior to Council making a decision. As discussed, public
consultation has already been undertaken on the issue, and we received a variety
of responses to the issue. Ongoing consultation has occurred with Mana Whenua
through Te Rangapū as to the progress of the policy review. The proposed
changes to the policy do not change the intent of the policy and in our opinion
do not require further public consultation.
90. However,
as discussed earlier in the report, if atypical property, or a bright-line test
is included in the policy, then the policy has changed, and this change
directly impacts Mana Whenua. Te Rangapū and the community have not
had an opportunity to comment on the inclusion of atypical properties or a
bright-line test in this consultation round. However, Te Rangapū
have previously been consistent and clear that they do not support the atypical
property approach. Mana Whenua have not had an opportunity to have
their say on the inclusion of atypical property or a bright-line test.
Council can give consideration to whether further discussion and engagement
with Mana Whenua and the wider community is appropriate.
Next Steps
91. If
significant changes and the decision to consult is made, then further public
consultation would be undertaken.
92. If
the policy is adopted and no further consultation deemed necessary, the policy
would be uploaded to the Council’s webpage and the following policies
would be removed:
(a) Council
Land: Recognition of Tangata Whenua Interests and Aspirations Policy
(b) Property
Acquisition and Divestment Road Stopping Policy
(c) Strategic
Acquisitions Fund (SAF) Policy
93. Staff
would continue to review the appropriateness of the inclusion of
leases/easements in the policy and report back as part of the policies review
in two years’ time.
94. Council’s
decision will be communicated to those that submitted on the draft policy.
Attachments
1. Draft
Acquisitions and Disposals Policy 2021 - A12775242 ⇩ 
|
Ordinary Council
meeting Agenda
|
13 September
2021
|
11.2 Amendment
to to the Keeping of Animals Bylaw 2018
File
Number: A12232162
Author: Emma
Joyce, Policy Analyst
Brent Lincoln, Team Leader:
Animal Services
Authoriser: Barbara
Dempsey, General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance
Purpose of the Report
1. To amend the Keeping of
Animals Bylaw 2018 (the Bylaw) to provide for the issuing of notices under the
Bylaw.
|
Recommendations
That the Council:
(a) Amends the Keeping of
Animals Bylaw 2018 to provide for the issuing of formal notices under the
Bylaw.
|
Executive Summary
2. The Keeping of Animals
Bylaw 2018 (the Bylaw) provides for Tauranga residents to keep animals
(excluding dogs) and poultry in a manner which has minimal impact on, or causes
minimal nuisance to, the wider community. A clause in the previous 2008 Bylaw
provided for the issuing of a formal notice to carry out remedial action where
animal services officers identified non-compliance with the Bylaw provisions.
This provision was inadvertently omitted from the 2018 Bylaw.
3. This report requests the
Council amend the 2018 Bylaw to add provision for the formal issuing of
notices. This better aligns with the preferred practice to encourage persons to
comply with bylaws before undertaking enforcement action.
Background
4. Council adopted a new Bylaw
in 2018 following statutory review and public consultation. During this process
of adopting a new Bylaw, the following clause providing for the issuing of
notices was omitted;
“The
Council may give notice to any person in breach of this Bylaw to carry out any
remedial action in order to comply with the Bylaw and every such notice shall
state the time within which the remedial action is to be carried out, and may
be extended from time to time”.
5. Adding the clause back
into the Bylaw through an amendment gives animal services officers the ability
to issue formal notices under the Bylaw to undertake remedial action before
requiring enforcement. For example, if someone has beehives that are causing a
nuisance, officers would be able to issue a notice under the Bylaw for the
person to relocate or remove the hives.
6. A copy of the 2018 Bylaw
with the proposed addition (highlighted in yellow) is appended at attachment
one.
Strategic / Statutory Context
7. Section 146 of the Local
Government Act 2002 provides for local authorities to make bylaws for the
purposes of keeping of animals including bees and poultry.
Options Analysis
8. Council could choose to
amend the bylaw to include a provision for the issuing of notices or retain the
status quo. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each
option.
|
Option
|
Advantages
|
Disadvantages
|
|
1
|
Amend
the Bylaw
(recommended)
|
· Better
provides for compliance action consistent with preferred practice
· Consistent
with previous Bylaw
|
· Nil
|
|
2
|
Do not amend
the Bylaw
|
· Nil
|
· Bylaw
does not recognise preference to encourage compliance before enforcement
· Inconsistent
with provisions of previous 2008 Bylaw
|
Financial Considerations
9. There are no financial
considerations arising from the recommendation to amend the Bylaw.
Legal Implications / Risks
10. There are no
legal implications arising from the proposed amendment. No notices have been
issued since the Bylaw was adopted. However, providing for notices to be issued
enables staff to scale compliance and enforcement action where necessary.
11. There is no requirement to have a
clause regarding notices. A person can still be in breach of the Bylaw without
the issuing of a notice.
Significance
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. In accordance with the
considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered
that the matter is of low significance.
ENGAGEMENT
15. 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.
16. Section 156 of the LGA 02 requires
councils to use the special consultative procedure when amending bylaws unless
the matter is of low significance or unlikely to have a large impact on the
wider public. As this amendment is of low significance, no consultation or
engagement on the amendment is recommended in accordance with the provisions on
s156 of the LGA 02.
Next Steps
17. The amended Bylaw will be made
available on the council website.
Attachments
1. Keeping
of Animals Bylaw 2018 - 2021 Amendment - A12773332 ⇩
|
Ordinary Council
meeting Agenda
|
13 September
2021
|
11.3 Annual
Report on Dog Control Policy and Practices 2020/2021
File
Number: A12703511
Author: Brent
Lincoln, Team Leader: Animal Services
Authoriser: Barbara
Dempsey, General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance
Purpose of the Report
1. To meet legislative
requirements of section10A of the Dog Control Act 1996.
|
Recommendations
That the Council:
(a) Receives
the Annual Report on Dog Control Policy and Practice 2020/2021 report; and
(b) Pursuant
to Section 10A of the Dog Control Act 1996, adopts the Tauranga City Council
Report on Dog Control Policy and Practices for 2020/2021.
|
Executive Summary
2. The Dog Control Act 1996
requires all territorial authorities to report annually on the outcomes
associated with key areas identified by Section 10A of the Act. The key areas
are identified below.
Background
3. Below is
an extract from Section 10A of the Dog Control Act identifying what information
must be provided in the Report -
1. In
respect of each financial year, report on the administration of –
a) Its
Dog Control Policy adopted under section 10; and
b) Its
Dog Control Practices.
2. The
report must include, information relating to –
a) The
number of registered dogs.
b) The
number of probationary and disqualified owners.
c) The
number of dogs classified as dangerous and the relevant provision under which
the classification was made.
d) The number
of dogs classified as menacing under section 33A.
e) The
number of dogs classified as menacing under section 33C.
f) The
number of infringement notices issued.
g) The
number of prosecutions taken.
3. The
Territorial Authority must give public notice of the report –
a) by
means of notice published in –
(i) one
or more daily newspapers circulating in the district; or
(ii) one
or more other newspapers that have at least an equivalent circulation in the
district to the daily newspapers circulating in that district.
b) by
any means that the territorial authority thinks desirable in the circumstances.
4. The
territorial authority must also, within one month after adopting the report,
send a copy of it to the Secretary for Local Government.
2020/21 highlights
4. We have previously
reported the decrease in the number of attacks and aggression, this is a
pleasing result and could be indicative of several factors, including but not
limited to the change in demographics of dogs, owners taking greater
responsibility for their dogs and the proactive approach taken by Animal
Service Officers.
5. All dogs registered for
the first time after 1 July 2006 must be microchipped. Council offers a service
where the price of microchipping is very reasonable, and the pound is open on
Mondays making this requirement straightforward for dog owners. 84% of dogs
have been chipped. (our records indicate that 2362 are not chipped). Council
has written to dog owners; we are finding that a high percentage have had their
dog microchipped, they just have not informed Council.
6. Euthanising dogs is a sad
reality for the staff and last year we had to euthanise 67 dogs. This is
11 dogs less than the previous year.
7. Barking dogs – it
is not unreasonable to suggest that the barking dog complaints may increase,
given the increase in housing intensification and the larger number of dogs
that do not get enough exercise (these are often the smaller dogs).
8. As the new registration
year commences staff will focus on ensuring all dogs are registered by
undertaken site visits to properties where dogs have been registered
previously, continue the proactive patrols, the project to ensure all dogs are
microchipped and to undertake a variety of education initiatives, along with
responding to customer enquiries.
9. There is also a budget to
undertake maintenance on the pound to increase the Health and Safety of those
that work at the pound.
ENGAGEMENT
10. Preparing and advertising the Annual
Dog report is a legislative requirement no further consultation or engagement
is required.
Attachments
1. Attachment
A - Annual Section 10A Report on Control of Dogs for the year 1 July 2020 to 30
June 2021 - A12782194 ⇩
|
Ordinary Council
meeting Agenda
|
13 September
2021
|
11.4 Strategic
Framework Refresh Project Update
File
Number: A12851083
Author: Anne
Payne, Strategic Advisor
Jeremy Boase, Manager:
Strategy and Corporate Planning
Authoriser: Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth
Purpose of the Report
1. This
report summarises the planned approach to, and output from, the Strategic
Framework Refresh Project to enable delivery by July 2022. This report
focuses on Tauranga City Council’s strategic framework structure and
content, noting that the City Vision workstream is reported separately to
Council.
|
Recommendations
That the Council:
a) Receives the Strategic
Framework Refresh Project Update report; and
b) Notes that the Strategic
Framework Refresh Project aims to be delivered by July 2022.
|
Background
2. Alongside
the multi-partner City Futures Project approved by Council’s Policy
Committee on 16 June 2020[1],
Tauranga City Council planned a refresh of its own strategic framework.
The aim was to ensure that Tauranga City Council’s strategic direction
was:
· clearly
articulated and understood both within and external to the organisation; and
· in
alignment with the outcomes of the joint City Futures Project.
3. As
a result of a range of factors contributing to rethinking the City Futures
Project, the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee approved the Strategic
Framework Refresh Project concept (including the City Vision) on 28 June 2021,
resolving that the Committee:
· 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.
· 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.
4. It
was also acknowledged by the Committee that all City Futures Project inputs to
date would continue to be valuable to the City Vision and the wider Strategic
Framework Refresh Project.
5. The
City Vision project concept and approach was reported separately to Council on
30 August 2021 (Agenda item 11.4).
6. This
report summarises the planned approach to, and outputs from, Tauranga City
Council’s strategic framework refresh elements of the wider project,
scheduled for completion in July 2022.
Tauranga
City Council’s Strategic Framework REFRESH
7. The
purpose of the strategic framework refresh project is to ensure that Tauranga
City Council has a current, cohesive and understandable strategic framework
that provides a clear line of sight from Council activity to the City’s
Vision (currently also under development as part of this project).
8. The
need for this refresh has become more pressing due to a range of external
factors (such as climate change and more general environmental concerns,
Covid-19 impacts and changes to government policy – including 3-Waters,
Resource Management Act and local government reforms) and internal factors
(staff change over time – losing our ‘institutional memory’,
age of some existing strategies and plans, governance change).
9. The
combined impact of these factors is that our overall strategic direction is not
easily seen or understood by our external partners and community, or by many
within our own organisation. We have many strategies and plans, but it is
difficult to see how they fit together, what takes priority and what our
overall objectives and goals are.
10. The
strategic framework should be an externally-facing, visual outline of the
organisation’s overarching strategic direction – of how it is
working towards our City’s Vision. A strong strategic framework
should be creative but clear, relevant, future-focussed and aspirational.
It should align with our organisation’s goals and objectives, not just
with existing initiatives.
11. For
Tauranga City Council, the key outcomes from this project are that:
· Our
community and partners can easily see how the organisation is contributing to
the community outcomes and to achieving Tauranga City’s Vision.
· Our
governance and staff have a shared understanding of what the organisation is
trying to achieve and how we aim to get there.
· Our
people know how they fit into the bigger picture of what the organisation is
working toward.
· We
are guided by a set of current, relevant and succinct strategic documents,
which ‘weave together’ where this makes sense.
· We
have a clear focus for evaluating existing programmes, and those considered in
the future, to ensure all efforts support our overarching purpose.
Concept
12. At
its simplest, our strategic framework is depicted as a flax weave,
demonstrating that our community outcomes connect up to the City’s Vision
(under development), with our three strategic approaches and our underpinning
principles ‘weaving through’ everything we do.
13. An
initial mock-up of this concept is shown in the diagram below:
14. The
content of the strategic framework will then articulate how Council contributes
to achieving our community outcomes and, ultimately, Tauranga City’s
Vision. Our intention is to normally have one primary strategy for
each of the ‘strands’ of our framework weave (i.e. our community
outcomes and strategic approaches), with a range of strategic/action plans
underpinning this primary strategy.
15. As
our contribution to each of the ‘strands’ of our framework weave
are at different levels of development, we are creating summaries outlining
where we are now and where we want to be for each – which is helping us
to confirm where the most critical gaps are in our current strategic
direction. These summaries will evolve over time and are provisionally
referred to as ‘Strategy Snapshots’ or ‘At A Glance’
documents. As outlined in the approach section below, these Strategy
Snapshots will serve as conversation starters with sector groups and our
community during this project.
Project outputs
16. Our
strategic framework is envisaged as primarily a web-based tool that users (both
our community and within our organisation) can click into to move through the
layers of the framework, accessing more detail at each level.
17. A
range of printable documents will also be available from the web-based
strategic framework tool. A mock-up of one of these, a ‘Framework
on a Page’ view (not yet populated) is provided as Attachment 1
to this report. Much of the content of this type of report will be
developed or confirmed over the course of this project.
Approach
18. A
summary of key activities and indicative timeframes for this project are set
out in Table 1. Please note that these are subject to change.
Table
1: A summary of key activities, tasks and indicative timeframes for the
Strategic Framework Refresh Project (excluding the City Vision component)
|
Ref
|
Activity
|
Tasks
|
Indicative Timing
|
|
1
|
Getting started
|
Overall project
concept, structure and approach developed.
Initial drafts of
Strategy Snapshots for each ‘strand’ of the framework weave.
|
July – August
2021
(completed)
|
|
2
|
Getting started
(continued)
|
Synthesise key themes
from previous engagements, plus any currently underway (also for City Vision
project).
Confirm the critical
gap ‘strands’, which will require sector group workshops to
complete the Strategy Snapshots for these priority areas (provisionally:
Inclusive City, Environment, Sustainability and Te Ao Māori
‘strands’).
Communicate the
strategic framework refresh process (external and within Tauranga City
Council).
|
September
|
|
3
|
Tools progressed
|
Web-based strategic
framework tool developed
|
October –
November
|
|
4
|
Sector group work for
more well-developed ‘strands’
|
Strategy Snapshots
completed as far as possible for other than priority ‘strands’
via informal engagement with sector groups – will identify priority
actions and any further work required in these areas – including
whether a primary strategy is needed for this ‘strand’
(sufficient may already exist).
|
October –
November
|
|
5
|
Sector group engagement
for priority ‘strands’
|
Following on from
the City Vision community and sector group engagement scheduled for November:
Hold sector group
workshops for priority ‘strands’ (provisionally: Inclusive City,
Environment, Sustainability, and Te Ao Māori) – identify priority
actions and any further work required in these areas (anticipate a
primary strategy required for each).
|
December
|
|
6
|
Draft to Council
|
Council receives draft
strategic framework, including suite of Strategy Snapshot documents, for
consideration, alongside an update on next steps and the web-based tool
development.
|
December 2021
|
|
7
|
Primary strategy
development for priority ‘strands’, envisaged to be:
- Inclusive City
- Environment
- Sustainability
- Te Ao Māori
|
Under a separate
workstream for each ‘strand’ – with separate
project and engagement plans.
- Each
strategy at least in draft form by close of project.
- Identify
existing strategies & plans that underpin, what needs to be retained and
what further work is required.
|
February – April
2022
|
|
8
|
Finalise content for
remaining ‘strands’
|
Under a separate
workstream for each ‘strand’ – level of work required
will have been determined during October-November informal engagement with
sector groups.
|
February – April
|
|
9
|
Underpinning strategies
and plans updated
|
All existing strategies
and plans either programmed to be formally rescinded or positioned within the
refreshed strategic framework.
|
February – April
|
|
10
|
Web-based strategic
framework tool finalised and populated
|
Web-based framework
tool tested, finalised and populated – including processes for ongoing
content ownership and management.
|
February – April
2022
|
|
11
|
Council adopts draft
strategic framework
|
Council adopts draft
strategic framework, including refreshed content, for public consultation
|
May 2022
|
|
12
|
Public consultation and
response
|
Public consultation on
draft strategic framework, including refreshed content.
Proposed amendments in
response to consultation feedback.
|
June 2022
|
|
13
|
Council adopts final
strategic framework
|
Council adopts final
strategic framework, including refreshed content.
|
July 2022
|
Financial
Considerations
19. Financial
costs depend on how much external resource is required to deliver key elements
of the project to a quality standard and within the specified timeframes.
There may be a requirement for external resourcing for primary strategy
development (up to four processes), web-based tool development and maintenance,
creative design and publication development.
20. Up
to $300,000 is available within the approved 2021/22 budget for strategy
development. A request for unbudgeted expenditure will be made if this
proves insufficient once more detailed planning has been completed.
21. An
Annual Plan 2023 budget item may also be required for post 30 June 2022 work,
such as design and delivery of publication material and additional
functionality for internal use of the web-based strategic framework tool.
Legal
Implications / Risks
22. This
report has no legal implications. Any risks associated with the recommended
approach will be identified during more detailed planning of the workstreams
for each ‘strand’ of the framework, as outlined in the approach
section above.
Consultation / Engagement
23. There
has been considerable consultation with both the community and city leaders to
date, as discussed in the background section of this report. Further
involvement with both the general community and sector groups is outlined in
the approach section above.
Significance
24. 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.
25. 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 .
(c) the
capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and
other costs of doing so.
26. In
accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the
policy, it is considered that the matter of Tauranga City Council’s
strategic framework refresh is of high significance, however the decision
proposed in this report (being to receive a project update) is of low
significance.
ENGAGEMENT
27. Taking into consideration the above
assessment, that the matter of Tauranga City Council’s strategic
framework refresh is of high significance, officers are of the opinion that the
nature of this project requires further community involvement as outlined in
this report.
Next
Steps
28. Next
steps to progress Tauranga City Council’s strategic framework refresh are
outlined in the Proposed Method section above.
Attachments
1. Strategic
Framework on a Page - A12865908 ⇩
|
Ordinary Council
meeting Agenda
|
13 September
2021
|
11.5 Tauranga's
Non-Compliance with National Policy Statement - Urban Development Capacity
Requirements
File
Number: A12864622
Author: Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth
Authoriser: Christine
Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth
Purpose
of the Report
1. To publicly report on
Tauranga City’s non-compliance with the National Policy Statement –
Urban Development (NPS-UD) and associated reporting to the Minister of the
Environment.
|
Recommendations
That the Council:
(a) Receives
the report “Tauranga’s Non-Compliance with National Policy
Statement – Urban Development Capacity Requirements”.
|
Discussion
2. The NPS-UD requires each
local authority to provide at least sufficient development capacity in new and existing
urban areas, for both standalone and attached dwellings, and in the short,
medium and long-term. Sufficiency requires assessment of plan enablement,
infrastructure readiness, development feasibility and what is realisable.
3. Clause 3.7 on the NPU-UD
states:
If a local authority determines
that there is insufficient development capacity over the short term, medium
term, or long term, it must:
a) immediately
notify the Minister for the Environment; and
b)
if the insufficiency is wholly or partly a result of RMA planning documents,
change those documents to increase development capacity for housing or business
land (as applicable) as soon as practicable, and update any other relevant plan
or strategy); and
c) consider
other options for: (i) increasing development capacity; and (ii) otherwise
enabling development.
4. The letter to the
Minister has been sent (refer attachment 1) and addresses both the actions that
Tauranga City Council is taking to increase supply and the remaining
significant barriers.
Next Steps
5. The letter to the
Minister requests an opportunity to meet to discuss collective responses to the
issues. In parallel the Priority Development Area joint SmartGrowth
working group is progressing initiatives and will formally report to the 17
September SmartGrowth Leadership Group meeting. A copy of the letter to
the Minister will also be included on that SmartGrowth agenda.
Attachments
1. Final
Signed Letter to Minister Parker re Non-Compliance with NPS-UD - A12864549 ⇩
|
Ordinary Council
meeting Agenda
|
13 September
2021
|
12 Discussion
of Late Items
13 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
|
|
13.1 - Public Excluded Minutes of the
Council meeting held on 30 August 2021
|
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)(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
|
|
13.2 - Tauranga Art Gallery Trust -
Board Performance Review, 2021
|
s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is
necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of
deceased natural persons
|
s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant
part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the
disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist
under section 6 or section 7
|
|
14 Closing
Karakia