Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting - Monday, 25 July 2022

UNCONFIRMED Ordinary Council meeting Minutes

27 June 2022

MINUTES

Ordinary Council meeting

Monday, 27 June 2022

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 4

2 Apologies. 4

3 Public forum.. 4

4 Acceptance of late items. 5

4.1 Acceptance of late items. 5

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 5

6 Change to the order of business. 5

7 Confirmation of minutes. 5

7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 28 February 2022. 5

7.2 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 March 2022. 5

7.3 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 23 May 2022. 6

7.4 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 May 2022. 6

7.5 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 7 June 2022. 6

7.6 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 13 June 2022. 7

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 7

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions. 7

Nil

10 Recommendations from other committees. 7

Nil

11 Business. 7

11.1 Annual Plan 2022/23 - Adoption Report 7

11.2 Annual Plan 2022/23 - Other topics. 8

11.3 Rates Resolution 2022/2023. 10

11.4 Adopt Final 2022/23 Development Contributions Policy. 8

11.5 2021-31 Long-term Plan Amendment 9

11.6 Executive Report 16

11.7 Draft strategic framework. 17

11.8 Draft Environment Strategy and Draft Inclusive City Strategy. 19

11.9 Marine Park reclassification hearings report 24

12 Discussion of late items. 21

13 Public excluded session. 21

13.1 Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 28 February 2022. 22

13.2 Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 March 2022. 22

13.3 Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 23 May 2022. 22

13.4 Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 May 2022. 23

13.5 Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 7 June 2022. 23

13.6 Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 13 June 2022. 23

13.7 Exemption to open competition: Mauao Placemaking Project - professional services and physical works for cultural interpretation. 23

13.8 Council Resolution for Closed Competition - Kiwirail Underpass. 24

13.9 Infrastructure Funding and Financing Transport System Plan update. 24

14 Closing karakia. 28

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council meeting

HELD AT THE Bay of Plenty Regional Council Chambers, Regional House, 1 Elizabeth Street, Tauranga

ON Monday, 27 June 2022 AT 9.30am (adopt A/P)

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

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Tony Aitken (Acting General Manager: People & Engagement), Paul Davidson (General Manager: Corporate Services), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Community Services), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy & Growth), Steve Pearce (Acting General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: Central City Development), Josh Logan (Team Leader: Corporate Planning), Kathryn Sharplin (Manager: Finance), Tracey Hughes (Financial Insights & Reporting Manager), Ariell King (Corporate Planner), Jeremy Boase (Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning), Jim Taylor (Transactional Services Manager), Ana Blackwood (Development Contributions Policy Analyst), Anne Payne (Strategic Advisor), Rebecca Scott (Principal Strategic Advisor), Nick Chester (Inclusive Cities Advisor), Gert van Staden (Senior Strategic Advisor), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy Services), Sarah Drummond (Committee Advisor), Anahera Dinsdale (Committee Advisor), Janie Storey (Committee Advisor)

1 Opening Karakia

Commissioner Shad Rolleston opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

Nil

3 Public forum

Nil

4 Acceptance of late items

4.1 Acceptance of late items

Resolution CO13/22/1

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

Accepts the following public excluded late item for consideration at the meeting:

• Infrastructure Funding and Financing Transport System Plan update.

The above item was not included in the original agenda because it was not available at the time the agenda was issued, and discussion cannot be delayed until the next scheduled meeting of the Committee because a decision is required in regard to this item.

Carried

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6 Change to the order of business

Item 11.3 - Rates Resolution 2022-2023 will follow Item 11.5 - 2021-31 Long-term Plan Amendment.

7 Confirmation of minutes

7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 28 February 2022

Resolution CO13/22/2

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 28 February 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

7.2 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 March 2022

Correction - Page 36 - the reference to include areas in the wider BOP should be in the Western Bay Sub Region

Resolution CO13/22/3

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That, subject to the foregoing correction, the minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 March 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

7.3 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 23 May 2022

Resolution CO13/22/4

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 23 May 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

7.4 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 May 2022

Resolution CO13/22/5

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 May 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

7.5 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 7 June 2022

Resolution CO13/22/6

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 7 June 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

7.6 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 13 June 2022

Resolution CO13/22/7

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the minutes of the Council meeting held on 13 June 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions

Nil

10 Recommendations from other committees

Nil

11 Business

11.1 Annual Plan 2022/23 - Adoption Report

Staff Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Tracey Hughes, Finance Insights & Reporting Manager

Ariell King, Corporate Planner

Key points

· Consistent with draft documents, rate percentage and outcomes from the hearing of submissions and deliberation meetings.

· The growth percentage had been reduced in June and this had been reflected in the budget with lower population numbers and reduced debt levels.

Discussion points raised

· Congratulations to the communications team for a varied and successful consultation process this year. With almost 1200 submissions it showed that Council was reaching a wider and greater section of the community.

· While still struggling to get formal feedback, the results of going out to where the people were enabled one on one discussions which helped when deliberating.

· Appreciation to the finance team who completed a lot of work to get to this stage. There had been great progress with the community engagement and getting nearer to everyone paying their fair share of rates.

Resolution CO13/22/8

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

(a) Adopts the Annual Plan 2022/23 (Attachment 1).

(b) Adopts the user fees and charges for 2022/23 (Attachment 2).

(c) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any necessary minor drafting or presentation amendments to the Annual Plan 2022/23, and user fees and charges 2022/23 prior to final printing.

Carried

11.2 Annual Plan 2022/23 - Other topics

Staff Ariell King, Corporate Planner

Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Discussion points raised

· Commissioners noted the good tone and approach adopted to provide meaningful responses to the submissions made, and hoped that it would encourage people to continue to engage with the Council.

Resolution CO13/22/9

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a) Approves staff comments on submissions relating to other topics in Attachment 1.

(b) Authorises the Chief Executive and General Managers to make amendments to Council’s proposed response comments to each submission point in Attachment 1, to refine wording and style prior to responses being sent to submitters no later than one month after the adoption of the Annual Plan and Long-term Plan Amendment.

Carried

11.4 Adopt Final 2022/23 Development Contributions Policy

Staff Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Key points

· Some draft refinements to cost summarised in paragraph 5 of the report and were comfortable that the level was acceptable and reasonable to proceed to implement the policy.

Resolution CO13/22/10

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a) Adopts the 2022/23 Development Contributions Policy.

(b) Delegates to the General Manager: Strategy and Growth the authority to rectify any minor errors or omissions that are identified in the 2022/23 Development Contributions Policy prior to final publication.

Carried

11.5 2021-31 Long-term Plan Amendment

Staff Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Tracey Hughes, Finance Insights & Reporting Manager

External Clarence Susan - Audit NZ

Anton Labuschagne - Audit NZ

Resolution CO13/22/11

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report, 2021-31 Long-term Plan Amendment.

(b) Adopts the Amended 2021-31 Long-term Plan (Attachment 1)

Carried

Key points

· Mr Susan tabled the Audit opinion and noted that it had the same two emphasis of matters issues as the consultation document - the uncertainty over proposed funding mechanisms for new infrastructure projects and the external funding contributions for the Civic Precinct capital programme. Audit considered that there was some risk for both those items.

· Mr Labuschagne noted that they had ensured everything flowed through from the draft documents to the Commissioners’ decisions based on those documents.

· Council would need to ensure they did not change the infrastructure funding or Council would need to re-consult.

Discussion points raised

· Since the appointment of the Commissioners, staff had been brought together to work in one building and to approve the $303m series of projects. As a result it had caused huge excitement, optimism and confidence in the CBD and had generated around $1.2b in private investment.

· The project would reflect the history, culture and future of the city and inspire private enterprise. Adopting the document today started the delivery of a series of projects being undertaken for the next five to six years.

sResolution CO13/22/12

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

(c) Receives a report from Audit New Zealand confirming its previous opinion on the 2021-31 Long-term Plan as it is now amended, pursuant to section 94 of the Local Government Act 2002.

(d) Adopts the audited 2021-31 Amended Long Term Plan pursuant to section 93 of the Local Government Act 2002.

(e) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any necessary minor drafting or presentation amendments to the 2021-31 amended LTP prior to final publishing.

Carried

11.3 Rates Resolution 2022/2023

Staff Jim Taylor, Transactional Services Manager

Resolution CO13/22/13

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a) Sets the following rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Funding Impact Statement in the Annual Plan for the 2022/2023 rating year, on rating units in the city for the financial year commencing on 1 July 2022 and ending on 30 June 2023.

The rates and charges specified are inclusive of Goods and Services Tax at the prevailing rate.

I. General Rate

A general rate set under section 13(2) (b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

· A rate of $ 0.00179665 in the dollar of capital value on all residential rateable rating units in the city.

· A rate of $0.00341364 in the dollar of capital value on all commercial rateable rating units in the city.

(“residential” and “commercial” are as defined in the Funding Impact Statement).

II. Uniform Annual General Charge

A uniform annual general charge set under section 15(1)(b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

· A rate of $251.00 per separately used or inhabited part of a rateable rating unit.

III. Waste Collection Rate

Uniform targeted rates for the kerbside waste collection services, set under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on all rating units in the city on which there is one or more residential use and that will be provided with the low, standard or high waste collection service, at:

· A rate of $190 per low waste service capacity provided for each residential use on each rating unit in the City.

· A rate of $220 per standard waste service capacity provided for each residential use on each rating unit in the City.

· A rate of $320 per high waste service capacity provided for each residential use on each rating unit in the City.

IV. Garden Waste Rate (optional)

Uniform targeted rates for garden waste collection services, set under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, on all rating units in the city used for residential purposes and that will be provided with the garden waste collection service, at:

· A rate of $100 for each garden waste bin (two weekly collection).

· A rate of $70 for each garden waste bin (four weekly collection).

V. Wastewater Rate

A differential targeted rate for wastewater, set under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

· A rate of $580.80 for each water closet or urinal in a connected rating unit in the city.

· A rate of $290.40 per separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit for any serviceable rating units in the city.

(“separately used or inhabited part of a”, “connected” and “serviceable” rating units, are defined in the Funding Impact Statement).

A rating unit used primarily as a residence for 1 household will not be treated as having more than 1 water closet or urinal.

VI. Stormwater Rate

A targeted rate for stormwater infrastructure investment, set under section 16(3)(a) and 16(4) (b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

· A rate of $0.00001338 in the dollar of capital value on all residential rateable rating units in the city.

· A rate of $0.00002141 in the dollar of capital value on all commercial rateable rating units in the city.

VII. Water Supply Rates

Volumetric rate

A targeted rate for metered water supply set under section 19(2)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at

· A rate of $3.33 per cubic metre of water supplied.

Base rate

A differential targeted rate per connection on every rating unit in the City which is provided with a metered water supply service, set under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, calculated on the basis of the nature of the connection size as follows:

Meter Size	Amount
20mm	$37.00
25mm	$70.00
32mm	$70.00
40mm	$289.00
50mm	$572.00
80mm	$1,143.00
100mm	$1,407.00
150mm	$1,407.00
200mm	$1,407.00
250mm	$1,407.00

VIII. Water Supply Rates (unmetered)

Unmetered rate

A uniform targeted rate on every rating unit in the City which is provided with and connected to an unmetered water supply service, set under sections 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, at:

· A rate of $851.00 for each separately used or inhabited part of a rating unit as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

IX. Economic Development Rate

A targeted rate for economic development in the City, set under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

· A rate of $0.00037558 in the dollar of capital value on every commercial rateable rating unit (as defined in the Funding Impact Statement).

X. Mainstreet Rates

Targeted rates for Mainstreet organisations, set under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, at:

· A rate of $0.00040559 in the dollar of capital value for every commercial rating unit in the Tauranga Mainstreet rating area as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

· A rate of $0.00049101 in the dollar of capital value for every commercial rating unit in the Mt Maunganui Mainstreet rating area as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

· A rate of $0.00137617 in the dollar of capital value for every commercial rating unit in the Greerton Mainstreet rating area as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

· A rate of $0.00024353 in the dollar of capital value for every commercial rating unit in the Papamoa Mainstreet area as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

XI. Special Services Rates

‘The Lakes’ Targeted Rate

A uniform targeted rate for additional levels of service in relation to maintenance and renewal of street gardens, street trees, footpaths and the removal of litter from ponds provided to ‘The Lakes’ subdivision, located at Pyes Pa, set under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, at:

· A rate of $102.59 per rating unit located within ‘The Lakes’ subdivision as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

‘The Coast Papamoa’ Targeted Rate

A uniform targeted rate for additional levels of service in relation to maintenance and renewal of street trees and footpaths provided to ‘The Coast Papamoa’ subdivision, located at Papamoa, set under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, at:

· A rate of $35.01 per rating unit located within ‘The Coast Papamoa’ subdivision as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

‘The Excelsa’ Targeted Rate

A uniform targeted rate for additional levels of service in relation to maintenance and renewal of street gardens, street trees and up lights under trees provided to ‘The Excelsa’ subdivision, located at Papamoa, set under section 16(3)(b) and 16(4)(a) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, at:

· A rate of $51.78 per rating unit located within ‘The Excelsa’ subdivision as defined in the Funding Impact Statement.

XII. Resilience Rate

A targeted rate for resilience infrastructure investment in Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, Transportation and Emergency Management, set under section 16(3)(a) and 16(4) (b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

· A rate of $0.00001012 in the dollar of capital value on all residential rateable rating units in the city.

· A rate of $0.00001619 in the dollar of capital value on all commercial rateable rating units in the city.

XIII. Transportation Rate

A targeted rate for Transportation infrastructure investment, set under section 16(3)(a) and 16(4) (b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

· A rate of $0.00003966 in the dollar of capital value on all residential rateable rating units in the city.

· A rate of $0.00013207 in the dollar of capital value on all commercial rateable rating units in the city.

XIV. Community Rate

A targeted rate for Community amenity investment, set under section 16(3)(a) and 16(4) (b) of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 at:

· A rate of $0.00010559 in the dollar of capital value on all residential rateable rating units in the City.

· A rate of $0.00016895 in the dollar of capital value on all commercial rateable rating units in the City.

(b) That all rates (except the water supply volumetric rate set under section 19 and the water supply base rate for metered connections under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002) be payable in two equal instalments due on:

· 31 August 2022 and

· 28 February 2023

(c) That all metered water rates will, except as to high users, be invoiced on a quarterly basis dependant on when the water meters are read, in accordance with the table below headed “Due dates and penalty dates for rates for metered water supply”. The due dates will also be specified on the invoice. Rating units, which are considered high users of water (namely having an average consumption more than 5m3 per day) will be invoiced monthly, and these rates will be due on the first Thursday after 23 days following the date of the invoice.

(d) That the Council authorises the addition of penalties to rates that are not paid by the due date, as follows, in accordance with sections 57 and 58 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, and delegates authority to the Manager Finance to apply penalties in accordance with this regime:

(i) a charge of 10% on so much of any rates instalment after 1 July 2022 which is unpaid after the relevant due date (except for the volumetric rate under section 19 and the water supply base rate for metered connections under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002) will be applied on:

Instalment due date	Penalty Date
31 August 2022	9 September 2022
28 February 2023	10 March 2023

(i) a charge of 10% on so much of any of the volumetric rate under section 19 and the water supply base rate for metered connections under section 16 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 invoiced after 1 July 2022 and which is unpaid after the due date will be applied on whichever is the next consecutive date following the due date of the invoice to which the penalty applies, being:

Water Penalty Date

27 October 2022

2 February 2023

4 May 2023

27 July 2023

Due dates and penalty dates for rates for metered water supply and connection

Week	Area	Q1 Due date	Q2 Due date	Q3 Due date	Q4 Due date
1	Mt Maunganui North/ Ind, Omanu, Matapihi,	11-Aug-22	11-Nov-22	16-Feb-23	11-May-23
2	Arataki, Te Maunga, Papamoa West	18-Aug-22	10-Nov-22	23-Feb-23	18-May-23
3	Papamoa West / East	25-Aug-22	17-Nov-22	2-Mar-23	25-May-23
4	Papamoa East / South,	1-Sep-22	24-Nov-22	9-Mar-23	1-Jun-23
5	Papamoa East, Kairua, Welcome Bay, Hairini	8-Sep-22	1-Dec-22	16-Mar-23	8-Jun-23
6	Hairini / Ohauiti, Poike, Pyes Pa, Maungatapu.	15-Sep-22	8-Dec-22	23-Mar-23	15-Jun-23
7	Greerton, Yatton Park, Gate Pa, Avenues	22-Sep-22	15-Dec-22	30-Mar-23	22-Jun-23
8	Tauranga Central/South, Te Reti, Judea, Sulphur Pt	29-Sep-22	12-Jan-23	6-Apr-23	29-Jul-23
9	Brookfield, Bellevue, Otūmoetai	6-Oct-22	12-Jan-23	13-Apr-23	6-Jul-23
10	Otūmoetai, Matua	13-Oct-22	19-Jan-23	20-Apr-23	13-Jul-23
11	The Lakes, Bethlehem	20-Oct-22	26-Jan-23	27-Apr-23	20-Jul-23
All (including high users)	Penalty Added Date	27-Oct-22	02-Feb-23	4-May-23	27-Jul-23

(e) Where a ratepayer makes any payment that is less than the amount now payable, the Council, will apply the payment firstly to any rates outstanding from previous rating years and then proportionately across all current year rates due.

Carried

11.6 Executive Report

Staff Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure Services

Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Community Services

Paul Davidson, General Manager: Corporate Services

Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Tony Aitken, Acting General Manager: People and Engagement

Steve Pearce, Acting General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance

Key points

· Infrastructure - Strategic Procurement Project - a series of round table discussions had been held with the key contractors and design consultants in June. Contract awarded to Arup and work started in February, so it had taken six months to reach this point.

· The programme in the Three Waters space was coming together nicely with the statutory peer review coming into the LTP next year.

· Delivering better outcomes - staff were working on delivery programmes with contractors, none of which had experienced partnerships with other councils. It was being well received and, while it may take a bit longer in the interim, it would save time in the future getting to the market.

· Community Services - plantings and community initiatives were happening, events were coming back into town. The AIMS Games was returning after several years of no games.

· 63 out of 80 staff were involved in an emergency management exercise over two days. Emergency management trained staff numbers were building to 100. Observers from the Bay of Plenty Regional Council were present and the feedback received was good. A formal report would be provided to Council.

· Corporate Services - congratulations to the Association of Local Government Information Management award finalist and winning teams.

· People and Engagement - Te Pou Takawaenga unit had a big month with Matariki and Three Waters reform workshops.

· The Epidemic Preparedness Notice was extended to 16 September allowing the ability to attend council meetings and to vote remotely. It was unsure if it would be extended beyond that date.

· The Health and Safety Waters team placed second place in the Safeguard awards. Commissioners congratulated the team, noting it was good to see them getting recognition nationally and to have confidence in themselves to put the project forward.

· Regulation and Compliance - has your dog gone green promotion had resulted in the dog registrations tracking above for the month.

· Consent volumes for the resource consent and building teams were trending down and staff were able to issue consents faster. A shout out to the monitoring team for completing the number of consents they were doing each month and making sure there would be less outstanding over time, as they were dealing with the difficult issues sooner in the process. The Commissioners appreciated the effort and innovation that had gone into issuing the consents within the required timeframes.

In response to questions

· In terms of procurement, Council had an obligation to give evidence it represented value for money. This could be by way of comparisons with historical rates, similar contracts for other councils and due diligence.

· Matakokiri Drive to Lakes Boulevard - wastewater and watermains pipelines were new connections to the park and it was discussed whether there was a more effective way of planning for infrastructure and subsequent development that would allow connections into new development if not included in the original proposition. Staff were unsure but it was part of the original proposition which had developed over time. There were structures and processes in place to follow the infrastructure planning with the land use planning but there would always be room for improvement.

· There was a good connection of the teams within council, with one team taking on a role, then the infrastructure experts get down to detail.

· Staff were working with the communications team and building capability internally to ensure the stories such as the Esmeralda Reserve were told and the number of opportunities that included community participation was noted.

· Staff would ensure that signage was in place for the linkages to facilities such as the library and museum so that people could find them.

· Staff were looking at providing all grade capacity with regards to car parking at the airport, and would look at the operations of carparking and compare options including multilevel, short and longer term, multi storing etc. Bringing this work forward to 2024 or earlier if it was able to be developed quicker was being considered, and potential shorter term options with rental depots and the like as there were already issues now.

· Staff would come back with a report on public transport to the airport including number details as it was quite a distance from the carpark to terminal.

· Staff were not fielding many inquiries regarding the increase of building height levels, with most related to overshadowing or putting an upper story on a dwelling.

· Plan Change 33 and existing Plan Change 26 would be reported at the same meeting.

· The demolition of the last building in Dive Crescent would occur in the near future.

Discussion points raised

· The Commissioners thanked staff for the Kainga Tupu workshops. The team were growing in confidence and reaching more people with a wider interest in those agencies and organisations taking part.

· There were up to 300 people at the unveiling of the star compass on Mauao with clear skies to watch the sun rise. Many engaged in the conversations and wanted to understand the meaning of Matariki. Placemaking material around Mauao would make a huge difference.

· Congratulations to staff for moving the buses from Willow Street to Durham Street. There were still some buses parked in Willow Street with the deconstruction of the site still occurring.

· Considered that the relocation of the bus interchange had addressed the anti-social behaviour experienced on Willow Street. People no longer lingered in the area and the people that were there, were there to catch a bus.

· The importance of water safety lessons was noted; with the city surrounded by water it was critical that residents learned to swim. The community needed to take responsibility for teaching its children to swim.

Resolution CO13/22/14

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a) Receives the Executive Report.

Carried

11.7 Draft strategic framework

Staff Anne Payne, Strategic Advisor

Fiona Nalder, Strategic Advisor

Key points

· The framework was a TCC vision which had been updated and was a clear package for what Council was trying to achieve, which also flowed into the Long-term Plan and Annual Plan, and was streamlined with more measurables for monitoring, tracking and moving to the delivery of desired outcomes.

· The framework was built around the five community outcomes and three key approaches and noted Council’s strategic priorities and contributed to community outcomes, flowing through to the TCC vision.

· While working with other joint strategies and plans, the framework was a focus on what Council would do towards community outcomes and the vision. Staff would provide a diagram outlining the framework when it had been completed.

· There was a primary strategy for each community outcome; each would be included in the 2023 action and investment plans. They would identify actions, priorities and how progress would be measured.

· Would monitor whether we did we do what we said we would do and whether what we did do had the intended impact we thought it would have. This would be reported three-yearly rather than annually.

· It was a pragmatic approach for joint strategies and plans and to refresh these and include what was relevant into TCC plans. New strategies were developed where there were gaps for what needed to be delivered.

· Report back to the 5 September 2022 meeting once the consultation had concluded. There had been significant engagement with the community over last few years developing the city vision so the consultation would be targeted for different audiences.

In response to questions

· The Commissioners requested that further consideration be given to:

· The Mount industrial area - there had not been any talk of restrictions on heavy industry - it was more prevention and working sub-regionally for future emitters for land use.

· Housing - the city centre had to be more than just a CBD - it also connected to Te Papa and the peninsula and needed to actively reflect community proposals.

· CBD redevelopment integrated with the civic centre and a key step to achieve greater environment benefits and outcomes needed to be woven through the strategy as it was not understood in that context from some of the stakeholders

· While Page on a Glance was making good progress, noted the need to look at combining the structure which sets out vision and outcomes of strategy with key outcomes and measures on one page to bring the whole story at a glance.

· Reference to affordable housing needed to be more than occasional - the Commissioners wanted to make a real difference with affordable housing. It was a fundamental premise that people could afford to live here but the topic needed more substance – e.g. the acquiring of land and infrastructure investment to capture value to show affordable housing.

· Transport reference at a glance should not just focus on freight, as there were many vans and small vehicles that drove the city’s economy.

· SH 29 was in a plus 2031 timeframe, but it needed to be brought forward to within the next decade.

· Hewlett Rd hub and Totara Street were a package - the environmental strategy, parking strategy were missing the roading network and road pricing to achieve and enable a step change. Just adding buses would not reach the required carbon reduction. It was important to engage the community to problem solve by giving the problem to the community and enabling them to help to solve problems. This needed to come through as a two-way solution with realised opportunities.

· It was noted that transport may fit better into the land use planning rather than the inclusive city. Staff would look at where it would fit and include it.

· The community needed to see themselves in the engagement process and their input, as many had given lots of time and effort to get to this point. Suggested partnership opportunities to support and deliver items. Council may not necessarily be the primary deliverer; it may just be the enabler or funder.

· Take care how partial managed retreat context was used in terms of resilience so there was no confusion.

Discussion points raised

· Commissioners wanted a discussion on the framework and feedback so do not want it to be included at a meeting where there was already a large agenda.

· Commissioners requested to see final wording of the framework before it goes out for public consultation.

Resolution CO13/22/15

Moved: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(a) Receives the Draft Strategic Framework Report.

(b) Adopts the draft framework and high-level content, Our Direction – Tauranga 2050, as a draft for public consultation, incorporating any amendments as directed by Council at this meeting.

(c) Delegates the Group Manager: Strategy & Growth to approve the final wording of amendments (as per Council direction) prior to public consultation.

Carried

At 11.02am the meeting adjourned.

At 11.23am the meeting reconvened.

11.8 Draft Environment Strategy and Draft Inclusive City Strategy

Staff Rebecca Scott, Principal Strategic Advisor

Nick Chester, Inclusive Cities Advisor

Anne Payne, Strategic Advisor

Key points

· The two strategies were covering the gaps within the strategies and approval was sought for public consultation.

· Once consulted on, the policies would be adopted in principle as a working draft, to be updated and aligned within the frameworks.

· With the proposed population growth, it would be difficult to meet the emissions reductions requested where larger cities were being asked to make savings of larger than 20%. Work was underway in terms of a climate plan and while they had a first cut of emission modelling it needed further thinking so it could be revised and reconsidered, as it was not likely to be a reality that TCC would meet that target.

· Stakeholder engagement would include valuing the natural environment and an outward facing strategy for the city which would require commitment by many.

· Challenges included population growth and increasing economic activity impeding on the natural environment. Assessments would be made on how far can go on each – e.g. reducing transport.

In response to questions

· Work on the numbers around what success looked like would be included in the action plans.

· A lot of feedback was received on the use of chemicals in particular environments and how those competing outcomes were managed, so they had become goals – e.g. changing managerial behaviours.

· Give consideration to priority goals and guidance on the ranking on these.

· Consideration of science, local knowledge, mātauranga Māori needed to form part of resolving conflicts of interest and they would be picked up if included in the strategic priorities.

Discussion points raised

· The Commissioners recognised the work done and noted the following:

· Community understanding of terms used – e.g. biophilic principles.

· The explanation of Māori terms should be in English rather than using other Māori terms.

· Note how the migration between ecological corridors for flora and fauna could be done safely.

· Empower local solutions by including what the community can also do towards achieving the goals.

· Include exotic vegetation as it was reflected throughout the city, especially in residents’ gardens.

· Need to ensure those that have contributed still see themselves in the document as they had put in a lot of time and effort into it.

· Consideration needed of how Council deals with competing interests and trade-offs with active reserves and spaces.

· Environmental services were just as important as infrastructure - trees, vegetation etc needed to be factored into planning at an early stage.

· Need to highlight grey water use recycling as a resource and determine which level to include it.

· There could be up to 27 different nationalities included in a local citizenship ceremony, so the document needed to be inclusive of these and to celebrate the many ethnic cultures and their festivals. These groups need to see that they were included in the strategy.

· The document does not reflect enough community involvement and empowering the community to be part of the plans.

· Include the recent representation review and changes adopted.

· Suggest the use of other Māori concept models as the one used was outdated.

The General Manager: Strategy & Growth noted that a tracked changes document would be provided to the Commissioners prior to it being released for community engagement.

Resolution CO13/22/16

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Council:

(a) Receives the draft Environment Strategy and draft Inclusive City Strategy report.

(b) Adopts the Draft Tauranga Taurikura – Environment Strategy as a draft for public consultation, once any changes directed at the Council meeting have been incorporated.

(c) Adopts the Draft Tauranga Mataraunui – Inclusive City Strategy as a draft for public consultation, once any changes directed at the Council meeting have been incorporated.

(d) Delegates the Group Manager: Strategy & Growth consult with the Commissioners before approving the final wording of these amendments, and any minor editorial changes prior to public consultation.

(e) Approves the proposed public consultation process for both draft strategies as outlined in this report.

(f) Notes that the goals for both strategies are adopted ‘in principle’ and will remain ‘in principle’ until the action and investment plans delivering on the strategies are completed to ensure alignment throughout the final framework.

Carried

12 Discussion of late items

Nil

13 Public excluded session

RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

Resolution CO13/22/17

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

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

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

General subject of each matter to be considered	Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter		Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution
13.1 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 28 February 2022	s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)		s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.2 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 March 2022	s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)		s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.3 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 23 May 2022	s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)		s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.4 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 May 2022	s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information		s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.5 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 7 June 2022	s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)		s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.6 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 13 June 2022	s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)		s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.7 - Exemption to open competition: Mauao Placemaking Project - professional services and physical works for cultural interpretation	s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities		s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.8 - Council Resolution for Closed Competition - Kiwirail Underpass	s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons		s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7
13.9 - Infrastructure Funding and Financing Transport System Plan update	s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

At 12.23pm the meeting adjourned.

At 1.30pm the meeting reconvened.

11.9 Marine Park reclassification hearings report

Staff Gert van Staden, Senior Strategic Advisor

Resolution CO13/22/18

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the Council:

(a) Receives the written submissions and tabled correspondence in relation to the proposed reclassification of part of Marine Park and hear verbal submissions in support of the written feedback received.

(b) Notes that a final decision on the reclassification will be made by way of a later deliberations report to fully consider the submissions received, tangata whenua engagement and any feedback from the Minister of Conservation.

Carried

The following members of the public spoke to their submission to the Marine Park reclassification.

James Critchley

· Considered it a no brainer and, knowing the team, felt there would be a lot of people making use of the park particularly working with the schools.

· Spoken to environment and pasifika groups who noted it would be great for the area and for the small area of land at the Mount.

In response to the submitter

· Noted the concern of use of reserve space; however, if planned well, it would enhance the colleges in the area.

Priority One – Nigel Tutt

· Encourage the growth and the research for the farm; look at positives.

· Environmental protection critical for business and whole community, the port and the region.

· Good example with the Rena disaster - Waikato University was invaluable with the research.

· The infrastructure adds to a region and increases standards. It directly helps with the engagement of students, especially in health and for Māori in STEM Waikato as it had a great reputation

· Would add distinctiveness.

· A small piece of land would be attracting more people and lots of benefits which would outweigh other factors.

· Lincoln University was a good example of attractive research for students in terms of value and the regional advantages of the green-blue nexus.

Ron Pinkham (Tabled document)

· Opposed to the proposal. When the area was set up it was known that land was at a premium.

· Previous submissions should have been declared irrelevant last time.

· The area must stay as a reserve, as per the Minister’s last decision.

· Need perspective as the University was a commercial venture and had other options.

· Suggestion made for a more suitable site with less community opposition.

· Past actions of Council had caused the lack of use for the original proposal.

· Last 24/7 area for vessels left in Tauranga and should be looked at in terms of future proofing Sulphur Point.

· Queried whether Waikato University had offered any monetary contribution for development for Sulphur Point.

· Showed a lack of concern for the people of Tauranga.

In response to the submitter

· The Commissioners were the decision makers.

· If the land remained as a reserve, it could be used for other purposes.

· This consultation was around the use of the land for a University.

Geoff Andrews

· Troubled by what was happening with the piece of land when the Minister clearly rejected a proposal in 2018; this seemed to be an attempt to overcome this past decision.

· Considered that the current proposal had no substance and did not think it complied with the legislation.

· Quoted from the Reserves Act 1977 re local purposes reserves which precluded any sort of building.

· Reserves Act purpose was for the provision of sport and recreation, so Council had an obligation to protect that; suggested it would be a folly to reclassify the land especially with housing intensification taking place in the city.

· Considered that the Minister had not wanted the reserve removed.

· Mr Andrews noted that he had used the reserve over the last 40 years. Walking access on the proposed site access would still be available.

In response to the submitter

· This was an open process; Council had decided to hold hearings even though they were not obligated to hold them.

· The Reserves Act also noted conservation, recreation and educational value.

· Commissioners understood the Minster had concerns at the time that the land would no longer be a reserve; however, this proposal maintained the site for reserve processes and a number of classifications.

· If reclassification extended beyond 6% there would need to be another process.

Peter Jones

· Mr Jones built the Fish and Dive Club at Sulphur Point.

· 7000ksqm building removed a lot of car parking. At present the ramps were filled as were the carparks.

· Already needed another ramp now - it cost $40,000 when the Fish and Dive Club was built.

· People came for the beach and harbour, but this would remove parking and boat launching access.

· Sulphur Point was ideal for boating and parking of boat trailers.

· The grass area should not be built on as it was needed for parking.

· There was a dry stack behind the dive centre for local boats.

In response to submitters

· Council was looking at a second launching ramp and boat and trailer parking.

Geoff Hambling

· Another ramp was planned for that area, but there was no associated parking space.

· Future planning for this site and the harbour generally needed to include boat access/ramps and trailer parking.

· Deep water access was needed as well as provision for growth; there were a lot of boat owners and users in Tauranga.

· Any building development on the site should be up not out.

In response to the submitter

· TCC was doing work around marine facilities and facing the challenges around growing city areas at capacity.

· Work that Council was doing was broader than Sulphur Point, and would include usage levels.

David Gatland

· Trailer boat person, mostly on Saturdays.

· Concerned that it would be hard to reverse the decision if it went ahead even if it proved to be a poor change.

· Many activities relied on proximity to the harbour.

· On weekends the area was busy and jam packed especially with parking; thought this could become very confusing and would only get worse.

· It was a great facility and the current usage would grow, as would the need to park cars and trailers.

· Queried whether the university could function elsewhere in the community, remote from the beach, or even in Tauranga.

· Region was under growing pressure to expand and rezoning could restrict this.

· Questioned if the proposal was a nice to have or a need to have.

In response to the submitter

· It was noted that there had been a wide look at different options and the university did need to have ready access to the sea.

· Council was looking at parking options and marina expansion and was aware of growing needs within the community.

Jack Busby (Tabled document)

· Considered the proposal showed lack of foresight.

· Boat trailer parking needed to be protected.

· Currently experiencing growing demand and limitations on further growth. Covid had changed the landscape resulting in many more recreational boats in the area, which caused a huge backlog on parking.

· Noted that traffic was also stopped at rail crossing because of the doubling of trains.

· The University would not increase traffic.

· Questioned whether car access to the site would come from either Keith Allen Drive or Cross Road; both were busy with traffic.

· Large number of homeless people in the vicinity so would require fencing; considered this would lower the amenity value more.

· Traffic needs assessment required. Then University would be a large building and there were many factors to consider.

· Open space was precious and could not be regained once it was gone.

· Opportunities to redevelop parking areas to be more efficient would depend on the number of ramps into deep water channels and where those boat users could park their cars.

· Preferred open parking to a building; considered something would be needed this summer.

In response to the submitter

· Additional parking could not be provided until the Marine Strategy was completed.

· Over time as the city had grown, the recreation reserve was at least 50% taken up with boats Friday through Sunday - need to consider if this was an appropriate use for the whole reserve.

· Great to see people from all over coming to enjoy the harbour on boats and jet skis.

· It was recognised that there needed to be detailed planning and specific studies on what Tauranga wanted to be and how it wanted to grow.

14 Closing Karakia

Commissioner Shad Rolleston gave the closing karakia.

The meeting closed at 2.47 pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 25 July 2022.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

25 July 2022

11 Business

11.1 Te Manawataki o Te Papa - Securing land for future generations and ongoing community use

File Number: A13629090

Author: Phil Kai Fong, Team Leader: Strategic Property

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: City Development & Partnerships

Purpose of the Report

1. Te Papa peninsula is culturally significant to the iwi and hapū of Tauranga Moana, having historically been the hub of activity pre- and post-European contact. Particularly significant events include the battle of Otamataha, the Church Missionary Society transfer, the subsequent sale to the Crown of land held in trust for Māori, raupatu confiscations, the surrendering of arms following the battles of Pukehinahina and Te Ranga, and the many protests and discussions emphasising the significance of the whenua. Site A in the Civic Precinct, which is planned to be part of the Te Manawataki o Te Papa development, forms a significant part of Te Papa. It is identified as one of the parcels of land transferred by the Church Missionary Society and has been the focus of significant protests over time.

2. The purpose of this report is to present options and a recommended way forward that:

· secures the land for future generations and ongoing community use;

· provides a contemporary reconciliation of a longstanding grievance;

· creates a partnership that meaningfully reconnects mana whenua with this significant whenua; and

· enables the original intention of the Otamataha Trust to be carried out, in that the land is held in a manner that benefits the community.

3. A non-binding Accord between Otamataha Trust (“the Trust”) and Tauranga City Council (“Council”), regarding Site A of the Civic Precinct (see below), was signed on 11 July 2022 (“the Accord”). The Accord (refer Attachment 1) sets out a collaborative partnership approach, including the intention to implement co-ownership arrangements for the land associated with Site A of the Civic Precinct (“Site A”). This paper explores various options that seek to give effect to the aspirations contained in the Accord.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report ‘Te Manawataki o Te Papa – Securing land for future generations and ongoing community use’;

(b) Agrees to consult on options regarding partnership approaches with Otamataha Trust, in particular the future ownership of the land associated with Site A of the Civic Precinct;

(c) As the preferred option for consultation purposes, approves the co-ownership of the land referred to as ‘Site A’ of the Civic Precinct with Otamataha Trust, through the establishment of a council-controlled organisation (Option One), with the following proposed structure and arrangements:

· Transfer of the land to the council-controlled organisation for a nominal sale price of $1.00 and subject to a perpetual peppercorn ground lease[1] back to Council; and

· Council retains ownership of any improvements on the land and is entitled to develop and construct further improvements on the land;

(d) Notes that, if approved, public consultation on the purpose and principles of creating a council-controlled organisation for Site of the Civic Precinct will commence in late-August 2022.

Executive Summary

4. At the Council meeting of 27 June 2022, Council adopted the Long-term Plan Amendment 2021-2031, which approved a $303 million investment in developing the city centre over the next eight years through the Civic Precinct Masterplan – Te Manawataki o Te Papa. This will include facilities such as a Civic Whare, Museum, Library and Community Hub, and an Exhibition/Events space.

5. Site A of the Civic Precinct, being the Council-owned site bounded by Willow, Hamilton, Wharf and Durham Streets, is culturally significant to mana whenua of Tauranga Moana, particularly Ngai Tamarāwaho, Ngāti Tapu and Te Materāwaho, as represented by the Otamataha Trust. For the purposes of this report, ‘Site A’, outlined in green in the figure below, refers to the land between Durham and Willow Streets. There is a long and complex history associated with the site, with unresolved grievances associated with the land.

Figure 1: ‘Site A’ represented in green

6. Council wishes to ensure that Te Manawataki o Te Papa development respects and reflects the significant history and importance of the area to mana whenua. The relationship with mana whenua will be pivotal to the success of many of the outcomes to be achieved on the Civic Precinct site (including Site A).

7. An Accord has been developed and signed by the Trust and Council. This is an initial step to record the collaborative partnership approach, and the intention to work together towards a solution for Site A. The Accord sets out the parties’ aspirations for partnership and joint ownership of the land underlying the development.

8. This paper explores options that give effect to the aspirations contained in the Accord. Two options are provided that present different structures that enable various levels of partnership. The recommended proposal for public consultation is to establish a council-controlled organisation with the Trust, to enable co-ownership of the land associated with Site A. This option would provide a contemporary reconciliation to a longstanding grievance. It also enables a wide range of benefits to be realised by the community as a whole, including securing uncontested use of the land for future generations, and ensuring long-term certainty for the community in terms of public use. It also has significant cultural benefits for mana whenua. Following consultation, and if this proposal is approved, further details will be worked through and appropriate documentation will be negotiated with the Trust.

background

9. In March 2020, Council requested a report on the background and broad options associated with the historic issues that impact mana whenua, and which could affect the development of the Civic Precinct. Subsequently, on 9 June 2020, the Urban Form and Transport Committee considered a report on the Willow Street Precinct – Historic Issues, and resolved[2]:

(a) Acknowledges Ngai Tamarāwaho’s connection with the land in the vicinity of the Willow Street Precinct and, in particular Lot 45 and Lot 38, due to the historical land dealings since the 1830’s.

(b) Approves the Chief Executive progressing discussions with Ngai Tamarāwaho to:

(i) Understand Ngai Tamarāwaho’s view and aspirations for the future of Lot 45 and Lot 38.

(ii) Explore opportunities to strengthen the relationship between Council and the hapū in respect of Lots 45 and 38, together with the future development of the Willow Street Precinct.

(c) Requests that the Chief Executive reports to Council on relationship opportunities and action options for consideration and approval.

(d) Requests that the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Cr Kelvin Clout meet with representatives of Ngai Tamarāwaho to discuss means and timing for meaningful engagement with the hapū.

10. The meeting of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Cr Clout with Ngai Tamarāwaho did not occur and the matter was not addressed until discussions recommenced following the appointment of Commissioners in February 2021.

11. Following discussions, on 13 December 2021, Council considered a report on a proposal to enter into a non-binding Accord between Council and the Trust and resolved the following[3]:

(a) Receives the Civic Precinct – Otamataha Trust Accord Report;

(b) Agrees in principle to enter into a non-binding Accord between Council and Otamataha Trust (“the Trust”) to record a collaborative partnership approach and intentions to work together on the development of the Civic Precinct Redevelopment project, substantially on the terms set out in the draft Accord provided as Attachment 2 to this report (“the Accord”);

(c) Acknowledges the mana whenua status of the beneficiaries of the Trust through the Civic Precinct Redevelopment project;

(d) Instructs staff to investigate options to give effect to the intent of the Accord and report back in early-2022 on the options and recommended way forward.

12. This report provides options and a recommended way forward, as instructed in (d) above.

Historical context

13. The land associated with the planned development of Te Manawataki o Te Papa (including Site A) is culturally significant to the iwi and hapū of Tauranga Moana, particularly Ngai Tamarāwaho, Ngāti Tapu and Te Materāwaho. It was originally part of Te Papa, the central kāinga (village) of early Tauranga, which provided a natural landing for waka, access to fertile land for cultivation and a place for trade, for gathering, for discussion, and for interactions. It was heavily occupied and utilised pre-European arrival. In the 1800s, the area was a hive of activity, attracting people for trade, commerce, education, learning, hospitality, and entertainment. This central hub of activity eventually grew into what we know today as Tauranga.

14. Upon arrival of the missionaries, Te Papa peninsula, comprising an area of approximately 1,333 acres (which includes the Te Manawataki o Te Papa site), was acquired by the Church Missionary Society (“CMS”) from mana whenua in 1838. As outlined in the CMS’s Trust Deed, the land was intended to be held by CMS for the benefit of Māori in the face of increasing land demand by settlers. Between 1866 and 1867, four-fifths of the CMS land was transferred to the Crown and confirmed under the Tauranga District Lands Act 1867. Between 1885 and 1886, the Crown vested the land described as Allotment 45 Section 1 Town of Tauranga (and otherwise referred to as ‘Lot 45’) as reserve in the then-Borough of Tauranga, as an endowment in aid of Borough Funds. In 1930, that parcel of land changed its purpose of reserve to a site for a town hall and other municipal buildings. In 1982, the land was classified as Local Purpose (municipal buildings) Reserve, subject to the Reserves Act 1977. In 1995, the land was issued to the Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the Borough of Tauranga for Local Purpose (municipal buildings) Reserve. Collectively, these actions are considered by tangata whenua to amount to a confiscation of the lands.

15. As a result of the transfer of land from the Church to the Crown, as outlined above, mana whenua maintain that the original purpose was not upheld and have sought to be reconnected to the whenua (land). Over the intervening years, this has been continuously and consistently reinforced through protests and occupations. The reconciliation of this disconnection with the whenua is a significant priority for mana whenua, as it is for Council.

16. Te Manawataki o Te Papa project acknowledges the significance of the Civic Precinct site to mana whenua. Inclusion of a Civic Whare in the heart of the precinct, and the partnership approach to Te Manawataki o Te Papa (including collaboration with the Trust), provides a potential means of reuniting mana whenua with this site and reconciling a longstanding grievance over the non-fulfilment of the original purpose for which the land was transferred to the CMS.

17. The Trust has gifted Council the name ‘Te Manawataki o Te Papa’ for the future Civic Precinct development. Translated literally, Te Manawataki o Te Papa means ‘the heartbeat of Te Papa’ – intended to reflect the civic precinct’s location in the heart of Tauranga, and how the site’s history and future can be symbolised by a heartbeat or active pulse for the city. The name also captures the intention to revive the mauri or life essence that remains within the land. Te Manawataki o Te Papa fittingly describes what the future civic precinct will mean for communities within the city and wider area in years to come. It also appropriately reflects the history of the site, with the area on and around the Civic Precinct known as Te Papa by both Māori and early settlers.

property context

18. A significant part of the Civic Precinct Masterplan – Te Manawataki o Te Papa is to be developed on land referred to as Site A, which is bounded by Willow Street, Wharf Street, Durham Street, and Hamilton Street. That land includes two parcels of land described as “Allotment 45 Section 1 Town of Tauranga” and “Allotment 38 Section 1 Town of Tauranga”, which are commonly referred to respectively as “Lot 45” and “Lot 38”. There is a long and complex history to Lot 45 and Lot 38 (refer Attachment 2).

19. The 9 June 2020 report provided information on the history of Lots 38 and 45. While some historical information is reflected in this report, more complete information is available in the 9 June 2020 report.

20. Ngai Tamarāwaho is one of the key mana whenua in relation to Lot 45 and Lot 38 and represents hapū that lived on Te Papa peninsula, now housing much of Tauranga’s central city.

21. Lot 38 also falls within the Civic Precinct and has similarly been identified by Ngai Tamarāwaho as a parcel of interest. It is shown shaded green on the plan in Attachment 2. While this parcel forms part of what was formerly the CMS land block, it was purchased by Council in 1964 from a private landowner.

22. After the occupation of the Town Hall site in 1987 and 1988, Ngai Tamarāwaho applied to the High Court seeking an interim injunction to stop works on the Civic Complex. The court directed (CP181/88, 28 October 1988) the Council to consult with the hapū at a specified date and time, and that no commercial commitments were to be made, nor any demolition to occur, until that hui had occurred. The Huria Accord was created as a result of those hui. A copy of the Huria Accord, dated 4 November 1988, is attached (refer Attachment 3).

23. In 1997, Ngāi Tamarāwaho brought a claim in the Waitangi Tribunal alleging a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown in respect of (among other things) the acquisition of the Te Papa land by the Crown in 1867. The claim by Ngāi Tamarāwaho was addressed as part of the Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana report, which the Waitangi Tribunal released in 2004.

24. In respect of the acquisition from the CMS by the Crown, the Waitangi Tribunal found that:

"…at the time the land was acquired by the Crown, both the CMS and the Crown clearly understood that Te Papa was land held in trust solely, or ‘almost exclusively’, for the benefit of Māori. We conclude that, while Tauranga Māori were not, strictly speaking, the beneficial owners of the CMS land at Te Papa, the Crown’s acquisition of CMS land without making satisfactory provision for the beneficial exercise of an implied trust for them was in breach of its Treaty obligations to act in good faith towards Māori, and actively to protect their interests."[4]

25. For more detail on the history relating to Lots 38 and 45, refer to the 9 June 2020 Council report and Te Papa: Naboth’s Vineyard, by Dr Alistair Reese[5].

The ACCord with otamataha trust

26. The development of an Accord signifies Council’s acknowledgement of mana whenua and the historic context to the land associated with the Civic Precinct. It also signifies the constructive discussions between the parties that have led to working towards a positive resolution, so that both parties can move forward in the spirit of partnership, and where the history of Te Papa land is acknowledged and redressed to the extent possible.

27. A non-binding Accord was signed by the Trust[6] and the Council on 11 July 2022 (refer Attachment 1). The Accord is an initial step to record the collaborative partnership approach and intention to work together towards mutually beneficial outcomes for the community on Site A of the Civic Precinct.

28. The Accord outlines shared aspirations that include that the interests of mana whenua are acknowledged and reflected through the Civic Precinct redevelopment project and new Civic Precinct, including through joint ownership of the Civic Precinct land. In addition, that the master planning and development processes provide for the recognition and visibility of the history and tikanga of mana whenua in the city centre, for the benefit of all Tauranga communities.

29. The intention is that Site A would be vested jointly in the Council and the Trust so that the land is held together in partnership. Civic and public amenities are planned for this site, so no lease rental would be payable to the co-owners, as there is unlikely to be a profitable net financial return.

30. The relationship with mana whenua will be pivotal to the success of many outcomes to be achieved on the Civic Precinct site. Council’s approach, together with the development outcomes achieved, will help to reshape and strengthen the relationship between Council and hapū.

Options Analysis

31. Two options are presented in this report for Site A of the Civic Precinct that represent different levels of achieving the intended approach in relation to ownership of the civic precinct land.

32. A summary of key benefits, disadvantages and risks is provided for each option in the tables below.

Option One (recommended): Co-ownership of Site A of the Civic Precinct land with Otamataha Trust through the establishment of a council-controlled organisation (CCO).

33. A CCO is an entity in which one or more local authorities control 50 percent or more of the voting rights, or appoint 50 percent or more of the members of the governing body.[7] A CCO can be a company, trust, partnership, incorporated society, or other similar profit-sharing arrangement^{^[8]}.

34. Legal advice is that the best way forward in relation to the establishment of a CCO is to have a Charitable Trust structure for Site A of the Civic Precinct. Advantages of a Charitable Trust structure include:

(a) High transparency – if the Trust is registered on the Charities Register, then the Trust Deed and reporting is public and monitored by the Attorney General and Charities Services

(b) Tax exemptions apply if the Trust is registered with Charities Services

(d) Transfer of assets to a Charitable Trust can be undertaken for nominal consideration, as opposed to market value if transferred to a Company.

35. If this structure is approved by Council and by the Trust (and subject to the outcomes of community consultation), it is proposed that the CCO would hold ownership of the underlying land and enter into a ground lease with Council. Council would then be responsible for the construction of the buildings situated on the Civic Precinct land. Council would retain sole ownership of those buildings and the ongoing management of Site A.

Benefits	Disadvantages
1. Secures the land for future generations. 2. Long-term certainty for the community in terms of public access and use. 3. Restores mana of the whenua to hapū and iwi. 4. Mana whenua reunited with whenua, resulting in significant cultural wellbeing impacts, including strengthening identity through connections to whakapapa and providing a place to stand as Māori. 5. Relationships strengthened between Council and hapū, and between hapū and the community. 6. Reduces the possibility of a Waitangi Tribunal claim, or other action such as further protest or occupation. 7. Aligns with the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 8. Provides confidence that Council can move forward and implement the Masterplan, providing significant cultural, educational, social and economic benefits to the community as a whole, avoiding potential risks and delays. 9. Iwi/Hapū support opens more options to navigate around the reserve status of Lot 45.	1. Some community members may disagree with this approach. 2. Potential tension between objectives and/or aspirations of Council and hapū. 3. Additional ongoing costs (e.g. the costs incurred in monitoring the performance of the CCO).
Key risks
Operational – reduced ability to manage risk due to the arm’s length delivery of CCOs. Community – some community members may disagree with this approach, potentially causing divisions within the community and negatively impacting mana whenua.

Option Two: Status Quo – Council retains sole ownership of the land and continues to engage with mana whenua on Site A of the Civic Precinct development.

Benefits	Disadvantages
1. Avoidance of potential negative community sentiment. 2. Acknowledgement and visibility of the history and tikanga of mana whenua in the city centre.	1. Significant negative cultural impacts on mana whenua, who have continuously tried to reconnect with this whenua over an extended period of time. 2. Missed opportunity to reconcile longstanding differences between Council and mana whenua. 3. Acknowledgements and visibility of mana whenua may be seen as token. 4. Mana whenua aspirations, as outlined in the Accord, are not realised leading to perceptions of marginalisation and discontent. 5. Harm to longer term relationships with iwi and hapū. 6. Costs and time associated with potential litigation. 7. Uncertainty and development confidence issues.
Key risks
Reputational and legal – this option does not address the unresolved grievances associated with the land and therefore does not meet hapū aspirations in relation to land ownership of Site A of the Civic Precinct, impacting negatively on Council’s relationship with mana whenua, and increasing the likelihood of a potential legal claim being commenced. Reputational and financial – commencement of a claim, protest or occupation would cause timing and financial issues for the development project and relationships with development partners, as well as for longer-term Council and community relationships with iwi and hapū.

Recommended option

36. Option One is the recommended option for public consultation. This option provides a contemporary reconciliation approach to a significant longstanding grievance. It also best implements the intent of the non-binding Accord between the Council and the Trust.

37. A sense of connection is re-created through involvement in this process for mana whenua that has experienced the loss of land. It will strengthen the relationship between Council and hapū, and between hapū and the community, particularly through the willingness and openness to collaborate, with agreement more likely to be reached between Council and the Trust in relation to the Masterplan. It may also lead to collaboration on other projects wider than Te Manawataki o Te Papa, which could also bring long-term benefits for the wider community.

38. The successful delivery of Te Manawataki o Te Papa will celebrate cultural identity through urban design, and can be shared with residents and visitors through architecture, stories and art. Public buildings and spaces will be created that reflect cultural heritage and our identity as a city. These are all elements that our communities have been telling us are needed, and will bring significant culture and character to the city centre.

39. Option one also gives effect to the partnership principle embodied in the Treaty of Waitangi. Alongside this, a new partnership approach will be trialled that may be beneficial for both Council and the Trust, and could lead the way for strengthened relationships and partnerships with other iwi and hapū groups.

Financial Considerations

40. The financial considerations relevant to this matter will be legal costs associated with land ownership. It is intended that the transfer of land to the CCO would be for a nominal sale price and would be subject to a peppercorn ground lease back to Council.

41. There are a number of financial implications of the proposed transactions with the land in question currently being revalued. The current book value is approximately $16m. A transfer of the asset at less than the book value would be recognised in the accounts of the Council, primarily through the revaluation reserve.

42. A below market lease arrangement would also come under new accounting standards for leases applying to public sector entities from next year. These considerations mean that further work is required to determine the preferred detail of transactional arrangements.

Legal Implications / Risks

43. There are a number of legal implications to consider in relation to the Accord, including matters under the Reserves Act 1977, the Public Works Act 1981, and the Local Government Act 2002,

Reserves Act 1977 and Public Works Act 1981

44. Lot 45 (part of Site A) was vested in Council by the Crown as “endowment land” and is currently held under the Reserves Act 1977. This requires specific processes to be worked through under the Local Government Act 2002 (including notification to the Ministers for Land Information and Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) and the Reserves Act (including liaison with LINZ and Department of Conservation on the process for transferring Lot 45).

45. Legal advice is that there is a pathway which will enable joint ownership of the land, and in doing so, take into account any legislative requirements that may apply under both the Reserves Act and the Public Works Act.

Establishment of a CCO under the Local Government Act 2002

46. As discussed above, a CCO can take many forms such as a company, trust, partnership, incorporated society, or other similar profit-sharing arrangement. Legal advice on the best way forward in relation to the establishment of a CCO is to have a Charitable Trust structure for Site A of the Civic Precinct.

47. Council has obtained preliminary advice from Charities Services that it would be possible to settle a Charitable Trust for the proposed structure, subject to certain criteria being met for registration. If this structure is approved in principle by Council and by the Trust, it is proposed that the CCO would hold ownership of the underlying land and enter into a ground lease with Council. Council would then be responsible for the construction of the buildings situated on Site A of the Civic Precinct land, and would retain sole ownership of those buildings.

48. To give effect to the initial non-binding Accord between Council and the Trust, it is proposed that key terms of the structure and arrangements would include:

· Careful drafting of the Trust Deed to ensure charitable purposes are clearly defined, other criteria for registration as a Charitable Trust are meet, and that Council and Otamataha Trust are responsible for appointing 50 percent of the trustees of the Trust;

· Transfer of the land to the CCO for a nominal sale price of $1.00 and subject to a perpetual peppercorn ground lease back to Council; and

· Council would retain ownership of any improvements on the land and be entitled to develop and construct further improvements on the land.

Consultation / Engagement

49. As discussed above, there has been considerable engagement with the Trust in relation to a future partnership approach to co-ownership of Site A of the Civic Precinct land, as indicated in the non-binding Accord.

Significance

50. 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.

51. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

53. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of high significance, the option to establish a CCO will require consultation with the community. It is intended that public consultation on the purpose and principles of creating a CCO will take place over a three-week period commencing in late-August. The results of the consultation process will be reported back to Council.

Next Steps

54. Should the Council adopt the recommendations of this report, the following will be undertaken:

· Public consultation on the creation of a CCO during August – September 2022, with a report back to Council summarising consultation outcomes and associated recommendations for next steps;

· Continued engagement with the Trust on the proposed structure and arrangements;

· Continued discussions with Land Information New Zealand and Department of Conservation regarding the proposed transfer of Lot 45;

· Continued liaison with Charities Services to ensure proposed rules meet requirements under the Charities Act; and

· Continued consideration of the legal and financial implications in relation to the proposed structure.

55. Following public consultation, and if the proposal is approved, further details and appropriate documentation will be negotiated and agreed with the Trust on future land ownership of Site A of the Civic Precinct.

Attachments

1. Accord between Otamataha Trust and Council - signed 11 July 2022 - A13658795 ⇩

2. Map of Te Papa and Civic Precinct showing Lots 38 and 45 - A13659094 ⇩

3. Huria Accord signed 4 November 1988 - A13659205 ⇩

4. Report - Urban Form and Transport Development Committee 9 June 2020 - Willow Street Precinct historic issues - A13669828 (Separate Attachments 1)

5. Report - Council 13 December 2021 - Civic Precinct Otamataha Trust Accord - A13669943 (Separate Attachments 1)

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

25 July 2022

11.2 Partial Reclassification of Gate Pa Recreation Reserve

File Number: A13172069

Author: Rachael Andrews, Strategic Property Advisor

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek a decision:

(a) Confirming Council’s support, in principle, of Ngai Tamarāwaho’s proposal, in partnership with the Pukehinahina Charitable Trust, to establish a Cultural and Historic Centre on part of the Gate Pā Recreation Reserve; and

(b) To reclassify part of the Gate Pā Recreation Reserve to facilitate the Cultural and Historic Centre proposal and to recognise the historical significance of the site to Tauranga.

Recommendations

That Council:

(a) Confirms its support, in principle, of the proposal to establish a Cultural and Historic Centre on that part of the Gate Pā Recreation Reserve shown indicatively as “Upper Site A” at Figure 1; and

(b) Approves in principle, subject to public and tangata whenua notification, the reclassification of that part of the Gate Pā Recreation Reserve shown indicatively at Figure 2, from recreation reserve to historic reserve, pursuant to section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977; and

(c) Authorises public and tangata whenua notification of the proposed re-classification, pursuant to section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977;

(d) Subject to the reclassification of “Upper Site A” at Figure 1 (“the reclassification”), authorises staff to commence negotiations with Ngai Tamarāwaho in terms of a proposed lease over “Upper Site A” at Figure 1 for the Cultural and Historic Centre; and

(e) Subject to the reclassification, and subsequent agreement and approval of lease terms between Council and Ngai Tamarāwaho for the Cultural and Historic Centre, it is considered that Council will have met its obligation to investigate options pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding entered into with Ngai Tamarāwaho in 1999 and delivered on the commitment to provide to Ngai Tamarāwaho a place for a Cultural and Historic Centre.

eXcutive Summary

2. Ngai Tamarāwaho and the Pukehinahina Charitable Trust have submitted a proposal to Council to use approximately 6,150m² of the Gate Pā Recreation Reserve for a Cultural and Historic Centre. This area is shown as “Upper Site A” at Figure 1 below.

3. Ngai Tamarāwaho identified the Gate Pā Recreation Reserve as suitable for the Cultural and Historic Centre due to its immense historical and cultural significance. The Gate Pā Recreation Reserve forms part of the site of the 1864 Battle of Gate Pā Pukehinahina, one of the most significant land battles that took place in Tauranga Moana.

4. Initial planning advice received by Ngai Tamarāwaho has indicated that it is possible to construct the Cultural and Historic Centre on the site.

5. As a result of a Memorandum of Understanding with Ngai Tamarāwaho from 1999, there has been a long-standing commitment from Council to Ngai Tamarāwaho to provide an area within Tauranga Moana for a Cultural and Historic Centre.

6. Previous attempts to fulfil this commitment have been unsuccessful primarily because land initially identified as suitable was found to be unsuitable following further investigations of the sites.

7. The reserve is not required by Council for any other projects.

8. To progress the proposal, it is recommended that Council reclassifies the area of the Gate Pā Recreation Reserve outlined in yellow at Figure 2 below in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977.

9. It is recommended that Council reclassifies that part of the reserve outlined in yellow at Figure 2 below not only because it will enable Council to then lease part of it to Ngai Tamarāwaho for the Cultural and Historic Centre but also because it is a more appropriate classification for such an historically significant site.

10. Opportunities also exist to significantly enhance the balance of the reserve, enhance public utilisation and to provide story telling opportunities in terms of the history of the area, in particular with regards to the Battle of Gate Pā Pukehinahina. Council will work with mana whenua, Heritage New Zealand, DoC and the community to create a vision for the enhancement of the balance of the reserve that celebrates its history and makes it a destination for the community and visitors to Tauranga.

Background

Memorandum of Understanding with Ngai Tamarāwaho

11. In 1999 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between Transit NZ, Council and Ngai Tamarāwaho regarding the State Highway 2, Route J Expressway, Route K and the PJ Link. The purpose of the MOU was to record the understandings between Council, Transit NZ and Ngai Tamarāwaho about the measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential adverse effects of the project on the ancestral landscape and interests of Ngai Tamarāwaho.

12. The MOU created an obligation on Council to investigate opportunities to enable Ngai Tamarāwaho to establish a physical presence in the Valley of Te Auetu and the Kopurererua Valley (K Valley).

13. Development of the K Valley Reserve Management Plan commenced in 2000 and Ngai Tamarāwaho shared their long-standing aspiration to establish a Cultural and Historic Centre in Tauranga.

14. In 2005, as part of discussions on the K Valley Reserve Development, one of the non-negotiable aspects included a Cultural and Historic Centre for Ngai Tamarāwaho.

15. It was resolved in 2005 (M05.113.2) that Council would provide services at Smith’s Farm for the Cultural and Historic Centre including water, roading, parking and public facilities (toilets and changing rooms).

16. It was further resolved that Council’s application for the development of the sports field at Smiths Farm would include the Cultural and Historic Centre and access to it, and all services costs were included in the LTCCP 2006-2016 for this purpose.

17. Sports field demand modelling, to inform decisions for the 2015-25 Long-term Plan, indicated that land at Smiths Farm was no longer required for sports fields, this was confirmed through the 2015-25 LTP.

18. Council then resolved in 2015 (M15/96.7) to recommend to the Minister of Housing that a Special Housing Area (SHA) be established over Smiths Farm. This was granted and RC25595 for the development of the property for housing was issued.

19. Discussions have continued between Council and Ngai Tamarāwaho on possible alternative sites for a Cultural and Historic Centre.

Cultural And Historic Centre Proposal

20. In 2020, Council received a proposal from Pukehinahina Charitable Trust (PCT), in partnership with Ngai Tamarāwaho, to establish a Cultural and Historic Centre (the Centre) on the Gate Pā Recreation Reserve. The site for the proposal is identified as “Upper Site A” at Figure 1 below.

21. Council intends to provide public carparking within the area of Lower Site B on Figure 1 below. The carpark is intended for use by visitors to the reserve, the cultural centre, the near by Tennis Courts and users of the Kopurererua Valley.

22. PCT and Ngai Tamarāwaho have worked closely together since 2014 and PCT defers to Ngai Tamarāwaho land matters that are relevant to and affect the hapu.

Figure 1: Upper Site A - Proposed Area for the Cultural and Historic Centre

23. Architects engaged by Ngai Tamarāwaho have prepared concept plans for the Centre (Attachment 1). They describe the design philosophy as a “…vision for Pukehinahina to portray the spiritual embodiment of memories, traditions and people” and that “the construction of an iconic multifunctional structure that again sees the return of Maori to Gate Pā.” The venue would support cultural activities by providing an exhibition area, workshop space, space for performing arts, performing arts training together with sufficient space for a visitor experience of contemporary and traditional Māori life.

24. Via the Long-Term Plan 2021-31 Ngai Tamarāwaho, in partnership with PCT, received $125,000 funding from Council towards the establishment of the Cultural Centre at the Gate Pā Recreation Reserve.

Figure 2: Proposed Area for Reclassification to Historical Reserve

Gate Pā Recreation Reserve

25. The Gate Pā Recreation Reserve is located at 1085 Cameron Road. On the opposite side of Cameron Road is the Gate Pā Historic Reserve. Together, they form the Gate Pā Domain (see Figure 3 below), which vested in the Crown in several parts from 1887 to 1908.

26. The Gate Pā Recreation Reserve is classified as recreation reserve in accordance with the Reserves Act 1977 and the underlying owner is the Crown. In 1974, the Crown made Council the administering body of the reserve. Pursuant to section 26(A) of the Reserves Act, the reserve was and remains vested in Council, for the purposes of the Reserve Act 1977.

Figure 3: Gate Domain – outlined in red

27. The proposed area for the Cultural and Historic Centre is the site of the former Gate Pā Bowls Club. The land has not been utilised for any other purpose since the Gate Pā Bowls Club vacated the site in 2017.

28. The Gate Pā Tennis Club is also located at 1085 Cameron Road and forms part of the recreation reserve. The land that the Tennis Club is located on is not subject to the proposal or reclassification. Staff will engage with the Tennis Club as part of the reclassification process.

29. Staff have discussed the proposal with the Department of Conservation (DoC) who have provided written confirmation that they are supportive of the proposed reclassification of the reserve.

30. There is a commemorative tree planting site situated on part of the reserve. This site will not be affected by the proposal.

Proposed LEASE

31. If the reclassification is successful, Council will have the ability to lease the area required for the Centre to Ngai Tamarāwaho in accordance with s58A of the Reserves Act 1977 (leasing powers in respect of historic reserves).

32. While the lease may only be granted with the prior consent of the Minister of Conservation, Council has been delegated this power under the 2013 Reserves Act Delegations.

33. Details of the proposed lease will be set out in a further report to Council.

34. Prior to the granting of the lease, Council will need to notify the public of its intention to lease the land in accordance with s58A(2) of the Reserves Act. It cannot be done prior as the granting of the lease is dependent on the reclassification of part of the Gate Pā Recreation Reserve,

Strategic / Statutory Context

35. Council is in the process of refreshing its strategic framework and has recently adopted the Vision for Tauranga ‘Tauranga, together we can’, which has three pillars of prioritising the environment, lifting up our communities, and fuelling opportunities. Council’s strategic framework outlines Council’s response to the vision for Tauranga. This response is based around the community outcomes (an inclusive city, a city that values, protects and enhances our environment, a well-planned city, a city we can move around easily, and a city that supports business and education) and three approaches (to Te Ao Māori, Sustainability, and Working beyond Tauranga). The community outcomes and approaches will be underpinned by current strategies and action and investment plans that drive into Council’s long-term plans and annual plans. This aligned framework will allow both the organisation and the community to see how Council’s day to day operations deliver on strategic outcomes for the city.

Open Space Strategy

36. The vision of Council’s Open Space Strategy is to protect, enhance and develop a network of open spaces for people to appreciate and enjoy. While it is Council’s current adopted strategy, it will be reviewed and updated (if required) as part of the strategic framework project.

37. The strategy’s principles relevant to the proposal include that the open space network will be preserved, will provide a diverse range of quality open space experiences, will provide places for people to meet, and will protect and reflect the local identify and cultural heritage.

38. The Strategy focuses on five key themes; quantity, quality, function, accessibility, protection.

39. The Centre is consistent with the vision and themes of the strategy; it promotes the protection of open space through the proposed reclassification of part of the reserve to historic reserve; promotes public access to the reserve by way of an exhibition area, space for performing arts performances, and a visitor experience; it promotes quality development of open spaces; and it promotes a range of experiences and types of open space in the network.

Tauranga Reserves Management Plan

40. The site is included within the Tauranga Reserve Management Plan (TRMP). All proposals for development of reserves must be assessed against the TRMP for consistency. Where a proposal is not consistent, either the proposal must be modified, the TRMP must be amended to accommodate the proposal, or often and mixture of both whereby a modified proposal is supported by amendments to the TRMP.

41. Using the limited information available about the proposal for the Centre, staff have undertaken an initial assessment against the TRMP to check for consistency. This indicates that some elements of the proposal are consistent, whilst some will need further development to be able to make an assessment. Staff will work closely with Ngai Tamarāwaho to develop the proposal, and regularly review this assessment. This will inform the final design and use, as well as potential amendment to the TRMP.

Te Papa Spatial Plan

42. The Land is located within the geographical area covered by Te Papa Spatial Plan. This plan sets out the strategic direction for growth over the next 30 years. It considers how we will address our key challenges of population growth and housing choice, infrastructure pressure, transport options, cultural wellbeing and the local amenities needed to support our communities. It outlines the overall approach, priority areas of focus, anticipated benefits and required actions.

43. The development of a cultural centre at Gate Pa Recreation Reserve is consistent with the plan’s outcomes, to: promote unique neighbourhoods that reflect the city’s unique culture and history; provide neighbourhoods that enhance accessibility to diverse and distinctive place and spaces; provide well used, quality spaces where people can meet and gather safely.

44. The plan includes a key action and a key project for the Pukehinahina area to undertake a feasibility study for the development of a (public) destination cultural centre to recognise and tell the story of Pukehinahina and its cultural significance.

Reserves Act 1977

45. The historic reserve classification best suits the proposal, not only because of the historical significance of the site but also because the lease provisions in s58 of the Act contemplate the carrying on of commercial activities by a tenant on the Land. This would facilitate a café or function area incidental to the primary cultural centre purpose.

46. Council is required to notify the public of the proposal to reclassify part of the reserve in accordance with section 24(2)(b) of the Reserves Act 1977. If, following public notification Council decides to proceed with the reclassification it is to notify the Minister of Conservation of its resolution to do so. If objections are received, Council is to forward the objections to the Minister for consideration. The Minister’s function in this regard is limited to offering advice as to how to proceed based on the objections received. Council has the final decision as to whether or not to proceed with the reclassification having given the objections reasonable consideration.

47. Should Council resolve to reclassify the reserve, the Minister is then required to place a gazette notice to confirm the reclassification. Council has the delegated authority to perform the Minister’s functions in this instance.

48. When interpreting the Reserves Act 1977, the provisions of the Conservation Act 1987 are to be applied, as they are both DoC administered Acts. In particular, section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, stating that the Act is to be interpreted to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (partnership, participation and protection) is to be applied to the interpretation of the Reserves Act 1977. To do this, Council is required to consult with tangata whenua.

OPTIONS ANALYSIS

49. Option 1 – Do not approve, in principle, the re-classification of the Land and do not authorise public notification. This option retains the status quo.

(Not Recommended)

Advantages

Disadvantages

Nil

· Does not facilitate Ngai Tamarāwaho proposal and Council’s historic commitment to find a suitable site for the Cultural and Historic Centre.

· Detrimental to relationships with iwi and hapu.

· Does not support implementation of the Tauranga Reserves Management Plan, and Te Papa Spatial Plan.

Risks: Council is unable to find an alternative site for the proposal and needs to find an alternative site in order to uphold its commitment to Ngai Tamarāwaho.

Financial implications: Nil

50. Option 2 – approve, in principle, the re-classification and authorise public notification and consultation.

(Recommended)

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Facilitates Council’s obligations under the 1999 MOU.

· Facilitates Ngai Tamarāwaho proposal.

· Supports implementation of the Tauranga Reserves Management Plan, and Te Papa Spatial Plan.

A sector of the community may disagree with the reclassification.

Risks: Nil – this is an “in principle” decision and can be reversed upon the receipt of, and consideration of, objections and mana whenua feedback.

Financial implications: Staff time and operational budgets to undertake the re-classification process. This will be covered by the budget allocated to the project in the LTP.

Legal Implications / Risks

51. There are no identified legal implications or risks to Council in making this decision at this stage. As this is an “in principle” decision, it will be reconsidered when taking into account any submissions received by the public and tangata whenua during the notification period.

Significance

52. 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.

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

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

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

54. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the proposal is of medium significance. This is because the reclassification will facilitate the Cultural and Historical Centre which will on deliver cultural, social and wellbeing outcomes.

ENGAGEMENT AND CONSULTATION

55. The Reserves Act 1977 prescribes notification that is required when considering re-classification of a recreation reserve:

(i) Engagement with tangata whenua/mana whenua on the proposed re-classification and potential use of the land.

(ii) Public notification on the re-classification, which will include advertising/information through print and online media, and the ability for people to provide feedback to Council within a specified period.

56. All feedback will be reported on and considered through a deliberations report to Council.

57. The significance and engagement policy identifies that for projects/decisions of medium significance, it may decide not to engage. however, in this case, the reserves act prescribes the required engagement, so this takes precedence. next steps

58. Should Council resolve, in principle, to re-classify part of the Gate Pa Recreation Reserve, staff will initiate the consultation and engagement processes and will present feedback, including objections, as part of the deliberations report.

59. Council will then confirm (or not confirm) the re-classification.

Attachments

1. Concept Plans - Cultural and Historic Centre - Ngai Tamarawaho - A13218446 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

25 July 2022

11.3 Reclassification of Part of Marine Park

File Number: A13564150

Author: Gert van Staden, Senior Strategic Advisor

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Purpose of the Report

1. To report on the objections and other feedback received on the proposal to reclassify part of Marine Park, from recreation to local purpose (marine research and education facility) reserve.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Confirms the objections and other feedback received on the proposal, as contained in Attachment D, and tangata whenua feedback has been considered.

(b) Confirms the proposed reclassification of a portion of Marine Park, identified by SO plan 530292 and appended to this report as Attachment A, from recreation reserve to local purpose (marine research and education facility) reserve.

(d) Endorses the Chief Executive exercising the delegated authority to appoint a preferred applicant under the Public Bodies Leases Act 1969.

Executive Summary

2. On 4 October 2021, Council resolved to initiate the reclassification process for approximately 7,000m² of land making up 6% of Marine Park, more particularly identified by Attachment A.

3. The reclassification is necessary if a proposed new use for part of the reserve, as the site for of a marine research and education facility (education facility), is to proceed.

4. The majority of the 323 submitters supported the reclassification to facilitate establishment of the education facility, as indicated by the graph below.

Graph 1: Submissions to the reclassification proposal

5. Council has been engaging with tangata whenua who have not raised any objections to the proposal.

6. Following public notification of the proposal, objections and other submissions were received, with a number of submitters speaking to their submission on 27 June 2022. All of the objections and other submissions are contained in Attachment B and C, with digital submissions contained in Attachment B and hard-copy submissions contained in Attachment C.

7. Council is to consider all objections received to the reclassification. The objections have been themed according to key objection points raised in individual submissions. Council’s consideration of the main objection points is contained in Attachment D.

8. The Department of Conservation (DOC) has indicated that Council should also have regard to the previously raised Ministerial considerations, although that was for a different proposal, and this has been included as attachment E.

9. Having considered the ministerial feedback and objections, staff recommend that the Council resolves to reclassify part of the reserve, as stipulated in resolution (b).

Background

10. On 4 October 2021, Council resolved to initiate the reclassification process of approximately 7,000m² of land making up 6% of Marine Park. Under the Reserves Act, the Council was required to give public notice of this proposal, and an opportunity for any objections to be made. The Council also decided that submitters could be heard in support of their submission, if they wished. Overall, this public consultation and hearings process ran from 16 May 2022 to 27 June 2022, when public hearings were held.

11. The reclassification is necessary if a proposed new use for part of the reserve, as the site of a marine research and education facility, is to proceed.

12. Before the Council makes a final decision on the reclassification, it needs to have regard to the views of iwi and hapu, as well as the objections and other submissions received during the consultation process. The below section explores the statistics and themes produced by the consultation process.

13. Under the Reserves Act, the power to reclassify a reserve lies with the Minister of Conservation, but the Minister has delegated this decision-making power to the Council.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

14. Council ran a public objection and consultation process as required by the Reserves Act 1977, and in line with our own Significance and Engagement Policy.

15. The consultation included:

a) A notice in the local paper, which appeared three times, 16 May, 23 May and 30 May 2022.

b) Online posting on LinkedIn and Facebook.

c) Geo-targeted advertisements.

d) Online webpage for Marine Park reclassification.

e) Physical copies of project documents at Libraries, He Puna Manawa and the mobile service centre.

16. Council received 323 submissions, from a diverse range of respondents. Respondents were asked if they object to or support the proposal to reclassify the land, from recreation to local purpose reserve and to state a reason for their choice with the option to upload additional information.

17. A continuum was used to capture the responses, with respondents having a choice to select their level of objection or support, ranging from strongly object to strongly support.

18. By bucketing the responses (using Object, Neutral and Support buckets) 214 (66.3%) of respondents support the proposal. 107 (33.1%) of respondents oppose the proposal. Two (0.6%) of respondents did not have a preference. The graph below illustrates:

Graph 2: Submissions to the reclassification proposal

19. Assessing the in-support submissions; 18 (8%) of those in support are “somewhat in support” while 196 (92%) are “strongly in support”. Assessing the objections; we see that 8 (7%) “somewhat object” while 99 (93%) “strongly object”.

20. The graph below illustrates this break-down.

Graph 3: Individual responses to reclassification proposal (unbucketed):

21. There was a statistically significant trend identified between age and submitter response, namely that younger respondents were more likely to support the proposal, whereas older respondents were more likely to object to it. The difference was most pronounced between 25 – 34-year-olds and 65 – 74-year-olds. Even amongst the latter age group, the majority still supported the proposal, at 53.3% in support.

CONSIDERING OBJECTIONS

22. In total, Council received 107 objections with 88 of the objections containing a reason (reasoned objection) which requires Council’s consideration.

23. From these objections, a number of key points or issues were identified. These were then bundled to create over-arching themes.

24. Two main themes were created, with 84% of the reasoned objections relating to themes of Open Space or Alternative site/use. The “Other” theme covers the remaining 16% of objections received. The table below illustrates the methodology and key objection points identified.

Table 1: key objection points identified

25. Of the objections received, 84% of them related to themes of Open Space and Alternative Site/Use.

26. The objections relating to Open Space centred largely on the loss of open space and/or the recreational value of the reserve. While Council acknowledges that open space is valued and that there is some recreational amenity, the observed use of this space will not be materially impacted by the proposed education facility. On its busiest day, the observation report identified 16 users, all of whom were associated with cars or campervans and not necessarily with open green spaces. The proposed site for the facility was chosen to mitigate loss of open space, as it sets the education facility back from the water’s edge and maintains access to harbour margins while keeping North-South viewshafts intact as well as internal linkages. It is also placed as far South as possible, taking into account the overflow car park and that the remainder of the reserve remains as contiguous as possible, to minimise impact on casual users/dog walkers.

27. A number of respondents who objected under the Alternative Site/Use theme felt that the reserve was better suited to boating activities, particularly around boat ramps/parking, and that the proposed facility would interfere and/or compete with this use. While Council acknowledges that there are pressures on car and trailer parking, the proposed education facility will not impact Council’s planned delivery of more boat ramps or parking. This has been provided for in the Long-Term Plan and Council is also working on the Marine Facilities Framework to provide for increased service levels. Current and planned service levels to the deep-water recreation community will not be impacted.

28. To further mitigate the impact on the reserve, if the proposed education facility proceeds, Council would adopt reserve sympathetic design guidelines to enhance the visual amenity and maintain or improve internal linkages.

29. On the day of hearings, it was noted that some of the submitters referenced the open space value aspect, but also wanted an increase in built environments, specifically car parks and boat ramps. This was also prevalent from the observation report, which identified that users were attracted by, and mostly associated with, infrastructure and assets built on or around the reserve. This supports Council’s position that an increase in amenity is likely to positively impact reserve use, especially as the proposal will not materially affect the observed use.

30. For more information on the objections, please see Attachment D, which considers the key objection points and issues line-by-line.

Strategic / Statutory Context

31. Council has proposed the reclassification, because it wishes to facilitate a marine research and education facility, due to the wide-ranging primary and flow-on benefits a facility of this type offers. This is especially true in Tauranga with the strong connection to the harbour/ocean and the activities it supports, and the current and future challenges to be faced such as climate change.

32. It is considered that such a facility would provide significant public benefit, making it suitable to be located on appropriate reserve land. Some of the specific outcomes the project include:

a) Public benefit, including accessible, marine and coastal environmental based education and/or public engagement initiatives

b) Resilience understanding; including innovative and sustainable responses to climate change, water quality and sea level rise. We have considerable modelling regarding natural hazards risks and climate change implications but need to understand this more in an applied way, e.g. environmental engineering, policy etc.

c) Identified benefit to Tauranga Moana Iwi and Hapu, focused on educational wellbeing and/or provision for Maori culture and design, Matauranga approaches as well as social and economic outcomes.

d) Employment opportunities to people living in Tauranga and the wider Bay of Plenty region including Eastern Bay aquaculture initiatives.

e) Increased tertiary education (including research) capabilities, in undergraduate, post graduate and doctoral programmes as well as national and international collaboration.

f) Potential identification of sustainable and valuable commercial development opportunities, e.g. entrepreneurial universities, cancer drugs, nutraceutical, etc.

33. A number of these benefits are quantifiable, to a certain extent, when applying Treasury’s Cost Benefit Assessment Tool, some of the potentially quantifiable outcomes are contained in the table below:

Table 2: Potential outcomes identified with a quantifiable benefit

Wellbeing Domain	Description	Value adjusted to 2021	Unit
Jobs & earnings	100% of Average annual income - Postgraduate or higher degree	67,216	Per year
Jobs & earnings	Being unemployed	-68,728	Per year
Civic engagement & governance	100% of Income tax and ACC levy: Average annual income - Postgraduate or higher degree	21,392	Per year
Cultural identity	Being able to express cultural identity for every 1-point change (0-4 scale)	9509.23833	Per year
Environment	Urban development: productivity benefits of higher density labour markets - per added employee	7000	Per year
Environment	Urban development: productivity benefits of higher density labour markets - per added household	10000	Per year
Environment	Urban development: mitigation cost of reduced freshwater and coastal water quality - per dwelling	-1500	Per year
Income & consumption	Expenditure per international student (all types - total contribution to GDP)	52647.4474	Per year

34. Using just one of the identified outcomes, Average Postgraduate income at $67,216, assuming 25 FTEs over 10 years (both moderate estimates, as Council is still to receive tenders, coupled with “low” evidence quality), deliver the following quantifiable impact:

Table 3: Treasury’s CBAX impact quantification, outcome 150 in Impacts Database, 25 FTEs over 10 years.

Wellbeing Domain	Impact Description	5-Year NPV $	10-Year NPV $	10-Year NPV $
Jobs & earnings	100% of Average annual income - Postgraduate or higher degree	4,114,895	29,526,859	29,526,859

35. Considering the identified benefits and that Council has provided no funding to date, other than operational and professional expenses, the project makes good economic sense.

36. As noted, the nature of the project makes it suitable to be located on appropriately classified reserve land. The Marine Park land was identified as suitable because the part of that land which is proposed to be used does not presently have a high recreation use and reclassification of that part will not materially affect the amenity of the balance of the reserve. These issues have been raised by submitters and are discussed in this report as well as in Attachment D. Having considered those objections, staff still consider that the reclassification can proceed without detrimentally affecting Marine Park or the Council’s recreation reserve estate overall.

37. The consultation process also identified that the majority of submitters support the reclassification and proposed facility, giving Council a strong mandate to proceed with the reclassification subject to objections being adequately considered.

38. The location being proposed for reclassification will not interfere with existing public accessways, access to the (significant) balance of the reserve and, in particular, access along the harbour edge of the reserve. The siting of the facility will not materially affect the recreation amenity on the balance of the reserve and indeed, it is likely to enhance the area as a public space for the reasons provided in table 2 below. Additionally, it would enable new educational opportunities, investment in the city and the creation of quality jobs, and, at the same time, will help maintain and enhance our precious coastal environment. By reclassifying the land, it will remain within the overall reserve estate and will still be subject to relevant Reserves Act protections and constraints.

39. It is acknowledged that the amenities and facilities surrounding the reserve are of value, particularly to those who enjoy the deep-water access from the existing facilities (including recreational boaties, waka ama and dragon boat clubs). The boat ramps and adjacent car parking areas are well used at peak times. Funds to upgrade and provide new facilities at Sulphur Point are budgeted in the current Long-Term Plan (new boat ramps and more formalised car parking being investigated as part of the Marine Facilities Framework), to be delivered from 2024 onwards. The proposed facility will therefore not interfere with current use or planned future investment in the reserve and its facilities.

40. As reported previously, enabling the facility aligns to council's intention to enable a city of talent, innovation and economic opportunities, and to enable inward investment in strategic economic assets. This will be New Zealand's only marine research and education facility focused on resilience and restoration of our urbanised coasts, situated adjacent to the country's largest commercial port.

41. Overall, although the proposed reclassification may involve a small reduction in recreation amenity, given the nature and current use of the land, and considering that the balance of Marine Park will remain recreation reserve, it is considered this will be immaterial. On the other hand, the benefits of the proposed local purpose reserve classification are significant. Reclassification will mean the subject site remains protected as a reserve subject to the Reserves Act, and it will remain in Council ownership. This will afford greater protection for the site as part of the wider reserve than if the reserve status were revoked and will limit the use of the site to the intended purpose.

42. If the reclassification is confirmed, the proposal will require a lease, and consideration will be given to policies regarding use of Council-administered land. Prior to entering into a long-term lease, council needs to assess:

(a) The impact on public access and public benefit;

(b) The potential of the project to enhance the space; and

33. The findings of the assessment against these criteria are contained in Table 4 below and will be refined as part of the lease tender process:

Table 4: policies regarding use of Council-administered land assessment

Consideration		Impact	Findings
a	The impact on public access and public benefit	Minor negative impact	General public access to the reserve will be maintained and only a portion of the reserve will be used to site the facility. Although this precludes that specific section of the reserve from general use, it does not impact the use of the wider reserve and is in line with other reserve leases over NZ. Especially relevant here is the general low usage of the grassed area identified in the Xyst and previous reports and the fact the majority of users were associated with a zone which will not be impacted by the proposed facility
b	The potential of the project to enhance the space and improve public benefit	Significant positive impact	The facility will offer significant reserve activation as well as major economic benefits. Increased general use of the park will also improve safety through passive surveillance as identified in the Crime Prevention through Environmental Design standards. Quality job creation and increased coastal environment protection capability are amongst the various benefits identified. Additionally, a public engagement and education space is proposed, housing a small aquarium with educational resources, cameras in the harbour and activities for students, families and school visits.
c	The likelihood of the land being declared surplus or required for other purposes	No impact	The proposal will not impact on council’s planned upgrades to meet future levels of service for general park users or the deep-water recreation community. The reserve cannot be declared surplus as it is required for future service levels

Options Analysis

43. Having considered the objections received, Council may elect to confirm or abandon the reclassification.

Table 5: options list

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Key risks

Financial considerations

1: Confirm reclassification

Facilitates establishing a marine research and education facility, enabling the associated benefits for Tauranga Moana.

Some reduction in available green space, although overall negative impact on recreation amenity considered to be immaterial. Also, this is mitigated by low levels of usage and proposed design criteria.

Possibly some ongoing community opposition to decision.

Managing multiple lease tender applications.

No changes to existing budgets. Minor expenditure forecasted throughout the lease tender process.

Do not reclassify

Land remains classified as recreation reserve and in principle available for recreation uses.

The only identified site for the facility will not be available. There will be no pathway for the establishment of the facility.

Losing the potential investment into the facility to another locality, as well as the on-going benefits supported by quality employment, research and education.

No changes to existing budget lines.

44. Considering the impact of the reclassification on the reserve and its users, the high level of community support, clearly identifiable benefits as well as current and future use of the reserve, the recommendation is to proceed with Option 1, i.e. to confirm the reclassification.

Financial Considerations

45. There are no changes to existing budgets or requests for further opex or capex.

Legal Implications / Risks

46. The reclassification requirements have been adhered to, as provided for in the Reserves Act 1977.

47. The Department of Conservation is still to advise on the reclassification resolution and Council’s consideration of the objections, although they will only be acting in an advisory capacity and not a decision-making capacity.

Consultation / Engagement

48. The reclassification requires both public consultation (public objection process) and mana whenua engagement.

49. Public consultation has been thorough, and findings are presented earlier in this report. All of the objections have been duly considered in Attachment D.

50. Mana whenua engagement are considered under the Engagement heading, at paragraph 54.

Significance

51. 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.

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

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

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

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

ENGAGEMENT

54. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the proposal is of medium significance, officers are of the opinion that the following consultation/engagement is required under the Reserves Act 1977 and Local Government Act 2002:

(a) Engagement with tangata whenua / mana whenua on the proposed reclassification and potential use of the land: Ngai Tamarawaho and Ngati Pukenga has expressed an interest in the use of this land and no objections have been raised.

(b) Ngati Pukenga will take an interest if the reclassification has an impact on the harbour for which they have a joint kaitiaki responsibility along with other hapu and iwi, otherwise they support Ngai Tamarawaho’s position on the land itself in recognition of their mana whenua.

i. The hapū is, in principle, in support of the reclassification taking into account the proposed activity. However, if any permanent disposal is on the table, the hapū considers that the whenua should be returned to them in the first instance.

ii. Marine Health is of paramount importance and should be considered throughout the lifecycle of the project.

iii. There was no consultation when the initial reclamation was undertaken.

iv. The hapū was previously interested in this land for a historic and cultural centre, but this project is now being considered on another site.

v. The hapū is keen to explore partnership opportunities with both Council and the lease applicant/s.

vi. There is a study being undertaken currently, to gauge the level and health of kai mona in the estuary which could identify potential actions

(d) Consultation with DOC and notification of the reasons why the reclassification is sought: this has been undertaken and DOC has confirmed that council can proceed with the reclassification consultation.

(e) Public consultation/right of objection to the reclassification: as detailed in paragraph 13 onwards this has been completed and is the subject matter of this deliberations report.

55. No further engagement or consultation/notification is required for the classification decision, if reclassification is confirmed, there will need to be a public lease tender process, and Council will explore partnering opportunities with tangata whenua.

Next Steps

56. If reclassification is confirmed, officers will send the resolution and deliberation material to DOC.

57. Council’s Chief Executive will confirm the reclassification using the powers delegated in the Territorial Authority Delegation Instrument.

Attachments

1. Attachment A - Approved SO 530292 - A13625723 ⇩

2. Attachment B - Full list of submitters - A13598755 ⇩

3. Attachment C - Hard copy submissions and additional documents and further submissions - A13590069 ⇩

4. Attachment D - Consideration of objections - A13645509 ⇩

5. Attachment E - Ministerial considerations - A13645078 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

25 July 2022

11.11 Council Controlled Organisations' Final Statements of Intent for 2022/2023 to 2024/2025

File Number: A13431228

Author: Josie Meuli, CCO Specialist

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: City Development & Partnerships

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide the final Statements of Intent 2022/2023 to 2024/2025 for Tauranga City Council’s five council-controlled organisations; Bay Venues Limited, Tauranga Art Gallery Trust, Tourism Bay of Plenty, Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services, and Local Government Funding Agency, as required by the Local Government Act (2002).

Recommendations

That the Council:

· Receives the council-controlled organisations’ Final Statements of Intent 2022/23 to 2024/25 report.

· Receives and approves Bay Venues Limited’s final Statement of Intent 2022/23 to 2024/25 (Attachment 1).

· Receives and approves Tauranga Art Gallery Trust’s final Statement of Intent 2022/23 to 2024/25 (Attachment 3).

· Receives and approves Tourism Bay of Plenty’s final Statement of Intent 2022/23 to 2024/25 (Attachment 5).

· Notes that Western Bay of Plenty District Council, as joint shareholder, will receive the final Statement of Intent 2022/23 to 2024/25 for Tourism Bay of Plenty at their Council meeting on 11 August 2022.

· Receives and approves Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services Statement of Intent 2022/2023 to 2024/25 (Attachment 7).

· Receives and approves Local Government Funding Agency Statement of Intent 2022/2023 to 2024/25 (Attachment 8).

Executive Summary

2. Bay Venues Limited (Bay Venues), Tauranga Art Gallery Trust (TAGT), Tourism Bay of Plenty (TBOP), Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services Limited (BOPLASS), and the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) are council-controlled organisations and as such, are required to prepare a Statement of Intent (SOI) and provide a copy to their shareholder, Tauranga City Council (TCC), by 30 June each year.

3. Draft statements of intent for Bay Venues, TAGT, TBOP, BOPLASS, and LGFA were considered by Council on 11 April 2022 and feedback provided to the boards.

4. After receiving and considering Council’s feedback on their draft statements of intent, the boards of Bay Venues, TAGT, TBOP, BOPLASS and LGFA have adopted their final Statements of Intent for 2022/2023 to 2024/2025.

5. An analysis of each council-controlled organisation’s final statement of intent was undertaken, with particular reference to the shareholder feedback provided in April. All five council-controlled organisations’ statements of intent meet the statutory requirements as outlined in Schedule 8, Section 9 of the Local Government Act (2002).

6. The final Statement of Intent for TBOP will be considered by Western Bay of Plenty District Council at their Council Committee meeting on 11 August 2022.

Background

Consideration of statements of intent

7. In accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, council-controlled organisations are required to provide their draft statements of intent to Council by 1 March each year. This document is intended to cover the next three financial years.

8. Council considered the draft statements of intent for Bay Venues, TAGT, TBOP, BOPLASS, and LGFA at a Council meeting on 12 April 2021 and the shareholder’s feedback was provided to each council-controlled organisation’s board.

9. The council-controlled organisations are required to consider Council’s comments on the draft statement of intent prior to submitting their final statement of intent by 30 June each year.

10. TAGT, TBOP, BOPLASS and LGFA met the deadline and statutory requirements outlined in Schedule 8, Section 9 of the Local Governance Act (2002). Bay Venues provided their final Statement of Intent on 7 July 2022.

Changes from draft to final Statement of Intent

11. A discussion of the key changes from the draft to final statement of intent are outlined in paragraphs 12 to 26 below. The council-controlled organisations have updated their statements of intent to reflect the feedback from Council.

Bay Venues Limited (Bay Venues)

12. Staff are satisfied that the Bay Venues Board have responded appropriately to Council’s shareholder feedback in their final Statement of Intent, including:

· Our mission – we are the Kaitiaki of Tauranga’s Network of Community Facilities (updated).

· Our purpose – we acknowledge TCC’s purpose and values and will ensure our Bay Venues strategic focus is aligned with this. To achieve our Vision, Mission and Purpose, we will need to work in partnership with TCC and collaborate with a range of partners throughout the wider community.

· High performing organisation – achieve budgeted financial result; implement an easily understood and transparent funding-finance model; implement a high-performance programme for key staff, and implement a technology roadmap. Agree memorandums of understanding with key Iwi and mana whenua that will include the Kaupapa (purpose) and proposed outcomes.

· High quality facilities – deliver a capital and renewals programme to business case; develop a long-term venue strategy and a Baypark masterplan (in partnership with TCC); develop and implement a Sustainability Plan (including a target to reduce greenhouse emissions); and be TCC’s strategic delivery partner for community facilities and work collaboratively with them on key strategic projects.

13. The Chair anticipates in his foreword on page 3 that Bay Venues “may take some time to recover to pre-COVID performance” and “would welcome the opportunity to view this Statement of Intent as a ‘living document’ as we move through the year.”

14. Bay Venues’ final Statement of Intent is provided at Attachment 1, and a copy of Council’s shareholder feedback letter at Attachment 2.

Tauranga Art Gallery Trust (TAGT)

15. Staff are satisfied that the TAGT Board have responded appropriately to Council’s shareholder feedback in their final Statement of Intent, including:

· Performance targets

- Achieve at least 35,000 visitors to the Gallery for 2022/23, 35,000 for 2023/24, 38,000 for 2024/25, with 85% of visitors highly satisfied/positive.

- Deliver a range of learning opportunities for targeted groups, families/whanau – a minimum of four in 2023/24 and eight in 2024/25.

· Financial governance and management

- Social Return on Investment: TAGT completed the first phase of this work and is looking at ways to integrate this work into key messages with stakeholders and Gallery supporters, to ensure the impact of the Gallery is better understood.

- New measures and statistics to be identified in addition to ongoing visitor attendance and feedback surveys to be reported back through the 2022-2023 Annual Report.

- TAGT has included a target to generate 20% revenue from other sources (2022/23), building towards increasing alternative revenue by a minimum of 20% by 2024/25.

· Infrastructure and facilities

- Asset Management Plan developed, including well-planned repairs and maintenance programme, renewals, and future capex priorities.

- TAGT to identify working towards achieving sustainability accreditation by 2024/25.

· People and Organisational Culture

- Annual staff survey to be undertaken, potentially in collaboration with Council, with a staff rating of 80% staff satisfaction achieved.

- Includes section on Approach to Governance including:

i. TAGT Board values align with Tauranga City Council’s values.

ii. Collaborate with Council, assisting to develop Council’s city brand, City Event Action and Investment Plan, and participating in Governance-to-Governance meetings.

· Stakeholder engagement/marketing communications

- TAGT priorities (page 5) references “partnering with tangata whenua and ensure strong engagement with Māori”.

- This includes implementing an engagement strategy that reflects Tikanga Māori, enabling TAGT to build stronger relationships with mana whenua and enabling wider engagement with Māori.

16. TAGT’s final Statement of Intent is provided at Attachment 3, and a copy of Council’s shareholder feedback letter is provided at Attachment 4.

Tourism Bay of Plenty (TBOP)

17. Staff are satisfied that the TBOP Board have responded appropriately to Council’s shareholder feedback in their final Statement of Intent, including:

· Staff engagement survey – using a different survey tool that compares employees who are happy or very happy, targets increase from 63% in June 2022 (at least happy or very happy), to 70% in June 2023, and 75% in June 2024 and June 2025.

· Social wellbeing – implemented actions from TBOP’s community perceptions survey to help enhance the perceived value of tourism to the community. Target for TCC to increase from baseline of 68% in June 2022, to 68% in 2023, 72% in 2024, and 75% in 2025.

· Cultural wellbeing – collaborate with Councils and Iwi on developing an online resource of cultural stories and images appropriate to destination storytelling, including integrated cultural narrative (2023), wayfinding and signage (2024), and a reviewed and updated brand story to ensure alignment across cultural narratives and key destination messaging (2025).

· TBOP’s destination management – elevate the region’s cycling offering, build operator capability and increase facilitated leads or bids for business events in the region to 15 in 2023, 18 in 2024 (and won two), and 20 in 2025 (and won five).

18. Approach to governance includes:

· Developing a plan for TBOP to apply best practice principles relating to the Local Government Transparency Framework.

· Regular Governance-to-Governance meetings with Council’s Commissioners.

· Presentation of the six-monthly and annual report to both Councils.

19. Spaces and Places:

· TBOP commits to liaising with Spaces and Places teams at both Councils to better understand the destination opportunities that they have identified, such as TECT Park, other recreational reserves, the proposed destination skate park, and cycling trails.

20. TBOP’s final Statement of Intent is provided at Attachment 5, and a copy of Council’s Shareholder Feedback letter is provided at Attachment 6.

Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services (BOPLASS)

21. BOPLASS’s final Statement of Intent was received on 29 June 2021. There are no significant changes between the draft and the final document (Attachment 7).

22. On 29 June 2022, the Board approved the BOPLASS Ltd Statement of Intent for circulation to the shareholders.

23. The BOPLASS Ltd Statement of Intent for 2022-2025 has been circulated to Councils and will now be published on the BOPLASS website.

24. The Board has appreciated the support received from Council in the past year and looks forward to another successful year.

Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA)

25. LGFA’s final Statement of Intent is provided at Attachment 8.

26. The following points regarding LGFA’s final Statement of Intent 2022-2025 are worth noting, referred to in the LGFA letter to shareholders (Attachment 9):

· LGFA has increased the base on-lending margin by 5bps (base points) to a new margin of 20bps (0.20%) for new borrowing effective 1 July 2022.

· Net Interest Income has decreased in the 2022/23, 2023/24, and 2024/25 financial years by $6.0 million, $2.4 million, and $1.8 million respectively.

· Expenses have increased by $1 million in each of the three forecast years due to a higher forecast utilisation of the NZ Debt Management standby facility, and increased IT and consultancy costs relating to Three Waters Reform, and sustainability initiatives.

· Forecast Net Operating Profit has reduced by $7.1 million (2022/23), $3.6 million (2023/24) and $3 million (2024/25).

Strategic / Statutory Context

27. The Statement of Intent is a key governance and planning document. Engaging with each council-controlled organisation throughout the development of the annual statement of intent is one of the ways Council can influence the entity across its work programme.

28. The statement of intent development and feedback process is a key mechanism for Council to ensure alignment with its strategic community outcomes.

Financial Considerations

29. Budgets for Bay Venues, TAGT and TBOP, including Tauranga City Council’s contributions, are included in the final Statements of Intent.

Legal Implications / Risks

30. Each of the council-controlled organisations has met their legislative requirements outlined in Schedule 8, Section 9 of the Local Governance Act (2002).

31. Staff believe that there is no strong justification for Council to require additional changes to the statements of intent that have been signed off by the boards as their final documents.

Consultation / Engagement

32. It is not required or expected to consult on a statement of intent under the Local Government Act.

Significance

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the Significance and Engagement Policy, it is considered that the decision is of medium significance as the adoption of the statement of intent and the activities of council-controlled 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.

Next Steps

36. Following approval from Council, a copy of the resolutions from this meeting will be provided to the five council-controlled organisations.

37. The approved statements of intent will be made available to the public via the Tauranga City Council website.

38. Western Bay of Plenty District Council, as joint shareholder, will receive the final Statement of Intent 2022/23 to 2024/25 for TBOP at their Council meeting on 11 August 2022.

Attachments

1. Bay Venues Limited - final Statement of Intent 2022/2023 to 2024/2025 - A13640674 (Separate Attachments 2)

2. Bay Venues Limited - shareholder feedback to draft Statement of Intent 2022/2023 to 2024/2025 - A13629667 (Separate Attachments 2)

3. Tauranga Art Gallery Trust - final Statement of Intent 2022/2023 to 2024/2025 - A13629490 (Separate Attachments 2)

4. Tauranga Art Gallery Trust - shareholder feedback to draft Statement of Intent 2022/2023 to 2023/2024 - A13472565 (Separate Attachments 2)

5. Tourism Bay of Plenty - final Statement of Intent 2022-2023 to 2024-2025 - A13629226 (Separate Attachments 2)

6. Tourism Bay of Plenty - shareholder feedback to draft Statement of Intent 2022/2023 to 2023/2024 - A13629221 (Separate Attachments 2)

7. BOPLASS - final Statement of Intent 2022/2023 to 2024/2025 - A13629272 (Separate Attachments 2)

8. LGFA - final Statement of Intent 2022/2023 to 2024/2025 - A13629426 (Separate Attachments 2)

9. LGFA - letter to stakeholders to accompany final Statement of Intent 2022-25 - A13640695 (Separate Attachments 2)

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

25 July 2022

11.12 Bay Venues Limited - Strategic Review Update

File Number: A13193070

Author: Josephine Meuli, CCO Specialist

Anne Blakeway, Manager: Community Partnerships

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: Central City Development

Purpose of the Report

1. This report provides an update on progress on the recommendations approved by Council in the Strategic Review of Bay Venues Limited (Bay Venues).

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the Bay Venues Limited – Strategic Review Update.

Executive Summary

2. On 27 April 2021, council received a report presenting the findings and recommendations of the McGredy Winder Strategic Review of Bay Venues Limited, along with the Price Waterhouse Cooper’s options analysis, and the Recreation, Sport & Leisure Consultancy Benchmarking report.

3. The recommendations from these reports were incorporated into council’s shareholder feedback to the draft Statement of Intent 2021-2022 for Bay Venues Limited.

4. This report provides an update on the recommendations that Tauranga City Council (TCC) and/or Bay Venues were tasked with implementing.

5. Of the ten recommendations outlined in the 2021 report, six have been fully implemented and the remaining four recommendations are ongoing and have been incorporated into the council’s annual and long-term planning processes.

Background

6. Over the past fifteen months, council and Bay Venues have jointly worked to implement the recommendations approved by council within the Strategic Review report, as summarised in the table below:

Table 1 – Recommendations from the Strategic Review of Bay Venues

Recommendation

Responsible

Status

Notes

Appoint a new, leaner Board, including a senior staff member from TCC, with a stronger community focus and reviewed director remuneration to be in place by 1 July 2021.

TCC

Complete

New Board appointed and commenced 1 July 2021, including Gareth Wallis from TCC’s Executive team.

Review council funding to ensure ongoing sustainability and include the amount of community subsidy not currently being funded to Bay Venues in the Long-term Plan 2021-2031.

TCC

Ongoing

On track

Increase to Bay Venues’ two- way loan approved by Council on 11 April 2022. Further work needed as part of implementation of PwC recommendations to ensure ongoing sustainability.

Reorganise Bay Venues’ finance structure and funding model to be more transparent, simple and easy to understand.	TCC / Bay Venues	Ongoing On track	PwC report complete with an implementation plan being prepared by TCC/Bay Venues.
Investigate the viability of moving community halls and community centres back under the direct control of council.	TCC / Bay Venues	Complete	Community Centres Strategic Plan recommended retaining status quo.
Identify and advance opportunities to deliver operational efficiencies through shared service delivery models with council.	Bay Venues	Ongoing On track	Working on several IT opportunities at present, and seeking other opportunities to create efficiencies.
Work with council to review the new Board arrangements within 12 months of establishment.	TCC / Bay Venues	Complete	Update provided by Bay Venues Chair as part of this report.
Position the organisation, and the public perception of the organisation, as an integral part of council’s business-as-usual operations.	Bay Venues	Ongoing On track	Co-branding work continues. Ideally needs a Tauranga city brand all relevant agencies/partners can use.
Pay the living wage for all staff.	Bay Venues	Complete	Commenced 10 January 2022.
Develop a clearer Statement of Intent and more focused Key Performance Indicators, in particular in the delivery of identified community outcomes.	Bay Venues	Complete	Final Statement of Intent received by Council 7 July 2022.
Go to the market to recruit a permanent Chief Executive for the organisation.	Bay Venues	Complete	Chad Hooker commenced in November 2021.

7. Further detail is provided on some of the recommendations below:

Appoint a new, leaner Bay Venues Board, including a member from council’s Executive, to bring a stronger focus on community and undertake a review of remuneration for the new Bay Venues Board.

8. A transparent and fair appointment process, as per the Appointment of Directors to Council Organisations Policy, was undertaken in May 2021 and five independent board members were appointed.

9. Simon Clarke was appointed Chair, Julie Hardaker Deputy Chair, and Jeremy Curragh, Nick Lowe and Adam Lynch were appointed to three director positions, commencing on 1 July 2021. Gareth Wallis was approved as council’s Executive board member on 10 May 2021 – initially for one year and then recently reappointed for a subsequent one year period.

10. The board appointments were staggered across one, two and three-year terms. This provides continuity of expertise, as well as an opportunity to regularly review director skillsets and identify any gaps.

11. Staff also reviewed the Bay Venues Board remuneration and on 31 May 2021, council agreed it was set at an appropriate amount at that time. This may be reviewed again in 2023.

12. Chair, Simon Clarke has provided the following twelve-month update on the Bay Venues Board:

“The new refreshed Board of Bay Venues has come together well, and progress is pleasing. It has been a very busy twelve months, much has been achieved including recruiting a new Chief Executive Officer, stabilising the business and culture, and refreshing the strategy and values (to re-enforce a community focus). Significant time has been spent rebuilding trust and confidence with council and other community stakeholders (including Iwi). Key risks remain around the need to re-invest capital into ageing and underperforming assets, and the ability of the business to attract talent.”

13. Jointly, council and Bay Venues have appointed Saima Anis (board intern) as an observer on to the Board. TCC, Te Rangapu and Bay Venues have also worked together on a mana whenua appointment to the Bay Venues Board, which will come to council for approval in the public excluded section of today’s meeting.

14. As well as providing succession opportunities, these two appointments provide the Board with further diversity and insight. The Board is now focussed on leading and participating in the exciting investment opportunities in community amenities and infrastructure that our city desperately needs.

15. As per the Enduring Statement of Expectations with TCC’s three council-controlled organisations, independent board performance reviews of Bay Venues Limited (and Tourism Bay of Plenty and the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust) will be undertaken by Council in 2023.

Reorganising Bay Venues finance structure and funding model to be more transparent, simple and easy to understand.

16. Council contracted Price Waterhouse Cooper (PwC) to review the current financial model, giving the imperative to provide forecast, actual performance, and usage across the various facilities in a manner that is more transparent and simplified.

17. PwC worked with the financial teams from TCC and Bay Venues, and their final report with its recommendations is provided at Attachment 1.

18. Following a joint meeting between PwC, TCC and Bay Venues, the following points of action were agreed. Most fit within the future work programmes undertaken by council in the annual and long-term planning processes:

(a) TCC and Bay Venues to agree to the four “Key Networks”, which could include the grouping of facilities and activities therein, for example: Aquatics, Sports, Community Centres and Halls, Events – underway (Bay Venues responsibility):

(i) Should include reconsideration and agreement between Bay Venues and TCC on where all facilities and activities fall within the community (funded) versus commercial (non-funded) spectrum, and whether funding of each facility is appropriate.

(ii) Agreement on the intended outcomes for each of the Key Networks and include true running costs.

(iii) Once the Key Networks and funding bases are identified, to set up a reporting framework that aligns with the new format and includes financial and non-financial reporting.

(b) Agreement on the future use of Baypark Stadium as part of the Baypark Masterplan work – current work programme underway (Joint responsibility).

(c) Agreement on the ongoing operating and renewals funding from council to Bay Venues as part of the wider long-term plan process (2024).

(d) Review the benefits of transferring depreciation funds directly to Bay Venues, to be used only on renewals with documented spend oversight by TCC, against the current methodology of TCC retaining the depreciation reserve fund internally.

(e) Review the current funding method for Bay Venues, exploring ratios and guidelines for calculating the appropriate level of funding – to be included in the next review of the Enduring Statement of Expectations (2023).

(f) Debt funding review to consider:

(i) what is an appropriate level of funding for Bay Venues?

(ii) Is the two-way loan funding still a relevant method for funding debt?

(iii) What other options could be considered?

(g) Bay Venues to review current user fee charges for facilities and activities.

19. Future updates will be provided to Council through the annual channels of reporting.

Investigate the viability of moving community halls and community centres under the direct control of Council.

20. Through the development of the Community Centres Strategic Plan (due to go to the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee for approval on 1 August 2022), TCC examined a range of models for the governance and management of community centres and halls.

21. Staff concluded that Bay Venues were well-placed to continue to manage council’s current network of facilities and new ‘suburban hub centres’ that are planned for the city’s growth areas.

22. This does not include the management of ‘local community centres’ such as those in Welcome Bay and Merivale, which have an explicit focus on outreach and community development.

23. The primary shift in approach recommended that Bay Venues put greater emphasis on activation of the spaces it manages, and moves beyond a neutral, bookable space approach to one that focuses more on diversity of offerings, inclusivity and community involvement. The recommendations were consistent with those of the Strategic Review and included:

· The need for clearer direction from council through the Letter of Expectations and Statement of Intent process as to expectations and priorities across the network, and if appropriate, at the facility level with the need for associated community-focused key performance indicators.

· The need for TCC to support Bay Venues in developing a better understanding of neighbourhood-level community priorities and connections/partnerships with local community groups.

· An acknowledgement that these changes may lead to changes to the prioritisation of bookings that have small-scale resourcing and revenue implications.

24. The plan also identifies a series of investments in new centres, and re-purposing or divestment of facilities over the next ten years and beyond. Council worked closely with Bay Venues through the development of this plan and will continue to work together as the implementation commences.

Developing a clearer Statement of Intent and more focused Key Performance Indicators, in particular in the delivery of identified community outcomes.

25. Staff facilitated a joint workshop with key staff from across TCC’s Spaces and Places, Strategy and Corporate Planning, Planning, and Finance teams and the Bay Venues senior leadership team.

26. The workshop provided an open opportunity to review past advice received from council regarding strategic outcomes. The group agreed that in developing a shared understanding of “what is community and what is commercial”, the key criteria is understanding the councils’ requirement of delivering identified community outcomes.

27. Inherent within this discussion is acknowledgement that the parameters of community and commercial are indistinct.

28. Other areas of agreement included:

(a) Finding ways to better tell community stories.

(b) Reviewing the cost to service community outputs.

(c) Undertaking a review of Social Return on Investment, particularly focused on improved data collection, and acknowledging the gaps.

(d) Understanding the demographics within each community.

29. The group agreed that an annual workshop will be incorporated into the work programme to review progress, consider new opportunities, and outline future challenges.

30. It would be appropriate to host the annual strategic review in early November to coincide with the development of Council’s Letter of Expectation.

31. Council received Bay Venues’ draft Statement of Intent at its 11 April 2022 meeting. The notable difference was:

(a) Considerably easier to read, with a simpler approach.

(b) Stronger emphasis on community, collaboration, and partnership.

32. Council will f formally receive Bay Venues final Statement of Intent at its August 2022 meeting. With few suggested minor amendments, it is apparent that the Bay Venues Board and staff have made fundamental business changes to align more closely as a council-controlled organisation.

33. Attachment 2 provides a further update from Bay Venues on some of the recommendations of the review, as well as an update on some additional areas of focus for the Bay Venues Board.

Strategic / Statutory Context

34. Council’s partnerships with its council-controlled organisations help us successfully deliver our community outcomes and be a city that attracts businesses, people and visitors, is well planned, with a variety of successful and thriving compact centres, and is inclusive, safe, resilient and healthy.

35. Council will continue to work with its council-controlled organisations on how they can help with the delivery of the outcomes in the recently updated City Vision and strategic framework. The Letters of Expectation to our council-controlled organisations, and their Statements of Intent, will become more aligned with the strategic outcomes outlined in the City Vision and strategic framework.

Options Analysis

36. As this report is an update provided to council, there are no options.

Financial Considerations

37. The financial implications are outlined in the above report and attachments.

38. TCC and Bay Venues senior staff will continue to work on the recommendations of the report provided by PwC, and will come back to council with any updates or decisions as required.

Legal Implications / Risks

39. There are no legal implications.

Consultation / Engagement

40. TCC staff have held a number of workshops over the past twelve months with senior staff from Bay Venues – the goal being to work through the ways in which the two organisations can align more strategically to deliver community outcomes, as well as deliver on the recommendations of the review.

41. We are pleased to note the governance relationship between council and the Bay Venues Board has shown a significant improvement from previous years. There is also a greater willingness to engage on a more frequent and more positive basis across various operational levels.

42. With an increased sharing of information, council is more aware of the issues and challenges that Bay Venues are facing. Likewise, Bay Venues is able to view the opportunities the council offers through shared services, partnerships and a much closer working relationship.

43. With a real desire to strengthen the trust and confidence between the two organisations, there is greater desire to find ways to advance and improve the community outcomes as set out within the Strategic Review.

Significance

44. 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.

45. 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 issue, proposal, decision, or matter

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

ENGAGEMENT

47. 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 receiving this report.

Next Steps

48. A copy of this report and the resolutions will be sent to Bay Venues.

49. Staff will continue to work with the Bay Venues Board and its senior leadership team to complete the implementation of the strategic review recommendations, and continue to work towards improving outcomes for Tauranga communities on an ongoing basis.

Attachments

1. PwC - Bay Venues Funding Review - Final Report, June 2022 - A13589871 ⇩

2. Bay Venues Limited - Strategic Review - Actions Update, June 2022 - A13639860 ⇩

[1] A peppercorn ground lease refers to a very small or nominal annual payment.

[2] This report was part of the public excluded agenda. The reasons for withholding information no longer apply and the report and resolutions are now available as a separate attachment to this agenda with exception of paragraphs 40-46 and attachments 5, 6 and 7, which are to remain publicly excluded pursuant to the reasons contained in that report.

[3] This report was part of the public excluded agenda. The reasons for withholding information no longer apply and the report and resolutions are now available as a separate attachment to this agenda.

[4] Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana Report, page 223

[5] This report provides a thorough account of the alienation of the Te Papa lands that were meant to be held in trust for mana whenua by the Church Missionary Society

[6] A Trust was established by the New Zealand Mission Trust (Otamataha) Empowering Act 2014. The Empowering Act notes that:

“The Otamataha Trust has been established by the hapu of Ngati Tapu and Ngai Tamarawaho to own and manage land and other property acquired through the historical common interest of those hapu in Tauranga – Te Papa”.

[8] Controller and Auditor-General (2015): Governance and accountability of council-controlled organisations.


AGENDA Ordinary Council meeting Monday, 25 July 2022
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary Meeting of Council will be held on:
Date:	Monday, 25 July 2022
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Bay of Plenty Regional Council Chambers Regional House 1 Elizabeth Street Tauranga
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz.
Marty Grenfell Chief Executive

Chairperson	Commission Chair Anne Tolley
Members	Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston Commissioner Stephen Selwood Commissioner Bill Wasley
Quorum	Half of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.
Meeting frequency	As required

Pros	Cons
Enables Smiths Farm to be used as a potential location for housing, pending	Minor risk that other sites in the Bethlehem area cannot meet sufficient sportsfield supply – mitigated by development of alternative (back-up options) to Pōteriwhi.

Pros	Cons
Provides additional back-up option should other active reserve options not be available	Prohibits significant housing opportunity.

Item	2020/2021	2021/2022	Change
Highest Peak Day Usage (m³/day)	55,487	54,220	1,167 (2%)
Highest 7-Day rolling average (m³/day)	53,622	51,367	2,255 (4%)
Total Usage Dec-Mar (m³)	5,661,803	5,531,414	130,389 (2%)

· To ensure the effective and efficient governance of the City

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

· Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

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

Area 1. City centre to Tunks Reserve (KiwiRail Underpass and Wingwall Construction)
Key activities	Timeframe
Concept Design	Completed
Detailed Design	Present to early October 2022
Construction Contractor Procurement (via closed tender)	Mid-September 2022
KiwiRail and Harbourside restaurant consultation	Ongoing
Consultation with other stakeholders	November – December 2022
Project blessing and enabling works underway	December 2022
Underpass Construction / close of KiwiRail Line	4-6 January 2023
Completion of construction and landscaping	January to February 2023
Area 2. Underpass to the Southern Strand (Construction of Boardwalk / Platform linking Underpass with southern Strand)
Concept Design	Completed
Preliminary design and cost estimation	Present to late July 2022
Consultation with Harbourside Restaurant and other stakeholders	July 2022
Developed design and cost estimation	July to August 2022
Detailed design and cost estimation	September to November 2022
ECI \| Contractor Appointment	September 2022
Construction	March to September 2023
Public opening of Areas 1 and 2	September / October 2023
Area 3. Tunks Reserve to Memorial Park (Consenting and Construction of Memorial Link Section)
Context Analysis and Development of different example Design Options	Mid-August to late September 2022
Presentation of example Design Options to commissioners, alongside cost estimates	Late September 2022
Meetings with stakeholders to present options	October to early November 2022
Finalisation of options / preparation of Concept Design	October to December 2022 (following completion of all stakeholder meetings)
Commissioner Endorsement of Design to commence with preparation of resource consent	Mid-December 2022
Apply for resource consent with concept design	February 2023
Resource consent and court processes	Six months to two years
Developed design process	In parallel with consent process
Detailed Design and Construction	Following consent approval