Agenda of Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee Meeting

Terms of reference – Strategy, Finance & Risk Committee

Membership

Chairperson	Commission Chair Anne Tolley
Deputy chairperson	Dr Wayne Beilby – Tangata Whenua representative
Members	Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston Commissioner Stephen Selwood Commissioner Bill Wasley
	Matire Duncan, Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana Chairperson Te Pio Kawe – Tangata Whenua representative Rohario Murray – Tangata Whenua representative Bruce Robertson – External appointee with finance and risk experience
Quorum	Five (5) members must be physically present, and at least three (3) commissioners and two (2) externally appointed members must be present.
Meeting frequency	Six weekly

Role

The role of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee (the Committee) is:

(a) to assist and advise the Council in discharging its responsibility and ownership of health and safety, risk management, internal control, financial management practices, frameworks and processes to ensure these are robust and appropriate to safeguard the Council’s staff and its financial and non-financial assets;

(b) to consider strategic issues facing the city and develop a pathway for the future;

(d) to review and determine the policy and bylaw framework that will assist in achieving the strategic priorities and outcomes for the Tauranga City Council.

Membership

The Committee will consist of:

· four commissioners with the Commission Chair appointed as the Chairperson of the Committee

· the Chairperson of Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana

· three tangata whenua representatives (recommended by Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana and appointed by Council)

· an independent external person with finance and risk experience appointed by the Council.

Voting Rights

The tangata whenua representatives and the independent external person have voting rights as do the Commissioners.

The Chairperson of Te Rangapu Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana is an advisory position, without voting rights, designed to ensure mana whenua discussions are connected to the committee.

Committee’s Scope and Responsibilities

A. STRATEGIC ISSUES

The Committee will consider strategic issues, options, community impact and explore opportunities for achieving outcomes through a partnership approach.

A1 – Strategic Issues

The Committee’s responsibilities with regard to Strategic Issues are:

· Adopt an annual work programme of significant strategic issues and projects to be addressed. The work programme will be reviewed on a six-monthly basis.

· In respect of each issue/project on the work programme, and any additional matters as determined by the Committee:

· Consider existing and future strategic context

· Consider opportunities and possible options

· Determine preferred direction and pathway forward and recommend to Council for inclusion into strategies, statutory documents (including City Plan) and plans.

· Consider and approve changes to service delivery arrangements arising from the service delivery reviews required under Local Government Act 2002 that are referred to the Committee by the Chief Executive.

· To take appropriate account of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

A2 – Policy and Bylaws

The Committee’s responsibilities with regard to Policy and Bylaws are:

· Develop, review and approve bylaws to be publicly consulted on, hear and deliberate on any submissions and recommend to Council the adoption of the final bylaw. (The Committee will recommend the adoption of a bylaw to the Council as the Council cannot delegate to a Committee the adoption of a bylaw.)

· Develop, review and approve policies including the ability to publicly consult, hear and deliberate on and adopt policies.

A3 – Monitoring of Strategic Outcomes and Long Term Plan and Annual Plan

The Committee’s responsibilities with regard to monitoring of strategic outcomes and Long Term Plan and Annual Plan are:

· Reviewing and reporting on outcomes and action progress against the approved strategic direction. Determine any required review/refresh of strategic direction or action pathway.

· Reviewing and assessing progress in each of the six (6) key investment proposal areas within the 2021-2031 Long Term Plan.

· Reviewing the achievement of financial and non-financial performance measures against the approved Long Term Plan and Annual Plans.

B. FINANCE AND RISK

The Committee will review the effectiveness of the following to ensure these are robust and appropriate to safeguard the Council’s financial and non-financial assets:

· Health and safety.

· Risk management.

· Significant projects and programmes of work focussing on the appropriate management of risk.

· Internal and external audit and assurance.

· Fraud, integrity and investigations.

· Monitoring of compliance with laws and regulations.

· Oversight of preparation of the Annual Report and other external financial reports required by statute.

· Oversee the relationship with the Council’s Investment Advisors and Fund Managers.

· Oversee the relationship between the Council and its external auditor.

· Review the quarterly financial and non-financial reports to the Council.

B1 - Health and Safety

The Committee’s responsibilities through regard to health and safety are:

· Reviewing the effectiveness of the health and safety policies and processes to ensure a healthy and safe workspace for representatives, staff, contractors, visitors and the public.

· Assisting the Commissioners to discharge their statutory roles as “Officers” in terms of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.

B2 - Risk Management

The Committee’s responsibilities with regard to risk management are:

· Review, approve and monitor the implementation of the Risk Management Policy, Framework and Strategy including the Corporate Risk Register.

· Review and approve the Council’s “risk appetite” statement.

· Review the effectiveness of risk management and internal control systems including all material financial, operational, compliance and other material controls. This includes legislative compliance, significant projects and programmes of work, and significant procurement.

· Review risk management reports identifying new and/or emerging risks and any subsequent changes to the “Tier One” register.

B3 - Internal Audit

The Committee’s responsibilities with regard to the Internal Audit are:

· Review and approve the Internal Audit Charter to confirm the authority, independence and scope of the Internal Audit function. The Internal Audit Charter may be reviewed at other times and as required.

· Review and approve annually and monitor the implementation of the Internal Audit Plan.

· Review the co-ordination between the risk and internal audit functions, including the integration of the Council’s risk profile with the Internal Audit programme. This includes assurance over all material financial, operational, compliance and other material controls. This includes legislative compliance (including Health and Safety), significant projects and programmes of work and significant procurement.

· Review the reports of the Internal Audit functions dealing with findings, conclusions and recommendations.

· Review and monitor management’s responsiveness to the findings and recommendations and enquire into the reasons that any recommendation is not acted upon.

B4 - External Audit

The Committee’s responsibilities with regard to the External Audit are:

· Review with the external auditor, before the audit commences, the areas of audit focus and audit plan.

· Review with the external auditors, representations required by commissioners and senior management, including representations as to the fraud and integrity control environment.

· Recommend adoption of external accountability documents (LTP and annual report) to the Council.

· Review the external auditors, management letter and management responses and inquire into reasons for any recommendations not acted upon.

· Where required, the Chair may ask a senior representative of the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) to attend the Committee meetings to discuss the OAG’s plans, findings and other matters of mutual interest.

· Recommend to the Office of the Auditor General the decision either to publicly tender the external audit or to continue with the existing provider for a further three-year term.

B5 - Fraud and Integrity

The Committee’s responsibilities with regard to Fraud and Integrity are:

· Review and provide advice on the Fraud Prevention and Management Policy.

· Review, adopt and monitor the Protected Disclosures Policy.

· Review and monitor policy and process to manage conflicts of interest amongst commissioners, tangata whenua representatives, external representatives appointed to council committees or advisory boards, management, staff, consultants and contractors.

· Review reports from Internal Audit, external audit and management related to protected disclosures, ethics, bribery and fraud related incidents.

· Review and monitor policy and processes to manage responsibilities under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the Privacy Act 2020 and any actions from the Office of the Ombudsman’s report.

B6 - Statutory Reporting

The Committee’s responsibilities with regard to Statutory Reporting relate to reviewing and monitoring the integrity of the Annual Report and recommending to the Council for adoption the statutory financial statements and any other formal announcements relating to the Council’s financial performance, focusing particularly on:

· Compliance with, and the appropriate application of, relevant accounting policies, practices and accounting standards.

· Compliance with applicable legal requirements relevant to statutory reporting.

· The consistency of application of accounting policies, across reporting periods.

· Changes to accounting policies and practices that may affect the way that accounts are presented.

· Any decisions involving significant judgement, estimation or uncertainty.

· The extent to which financial statements are affected by any unusual transactions and the manner in which they are disclosed.

· The disclosure of contingent liabilities and contingent assets.

· The basis for the adoption of the going concern assumption.

· Significant adjustments resulting from the audit.

Power to Act

· To make all decisions necessary to fulfil the role, scope and responsibilities of the Committee subject to the limitations imposed.

· To establish sub-committees, working parties and forums as required.

· This Committee has not been delegated any responsibilities, duties or powers that the Local Government Act 2002, or any other Act, expressly provides the Council may not delegate. For the avoidance of doubt, this Committee has not been delegated the power to:

o make a rate;

o make a bylaw;

o borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the Long Term Plan (LTP);

o adopt the LTP or Annual Plan;

o adopt the Annual Report;

o adopt any policies required to be adopted and consulted on in association with the LTP or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement;

o adopt a remuneration and employment policy;

o appoint a chief executive.

Power to Recommend

To Council and/or any standing committee as it deems appropriate.

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda

28 March 2022

8 Business

8.1 Mainstreets Monitoring Report for the period to 31 December 2021

File Number: A13171629

Author: Anne Blakeway, Manager: Community Partnerships

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Community Services

Purpose of the Report

1. For mainstreet organisations to report to Council on their activities for the period July to December 2021, to highlight issues, to provide a financial update, and to outline plans for future activities.

Recommendations

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the Mainstreets’ Monitoring Report for the period to 31 December 2021.

(b) Receives the Mount Business Association Report to 31 December 2021.

(d) Receives the Greerton Village Mainstreet Report to 31 December 2021.

(e) Receives the Papamoa Unlimited Report to 31 December 2021.

Executive Summary

2. Mainstreet organisations receive a targeted rate through Council.

3. As part of Council’s agreement with the four mainstreet organisations, they are required to report every six months on activities achieved, activities planned, and any issues they want to bring to the attention of Council. They are expected to provide a financial update for each reporting period and audited financials after the end of the financial year.

4. This report reflects the period 1 July to 31 December 2021.

5. A summary of performance – both financial and non-financial – is provided for Mainstreet Tauranga, Greerton Village Mainstreet, Mount Business Association and Papamoa Unlimited. All mainstreet organisations are in good financial health.

6. Notwithstanding the ongoing challenges of COVID to foot traffic and event cancellations, the mainstreet organisations appear to be having a positive effect on the activation and economic vibrancy of their areas, largely through a number of events and promotions.

7. Following an independent review of the four mainstreet organisations, on 15 November 2021 Council approved the appointment of a 0.5FTE City Partnerships Specialist who would provide one point of contact for mainstreets within Tauranga City Council (TCC).

8. The appointee to this role will commence on 14 March 2022, and will begin work on developing and implementing a new accountability regime, including the development of a letter of expectation as the mechanism for ensuring strategic alignment between the mainstreet organisations and TCC. They will also review the existing arrangements with the mainstreet organisations to reflect the proposed accountability regime and to standardise, where possible, the terminology in the agreements.

Background

9. There are agreements in place between TCC and the four mainstreet organisations for the delivery of services. The intent of the agreements is to the effect that:

· The mainstreet organisations will contribute to the achievement of a strong and vibrant city and town centres, by promoting the appeal of their respective areas to residents and visitors through events, promotions, and other means.

· That TCC will provide funding for these mainstreet services by way of a targeted rate on commercial property within each of the respective mainstreet business areas.

· The mainstreet organisations are incorporated societies and all business operators within their respective targeted rates areas are regarded by the mainstreet organisations as being their members.

Discussion

10. Audited financial accounts were due from all mainstreet organisations by 28 January 2022.

11. Financial statements provided by Mainstreet Tauranga, Papamoa Unlimited and Greerton Village Mainstreet indicate that they are in good financial health, showing annual operating surpluses and positive equity.

12. Mount Business Association made a net loss of $21,947 over the last six months due to the Board approving additional spend, above normal operating expenses, for specific initiatives to improve service to their members. This was taken out of reserves left over from previous years’ underspend and supports the greater level of activity now taking place compared to previous years.

13. Activities undertaken by all mainstreet organisations appear to be having a positive effect on the activation and economic vibrancy of their areas, largely through events and promotions.

14. Please see Attachment 1 for a summary of the mainstreet reports, including issues to present to Council.

Mount Business Association:

a) The current agreement for the delivery of mainstreet services has been in place since 1 July 2009. Funding of $188,550 from targeted rates is provided by TCC under the agreement for the year ended 30 June 2022.

b) It is pleasing to see that Mount Business Association has undertaken a significant self-review, which has led to the development of a new constitution and destination marketing strategic plan (Attachment 2), which outlines how the targeted rate will be spent on marketing, activations, and member engagement.

c) A Destination Marketing Manager has been appointed on a 25 hours per week contract, along with an Operations Manager working 4 – 6 hours per week. In addition, Kate Barry-Piceno (Mauao Legal Chambers) has been appointed to chair a new Board.

d) Members have stuck it out through the various COVID restrictions and have been rewarded with record summer trading.

e) A number of events and promotions have been rolled out in the first half of the year, which has proved there is demand from the public and members for events to be held down the mainstreet, especially those with a family focus.

f) Highlights include the July school holiday ice rink, Christmas activations including the Mount Music Trail. Further details can be found in the Mount Business Association Six-Month Monitoring Report and Profit and Loss statement for July to December 2021 (Attachment 3).

g) The “Welcome to Paradise” marketing campaign will help drive a hyper-local approach to promoting Mount Maunganui and its mainstreet to identified target audiences, and growing brand awareness.

h) Key issues include street cleanliness, overflowing rubbish bins and member engagement. This will be a major focus over the coming year, including rebuilding trust with old members while helping new members understand the role of the association in supporting their business and creating a connected community.

i) Mount Business Association looks forward to working with the new City Partnerships Specialist to develop some clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) but have provided a draft of initial thinking in Attachment 4.

Mainstreet Tauranga:

a) The current agreement for the delivery of mainstreet services has been in place since 1 July 2009. Funding of $353,934 from targeted rates is provided by TCC under the agreement for the year ended 30 June 2022.

b) Mainstreet Tauranga contracts Tuskany Agency for the day-to-day management and delivery of the mainstreet programme in downtown Tauranga. The Tuskany Agency Manager reports to the Board of Mainstreet Tauranga.

c) Highlights from the last six months include Trustpower Toi Tauranga Christmas, member promotion and support during the COVID lockdown period, and continued achievements with activating vacant spaces. Further details can be found in Mainstreet Tauranga’s Six-Month Monitoring Report and Profit and Loss statement for July to December 2021 (Attachment 5).

d) Special mention is made of James Wilson and TCC’s support for Christmas in the city centre, and the addition of the curated collection of light sculptures and installations on The Strand by internationally acclaimed artist, Anguis Muir. This resulted in increased foot traffic around the city and on The Strand, especially at night, and is something members would like to see more of.

e) Key issues for Mainstreet Tauranga are:

· Seismic strengthening of Elizabeth and Spring Street car park buildings.

· Lack of foot traffic counters, despite budget being allocated to Tauranga Traffic Operations Centre (TTOC) in the Long-term Plan.*

· Accurate city centre parking data collection.

· New initiatives from Council to replace Activate Vacant Spaces.

· Rough sleeping issues with one individual – since resolved.

* An update from TTOC indicates that 17 foot traffic counters have been installed and are now operational and collecting data (see below). The Asset Management team are trying to fill a vacancy for a data scientist to turn the data into a dashboard. This has been communicated to Mainstreet Tauranga staff.

Greerton Village Mainstreet:

a) The current agreement for the delivery of mainstreet services has been in place since 1 July 2011. Funding of $134,672 from targeted rates is provided by TCC under the agreement for the year ended 30 June 2022.

b) Greerton Village Mainstreet employs a manager who is responsible to the organisation’s Board for the day-to-day delivery of the mainstreet programme in Greerton, including a range of events and promotions designed to attract people to the Greerton business area.

c) This reporting period has been a particularly challenging one for Greerton Village Mainstreet, with the cancellation of many planned events and promotions mainly due COVID restrictions, and a downturn in foot traffic and turnover for mainstreet businesses. Further details can be found in the Greerton Village Mainstreet Six-Month Monitoring Report and Profit and Loss statement for July to December 2021 (Attachment 6).

d) Highlights include the Yarn Bombing installations in July, the Christmas lights (installed by volunteers), and the support of over 60 businesses for the Giant Christmas Hamper promotion.

e) There continue to be issues with pavement deep cleaning, street cleaning, and streetlight cleaning. While the TCC Transportation team are now working with Greerton Village Mainstreet on ongoing ‘tidy-up’ maintenance work, including streetlights, pavements, and benches, this has taken much longer than Greerton Village Mainstreet had hoped, leaving them feeling like the “poor relations”.

f) On the plus side, Greerton Village Mainstreet has received great service from TCC and contractors re the installation of additional CCTV cameras and checking of garden sockets.

Papamoa Unlimited:

a) The current agreement for the delivery of mainstreet services has been in place since 1 July 2014. Funding of $50,000 from targeted rates is provided by TCC under the agreement for the year ended 30 June 2022.

b) Papamoa Unlimited is managed by a volunteer chair who engages a contractor to assist with the running of events. The sole focus of Papamoa Unlimited is to hold three or four community events each year. An element of each event occurs within the Papamoa business area and as such, attracts people to that location and in doing so, promotes the business area as well as the vibrancy of Papamoa generally.

c) Highlights for this period include Pedal and Pump and Santa’s Jolly Good Fellows. Financial results impacted by the cancellation of events due to the uncertainty of changing alert levels and corresponding restrictions on numbers. Further details can be found in the Papamoa Unlimited Six-Month Monitoring Report and Profit and Loss statement for July to December 2021 (Attachment 7).

d) No increase in the targeted business rate was recommended or sought at the AGM. Papamoa Unlimited feels that its business model ensures agility, which has proven to be beneficial during the COVID pandemic.

Strategic / Statutory Context

15. The City Centre Strategy (2012), which is currently under review, is relevant to Mainstreet Tauranga to the extent that its vision is to create a thriving commercial centre. Specific actions may be assigned to Mainstreet Tauranga to implement as a key strategy stakeholder.

16. In terms of TCC’s community outcomes that were in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031, well-run mainstreet programmes make a worthwhile contribution to city centre vibrancy and to “a city that is well planned with a variety of successful and thriving compact centres and resilient infrastructure.”

17. Well-run mainstreet programmes also have a key role in making a significant contribution “to the social, economic, cultural and environmental well-being of the region.”

Financial Considerations

18. Mainstreet organisations receive a targeted rate through Council, as detailed above, totalling $727,156 per annum across the four organisations.

19. It is difficult to measure the outcomes achieved by the mainstreet programmes in economic terms, meaning that generally only anecdotal and informal measures of success are available. However, informal measures, such as estimated numbers of people attending events, to determine if customer foot traffic or turnover was improved by events and promotions etc., are useful, providing they are objective.

20. One task for the new City Partnerships Specialist will be to undertake independent surveys of retailers as a method of determining the success of the mainstreet programmes.

Legal Implications / Risks

21. Each of the mainstreet organisations has met their funding agreement requirements by providing Council with their half yearly reports for 1 July 2021 to 31 December 2021.

Consultation / Engagement

22. It is not required or expected to consult on half yearly reports under the Local Government Act 2002.

Significance

23. 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.

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

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

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

25. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the Significance and Engagement Policy, it is considered that the decision is of low significance as the receipt of the half yearly reports and the activities of the mainstreet organisations would have an impact on a sub group of people within the city and it is likely these documents will be of moderate public interest.

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

27. Feedback will be provided to the mainstreet organisations at the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting on 28 March 2022, when representatives from each of the mainstreets will talk to their reports (for a maximum of 10 minutes).

28. The City Partnerships Specialist commences on 14 March 2022 and will begin work on developing and implementing a new accountability regime (including new KPIs), as outlined in the recent review of the mainstreets. This will include the development of a letter of expectation as the mechanism for ensuring strategic alignment between the mainstreet organisations and TCC.

29. The City Partnerships Specialist will also review the existing arrangements with the mainstreet organisations to reflect the proposed accountability regime, and to standardise, where possible, the terminology in the agreements.

Attachments

1. Mainstreet Monitoring Report - Summary for July to December 2021 - A13242895 ⇩

2. Mount Business Association - Destinating Marketing Plan 2021/2022 - A13240926 ⇩

3. Mount Business Association Monitoring Report - July to December 2021 - A13273617 ⇩

4. Mount Business Association Draft KPIs - A13273618 ⇩

5. Mainstreet Tauranga Monitoring Report - July to December 2021 - A13240903 ⇩

6. Greerton Village Mainstreet Monitoring Report - July to December 2021 - A13273608 ⇩

7. Papamoa Unlimited Monitoring Report - July to December 2021 - A13273619 ⇩

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda

28 March 2022

8.3 Adoption of draft Rates Remission Policy and draft Rates Postponement Policy for consultation

File Number: A13167367

Author: Jim Taylor, Transactional Services Manager

Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

Authoriser: Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To adopt the draft Rates Remission Policy (attachment 1) and draft Rates Postponement Policy (attachment 2) (the draft policies) for consultation.

Recommendations

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Adopt the draft Rates Remission Policy for consultation

(b) Adopt the draft Rates Postponement Policy for consultation.

Executive Summary

2. In general, all ratepayers are expected to pay rates. However, rates postponement and remission policies allow Council to recognise financial or other special circumstances where ratepayers may require support to manage their rates payments. In adopting the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 (LTP) and in response to public feedback, Commissioners requested a review of council policies on the remission and postponement of rates, particularly for those on fixed incomes.

3. Recent legislative changes also require councils to review their policies on rates remission and postponement to confirm they support the principles in the Preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (TTWMA 93).

4. The Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee (the Committee) considered a range of options to amend the policies at its February 2022 meeting. Those amendments have now been incorporated into draft policies for adoption. This report recommends the Committee adopt the draft policies for consultation.

Background

5. While there are some exceptions outlined in legislation, in general, all land is rateable. However, there may be circumstances where ratepayers need support to manage their rates. Councils can choose to provide for rates postponement (whereby rates are paid at an agreed later date) or remit rates (where council forgoes rates income) through policies stating the objectives and criteria for postponement or remission.

6. This council has previously recognised a need to offer rates postponement where the ratepayer is experiencing financial hardship, and to acknowledge that Council decisions to rezone farmland may impact the rating valuation of a property regardless of how the ratepayer prefers to use the property. The Committee agreed at its February 2022 meeting to remove some criteria for accessing the postponement for financial hardship and expand the provisions for farmland to properties recently moved into Tauranga City Council area through a boundary adjustment.

7. The Committee also agreed at its February 2022 meeting to introduce a temporary partial remission for gold kiwifruit orchards. This partial remission provides for a transition to a new rating valuation that includes the value of the licence to grow gold kiwifruit and the planted vines. However, a recent decision from Gisborne held that the rating valuation of gold kiwifruit orchards should not consider the value of the licence to grow gold kiwifruit. As this may impact on how other councils rate gold kiwifruit orchards, the policy provides for gold kiwifruit orchards to receive 100% remission of the portion of rates relating to the capital value component of the G3 licence in year one.

8. A copy of the February 2022 minutes are below.

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Notes that reference to the Preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 will be added to Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

(b) Agree that the following matters be addressed in a draft Rates Postponement Policy for consultation (for adoption by Council);

(i) deletion of all criteria for rates postponement for financial hardship except the requirement for there to be at least 25% equity in the property and that the ratepayer must not be able to access support from private sector financial institutions.

(ii) addition a new criterion that applications for rates postponement for financial hardship may only be for the property the ratepayer is currently residing in.

(iii) addition of a new criterion providing for postponement of rates on rating units where the valuation may have increased due to boundary adjustments and re-zoning from rural to urban uses, noting that a maximum of six years postponed rates will be due when the property is sold or developed.

(c) Agree that the following matters be addressed in a draft Rates Remission Policy for consultation (for adoption by Council);

(i) Addition of a provision for partial remission of general rates and targeted rates set at the capital value on rating units with both a license to grow gold kiwifruit and planted vines where the rates have increased by more than the citywide average, noting that the remission will be for the portion of rates relating to the capital value component of the G3 licence and for a maximum of three years with 100% remission in the 2022/2023 financial year and two thirds remission in year two (2023/2024).

(ii) Deletion of provisions pertaining to remission of wastewater rates for schools and reference to remission of rates on land designated a Māori reservation.

9. The draft policies also include an additional principle acknowledging that while all ratepayers are required to pay rates, there may be circumstances where ratepayers need additional support to manage payments. These principles are consistent with the overarching principles in the Revenue and Financing Policy.

10. These amendments are highlighted in the attached draft policies.

Options Analysis

11. The Committee could choose to adopt the draft policies with or without amendments, or not adopt the draft policies. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

· ·

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
1	Adopt the draft policies (recommended)	· Consistent with amendments approved in February 2022 · Ensures policies are reviewed prior to 2024 to assess compliance with TTWMA 93 · Provides for rates remission on gold kiwifruit orchards while implications	· Nil
2	Adopt the draft policies with amendments		· Nil
3
Do not adopt the draft policies	· Nil	· Constrained timeframes to consult with public before next financial year

Other matters

Rates Postponement Policy

12. The draft Rates Postponement Policy includes a minor edit to make it clearer that postponed rates are due on the sale of the property. The current wording could be interpreted to mean that a property could be sold but the rates could continue to be postponed if no consent in line with the revised zoning is issued.

Rates Remission Policy

13. As part of the review, adjustments have been made to the amount of rates penalty that may be remitted upon application. This means that staff will remit penalties where the penalty is less than $50 for general rates and less than $5 for water rates. These adjustments recognise the administrative cost of processing penalties for relatively low amounts while also providing some relief to ratepayers.

14. In response to feedback received from the Committee at its February 2022 meeting, the principles have been amended to add reference to fairness and equity.

15. Minor amendments to the draft policies have been made to include TTWMA 93 and the Rating Valuations Act 1998 in the list of related legislation.

Strategic / Statutory Context

16. Section 102 of the Local Government Act 2002 allows councils to adopt policies on the remission and postponement of rates. Where councils have adopted such policies, they must be reviewed prior to 1 July 2024 to confirm that they support the principles in TTWMA 93.

Financial Considerations

17. There are no financial considerations with the recommended option.

18. Council seeks to recover some of the costs of postponement through the application fee and charging of interest. This reduces the potential burden on other ratepayers.

Legal Implications / Risks

19. The ability to remit 100% of rates attributed to the G3 licence acknowledges the recent Land Valuation Tribunal decision that the licence is not an improvement for the land or for the benefit of the land.

Consultation / Engagement

20. No specific consultation or engagement was undertaken in preparing the draft policies. Council committed to a review of the rates postponement policy in response to concerns that rates increases were placing a burden on persons with fixed incomes.

21. Consultation on the draft policies is required to be undertaken in accordance with section 82 of the Local Government Act 2002. The draft consultation material is appended at attachment 3 for information.

Significance

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of low significance. However, it is noted that the remission and postponement of rates is a matter of medium significance.

ENGAGEMENT

25. 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 on adoption of the draft policies.

Next Steps

26. Consultation on the draft policies will take place in May 2022. Feedback relating to rates postponement or remission received during the annual plan process will also be considered as feedback for this policy review.

Attachments

1. Draft Rates Remission Policy 2022 - A12984594 ⇩

2. Draft Rates Postponement Policy 2022 - A12984365 ⇩

3. Draft Consultation Material - Rates Remission and Rates Postponement Policies - A13285446 ⇩

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda

28 March 2022

8.4 Review of the Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land Policy - Issues and Options

File Number: A13241823

Author: Jim Taylor, Transactional Services Manager

Emma Joyce, Policy Analyst

Authoriser: Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To adopt the draft Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land Policy (draft policy) (attachment 1) for consultation.

Recommendations

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Adopts the draft Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land Policy for consultation, noting the following amendments:

(i) A new purpose statement paraphrasing the Preamble from Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.

(ii) Revised criteria for remission of rates, except service charges, on land subject to development to only require assessment against the benefits outlined at section 114A of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.

(iii) Provisions extending the ability to remit rates, except service charges, on land intended for development to land returned through a right of first refusal scheme or Treaty settlement or where the land is temporarily transferred to general title and held in collective ownership.

(iv) Provision for 100% remission of rates, except service charges, on land subject to development, or defined and agreed development or stage of development, until such time as the development or stage of development is generating income or persons are residing in the houses.

(v) Provision for Māori freehold land rates remission which reflects a rate based on Maori freehold land value excluding any subdivision potential unlikely to be realised in Māori ownership.

(vi) Provision for partial or full remission of rates, except service charges, on land that may be partially used for limited or seasonal productive use.

(vii) Provision clarifying that land providing non-commercial community benefit to Māori or papakāinga is eligible for 100% remission of rates, except service charges.

Executive Summary

2. Council is required to review its policy on the remission and postponement of rates on Māori freehold land by 1 July 2022 in response to the Local Government (Rating of Whenua Māori) Amendment Act 2021. This Act introduced provisions to the Local Government (Rating) Act (LG(R)A 02) and Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 02) to better enable development of Māori freehold land, particularly for housing and papakāinga, and to modernise rating legislation affecting Māori freehold land.

3. Developing Māori freehold land for the economic, social and cultural benefit of the owners and beneficiaries will benefit the whole community. New housing and associated papakāinga will further Māori cultural identity and iwi / hapū connection to Tauranga Moana. It will also reduce the overall shortfall of healthy housing for everyone in our community through increased supply and reduced demand for rentals or privately-owned homes. Creating commercial business ventures on Māori freehold land will create new jobs within our rohe and benefit our city and the wider region’s economy.

4. The table below provides a summary of the proposals recommended through the policy review and notes where certain land is automatically non-rateable

Type of remission	Amount of remission	Application
Land under development	Proposal for 100% remission until such time as development is complete (people are residing in homes or income is being generated). Services charges are not remitted	Māori freehold land, general land returned to collective ownership (except where part of commercial redress) through Treaty settlement or right of first refusal
Land under development but partially complete (e.g. houses are being lived in)	Proposal for rates to be paid on completed development but if development is staged rates can be remitted on the yet to be completed part of the development	Māori freehold land, general land returned to collective ownership (except where part of commercial redress) through Treaty settlement or right of first refusal
Land with limited productive use	Proposal for partial or full remission of rates	Māori freehold land
Māori freehold land leased on a commercial basis	Fully rateable (no remission)	Māori freehold land
Land providing non-commercial activity benefitting Māori (eg. hauora provider; sports club)	100% of rates, except service charges, (Partial remission of wastewater rates may apply- see councils remission policy)	All land
Unused rating unit of Māori freehold land	Non-rateable per the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002	Māori freehold land
Marae and urupā	Non-rateable per the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002	Māori freehold land

5. This report requests that the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee (the Committee) adopt the draft policy for consultation. The highlighted text in the attached draft policy shows how the recommendations have been expressed in the policy or other notable changes such as the incorporation of an explanatory background section and new definitions. Consultation on the draft policy is scheduled for May 2022.

Background

6. In 1860, Māori owned most of the land in the North Island. Through a combination of raupatu (confiscation), compulsory public works acquisitions, and land sales, most of this land has now been alienated from Māori. The role of rating of Māori land potentially contributed to land loss. Remaining tracts tended to be less desirable land, more remote, and more challenging to make productive. The cumulative effect of the purchases, raupatu, and acquisitions is that collectively-owned Māori land is now less than five per cent of New Zealand's total land area. The figure below illustrates Māori land in the North Island in 1860 and then in 2000.

Figure 1: Land in Māori ownership 1860 to 2000

1860 2000 Source: nzhistory.govt.nz

7. Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (TTWMA 93) is the primary legislation governing Māori land. Two key principles expressed in its Preamble (attachment 2) are that land is a taonga tuku iho of special significance to Māori and as such we should avoid further loss of Māori land. TTWMA 93 aims to balance the protection of Māori land for future generations with the ability to use and develop land to meet the aspirations of the landowners and their whānau. Council’s Remission and Postponement Policy on Māori Freehold Land Policy is now required to support those principles.

8. TTWMA 93 gives the Māori Land Court jurisdiction to determine by status order the particular status of any parcel of land. Māori freehold land is most often held by large numbers of individuals who have shares together as tenants in common. Shares are succeeded by family members which generally increases the number of beneficial owners whilst fragmenting interests over time. Apart from the difficulty of getting agreement from all individuals on a common project, utilisation of the land may rely on western mechanisms of using the land as security to raise finance (with an assumption the land could be sold if debt remains unpaid). As Māori freehold land is unlikely to be sold on the open market, it is difficult to raise finance on Māori land.

9. In the contemporary environment, Māori freehold land has two main characteristics which make it a unique land tenure: economic value and cultural value. (Māori freehold land is sometimes referred to as “multiply-owned Māori land”, however, this is not a term defined in legislation). Māori freehold land and general title land are very different in tenure and purpose. While you can to an extent do many of the same things on both types of land, there are significantly more barriers to achieving development on Māori freehold land as well as legislation that specifically controls and directs how Māori freehold land can be used and sold.

10. The table below highlights key differences between general and Māori freehold land.

	Māori freehold land	General land
Land sales	· Shares in a land block can generally only be sold to someone who is in the “preferred class of alienees” (likely descendants or whanau)	· Can be sold to anyone on the open market for the highest price
Borrow against title to secure mortgage	· As land is held in multiple ownership, it is not practical to use Māori freehold land as security in financial markets to borrow capital to invest in development	· Can borrow against the land to secure a mortgage and enable investment in developing the land · Investment may increase the property’s capital value
Building a house on the land	· Māori freehold land may have multiple owners. As such, Council requires proof that the applicant has the right to build on the land · Land is more likely to be landlocked with limited or no access to services or utilities	· Can build anything on the land subject to compliance with City Plan and Building Code provisions
Subdivision	· Māori freehold land can only be “partitioned” if it meets an extensive list of restrictions set by the Māori Land Court. · Court could decline the application as primary aim is the retention of land in iwi and hapū ownership	· Can subdivide property so long as it meets the provisions in the City Plan

11. Land returned to Māori ownership in general title (for example, through Treaty settlement or a right of first refusal scheme) is not always immediately transferred to Māori freehold land. “Returned” land is also often required to be purchased at current market value. As general land, it might be used as security to access capital for developing other Māori land, or for commercial leases which are placed on the title before transferring to Māori title. However, general land in common Māori ownership likely has the same purposes as other Māori land.

12. Rates on Māori freehold land are based on the rating valuations of the land. Despite the noted barriers to, and complexities of, developing Māori freehold land, general title and Māori freehold land are valued for rating purposes in the same way. Rating valuations are assessed on the following factors;

· market evidence

· relevant planning provisions as well as physical and locational aspects,

· the impact of district plan designations

· access difficulties, landlocked situations, contour challenges and subdivision restrictions.

13. Adjustments are applied to the general land value: up to 10% for over 100 owners and up to 5% for cultural aspect such as pā, urupā, rūnanga, or wāhi tapu sites.

14. In summary, the rating valuations are as if the land was available for sale on the open market (where it could achieve the highest and best use value) and subject to the same subdivision conditions as general title. The Valuer-General determines the rules under which councils must set valuations. At present, those rules do not provide for recognition of the legislative barriers to realising the “highest and best use” on Māori freehold land, nor a te ao Māori worldview where land may have an intrinsic value. However, councils can account for different perceptions of land value in their remission policies.

15. The LGA 02 gives Council the ability to recognise the unique characteristics of Māori freehold land and assess fair rates on Māori freehold land. All councils are required to have a policy on the remission and postponement of rates on Māori freehold land and are now required (following the legislative changes) to consider all applications for rates remission on land subject to development where it meets one or more of the five benefits of development outlined in the legislation. Remission and postponement policies must now also support the principles in the Preamble to TTWMA 93 with councils required to review their policies by 1 July 2022.

16. The review of our policy, and the requirement to show support for the Preamble principles, allows us to recognise the differences between general title and Māori Freehold land, the challenges and restrictions placed on development of Māori freehold land, and the potentially different conception of land value. As such, we are proposing the following policy amendments:

· support the development of Māori freehold land by remitting rates for a period while development is taking place

· treat land returned through right of first refusal, Treaty settlements or temporarily in general title for the purposes of progressing commercial leases, as if it was Māori freehold land for the purposes of development

· remit rates to the extent that the rates reflect the actual use of the Māori land, without subdivision potential as that is unlikely to happen. If it does then the land will be rated at that level of use.

· remit up to 100% of rates on Māori land with limited productive use. This allows for some use of the land without the whole block becoming liable for rates because it is partially used to grow kai or medicinal plants (rongoā Māori) for personal or community use or for a minor seasonal crop. (Note that if Māori land remains unused it is non-rateable but would become liable for rates when used even for a minor activity such as growing food. Therefore, it is appropriate to provide for remission of rates on the unused portion. Services charges for water supply, wastewater and waste may still be applied).

17. The changes outlined above will result in a fairer allocation of rates on Māori freehold land. Although this is a principled decision based on a fairer way to assess rates on Māori land, the initial financial impact to council is estimated at less than 0.02% (or up to $50,000) of the annual rates budget. The proposed changes will increase our rates base in the future.

18. If council does not implement these changes we will not be meeting our obligations to support the preamble in the Te Ture Whenua Act in good faith by recognising the benefits to the district by creating new employment opportunities, by creating new homes, by increasing the council’s rating base in the long term, by providing support for marae in the district or by facilitating the occupation, development, and utilisation of the land.

19. If council implements these changes to the rating of Māori freehold land, we will be actively removing barriers preventing economic and cultural benefit to Māori and the wider community through the provision of papakāinga, housing and commercial enterprise. Over time development would grow council’s rating database and increase the rates contribution from land that would otherwise be unused and non-rateable.

20. As Māori freehold land blocks cross over Tauranga and Western Bay of Plenty District boundaries, it is desirable to have consistent treatment for rating of whenua Māori throughout the sub-region. The draft policy is broadly similar to the draft policy proposed by Western Bay of Plenty District Council. Both drafts seek to add the new provision to remit a portion of rates attributed to subdivision potential and to acknowledge that some minor use can take place on Māori freehold land without it becoming used (and therefore liable for rates). (The main differences between the two policies relate to style and wording of policy provisions).

Strategic / Statutory Context

21. A policy on the remission and postponement of rates on Māori freehold land is a requirement of all councils under section 102(1) of the LGA 02 (noting that councils do not have to offer remission or postponement of rates). Policies must include the objectives sought by remission, and the criteria in order for rates to be remitted. The objectives and criteria must have regard to the “desirability and importance” of a range of objectives such as protection of indigenous biodiversity, protection of wāhi tapu, and avoiding further alienation of land. These criteria are listed at schedule 11 to LGA 02 – Matters relating to the relief of rates on Māori freehold land. This is in addition to the recent requirement noted in the above background section that policies support the principles contained within the Preamble to TTWMA 93.

22. Other legislative changes to the rating of Māori freehold land do not require an amendment to the policy. They are noted below to illustrate the intention of the legislative changes to address some of the inequities with, and challenges of, rating Māori freehold land.

· Allowing the Chief Executive to waive rates deemed unrecoverable (also applies to general land)

· Marae land and land protected through a Ngā Whenua Rāhui kawenata now automatically non-rateable

· Wholly unused land now non-rateable

· Ability for council (upon request) to rate individual houses on Māori land as a separate rating unit enabling ratepayer to access the Government rates rebate scheme.

23. Council has previously shown support for the development of Māori land through the development of a policy to provide grants to cover payment of development contributions for papakāinga.

Options Analysis

Issue 1 – Show support for Preamble in policy

24. As noted in the background section, the main reason for this review is the new requirement to show support in our policy for the principles in the Preamble to TTWMA 93. Council can show this support through the addition of a new clause that paraphrases the Preamble or imply support through provisions in the policy. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of adding an additional provision either as a purpose or principle or not adding a new provision.

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
1.1	Show support for the Preamble through a new policy purpose (recommended)	· Clear alignment between the policy and demonstrating support for development of Māori land and principles in the Preamble · Ensures that following policy provisions must connect to the purpose · Reflects intent of policy and legislation to better enable development of Māori freehold land · Complies with legislation	· Nil
1.2	Retain current purpose but show support for the Preamble through a new policy principle	· Some alignment between the policy and demonstrating support for development of Maori land. · Complies with legislation	· Potentially less emphasis on supporting the Preamble and the principles of the Preamble
1.3	Do not include provision demonstrating support for the Preamble / imply support through policy provisions	· Support for principles can be implied through other policy provisions	· Potential that policy does not comply with legislation · Potential that policy does not show clear support for the principles in the Preamble

Issue 2- Criteria for remission for land subject to development

25. Under the amended LG(R)A, where Māori freehold land is subject to development, councils need only be satisfied that one of the five benefits listed below is met in order to grant remission. (Applications may meet more than one). This is in addition to the matters relating to rates relief on Māori freehold land listed in schedule 11 to the LGA 02.

· benefits to the district by creating new employment opportunities:

· benefits to the district by creating new homes:

· benefits to the council by increasing the council’s rating base in the long term:

· benefits to Māori in the district by providing support for marae in the district:

· benefits to the owners by facilitating the occupation, development, and utilisation of the land.

26. The focus on outcomes and benefits contrasts with the current compliance-focused criteria in the policy. Council could retain the current criteria or replace that criteria with a statement that remission will be granted where one or more of the benefit(s) outlined in the legislation are met.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
2.1	Criteria for land subject to remission need only demonstrate one of the five benefits listed in the legislation (recommended)	· Aligns with intention of legislation and Preamble principles to enable development of Māori freehold land · Consistent with legislation, including schedule 11 matters · Less onus on landowners to provide supporting information to show compliance with criteria · Eliminates administrative burden of requiring annual assessments	· May not show explicit reference to the matters referred to in schedule 11 of the LGA 02
2.2	Retain current criteria for land under development	· Retains strong reference to the matters referred to in schedule 11 of the LGA 02	· May not reflect intention of legislation or support the principles in the Preamble to be enabling of land development · Places onus on applicant to comply rather than Council being seen to be enabling and supportive of land development · Current criteria are not required to assess benefits of land development · Council may already hold this information in its systems – avoids duplication

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

2.1

Criteria for land subject to remission need only demonstrate one of the five benefits listed in the legislation

(recommended)

· Aligns with intention of legislation and Preamble principles to enable development of Māori freehold land

· Consistent with legislation, including schedule 11 matters

· Less onus on landowners to provide supporting information to show compliance with criteria

· Eliminates administrative burden of requiring annual assessments

· May not show explicit reference to the matters referred to in schedule 11 of the LGA 02

2.2

Retain current criteria for land under development

· Retains strong reference to the matters referred to in schedule 11 of the LGA 02

· May not reflect intention of legislation or support the principles in the Preamble to be enabling of land development

· Places onus on applicant to comply rather than Council being seen to be enabling and supportive of land development

· Current criteria are not required to assess benefits of land development

· Council may already hold this information in its systems – avoids duplication

Issue 3 – Land included in scope of policy

27. While the legislation and our existing policy only apply to Māori freehold land, there is an opportunity to extend the policy to land returned to iwi or hapū through Treaty settlement (non-commercial redress) or right of first refusal. This land is usually held in general title. Auckland and Far North District Councils currently have similar provisions extending the remissions policy to Treaty settlement land held in general title. Western Bay of Plenty District is consulting on an amended draft policy that applies to “[A]ny land, regardless of its status, returned to a Māori trust, iwi, hapū or other entity, by the Crown or Local Government body, as redress or compensation for a historic wrongdoing or breach of the Treaty of Waitangi” (as well as Māori freehold land).

28. The advantages and disadvantages of each option are outlined below.

· ·

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
3.1	Include land returned through Treaty settlement in the scope of the policy (non-commercial redress) (recommended)	· Recognises importance of land · Recognises not all land is Māori freehold land but owners may similarly wish to develop that land for their benefit or benefit of their hapū · Supports principles in the Preamble, particularly recognising the significance of land and allowing the ability for it to be developed · Acknowledges the recent adoption of right of first refusal scheme for surplus council land	· Nil
3.2	Include land returned through right of first refusal in scope of policy (recommended)
3.3
Include land temporarily transferred to general title in scope of policy (recommended)
3.4
Policy only applies to Māori freehold land (status quo)	· Consistent with legislation that remission is only for Māori freehold land	· Does not acknowledge potential aspirations for development of land · Potential does not acknowledge Māori view of land · Potential that policy does not support principles of the Preamble, particularly providing for the development of land

Issue 4 – Rate of remission

29. The legislation does not specify the rate of remission and allows councils to determine if they will remit all or part of the rates for the duration of a development, differently during the different stages of a development and subject to any other conditions specified in the policy (s114A(4) LGA 02). Subject to a decision on issue three above, the same level of remission would apply to rating units returned or purchased through Treaty settlement or right of first refusal where that land is intended for development.

30. At present, the policy allows staff to negotiate remission with landowners. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of retaining the status quo or setting a rate of remission in the policy.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
4.1.1	Retain flexibility to negotiate level of remission (status quo)	· Flexibility to respond to remission applications based on type of development proposed · Potentially does not reflect intent of legislation to be enabling of development	· Less certainty for staff in determining remissions · Potential for inconsistent treatment of applications over time
4.1.2	Set a rate of remission in the policy (recommended)	· Provides certainty to Council and staff · Ensures consistent practice over time	· Potentially less flexibility to adjust remission for proposed developments with differing or greater benefits

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

4.1.1

Retain flexibility to negotiate level of remission

(status quo)

· Flexibility to respond to remission applications based on type of development proposed

· Potentially does not reflect intent of legislation to be enabling of development

· Less certainty for staff in determining remissions

· Potential for inconsistent treatment of applications over time

4.1.2

Set a rate of remission in the policy

(recommended)

· Provides certainty to Council and staff

· Ensures consistent practice over time

· Potentially less flexibility to adjust remission for proposed developments with differing or greater benefits

31. If the Committee chooses option 4.1.2, consideration must be given to the rate of remission. Councils are required to consider the following in determining the proportion of rates to remit during or at any stage of the development (section 114A(5) LG(R)A) 02;

· Expected duration of the development

· When income is expected to be generated from commercial developments

· When the ratepayer or others person is likely to be able to reside in the dwellings.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
4.2.1	Remission over five years with 80% in first year and zero in fifth year	· Consistent with legislation · Consistent with current Western Bay of Plenty policy	· Some developments may take longer than five years · Potential inequities with other ratepayers who are developing properties but cannot have rates remitted during that time
4.2.2	100% remission for the defined and agreed development or stage of development until income generated or dwelling is inhabited (recommended)	· Consistent with legislation · Provides certainty to council staff when working with landowners · Recognises that a range of factors can influence how long a development takes to be completed	· Potential inequities with other ratepayers who are developing properties but cannot have rates remitted during that time

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

4.2.1

Remission over five years with 80% in first year and zero in fifth year

· Consistent with legislation

· Consistent with current Western Bay of Plenty policy

· Some developments may take longer than five years

· Potential inequities with other ratepayers who are developing properties but cannot have rates remitted during that time

4.2.2

100% remission for the defined and agreed development or stage of development until income generated or dwelling is inhabited

(recommended)

· Consistent with legislation

· Provides certainty to council staff when working with landowners

· Recognises that a range of factors can influence how long a development takes to be completed

· Potential inequities with other ratepayers who are developing properties but cannot have rates remitted during that time

Issue 5 – Remission to adjust Māori rateable land values

32. In general, all properties are rated on their capital value. Where Māori freehold land is valued for a highest and best use that is unlikely to be realised under Māori ownership, there is an option to rate Māori freehold land based on its value excluding any subdivision potential. There is also potential that where land is developed, it may not be the “highest and best use” of that land. The Committee could consider confirming in the policy its intention to rate Māori land on its capital value, on its land value, excluding subdivision potential unlikely to be realised in Māori ownership, or to allow for rates postponement on a similar basis to that available to some farmland.

33. It is expected that this could apply to Māori freehold land over eight hectares in area. There are around 20 properties that fit this criterion with annual rates of $125,000. Council’s valuers estimate the remission would be between zero and 40% depending on current valuation methodology.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

5.1

Māori freehold land rated on its capital value

· Consistent with land held in general title

· Equity with other ratepayers who may not desire to realise capital value of their property

· Māori freehold land unlikely to realise the capital value

· Less support for Preamble principle noting importance of land to Māori

5.2

Māori freehold land rates remission which reflects a rate based on Maori freehold land value excluding any subdivision potential unlikely to be realised in Māori ownership

(recommended)

· Recognises that Māori freehold land is unlikely to be sold or in some cases achieve its highest and best use

· Supports the Preamble principle noting importance of land to Māori

· May better acknowledge Māori views of land value and ownership

· Inconsistent with land held in general title

· Potential impact on rates take

5.3

Postponement similar to farmland

(only if option 5.2 not approved)

· Consistent with policy on rates remission for general land

· Potential to disincentivise development

· Postponement requires payment of rates at future date (usually when sold) and approval of owners which might not be possible with Māori freehold land

Issue 6 – Remission on land used for non-commercial purposes for the community benefit of Māori

34. Council’s policy on rates remission for general land provides for 100% remission on rates, except service charges, where that land is used for non-pecuniary community benefit. The provision is unclear if that applies to land used for the benefit of Māori, such as hauora providers.

Option		Advantages	Disadvantages
6.1	Add provision to this policy providing for remission on land used for non-commercial community benefit of Māori (recommended)	· Consistent with policy to offer 100% remission on rates, except service charges, for community organisations · Greater clarity that land providing community benefit to Māori is eligible for 100% remission of rates, except service charges. · Consistent with schedule 11 provisions to take into account role of land in providing economic and infrastructure support for marae or papakāinga	· Nil
6.2	Adjust Rates Remissions Policy to clarify and extend existing provision to land providing benefit for Māori	· Consistent with policy to offer 100% remission on rates, except service charges, for community organisations · General Remissions Policy already notes exceptions for marae and Māori reservations	· Potential confusion as references to remission for land providing benefit to Māori is split between two policies
6.3	Do not clarify that 100% remission includes land providing community benefit for Māori	· Potential that issue is covered through existing provisions in Rates Remission Policy	· Potential confusion as to the applicability of current provision in Rates Remission Policy to organisations providing benefit mainly to Māori

Issue 7 – Rates remission on Māori freehold land partially used for limited production

35. While wholly unused land is non-rateable, councils retain discretion to offer remission on partially used land. This recognises that councils may not want to charge full rates on land that is used to grow kai or for a seasonal crop but would otherwise be unused. Western Bay of Plenty provides for remission on land where there is limited productive use. Allowing for economic use of the land and providing for traditional use of the land is encouraged in the schedule 11 provisions.

36. The table below outlines the advantages and disadvantages of offering a similar remission in Tauranga.

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
7.1	Provide for up to 100% remission of rates on land partially used for limited production (recommended)	· Consistent with schedule 11 provisions to provide for economic use · Consistent with schedule 11 provisions to take into account role of land in providing economic and infrastructure support for marae or papakāinga · Consistent with schedule 11 provisions to recognise use of land for traditional purposes · Provides for owners to grow kai or medicinal plants on the land for personal or community use without the land becoming “used” and therefore liable for rates.	· Potential challenges in determining limited production, particularly where other landowners may pay full rates on small parcels of land used for crops
7.2	Do not provide remission of rates on land partially used for limited production	· Nil	· Potential that policy does not align with the schedule 11 provisions · Council required to rate land where the land returns limited financial benefit.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

7.1

Provide for up to 100% remission of rates on land partially used for limited production

(recommended)

· Consistent with schedule 11 provisions to provide for economic use

· Consistent with schedule 11 provisions to take into account role of land in providing economic and infrastructure support for marae or papakāinga

· Consistent with schedule 11 provisions to recognise use of land for traditional purposes

· Provides for owners to grow kai or medicinal plants on the land for personal or community use without the land becoming “used” and therefore liable for rates.

· Potential challenges in determining limited production, particularly where other landowners may pay full rates on small parcels of land used for crops

7.2

Do not provide remission of rates on land partially used for limited production

· Nil

· Potential that policy does not align with the schedule 11 provisions

· Council required to rate land where the land returns limited financial benefit.

37. The policy provides for staff to negotiate the level of remission for limited productive use.

Financial Considerations

38. There are 442 Māori freehold land rating units (and 152 separate occupied portions) in Tauranga with a total land area of 1,982 hectares. Total rates assessed in 2021/2022 were $420,000 with $150,000 rates remission on land with part use. As noted in the background section above, an initial assessment of the impact of the recommendations in this report concluded that it is less than 0.02% of the annual rates budget (approximately $50,000).

39. It should be noted that one of the benefits to be considered in providing for remission on land subject to development is the likelihood of an increase in council’s rating base in the future.

Legal Implications / Risks

40. There are no legal implications arising from the recommended options. A draft policy may be subject to legal review before adoption.

Consultation / Engagement

41. Staff discussed the legislative changes with Te Rangapū in June 2021. In October 2021, specific feedback was sought on the following issues;

· Meeting the requirement to show support for the Preamble through a revised purpose statement

· Criteria for remission

· Including land returned through Treaty settlement or right of first refusal in the policy for the purposes of remission.

· Retention of clauses relating to postponement in the policy

· Appropriate level of remission.

42. Feedback from Te Rangapū was generally supportive. Of particular note is the need to approach the policy from a te ao Māori perspective and acknowledge that papakāinga is not just housing. With regards to papakāinga, any definition of papakāinga used in this policy will be consistent with the definition in the recently adopted Grants for Development Contributions on Papakāinga Policy.

43. In November 2021, staff responded to two points raised by Te Rangapū – rating of Māori freehold land at its capital value and the rating of land providing non-commercial benefit to Māori. These issues are addressed at issues five and six.

44. Some Te Rangapū members noted that the contribution of hapū and iwi to the growth of Tauranga was not acknowledged in rating policies and practices, in particular charging targeted rates for services. This is an issue of longstanding. Schedule 11 provides for councils to recognise the “levels of community services provided to the land and its occupiers” when considering the issue of rates relief on Māori freehold land.

45. Staff met with Te Rangapū in March 2022 to go through the draft policy and address any questions or issues. There was general support for the inclusion of a background section that explained the reasons why Māori freehold land is different to general land and therefore should be treated differently. Other issues noted were:

· Acknowledgement generally of the contribution of Māori land to the development of Tauranga

· Acknowledgement that rating practices have contributed to alienation of land from Māori

· Reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi principles in the draft policy principles.

46. The first two bulletpoints are acknowledged in the background section to this report. The statement “Providing for the fair and equitable collection of rates on Māori freehold land also supports the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi “has been added to the draft policy principles.

47. This report and the recommended options have been provided to trusts and landowners. Initial feedback was generally positive with more detailed responses being reserved for the submission process.

48. Staff have also discussed the policy with staff from Western Bay of Plenty District Council with a view to having consistent approaches to the rating of Māori freehold land. The recommended option in issue 7 (limited productive use) was amended to reflect wording in the Western Bay of Plenty policy. Western Bay are recommending making available a remission for unrealised subdivision potential in response to the recommendation in this report. As noted above, the intent of the policies is consistent across Tauranga and Western Bay with the main differences related to style and formatting.

Significance

49. 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.

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

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

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

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

ENGAGEMENT

52. All rating policies adopted under section 102 of the LGA 02 must be consulted on in accordance with the principles of section 82 of the LGA 02.

Next Steps

53. Consultation on the draft policy will be undertaken in May 2022. A copy of the (undesigned) consultation material is appended at attachment 3 for information.

Attachments

1. Draft Remission and Postponement of Rates on Maori Freehold Land Policy - A13227585 ⇩

2. Preamble to Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 - A13132247 ⇩

3. Draft Consultation Material - Remission and Postponement of Rates on Māori Freehold Land - A13275503 ⇩

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda

28 March 2022

8.5 TCC Urban Design Framework

File Number: A13188252

Author: Corinne Frischknecht, Senior Policy Planner

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. This report presents and recommends a proposed approach for developing a more holistic urban design framework for Tauranga City, including the establishment of an urban design panel.

Recommendations

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Adopts an Urban Design Framework to promote and facilitate high quality urban design outcomes in Tauranga City, including:

(i) Setting up an Urban Design Panel, in line with the proposed Terms of Reference

(ii) Incorporating urban design policy into the City Plan, supported by appropriate urban design guidelines

(iii) Providing for ongoing awareness and promotion of urban design requirements and outcomes sought through educational and promotional material.

(iv) Establishing internal staff resources to implement the Urban Design Framework.

(b) Notes that the Executive Report on the 2022/23 Annual Report will include provision for funding for the senior urban design and support administration roles, totalling an estimated $173,000 per annum.

Executive Summary

2. A number of Councils throughout New Zealand (and internationally) have successfully established urban design panels. An urban design panel is a group of industry-leading built environment professionals who provide independent design review on significant (private and public) projects throughout the city, to support quality design outcomes. Attendance at an urban design panel review session is voluntary and free to the applicant. More information about the role, function, and day to day operation of the urban design panel is included in Appendix A: Draft Terms of Reference.

3. To operate successfully, an urban design panel are part of a wider toolkit within Council to promote high-quality, context-appropriate development that contributes to functional, safe, inclusive, and attractive places and spaces in Tauranga. As such, broader recommendations around staff, policy and urban design promotion are proposed as part of an overall urban design framework for Tauranga City Council (TCC) (refer Appendix B: Proposed Urban Design Framework).

4. Key components of the urban design framework include:

(a) An urban design panel: a group of industry-leading built environment professionals who provide independent design review for the private and public sectors, to support good urban design outcomes.

(b) Internal resourcing: An urban design representative to assist with design review, the running of the urban design panel and ongoing marketing and education. This will provide an end-to-end urban design approach at Council. Additional administrative support will also be required to support the urban design framework.

(c) Policy / Strategy / Guidelines: A City Plan that incorporates design elements is vital. Future iterations of the City Plan should be cognisant of urban design and include design matters where relevant - to strengthen and support any advice provided by the Panel. Upcoming plan changes provide an opportunity to start strengthening urban design provisions in the City Plan.

(d) Promotion of urban design: Ongoing internal and external engagement and promotion of urban design is important – to educate and get people excited about urban design and the value that the Panel can add to quality built outcomes.

5. The risk of not progressing the urban design panel and associated initiatives relates to the potential for decision making and subsequent development within our built environments occurring without:

(a) meaningful input from design professionals; and

(b) clear statutory direction in terms of desired urban design outcomes.

This may result in compromised built environment and community wellbeing outcomes.

Background

6. Currently, resource consent applications received by Council that require urban design review or input are forwarded to external consultants for feedback. This adds both time and cost to an application, the advice is often sought too late in the process (where changes to design are difficult and less likely to be implemented by the applicant) and the feedback is often received from one individual and discipline (regardless of the type of application).

7. The City Plan contains very limited urban design provisions or requirements. Subsequently, there is limited statutory direction for consent planners and applicants around urban design expectations. While the Residential Outcomes Framework has been prepared to help guide multi-unit residential development, this is a guideline only and has no statutory weighting.

8. Growth in Tauranga is changing to be much more focused on intensification and redevelopment of existing communities, rather than greenfield development. This is increasingly resulting in change to existing communities and an expectation from these communities that new development will be well designed – not just for those that it accommodates, but also for neighbours and the wider community.

9. Considering the above, TCC have investigated the establishment of an urban design panel to support and facilitate quality built outcomes and positive change within existing communities.

10. Through investigating the establishment of an urban design panel, it has become apparent that the panel must form part of a broader ‘urban design framework’ within TCC to best promote quality built environments. This report provides recommendations around how TCC can approach urban design more holistically to best support an urban design panel and set it up for success.

11. TCC is in a fortunate position to learn from other New Zealand Councils with established urban design panels and seek to mirror, modify, or expand upon tried and tested processes and protocols. As part of the research undertaken to inform the creation of an urban design panel, advice has been sought from Auckland, Christchurch, and Hamilton City Councils – all of which have established urban design panels (summaries of these conversations are included in Appendix C: Summary of Initial Engagement). These conversations have been invaluable and have formed the basis of urban design framework recommendations. (The Auckland engagement information is in public excluded as per request from Auckland City Council to protect privacy).

12. In summary, the feedback received from other Councils has:

· emphasised the need for a broader, multi-layered approach to urban design within TCC – of which the urban design panel is one tool within a tool-kit;

· highlighted the benefits of providing an end-to-end urban design approach (from pre-application meetings to urban design panel, to review, finalisation and lodgement) – and the staffing requirements associated with this;

· re-iterated the need for future iterations of the City Plan to include design matters, to strengthen and support any advice provided by the panel;

· stressed the need to engage with local developers and design professionals - to inform and get them excited about urban design and the value that the panel can add to quality built outcomes; and

· acknowledged that the creation of a high-functioning and successful Panel takes time and is something that will undergo many iterations and permutations as it develops – but the long-term view and value must not be lost.

13. Discussions were also undertaken with various TCC staff and teams to determine their aspirations with regards to an urban design panel and their insights into potential hurdles to panel success (summaries of this feedback is included in Appendix C). These discussions reflected many of the same items listed above, but also emphasised:

· the importance of timing – with applicants going to the urban design panel before their design has progressed too far;

· the potential difficulty in sourcing local panel members that have the expertise needed and are not tied up through conflicts of interest; and

· the role of the urban design panel as an education tool – to support, engage and educate applicants, design professionals and Council staff around quality design solutions and best practice urban design.

14. Conversations were also held with local built environment professionals to discuss a future urban design panel in Tauranga and determine how it can best be set up for success. The vast majority indicated support for the establishment of an urban design panel in Tauranga and a willingness to take part in any ongoing conversations to continue to move it forward. Targeted feedback has helped to inform the Draft Terms of Reference document. The key takeaways and themes of these conversations are included in Appendix C.

Strategic / Statutory Context

15. This proposal to strengthen the role of urban design in Tauranga supports all six of the LTP community outcomes through encouraging high-quality, context-appropriate development that contributes to functional, safe, inclusive, and attractive places and spaces in Tauranga.

16. The proposed framework will help to promote the New Zealand Urban Design Protocol (of which TCC is a signatory) through providing a more holistic approach to urban design in Council and a desire to enhance the quality of built outcomes in Tauranga.

Options Analysis

Option 1 – Approve the proposed urban design framework for TCC

17. This option endorses the approach presented in this report. It requires a commitment to additional staff resourcing, changes to current Policy, the establishment of an urban design panel and external promotion and engagement around urban design and the built environment.

Advantages	Disadvantages
· Improved urban design outcomes across the city and within existing communities.	· Costs associated with additional staff resourcing, changes to current Policy, the establishment and running of the urban design panel and external promotion and engagement. · It introduces a new element to the existing resource consent application process. It may take time to bed in and may be perceived as an additional hurdle to development. · The Panel is voluntary only and there are no methods to require applicants to use it. · The Panel is reliant on updated City Plan provisions to enable recommendations to be linked to policy thereby giving Panel recommendations teeth.
· Provides additional staff to assist with urban design queries at all stages of a proposal – from initial inception through to the lodging of a resource consent application and beyond.
· Ensures that future iterations of the City Plan include design matters, where relevant – giving more weight to urban design advice and clear direction as to the desired urban design outcomes.
· The panel provides a free and external source of built environment professionals to provide peer review of development proposals – raising the profile of design through access to expert review and targeted advice.
· The Council urban design representative and the panel can assist applicants in their understanding of how proposals fit within, respond, and contribute to their physical, environmental, and cultural context.
· The panel provides an external source of built environment professionals to review of Council policy, strategy tools and guidelines with an urban design impact or which will shape the development of the city.
· The panel has the potential to minimise time delays and costs by identifying issues early, assisting to prioritise design elements and identify where money is best spent.
· The panel can provide Council officers with clear direction and confidence in their reporting.
· The panel can provide an education role – upskilling environmental planners and urban design representatives (internal or external) with regards to best practice urban design and quality built environment outcomes.
· A platform is developed for ongoing urban design education, awareness, and celebration.

Option 2 – Approve an urban design panel without the supporting urban design framework

18. This option approves the establishment of an urban design panel but does not adopt the other elements of the broader urban design framework which support it (such as acquiring additional staff, making changes to future policy / strategy and guidelines, and committing to promoting urban design within TCC and in the wider public).

Advantages	Disadvantages
· No additional staff will be required to facilitate urban design review. · The panel provides a free and external source of built environment professionals to provide peer review of development proposals, Council policy, strategy tools and guidelines. · The panel can provide an education role – upskilling environmental planners with regards to best practice urban design and quality built environment outcomes.	· Costs associated with the establishment and running an urban design panel
	· The urban design panel will have no teeth as the City Plan remains silent on matters of design. Applicants will likely not see the value of going to the panel and the panel is unlikely to be successful long-term.
	· The Panel is voluntary only and there are no methods to require applicants to use it.
	· Council continues to operate without end-to-end urban design support and there is a likely disconnect between consenting planners and the panel.
	· Council continues to rely on external contractors for those urban design reviews which don’t trigger panel review (these are often undertaken by an individual professional representing a single discipline).
	· There is no platform for ongoing urban design education, awareness, and celebration.

Option 3 – Maintain the status quo

19. This option would maintain the status quo for urban design within TCC.

Advantages	Disadvantages
· No additional costs. · Applicants continue to operate in a system that they are familiar with.	· Council continues to operate without end-to-end urban design support.
	· Council continues to rely on external contractors for urban design reviews – often provided by an individual professional representing a single discipline.
	· The City Plan remains silent on matters of design.
	· There is no platform for ongoing urban design education, awareness, and celebration.
	· Urban design outcomes across the city are likely to be poorer.

Recommendation.

20. Staff recommend Option 1.

Financial Considerations

21. Option 1 requires the consideration of an interim and ideal state for the adoption of the urban design framework at TCC – refer Appendix B: Proposed Urban Design Framework, the interim state being the 2022/23 Financial Year and the ideal state beyond this.

22. In the interim state urban design support is provided externally by contractors and there are approximately 10 panel sessions in this period. In the ideal state a full time equivalent (FTE) urban designer has been employed and there are approximately 26 panel sessions per year.

23. Based on the above, the interim state costs for the 2022/23 financial year are $210,590 and the ideal state costs are $249,400 per annum for 2023/24 onwards. For a more detailed breakdown of costs refer Appendix B: Proposed Urban Design Framework.

	Additional budgets required (2022/23 onwards)
Urban Design Panel	Nil – existing LTP Opex budgets
Urban design role (1 x Band I Urban designer and 0.75 x Band E admin)	$173,000
Urban design policy	Nil – existing LTP Opex budgets
Educational and promotional material	Nil – existing LTP Opex budgets

24. The funding sought would be via general rates. The FTE roles are not included in the current LTP nor the current iteration of the 22/23 draft Annual Plan and associated LTP Amendment. These costs will be incorporated through the 2022/23 Annual Plan Executive Report for consideration through the deliberations process if Option 1 is approved.

Legal Implications / Risks

25. There is a risk regarding the management of expectations from the community with the establishment of an urban design panel. It may be perceived as tick-box exercise or an opportunity to guarantee a consenting outcome via trade-offs in design. However, it is considered that the establishment of an urban design panel will enable Council to make more informed decisions and raise the bar with regards to urban development. It is important that the role and purpose of the panel is clearly communicated to the development community and the broader public prior to its establishment, and examples of good urban design celebrated whenever possible.

Significance

26. 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.

27. 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 .

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

30. The engagement that has been undertaken to date is summarised in Paragraphs 12-14 above and within Appendix C: Summary of Initial Engagement.

31. It is recommended that a media campaign be undertaken prior to the urban design panel becoming operational in order to educate the public about the benefits of the panel and its role in creating a future Tauranga that people are proud to call home.

Next Steps

32. If approved, staff will:

· Incorporate the funding for new roles in the Annual Plan Executive Report and, if approved through that process, place advertisements to secure the in-house urban designer and administration roles

· Work with local professional bodies (NZPI, NZIA, NZILA, the Urban Design Forum, Tauranga Urban Taskforce) and mana whenua to seek (and review) applications for urban design panel members.

· Undertake a media campaign to introduce the urban design panel, its role and function and the broader urban design framework for TCC.

Attachments

1. Appendix A - Draft Terms of Reference - A13267123 ⇩

2. Appendix B - Proposed Urban Design Framework - A13267124 ⇩

3. Appendix C - Summary of Initial Engagement - A13267126 ⇩

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda

28 March 2022

8.6 Plan Change Work Programme for 2022

File Number: A13194923

Author: Janine Speedy, Team Leader: City Planning

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to seek direction on the high-level plan change work programme for 2022 and implementation of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021.

Recommendations

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Approves proceeding with a plan change to implement the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act by:

(i) Applying the Medium Density Residential Standards to residential zones (currently identified as Suburban Residential, Wairakei Residential, City Living and High-Density Residential zones) with an appropriate rule framework; and

(ii) Giving effect to Policy 3 in the National Policy Statement on Urban Development to maximise heights in the City Centre Zone, enable at least 6 storeys within a walkable catchment of the city centre and enable residential building height and density appropriate to local, neighbourhood and town centres.

(b) Notes that greenfield urban growth areas (Te Tumu and Tauriko West) and private plan changes will be progressed through planning processes separate from (a) above.

(c) Notes that Plan Change 26 (Housing Choice) remains on hold to retain the opportunity to notify a variation if subsequently identified as the most appropriate pathway.

Executive Summary

2. There is a significant work programme of plan changes to the Tauranga City Plan (City Plan) underway in various stages of development or being progressed through the formal plan change process.

3. Plan Change 26 (Housing Choice), Plan Change 27 (Flooding from Intense Rainfall) and Plan Change 30 (Earthworks) were all notified in 2020, with Plan Change 27 and Plan Change 30 being progressed through the hearing process to decisions.

4. On 15 November 2021, Council resolved to progress with priority plan changes in place of the City Plan Review, and Plan Change 26 was placed on hold given impending changes to legislation.

5. The Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (Amendment Act) was passed into law in December 2021, requiring Council to progress a plan change with significant changes to residential zones. The Amendment Act requires Council to implement the Intensification Planning Instrument (IPI) to give effect to the intensification provisions of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and implement the Medium Density Residential Standards (MDRS).

6. Greenfield urban growth areas continue to work through the structure planning process and preparation of plan changes for notification. This includes potential private plan changes.

7. The plan change work programme requires adequate resourcing and consideration of technical work to ensure the Amendment Act and national policy direction requirements will be met.

8. Given the significant workload to progress this work programme, it is recommended that no other new plan changes are initiated in 2022. It is proposed that the priority plan change work programme is revisited in 2023 once the IPI has been notified and the submission and further submission stages have been completed.

Background

9. On 15 November 2021, Council resolved to place the Tauranga City Plan Review on hold and instead undertake a work programme of plan changes given the uncertainties of the Resource Management Reforms. At this same meeting, it was also resolved to place proposed Plan Change 26 on hold given the uncertainties of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Bill announced on 19 October 2021.

10. On 20 December 2021 the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (Amendment Act) was passed into law.

Extent of the work programme

11. Plan Change 26, Plan Change 27 and Plan Change 30 were notified in November 2020. Plan Change 27 proceeded to a hearing at the end of November. At the time of writing this report, Council were awaiting the Hearing Panel decision. For Plan Change 30, no submitters wished to be heard, therefore the Hearing Panel considered all submissions received and issued a decision. The decision was notified on 14 March 2022. There is 30 working days for a submitter to make an appeal to the Environment Court.

12. The Amendment Act has far reaching implications that require Council to make amendments to large parts of the City Plan through the IPI. The IPI must give effect to the intensification provisions of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and implement the Medium Density Residential Standards. An overview of Policy 3 in the NPS-UD and Medium Density Residential Standards are included in Attachment 1.

13. The MDRS sets out building requirements to enable residential development that must be included in the City Plan as a permitted activity. The MDRS building requirements include providing three dwellings with a height limit of three storeys. There is limited ability to include other rules and any rule that is included must support or be consequential to the MDRS. The Amendment Act requires the MDRS to be applied to residential zones. For the City Plan this includes:

(a) Suburban Residential Zone

(b) Wairakei Residential Zone

(d) High Density Residential Zone

14. The Amendment Act also requires Council’s IPI to give effect to NPS-UD Policy 3:

(a) Maximise building heights and density in the City Centre Zone to release as much housing development capacity as possible; and

(b) Allow for residential building heights of at least 6 storeys within a walkable catchment of the City Centre Zone; and

(c) In and around other commercial centres, allow for residential building heights and density appropriate for the level of commercial activities and community services of the centre.

15. The implementation of Policy 3 in the NPS-UD will be covered through a separate report to the May 2022 Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting.

16. The Amendment Act does enable Council to make the MDRS and NPS-UD heights and density less permissive where there are certain features. These certain features are referred to as qualifying matters. Qualifying matters include where there are matters of national significance such as heritage, nationally significant infrastructure, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and open space provided for public use.

17. There were large parts of the City where Plan Change 26 provisions to enable greater housing choice were unable to apply due to natural hazard policies within the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement. The Amendment Act includes a clause where objectives and policies in a regional policy statement are inconsistent, they do not apply. This requires Council to approach the consideration of natural hazards differently. This is as a qualifying matter where the management of significant risks from natural hazard is a matter of national importance in the RMA and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. Staff are currently working with Bay of Plenty Regional Council on how this applies to Tauranga.

18. In giving effect to the requirements of the Amendment Act, staff will be identifying what qualifying matters may exist and will report back on a recommended approach to applying qualifying matters. Any qualifying matter areas must be identified and robustly evaluated as part of the section 32 evaluation process.

19. There are parts of the rule framework and technical assessments prepared for Plan Change 26 that remain relevant and will be implemented through the IPI. In particular, implementation of the Te Papa Spatial Plan to provide additional height within a walkable catchment of the city centre and Cameron Road and the assessment criteria for residential developments that require a resource consent.

20. It is recommended that Plan Change 26 remains on hold to enable staff to prepare the necessary technical work to implement the Amendment Act through the IPI. This retains the opportunity to notify a variation to Plan Change 26 if this is subsequently identified the most appropriate pathway.

21. There are also the outcomes of the Ōtūmoetai Spatial Plan that will be included to support Council giving effect to Policy 3 in the NPS-UD.

22. There are limitations to what can be included in the IPI. The limitations include the inability to make amendments to non-residential activities, provisions to override covenants, additional rules that manage the same effects as the MDRS such as height, building setbacks and outdoor living, and rules that restrict servicing or infrastructure connections for one to three dwellings in existing residential zones.

23. Staff are currently considering other mechanisms for Council to consider infrastructure capacity for one to three dwellings where there are capacity constraints and an appropriate rule to consider infrastructure capacity for four or more dwellings.

24. Once the IPI is notified in August 2022, the MDRS providing for three dwellings on a site and three storey height limit will have legal effect. Changes to the City Plan that are consequential to or support the MDRS that give effect to Policy 3 in the NPS-UD (eg additional height and density in Te Papa) will have limited weight until decisions are made and the Plan Change becomes operative.

25. Greenfield urban growth areas continue to be progressed to be rezoned through a plan change process, primarily providing for residential development. An update on these plan changes and projects will be provided through the Growth and Land Use Projects Report.

26. Consideration was given to inclusion of greenfield areas, particularly Tauriko West and Te Tumu, through the IPI. The IPI theoretically provides a planning pathway for this, however we have been advised against this due to unclear and incomplete drafting of the Amendment Act. Regardless, the timeframes for the IPI to be notified in August 2022 require provisions to be drafted by June 2022. This is not possible for either Tauriko West or Te Tumu due to unresolved issues in these process regarding freshwater / wetlands management, long-term State Highway requirements (Tauriko West) and Tangata Whenua engagement (Te Tumu).

27. There is ongoing work to understand whether any other smaller scale greenfield areas could be considered through the IPI eg Smiths Farm. Staff will report back to Commissioners in the near future.

28. In addition to Council initiated plan changes, developers and stakeholders are able to initiate private plan changes, which Council can either accept and process, adopt as its own plan change, or reject (provided good reasons exists to do so). There are two private plan changes currently being prepared to lodge with Council in 2022:

a) Tauriko Business Estate (Stage 4) extension – Rezoning Rural to Industrial. Not affected by the Amendment Act.

b) Upper Ohauiti – Rezoning Rural to Residential. Must include the Amendment Act requirements to implement the MDRS.

Timing and pathway of plan changes

29. The Amendment Act requires Council to notify the IPI by 20 August 2022.

30. The Amendment Act created a new streamlined process for councils to implement the IPI, the Intensification Streamlined Planning Process (ISPP). The IPI must be heard by an independent panel who makes recommendations to the council. If council agrees with the recommendations it notifies the decision. If council disagrees with the independent panel’s recommendations, the Minister for the Environment makes the final decision. The ISPP does not allow appeals to the Environment Court.

31. The timeframe that Council will follow for each step of the ISPP will be set by the Minister for the Environment.

32. The following work programme will utilise the full capacity of TCC’s planning team.

(a) Existing Plan Changes (PC 27 & 30)

(b) New plan change to implement the IPI

(d) Private plan changes (Tauriko Business Estate & Upper Ohauiti)

As such, it is recommended that no other new plan changes are initiated in 2022. It is proposed that the priority plan change work programme is revisited in early 2023 once the IPI has been notified and the submission and further submission stages have been completed.

Strategic / Statutory Context

33. The provision of a sufficient supply and variety of residential development capacity to meet market demand over time is a key part of the overall city growth objectives and addressing current shortages. The work programme for 2022 is focussed on increasing capacity for residential development within our existing residential zones, by implementing the MDRS and increasing building height and density around centres and within our greenfield urban growth areas by rezoning primarily for residential. This is consistent with the UFTI overall guiding connected centres urban form.

Financial Considerations

34. There are no financial considerations associated with this report. The cost associated with the work programme will be met within existing budgets.

Legal Implications / Risks

35. All plan changes will be prepared to meet the legislative requirements under Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

36. The Amendment Act sets out what must be included, can be included and cannot be included within the IPI. This constrains the scope of the IPI, which has been set out in Attachment 1. The IPI must be notified by 20 August 2022.

37. Each plan change process has a risk register that is revisited on a regular basis. The key risks identified across the work programme are:

(a) Plan change scope increasing and resourcing being insufficient;

(b) The ability to give effect to national policy statements;

(d) Meeting community, tangata whenua and stakeholder expectations.

Consultation / Engagement

38. Communications and engagement plans are prepared for tangata whenua, key stakeholders and the wider community for all plan changes.

39. In regard to the implementation of the Amendment Act, there is a requirement that Council undertake pre-consultation that meets the requirements of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

40. The timeframes leading to notification and the volume of work that needs to be undertaken before 20 August 2022, means that the approach to engagement will be heavily focussed on informing stakeholders and the community about the proposed changes, and for most, directing them to the notified plan change as the best opportunity to provide feedback through the submission process. However, feedback will be sought prior to notification from some stakeholders that have a higher degree of interest in the proposed changes and with tangata whenua.

41. The Amendment Act is also very directive in that there are some changes that are required to be made to the City Plan that have limited opportunity for feedback to influence outcomes such as the MDRS.

42. There was comprehensive engagement through 2019 and 2020 on the Te Papa Spatial Plan and Plan Change 26. This feedback and submissions on Plan Change 26 will be considered in the preparation of the IPI. The Ōtūmoetai Spatial Plan project is also underway with engagement to be undertaken mid-year.

43. Policy 3(d) in the NPS-UD requires Council to enable greater intensification around centres. Due to the tight timeframes to progress this work for public notification, spatial planning of some areas will be undertaken in the future eg in the Mount Maunganui. This spatial planning will identify other projects and funding required to support growth and intensification, such as community amenities. These spatial planning projects will include community engagement similar to that undertaken through the Te Papa and Ōtūmoetai Spatial Plans.

44. Consultation continues with tier 1 councils, legal advisors and central Government agencies on the implementation of the Amendment Act.

Significance

45. 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.

46. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

48. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of high significance, staff are of the opinion that the consultation will be undertaken as set out in the engagement section of this report and to meet the requirements under the RMA.

Next Steps

49. Proceed with the preparation of a plan change to implement the Amendment Act. Report back to the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee in May to seek further direction on the implementation of Policy 3 in the NPS-UD.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Requirements of the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 - Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee - 28 March 2022 - A13270224 ⇩

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda

28 March 2022

8.7 Adoption of draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2022 for consultation

File Number: A13224333

Author: Cole Burmester, Waste Planning Manager

Sam Fellows, Manager: Sustainability and Waste

Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst

Authoriser: Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. To consider the approval of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2022 for consultation and to adopt the Statement of Proposal.

Recommendations

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Approve the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2022 (Attachment A) for community consultation.

(b) Adopt the Statement of Proposal for the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2022 (Attachment B) for community consultation.

(c) Resolve that in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, the proposed draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2022, is the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem and does not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

(d) Delegate to staff the ability to make any minor edits or amendments to the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2022 or Statement of Proposal to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

Executive Summary

2. Tauranga City Councils Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw (‘the Waste Bylaw’) was adopted on 1 July 2012. It sets out the guidelines for the collection and management waste and recyclables.

3. Under section 58 of the Waste Minimisation Act (‘WMA’), the Bylaw must be reviewed no later than 10 years after the bylaw was made. This review has begun and been undertaken in accordance with the requirements set out in the WMA.

4. Pre-engagement has been carried out with stakeholders to gather feedback – including three workshops held in late-February with waste operators, waste industry experts and interested parties, and members of the construction and demolition industry.

5. To respond to the current waste management problems and the revised draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP), a number of changes have been proposed to the Bylaw.

6. The Committee are asked to approve the proposed draft Waste Bylaw for consultation using the special consultative procedure, as set out in the Local Government Act 2002.

7. If the Committee decides to approve the draft Waste Bylaw and adopt the Statement of Proposal consultation will be carried out between 29 April – 30 May 2022.

Background

8. The current Waste Bylaw includes regulation on cleanfill, events, kerbside collections, and operator licensing. It was drafted to satisfy the vision, goals, and targets of Council’s two previous WMMPs adopted in 2010 and 2016, respectively.

9. Since the current Waste Bylaw was adopted, a number of discrete but important waste management problems have emerged:

(a) The way we currently consume products leads to large quantities of waste.

(b) There is a high volume of household waste going to landfill that could be diverted.

(d) Litter and illegal dumping, which has environmental and financial costs, is increasing.

(e) Businesses and organisations need better services to divert waste from landfill.

(f) There is a high volume of construction and demolition material going to landfill.

(g) Disposing of biosolids to landfill has significant cultural, environmental, social, and economic effects.

(h) Cost and volume uncertainty has risen due to legislation change or service interruption.

(i) Unforeseen events can result in high volumes of waste in a short period.

10. In addition to the identified issues above, we recognise that there are two additional issues that touch all of the issues raised above and therefore, are not standalone issues in themselves. These are:

(a) That the generation, management, and minimisation activities from waste are fluid. It is often generated in one district, then transferred and/or consolidated in another district, before being disposed somewhere else. Waste is also often transferred through districts.

(b) Lack of recognition of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Te Tiriti) and te ao Māori. The 2016 WMMP did not contain any reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi or te ao Māori. These are notable gaps in modern environmental legislation for Aotearoa, which has been recognised in the Governments proposed Waste Strategy and Legislation.

11. A draft WMMP for 2022-2028 has been prepared to address these changes. This includes an updated vision, goals, objectives, and targets, which the Waste Bylaw must not be inconsistent with.

12. Furthermore, Council recently procured kerbside collection services for refuse, mixed recycling, glass, food waste, and garden waste and the associated consolidation, processing and disposal services. The new service contracts commenced in July 2021. This is the first time in 20 years that Council is providing a comprehensive suite of kerbside collection services (adding to the existing glass collection established in 2018). This significant change for the city is intended to reverse a legacy of declining waste diversion.

13. In reviewing the bylaw, a number of changes have been proposed to address the issues identified above and to ensure alignment with the revised WMMP.

14. Table One below summarises the proposed changes. These changes will ensure the bylaw is relevant, future proofed, consistent with the WMMP, and will help Tauranga achieve its waste reduction targets.

Table One: Key Proposed Changes to the Waste Bylaw

Proposed Change	Reason
Provision for Council to make, amend or revoke regulations for waste management and minimisation via specific control provisions	Allows greater flexibility and faster response times to changing conditions
Amend waste operator licensing provisions	Improved data collection and alignment with new legislative requirements
Requirement for building consent applications over a set value to submit a site waste management plan	Ensures waste from large scale construction and demolition work is managed and minimised
Requirement for multi-unit developments to provide site waste management plans demonstrating services, bin storage, and access	Ensures appropriate planning and provision for waste in multi-unit developments
Revise the regulations for waste management at events to include a prescribed set of requirements	To encourage better planning and management of waste at events
Include and update provisions for Council to cover illegal dumping and litter, including unaddressed mail and inorganic collections	To reduce nuisance and make the overall bylaw comprehensive, covering all areas where it is useful to have regulatory tools to assist with managing local waste related activity and enforcement for non-compliance

15. When making or reviewing bylaws, Council is required under section 155(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 to consider if a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived problem. If it is, section 155(2) requires Council to determine whether the proposed draft bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw and whether it gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

16. Table Two below summarises this section 155 analysis from the Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw Determination Report (Attachment C). It identifies the perceived problems and considers the provisions in the draft Waste Bylaw that aim to address them.

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee Meeting Agenda

28 March 2022

8.8 Adoption of draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2022-2028 for consultation

File Number: A13224529

Author: Cole Burmester, Waste Planning Manager

Sam Fellows, Manager: Sustainability and Waste

Authoriser: Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. To consider the approval of the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2022-2028 for consultation.

Recommendations

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Approve the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2022-2028 (Attachment A) for community consultation.

(b) Delegate to staff the ability to make any minor edits or amendments to the draft Waste Management and Minimisation Plan 2022-2028 or Statement of Proposal to correct any identified errors or typographical edits.

Executive Summary

2. Tauranga City Council (TCC) must promote effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within our city ^{^[1]}. We do this by providing waste services and facilities, funding innovative waste reduction initiatives, and educating our community to enable behaviour changes.

3. To support this work, TCC must review and adopt a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) every six years, a requirement of the Waste Minimisation Act 2008. The WMMP sets the vision, goals, objectives, targets, and action plan for achieving efficient and effective waste management and minimisation. It also provides information on how TCC intends to fund the activities of the WMMP.

4. The current WMMP was adopted in August 2016 as the second WMMP prepared by TCC, with the first being a joint WMMP with the Western Bay of Plenty District Council that was adopted in 2010.

5. The current WMMP focused on further investigation and consideration of solutions for kerbside services. This resulted in the successful rollout of the rates-funded kerbside service on the 1^st July 2021. In addition, the WMMP proposed to continue enhancing the services at the transfer stations, deliver the behaviour change programme, and collaborate with the private and public sector to improve the reduction, reuse, and recycling of waste and to improve the quality of data we have available to us to make good decisions.

6. Since the current WMMP was adopted, a number of discrete but important waste management problems have emerged for TCC: