Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting - Tuesday, 8 February 2022

UNCONFIRMED Ordinary Council meeting Minutes

15 November 2021

MINUTES

Ordinary Council meeting

Monday, 15 November 2021

Order of Business

1 Opening Karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Public Forum.. 4

4 Acceptance of late items. 4

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 4

6 Change to the order of business. 4

7 Confirmation of Minutes. 4

7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 October 2021. 4

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 4

9 Deputations, Presentations, Petitions. 4

Nil

10 Recommendations from Other Committees. 4

Nil

11 Business. 4

11.1 Proposed Dual Naming for Yatton Park. 4

11.2 Executive Report 5

11.3 Review of the Delivery of Mainstreet Programmes. 6

11.4 Reclassification of land parcel within Golf Road reserve - Mount Playcentre. 7

11.5 Meetings schedule January-September 2022. 7

11.6 Submission on the Ministry for the Environment’s Emissions Reduction Plan. 8

11.7 City Plan Review Update. 8

11.8 Resource Management (Enabling Housing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and Plan Change 26 implications. 9

11.9 Submissions on Draft Parking Strategy. 10

12 Discussion of Late Items. 11

13 Public excluded session. 11

13.1 Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 October 2021. 12

13.2 Wastewater Management Review Committee - confirm appointments and quorum changes. 12

13.3 Tauriko West Update & Implementation Pathway. 12

13.4 The sale of Pitau Road village and Hinau Street village. 12

13.5 CBD Hotel & Conference Centre Development - Council lease of Conference Centre. 13

13.6 Exemption to Open Competition Joyce Road Water Treatment Plant 13

13.7 Approval to vary Bridge Wharf repair works. 13

14 Closing Karakia. 13

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council meeting

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

ON Monday, 15 November 2021 AT 10.30am

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

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), Anne Blakeway (Manager: Community Partnerships), Carlo Ellis (Manager: Strategic Māori Engagement), Jeremy Boase (Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning), Ceilidh Dunphy (Community Relations Manager), Paul Dunphy (Director: Places and Spaces), Ross Hudson (Team Leader: Planning), Alistair Talbot (Team Leader: Transport Strategy & Planning), Andy Mead (Manager: City and Infrastructure Planning), Phil Kai Fong (Team Leader: Strategic Property), Janine Speedy (Team Leader: City Planning), Peter Siemensma (Senior Transport Planner), Robyn Scrimshaw (Urban Planner), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Committee Support)

1 Opening Karakia

Provided by Carlo Ellis, Manager: Strategic Māori Engagement

Presentation – Frazer Smith, 25 years’ service

Frazer Smith had worked in the Tauranga City Council (TCC) finance team for 25 years, in a number of different roles, and was originally from an audit background. Mr Smith was noted for his strategic thinking and expert financial modelling and model development; and had played a crucial role in the development of TCC growth funding arrangements and had made a vital contribution to a number of long term and annual plans. His talent for acting and experience in local community theatre was noted. The Commission Chairperson thanked Mr Smith for his 25 years of great service to the people of Tauranga.

2 Apologies

Resolution CO22/21/1

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That an apology for absence from Commissioner Bill Wasley be received and accepted.

Carried

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

7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 October 2021

Resolution CO22/21/2

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 October 2021 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9 Deputations, Presentations, Petitions

Nil

10 Recommendations from Other Committees

Nil

11 Business

11.1 Proposed Dual Naming for Yatton Park

Staff Nick Lynch-Watson, Principal Reserves Planner

External Staff and students from Merivale Primary School

Key points

· The Merivale School students explained the project they had undertaken around the dual naming of Yatton Park, the research they undertook and the process they had worked through. The students thanked the TCC staff involved and the Commissioners for hearing them.

In response to questions

· Considered important to recognise both names and both histories.

· The school would be involved in designing and placing new signage.

Resolution CO22/21/3

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report, “Proposed Dual Naming for Yatton Park”.

(b) Approves the name “Tutarawānanga” to be added to Yatton Park as a dual name – the full reserve name will be Tutarawānanga – Yatton Park.

Carried

11.2 Executive Report

Staff Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure Services

Susan Jamieson, General Manager: People & Engagement

Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance

Paul Davidson, General Manager Corporate Services

Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Key points

· COVID continued to provide challenges to many parts of the business.

· The Baycourt team had worked hard to make sure as many activities as possible could still take place, particularly child-related activities such as dance recitals.

· Links Ave – a disappointing response to the cul-de-sac trial had been received. Staff were working with the community during the trial and hoped better observance would be achieved.

· Noted the improvement in building services and consents, which had been a large and difficult workload, and the positive work in dog control and dog registration.

· Operational areas were suffering from the impacts of COVID and the Auckland lockdown, especially the Beachside Holiday Park. Noted the progress with digitalisation of older council records.

In response to questions

· Staff were working through the fund application process to identify applicant groups that might fall into the community partner category rather than the one-off grant category.

· The Forrester Drive walkway extension was on hold until fuller engagement with the Welcome Bay community regarding options for all local reserves and walkways was undertaken.

· Project Tauranga had been reviewed, in conjunction with its partners, and the decision made to discontinue the existing version of the project. The opportunity to connect with the governance body and senior leaders within the council organisation was what the partners valued most; quarterly meetings were planned to continue those relationships.

· Links Ave – a number of community members had ideas of what the road redesign should look like; feedback should be sent through to the transport team as soon as possible. Feedback from the wider motoring community was an overarching sense of frustration, with a lack of understanding why the trial was happening. Noted the need to communicate not only from the transport movement perspective but also from a safety viewpoint.

· The Te Maunga transfer station was coping well since the closure of Maleme St with very little feedback from the public either to TCC or the Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC).

· The challenge to recruit people was noted. Council already had several staff working remotely from around NZ and from overseas.

· The airport was working closely with Air New Zealand in terms of what the traffic light system and mandated vaccination for domestic travellers meant for the airport.

Discussion points raised

· Acknowledged positive feedback from recent tree-planting days.

· Noted positive feedback received from online applications for building consents.

Resolution CO22/21/4

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council receives the Executive Report.

Carried

11.3 Review of the Delivery of Mainstreet Programmes

Staff Anne Blakeway, Manager: Community Partnerships

Key points

· Key themes from the review were about monitoring and accountability; and building better relationships with the Mainstreets.

· Suggested outcomes were the development of closer relationships and the implementation of an accountability framework.

In response to questions

· The Mainstreets had expressed concern about a lack of a dedicated person in TCC that they could go to; having that dedicated person, and also the development of the place-based community relations strategy, should make a difference.

· Acknowledged there was some nervousness from the Mainstreets around the accountability mechanisms such as member surveys. The focus should be on council working in partnership with the Mainstreets on continual improvement and identifying best practice.

Resolution CO22/21/5

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

(a) Receives the Review of the Delivery of Mainstreet Programmes report.

(b) Directs staff to implement all seven review recommendations (outlined below), including the appointment of a 0.5 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) role within the Community Partnerships division to manage the ongoing relationship with the mainstreet organisations.

Carried

11.4 Reclassification of land parcel within Golf Road reserve - Mount Playcentre

Staff Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

Ross Hudson, Team Leader: Planning

Robyn Scrimshaw, Urban Planner

Key points

· Council had been consistently requested over a period of time to find the playcentre a permanent home; which had become an action from the Long-term Plan.

· A portion of the reserve was required to be reclassified to enable the playcentre to operate in the reserve.

In response to questions

· The current users of the site – Mount Maunganui Bridge Club and Surf Lifesaving NZ - were in the process of building a new joint facility. An inquiry from beach volleyball for use of the reserve was also being investigated.

· The proposed reclassification was open for public consultation for a month and would then be reported back to Council for decision. A decision to reclassify would then trigger a formal Gazette process. Mount Playcentre had a positive funding application which was time-limited so the reclassification process would be aligned with that timing if possible.

Resolution CO22/21/6

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

(a) Approves, in principle, the re-classification of a portion of Golf Road Reserve, up to 1000 m²identified indicatively in the plan attached at Figure 2 of this report, from recreation reserve to local purpose (community building) reserve, pursuant to section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977; and

(b) Authorises public notification and public consultation of the proposed re-classification, pursuant to section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977.

Carried

11.5 Meetings schedule January-September 2022

Staff Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy Services

Key points

· The proposed schedule provided clear visibility of time commitments for the Commissioners; noted that the bulk of their work was to be scheduled into the first three days of each week.

In response to questions

· The Annual Plan Council meeting scheduled for March 21 2022 would be moved if possible as a commissioner was unable to attend that day.

Resolution CO22/21/7

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report “Meetings schedule January-September 2022”.

(b) Adopts Attachment 1 as the meetings schedule for the period January to September 2022.

Carried

11.6 Submission on the Ministry for the Environment’s Emissions Reduction Plan

Staff Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Key points

· Noted the main issues intended to be contained in the submission. Sought to ensure that all issues were covered; the final submission would be signed off by the Chief Executive.

In response to questions

· Commissioners noted an amount of duplication that could be streamlined in the submission; did not consider any issues or points were missed.

· Noted the number of legislative and regulatory reforms taking place in central government that were not well-aligned or co-ordinated; considered the lack of joined-up policy direction by central government should be emphasised in the submission.

· Te Rangapū and other iwi partners would be consulted for the substantive planning process that would arise from the policy reforms.

· Staff had engaged with WBOPDC, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Local Government New Zealand and Taituarā in terms of their submissions.

Resolution CO22/21/8

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council endorses the key areas of focus for council’s submission to the Ministry for the Environment ‘Te hau marohi ki anamata, Transitioning to a low-emissions and climate resilient future’, incorporating amendments agreed at this meeting.

Carried

11.7 City Plan Review Update

Staff Janine Speedy, Team Leader: City Planning

Andy Mead, Manager: City and Infrastructure Planning

Key points

· Outlined the various legislative requirements for plan review and the implications of ongoing legislative reform.

· Noted the proposed new requirement to have a combined Bay of Plenty plan.

· The staff recommendation was to put the city plan review on hold and wait for the new legislation to come out; a new work programme would be developed to progress with priority plan changes. The work programme will be brought to the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee for endorsement.

· The analysis work for priority plan changes would be completed in discussion with Kainga Ora. A letter from the Commissioners would be sent to the Minister following today’s decisions, to inform the Minister of TCC’s approach.

In response to questions

· Was a pragmatic response to the changing legislative and policy environment. It was unfortunate timing that the Resource Management Act review was taking place when TCC was scheduled to review its city plan.

· There was still a need to be as prepared as possible, so the development of the new work programme was supported.

· Staff would meet with WBOPDC on a regular basis to try to achieve alliance with regional/sub-regional plan changes.

Resolution CO22/21/9

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a) Puts the City Plan Review on hold (option 3) pending outcomes of the government’s resource management reforms and instead progress with priority plan changes;

(b) Communicates with key partners, including central Government that Tauranga City Council has decided to put the City Plan Review project on hold and progress priority plan changes;

(c) Requests staff prepare a draft work programme for priority plan changes to be reported to Council for consideration in early 2022.

Carried

11.8 Resource Management (Enabling Housing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and Plan Change 26 implications

Staff Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy and Growth

Janine Speedy, Team Leader: City Planning

Andy Mead, Manager: City and Infrastructure Planning

Key points

· Noted the short timeframe for submission on the Bill. Staff were working with partners and had sought legal advice, and were now writing the submission. Councils had been unaware the bill was coming.

· TCC had communicated to central government regarding the implications of the bill on Plan Change 26 (PC26) and were seeking changes to the bill to enable PC26 to progress.

· Staff would like a clear direction from the commissioners whether to progress PC26 and where to prioritise resources. The staff recommendation was to place PC26 on hold, not withdraw it. A consenting pathway needed to be developed to progress urban intensification that considered the plan change and the bill requirements.

· The bill was with the Select Committee; staff were working with officials in terms of suggested changes but unsure about what influence this was having.

In response to questions

· Clarification was sought on timeframes. Indications were that the bill would be passed by mid-Dec; any intensification plan change giving effect to the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD), such as PC26, must have the plan change hearing completed by 20 February 2022. If that timeframe could not be met then the plan change was required to be withdrawn.

· It would be extremely challenging for PC26 to proceed – there was not the necessary scope within the plan change and its submissions to align with the requirements of the Bill.

· The final version of the proposed building standards would not be known until mid-December.

· The geographic extent of the bill was more far-reaching than PC26 – the three-housing activity from the bill applied across all residential zones.

· The sections of PC26 that still had some certainty e.g. the transport chapter and provisions of Te Papa for increased height, were being progressed where possible.

· The decision to endorse the submission must be made at today’s meeting; the decision to put PC26 on hold could lie on the table at this stage.

· There had been coordination with other Tier 1 councils to align submissions; some councils were taking a much firmer tone than that currently proposed in TCC’s submission.

· The main points of the submission included:

o The key standards included in the Bill were poor from an urban design perspective; PC26 had been designed to encourage good urban design outcomes. The submission would provide specific examples of what urban design requirements can deliver in terms of liveability e.g. sunlight and overshadowing.

o There was no consideration of infrastructure capacity. The bill gave no ability to consider infrastructure constraints across the city, so would create an ad hoc response and removed the ability for council to plan city-wide.

o The streamlined planning process was only allowed to be used once. There was also questionable drafting in terms of the definition of greenfields.

o The bill would create a blanket ad-hoc approach to development which would undermine public transport systems and community amenity.

o Questions around resourcing – a number of councils across the country were progressing housing and intensification plan changes such as PC26; councils were being required to pivot very quickly, rethink and analyse complexities, with an increased workload and limited planning resources across the country.

o The plan change process required under the bill could not be completed in the timeframes included.

Resolution CO22/21/10

Moved: Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a) Notes that the hearings for Plan Change 26 – Housing Choice will be deferred, with a reassessment when there is more certainty of the content of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

(b) Endorses the key submissions points on the Resource Management (Enabling Housing and Other Matters) Amendment Bill as set out in this report.

Carried

11.9 Submissions on Draft Parking Strategy

Staff Peter Siemensma, Senior Transport Planner

Andy Mead, Manager: City and Infrastructure Planning

Alistair Talbot, Team Leader: Transport Strategy & Planning

Key points

· Outlined the five objectives of the strategy.

· Parking could contribute to the vibrancy of the city centre.

· Community consultation was open for a month; key stakeholders were approached directly and feedback made publicly available.

· Summarised the key themes from the submissions received.

In response to questions

· Queried how the parking strategy linked in with use of public transport; people needed to be able to park in proximity to interchanges and transport hubs. There was a need for an integrated and responsive approach. Section 7 of the draft strategy could be made clearer and include specific examples.

· The more specific Parking Management Plans would be developed in 2022, starting with the CBD and revisiting the current parking regulations.

· Suggested the strategy could be amended to include the road user perspective. There was a need to be aware of creating unintended consequences e.g. commuters parking in residential streets to take the bus and creating problems for residents.

Discussion points raised

· Amended provisions would be circulated to the commissioners.

Resolution CO22/21/11

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a) Receives the draft Parking Strategy report.

(b) Notes the submissions received from consultation on the draft Parking Strategy.

(c) Adopts the Parking Strategy as amended in response to submissions received (attachment 3) and feedback provided at this meeting.

Carried

12 Discussion of Late Items

Nil

13 Public excluded session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution CO22/21/12

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
13.1 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 October 2021	s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.2 - Wastewater Management Review Committee - confirm appointments and quorum changes	s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.3 - Tauriko West Update & Implementation Pathway	s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.4 - The sale of Pitau Road village and Hinau Street village	s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.5 - CBD Hotel & Conference Centre Development - Council lease of Conference Centre	s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.6 - Exemption to Open Competition Joyce Road Water Treatment Plant	s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.7 - Approval to vary Bridge Wharf repair works	s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

At 1pm the meeting adjourned.

At 1.45pm the meeting reconvened.

14 Closing Karakia

Provided by Carlo Ellis, Manager: Strategic Māori Engagement

The meeting closed at 3pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 8 February 2022.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 February 2022

11 Business

11.1 Golf Road Reserve - Submissions on Proposed Partial Reclassification

File Number: A13188811

Author: Ross Hudson, Team Leader: Planning

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To consider and respond to submissions received on the proposed partial reclassification of Golf Road Reserve.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the Golf Road Reserve – Submissions on Proposed Partial Reclassification report and attachments.

(b) Approves the partial reclassification of 1000m² of Golf Road Reserve from recreation reserve to local purpose (community building) reserve pursuant to section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 and acknowledges that as a matter of process, a further Council resolution is required to confirm this upon completion of the survey plan.

(c) Approves for the Mount Maunganui Playcentre to be located at Golf Road Reserve, and to commence detailed design and lease negotiations taking into consideration feedback received through this process and the outcomes of the carparking and traffic assessment.

Executive Summary

2. On 15 November 2021, Council resolved to approve in principle the re-classification of up to 1000m² of Golf Road Reserve to enable the relocation of the Mount Maunganui Playcentre from Blake Park.

3. We consulted on the proposal between 3^rd December and 14^th January, receiving 163 submissions, of which 132 strongly agreed with the proposal.

4. Issues raised during the consultation and proposed responses to those issues are summarised as follows:

(a) Carparking and traffic impacts – we acknowledge that the Playcentre will create additional demand for carparking and traffic movements and have commissioned a traffic and parking assessment which will inform options for improved management of carparking and access to Golf Road.

(b) Comprehensive plan required – we will use the traffic and parking assessment to inform a site plan that also accounts for any future uses of the remainder of the reserve.

(c) Alternative sites – The proposal is consistent with the Reserves Management Plan, the location is central to families that use the Playcentre, and it will make a valuable contribution to the local community through the services it provides.

(d) Greenspace – The Playcentre will occupy an area of greenspace. However, it is not considered significant in scale. The option of developing the remaining land into greenspace will be considered in an assessment process in March/April 2022.

5. Proposed next steps in relation to the relocation of the Playcentre are below. In addition, we will be undertaking a multi-criteria analysis process and site planning to determine the most appropriate uses of the remainder of the reserve and the future of the existing bowls club building. The conclusions of that work will be brought to Council for consideration later in 2022.

Background

6. Council has a long-standing action to relocate Mount Maunganui Playcentre (the Playcentre) from Blake Park, given the significant pressure on this site from sports users. Several alternative sites have been identified since this direction was provided in the 2005 Active Reserve Management Plan, but none have progressed past preliminary design stage.

7. In 2020, the Omanu Bowls Club disbanded, freeing up land within the Golf Road Reserve. In the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan, Council resolved to investigate the viability of the Playcentre relocating to Golf Road Reserve and brought forward $144,310 to contribute to relocation costs.

8. Council worked with the Playcentre to assess the viability of this site from a Council and Playcentre perspective, with the outcome being that in principle, Golf Road Reserve is a suitable location for the Playcentre. The proposal is consistent with the Tauranga Reserves Management Plan, the location is central to families that use the Playcentre, and it will make a valuable contribution to the local community through the services it provides. The size of the Playcentre still provides opportunity for discussions on the future use of the remaining area of reserve (approx. 3600m²).

9. On 15 November 2021, Council resolved to approve in principle the re-classification of a portion of Golf Road Reserve, up to 1000m² from recreation reserve to local purpose (community building) reserve, pursuant to section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 (se Figure 1). This was needed as the Playcentre is not consistent with the current purpose, a recreation reserve, which is about recreation and sporting activities, and the physical welfare and enjoyment of the public.

10. Figure 1: Golf Road Reserve proposed partial reclassification

11. The consultation period on this proposal was from 3 December 2021 to 14 January 2022.

Summary of feedback

12. 163 submissions were received. The majority of submissions (as shown on the graph below) supported the proposal. A full copy of the feedback is included in Attachment B. Feedback on design considerations if the Playcentre is to proceed and the potential use of the remaining area of land is included in Attachment C.

13. Key themes from comments in support are:

(a) The Playcentre is a valuable and integral part of the Mount community.

(b) Role of the Playcentre in building community relationships, supporting new parents, and providing a place for parents and children to grow and learn together.

(c) Golf Road Reserve provides a safe space located back from Golf Road, it is located in the heart of the community and will be easy for families to access.

(d) Playcentre sessions in the morning should work in well with other reserve users.

(e) The uncertainty over where to move has been ongoing for many years and it is time that a new permanent home was found.

(f) Golf Road is a cheaper and more cost-effective solution for the Playcentre’s relocation project.

14. Key themes from comments not in support are:

(a) No consideration to increasing parking requirements, anticipate the already well used parking will go beyond capacity and spill-over onto greenspace.

(b) Need for a full and comprehensive independent carparking and traffic assessment of the Golf Road Carpark and Golf Road, to understand the impact of the rescue centre once operational, and whether or not the playcentre activities can be accommodated.

(c) Multiple groups now using this reserve and the impacts on noise, carparking and Golf Road, compared to the two user groups that previously occupied the reserve (bridge and bowls clubs).

(d) Too many buildings on the site and impact on valuable greenspace, given intensity of the area.

(e) Need for a comprehensive approach to planning the future of the reserve, including carparking and traffic assessment, before deciding on a piecemeal basis.

(f) Moa Park is a more appropriate location for the Playcentre.

15. Feedback from a hui with Ngati Kuku and Ngāi Tukairangi on the proposal was that:

(a) The hapu are keen to explore opportunities to integrate their connection into the reserve design and utilisation, and the opportunity to express stories and cultural history.

(b) There is potential to connect the hapu to the site through the natural progression of tamariki (children) from playcentre through to surf lessons and potential further activities on the balance of the site.

(c) Green space and parks in this intensifying area are important and should be a key consideration for determining the use of the balance of the site.

16. Feedback from submissions has been summarised into the four key issues below, with discussion and responses to these issues included in Attachment A.

(a) Carparking and impacts of additional activity on Golf Road

(b) Development of a Comprehensive Plan before deciding on the Playcentre

(d) Loss of greenspace

Next Steps

17. Notify the Minister of Conservation of Council’s decision to proceed with the reclassification, and forward submissions received and Council’s response. Under Section 24 of the Reserves Act, Council has delegated authority for this process. The Minister acts in a guidance role only.

18. Complete survey plan and report to Council for final resolution.

19. Lodge with Land Information New Zealand and proceed with public notification of the reclassification in the New Zealand Gazette.

20. Implement outcomes of the carparking and traffic assessment.

21. Work with Mount Maunganui Playcentre on detailed design, taking into consideration feedback received through this process, and commence negotiation of lease arrangements. Include hapu, adjacent landowners and other reserve users in the design process.

22. Undertake an assessment of proposals and feedback received through this process, to determine the future of the remaining land and ex- bowls club building.

Strategic / Statutory Context

23. The process for reclassification is governed by section 24 of the Reserves Act. Council’s strategic approach to the management of Golf Road Reserve is described in the Tauranga Reserves Management Plan.

Options Analysis

24. Option 1: Continue with the reclassification

Advantages

Disadvantages

Enables the provision of a secure and suitable location for the Playcentre

Frees up space at Blake Park for alternative active reserve functions

Removes recreational reserve space from the network

Will add to local traffic and onsite parking requirements

25. Option 2: Do not proceed with the reclassification

Advantages

Disadvantages

Retains recreation reserve greenspace

Does not add to parking and traffic demand

Leaves Playcentre in limbo as to future home

Creates significant risk of Playcentre losing funding from third parties that is conditional upon them securing a site and proceeding with development this financial year

Financial Considerations

26. Council has budgeted through the Long Term Plan to support the relocation of the Playcentre and for capital works the enable appropriate uses of the remainder of the site, including the bowls club building.

Legal Implications / Risks

27. Under Section 24 of the Reserves Act, Council has delegated authority for this process.

Significance

28. 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.

29. 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 proposed reclassification.

30. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the matter is of low significance.

Attachments

1. Attachment A - Golf Road Reserve Discussion and response to key issues raised in submissions - A13186072 ⇩

2. Attachment B - Golf Road Reserve Submissions 001-163 - Redacted - A13187528 (Separate Attachments 1)

3. Attachment C - Golf Road Reserve Supporting information - A13186073 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 February 2022

11.2 Pōteriwhi (Parau Farms) - Consultation Outcomes

File Number: A13150408

Author: Andy Mead, Manager: City & Infrastructure Planning

Phillip Kai Fong, Team Leader Strategic Property

Angela Martin, Contractor

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To receive the submission report. The public consultation process is complete, however further input and discussions with mana whenua are to be completed prior to a decision being made by Council on the proposal.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the submissions lodged during the consultation period 15 November to 15 December 2021 on the proposal to sell Pōteriwhi (Parau Farms).

(b) Agrees to receive the late submission from Sport Bay of Plenty, lodged on 22 December 2021.

(c) Notes a further report will be brought to Council seeking a decision on whether the land should be disposed of for housing development once mana whenua feedback and input has been received.

Executive Summary

2. Council identified Pōteriwhi (Parau Farms) as land having potential to be used for housing development.

3. Council has consulted with the community on the proposal to dispose of the land for housing development.

4. The submissions received generally opposed the proposal, but common themes in the community feedback were identified which staff have considered and responded to in this report.

5. Following analysis and consideration of the submissions, and mana whenua response staff recommend that further input and discussions with mana whenua be completed prior to a decision on the proposal being made by Council. A further report will be brought to Council seeking a decision on the proposal following this engagement.

Background

6. The Council-owned land known as Pōteriwhi (Parau Farms), the subject of the community consultation, is located at 287A State Highway 2, Bethlehem on the southern side of State Highway 2, between the Wairoa River to the west and Moffat Road to the east. Pōteriwhi (Parau Farms) incorporates approximately 22 hectares of land and is legally described as:

· Lot 2 Deposited Plan South Auckland 53048, SA44B/781

· Part Lot 3 Deposited Plan South Auckland 47016, SA42D/213

· Part Lot 4 Deposited Plan South Auckland 47016, SA53B/12

· Lot 5 Deposited Plan South Auckland 47016, SA41D/783.

7. The land is depicted green in the plan below:

Map

Description automatically generated

8. The land was acquired by Council in 2000 for future development as sports fields and to date has operated as a kiwifruit orchard.

9. In order to meet Council’s development capacity requirements under the National Policy Statement – Urban Development (NPS-UD) a site-by-site review of Council-owned developable land was undertaken, as other greenfield and intensification projects are insufficient. Pōteriwhi (Parau Farms) was identified as land having potential to be utilised for housing and urban development. This option was presented to Council in the report of 4 October 2021, following which Council approved in principle “…the utilisation of the Parau Farms site in Bethlehem for housing development and proceeding with:

(a) Investigation of housing development options in partnership with Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities and Ngāti Kahu; and

(b) Process of public consultation for the disposal of park under section 138 of the Local Government Act 2002.”

10. It is intended that Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities would be Council’s development partner/purchaser of the land, with the structure of such arrangement still to be determined and potential for mana whenua involvement remaining a possibility.

11. The public consultation for the disposal of a park under section 138 Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) has been undertaken, with submissions closing on 15 December 2021. This report provides a summary and assessment of the submissions received and following consideration of the key themes of the submissions, addresses whether the land should be sold for housing development.

Strategic / Statutory Context

12. The land was purchased by Council for sports fields and therefore meets the definition of a park under the LGA, being land acquired principally for recreational purposes. Section 138 of the LGA requires that Council consult on the proposal to sell or dispose of the park before it can do so.

13. There is a national priority for housing, which has led to central government implementing the NPS-UD. Council is legally obliged to meet the requirements of the NPS-UD.

consultation / engagement

14. Public consultation on the proposal to sell the land for housing development commenced 15 November 2021, announced by a press release issued that afternoon, and closed 15 December 2021. The consultation document, included at Attachment 1, was made publicly available on Council’s website, delivered to neighbouring properties and properties within Ngāti Kahu and Ngāti Hangarau rohe, emailed to hapū in conjunction with an offer of a hui to discuss the proposal, and emailed to other key stakeholders including Kāinga Ora - Homes and Communities, local and regional sporting organisations, Smartgrowth partners and housing groups. The consultation was further supported by advertisements placed in The Sun newspaper on 26 November and 10 December 2021. The public could provide feedback on the proposal by:

· Email

· Completion of the feedback form manually; or

· On-line via Have Your Say.

15. The public consultation resulted in written feedback from 158 interested parties. Of these, from the Have Your Say web page, 106 were in opposition and 47 in favour. Four neutral submissions, expressing neither support nor opposition to the proposal, and one late submission in opposition were received by email. The submissions received and summary analysis of submissions are included at Attachment 2 and 3 respectively.

16. Of the 153 submissions received via the Have Your Say web page, 31% were in support and 69% in opposition. Bethlehem residents represented 61 (40%) of the respondents, of which 52 (85% of Bethlehem respondents) submitted in opposition. The remaining respondents were distributed fairly evenly across Tauranga.

17. In terms of age groups, those up to age 34 tended to be most supportive of the proposal, with those in the 55-64 year age group being most opposed.

18. Ngāti Kahu responded to the consultation advising they were not in a position to meet the deadline for submissions. They have verbally expressed concern with proposed use of the land for housing. They affirmed the cultural and ancestral significance of Pōteriwhi and seek to protect wāhi tapu that may be affected by the proposal.

19. Ngāti Kahu met with Commissioners on 26 January 2022 to discuss their concerns with the proposal. Ngāti Kahu are now in the process of clarifying culturally significant aspects of Pōteriwhi in consultation with their wider hapū. A date has not yet been set for when this is likely to happen. At this stage of the process, Ngāti Kahu have not confirmed their position. They propose to set out their priorities and share with the Commissioners at a future date.

20. Council are yet to formally engage with Ngāti Hangarau pending the outcome of discussion between Ngāti Kahu and Ngāti Hangarau regarding their shared interests in Pōteriwhi.

21. The key themes identified from the consultation feedback are:

Submissions in opposition (107)

· Need to understand how/where sports fields will be provided

· Concern regarding impact of loss of green space on local amenity

· Existing infrastructure/roading/local services already at capacity

· City, and particularly Bethlehem, needs sports/recreational space as much as housing

· Concern regarding type of development and residents.

Submissions in support (47)

· City needs both housing and sports/recreational space

· Looking for intensification and mix of housing opportunities, including green space

· Well located site, close to schools and shops

· Ensure cultural areas protected/enhanced in any development.

Neutral submissions (4)

· Need for both housing and sports/recreational space

· How commitment to biodiversity, climate change and future growth will be delivered on

· Work with schools and Ministry of Education to manage potential role growth.

22. The staff response to these themes is set out in the table below:

Theme	Staff Response
Need to understand how/where sports fields will be provided.	Alternative options for sports field provision in Bethlehem and the wider catchment within which Pōteriwhi (Parau Farms) falls are currently being explored. Options include development of existing Council land (e.g. Smiths Farm, Tauranga Racecourse reserve, lower Parau), land acquisitions, enhancements to the existing active reserves network, and partnerships with other land owners. We will be in a position to provide a revised plan for provision across the sports field network in the first half of 2022.
Concern regarding impact of loss of green space on local amenity	The environment would change from rural to urban, however the escarpments and lower areas will remain green space. Changes to landscape and visual amenity due to the proposed housing development, and methods address the changes where required, will be dealt with through RMA planning processes and implementation of the City Plan. The site will be the subject of significant urban design, and key features of the proposed housing development would include landscape plantings and provision of local reserves. From what we currently know about the site, we don’t believe development on the lower areas (outside of the area subject to this report) will be viable, and so this area appears to be a suitable location to enhance amenity values of the wider site, in addition to the landscaping and reserves within the proposed housing development.
Existing infrastructure/ roading/ local services already at capacity.	Water and wastewater modelling shows that the network can cope with urban development of the site with local upgrades that would be delivered as part of the development. The same is true for stormwater. Water would be treated on-site and then discharged into the Wairoa River. No flooding risks have been identified. Transport modelling has been undertaken which demonstrates the network would operate with sufficient levels of service post development, including access to the site and the key intersection onto SH2. It is important to note that development would not start for a number of years and would take a significant period of time to be completed. As such, it is well aligned with the timeframe for completion of the Tauranga Northern Link project that creates a State Highway bypass of Bethlehem and would significantly reduce pressure on the current SH2 through Bethlehem.
City needs both housing and sports/ recreational space.	In relation to housing needs, and to meet Council’s development capacity requirements under the NPS-UD a site-by-site review of Council-owned developable land was undertaken as other greenfield and intensification projects are insufficient to meet the NPS-UD requirements. Pōteriwhi (Parau Farms) was identified as land having potential to be utilised for housing and urban development. As noted above, we are currently exploring alternative locations for sports field provision and will be producing a revised plan for provision across the sports field network.
Concern regarding type of development and residents.	The city’s growth strategy has a significant focus on more people living in and around town centres like Bethlehem. We aim to provide a mix of different types and sizes of houses suitable and affordable for all types of people. Pōteriwhi (Parau Farms) land provides the opportunity to deliver housing in close alignment with the city’s growth strategy.
Looking for intensification and mix of housing opportunities, including green space.	Refer above. Green space is a core element of any master planned development and would be considered through the next phase of the project if it progresses.
Well located site, close to schools and shops.	These are key reasons why the site is suitable for housing outcomes.
Ensure cultural areas protected/ enhanced in any development.	It is intended that areas of cultural heritage will be protected or enhanced through any development and we will be working with mana whenua to ensure outcomes that respect the cultural and ancestral significance of the land.
How commitment to biodiversity, climate change and future growth will be delivered on.	The delivery of higher levels of intensification in locations with good access to active modes and public transport is essential to meeting climate change objectives. This site is well suited to achieving these outcomes given proximity to the Bethlehem town centre, schools and public transport options.
Work with schools and Ministry of Education to manage potential roll growth.	Noted. TCC staff will be in contact with MOE.

financial considerations

23. This report has minimal financial implications. The value of the property will be addressed in a future report as referred above. An Infrastructure Acceleration Fund RFP application has been submitted for infrastructure funding for the development proposal.

Legal Implications / Risks

24. No significant legal risks / implications have been identified.

Significance

25. 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.

26. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

28. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the proposal is of medium significance, and taking into account the engagement/consultation completed to date, officers are of the opinion that it is appropriate that further engagement with mana whenua be undertaken prior to Council making a decision on the proposal.

Next Steps

29. Council will continue to engage with mana whenua regarding the proposal. A further report will be brought to Council seeking a decision on whether the land is to be disposed of for housing development once mana whenua feedback and input has been received.

Attachments

1. Consultation Document - A13061994 ⇩

2. Submissions Received - A13188854 ⇩

3. Summary of Submissions - A13188932 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 February 2022

11.3 2023 Annual Plan Issues and Options: Spaces and Places

File Number: A13177409

Author: Paul Dunphy, Director: Spaces and Places

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

Purpose of the Report

1. This report outlines Issues and Options for four current Spaces and Places projects, for consideration and decision making relevant to the FY 2023 Annual Plan.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report ‘2023 Annual Plan Issues and Options – Spaces and Places’.

Issue 1: Omanawa Falls

(b) Approves underwriting an additional $2.72 million over what is budgeted to fund the full scope of the project.

(c) Notes that officers are in the process of seeking funding from potential funding partners, which if successful will reduce the rates impact.

Issue 2: Destination skate park

(d) Increases the project budget by $1.38m, to a total of $2.05m, to facilitate the desired outcome of delivering a destination skatepark in 2023.

Issue 3: Mulching around trees

(e) Increases the operational budget by $175,000 in FY 2023, and $140,000 per annum from FY 2024 onwards, to support a higher level of service for tree mulching.

Issue 4: Elizabeth Street Streetscape Upgrade

(f) Approves increasing the project budget by $575,000 to ensure there is adequate contingency for the delayed programme.

(g) Defers $174,847 to Streetscape budget from FY 2022 to FY 2023.

Executive Summary

2. The Spaces and Places programme is delivering on agreed LTP priority projects, designed to improve people’s quality of life, environmental wellbeing, and access to recreational opportunities. Four projects with significant community interest and benefit, that have been progressing through the design or implementation phases, require additional budget to ensure they meet agreed project objectives and community outcomes, at a time of significant cost escalation for capital works.

3. Refinement of cost estimations and project planning for the Omanawa Falls project, which is a multi-partner project to enable safe and culturally appropriate access to Omanawa Falls, has led to an increase in the overall capex requirement for the project. We are proposing that Council underwrites the additional $2.72m cost, while we seek additional funding from potential project partners.

4. Development of site designs for a quality, sustainable, accessible Destination Skatepark at an appropriate scale, to be delivered in 2023, will require an increase in the overall capex budget $1.38m, to a total of $2.05m, with external funding also being sought to offset this increase.

5. Many of the city’s trees are increasingly at risk from mechanical damage from mowers and weed eaters. In addition, we have identified opportunities for improving the associated ecological and aesthetic outcomes for trees where weeds are currently growing uncontrolled. Additional opex funding of $175,000 in 2022/23 to mulch approximately 7,000 trees and then $140,000 per annum is sought to support the proposed scope of works, in order to protect and enhance the trees assets across the city.

6. The Elizabeth Street Streetscape Upgrade is now progressing well, after significant interruptions due to COVID-19 lockdowns and the dependency on the programme of the Farmers development. Due to the delayed programme and associated cost escalations, additional contingency budget is sought to ensure any cost escalations can be handled without further programme delays.

Strategic / Statutory Context

7. The projects that require additional funding are identified in the LTP as key initiatives that will enable us to meet our community outcomes of a city that is, ‘well-planned with a variety of successful and thriving compact centres, resilient infrastructure, and community amenities’ and one that, ‘values our natural environment and outdoor lifestyle, and actively works to protect and enhance it .

issue 1: Omanawa Falls

Issue

8. There is insufficient budget to deliver the current proposal, which has been co-designed with Ngāti Hangarau and Tourism Bay of Plenty.

Background

9. The Omanawa Falls are located on land owned by Tauranga City Council within the Western Bay of Plenty district, and within the rohe of Ngāti Hangarau. There is currently no safe formed access to the Falls and as such, the site is currently closed to public access. Despite this, members of the public continue to attempt to access the site to visit the spectacular falls and in recent years, this has resulted in a number of serious injuries and two fatalities.

10. The Omanawa Falls project is being led in partnership by Ngāti Hangarau, Tourism Bay of Plenty and Tauranga City Council (TCC). The first phase of the project is to provide physically and culturally safe access (safe access) down to the bottom of the falls.

11. Acting on the recommendations of the peer review, TCC established a governance group with Ngāti Hangarau and Tourism Bay of Plenty. The governance group adopted the following Project Objectives to guide the scope of the project:

· Strengthened partnership and collaborative approaches between Ngāti Hangarau, Tourism Bay of Plenty and TCC.

· Increased understanding of the cultural significance of the area.

· Strengthened relationships with wider stakeholders, including the neighbouring property owners, visitors and locals.

· Safe and culturally appropriate access to Omanawa Falls.

· Improved experience for locals and visitors at Omanawa Falls.

12. Since 2020, Ngāti Hangarau, Tourism BOP and TCC have been working together on a co-design process to provide culturally and physically safe access down to the bottom of Omanawa Falls. The key elements of the design include:

· A track down to the waterfall pool – the access track avoids the unstable cliffs by going over and around them, although some cliff stabilisation is still required.

· Three viewing platforms are proposed; one at the ‘cutting’, (the historic loading area for maintaining the hydro power station), an upper lookout, and a landing adjacent to the waterfall pool.

· A formal car park at the top (1031 Omanawa Road) for 77 cars – the carpark includes generous amounts of landscaping, public toilets, and a formal arrival space with a waharoa, cultural fencing and atea in front of the existing shed.

· Minor upgrades to the shed and dwelling to support TCC/Ngāti Hangarau staff to live onsite, and to provide a place for cultural and historical visitor information.

· As part of the co-design process, we are working with Ngāti Hangarau’s nominated artist to incorporate cultural design elements such as pou, waharoa, palisade fencing, seating and interpretation panels – these elements are seen as integral to the project as they contribute to cultural safety by transforming visitor expectations and experience.

· A number of other detailed elements including stormwater management.

13. The project is currently going through a publicly-notified consenting process, with a decision anticipated in May. Construction aims to be completed in early 2023.

Funding shortfall

14. The current budget for the Omanawa Falls Access project is $4.5 million, which is made up of $3.5 million from TCC and $1 million from the Tourism Infrastructure Fund (TIF). Spend in FY 2021 was $668,000 leaving a budget across FY 2022 and 2023 of $3.832 million.

15. The project team have recently gone through a thorough cost estimate process and estimate that an additional $2.721m budget is required to deliver the full project scope, bringing the total budget across FY 2022 and 2023 to $6.552 million. The level of certainty on this proposed budget increase is assessed as medium and will be finalised once consent is granted and all contractors are on board. Some of the key reasons why the costs of the project have gone up are listed below:

· the requirement for cliff stabilisation works;

· original underestimation of planning, project management, design costs and contingency;

· requirement for consent to be publicly notified;

· prolonged programme due to complexity of the area;

· requirements around access and carparking;

· governance and co-design process;

· stormwater management and treatment; and

· recent and likely future cost escalation in the wider supply chain.

16. The project team has been active in reaching out to potential funders to contribute to the costs of the project. An Expression of Interest has been submitted to Lotteries for the Significant Projects Fund and conversations are ongoing with other potential funding partners.

17. It is noted that Lotteries and other potential funders require a consent in place, before receiving or approving an application, which creates continued uncertainty about the budget and therefore scope of the project. It is therefore recommended that Council underwrite the entire $6.552 million, an additional $2.721 million over what is currently budgeted in the LTP.

18. If applications for funding are successful then Council will not need to pay the additional funding in this application. However, if applications for funding are not successful, then it will be appropriate to consider a range of cost and scope options – see below.

Options analysis

19. There are three options considered for the Omanawa Falls Safe Access project, if applications for additional funding from funding partners are not successful:

1. Option 1: Full project scope as is currently planned

2. Option 2: Reduced scope with reduced Mahi Toi elements and no building fitout.

3. Option 3: Deliver the project within the existing budget.

Option 1: Full project scope as is currently planned

20. This option would deliver the full scope as planned and described above in paragraph 12.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Achieves all of the project objectives.

· Fully honours the partnership with Ngāti Hangarau and the co-design process that has been ongoing since 2020.

· Best provides opportunities to support the sharing of cultural and historical knowledge.

· Provides for cultural safety through the provision of cultural design elements.

· Likely to be the most successful in changing the behaviour of visitors to the Falls (i.e. visitors more likely to be respectful of the site, not swimming etc).

· Providing a car park with sufficient capacity for the anticipated number of visitors.

· Higher rates requirement if no funding from external partners is approved.

Budget – capex: Total $6.552m across FY 2022 and 2023 (including $1M TIF funding). $902k in FY 2022, $5.651m in FY 2023.

Budget – opex: $3.127m across the 10 years, average $377k/annum from FY 2024 onwards (R&M, financing and depreciation costs etc.).

Key risks: That funding from an external funding partner(s) is not approved and Council needs to fund the full amount.

Recommended? Yes

Option 2: Reduced scope with reduced Mahi Toi elements and no building fitout

21. Option 2 proposes significant value engineering and comes in at a total budget of $5.410m across FY 2022 and 2023, an increase of $1.578m. Many of the co-design elements have been removed, however a small amount of cultural design elements are included in the design. While this option is generally feasible and delivers two of the core objectives of the project, it significantly undermines the relationship with Ngāti Hangarau that TCC has been investing a lot of time and effort into over the last couple of years.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Less potential rates impact than Option 1.

· Some Mahi Toi elements are retained.

· Higher rates requirement if no funding from external partners is approved.

· No building fit out to support 24-hour onsite presence or visitor information area.

· Carpark is basic with no landscaping.

· Variation for resource consent may be required.

· Insufficient contingency.

Budget – capex: Total $5.410m across FY 2022 and 2023 (including $1m TIF funding), $902k in FY 2022, $4.508m in FY 2023.

Budget – opex: $2.6m across the 10 years, average $313k/annum from FY 2024 onwards (R&M, financing and depreciation costs etc.).

Key risks: Ngāti Hangarau are not in support of this option, and this may not be as successful at changing visitor behaviour with less presence onsite.

Recommended? No

Option 3: Deliver the project within the existing budget

22. Option 3 explores what could be delivered with the existing budget of $3.832m across FY 2022 and 2023. It is unlikely that TIF would want to contribute funding for this option, so the funding is more likely to be restricted to TCC funding. This option would have very poor outcomes for the public and would have a critical impact on the relationship with Ngāti Hangarau. Option 3 assumes that there is no partnership or co-design with Ngāti Hangarau.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· No rates impact beyond what has already been approved.

· Undermines the co-design process that the Omanawa governance group has been going through.

· Does not sufficiently mitigate the parking issues on Omanawa Road, or the trespassing issues for the neighbouring properties.

· Does not adequately address cultural safety and no Mahi Toi elements.

· Does not provide adequate supporting infrastructure for a commercial cultural tourism experience.

· Poor outcomes for visitors with no viewing platforms.

· Variation for resource consent may be required.

· Insufficient contingency.

Budget – capex: Total $3.832m across FY 2022 and 2023 (including $1m TIF funding). $902k in FY 2022, $2.930m in FY 2023.

Budget – opex: $1.873m across the 10 years, average $225k/annum from FY 2024 onwards (R&M, financing and depreciation costs etc.).

Key risks: That TIF will no longer provide $1 million towards the creation of the track, viewing platforms, toilets and a carpark.

Recommended? No

Recommendation

23. It is recommended that to ensure that the project objectives are met, that the full scope of the project (Option A) is approved by TCC. This would entail the partnership seeking funding from external parties, with the full budget being underwritten by TCC to ensure scope and budget certainty, and to mitigate programme delays.

Next steps

24. An application for Lotteries Significant Projects fund needs to be made by mid-March with a decision anticipated at the beginning of June.

25. The publicly notified resource consent is underway with the hearing scheduled for 12-13 April 2022. A decision is anticipated in May and it is hoped that construction can therefore start in June. Due to the time of year, construction is likely to take longer than previously anticipated and may take as long as nine months.

issue 2: destination Skate Park

Issue

26. Confirm proposed 2023 Annual Plan budget for delivery of a destination skatepark facility.

Context

27. Several submissions to the draft Long-term Plan sought an upgrade to roller facilities in the City and pointed to the poor quality of current skate park facilities.

28. Through LTP deliberations, the following resolutions related directly to roller sports:

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

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

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

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

29. Delivery against these resolutions to date has included:

· City wide engagement via online survey (517 respondents).

· Funding support for two new skate park elements at Memorial Park (the already well-used wedge ramp and mini ramp) constructed in partnership with skate community and co-funded by Sam’s Skate School.

· Appointment of design consultant for the destination skatepark project.

What is a destination skate park?

30. The consistent approach the design team have observed across Australasian cities is one of quality rather than quantity – concentrating resources to develop quality skating facilities that provide a challenging mix of skating elements at a limited number of safe, accessible and suitable locations. Each facility should complement each other, thus providing a better range of opportunities across the city.

31. A single destination skate park serving a city the size of Tauranga should be a minimum size of 2,000 sqm, incorporating a vert and mini ramp, and street course components that cater for beginners but primarily meets the needs of the intermediate and advanced/competition level skaters that are 13+ years of age.

32. Smaller community skateparks complement a destination park incorporating a mixture of mini ramp and street course components, with a range of design variations between the facilities. Suitable for beginners (providing training facilities to develop their skills) but primarily catering for intermediate to advanced level skaters that are 13+ years of age who are able to travel some distance (the primary catchment being within 4-5km of the facility). Memorial Park and Arataki Park are good current examples of this scale of park in Tauranga.

Diagram

Description automatically generated

33. Neighbourhood skateparks further complement the network. These are local facilities that fill the gaps between the community and destination facilities, incorporating basic street course components and/or a mini ramp. They cater primarily for beginners to intermediate skaters under 13 years of age who live within 2km of the facility. Carlton Reserve is a good example of this scale of park.

34. Above is a diagram from the Skate Melbourne Plan. The XS park represents small street interventions that allow for multi-use (street skate within certain public spaces). M parks align to the Neighbourhood/Community skatepark sizing and the XL aligns to the destination skatepark. Demonstrating the scalability depending on the agreed requirements and user base.

Co-design approach

35. 253 people registered interest to join the Community Design Group. Twenty-four have been selected and the first workshop was intended for 8 February, although current COVID-19 settings will likely impact the workshop schedule.

36. The Community Design Group:

· helps identify opportunities and any issues that might influence a design;

· scrutinises proposals from a community’s perspective to ensure it is meeting their needs and expectations;

· participates in the design of any proposals;

· provides an additional means of disseminating information to the wider community; and

· provides an opportunity to gather a wide range of viewpoints as possible in a prompt manner.

What did the survey tell us?

37. The survey had four objectives:

(a) Invite the skate community to join a community design group for the destination skatepark.

(b) Ask the roller community ‘how they usually roll’ (i.e. mode).

(d) Ask what would make a great location for a destination skatepark.

38. Of the 517 survey respondents, the majority lived in the Mount Maunganui/Papamoa area (57%). Survey respondents could select as many roller modes that applied to them. Of those that indicated they used at least one mode, these tallied to:

· 61% skateboards

· 10% scooters

· 10% BMX

· 9% roller skate

· 4% inline skate

· 6% indicated another roller mode

39. Arataki Park is the most popular skatepark in Tauranga. However, street skating ranked equal as a favourite place to skate.

40. The bowl was mentioned at Arataki as being the reason people frequented the park. There is no other bowl offered in Tauranga. The bowl at Arataki is smaller and ‘tighter’ than a bowl at a destination skate park and the method of construction has led to regular pooling in the bottom of the bowl, and poor condition of the concrete surface. Despite this, the fact it is Tauranga’s only medium-scale facility with a bowl makes it a clear favourite.

41. When asked why the location was good, many stated that its design was the best Tauranga had to offer, but also being close to home and easy to get to ranked important criterion amongst the users.

42. The results of the question below show accessibility, safety and amenities all rank high and are clearly what people expect from a new skate facility. What is interesting however, is the low response to proximity to public transport. And, the relatively high demand for car-parking. This could be attributed to almost half the respondents being over the age of 35 who would typically own a vehicle, and the general lack of public transportation patronage in Tauranga.

Chart, bar chart

Description automatically generated

Site selection

43. The design team have undertaken a multi-criteria analysis of potential sites and a shortlist of viable options for a destination scale facility is limited to three sites on the Mount Maunganui side of the Harbour bridge. This supports the majority of the skate community in Tauranga living on that side of the city (according to the survey results), and is also a logical spread of supporting neighbourhood/community facilities. The preferred site will be brought to a future meeting for decision, after further work is undertaken to confirm individual site suitability.

Scale of investment

44. The LTP includes $670K for delivery of the destination skate park project in the 2023 financial year.

45. The work completed to date has identified an issue of budget to realise delivery of destination skatepark. The design team have looked to similar projects around the country and the $670K current budget could only deliver a park in the medium rather than large/destination scale.

46. The project has not confirmed a site or commenced the design process, but with establishment of the project team, including design consultant – who has delivered over 70 skate park projects in New Zealand – the scale of investment can be estimated to deliver a destination scale facility. The scale of investment from Council will determine the size of the facility that is designed through the co-design process.

47. A total budget of $2.05m is considered more realistic to deliver a destination scale skate park through the 2023 Annual Plan.

48. To offset much of this cost, up to a potential 50%, a wide range of external funding contributions will be sought. At the time of seeking external funding later this year, it is intended that the site will have been confirmed and a concept plan developed, so the project budget will be more defined for the purposes of seeking external funding support.

Options analysis

49. There are two options:

(a) Increase the project budget to align with the desired outcome of delivering a destination skatepark in 2023.

(b) Maintain contribution confirmed in current LTP and deliver a smaller scale facility (i.e. neighbourhood/community scale).

Option 1: Increase the 2023 budget for the destination skatepark to $2.05m, with this to be offset with external funding as much as possible

50. This option would allow for the full concept to be delivered in the first two years of the LTP.

Advantages	Disadvantages
· Provides scope to deliver a destination scale facility through the co-design process, as envisaged through the LTP deliberations process.	· Increased project cost and associated rates impact.

Budget – capex: $2.05m in FY 2023.

Budget – opex: $18k in FY 2023 financing costs, average $76k/annum from FY 2024 onwards (R&M, financing and depreciation costs etc.).

Key risks: Reputational risk in increasing budget in Annual Plan without site confirmed or concept developed and costed.

Recommended? Yes

Option 2: Retain the status quo

51. This option would maintain the budget included in the draft LTP.

Advantages	Disadvantages
· No change to proposed impact on rates requirement.	· Potential for full scope not to be realised, as envisaged through the LTP deliberations process.

Budget – capex: $670k in FY 2023.

Budget – opex: $6k in FY 2023 financing costs, average $33k/annum from FY 2024 onwards (R&M, financing and depreciation costs etc.).

Key risks: High risk of destination skate park concept not being realised due to funding shortfall, and reduced success in funding applications from third party funders.

Recommended? No

Recommendation

52. Option 1 is recommended.

Next Steps

53. Commence co-design process with Community Design Group.

54. Confirm site for project and subsequently, final cost.

55. Prepare submissions for funding to third party funders.

ISSUE 3: Mulching around trees

Issue

56. Managing the risk of mechanical damage to trees from mowers and weed eaters, and opportunities for improving the associated ecological and aesthetic outcomes for trees where weeds are growing uncontrolled.

Analysis of submission points

57. Funding request for $175,000 to initially mulch approximately 7,000 trees, and then $140,000 per annum to support the proposed scope of works in order to protect and enhance the tree assets across the city.

Discussion and analysis

58. In order to minimise mechanical damage to trees via lawnmowers and weed eaters, an exclusion zone was established for contractors working near trees. In higher profile sites, or where multiple complaints were received, a higher level of service was provided via the tree contract to establish mulch circles around the trees.

59. Issues were raised with the team about the kikuyu grass growing around the trees along Cameron Road. The spring of 2021 was a particularly good growing season and the level of complaints/comments received about the grass growing around the tree trunks increased.

60. The benefits of mulch around the trees is immense; it creates a much more hospitable environment for the trees, the degradation adds nutrients to the soil and holds moisture, reducing watering costs, creating a better habitat for invertebrates which then attract more birds and of course, creates a physical barrier between the trees and the workers preventing mechanical damage. As a result, trees live longer, have less disease, need less replacement, which leads to cost savings.

61. Mechanical damage to trees can create long term issues in mature trees, which increase the risk of limb or whole tree failures. The physical damage can weaken structures, such as roots systems, and a further risk where the damage allows the introduction of hostile pathogens to the tree, some of these pathogens cause significant decay within the trees. This decay can lead to more tree failures and a heightened risk to the public. See below images showing mechanical damage to tree and palm roots.

Options Analysis

62. There are three options to be considered:

(a) Increase the level of service for mulching around trees.

(b) Continue with status quo.

Option 1: Increase level of service for mulching around trees

63. Increasing the level of service by mulching trees will create better outcomes for trees in reserves across the city.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· The overall health of the tree stock within the city will improve.

· Environmental benefits from protecting the mature tree stock, such as increasing biodiversity, aiding in climate change, and reducing issues such as urban heat islands.

· Aesthetic improvements by creating a consistent look around the trees in the city and control of unsightly weeds around the tree bases.

· Potential cost savings long-term from less costly removal of unhealthy declining/dying trees.

· Potential cost saving by reduction in watering, which also helps to protect our important water resource.

· Higher rates requirement.

· Continual maintenance required.

· Herbicide whilst minimised still a requirement to control weeds around mulch circles.

Budget – opex: $175k in FY 2023, $140k/annum from FY 2024 onwards (rates funded).

Key risks: Nil.

Recommended? Yes

Option 2: Retain the status quo

64. Continue exclusion zone around trees to minimise mechanical damage from weed eaters etc., which will allow grass and weeds to grow uncontrolled around the base of trees. Exceptions are made in higher profile parks and areas that receive a higher level of complaints. In these locations, mulch is added as a reactive service.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· No change to proposed impact on rates requirement.

· Tree stock more vulnerable to dry weather, disease etc.

· Unsightly weed growth continues to grow uncontrolled around trees across the city.

Budget – opex: No change.

Key risks: Areas that are not maintained over the long term will lead to increased weed growth and areas becoming unsightly.

Recommended? No

Option 3: Increase level of herbicide use around trees

65. Continue exclusion zone around trees, however, use herbicides to control weed growth around the base of the tree.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Less cost than Option 1.

· Weeds are managed around the base of trees.

· Tree stock more vulnerable to dry weather, disease etc.

· Increased levels of herbicide are considered highly undesirable by public.

· Areas where higher levels of herbicide used become “dead” zones and look brown and unsightly.

· Higher risk of tree death from contractors using inappropriate herbicide or contaminated herbicide vessels.

Budget – opex: Possible slight increase of budget required to increase herbicide use.

Key risks: Potential for increased tree loss due to dry weather and watering restrictions, community dissatisfaction from increasing use of herbicide, and damage to environment from overuse of herbicide.

Recommended? No

Recommendation

66. Option 1 is recommended.

Next Steps

67. Define scope of works.

68. Decide whether to increase the level of service for current contractors, or if the work required is best to go to market to create competitive tension.

69. Discuss if areas within parks can be used to store mulch and allow contractors to dump mulch within our parks. Cost savings created by less cartage and often mulch will be dumped free of charge.

ISSUE 4: elizabeth street streetscape upgrade

Issue

70. The project budget is at risk due to ongoing programme prolongation.

Background

71. The Elizabeth Street Streetscape upgrade project was approved in May 2019 with a budget of $8,715,000, and with authority to direct procure the main contractor and key consultants to ensure alignment to the EPL project (Farmers).

72. Following this approval, the wastewater and water renewals in the vicinity of EPL’s development (with a value of $2.93 million) were given to the Streetscape project team to deliver, for the purposes of improved coordination and stakeholder management.

73. The Streetscape budget has also benefited from a contribution from Waka Kotahi for safety improvements on First Ave of $482,910 (51% of value of First Ave safety improvements estimated at $946,883), bringing the total approved budget to $12,130,561. This is made up of the following:

Elizabeth Streetscape Upgrade budget components
Original streetscape budget	$ 8,385,000
City Centre Water Quality Improvements	$ 330,000
Wastewater upgrades	$ 2,059,424
Water Upgrades	$ 873,227
First Ave Safety Improvements	$ 482,910
Total approved budget	$ 12,130,561

74. At the time that the budget was approved, construction of the Streetscape project was anticipated to be completed at the same time as the EPL development – in June 2021. The construction completion date for both projects has subsequently been pushed out and continues to be revised, primarily due to ongoing and significant delays with the EPL development.

75. Whilst Farmers and other retail offerings are due to open on 3 February 2022, construction of the EPL development will continue for a number of months.

76. Because of this, construction of the final two stages of the streetscape upgrade on Elizabeth Street and Mareanui Lane can only commence once construction of the towers is completed, and the scaffolding has been removed. At this stage, there is no agreed date for when the scaffolding will be removed.

77. Following the removal of the scaffolding, it is estimated that it will take approximately four months to complete the final two stages of the Streetscape project (shown in blue and pink in the diagram below). Stages shown in yellow and green are due to be completed in the next two months.

78. The ongoing construction delays are impacting on the project’s forecast cost to complete. As of February 2022, the project delay is already seven months. It is anticipated that the total delay will be more than twelve months.

79. We are currently in discussions with Hawkins to look at how we may be able to reach a mutually agreeable resolution to some of the impacts of the delays, and are reporting these regularly through the project’s governance group.

80. Following a recent detailed review of the financial position, the Streetscape cost is forecast to exceed the Streetscape approved budget by $111,770, however, this does not include any contingency. Given the high degree of uncertainty over the programme, and the ongoing impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is appropriate to provide 12.5% of the cost to complete as contingency (minimum). The additional loan-funded budget sought is made up of the following:

Anticipated variations (construction and additional professional fees not covered by remaining contingency budget)	$111,770
An additional 12.5% contingency (based on the high degree of uncertainty over programme)	$462,750
Total	$574,520

81. It is noted that forecast underspend for the Wastewater and Water renewals budgets is anticipated to be close to $600,000, therefore, the total project budget remains largely the same, with the difference being the funding source for the extra budget requested changing from renewals to loan-funded.

82. With the anticipated delays, the project also seeks to defer $174,847 Streetscape budget from FY 2022 to FY 2023.

83. It is noted that for the additional $1.057m Streetscape budget requested, $483k has already been funded by Waka Kotahi for safety improvements on First Ave.

Options Analysis

84. For the Elizabeth Street Upgrade there are two options to be considered:

(a) Option 1: Retain full project scope as planned and increase the budget by $574,520.

(b) Option 2: Value engineer Stages 3 and 4 to remain within existing project budget.

Option 1: Increase the Streetscape budget by $574,520

85. This option would provide sufficient contingency so that the project could be completed as planned.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Retaining the full project scope best meets the project objectives.

· This option delivers on the project as consulted on with the community and agreed to by Elected Members.

· The total cost to Council is unlikely to change considerably due to an anticipated underspend of the Wastewater and Water project budgets.

· Higher rates requirement.

Budget – capex: Total $7.059m across FY 2022 and 2023.

$4.552m in FY 2022, $2.507m in FY 2023.

Budget – opex: $3.322m across the 10 years, average $383k/annum from FY 2024 onwards (financing and depreciation costs).

Key risks: The timing for the completion of the Streetscape is dependent on a private project, which TCC has no control over. This remains a key risk for the project in terms of programme and cost.

Recommended? Yes

Option 2: Value engineer Stages 3 and 4 and remain within existing project budget

86. Option 2 proposes to value engineer stages 3 and 4 of the linear park and Mareanui Lane. This would likely involve some redesign, reduced or removed landscaping and street furniture, and/or a potential change in the remaining paving surface from concrete to asphalt. It is noted that following community consultation in March 2020, and prior to the budget being approved in May 2020, the project team undertook a value engineering exercise in response to Council’s highly constrained financial position. The value engineering exercise removed the north side of Elizabeth Street from the project scope, lowered the quality of paving in the linear park, and avoided resealing footpaths and roads within the area.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· No additional impact on rates.

· Potentially much lower amenity than planned.

· May result in inconsistencies between this project and possible later stages.

Budget – capex: Total $6.002m across FY 2022 and 2023. $4.727m in FY 2022, $1.238m in FY 2023.

Budget – opex: $2.903m across the 10 years, average $332k/annum from FY 2024 onwards (financing and depreciation costs).

Key risks: Further value engineering may result in poor outcomes, which may be unsatisfactory to the public and require works to be redone in the medium term.

Recommended? No

Recommendation

87. Option 1 is recommended for the reasons outlined above.

Significance and engagement

88. 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.

89. 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 aforementioned matters.

90. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the matters are of medium significance. However, as engagement has been undertaken and stakeholders are regularly communicated with, the decisions recommended in this report are considered to be of low significance and no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

Attachments

Nil

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 February 2022

11.4 Tsunami Sirens

File Number: A13168826

Author: Paula Naude, Manager: Emergency Management

Authoriser: Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance

Purpose of the Report

1. Update on status of Tsunami awareness project and to make recommendations for the 2022/2023 Annual Plan.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report – Tsunami Sirens.

(b) Emergency Management Tauranga City Council continue to educate the public and raise public awareness with regards to tsunami preparedness.

Executive Summary

2. The Council made the following resolution during the 2021/202 Annual Plan

(a) Defer siren project to allow the Commissioners and Council staff to engage with the community on all issues and resolutions around tsunami sirens and evacuation. Continue education and public awareness programme.

3. A targeted Tsunami awareness project was delivered over the December/January period. The recommendations above sought to educate the community on their own role in preparing for, responding to, and surviving a tsunami. The aim of the Tsunami awareness project was to work with the community to minimise the risk to life from tsunami through education, planning and a high level of awareness.

4. The more informed the community are around their role in surviving a tsunami, the greater their level of confidence to respond appropriately, and the greater their chance of survival.

5. A community working group for the project was established, with a term of reference agreed by the group at the first meeting which was held 7 October 2021. The working group supported our desire to take a collaborative and community-led approach, with representatives from multiple community sectors, giving a greater reach into existing community networks, particularly for increasing reach for the dissemination of information.

6. A strategic communication and engagement advisor was employed on a fixed term basis, as were 6 summer students. The awareness campaign was launched at the beginning of December and concluded at the end of January 2022. The awareness campaign commenced with the development of educational collateral and has consisted of the following (current reach of each method of transmission in brackets as of 25 January 2022):

· Social media posting (including engaging with community that post questions/comments) (115,829)

· Sun Media newspaper advertising and articles (70,000)

· Radio & Print NZME (100,000)

· Media Works radio (35,000)

· Billboards (73,010)

· Direct community engagement at beaches, markets, dinner markets and businesses (3,612)

· E-newsletters to working group and their respective networks (unknown at this stage)

· Direct mail to each of the identified 22,500 households that are within the Mount Manganui/ Pᾱpᾱmoa residential zones (49,000)

· Development of video for use on website, social media and to supply to community groups for use at community meetings

· Schools (8 639) & Early Childhood Educations (ECE’s) (3 036)

Awareness of what you should do in an event, is vitally important for our community’s survival in such events, and to that end, education will form part of an annual work programme to be undertaken by Emergency Management Advisor – Community Resilience. The purpose is to ensure that the message is repeated and reinforced by consistent education and messaging across broad sectors.

KEY MESSAGES OF THE PROJECT

7. The most devastating tsunami would take between 50 – 60 minutes to arrive after the initial quake. It can take 40 – 75 minutes before our local region advisors can make an informed decision about whether to issue an evacuation order.

8. If the community waits for sirens before evacuating, essential lifesaving minutes will be lost. For this reason, the earthquake is still the most reliable warning sign, and is internationally accepted as best practice.

9. Communities should not develop a false sense of safety being reliant on tsunami sirens or text messaging, in order that they have ample time to evacuate and increase their chances of survival.

10. Communities (i.e. individuals, Schools, retirement homes, accommodation providers) must develop an evacuation plan.

11. Concern is the over-reliance on tsunami sirens which could result in significantly higher fatalities should a tsunami threaten our shores.

12. Lessons from the Japan tsunami 11 March 2011 showed that survival rates were higher among communities that self-evacuated, those who awaited for official warnings were more likely to lose their lives because they left it too late to start evacuating, or they did not evacuate at all. Furthermore, many sirens were knocked out by the Japan earthquake or they did not sound because the people responsible for activating them were unable to do so.

13. The most recent event, the Tongan volcanic eruption on 15 January 2022, resulted in tsunami waves impacting the Tūtūkᾱkᾱ Marina, sinking a number of boats and severely damaging a number of others. The local community expressed frustration that the expected activation of the local tsunami siren network did not occur.

Emergency Mobile Alerting (EMA) – main official, national warning system.

14. The objective of the EMA is to enable government agencies to effectively warn at-risk communities of critical adverse events that are threats to life, health and property. EMA messages will only be sent in critical situations and obtaining the attention of the public is crucial, including when they are asleep, so to this end, user-specified silent or low-volume settings will be over-ridden and the alert will sound to the device’s maximum volume.

15. Issuing an EMA automatically triggers the Red Cross hazard app by common alerting protocol (CAP). The advantage is Red Cross hazard app can still allow for the alert in areas of no mobile coverage, but where wi-fi is available through the internet.

16. These are supported by a range of other, secondary alerting systems, including national and local TV & radio, social media channels and supporting agency communication channels, e.g. Maritime NZ broadcasting messaging to boating communities, etc.

REGIONAL PROJECTS

17. Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Emergency Management Tauranga City Council are currently reviewing tsunami inundation modelling to inform evacuation planning.

18. EMBOP is initiating a 2-year tsunami readiness programme for the Bay of Plenty region, and Emergency Management Tauranga City Council will be collaborating on this project

OPTIONs analYSIS

Option 1:

Retain the budget for Tsunami Sirens in the 2022/23 Annual Plan and install the Tsunami Siren

Advantages

Disadvantages

Delivery on previous decisions of Council

Natural warnings are the most reliable warning for pending Tsunami

Installation of Tsunami sirens may result in a high reliance on sirens and result in tragic situations

Option 2:

Retain the budget for Tsunami Sirens in the 2022/23 Annual Plan and invite submissions through the Annual Plan consultation to inform a decision on whether or not to install sirens.

Advantages	Disadvantages
As a result of the public awareness program, submitters may be more informed on the options/risks of Tsunami sirens	Delay in installing sirens, if a decision to install the sirens is made

Significance

19. 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.

20. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the matter.

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

Attachments

Nil

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

8 February 2022

11.5 Tauranga Public Transport Joint Committee Terms of Reference

File Number: A13145671

Author: Brendan Bisley, Director of Transport

Authoriser: Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of the report is to provide the Terms of Reference for adoption for a joint committee between Tauranga City Council and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council that will consider public transport projects that impact Tauranga.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report “Tauranga Public Transport Joint Committee Terms of Reference”

(b) Confirms that the Joint Committee established in December 2021 by Tauranga City Council and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (to set the strategic and operational direction for an integrated public transport system for Tauranga City) be named the Tauranga Public Transport Joint Committee.

(c) Adopts the Terms of Reference for the Tauranga Public Transport Joint Committee in Attachment 1 and delegates the role and powers to, and sets the quorum for, the Joint Committee as specified therein.

(d) Confirms the appointment of Commission Chair Anne Tolley as the Chairperson and Councillor Andrew von Dadelszen as the Deputy Chairperson of the Tauranga Public Transport Joint Committee.

(e) Notes that these appointments for Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, along with the associated administrative support, will be rotated between the two partner councils on an annual basis, starting with Tauranga City Council in 2022.

Executive Summary

2. Staff from the TCC and Regional Council have prepared a Terms of Reference to give effect to the Joint Committee established by both councils in December 2021.

3. The Regional Council will consider a report with the same Terms of Reference at their meeting on the 17 February 2022.

Background

4. In an informal meeting in December 2021, between Tauranga City Council (TCC) Commissioners and representatives of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Regional Council), it was agreed to form a joint committee between the TCC and the Regional Council so projects being delivered by both councils that had a passenger transport component could be jointly discussed with representatives of both organisations involved.

5. TCC resolved at its meeting on 13 and 15 December 2022 the following:

That the Council:

(a) Receives the Establish Joint Committee report as a late tabled item.

(b) Pursuant to clause 30(1)(b) Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002, establishes a Joint Committee (name to be confirmed) of the Tauranga City Council and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council to set the strategic and operational direction for an integrated public transport system for Tauranga City.

(c) Notes that the Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee will be confirmed at the first Council meeting in 2022.

(d) Appoints the following members on behalf of the Tauranga City Council to the Joint Committee:

(i) Commission Chair Anne Tolley

(ii) Commissioner Stephen Selwood

6. The Regional Council adopted a similar resolution at its meeting on 16 December 2021 and appointed Councillors Paula Thompson and Andrew von Dadelszen to the Joint Committee.

7. The name of the Joint Committee and the Terms of Reference were not confirmed at the time the Joint Committee was established. The name of the Joint Committee is proposed to be the Tauranga Public Transport Joint Committee and the Terms of Reference have been prepared by the staff from TCC and the Regional Council and these are set out in Attachment 1 and it is recommended that these be adopted.

8. The Terms of Reference set out the members who have been appointed by each of the member councils and recommends that the Chairperson is Commission Chair Anne Tolley and the Deputy Chairperson is Councillor Andrew von Dadelszen. The appointment of the Chair and Deputy Chair will be rotated annually between the two councils, along with the associated administrative support, starting with Tauranga City Council in 2022.

9. The Public Transport Committee of the Regional Council is a joint committee tasked with a regional approach to public transport. The Regional Council intend to amend the Terms of Reference of this committee to note the establishment of this new Joint Committee.

Strategic / Statutory Context

10. Clause 30(1)(b) Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) enables councils to establish joint committees. Clause 30A(1) of Schedule 7 of the LGA states that no council can appoint a joint committee unless each council has agreed to set up the committee. Clause 30A(2) specifies the matters that must be agreed by the councils, namely: the number of members each council may appoint to the committee; how the chairperson and deputy chairperson are to be appointed; the committee’s terms of reference; what responsibilities (if any) are to be delegated to the committee by each council; and how the agreement may be varied.

11. Clause 30A (5) Schedule 7 of the LGA states that a joint committee is deemed to be both a committee of each council. Clause 30A(6) states that the power to discharge individual members and appoint another in their place must be exercised by the council that made the appointment and sets the quorum as half of the members if the number of members is an even number. The councils can agree whether the quorum must include 1 or more members appointed by each party.

12. Both councils need to approve the Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee.

Options Analysis

13. The Council has the following options:

1. Adopt the Terms of Reference in Attachment 1.

2. Make amendments to the Terms of Reference and advise the Regional Council.

3. Request further information before making a decision.

14. Option 1 is recommended as the Terms of Reference have been developed in conjunction with the Regional Council and are considered appropriate to meet the purpose of the Joint Committee.

Financial Considerations

15. There are no financial impacts on the changes to the Governance Structure. Any recommendations from the joint committee that imposes financial commitments on each council will be referred to the respective councils for approval.

Legal Implications / Risks

16. The establishment of a joint decision making body mitigates risks of an uncoordinated approach in public transport infrastructure and service planning required in a city experiencing rapid growth.

Significance

17. 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.

18. 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.

19. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

20. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

21. Regional Council adopt the Terms of Reference on 17 February 2022.

22. The date for the first meeting of the Tauranga Public Transport Joint Committee will be confirmed and advertised. ..

Attachments

1. Tauranga Public Transport Joint Committee Terms of Reference - A13185206 ⇩


AGENDA Ordinary Council meeting Tuesday, 8 February 2022
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 8 February 2022
Time:	10.30am
Location:	Bay of Plenty Regional Council Chambers Regional House 1 Elizabeth 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

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

· 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.

· Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

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