|
|
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
Commission Chair Anne Tolley |
|
Members |
Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston Commissioner Stephen Selwood Commissioner Bill Wasley |
Quorum |
Half of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd. |
Meeting frequency |
As required |
Scope
· 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.
· Delegation of Council powers to Council’s committees and other subordinate decision-making bodies.
· Adoption of Standing Orders.
· Receipt of Joint Committee minutes.
· Approval of Special Orders.
· Employment of Chief Executive.
· Other Delegations of Council’s powers, duties and responsibilities.
Regulatory matters
Administration, monitoring and enforcement of all regulatory matters that have not otherwise been delegated or that are referred to Council for determination (by a committee, subordinate decision-making body, Chief Executive or relevant General Manager).
Ordinary Council meeting Agenda |
13 September 2021 |
5 Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open
6 Change to the Order of Business
7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 30 August 2021
8 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
9 Deputations, Presentations, Petitions
10 Recommendations from Other Committees
11.1 Deliberations on the draft Tauranga City Council Acquisitions and Disposals Policy
11.2 Amendment to to the Keeping of Animals Bylaw 2018
11.3 Annual Report on Dog Control Policy and Practices 2020/2021
11.4 Strategic Framework Refresh Project Update
13.1 Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 30 August 2021
13.2 Tauranga Art Gallery Trust - Board Performance Review, 2021
13 September 2021 |
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
That the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 30 August 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.
|
1. Minutes of the Council meeting held on 30 August 2021
|
30 August 2021 |
|
MINUTES Ordinary Council meeting Monday, 30 August 2021 |
Order of Business
1 Opening Karakia
2 Apologies
3 Public Forum
4 Acceptance of late items
5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open
6 Change to the order of business
7 Confirmation of Minutes
7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 2 August 2021
8 Declaration of conflicts of interest
9 Deputations, Presentations, Petitions
Nil
10 Recommendations from Other Committees
Nil
11 Business
11.1 Executive Report
11.2 Amendments to the Airport Bylaw 2016
11.3 Temporary Road Closure Report - Annual Events 2021 2022
11.4 City Vision Update
11.5 Representation Review - public feedback and adoption of Initial Proposal
12 Discussion of Late Items
13 Public excluded session
13.1 Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 2 August 2021
13.2 Tauranga Women’s Refuge – lease of property
13.3 Appointment of hearings panel for Plan Changes 26, 27, 30
13.4 Request for Additional Leased Parking Spaces – 2 Devonport Road
13.5 Approval to award Cameron Road construction contract
14 Closing Karakia
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.
Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston opened the meeting with a Karakia.
2 Apologies
Nil
Nil
Nil
5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open
Nil
6 Change to the order of business
Nil
Resolution CO16/21/1 Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston (a) Commissioner Stephen Selwood be removed as being present at the meeting. Carried |
8 Declaration of conflicts of interest
Nil
9 Deputations, Presentations, Petitions
10 Recommendations from Other Committees
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 |
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 |
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.
(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:
(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 |
Nil
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:
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.
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
13 September 2021 |
8 Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
9 Deputations, Presentations, Petitions
13 September 2021 |
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.
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.
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.
1. Draft
Acquisitions and Disposals Policy 2021 - A12775242 ⇩
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.
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
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.
1. Keeping
of Animals Bylaw 2018 - 2021 Amendment - A12773332 ⇩
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.
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.
1. Attachment
A - Annual Section 10A Report on Control of Dogs for the year 1 July 2020 to 30
June 2021 - A12782194 ⇩
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.
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.
1. Strategic
Framework on a Page - A12865908 ⇩
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.
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.
1. Final
Signed Letter to Minister Parker re Non-Compliance with NPS-UD - A12864549 ⇩
13 September 2021 |
RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC
14 Closing Karakia
[1] Setting the Strategic Direction for the Long Term Plan, Agenda Item 8.2: Agenda Policy Committee 16 June 2020