AGENDA

 

Ordinary Council meeting

Monday, 8 November 2021

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

Date:

Monday, 8 November 2021

Time:

10.30am  (Representation Review deliberations)

Location:

Tauranga City Council

Council Chambers

91 Willow Street

Tauranga

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

Marty Grenfell

Chief Executive

 


Terms of reference – Council

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Members

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Commissioner Bill Wasley

Quorum

Half of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting frequency

As required

Role

·        To ensure the effective and efficient governance of the City

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

Scope

·        Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

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

·        The powers Council is legally prohibited from delegating include:

o   Power to make a rate.

o   Power to make a bylaw.

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

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

o   Power to appoint a chief executive.

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

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

·        Council has chosen not to delegate the following:

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural matters

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

·        Adoption of Standing Orders.

·        Receipt of Joint Committee minutes.

·        Approval of Special Orders.

·        Employment of Chief Executive.

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

Regulatory matters

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

 

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 November 2021

 

Order of Business

1         Opening Karakia. 7

2         Apologies. 7

3         Public Forum.. 7

4         Acceptance of Late Items. 7

5         Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open. 7

6         Change to the Order of Business. 7

7         Confirmation of Minutes. 8

7.1            Minutes of the Council meeting held on 18 October 2021. 8

8         Declaration of Conflicts of Interest 19

9         Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 19

Nil

10       Recommendations from Other Committees. 19

Nil

11       Business. 20

11.1         Representation Review - Deliberations on submissions to Initial Proposal and adoption of Final Proposal 20

12       Discussion of Late Items. 131

13       Public Excluded Session. 131

Nil

14       Closing Karakia. 131

 

 


1          Opening Karakia

 

2          Apologies

 

3          Public Forum

 

4          Acceptance of Late Items

 

5          Confidential Business to be Transferred into the Open

 

6          Change to the Order of Business


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 November 2021

 

7          Confirmation of Minutes

7.1         Minutes of the Council meeting held on 18 October 2021

File Number:           A13026829

Author:                    Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

Authoriser:              Robyn Garrett, Team Leader: Committee Support

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 18 October 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

 

Attachments

1.      Minutes of the Council meeting held on 18 October 2021 

  


UNCONFIRMEDOrdinary Council meeting Minutes

18 October 2021

 

 

 

MINUTES

Ordinary Council meeting

Monday, 18 October 2021

 


Order of Business

1         Opening Karakia. 3

2         Apologies. 3

3         Public Forum.. 3

4         Acceptance of late items. 3

5         Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 3

6         Change to the order of business. 3

7         Confirmation of Minutes. 3

Nil

8         Declaration of conflicts of interest 3

9         Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 3

Nil

10       Recommendations from Other Committees. 3

Nil

11       Business. 4

11.1         Submissions to Representation Review Initial Proposal 4

12       Discussion of Late Items. 10

13       Public excluded session. 10

Nil

14       Closing Karakia. 10

 


MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council meeting

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

ON Monday, 18 October 2021 AT 11.15am

 

 

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

IN ATTENDANCE:     Susan Jamieson (General Manager: People & Engagement), Carlo Ellis (Manager: Māori Strategic Engagement), Ceilidh Dunphy (Manager: Community Relations), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support)

 

1          Opening Karakia

Carlo Ellis, Manager: Māori Strategic Engagement, opened the hearing with a karakia.

2          Apologies

Nil

3          Public Forum

Nil

4          Acceptance of late items

Nil

5          Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6          Change to the order of business

Nil

7          Confirmation of Minutes

Nil

8          Declaration of conflicts of interest

None

9          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

10        Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil

11        Business

11.1       Submissions to Representation Review Initial Proposal

Staff          Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

 

Key points

·        The report was taken as read.

Resolution  CO19/21/1

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report “Submissions to Representation Review Initial Proposal”;

(b)     Receives the public submissions on the Representation Review Initial Proposal;

(c)     Accepts the late submissions on the Representation Review Initial Proposal from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Christine Hibbs, Hylton Rhodes and Tauranga Ratepayers Alliance; and notes the submission received from Bill Capamagian omitted from the hearing agenda.

Carried

The following members of the public spoke to their submission to the Representation Review Initial Proposal.

A copy of all presentations and documents tabled at the meeting can be viewed on Tauranga City Council's (TCC) website.

 

(1)             Rob Paterson

·        Would prefer all Tauranga City Council (TCC) councillors being elected at large; understood the current representation system could not remain due to the creation of a Māori ward.

·        Noted that Option 4A had not been included for public feedback and that Option 2 was the  preferred option from the pre-engagement feedback.

·        Suggested an amended Option 2 with 13 members including the Mayor; an uneven number removed the issue of a casting vote being required.

·        This would enable voters to vote for an increased number of councillors; the current proposal limited voting to one member.

·        Supported the establishment of community boards and suggested six boards with six members each.  Considered this would enable public participation at a local level for a reasonable cost.

Response to questions

·        Ratepayer groups could partly fill the role of community boards but were not as formal or organised, and did not have the direct regular access to Council that community boards have.

·        Regarding access to councillors, an amended Option 2 meant that a ratepayer would not be restricted to only one ward representative but could speak to any of the councillors.  Considered that ward councillors were more interested in local area issues whereas at large councillors would take a broader view.

 

(2)             Graham Cooney

·        Considered there was a duty at every election to ensure the best governors were elected, and that the proposed system would not provide that outcome.

·        Considered a representative model did not generally give good governors and that many good governance bodies were moving away from representative systems.

·        Suggested an alternative system utilising an appointments committee with an independent chair.  Each candidate would appear in front of the committee which would assess whether candidates had the appropriate knowledge and experience to be or become a good governor; that assessment would be made available to the voters.

·        Considered that the mayor should not be elected by voters but chosen by the elected councillors.

Response to questions

·        It was noted that similar themes of qualification and experience of candidates had come through the review feedback; however, representation arrangements must fit within the current legislation in terms of candidate eligibility.

·        The submitter was not in favour of a representative model in any form but would prefer an at large system.

 

(3)             Keith Johnston

·        Was an elected community board member and chair at Thames-Coromandel District Council.

·        All community board chairs participated in council meetings and workshops to contribute their knowledge and experience, and facilitated community engagement.

·        Community boards needed to be properly mandated and empowered with appropriate delegations to be effective.

·        Considered more research was needed into the opportunities offered by community boards for Tauranga City.

·        Encouraged communities to come forward and be involved.

Response to questions

·        Did not think that community board delegations were reviewed at the beginning of each triennium at Thames-Coromandel District Council but continued to operate through consecutive triennia.

·        The Thames-Coromandel community boards had their own accounting software which enabled the boards to manage their own budgets and develop their own rating systems and levels.

 

(4)             John Robson

·        Observed that the behavioural expectations from the Local Government Act 2002 and the Local Electoral Act 2001 were in conflict in a number of places.

·        Noted the need to have at least four ward councillors as a consequence of the establishment of the Māori ward and therefore a fully at large option was not possible; and considered that this point was not well-communicated to the community.

·        Considered the information provided to the community as part of the representation review process was not complete and did not cover all relevant considerations.

·        Supported a more at large model.

 

            Response to questions

·        In terms of definition of communities of interest, the submitter emphasised that geographic communities of interest were not a requirement of the legislation; fully at large representation arrangements were possible, but representation arrangements needed to balance a range of objectives. 

·        Considered there were many possible communities of interest and that fixing particular communities of interest into the representational structure was not the best method of ensuring effective representation. Council needed to be able to be engage with the community, listen and be responsive to different groups at different times.

·        Considered council should move towards a more at large structure; Tauranga City was a small geographic area which did not make sense to divide into eight wards on a geographic basis.

·        Noted a possible conflict between candidates standing for wards and then, if elected, swearing an oath to do their best for the city as a whole; and suggested that whole city governance would improve councillor accountability. Representation did not equal governance.

·        Community boards had some advantages in providing governance experience and training.

 

(5)             Glen Crowther, Sustainable Bay of Plenty Charitable Trust

·     Considered there was a lack of clarity in the information presented to the public; thought there was misunderstanding in the community around what the options actually meant for individual voting.

·     Concerned around communities of interest identified in the proposal in terms of splitting suburbs; smaller areas (wards) would only work if the people living there identified strongly with the particular area.  Suggested larger wards would be more effective if local wards were desired.

·     Critical that representation arrangements led to good governance outcomes and a sustainable city.  Thought that diversity and fairness were narrowly interpreted; considered ward councillors would always be under pressure to favour their ward even though they had a duty to the whole city.

         Response to questions

·        It was suggested that the single ward option, as well as providing local representation, meant that each councillor would need to take a selection of other councillors with them to achieve support for decisions; and that a possible downside of an at large approach could be lack of engagement with local communities.  The submitter did not agree that the at large ward structure was a cause of the previous council dysfunction and thought that concern was a red herring.  Considered that better community engagement might not be a councillor problem but an organisational problem. 

 

(6)             Greg Brownless

·        Considered that the proposed radical change to the Tauranga City electoral system was in response to the last council’s dysfunction but did not agree that the electoral system was a causal factor in that dysfunction.

·        Although ward councillors may represent local voters on local issues; bigger issues were city-wide, and voters should be able to have a say on those wider issues.

·        Under the proposed arrangement, the decision on which ward to stand in became critical; nominations might be held back to see who else was standing, or a strong candidate declaring early could be a deterrent to other candidates.

·        Supported an odd number of Mayor and councillors to avoid the use of a casting vote e.g. 11 in total.

·        Considered that the mix of at large and geographic wards did not prove problematic in any other triennium than the current one.

·        Emphasised that democracy was the choice of the people and was not good or bad.  Supported a move back to local democracy for Tauranga in the 2022 elections.

         Response to questions

·        Commission mandate was only until October 2022.

·        Did not consider that the role of mayor needed to be emphasised as a strong leadership role or that the mayor should have any more power than other councillors; a mayor still needed to get a majority. 

·        Considered that community boards were less needed with a split system of multi-member wards and at large.

 

(7)             Barry Scott

·        Suggested an amended Option 2 be adopted – two wards, five general ward councillors, six at large and one Māori ward councillor.  Supported an uneven number of members.

·        Considered that amending Option 2 to include at large councillors addressed the unfairness issue of Māori voters only having one councillor to vote for while general ward voters could vote for a number of councillors.

·        Noted that it was up to Council to empower community boards to make them effective if established.  Considered that community boards could make most of the decisions for local matters; while Council made broader city-wide strategic decisions. 

·        Did not consider one Māori ward councillor could effectively cover all of Tauranga; also thought that Māori ward interests could align and mix with local community interests.

         Response to questions

·        Noted possible confusion with local identification with the suggested ward names and boundaries.

·        Regarding community boards, the possibility that community boards would add another layer of local government bureaucracy was acknowledged, but considered it became a matter of balance in terms of mandate and empowerment.  Considered that Council should set rates as it represented the entire city, but that community boards possibly could set local charges.

 

(8)             Roy Edwards

·        Supported an at large structure.

 

(9)             Sandi Fernandez

Did not attend.

 

(10)         Stephanie Simpson

·        Considered there was a need for at large councillors; suggested four would be appropriate.

·        Supported community boards, but only if no extra cost was incurred.  If there were no community boards, there should be mandated councillor meetings in the community. 

·        Councillors needed to engage with their communities.

·        Emphasised the importance of voter education and information to counteract the tendency to vote for a recognised name. 

·        Council needed to concentrate on delivering value for money and should robustly question staff information.

         Response to questions

·        The community needed to be more selective about who was elected to council and local government roles; councillors with a broad range of thought and opinion and a willingness to discuss with the community were needed.

 

(11)         Jan Beange and Gray Southon 

·        Supported the use of citizens’ assemblies/juries in addition to whichever representation structure is determined.

·        Considered there were some downfalls with an all ward structure.  The potential for a ward system to work or not would depend on who was elected.

·        Citizens’ assemblies worked as a complementary structure to elected representation; and could be used as an input to council plan processes.

·        Requested that the commissioners trial a citizens’ assembly during their term; if found suitable the use of citizens’ assemblies could form part of the Commission’s recommendation of what was needed for Tauranga going forward.

Response to questions

·        A modified version of a citizens’ assembly had been used by Auckland City for its Long-term Plan; and the concept was also being looked at in Porirua as a Treaty-based assembly with local iwi.

·        Use of citizens’ assemblies did not create an ongoing dialogue – an assembly would be created for an issue, make its recommendation report after consideration, then Council would make the decision.

 

(12)         Mike Baker

·        Considered that the proposal offered very limited representation with an elector only having two votes out of nine, one ward councillor and the Mayor.

·        If voters did not think the ward candidate was a good prospect, there would be a temptation to simply not vote.

·        Emphasised that it was hard enough getting people to vote now and considered it would become even harder with only the opportunity to cast two votes. The representation arrangement adopted should not reduce opportunities for voting participation.

·        Considered that if candidates were not required to live in the ward they were standing for, then at large councillors made more sense.  A ward-based system would not facilitate groups of like-minded people standing.

·        Did not support community boards – too much parochialism and created another level of bureaucracy.

 

(13)         Koro Nicholas, TKKM o Te Kura Kōkiri

            Did not attend.

 

(14)         Matthew Roderick

Did not attend.

 

(15)         Jo Allum, Venture Centre

Did not attend.

 

(16)         Susan Hodkinson

·        Did not think Mount Maunganui was well-served and would like Mount Maunganui and Arataki to be in the same ward.  Considered that the Mount community had quite different issues to the Te Papa or Pyes Pa communities for example.

·        Supported a mix of at large and wards, including a combined Mount-Arataki ward.

·        Supported community boards to operate at a local level and be a voice for smaller areas and neighbourhoods.  Community boards could break through the levels of the council organisation to get local issues addressed, allow interaction with the local community and help ensure quality of life for local residents.

·        Would like to see more Māori seats.  Noted that having at large councillors could facilitate more Māori representation but it had not worked that way in Tauranga to date.

 

(17)         Cr Andrew von Dadelszen and Cr David Love – Tauranga Ward Councillors, Bay of Plenty Regional Council 

·        Supported the Māori ward as a single member ward.

·        Did not support the Initial Proposal for a single ward model with eight geographic wards as  did not consider that supported participative democracy.  Councillors needed to take care of the whole city and could not be parochial.

·        Noted that Tauranga City was geographically small and predominantly urban.

·        Supported a structure of one general ward (nine or ten councillors), a Māori ward (one councillor) and the Mayor.  Thought this was the fairest model in terms of population per member.

·        Not concerned with an even number of members; noted that it was critical that councillors worked collaboratively amongst themselves.

·        Having more councillors created more opportunity for greater diversity in representation.

·        Considered voter participation would decrease if electors could only vote for one councillor and the Mayor.

·        Considered that an at large structure provided a better chance of the best people for the job being elected.

         Response to questions

·        Regarding the previous Council dysfunction and lack of focus on community and city quality of life, the submitter observed that voting patterns in the city were dominated by a particular demographic and there had been a lack of successful participatory democracy.  Council needed to look for opportunities to get different groups involved and engage the community to get the right people elected.  Suggested the use of focus groups to counter the domination of traditional participation methods by any one demographic

·        Noted the Māori constituencies within the Regional Council, and their effectiveness; and that all regional councillors, whether elected at large or from a constituency, maintained a region-wide strategic view.

·        Considered that representation and governance would be enhanced by removal of the parochialism fostered by geographic wards.

·        Considered there would be an increase in the number of people voting if there was the opportunity to vote for more than one councillor.

·        Supported Option 2 as it would give the best result for the city of Tauranga. Regarding the fairness of this option in terms of iwi vote, the submitter suggested that the key was for the Māori ward to have the right candidate and a strong voter turn-out. 

 

(18)         Hylton Rhodes

·        Noted the mix of at large and wards in previous councils.

·        Did not support a decrease in councillor numbers and considered that the size of the city would be better served with more councillors. This would provide more accessibility for ratepayers and give ratepayers a stronger voice in the fair and reasonable running of the city.

·        Noted there were examples of bad governance regardless of councillor numbers.

·        Expressed concern about the impact of developers on the city, and the increasing number of council staff.

·        Highlighted the need for a robust set of councillors elected from both at large and wards.

 

         Response to questions

·        Clarified that more councillors would provide better accessibility for ratepayers, but more councillors did not necessarily mean better decisions made.

 

 

12        Discussion of Late Items

Nil

13        Public excluded session 

Nil

14        Closing Karakia

Commissioner Shad Rolleston provided a closing karakia.

 

The meeting closed at 1.42pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 8 November 2021.

 

 

 

 

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

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 November 2021

 

8          Declaration of Conflicts of Interest

 

9          Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

10        Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 November 2021

 

11        Business

11.1       Representation Review - Deliberations on submissions to Initial Proposal and adoption of Final Proposal

File Number:           A12911714

Author:                    Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

Authoriser:              Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      The purpose of the report is to deliberate on the submissions received on the Council’s Initial Proposal and adopt a Final Proposal for the representation arrangements for the Tauranga City Council for the October 2022 local government election.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report “Representation Review – Deliberations on submissions to Initial Proposal and adoption of Final Proposal”.

(b)     Having considered all submissions received on the Initial Proposal and in accordance with sections 19M and 19N of the Local Electoral Act 2001, determines that the following changes be made to the Initial Proposal (insert brief description of changes e.g. the name of the Māori ward, the name of the Matua ward, changes to ward boundaries)  and the following proposal will apply 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)     The name of the Māori ward will be “Te Awanui”  as gifted by Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana.

(iv)    The proposed names of the wards, the number of members to be elected by the electors of each ward, and the population each member will represent are set out in the table below together with the compliance with the fairness population rule for the general wards.

Ward Name

Number of Members to be elected

Population Per Member

+/- 10%

Te Awanui ward

1

15,300

N/A

Mauao/Mount Maunganui

1

16,500

-3.26

Arataki

1

17,150

0.55

Pāpāmoa

1

16,850

-1.21

Welcome Bay

1

18,000

5.53

Matua or Matua/Otumoetai or Otumoetai

1

18,050

5.83

Bethlehem

1

17,550

2.89

Te Papa

1

16,400

-3.85

Tauriko

1

15,950

-6.49

Total

9

 

 

 

OR if changes to the ward boundaries for Mauao/Mount Maunganui, Arataki and Pāpāmoa are approved the following table applies:

Ward Name

Number of Members to be elected

Population Per Member

+/- 10%

Te Awanui Ward

1

15,300

N/A

Mauao/Mount Maunganui

1

15,650

-8.24

Arataki

1

17,050

-0.04

Pāpāmoa

1

17,800

4.36

Welcome Bay

1

18,000

5.53

Matua or Matua/Otumoetai or Otumoetai

1

18,050

5.83

Bethlehem

1

17,550

2.89

Te Papa

1

16,400

-3.85

Tauriko

1

15,950

-6.49

Total

9

 

 

 

(v)     In accordance with section 19V(2) of the Local Electoral Act 2001, the population that each member of a general ward represents is within the range of 17,056  +/- 10% (15,350 to 18,762)

(vi)    The proposed boundaries of each ward are those set out in the map below.

 

 

OR if changes to the ward boundaries for Mauao/Mount Maunganui, Arataki and Pāpāmoa are approved the proposed boundaries of each ward are those set out in the map below:

(vii)    That in accordance with section 19T of the Local Electoral Act 2001, the wards provide effective representation of the following communities of interest:

 

Ward Name

Description of communities of interest

Te Awanui

This ward reflects the community of interest for Māori electors and those in the Māori community across the entire Tauranga City.

Mauao/Mount Maunganui

This ward includes Mount Maunganui, Omanu, Bayfair and Matapihi. It forms part of the coastal strip and recognises the unique feature of Mauao which is an important cultural, historic and geographical feature. This ward has a focus on leisure and tourism, faces increased tsunami risk, sea level rise and coastal hazards due to its location. Improved transportation links to the City via state highways are of importance to residents.

Arataki

This ward includes Arataki, Te Maunga, Palm Beach and Kairua.   It forms part of the coastal strip. Like the Mauao/Mount Maunganui ward, the residents have strong links to the unique feature of Mauao and the ward has a focus on leisure and tourism, faces increased tsunami risk, sea level rise and coastal hazards due to its location. Improved transportation links to the City via state highways are of importance to residents.

Pāpāmoa

This ward includes Pāpāmoa, Golden Sands, Wairakei and Te Tumu. This coastal strip area will continue to have accelerating population growth.  In the next 10 years an estimated 2-3,000 new homes will be built in the areas already zoned for housing and 7-8,000 homes once Te Tumu is zoned for housing. It also faces increased tsunami risk, sea level rise and coastal hazards due to its location. Improved transportation links to the City as well as the construction of a direct link to the Tauranga Eastern Link via the Pāpāmoa East Interchange are of importance to residents.

Welcome Bay

This ward includes Welcome Bay, Maungatapu, Kaitemako, Poike and Ohauiti. These areas have a reliance on services and facilities located in other suburbs and transportation to the city centre is an important issue for local residents.  More rural based residents have specific needs related to rural living.

Matua or Matua/Otumoetai or Otumoetai

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

Bethlehem

This ward includes Bethlehem and Judea. With a large population living close to the city centre, the residents of this ward are impacted by the increase of infill housing, are interested in safer transport options and the development of community facilities. 

Te Papa

This ward includes Te Papa Peninsula, Sulphur Point, CBD, Fraser Cove, Gate Pa, Tauranga South, Merivale, Yatton Park and Greerton (north of Chadwick Road). The Te Papa Spatial Plan, with its focus on increased density and city-living type housing, is estimated to increase the number of residents on the Te Papa Peninsula by 15,000 by 2050. The Cameron Road redevelopment project with improved passenger services and transport choices will have a major impact on residents. The development of community facilities, spaces and places and the inner-city revitalisation are of importance to residents. 

Tauriko

This ward includes Pyes Pa, Hairini, Oropi, Greerton (south of Chadwick Road), The Lakes and Tauriko. The expansion of the city to the west has seen boundary changes with Western Bay to facilitate the development of business, industry and residential growth. It is estimated in the next 10 years that 3-4,000 new homes will be built, improvements will be made to SH29 and connections to it, and an additional 100-150 hectares of business land will be provided creating an additional 2,000 jobs. This ward includes rural based residents that have specific needs related to rural living.

 

(viii)   That no community boards be established.

 

 

 

(c)     As required by sections 19T and 19W of the Local Electoral Act 2001, the boundaries of the nine wards coincide with the current statistical mesh block areas determined by Statistics New Zealand.

(d)     In accordance with section 19N of the Local Electoral Act 2021, the reasons for the Final Proposal 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 persons per councillor for the general wards.

(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 proposal 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 the Mayor is elected at large (by all voters).

(e)     In accordance with section 19N of the Local Electoral Act 2021, the reasons for the rejection of submissions are included in the public notice and are set out below:

Category of submission objecting to the Initial Proposal

Number of submitters

Reason for rejecting matters raised in submissions

At large councillors – wanted to vote for councillors city-wide

17

An ‘at large’ only option is not permitted by the Local Electoral Act 2001 when a Māori ward is established. Option 2 in the pre-engagement survey is the closest to an at large model for people enrolled on the general electoral roll.

Option 2 in the pre-engagement survey to be chosen

(10 councillors plus a mayor, with one general ward of nine councillors and one Māori ward with one councillor)

9

Option 2 does not provide for geographical representation of separate communities within the City.  It is the most inequitable model of representation for Māori as voters on the general electoral roll would each be voting for eight of the nine councillors plus the mayor and the voters on the Māori electoral roll would be voting for one of the nine councillors plus the mayor.

Mixed model with councillors elected by wards and at large

16

The mixed model includes councillors of different status, some elected by wards and some at large; and the Review and Observer Team believed that this model contributed to the dysfunction of the previous council. The Council agreed with the Review and Observer Team’s opinion and considered that, on balance, the disadvantages of a mixed model outweighed the advantages.  

Multi-member ward model with 5 general wards with 2 councillors and 1 Māori ward with 1 councillor

6

The multi-member ward model with five general wards has less geographical coverage of communities of interest than the Initial Proposal.

Suggested ward boundaries for this model were amended from those proposed by the submitter to achieve compliance with the fairness rule. This proposal only just achieves compliance with the +/- 10% rule, with some communities of interest being split to achieve this compliance. These changes may be unacceptable to the submitter.

This representation model has not been seen by the public and its acceptance as a representation model has not been tested; however, the  multi-member ward model in the pre-engagement survey was the least popular option.

Ward councillors captured by ward interests

10

The Council recognises the perception that ward councillors could be captured by their ward interests, and that this was a potential disadvantage of any ward-based model. The Council also noted the perception that councillors elected at large could be captured by interest groups if they stand for office representing a particular group or stand on a single issue. However, the Council gave greater weight to the fact that all councillors make a declaration when they take office that they will act in the best interests of Tauranga City, and took into account the Bay of Plenty Regional Council evidence that their councillors, though elected from geographic wards (called constituencies), take a region-wide view and effectively represent the entire region.

Ward boundaries – requested amendments to ward boundaries

7

IF NO BOUNDARY CHANGES ARE MADE 

The Council considered a number of changes to the ward boundaries as suggested by submitters but concluded that no changes be made as the wards reflect the identified communities of interest.

The Council considered the submission to create a separate Greerton ward; however, that would result in a non-complying proposal and distortions of other ward boundaries. The Greerton community will be represented by two councillors, from the Te Papa and Tauriko wards. 

OR IF BOUNDARY CHANGES ARE MADE

The Council considered a number of changes to the ward boundaries as suggested by submitters, and agreed to move the boundary between the Mauao/Mount Maunganui and Arataki wards to Girven Road, and to move the boundary between the Pāpāmoa and Arataki wards to include Pāpāmoa Plaza, Fashion Island and surrounding residential areas, as these changes better reflect the communities of interests in those wards, and still enables the proposal to comply with the +/- 10% rule. 

The Council made no other changes to the remaining ward boundaries.

Ward names

6

The Council received submissions to change the name of the Matua ward to Otumoetai. The ward name will be: (choose one of the options below)

·    Matua

·    Matua-Otumoetai

·    Otumoetai

Proposing another option

11

Various scenarios for  mixed model representation were proposed and one for a multi-member ward.  The reasons for rejecting these options are the same as those outlined above in the sections on mixed model and multi-member ward.

Community Boards – requested these be established

14

The Council confirmed its decision not to establish community boards for the following reasons:

(a)     Tauranga City has not previously established community boards and, given the Local Government Review underway that will consider the future of local government over the next 30 years, it is considered premature to introduce community boards at this time.

(b)   There has been no significant demand from one or more specific communities to establish a community board. The Council can consider a demand from the community at any time to establish a community board.

(c)    Fair and effective representation for individuals and communities would be provided through the proposed representation arrangements without the need to establish community boards.

(d)   The Remuneration Authority’s conclusion, following its review of community board remuneration, that it was timely for a central government agency to review the functions, representation levels and associated characteristics of community boards.

(e)   The additional costs of establishing community boards would place a further burden on ratepayers at a time when rates have increased.

(f)    Alternative options are available to the Council following the 2022 elections to ensure local community views are heard and advocated for.  These include establishing community committees or setting up place-based community groups for particular projects.

Number of councillors and uneven number of elected members

14

The Council considers that the complex issues raised by governing a rapidly growing city could be reasonably met by a reduction from ten councillors and a mayor to nine councillors and a mayor; and noted that the Commission was modelling the efficiencies and effectiveness of smaller governance for the City.

The request for an uneven number of elected members was rejected. A casting vote is provided for in the Council’s Standing Orders for the Mayor or chairperson of a committee to use in the case of an equality of votes.

Increase Māori representation

8

The number of Māori members is set through a formula in Schedule 1A of the Local Electoral Act 2001 and, at present for Tauranga City, is one Māori member.  To have two Māori councillors requires either an increase in the Māori Electoral Population or an increase in the number of ward councillors to 15.   

Māori ward – disagree with establishment

21

The representation review does not provide an opportunity to revisit the decision to establish a Māori ward.

Commissioners – retain Commissioners

4

This representation arrangement is not available to the Council under the Local Electoral Act 2001.  The Minister of Local Government has the power to decide on the term of the Commissioners. Legislative changes would be required for a hybrid model of representation to include appointed Commissioners and elected councillors.

Quality of candidates

7

The representation review does not provide for the Council to consider restricting candidates from standing for office. The Local Electoral Act 2001 sets out the criteria for standing for council. The Electoral Officer is required to take nominations from any person wishing to stand as a candidate who meets that criteria.

Other

Mayor elected by councillors.

The second highest polling mayoral candidate be appointed as the Deputy Mayor.

Limit candidates to stand for mayor or councillor, not both.

Appointments Committee be set up with 50% councillors appointed and up to 50% elected.

Councillor to represent commercial ratepayers.

Address population growth

Citizens’ Assemblies to be established

12

The Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA) does not provide for the Council to give relief to any of these submissions. 

The Mayor is required to be elected by the voters of the city.

The Local Government Act 2002 sets out the process for the appointment of the Deputy Mayor and any changes would require legislative change.

Candidates can stand for both positions of mayor and councillor.

Voters elect the mayor and councillors. The Minister of Local Government has the power to appoint Commissioners. Legislative change would be required for a hybrid model of appointed Commissioners and elected members.

A councillor to represent commercial ratepayers is not provided for as the legislation is focused on fair and effective representation of people. Ward boundaries must  be physically mapped on a boundary using Statistics New Zealand mesh blocks.

The LEA requires the Council to use either census data or the latest population estimates when completing the review.  The representation review has used the 2020 population estimates as these provide more up to date population data.

Establishing Citizens’ Assemblies sits outside the scope of the representation review. The Council may establish Citizens’ Assemblies at any point.

 

(f)      In accordance with section 19N of the Local Electoral Act 2001, the Council will give public notice of  this proposal on 12 November 2021; and that those persons or organisations who made submissions on the Initial Proposal may appeal the final proposal and those who have not submitted may object to the final proposal, with appeals and objections closing at 5 pm on 13 December 2021.

(g)     Approves the recommended responses to submitters on the Initial Proposal as set out in Attachments 4 and 5, subject to any amendments as determined by the Council.

 

Executive Summary

2.      The Council went out to the community with an Initial Proposal on the future representation arrangements for Tauranga City Council and received 141 submissions and heard from 14 submitters who wished to speak to their submission at a Council meeting on 18 October 2021.

3.      The Council is now required, after considering the public submissions, to resolve a Final Proposal that best reflects the City’s communities of interest and provides for fair and effective representation in accordance with the Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA).

4.      The Council can retain the Initial Proposal or may make amendments to it within the scope of the submissions received. 

5.      The Council must publicly notify the Final Proposal and is required to state the reasons for any amendments and the reasons for any rejection of submissions, and these reasons must be recorded in the Council’s resolution.

6.      If there are no amendments made to the Initial Proposal only those who submitted to the Initial Proposal may appeal the Council’s decision.  If amendments are made, then people and organisations who did not submit on the Initial Proposal may object to the Council’s Final Proposal. Any appeals or objections (if received) will go to the Local Government Commission for their consideration and the Local Government Commission will make the final determination.

Background

7.      The Council at its meeting on 30 August 2021 resolved to adopt an Initial Proposal to go out for formal public submissions from 3 September to 4 October 2021.  Refer to Attachment 1 for the report to the Council on 30 August 2021 which included the results of the pre-engagement survey, an analysis of the four options in the pre-engagement survey and two additional options, one of which (option 4A) was chosen as the Initial Proposal.[1]

8.      The Council received 141  submissions  and heard from 14 submitters who wished to speak to their submission on 18 October 2021.   

9.      A digital, social media and print and radio campaign was undertaken from 3 September to 4 October 2021 to encourage the community to make submissions to the Initial Proposal.  Submitters were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the Initial Proposal, and to put any comments they wished.  Background information was supplied alongside the submission form, including infographics of the proposal, maps of each ward boundary, reasons for the proposal, the Council report and resolutions of 30 August 2021, the public notice, the results of the pre-engagement survey, the summary of the pre-engagement survey responses and the demographics of the survey respondents. This was supported by a list of Frequently Asked Questions.

10.    Survey respondents were notified of the Council’s Initial Proposal and invited to make a submission and Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana was similarly notified and invited. Public notices appeared in The Bay of Plenty Times and SunLive and key media coverage included articles in the Bay of Plenty Times and SunLive.[2]

11.    There were 6,379 page views of the representation review website page, 4,800 people were reached on Facebook (reactions, comments, shares, clicks) on the first post and 3,700 on the second post.  10,758 people were reached through media with a press release shared across a number of platforms. Due to Covid-19 restrictions no public face to face meetings were held, although conversations and emails were exchanged with interested persons who required additional information to make informed submissions.

12.    A history of Council’s previous representation reviews and arrangements was provided to the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee on 21 June 2021 and was available on the Council’s website during the submission process.

13.    A table of comparisons of electoral systems has been updated and is included in Attachment 2 for information. This table will be referred to when analysing submissions.

14.    The Local Government Commission and Council’s Electoral Officer advised all councils that submissions relating to the establishment of a Māori ward are out of scope and cannot be considered by the council and cannot be appealed to the Local Government Commission.

Strategic / Statutory Context

15.    The requirements relating to representation reviews are specified in the Local Electoral Act 2001 (LEA).

16.    One of the Principles of the LEA “is fair and effective representation for individuals and communities” as set out in section 4(1)(a). Sections 19A to 19Y of the LEA specify how this is to be given effect. 

17.    Section 19M of the LEA states that every person who requests to speak in support of their submission is given a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the council in a meeting that is  open to the public and all written submissions are made available to the public.

18.    Section 19N (1) of the LEA states that the Council needs to consider all submissions received and can make any amendments to the proposal “as the case may be, as it thinks fit”.  The Council must be able to demonstrate this consideration by providing reasons for the acceptance or rejection of submissions. Amendments in the Council’s Final Proposal should be made in response to submissions, or else the initial proposal needs to be retained. Otherwise the community has not had an opportunity to give feedback on all aspects of the proposal, and community members may have grounds to submit appeals and/or objections.

19.    Section 19N(2) of the LEA requires that the public notice must state the reasons for any amendments to the Initial Proposal, if any are made, and the reasons for any rejection of submissions, so the reasons must be recorded in the Council’s resolution of its Final Proposal. The public notice must specify: the communities of interest (as required by section 19T of the LEA); the ratio of population to proposed members for each proposed ward and the reasons for those proposals (as required by section 19V(2) of the LEA); the right of appeal to those who made a submission on the Initial Proposal (section 19O of the LEA) and the right of objection if the Council has amended its proposal (section 19P of the LEA).

20.    Schedule 1A of the LEA sets out provisions relating to Māori wards and constituencies and states that the council resolution must set out the proposed number of members to be elected by one or more Māori wards and the name and boundaries of each ward.

21.    Council is required to give public notice of its Final Proposal no later than 19 November 2021 (19N of the LEA). Other local authorities with a direct interest in the proposal receive copies of the Final Proposal as well as the Local Government Commission, Surveyor-General, Government Statistician and the Remuneration Authority.

Comparisons with other metro councils

22.    A table of comparisons with other metro councils was included in the report to the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee  on 21 June 2021.  An updated table provides a comparison of metro councils, (excluding Auckland Council), with the initial proposals of those councils undertaking representation reviews in 2021 and is included in Attachment 3.[3] This table shows that there is no “one size fits all” approach to governance.

23.    Some submitters referred to the Rotorua Lakes District Council proposal and this information has been included for comparison. 

analysis of submissions

24.    141 submissions were received.[4] 14 submitters spoke to the Council about their submission on 18 October 2021. 

25.    An analysis of submissions is included in Attachment 4. The management comments in response to each submission are included in Attachment 5.

26.    The alternative proposals presented by submitters are discussed in the body of the report below.

name of Māori ward and other ward names

27.    Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana have gifted the name “Te Awanui” for the Māori ward.

28.    Te Awanui is the original name of Tauranga harbour, and follows the pathway Mauao took from the Hautere Forest to his present position. The pathway that follows all of the emotions he experienced but ultimately led him to stand as a talisman and an icon for all of Tauranga Moana.

“The changing tides of our moana lift us together in the flooding tides and lowers us all in the ebbing tide, no matter who you are.  The essence is that no matter the kaupapa or topic at hand, collectively we can start at low tide and as the tide changes everyone rises at the same time all together…Te Tai Whanake!”

29.    Six submissions have requesting that Matua ward be named Otumoetai. The Council has three options:

1.  Agree to change the ward name to Otumoetai

2.  Introduce a hyphenated name Matua-Otumoetai

3.  Continue with the current ward name, Matua.

proposed changes to ward boundaries

30.    The following table shows the proposed changes to ward boundaries requested by submitters:

Ward boundary

Changes requested

Comments

Arataki ward

Move boundary with Mauao/Mount Maunganui to Girven Road

This boundary change can be made, and the proposal will continue to comply with the fairness rule.

See commentary, maps and table below.

Pāpāmoa ward

Move boundary with Arataki ward to include Pāpāmoa Plaza, Fashion Island and surrounding residential area.

This boundary change can be made, and the proposal will continue to comply with the fairness rule. 

See commentary, maps and table below. 

Mauao/Mount Maunganui and Arataki

Merge these wards and keep Pāpāmoa ward separate

 

 

This boundary change would create one large ward that would be non-complying unless two councillors were representing the ward.  This would create one multi-member ward which would be inconsistent with the single member ward approach; therefore, this change is not recommended.

Mount Maunganui and Pāpāmoa ward

Keep current ward boundary

This boundary change would create two wards on the coastal strip that would be non-complying, as the population would be under-represented by a substantial amount compared to other wards, and for this reason this change is not recommended.

Arataki and Pāpāmoa wards

Move boundary of Arataki south of Golf Road to Sandhurst Drive and include Matapihi.

Move boundary of Pāpāmoa to begin at Sandhurst Drive to Parton Road.

Propose another ward Te Tumu from Parton Road east.

This would create four wards on the coastal strip.  These wards would be non-complying as the population would be over-represented compared to other wards and for this reason this change is not recommended.

The submitter’s suggested four coastal wards are similar to those proposed in Option 4, with 12 councillors. Refer to the report on 30 August 2021 for more details of this option. 

Brookfield

Submitters do not support the suburb of Brookfield being split between Matua and Bethlehem wards and proposed other options to mitigate this, including 3 and 5 ward options.

The majority of Brookfield is contained within the Matua ward, with the exceptions being the area on the south-western side of Bellevue Rd and the pocket bounded on the south by Sutherland Rd and the north by Matahoroa and Waikareao West reserves, which are in the Bethlehem ward.  The boundaries between Matua and Bethlehem wards were created to ensure communities of interest were maintained and to achieve compliance with the fairness rule.

Refer to the section of the report “Proposing other options” for commentary on the solutions proposed by submitters.

Greerton

Moving the boundary of Greerton from Chadwick Road to Barkes Corner.

Moving the boundary of Greerton from Chadwick Road to Barkes Corner would result in a non-complying proposal.

A Greerton ward was modelled in Option 4B (refer to report on 30 August 2021). With a general electoral population of 13,700 it had the smallest population. This option was a non-complying proposal, with the three coastal wards being underrepresented. The boundaries of the Tauriko, Te Papa and Welcome Bay wards were amended in Option 4B to ensure compliance with the fairness rule, but this did result in ward boundaries that included communities of interest that had not in the past been associated together.

The Greerton community will be represented by two councillors representing the Te Papa and Tauriko wards and one submitter has suggested that this is unfair.

 

31.    There are three options to incorporate boundary changes proposed by submitters.

Option 1- Amend Mauao/Mount Maunganui and Arataki ward boundary

32.    This option would move the boundary between Mauao/Mount Maunganui and Arataki wards from the current boundary to Girven Road (see maps below).  This would reduce both the geographic area of Mauao/Mount Maunganui ward and the population per councillor and increase both the geographic area and population per councillor in the Arataki ward. This change can be undertaken, and the proposal will continue to be complying.  It is considered this boundary change is appropriate and will be understood by the communities of each ward.

          Current ward boundary change                               Proposed  ward boundary

          

 

The table below shows the changes to the population and compliance with the fairness rule.

Ward Name

Population Per Member current ward boundary

+/- 10%

Population Per Member amended ward boundary

+/- 10%

Mauao/Mount Maunganui

16,500

-3.26

15,650

-8.21

Arataki

17,150

0.55

17,950

5.28

 

Option 2 – Amend Arataki and Pāpāmoa ward boundary

33.    This option would move the boundary between Arataki and Pāpāmoa wards from the current boundary on Domain Road to include Pāpāmoa Plaza, Fashion Island and surrounding residential area (see maps below).  This would reduce both the geographic area of Arataki ward and the population per councillor, and Pāpāmoa ward would have a larger geographic area and an increase in the population per councillor. This change can be undertaken, and the proposal will continue to be complying.  It is considered this boundary change is appropriate and will be understood by the communities of each ward.

 


 

 

Current ward boundary                                   Proposed ward boundary change

               

 

The table below shows the changes to the population and compliance with the fairness rule.

 

Ward Name

Population Per Member current ward boundary

+/- 10%

Population Per Member amended ward boundary

+/- 10%

Arataki

17,150

0.55

16,250

-4.76

Pāpāmoa

16,850

-1.21

17,800

4.36

 

 

Option 3 – Amend both Mauao/Mount Maunganui, Arataki and Pāpāmoa wards

34.    This option would accept both the above boundary changes between the Mauao/Mount Maunganui and Arataki wards and between the Arataki and Pāpāmoa wards (see map below). This would reduce both the geographic area of Mauao/Mount Maunganui and the population per councillor.  The Arataki ward area, with movement in boundaries at both ends of the ward, has minimal overall population change. The Pāpāmoa ward increases both in geographical size and in population per councillor.  Both these boundary changes can be made, and the proposal will continue to be complying.  It is considered these boundary changes are appropriate and provide for more effective and fair representation of these communities along the coastal strip and will be understood by the communities of each ward.

The table below shows the changes to the population and compliance with the fairness rule.

Ward Name

Population Per Member current ward boundary

+/- 10%

Population Per Member amended ward boundaries

+/- 10%

Mauao/Mount Maunganui

16,500

-3.26

15,650

-8.24

Arataki

17,150

0.55

17,050

-0.04

Pāpāmoa

16,850

-1.21

17,800

4.36

 

proposing other options

35.    The following options have been proposed by submitters.

Total number of councillors

Number of wards and description of proposal

Number of at large councillors

Comments

8 + mayor

4 general wards with 2 councillors each

0

The submitter, Allan Gifford, did not state which wards were to be combined and was silent on the Māori ward. 

9 + mayor

4 general wards with 2 councillors each = 8 general ward councillors

1 Māori ward with 1 councillor

 

0

Proposed by Sustainable Bay of Plenty Charitable Trust (supported by five submitters)

The submitter stated they did not favour this option.

This option has not been modelled but would likely be non-complying.

11 + mayor

 

3 general wards with 2 councillors each = 6 general ward councillors

1 Māori ward with 1 councillor

4

Proposed by Sustainable Bay of Plenty Charitable Trust (supported by five submitters)

This is similar to the current representation model with the addition of a Māori ward councillor.

Two ward members in each of the previous three wards does not comply with the fairness rule. The Mount Maunganui/Pāpāmoa ward required an extra councillor and minor boundary changes were needed to meet the +/- 10% rule.

This is a non-complying proposal.

12 + mayor

3 general wards with 7 councillors = 7 general councillors

1 Māori ward with 1 councillor

 

4

Proposed by submitter Barry Scott, this is Option 1 with an additional two at large councillors. 

This proposal is complying. Refer to the options section for further commentary.

10 + mayor

5 general wards with 1 councillor from each ward = 5 general ward councillors

Otumoetai-Bethlehem

Te Papa-Greerton

Tauriko-Ohauiti-Welcome Bay

Mount-Arataki

Pāpāmoa-Wairakei

1 Māori ward with 1 councillor

4

Proposed by Sustainable Bay of Plenty Charitable Trust (supported by five submitters)

This option was the preferred option for the submitter.

The option as proposed by the submitter is non-complying with the fairness rule.

The ward boundaries were amended from those proposed by the submitter to achieve compliance with the fairness rule.  The Otumoetai-Bethlehem ward has been split with parts of Otumoetai included in the Te Papa-Greerton ward; and Tauriko has been included in the Otumoetai-Bethlehem ward. These changes may not be acceptable to the submitter.

Statistics NZ has confirmed that an amended five ward option is complying.

Refer to the map and ward tables for this option in Attachment 6.

11 + mayor

5 general wards with 1 councillor from each =  5 general ward councillors

1 Māori ward with 1 councillor

 

5 or 6

Proposed by Barry Scott and Tauranga Ratepayers’ Alliance. No ward boundaries were proposed.  As this is a similar proposal to the option proposed by Sustainable Bay of Plenty Charitable Trust, with an additional at large councillor, the 5 ward amended boundary proposal is used to provide relief for these submitters.

Submitter Rob Paterson in his tabled submission proposed a similar option with 6 at large councillors.

This option is complying. Refer to the map and ward tables for this option in Attachment 6.

11 + mayor

5 general wards with 2 councillors from each ward = 10 general ward councillors

Otumoetai-Bethlehem

Te Papa-Greerton

Tauriko-Ohauiti-Welcome Bay

Mount-Arataki

Pāpāmoa-Wairakei

1 Māori ward with 1 councillor

0

Proposed by Sustainable Bay of Plenty Charitable Trust (supported by five submitters).

The option as proposed by the submitter is non-complying with the fairness rule.

The ward boundaries were amended from those proposed by the submitter to achieve compliance with the fairness rule.  The Otumoetai-Bethlehem ward has been split with parts of Otumoetai included in the Te Papa-Greerton ward; and Tauriko has been included in the Otumoetai-Bethlehem ward. These changes may not be acceptable to the submitter.

Statistics NZ has confirmed that an amended five ward option is complying.

Refer to the map and ward tables for this option in Attachment 6.

 

Options Analysis

36.    The Council has five options:

i.    to confirm the Initial Proposal with no amendments[5] (9 councillors)

ii.   to confirm the Initial Proposal with amendments to include the gifted Māori ward name of Te Awanui, change to the Matua ward name and changes to ward boundaries for Mauao/Mount Maunganui, Arataki and Pāpāmoa wards  (9 councillors)

iii.   to adopt Option 2 of the pre-engagement survey (with 10 or 11 councillors)

iv.  to adopt a mixed representation model with either:

(a)     3 general wards with 7 councillors, 1 Māori ward and 4 at large councillors (12 councillors)

(b)     5 general wards, 1 Māori ward and 5 or 6 at large councillors (11 or 12 councillors) 

v.   to adopt a ward-only model with 5 general wards with 2 councillors each, and 1 Māori ward with 1 Māori councillor (11 councillors) 

37.    The advantages and disadvantages of each option are set out below.  The Council also has the option to establish community boards with any of these options.

 

Option

Option Description

Number of councillors

Advantages

Disadvantages

1

Initial Proposal with no amendments

9

71 submitters (50%) support this proposal. Any amendments may not be supported by submitters.

Recognises the distinct communities of interest in the city based on geographic areas and protects that geographic representation on Council.

 

Seen as more equitable as both general and Māori electors vote for one councillor.

More even distribution of electors per councillor for the general wards than other options.

Potential for a more efficient governance model with a reduction in the number of councillors.

Increases the number of wards from 3 to 8 which enables councillors to effectively represent the views of people in their electoral area.

More easily understood system than other representation arrangements and ensures a more direct relationship between electors and the ward councillor. 

Greerton community is represented by two councillors.

Potential for less costs for candidates standing in general wards.

May address the concerns and issues raised by the Review and Observer Team.

Provides the Mayor with a clear leadership mandate as elected by all voters.

69 submitters (49%) did not support this proposal.

Electors do not vote for the majority of councillors or have a broader choice of candidates. All electors vote for only one councillor out of 9 councillors plus the mayor (2 of 10 elected members). 

Does not identify and represent city-wide communities of interest.

Potential for perception that the ward member represents their ward interests only. 

 

Less potential for electing a more diverse group of councillors than mixed model. 

 

Fewer councillors may detract from the ability of the public to access councillors.

 

Greerton community has been split between two wards (Te Papa and Tauriko).

 

 

 

 

 

2

Initial Proposal with amendments to include the Māori ward name Te Awanui, Matua ward name and ward boundaries for Mauao/Mount Maunganui, Arataki and Pāpāmoa wards

9

As above.

Name changes to wards, including the gifting of the Māori ward name Te Awanui, are considered to be amendments to the proposal.

Two ward boundary changes can be made to the proposal and it will continue to comply.

Move Arataki boundary with Mauao/Mount Maunganui ward to Girven Road; and

Move boundary of Arataki and Pāpāmoa wards so that Papamoa ward includes Pāpāmoa Plaza, Fashion Island and surrounding residential area.

These changes will provide relief to the submitters.

As above.

Any amendments to the Initial Proposal will enable persons who have not made a submission to object to the proposal.

3

Option 2 with 10 or 11 councillors

10 or 11

Recognises shared common community of interest at city level for general electors.

General electors can elect 9 out of 10 councillors (or 10 out of 11 councillors if 11 councillors option chosen) which supports the principle of electors voting for the majority of councillors.

Potential for candidates standing in the general ward to represent sector or interest groups spread city-wide.  

STV voting system suited to wards with larger number of councillors and has potential to deliver a more diverse range of councillors in the general ward.

 

Allows general electors a choice about which councillors to approach and may increase the ability of the public to access councillors.

 

No guaranteed representation of geographic communities of interest on council. 

Disproportionately inequitable representation model with general voters able to elect up to 9 councillors and Māori electors able to elect 1 councillor.

Electors have a less direct relationship with councillors elected from a city-wide ward.

Potential for the perception that councillors elected at large are captured by interest groups if they stand for office representing a particular group or stand on a single issue.

Potential for higher costs for all candidates as they campaign city-wide. 

This arrangement may not address the issues and concerns raised by the Review and Observer Team.

4A

Mixed model with 3 general wards with 7 general councillors, 1 Māori ward with 1 Māori councillor and 4 at large councillors

12

Both Māori and general electors vote for between 5-8 out of 12 councillors which supports the principle of electors voting for the majority of councillors.

This continues the mixed model arrangement which is familiar with the public as it has been in place since 2010.

Provides for the geographical coverage of communities of interest with ward-elected members.

Provides for communities of interest spread across the city to be represented.

STV voting system suited to wards with multi- councillors and has the potential for more diverse councillors to be elected from both ward and at large candidates.

Provides residents a choice of councillors to approach, either at large or ward-based members.

Increased number of councillors provides opportunity for greater diversity of councillors and may increase the ability of the public to access councillors.

Not all councillors represent the same number of electors, as at large councillors are not subject to +/- 10% rule.

Mixture of two systems (wards and at large) could be confusing to voters.

May not represent the current communities of interest.

Potential for perception by public that the ward member is there to represent their ward only and is captured by the interests of ward electors.

Possibility of division between councillors in terms of perceived elector representation and accountability.

The Review and Observer Team considered this arrangement contributed to the previous Council’s dysfunction.

4B

Mixed model with 5 general wards with 5 general councillors, 1 Māori ward with 1 Māori councillor and 5 or 6 at large councillors

11 or 12

These are the same as Option 4A with the following changes:

Both Māori and general electors vote for the same number of councillors e.g. 6 councillors out of 11 councillors (with 5 at large councillors) or 7 councillors out of 12 (with 6 at large councillors) and is considered a more equitable model than Option 4A.

Supports the principle of electors voting for the majority of councillors.

Provides for an increase in the geographical coverage of communities of interest with ward-elected members compared to Option 4A.

These are the same as Option 4A.

The option as proposed by the submitter is non-complying with the fairness rule.

The ward boundaries were amended from those proposed by the submitter to achieve compliance with the fairness rule.  These changes may not be acceptable to the submitter.

This option only just achieves compliance with the +/- 10% rule and some communities of interest have been split to achieve this compliance.

This option has not been seen by the public and its acceptance as a representation model has not been tested.

5

Ward-only model with 5 general wards with 2 ward councillors each (total of 10 general councillors) and 1 Māori ward with 1 Māori councillor 

11

Recognises the distinct communities of interest in the city based on geographic areas and protects that geographic representation on Council.

Seen as more equitable as general electors vote for two councillors out of 11 and Māori electors vote for one councillor.

Increase in the number of wards from 3 to 5 enables councillors to effectively represent the views of people in their electoral area.

More easily understood system than other representation arrangements and ensures a more direct relationship between electors and the ward councillor. 

Greerton community is not split.

Potential for less cost for candidates standing in general wards.

May address the concerns and issues raised by the Review and Observer Team.

Provides the Mayor with a clear leadership mandate as elected by all voters.

The option as proposed by the submitter is non-complying with the fairness rule.

The ward boundaries were amended from those proposed by the submitter to achieve compliance with the fairness rule. These changes may not be acceptable to the submitter.

This option only just achieves compliance with the +/- 10% rule and some communities of interest have been split to achieve this compliance.

This option has three less general wards than the Initial Proposal, which provides for less geographical coverage of communities of interest.

This option has not been seen by the public and its acceptance as a representation model has not been tested. However, the  multi-member ward model in the pre-engagement survey (7 wards with 12 councillors) was the least popular option with 7.5% of respondents choosing this option.

Electors do not vote for the majority of councillors or have a broader choice of candidates.

Does not identify and represent city-wide communities of interest.

Potential for perception that the ward member represents their ward interests only. 

 

Less potential for electing a more diverse group of councillors than mixed model.

 

38.    The recommended resolutions in this report are for Option 1, the Initial Proposal with no amendments; but do include either/or amendments for Option 2 i.e. amendments to name the Māori ward Te Awanui, rename the Matua ward and amend ward boundaries for the Mauao/Mount Maunganui, Arataki and Pāpāmoa wards, if these are approved by the Council.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

39.    The financial impact of a change in representation arrangements will need to be calculated once the changes are known.  There is no impact on councillors’ remuneration as this is a pool set by the Remuneration Authority, regardless of the number of councillors, based on several factors including population and council assets.  The establishment of one or more community boards would require resourcing to be scoped and a separate budget to be established. 

Legal Implications / Risks

40.    The Council must meet the statutory deadlines outlined in the LEA.  The Council has undertaken a robust process to arrive at a final proposal; however, there is always a risk that the Local Government Commission will overturn the Council’s final proposal as this has occurred in the past.

Significance

41.    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.

42.    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 proposal.

(c)     the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

43.    In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the proposal is of high significance.

ENGAGEMENT

44.    Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the proposal is of high significance, consultation was required under section 19H of the Local Electoral Act 2001. Council’s decision on the Final Proposal will be publicly notified and an appeal/objection period of a month will follow notification.

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

45.    12 November 2021 – public notice of final proposal and appeal/objection period for a month.

46.    13 December 2021 – appeal/objection period ends, and any appeals and objections are sent to the Local Government Commission by 15 December 2021 (note: the legislative deadline to do this is 15 January 2022).

47.    By 11 April 2022 – the Local Government Commission will issue final determination.

 

Attachments

1.      Council report 30 August 2021 - Representation Review - public feedback and adoption of Initial Proposal - A12707050

2.      Table of comparisons of electoral arrangements - at large, ward and mixed - A12473221

3.      Table of comparisons with other metro councils updated with initial proposals - A12989609

4.      Analysis of submissions on Initial Proposal - A13013748

5.      Submissions on Initial Proposal with management comments - A13001589

6.      Five general wards - complying options proposed by submitters - A13013672   


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 November 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 November 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 November 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 November 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

PDF Creator


PDF Creator

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 November 2021

 







































Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 November 2021

 

PDF Creator

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 November 2021

 

12        Discussion of Late Items

 

13        Public Excluded Session  

Nil

14        Closing Karakia



[1] Please note there was an error in the resolution with Gate Pa in Tauriko ward instead of Te Papa ward. The maps were correct, but the description was incorrect. This error has been amended in the recommended resolutions.

[2] Bay of Plenty Times article “Smaller council proposed for Tauranga, some want commissioners to stay” on 30 August 2021 available https://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/smaller-council-proposed-for-tauranga-some-want-commissioners-to-stay/ONTUO6PXM7GOO4ANJMNMYTN4UU/ and “Future of Tauranga City governance to be decided in council meeting Monday” on 30 August 2021 available https://www.nzherald.co.nz/bay-of-plenty-times/news/future-of-tauranga-city-governance-to-be-decided-in-council-meeting-monday/H23D5EKU64SVEECRTIRMKPFU3U/

SunLive article “Exit plan key Tauranga election decisions” on 23 September 2021 available https://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/277417-exit-plan-key-tauranga-election-decisions.html

 

[3] Auckland Council has its own legislation relating to representation arrangements.

[4] There was one late submission from the Tauranga Ratepayers Alliance and one submission received from an individual within the timeframe and both were not included in the agenda or in the figures in the report of the 18 October 2021 Council meeting.

[5] The naming of the Māori ward is an amendment to the proposal.