Agenda of Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting

Terms of reference – Strategy, Finance & Risk Committee

Membership

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

Role

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

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

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

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

Membership

The Committee will consist of:

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

· the Chairperson of Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana

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

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

Voting Rights

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

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

Committee's Scope and Responsibilities

A. STRATEGIC ISSUES

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

A1 – Strategic Issues

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

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

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

○ Consider existing and future strategic context

○ Consider opportunities and possible options

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

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

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

A2 – Policy and Bylaws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. FINANCE AND RISK

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

· Health and safety.

· Risk management.

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

· Internal and external audit and assurance.

· Fraud, integrity and investigations.

· Monitoring of compliance with laws and regulations.

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

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

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

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

B1 - Health and Safety

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

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

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

B2 - Risk Management

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

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

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

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

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

B3 - Internal Audit

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

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

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

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

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

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

B4 - External Audit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B5 - Fraud and Integrity

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

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

· Review, adopt and monitor the Protected Disclosures Policy.

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

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

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

B6 - Statutory Reporting

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

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

· Compliance with applicable legal requirements relevant to statutory reporting.

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

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

· Any decisions involving significant judgement, estimation or uncertainty.

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

· The disclosure of contingent liabilities and contingent assets.

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

· Significant adjustments resulting from the audit.

Power to Act

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

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

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

o make a rate;

o make a bylaw;

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

o adopt the LTP or Annual Plan;

o adopt the Annual Report;

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

o adopt a remuneration and employment policy;

o appoint a chief executive.

Power to Recommend

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

UNCONFIRMED Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting Minutes

5 December 2022

MINUTES

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting

Monday, 5 December 2022

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Public forum.. 3

4 Acceptance of late items. 4

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 4

6 Change to order of business. 4

7 Confirmation of minutes. 4

7.1 Minutes of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting held on 14 November 2022. 4

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 4

9 Business. 4

9.1 Six Monthly Treasury Update. 4

9.2 Mount Maunganui Planning and Delivery Programme. 6

9.3 Integrity Framework Policies. 7

9.4 Open Space Level of Service Policy Deliberations and Adoption. 8

9.5 Use of Council Land Policy Deliberations Report 9

9.6 Growth & Land Use Projects Progress Report - December 2022. 12

9.7 City Waters Planning Update Report 13

9.8 Capex Programme 22/23: Challenges and Opportunities. 16

10 Discussion of late items. 20

9.9 Community Funding Policy Review - Issues and Options. 18

11 Public excluded session. 14

11.1 Public Excluded Minutes of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting held on 14 November 2022. 15

11.2 Commercial Land Assessable for Rates. 15

12 Closing karakia. 20

Resolutions transferred into the open section of the meeting after discussion. 20

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting

HELD AT THE BoP Regional Council Chambers, Regional House, 1 Elizabeth Street, Tauranga

ON Monday, 5 December 2022 AT 9.30am

PRESENT: Commission Chair Anne Tolley, Dr Wayne Beilby, Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston, Commissioner Stephen Selwood, Commissioner Bill Wasley, Ms Matire Duncan, Mr Te Pio Kawe, Ms Rohario Murray

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (Chief Financial Officer), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Community Services), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance), Alastair McNeill (General Manager: Corporate Services), Sarah Omundsen (General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance), Sheree Covell (Treasury and Financial Compliance Manager), Sharon Herbst (Policy Analyst), Chris Quest (Team Leader: Risk), Clare Abbiss (Open Space & Community Facilities Planner), Vicky Grant-Ussher (Policy Analyst), Andy Mead (Manager: City Planning & Growth), Ruth Woodward (Team Leader: Policy), Claudia Hellberg (Team Leader: City Waters Planning), Sandy Lee (Policy Analyst), Richard Butler (Community Partnerships Funding Specialist), James Woodward (Manager: Capital Programme Assurance), Brendan Bisley (Director of Transport), Wally Potts (Director of City Waters), Kelvin Hill (Manager: Water Infrastructure Outcomes) Amanda Davies (Manager: Spaces and Places Project Outcomes), Mike Naude (Director of Civic Development), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy & Governance Services), Sarah Drummond (Governance Advisor), Janie Storey (Governance Advisor)

1 Opening karakia

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

Apology

Committee Resolution SFR13/22/1

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Dr Wayne Beilby

That the apologies for lateness from Te Pio Kawe and absence from Bruce Robertson be accepted.

Carried

3 Public forum

Nil

4 Acceptance of late items

Nil

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6 Change to order of business

The public excluded section would be held prior to items 9.8 and 9.9

7 Confirmation of minutes

7.1 Minutes of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting held on 14 November 2022

Committee Resolution SFR13/22/2

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the minutes of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting held on 14 November 2022 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

Commissioner Tolley noted that the Kindergarten Association had brought up a number of issues within their submission and would like staff to consider how these could be worked through into the future.

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Commissioner Wasley noted that his family had property in Keenan Road.

At 9.40am, Mr Te Pio Kawe entered the meeting.

9 Business

9.1 Six Monthly Treasury Update

Staff Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

Sheree Covell, Treasury and Financial Compliance Manager

External Suresh Ranchhod – Head of Treasury Advisory, Bancorp Group

Key points

Mr Ranchhod gave a presentation noting the following:

· Inflation had remained elevated and NZ was starting to see a peak or an end.

· NZ quarterly updates saw increases in food, construction, house utility and transport costs.

· The Reserve Bank still saw inflation peaking and continuing to rise early into the next year.

· Many businesses had mispriced inflation and made it higher, resulting in most businesses looking to put up their prices.

· Key reasons for price increases included wages and labour costs with NZ currently outperforming Australia in this field.

· Reserve Bank projections included wage pressure up by at least 5.5% into next year.

· Migration data - there had been an increase in work visas being approved, but these were still not back to pre-covid levels, especially in the education sector where there had not yet been a rebound in students returning.

· There was a strong downward tilt in the worldwide manufacturing space which was of concern for the Reserve Bank. This would continue into the September quarter.

· Swap rates had a 1% range up and down - they had quickly shot up but were now going down again. The two-year swap rate was at 5.5%.

· The ten-year rate was now at 4.25%, with bank forecasts pushed higher each month. The banks were just under 8% which would have an effect on households.

· Neutral rate for cash rate - there was a short run average of between 2.5-4% on the average cash rate and 2.5-3% for a neutral basis. There was nearly 25% more debt in mortgage portfolios and any cash rate above 4.5% would really hurt.

· The Reserve Bank was looking for the unemployment rate to go up, with 5.5-6% projected.

· Tradeable inflation - transport was a problem with the likes of Ukraine being a key component. There was upward price pressure on food, housing and general construction. Rent was remaining stable as there was a limit to what people could pay.

· Challenges for the Council included inflation as the key driver with repercussions expected to be seen next year.

In response to questions

· 1 July 2024 remained a risk for all councils as it was not known how much debt would disappear and whether Three Waters would remain with the council.

· The borrowing plans had not changed for the new year. Scenario B in the report looked at water in 2025. The funding would be put on investment and brought down when needed. The debt was managed and kept within the bands based in the LTP forecasts.

Discussion points raised

· Providing an explicit link to the scenarios in the report would be helpful going forward.

Committee Resolution SFR13/22/3

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Six Monthly Treasury Update".

(b) Approves the issuance of long and short term debt on a wholesale basis to manage cashflows

(c) Approves the management of fixed rate interest hedging in the target range of 50% to 60% at two years forward, and 30 to 40% at five years forward

(d) Approves maintenance of a minimum of $10m of cash and short-term investments to manage cash flows.

(e) Approves hedging of all significant foreign exchange exposure.

Carried

9.2 Mount Maunganui Planning and Delivery Programme

Staff Sarah Omundsen, General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance

Key points

· The report introduces the planning and delivery of programmes across Mount Maunganui with 30 currently underway.

· The report provided an overview on eight of the projects, each of which would be brought to Council individually for a decision.

· The information had been provided to a number of groups within the Mount, including the Mount Business Association, as many of the projects were important to the business community. Staff would undertake key engagement with these groups with the formal community engagement being between March and May 2023.

In response to questions

· The working group was made up of project leads across the organisation to ensure projects were connected. The initial key steps were to map out when projects would be occurring so that consultation and engagement could be co-ordinated. All of the General Managers were also involved with the governance group, which would report to this committee.

· There was a connection between the work on the Mount Spatial Plan, and the industrial planning study underway.

· The Mount industrial study would set long term aspirations alongside a spatial growth study, which was for the longer term across the Western BOP sub region.

· Both plans would be considered at the same time with the crossover of residential and industrial areas. The mapping showed the two areas were adjacent to each other. The options for the industrial area would be critical to the spatial plan.

· The Spatial plan would also provide an overview of all the projects and explain how they were working and how they would be integrated. The plan would tell the story for the community and would note where to go to get further information.

· The Medical Officer of Health was undertaking a study at present on the air quality over the industrial area for the BOPRC Air Quality group. The report was expected early in the new year and a copy would be provided to Council once it was to hand.

· Caution was given on the use of the term mana whenua as it was not one natural or legal grouping in itself, each group had its own Rangatira and mana so staff needed to ensure that they were not leaving someone out that may need to be included. It was noted that the information on how staff were working and engaging with mana whenua would be provided to the next meeting.

· In response to a query about how the Council was engaging with the community and stakeholders when there were so many projects in train, and to provide clarity on how the engagement fitted together, it was agreed that the challenge was complex. Staff would make it as easy as possible while working through the options by pulling together the intended engagement plans for the various projects, rather than work with the community on each single project.

· There were a number of other participants such as Waka Kotahi with the State Highway networks, the Port, and the education and health sectors who were also responsible for particular parts of the community. Conversations would need to be had with them to ensure all were moving in same direction.

· It was noted that there were also health and wellbeing concerns within the mana whenua space; with such big projects it was taxing on the members of that community. A query was raised as to whether the health and well-being of the community was being monitored, and whether there was a distinction between tangata whenua and mana whenua groups. Mana whenua groups should be included and staff needed to ensure that they were being consulted.

Discussion points raised

· The Commissioners noted that it was critical that the information for the public was kept simple and that there were opportunities for the public to provide feedback into the overall plan.

· The Commission Chair noted that no decisions were being made at the meeting today. It was important for the Commissioners to be given an oversight, and to get the engagement co-ordinated so that the public were not overwhelmed with a variety of different projects occurring.

· The Commissioners noted that they wanted regular updates on the programme and requested that an update item be included in each committee meeting agenda.

Committee Resolution SFR13/22/4

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the Mount Planning and Delivery Programme report.

(b) Notes the coordination across significant projects in the Mount Maunganui area, proposed governance structure to assist delivery, and planned community and stakeholder engagement over the next 12 months.

Carried

9.3 Integrity Framework Policies

Staff Alastair McNeil, General Manager: Corporate Services

Sharon Herbst, Policy Analyst

Chris Quest, Team Leader: Risk

Key points

· The three policies had been to the Auditor General and Council approval was now sought; as was a recommendation to Council to amend the terms of reference for this committee to enable it to review the strategy.

In response to questions

· The organisational cultural development started with the policies to ensure they were clear, clean and transparent. The Code of Conduct would be provided early next year.

· Communication and development, encouraging accountability and ownership with colleagues was important. The policies would be provided through engagement with current staff and included in the recruitment stage for new staff and a performance measure would be included.

· Concern expressed at the protective disclosure policy and what would be done to encourage people to speak up and provide confidence that this would not be damaging to their careers. It was noted that the challenge was retaliation, which could sometimes be subtle e.g. not being picked for a project. There would be anonymity with a check in on a confidential level and data tracked.

· In response to concern about people maybe not wanting to approach their line manager, the wording in the policy allowed for the Chief Executive to be approached.

· It was noted that all Council policies were included in a schedule of review and the schedule could be provided to members if required.

· There was no sense of the size or scale of problems, or if there were any. Staff were not anticipating any problems and, as there was no data available, they had no sense of any existing problems. The intent was to provide an opportunity for people to speak up.

· There were various reporting and monitoring methods in place including reporting to the police and the Office of the Auditor General. However, the final accountability lay with Council to have the policies in place and provide protection for the staff.

· In response to a query whether the framework connected with the CCOs, it was noted that all policies, including statutory ones, were offered to the groups, but as they were independent organisations it was up to them whether they accepted these or created their own.

· A query was raised as to whether appointed committee members were included along with the elected members; it was noted that, if so, the policy would be amended to include them.

· Delegation for minor changes to the risk frame work was being given to the Chief Executive to allow small changes to be made as the policies were being developed.

Discussion points raised

· The meeting noted that a large piece of work had been undertaken and were impressed with the work done by staff.

Committee Resolution SFR13/22/5

Moved: Dr Wayne Beilby

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Integrity Framework Policies".

(b) Adopts the revised Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Policy and Procedure.

(d) Adopts the revised Risk Management Policy.

(e) Recommends to Council that it amends the Strategy Finance and Risk Committee Terms of Reference (B2 Risk Management) to reflect the decisions made in the revised Risk Management Policy and remove ‘Framework and Strategy’ so they read ’Review, approve and monitor the implementation of the Risk Management Policy, including the Corporate Risk Register’.

Carried

9.4 Open Space Level of Service Policy Deliberations and Adoption

Staff Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Community Services

Sharon Herbst, Policy Analyst

Clare Abbiss, Open Space & Community Facilities Planner

Ruth Woodward, Team Leader: Policy

Key points

· Minor amendment to the policy for the Tauriko West Urban Growth area to allow more flexibility in greenfield developments and remove the 50% requirement for reserves as it was impractical in that area.

· The whole policy would be reviewed next year and would also consider how to achieve good open spaces outcomes as noted in the report.

In response to questions

· Some of the city structure planning was undertaken by TCC and some by developers, it was dependent on whether it was a private plan change or a Council-led plan change.

· In response to a query whether there was sufficient landscape knowledge on the panel to provide that assistance, it was noted that if there was insufficient capacity, another person would be added onto the panel. The TCC landscape team would also provide assistance.

Discussion points raised

· It was agreed to include at the end of recommendation (b) (ii) with guidance from the urban design panel in order to help close the loop and use the knowledge of the panel, and ensure another pair of eyes was utilised for policy implementation.

Committee Resolution SFR13/22/6

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report Open Space Level of Service Policy Deliberations and Adoption .

(b) In relation to the key deliberation matters that arose from feedback during the consultation period:

(i) Agrees to adopt the proposed amendment to the policy at 5.3.2 for new greenfield developments to retain the minimum requirement for 1.7ha/1000 population of neighbourhood and local areas reserves but remove the requirement for at least 50% to comprise neighbourhood area open space, on the proviso that accessibility standards are achieved.

(ii) Agrees to amend the reason to remove the 50% requirement at 5.3.2 to read “If, during planning for neighbourhood and local area open space, it can be demonstrated that it is impractical to apply a minimum 50% neighbourhood area open space composition and achieve good urban design outcomes, then some of the 50% requirement can be replaced with local area open space, as long as the accessibility standard is met that requires neighbourhood area open space within 400 metres of most residents” with guidance from the urban design panel.

(d) Adopts the revised Open Space Level of Service Policy included as Attachment 1 in this report.

Carried

9.5 Use of Council Land Policy Deliberations Report

Staff Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Community Services

Vicky Grant-Ussher, Policy Analyst

Ruth Woodward, Team Leader: Policy

Clare Abbiss, Open Space & Community Facilities Planner

Key points

· There were 13 issues and options and more for mobile shops as a result of the consultation held with key stakeholders

· The proposal was to take 10 existing policies and make one single overarching policy with principles to guide decisions for the use of council land.

· 42 submitters agreed with the change and 11 disagreed.

· There were a number of changes to commercial operators to show the public benefit and to ensure that they were of a high quality.

· While staff were originally looking at a hallmark qualification, it was felt that the value was not there as it would cost $1,000 for the certification and involve a three-hour audit review. Reviews for the surfing schools were undertaken by Surfing NZ and were done annually.

· Some lessees wanted the new policy implemented sooner, but as it would require additional resources to do that, they would be done on renewal or as new applications were received.

· There was a small adjustment to ensure that the condition of sites was left in good condition after use.

· Staff had met with local funders BayTrust and TECT regarding the termination clause as raised by submitters. The proposal was to extend the termination clause to two years with discretion to extend it to seven years where certain criteria were met.

· The categorisation of playcentres was parent-led, therefore not included in the definition of early childhood education.

· Staff had worked through the concerns regarding high performance sport not comprising local sport and, rather than having a criteria sit within policy, there would be site specific plans in place.

In response to questions

· Include in the policy that staff had the discretion whether to seek bonds from users.

· It was noted that memorial seats were for a 10-year period from installation and a query was raised as to whether the family was contacted if they were to be removed after that time. It was noted that with any approaches for memorial items, tree planting would be suggested in the first instance.

· It was noted that there were times when family or friends wanted to be able to contribute something to the city and, if memorial seats were being discouraged, there needed to be other opportunities made available for individuals to be able to contribute in some small way to the ongoing development of city. It was agreed to create an additional discretion for other items as agreed to on a case by case basis and this be delegated to staff.

· It was noted that high performance sporting codes were coming to Tauranga more often, and there was concern that they would utilise community reserves leaving the locals without a space. The use of the reserves was outlined in the Reserve Management Plan and that would set the direction of what was an appropriate space for each activity. A conversation would be held with the community if any reserve use was to change.

· It was requested that Council monitor this to ensure there was a sufficient balance of active and passive spaces within the community. This would also be a factor taken into account when the open spaces review was undertaken.

Discussion points raised

· Staff were complimented on the good work undertaken with the development of the policy.

· Include at the end of recommendation 6 (vi) - as they were parent-led and similar to other playgroup activities

Committee Resolution SFR13/22/7

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Dr Wayne Beilby

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Use of Council Land Policy Deliberations Report".

(b) Agrees to:

(i) remove the Qualmark requirement for commercial operators

(ii) include a requirement that surf schools hold a current Surfing New Zealand registration

(iii) maintain a gradual approach to transitioning to new requirements for commercial operators

(iv) amend the partnership principle to include the expectation that users work with council to care for sites

(v) adopt a maximum 33-year lease term with 10-year renewal and a two-year termination clause for operational property, with an extension to seven years available (in accordance with section 8.5 of the policy) and an exclusion for property that is leased on commercial terms

(vi) confirm that Playcentres are not considered Early Childhood Education (ECE) facilities as they were parent-led and similar to other playgroup activities

(vii) remove the high-performance sport criteria from the policy and rely on site specific criteria included in the masterplans and reserve management plans to determine priority

(viii) other minor drafting and consequential changes identified in the draft policy included at Attachment 1

(d) Rescinds the following policies on adoption of the Use of Council Land Policy:

(i) Community, private and commercial use of council-administered land

(ii) Community gardens

(iii) Encroachments onto reserves

(iv) City events

(v) Operation of markets and stalls

(vi) Sponsorship signage on reserves

(vii) Network operator licences

(viii) Outdoor spaces booking

(e) Rescinds the following policies one year and one month following the adoption of the Use of Council Land Policy:

(i) Temporary commercial activities on reserves

(ii) Mobile shops.

Carried

9.6 Growth & Land Use Projects Progress Report - December 2022

Staff Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy & Growth

Andy Mead, Manager: City Planning & Growth

Key points

· A second meeting for the Parau farm site had been arranged with Ngāti Kahu before the end of the year. The first meeting had met the aspirations of both parties.

· Information and updates would continue to be provided to Council. The aspiration to use some of the site for housing was still the approach being taken by TCC, along with providing greenfields, sports fields and protected cultural sites.

· The Keenan Road structure planning had commenced in earnest and staff were expecting to engage with partners, mana whenua and tangata whenua on the technical work to put the plans together. Working with Waka Kotahi was a struggle and taking longer than anticipated.

· Eastern corridor - Te Tumu - critical processes were under way with TK14 Māori Land Block owners currently voting on whether to negotiate with the Council around the delivery of infrastructure corridors through their land. The outcome would be known before the end of the year and, if it was positive, a re-engagement process would be commenced.

· Work was progressing through the policy setting for liquefaction to reach a core outcome. The standards could now be lowered, with standard intervention through the consent processes for building and subdivisions etc.

· In relation to queries made at the last meeting regarding housing shortages, the need to move forward, the impact of land banking and a breakdown of housing supply was addressed in the report. There was a need for more engagement to take this forward.

· Land banking was not a substantial issue within the city as all large sites were being developed. Some were in stages as they were large pieces of land and the pace was sometimes slower than hoped.

In response to questions

· The shortfall of housing in the area was 4,700; facts and figures on the gaps had been provided by SmartGrowth. It was considered that it would be helpful for the public to see this information.

· In response to a query about how the density levels in the Western Corridor could be updated from the 2012 level to the current level, so that organisations such as Waka Kotahi could use the up to date data, it was noted that the update of housing potential was through future development strategy. Staff were also working with Waka Kotahi on transport options and accounting for all growth potential.

· The National Policy Statement indigenous biodiversity changes should come into effect by the end of this year. No detail had been received on the drafting of those provisions, but staff were working directly with Ministry and were hopeful it would be picked up. It was critical for the land at Tauriko West.

· There were long standing issues with the Western Corridor, with the first serious investigations in early 2000’s aligned with a number of Waka Kotahi investigations that did not go anywhere. As a result there were development and transport options that were now too expensive to be considered so the number of options has narrowed. There had been significant change in government policy statements, with projects being put on hold to create the enabling works business cases needed to get work started. There was still no solution to rezone the area with confidence.

· It was frustrating with all the development throughout the city that none were being considered with transport options, which was holding up significant housing and development in the city and had done so for the past 10 years.

· Concern was noted that there did not seem to be an alignment process with all of the agencies within the western corridor and that it was time for a reset and to start to talk a common language around the overarching strategy to be able to open up the corridor. It was crucial to be able to proceed.

Discussion points raised

· Suggestions were made to use every opportunity and side agreement, within limits, to bring land forward for development, and have defined time frames for when a development must be done by.

· It was noted that there was enormous pressure on the Trustees involved with Tauriko West, many of whom were part time and coming in to do the work.

· A quarterly update was requested.

Committee Resolution SFR13/22/8

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Growth & Land Use Projects Progress Report - December 2022".

Carried

9.7 City Waters Planning Update Report

Staff Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure Services

Claudia Hellberg, Team Leader: City Waters Planning

Key points

· Purpose was to secure the future water supply for the city and understand the aquifers, the supply and demand.

In response to questions

· The coastal area would be supplied from the joint treatment plant. The western corridor could be supplied from the Waiāri supply.

· Planning commenced four years ago for all growth areas, and they were in a good position on what was needed for water and waste water.

· There was a need to be prepared for water reform before it happened and to know what it meant for TCC.

· Staff noted consultation with tangata whenua; there were representatives on the governance groups as well as talking with each hapū in specific areas on the health of the whole water basin.

Committee Resolution SFR13/22/9

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Dr Wayne Beilby

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report "City Waters Planning Update Report".

Carried

10 Public excluded session

Resolution to exclude the public

Committee Resolution SFR13/22/10

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

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

11.1 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting held on 14 November 2022

s6(b) - The making available of the information would be likely to endanger the safety of any person

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)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would disclose a trade secret

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)(d) - The withholding of the information is necessary to avoid prejudice to measures protecting the health or safety of members of the public

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)

s7(2)(j) - The withholding of the information is necessary to prevent the disclosure or use of official information for improper gain or improper advantage

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

11.2 - Commercial Land Assessable for Rates

Carried

At 12.15 pm the meeting adjourned.

At 1.07pm the meeting reconvened.

9.8 Capex Programme 22/23: Challenges and Opportunities

Staff James Woodward, Manager: Capital Programme Assurance

Brendan Bisley, Director of Transport

Wally Potts, Director of City Waters

Kelvin Hill, Manager: Water Infrastructure Outcomes

Amanda Davies, Manager: Spaces and Places Project Outcomes

Mike Naude, Director of City Developments

Key points

Mr James Woodward noted:

· Context around the capital programme budget and spend for a mix of projects.

· 60% higher in terms of expenditure to the end of October this year than last year and they were ramping up more with the results being seen within the community. While they were still behind, it would likely be caught up by the end of the year.

· $55m negative project budget had two purposes - for debt reduction and to provide additional funding to individual teams without having to ask for more budget.

· Inflation was an issue. The market update was the trend due to covid was now static, but it was not expected to tail off as much as depicted so would take longer to drop off.

· There was potential for a recession and any private sector reduction could see the council work getting increased resources. The issues with capacity of skilled labour would be monitored over time.

· Most of Council’s investments were horizontal whereas the private sector was vertical.

In response to questions

· In response to a query whether Council was looking for support from the government, it was noted that it depended on the five to ten year private perspective and was reliant on land opening up for development. There was a lot of investment within the city centre. Tauranga was possibly in a different position to the rest of the country.

Mr Brendan Bisley noted:

· Transport was tracking to full budget as present, but TCC did not control all of it, especially around the Tauriko area. The business case mirrored what Waka Kotahi had provided.

· The balance of the programme was around the projected assets and the delivery of infrastructure and anticipated a spend of $12.8 not $19.9m.

· Covid had caused delays and the cost escalations were coming up. This would be included in the LTP report.

· Waka Kotahi was looking at tendering in March 2023 for the Papamoa East works. There was a local road component and a bridge included in the next year.

· Walking and cycling projects were on track and were being realigned as they had to go through a business case. There was a reduction of $1m on those projects.

· The transport team was only at 60% staffing levels with a number of positions still vacant. There was a constrained market and the consultant infill to complete some of the work was also getting more difficult as they were also getting busier.

· There were times when only one tender was received for a project. Bitumen costs had increased by 48% in the last six months, which meant that there were higher prices for some of the business cases which may also affect the viability of a project.

In response to questions

· With regards to the Papamoa Eastern intersection, the contracts required different skill sets so it was not viable to combine them.

Mr Wally Potts and Mr Kelvin Hill noted:

· The water activity was on track for the four months and they were looking at opportunities within the space.

· The Waiāri project would hopefully be blessed on site on 12 December 2022 as they were ready to put the water into the network. The project was completed within budget.

· Te Maunga 2^nd Bioreactor - a liquefaction trial was being undertaken, the results of which would be known in a couple of weeks. A plan B was in place if needed. An underspend may occur due to the delays.

· Te Maunga 3^rd clarifier project ground trials went well and they were looking at saving money.

· The Eastern and Western corridor projects were progressing well.

In response to questions

· Congratulations was passed on to staff for the completion of the Waiāri project on time and on budget.

Ms Amanda Davis noted:

· A lot of work had been put into delivery with a number of tender contracts now in place. There was an 83% spend for the period.

· The offloading wharf project was behind schedule while consenting and piling issues were worked on but hoped it would go to procurement early next year.

· Omanawa Falls - staff were working through the proposals to understand the cliff stabilisation required which could be significant. There had been a lot of bad weather which had degraded the rock face on the site.

· Construction would begin on the Marine Parade boardwalk next year.

· Kopurererua Valley development was ahead of schedule.

In response to questions

· Cross-council project dependencies were ensuring that all projects were progressing at the same rate - e.g. the skatepark was dependent on the Maunganui Road works progressing so that people could cross the road safely.

Mr Mike Naude noted:

· There were two major components to the programme - the Civic Centre development, and the water front and public realm development which also included the upgrade of the Elizabeth and Spring Street carparks. Confidence was high that these projects would enter the delivery stage with the options being finalised.

· The seismic works on Spring Street were on time and within budget.

· The highest risk for Te Manawataki o Te Papa was the accessing of the $150m external funding required.

· The library and community hub would be the first of the projects to commence building.

· There were some supply chain issues for the materials on the water front and public realm projects as they had to be sourced overseas. This was being addressed by early contractor involvement and ensuring there was resilience through appropriate governance.

· A report would be provided to the Council 12 December 2022 on the preliminary designs and cost estimates for Site A and Te Manawataki o Te Papa.

In response to questions

· The timing of the development plans for the library included the removal of the high voltage line running through the site. Staff were working with Powerco to ensure the works were completed prior to construction.

· In response to a question regarding capability resourcing, it was noted that staff had visibility of future timeframes so the team could be built to undertake works. Funding constraints did not let TCC put out all of the works with any certainty at this stage.

· The intent was to go broadly across the organisation when problems were encountered like with a recent Waka Kotahi agreement when it took longer to get to the point of approval.

· Going to market with $500m worth of work in the water space over six years, it was intended to expand to as greater extent as possible which may result in greater competition in the tender box.

· A six year contract with Willis Bond for the precinct allowed them to be able to build their resources within that pipeline. Once TCC was able to go out with certainty, they would have the ability to have different conversations with providers for bundles of work across the network.

· The organisation was moving into a phase of contractual arrangements where contractors could see the momentum building and they would continue to build on it which would create the ability to be able to deliver large scale programmes. Council spend was anticipated to be $0.5b in the next five years.

Discussion points raised

· Acknowledgement of the very good reporting providing a good picture and common risks across the organisation.

Committee Resolution SFR13/22/11

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report “Capex Programme 22/23: Challenges and Opportunities”

Carried

9.9 Community Funding Policy Review - Issues and Options

Staff Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Community Services

Sandy Lee, Policy Analyst

Richard Butler, Community Partnerships Funding Specialist

Ruth Woodward, Team Leader: Policy

Key points

Issue One - more balanced funding across the sector

· The policy was adopted by the Council last year and covered three grant funds at this stage.

· Consultation had noted concern from some sources that more funding had been given to sporting codes than for other items like art, environmental, culture or wellbeing.

· Only 33% of the applicants received funding, due mostly to lack of funding available.

In response to questions

· The environmental applicants only received 3% of the funding as there were only a few applications from those groups.

· In response to a query regarding where a formula was used based on the number of participants compared to the amount of money invested, it was noted that this would be hard as not all clubs were the same - one example was that some owned their building and others did not.

· A better way for the policy to determine equity was discussed. It was noted that some groups may be seeking funding for a capital investment and others working within a neighbourhood so it was hard to quantify the benefits.

· It was requested that a schedule be created of the applications received and funded to provide a snapshot for members so they could determine whether to pursue the process further.

· It was considered that if the policy was too rigid, they may ending up funding average applications rather than good applications. It was suggested that in order to give life to the vision and promote inclusiveness, grants could be tied into the city vision.

Issue 2 - robust accountability:

· This differed with the different funds for organisations to deliver on their objectives and meet their needs.

· Others were not proportional to community benefit, such as lease subsidies, some of which had been in place for 20 years and subject to a number of changes. This was a chance to improve these funding streams.

Issue 3 - eligibility:

· There was no explicit positions on whether organisations could receive multiple funding from different sources. This was an opportunity to make a decision that they could only receive one form of community grant.

In response to questions

· It was noted that a recommendation would be made to be taken into account when allocating, but unsure whether specifying a limit would work if the circumstances for the funding was different. This would need to be weighed up and used for equity.

Issue 4 - size and structure of community grants

· There were small, medium and community funding pathways for projects last year. These had not functioned in the way intended with only two medium grants being applied for.

· The distinction between matched and community funds was queried as both were funding community initiatives.

· Some organisations with small one off projects had to use an umbrella organisation as their legal entity.

Issue 5 - partnership agreements

· There were currently eight partnership agreements with organisations that Council had funded either historically or for the delivery of a programme aligned with the strategic priorities or key cornerstone organisations.

· Clarity of partnerships was needed as they did not always reflect the arrangement. Improvements were needed on how the funds were distributed to make them fair and consistent.

In response to questions

· The partnerships were not just about funding but also about working together with particular groups in the community such as Envirolink. More conversations were needed with these groups in case there were misunderstandings. Objectives to be achieved needed to be considered, with a clear understanding for the committee on what the organisation was seeking in terms of a partnership role.

· It was requested that information be provided to the committee on the eight partnerships, including who they were with and what they looked like. If the committee had concerns that they were not equitable with other groups it was a good opportunity for a discussion on which of these were partners, which were contracts or which were priority agreements.

· It was noted that other departments may also need to step into the partnership space rather than leaving it in a funding policy.

· Both the Council and the community could deliver, working together as partners alongside or on behalf of Council.

Issue 6 - community funding purpose and priorities

· Support for community organisations to meet community outcomes and how projects contributed to the community wellbeing.

· There was a high demand for the fund with only 33% being able to be funded for community grants and 50% for medium grants.

Issue 7 - legal status limiting kaupapa Māori groups

· Some groups worked closely with the Council and provided significant benefits, however others did not have legal status so could not access funding under the current system.

In response to questions

· The requirement to have legal status was questioned, noting that as long as there were checks and balances around the funding it should not matter.

· It was noted that to receive funding all other organisations needed to be an Incorporated Society, or have an organisation to act as a legal umbrella for them to obtain funds.

· Concern was expressed at signalling out one rule for kaupapa Māori when there may other types of groups in a similar situation.

· It was noted that Māori groups without a legal status could work with their marae. Sometimes they were a trust, and some may not be associated with a marae. This created another barrier for Māori groups to access community funding. The Ministry for the Environment funded groups with no legal entity and had ways that they mitigated any accountability concerns. It was suggested to consider making it an open fund and addressing the concerns raised at the Rangapū hui.

· It was agreed that the proposal needed more work done and information sought on what the public sector did.

Issue 8 - inconsistent boundaries

· It was agreed that the organisations did not always need to align with TCC’s boundaries, and that any site that was across boundaries may be acknowledged as one with joint ownership.

Committee Resolution SFR13/22/12

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Dr Wayne Beilby

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Community Funding Policy Review - Issues and Options ".

Carried

11 Discussion of late items

Nil

12 Closing karakia

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 2.18 pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting held on 13 February 2023.

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

CHAIRPERSON

UNCONFIRMED Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting minutes

17 November 2022

MINUTES

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting

Thursday, 17 November 2022

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Public forum.. 3

4 Acceptance of late items. 3

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 3

6 Change to order of business. 4

7 Declaration of conflicts of interest 4

8 Business. 4

8.1 Revised Draft Local Alcohol Policy - Hearings. 11

9 Discussion of late items. 11

10 Public excluded session. 12

10.1 Revised Draft Local Alcohol Policy – Hearings – Submission 327 – Dan Roser, NZ Police. 12

11 Closing karakia. 12

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting

HELD AT THE Ground Floor Meeting Room 1, 306 Cameron Road, Tauranga

ON Thursday, 17 November 2022 AT 9.30am

PRESENT: Commission Chair Anne Tolley, Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston, Commissioner Stephen Selwood, Commissioner Bill Wasley, Ms Matire Duncan, Ms Rohario Murray, Mr Bruce Robertson

IN ATTENDANCE: Sarah Omundsen (General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance), Jane Barnett (Policy Analyst), Nigel McGlone (Manager: Environmental Regulation), Jeremy Boase (Manager: Strategy and Corporate Planning), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy & Governance Services), Robyn Garrett (Team Leader: Governance Services), Sarah Drummond (Governance Advisor), Anahera Dinsdale (Governance Advisor)

1 Opening karakia

Commissioner Rolleston opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

Apology

Committee Resolution SFR12/22/1

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the apologies for absence received from members Dr Wayne Beilby and Te Pio Kawe; and the apologies for lateness from Commissioner Stephen Selwood and Mr Bruce Robertson, be accepted.

The Chairperson noted that Commissioner Selwood would watch the recording of the parts of the hearing for which he was absent and so would be able to participate fully in the deliberations on the draft policy.

Carried

3 Public forum

Nil

4 Acceptance of late items

Nil

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6 Change to order of business

Nil

7 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

8 Business

8.1 Revised Draft Local Alcohol Policy – Hearings

The following members of the public spoke to their submission to the Revised Draft Local Alcohol Policy.

(1) Submission 333 – Michael Mills, Ngai Te Rangi Iwi Trust

Key points

· Explained role as advisor to the Ngai Te Rangi Iwi Trust (NTR).

· Mr Mills was previously involved in the Strand night management accord and the alcohol management plan for the Central Business District (CBD) with the New Zealand Police (Police).

· Government had signalled a movement on legislation around liquor licensing and Local Alcohol Policies (LAPs) and Mr Mills supported deferment of deliberation until after central government legislation was passed in Parliament.

· Mr Mills supported the removal of the right of appeal.

· Mr Mills sought from the committee a separate seat for iwi Māori on the District Licencing Committee (DLC); asked that the current process was made more aware and supportive of tikanga and local process and practice, and requested active notification of licence applications to iwi.

· A closing time of 2:00 am was supported. Mr Mills and NTR supported the reinstatement of the ‘Strand Accord’ and the inclusion of limits in commercial areas.

· Noted that gambling venues and LAP policies need to be aligned.

· Supported a suite of controls for off licences, as proposed – opening time, conditions, limits based on social demographic factors.

· The Intent of the Act was to enable communities to have a say and make choices around the supply of alcohol in their communities –it had been noted that there had been a change in attitude and move towards enabling community voices to be heard.

In response to questions

· Plan B for prohibition of new licences in high decile areas – there could be a use for a rebuttable presumption – e.g. no new licences unless a strong case was made in support.

· Outlined how the Strand accord had worked – Council brought all parties together (licensees, licensing staff, police, retailers etc), work was completed to break down communication barriers between parties involved. Saw demonstrable changes e.g. footpath realignment, lighting, changing perceptions. NTR would support the reinstatement of the Accord, and thought that it would be of great assistance.

· Burden needed to be flipped around for applicants to demonstrate how they would avoid harm; more leeway for communities through LAPs to trial options; put in place and monitor performance rather than having to provide evidence for every control proposed; supported by recent Court of Appeal decision.

· Noted that in areas of marae and papakainga, runanga feeling was that there had been no controls over where bottle stores could be opened which had led to a feeling of frustration and having their voice, or input, overruled.

(2) Submission 329 – Rob McGregor, Papamoa Pak n Save

An apology for being unable to attend was received.

(3) Submission 323 – Mr Mark Fogerty

Key points

· Mr Fogerty referred to Australia’s system of all clubs/pubs etc being required to have an ID scanner; legitimate identification had to be presented to gain entry to a venue. A zero tolerance for misbehaviour led to ejection from a premises, that information was shared to all venues.

· Bouncers were moved away from being seen as an enforcer to front-of-house.

· New Zealand should be using systems that had already been shown to work such as the venue management and alcohol processes in Australia.

· Mr Fogerty had witnessed first-hand (from his central city accommodation) undesirable behaviour and specific venue management in the Tauranga CBD . He had witnessed vandalism and fighting in the CBD; Mr Fogerty had voluntarily started assisting with clearing broken glass from the Strand and environs after bad nights in town.

· Mr Fogerty gave various examples of anti-social behaviour he had witnessed in the CBD due to alcohol misuse and lack of responsibility of various venues and businesses.

· There was a need to be aware of not simply pushing a problem from one area to another.

· He noted that, in his opinion, people were afraid to walk on the CBD streets, and that there was a need to take the streets back and to provide a safe environment.

Commissioner Selwood joined the meeting at 10.03am, during Mr Fogerty’s submission.

(4) Submission 322 – Dr Nicki Jackson, Alcohol Healthwatch

Key points

· There were high levels of alcohol harm in the Tauranga area, this was clear from the data collected to date.

· Inequities in alcohol harm were a part of poor statistics for Māori and Pacific communities.

· The LAP gave the opportunity to protect community and residents from alcohol-related harm.

· Dr Jackson supported the greater control of off-licences proposed. Alcohol products were readily available and sold very cheaply.

· Would prefer more restrictions on closing times for off licences e.g. 9:00pm closing.

· Supported restrictions on there being no additional outlets in certain areas, based on the proposed demographics.

· Supported off licence discretionary conditions, preferred stronger protections around alcohol advertising and ‘buy now pay later’ schemes; noted the recent decision by Auckland Council to remove alcohol advertising outside off licences.

· Did not support later closing hours in the city centre, suggested midnight

· Requested that no special licences were granted for child-focused events.

In response to questions

· The Committee discussed how best to define affected areas; it was noted that harm from off licences could extend up to 2-3 km; could draw suburbs geographically to capture high deprivation.

(5) Submission 332 – Ellen Fisher, Western Bay of Plenty Cancer Society

Key points

· Research showed drinking alcohol increased the risk of developing seven different cancers. The risk was dose related – the more alcohol drank the higher the risk of developing cancer. There was no safe level of alcohol consumption in terms of cancer risk.

· 6% of all cancer deaths were related to alcohol consumption.

· There had been a higher impact on Māori.

· The Society supported any measures that prevented the supply of alcohol into communities, particularly in relation to high-risk communities.

· Supported the change of sale time for off licences and not allowing any more off license in industrial and low social demographic areas.

· The Society also supported not allowing off licences in proximity to sensitive areas/activities such as schools, marae, treatment centres etc.

· Did not support retention of closing time of 3:00am or removal of the one-way door system.

· Considered that the proposed LAP provided valuable steps to address alcohol harm in Tauranga.

(6) Submission 331 – Iain Thain and In Sook Scorgie, Foodstuffs North Island

Key points

· Mr Thain noted principles that the policy should be assessed against.

· Maximum hours should be considered and made available to off licences as appropriate.

· Allowing people to shop outside of main hours e.g. earlier in the morning allowed stores to spread demand in busy times e.g. holiday periods.

· Was a very small number of shoppers that only bought alcohol before 10:00am; was generally an addition to a wider grocery shop, need to allow that flexibility.

· Balance to be maintained between minimising alcohol harm with supporting responsible drinking.

· No evidence showed that sale of alcohol from off licences before 10:00am increased any alcohol related harm; on licenses can open from 9:00am so people could actively consume alcohol from 9:00am but would not be able to not passively buy a bottle of wine for later consumption.

· Considered this would be unreasonable in terms of purposes of the Act – a recent decision by the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA) showed that there was no evidence that 9:00am opening for off licence hours contributed to ongoing harm.

· There was a need for clear direction and certainty whether vendors were complying with conditions of licence e.g. current uncertainty around the definition of craft beer.

· Foodstuffs would support restrictions preventing breaking down of manufacturers’ packs.

· The current advertising restrictions on alcohol advertising were noted; price controls should be brought in at central government level to avoid the creation of uncompetitive markets and different requirements between different stores.

In response to questions

· Foodstuffs considered that it was within Council powers and could be appropriate for Tauranga to have differentiated opening hours between bottle shops and other off licences.

· In supermarkets, generally alcohol was part of a family grocery shop; may be a need for families to do their grocery shop early in the morning e.g. work commitments – if that could not be done then there was a risk that the wine would be purchased at a bottle store and then also be exposed to spirits and RTDs. Shopping trips to supermarkets are quite different to shopping trips to bottle stores.

(7) Submission 328 – Brian Berry, Downtown Tauranga

Key points

· Mr Berry provided commentary that bad behaviour was ruling the roost as there were no consequences to that behaviour, whether in the CBD or further out in the city – supported Mr Fogerty’s earlier submission. Mainstreet Tauranga was meeting with various parties to try and resolve the bad behaviour in the CBD.

· Supported in principle the proposed hardening of off licence conditions.

· Hospitality industry was doing a good job of managing risk from alcohol consumption.

· Mainstreet organisations appreciated that hospitality voices had been listened to, as part of the development of the draft LAP.

· Would support increased and better communications between the parties involved to help resolve any issues in the CBD. The hospitality industry itself would look at controls for wayward bar and venue operators.

In response to questions

· Downtown Tauranga was not previously involved in the Strand Accord; happy to be involved in the future in any similar arrangement.

· Ability for on licenses to open earlier than off licences – considered there should be one rule for all, consistency should apply.

(8) Submission 321 – Eliot Fenton and Dawn Meertens, Toi Te Ora Public Health (TTO)

Key points

· TTO had a mandate to improve and protect the health and wellbeing of the region.

· Alcohol was a leading cause of disease and ill health; and had a disproportionate effect on Māori.

· There was a need to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi in council LAPs although not specifically referenced in the public health legislation.

· There are many barriers to Māori having a meaningful say in alcohol related decisions that affected their communities.

· Council should align with existing alcohol related harm frameworks.

· 48% of Māori had experienced harm from others drinking alcohol, more proportionally for women.

· Council must empower iwi and hapū to participate in alcohol related processes.

· TTO supported: upholding the current one-way door policy for all premises open after 1:00am; restrictions to 10:00am opening hour for off licences; no new off licenses being established in industrial and low socio-economic areas; more restrictive conditions being applied.

· Research indicated community supported tighter regulation to manage alcohol sale and consumption to reduce alcohol related harm.

· Rate of alcohol related hospital admissions in Tauranga consistently higher than in other cities and the national average; some suburbs in particular featured in high admission rates. These admissions were for only alcohol caused admissions not admissions such as domestic violence.

· One way door policy stopped people migrating from one venue to another.

· Supported deferment of decision until central government legislation was through.

In response to questions

· TTO noted that there had been mana whenua representatives sitting at the decision-making table for the Committee and being involved in the development of the LAP.

· TTO noted alignment between policy change and cultural change was needed, one supported the other. The need was to ensure they provided the best and most supportive environment for all in the community.

· There was a difference between alcohol purchase in supermarkets and liquor shops; there were some people e.g. homeless going into the supermarket early in morning to buy cheap alcohol e.g. scrumpy by the can; increased availability increased alcohol related harm.

(9) Submission 319 – Ash Gee, Miss Gee's

Key points

· Ms Gee was the sole owner of Miss Gee’s; licensed to sell from 9-3am daily

· Hospitality had been dealing with constant blows from Covid and CBD development and emptiness in the CBD.

· Removal of one-way door policy would increase ability of operators to provide a safe environment for patrons; but could lead to groups of people congregating outside venues waiting for friends or not understanding why they could not enter a premises

· Binge and preloading drinking was a problem through NZ; managed alcohol consumption in an on-licence was safer in terms of alcohol use; on licence operators got to know their customers and took responsibility (unlike off licences).

· Supported increased restrictions on off licences in terms of minimising alcohol related harm, the council should not associate alcohol with commodities and grocery essentials.

· Miss Gee gave back to the community in various ways such as sponsorship.

· Supported no new off licences in areas of high deprivation, there were enough bottle stores in Tauranga.

· With amount of investment going into rejuvenating the CBD, the council should hold off making this decision until the impact of this development was known – people bring people.

· Lack of communication and disjointed alcohol management was an issue.

· Would support money being put into a late-night city vibe management group.

· Had adopted responsible management procedures voluntarily e.g. last drinks at 2.30am, and even though permitted to sell alcohol from 9am did not until midday.

· Noted lack of police resourcing but good support from local police.

· Noted reduction in taxi services e.g. now only one taxi stand.

· Too cheap and too easy to drink at home.

In response to questions

· Later closing time in CBD than Mount meant people moved into town after Mount closed; with one way door policy at 2am then turnover between 2am and 3am limited to those patrons inside.

· Facilities in industrial area – did not support a ban on new licences in industrial areas as new venues can be established successfully in these areas e.g. the Rising Tide, can transform neglected areas as had been seen in other cities.

(10) Submission 326 – Susan Hodkinson

Key points

· Concerned that had normalised alcohol and normalised litter.

· Noted discussions on alcohol at all hours on television and other media.

· Considered there was a real alcohol issue in Tauranga.

· Broken glass all throughout the Hairy Maclary playground and along the railway tracks; dangerous and a litter problem.

· Noted the amount of bottles left lying around. Lived in Blake Park area; noted bottles left around during and after sporting events. Left to the neighbourhood to tidy up.

· Waste management an issue with most events e.g. Bay Dreams and in many areas of the city.

· Voluntarily picked up rubbish and bottles in various areas.

· Considered insufficient police and security addressing these issues created by alcohol use.

· Venues and suppliers need to take more responsibility for their wider environment.

· Supported a ban on walking or driving anywhere with an open bottle.

· Cycleways and gutters did not get swept properly.

· Noted that TCC rubbish contractors generally did a good job.

(11) Submission 325 – Sandy Watkins, Franchise Manger for Bay of Plenty Super Liquor Holdings

Key points

· Did not support hour changes; gave the stores ability to prepare trade orders before 10:00am; off licences should be treated the same.

· Did not support a ban on new off licences to be established in some areas, look at every case on its own merits e.g. industrial areas – the Act provided discretion for an application to be judged on its own merit for a particular location

· Additional discretionary conditions for off licences – no single sales – restrictions should be covered by the Act rather than an LAP – everyone should be treated the same; restrictions on displays and sale size could be hard to manage and enforce. Discretion could be hard to apply and led to inconsistency.

In response to questions

· Sale of single shots – usually bought as an additional purchase.

· Consistency of hours important e.g. customers in a Superliquor before 10am. The hours of operation on licence determined what can be done – could not prepare orders etc if licence hours did not allow for this. Few individual customers before 10am.

(12) Submission 324 – Melissa Renwick, BOP Hospitality NZ

Key points

· On licences are the safest places to consume alcohol – controlled and supervised environment.

· Engagement between licensees and licensing bodies and police – very keen to see that engagement increased and areas of concern openly discussed; keen to facilitate.

· Would support pro-active policing in liquor ban areas; noted preloading in cars. Also noted resourcing constraints on the police.

· Focused on lifting standards of operators – had released an online training course for all operators/licensees to better identify and mange intoxicated persons. Responsible Service of Alcohol guidelines and training – operators wanted to do the right thing.

· Security a significant investment by operators.

· Want to be involved and active in any measures to minimise alcohol-related harm.

(13) Submission 340 – Paul Radich, General Distributors Ltd

Tabled submission

Key points

· Discretionary conditions should require evidence or agreement from the licensee before being imposed; simply being in the LAP did not mean could be imposed.

· No evidence before the Committee that these conditions were targeting any of the harm or issues outlined by other submitters.

· Noted incompleteness of some data sets and evidence provided.

· Strongly disagreed with the proposed hours.

· Open to having meaningful consultation with the Council.

· Changes proposed go too far and were not supported.

· Supermarket operators left in the position of having to explain to customers why they could not purchase their alcohol at certain times.

In response to questions

· Acknowledged there was currently differentiation between supermarkets and bottle stores; needed to be some differentiation but not opposed to a closer alignment of hours.

At 11.32am the meeting adjourned.

At 11.37am the meeting reconvened.

(14) Submission 327 – Dan Roser, NZ Police

Key points

· Tauranga CBD was the epicentre for reports of alcohol related incidents; was a hotspot. Peaks were on Friday and Saturday nights between 9pm and 3am.

· LAP must consider alcohol related harm in the district.

· Magnitude of incidents was higher in the CBD than in the Mount, and peaked later, consistent with the difference in closing time.

· Noted that the Mount entertainment precinct was thriving and had a better reputation than CBD – earlier closing times could still allow a vibrant entertainment precinct.

· Supported submissions from Alcohol Watch and Public Health; local LAPs allowed councils to apply nuanced conditions to their areas.

· Supported closing time for CBD on licences of 2am; set a level playing field for operators in the CBD. Would support a 2am closing time without a one-way door policy if needed.

· Considered the unsafe CBD environment was contrary to various Council aims and objectives.

· Any improvements would also improve the prospects for commercial operators in the CBD.

· Noted that Whakatane changed closing hours in the CBD from 2am to midnight – reported a decline in disorder and harm since the reduction in hours.

· Central government changes signalled more support to local councils to manage their areas.

· Noted support expressed often in the community for even further reduced opening hours.

In response to questions

· Communication was a huge part of policing, open to having enhanced communication with licensees but did not consider this the panacea to solve all problems. Less consumption of alcohol would have a bigger impact in reducing alcohol-related harm – less consumption was the way forward. LAP should not be viewed as a punishment on licensees; if there was a problem it should be curtailed, communication was a side management tool. Police still need to take care of the enforcement side of things; licensees need to take responsibility for harm reduction and risk management. Alcohol was highly regulated as it posed significant risk. Less consumption was the best form of management.

· Acknowledged that there was a problem in the CBD from people that had not been in the on licences/bars or bought alcohol from those venues; but had come to the CBD pre-loaded or to sit in cars in the area to drink. There was also a problem with how to restrict alcohol supply to those people. Could be environmental changes e.g. removal of car park areas that enabled parking up and drinking.

· Noted that the business models of some bar operators supported and encouraged preloading.

· Hard to draw inference from off licence controls to impact and harm in the CBD.

· Considered the biggest gain in reduction of alcohol-related harm in the Tauranga CBD would be from reduced on licence hours.

· Noted link between alcohol and drug abuse on family harm incidents; would be impacted by sale of alcohol from off licences.

8.1 Revised Draft Local Alcohol Policy – Hearings

Staff Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst

Nigel McGlone, Manager: Environmental Regulation

Committee Resolution SFR12/22/2

Moved: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Seconded: Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the written submissions on the revised draft Local Alcohol Policy (Attachment One), and the tabled submission from Woolworths New Zealand.

(b) Receives the verbal submissions from those submitters who wish to speak to their submission.

(c) Amends the timeline for the Local Alcohol Policy review to deliberate on submissions in March 2023 instead of December 2022.

Carried

9 Discussion of late items

Nil

10 Public excluded session

Committee Resolution SFR12/22/3

Moved: Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded: Commissioner Stephen Selwood

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting (with the exception of NZ police personnel and representatives present from Public Health).

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
10.1 - Revised Draft Local Alcohol Policy – Hearings - Submission 327 – Dan Roser, NZ Police	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

Carried

11 Closing karakia

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 12.28pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting held on 13 February 2023.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting Agenda

13 February 2023

9.2 Second Quarter Financial and Non-Financial Monitoring report to 31 December 2022

File Number: A14338037

Author: Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Tracey Hughes, Financial Insights & Reporting Manager

Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

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

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide information of council’s performance for the first two quarters of the 2022/23 financial year and identify key variances risks and implications for the performance for the year. This report also provides an overview of the results from the Annual Residents Survey for the second quarter.

Recommendations

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Second Quarter Financial and Non-Financial Monitoring report to 31 December 2022".

(b) Notes that accounting treatment requires preliminary costs of Te Manawataki o Te Papa to be expensed in the current financial year.

(c) Recommends to Council to loan fund in 2022/23 the expenditure for the Te Manawataki o Te Papa project that is unable to be capitalised, to be repaid over 10 years.

Executive Summary

2. The financial results for the first half of the financial year are presented in Attachment 1. The results are favourable to budget overall with a year-to-date positive variance for operational expenditure, primarily because of slower than budgeted expenditure across a number of activities. The operating surplus (including Asset Development Revenue) is $51m year to date, $2.8m favourable to budget.

3. Full year forecasts for operating income and expenditure have been completed and are reflected in Attachment 1. The operating surplus (including Asset Development Revenue) is forecast to be less than budget by $45.4m at year end reflecting a significant change to the accounting treatment of the Tauriko West programme, along with impacts of asset revaluation in 2022, increased costs of refinancing and new borrowing and other updates.

4. Subsidies and grants are an area of increasing focus as we strive to identify sources of funding other than the ratepayer. Attachment 1 also provides an overview of how we are tracking against budgets for both operating and capital subsidies.

5. Capital Expenditure is currently tracking under budget, however expenditure has been increasing over the first half of the year, with the second quarter expenditure of $74.4m close to the $73.7m budgeted. The forecast year end expenditure is currently forecasting $337mm just over budget, however it is likely the forecast will be revised down as the year progresses.

6. Attachment 2 presents how Council, and the community are tracking towards achieving Council’s non-financial performance measures and levels of service in Quarter two.

7. Of the 100 non-financial performance measures, 17 measures (17%) have achieved the annual target, 53 measures (53%) are on track and 21 measures (21%) are off track. Data is not yet available for nine (9%) of measures.

8. Attachment 3 presents a high-level summary of the wave two results of the Annual Residents Survey.

Background

9. This report is for monitoring and reporting purposes showing Council’s financial and non-financial quarterly performance in delivering services to the community.

10. The operational budgets were set during the annual plan process with some changes to year two of the Long-term Plan (LTP) to deliver on agreed service levels and capital investment. In an LTP, the level of service that the council will deliver along with operational budgets and capital investment programme are agreed upon by the council in consultation with the public. Rates and user charges are set based on these budgets.

11. The Local Government Act 2002 stipulates that local authorities are required to report on how well they are performing in delivering these levels of service to their communities as measured by the non-financial performance indicators.

12. In the 2021-31 LTPA there were 100 KPIs that were agreed upon, 23 of which are mandatory measures as per section 261B of the Local Government Act.

Strategic / Statutory Context

13. Maintaining expenditure within budget ensures delivery of services in a financially sustainable way.

14. Monitoring non-financial performance is a key function of the committee.

Discussion

Part 1: Financial Performance

15. There was a substantial increase in budgets and rates requirements in 2023 with a focus on these key issues:

(a) Infrastructure planning

(b) Grants and support for community initiatives

(d) Civic centre and 90 Devonport Road

This report along with the material in attachment one outlines council’s financial performance against budget for the first six months.

16. Attachment 1 shows that the financial result for the first six months is favourable to budget overall with a smaller than budget net deficit for operational budgets ($9.6m).

17. This is impacted by the change to accounting treatment of the portion of the Tauriko West Programme that is State Highway rather than local road (operating income and expenditure replacing budgeted capital, resulting in $5.1m of unbudgeted operating deficit year to date). The deficit created by this treatment is not intended to be rate funded and a further report on this matter will be brought to Council.

Revenue Variance

18. Operating revenue has a positive variance year to date of $6.6m. Outside of the impact of Tauriko West ($3.7m) this reflects the other Waka Kotahi subsidies above budget by $3.1m due to seasonality and claims on the (upwardly) revised maintenance contract. Forecast for operating subsidies and grants for the full year is $11m ahead of budget, $8.7m of which is Tauriko West.

19. Rates revenue is under budget year to date and forecast to be $3.6m under budget for the full year. This reflects lower than expected water by meter revenue due to reduced consumption.

20. As we focus on identifying non-rates avenues of funding, our funding arrangements become more complex. Included in attachment 1 is a breakdown of both operating and capital subsidies including full year forecast.

Expenditure Variance

21. Personnel expenses are slightly over budget year to date and are forecast to be $3.1m over budget for the full year. Salaries are under budget year to date by $4.5m reflecting vacancies particularly in Transport and Digital. However, offsetting this, capitalised salaries (which reduce the reported expenditure) are considerably behind budget and further work is underway to ensure the correct level of capitalisation occurs. Even so, capitalisation is expected to be under budget at year end, generating the forecast negative variance in Personnel expenses. The forecast will be further refined as the year progresses.

22. Consultants are $6.2m over budget year to date. $8.8m expenditure in this category is where Tauriko West expenditure is categorised, therefore a $2.6m underspend better reflects the position. This is largely in the City & Infrastructure Planning activity which has forecast $600k under budget for the full year.

23. Depreciation is over budget due to the very large roading revaluation in 2022.

24. Other operational expenditure is underspent particularly in community contributions and grants (timing of grants particularly for Community Partnerships, BVL and Bay Oval) and operational costs (slower expenditure for biosolids disposal, software licenses and general operational costs). Attachment 1 details these variances by activity.

25. Deliberations on the 2022/23 Annual Plan approved carry forward of operational expenditure budgets for specific items, along with associated funding where applicable. The following table summarises progress in these areas:

Item	Budget carried forward $000	Expenditure year to date $000	Comment
Community Partnerships grants	900	137	Any unspent balance of Community Housing grants and Papakainga grants for development contribution charges will be carried forward to 2023/24. Timing of applications is uncertain.
Bay venues renewal grant	2,850	409	Forecast is to spend total by year end. Greerton and Baywave renewals both underway.
Bay Oval Trust capital grant	1,489	0	Construction to start this financial year but majority likely to be carried forward to 2023/24.
Mt Maunganui Parking Management Plan	500	120	Underway and forecast to be fully spent by year end.
City Events	426	367	Forecast to be fully spent by year end.
City & Infrastructure Planning	965	0	Planning and design consultancy expense YTD $2m behind budget
Other minor	116	36	Underway and forecast to be fully spent by year end.
Total	7,246	1,069

Full Year Forecasts

26. Full year forecasts have now been assessed for both capital and operational costs and reflect the ongoing impacts of Tauriko West, increased interest rates, the 2022 asset revaluation and salaries capitalisation.

27. Overall, the forecast indicates an increase to the budgeted total deficit (including Asset Development revenue) of $45m. The increase in operating deficit is largely due to the Tauriko West accounting and it is proposed that the operating impact (forecast to be $8.3m for the year) is loan funded initially and will be recovered over time from third parties.

Overall the biggest drivers of the deficit increase are:

(a) Tauriko West change in accounting treatment and programme timing $23.9m

(b) Borrowing costs $5.6m

(d) Transport costs $7m including maintenance contract, consultants and mowing level of service increase

(e) Grants and subsidies paid -$2.9m

(f) Other revenue reductions (including asset development revenue and other gains) $4.1m, other expenditure increases $0.7m

28. Project costs for Te Manawataki o Te Papa were budgeted initially as capital and loan funded as such. This includes engagement, preliminary design and options analysis and was planned as part of the programme of works, however accounting treatment requires that it is reported as operating expenditure rather than being capitalised into the eventual asset. This expenditure is currently forecast to be $1.4m for the year. A recommendation has been proposed to loan fund this expenditure with repayment over 10 years as the benefit of this work will be received over the longer timeframe. This is in line with the proposed treatment of similar expenditure in the 2023/24 Annual Pan. Loan funding this expenditure will mean that overall the funding impact of the programme is substantially the same as planned.

Capital

29. The total capital programme is forecasting to be very close to budget, however there are some variances within projects referenced as part of Attachment 1. Results from previous years may suggest that this projection is optimistic, however spend on the TCC delivered programme in the last quarter has averaged $28m per month which is has increased from $23m per month for the first quarter of the year. To meet forecast, monthly expenditure would need to average $33.5m over the next six months.

30. Attachment 1 also includes the High Strategic Programmes and Projects for 2022/23, these make up 75% of this year’s total capital programme, representing high profile and significant projects in this year’s capital programme.

Part 2: Non-Financial Performance Achieved Indicators Comparison by Council

31. At the adoption of the Annual Report at its meeting of 12 December 2022 Council requested to see some comparisons of indicators achieved percentage against similar Councils.

32. Staff have completed a high-level investigation to provide this information to the Committee.

33. The same five Councils have been used for this comparison (Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Hamilton City Council, Dunedin City Council and Rotorua Lakes Council) that were in the Strategy Finance and Risk Committee Report titled “Draft Annual Plan 2023/24 - Approach and Key Financials”, that went to the Committee on 14 November 2022.

34. It should be noted that the graph in figure one below compares at a high-level percentage achieved only as this was the measure referred to in the discussion at the meeting to adopt the 2021/22 Annual Report.

35. Noting also that Councils used in the comparison, other than the indicators set by the Department of Internal Affairs set their own indicators against their own levels of service. All Councils also set their own targets, so there may be instances where a Council may have lower targets and therefore potentially a greater level of achievement.

36. What the comparison in figure one below does provide is that over the last four years all Councils seemed to have decreased levels of achievement performance from 2018/19 (largely due to the impacts of the COIVID-19).

37. In the last 12 months for those Councils where results were available[1], we can see improvements back to almost pre-COVID levels.

38. Tauranga City Council also followed this trend.

39. If we project the results below for the period July to December 2022 and assume that all those indicators currently on track will be achieved Council would likely achieve 70% or more for 2022/23 (as there are also currently nine annual measures that are reported as not available that could also be added).

Figure 1:

Part 3: Non-Financial Performance to December 2022

40. At Strategy Finance and Risk Committee on 14 November 2022 during the discussion there was a request for staff to do some work and develop a “top 25” measures that could be reported on quarterly. Work has commenced on development of this ‘top 25’ list and staff will bring a suggested list of top 25 measures to Strategy Finance and Risk Committee no later than May 2023.

41. Attachment 2 presents how Council, and the community are tracking towards achieving Council’s non-financial performance measures and levels of service.

42. Of the 100 non-financial performance measures, 17 measures (17%) have achieved the annual target, 53 measures (53%) are on track and 21 measures (21%) are off track. Data is not yet available for nine (9%) measures.

43. Where data is not available, the majority relate to annual measures which are only surveyed at one point through the year.

44. 21 measures, across eight groups of activities are off-track. In detail, these are:

· Regulatory and Compliance – nine off-track from 17 measures

· Community Services – four off-track from 20 measures

· Community, People and Relationships – two off-track from six measures

· Transportation – two off-track from nine measures

· Water Supply – one off-track from 11 measures

· Infrastructure Planning – one off-track from three measures

· Emergency Management – one off-track from three measures

· Spaces and Places – one off-track from three measures

45. We will continue monitoring any measures that are off track and report on the likelihood of these achieving target over the next two quarters.

Part 4: Annual Residents Survey

46. The Annual Residents’ Survey supports non-financial reporting by measuring the perceptions of residents regarding various aspects of services that Council provides.

47. The survey is conducted in four waves across the year. Each wave's mail out quotas are applied according to age, gender and ward, to ensure that a representative sample of Tauranga City’s population is achieved. The data is weighted to account for variances in the achieved quotas and to ensure that the sample reflects the population profile achieved.

48. The overall results have an anticipated margin of error of +/- 4.6% at the 95% confidence level. Scores for the reporting periods exclude 'Don't know' responses.

49. A summary of the highlights is attached at Attachment 3. The summary helps provide an insight into how different elements of Council’s core service deliverables, reputation and the perception of value for money contribute to respondents’ perception of Council’s overall performance.

50. Overall performance, the year-to-date result is 36% of respondents are satisfied or very satisfied with Tauranga City Council in general, which is up from the 32% result from 2021/22.

51. Reputation measures the community’s perception of four key areas – leadership, faith and trust, financial management and quality of services/facilities. Under reputation, the year-to-date result is that 29% of respondents are satisfied or very satisfied, up from the full year result for 2021/22 which was 23%.

52. Within reputation, there is the measure in terms of respondent’s trust in Council, the year-to-date result is that 30% of respondents are satisfied or very satisfied, up from the full year result for 2021/22 which was 24%.

53. A summary of the rest of the high-level survey results of the 2021/22 full year compared to the year-to-date result for 2022/23, and their trend is summarised in the table below:

Measure	2021/22 result	2022/23 YTD	Trend
Overall performance	32%	36%	5
Overall image and reputation	23%	29%	5
Overall value for money	36%	34%	6
Overall core services deliverables	56%	59%	5
Overall water management	55%	54%	6
Overall road and footpaths	44%	31%	6
Overall waste management	63%	72%	5
Overall outdoor spaces	73%	65%	6
Overall public facilities	70%	73%	5

54. The next wave is due to be collected predominantly during February to March with the results scheduled to be reported to this committee in May 2023.

Options Analysis

55. There are no options associated with this report. The report is provided as information only.

Financial Considerations

56. This report monitors performance to budget to ensure council delivers on proposed expenditure within allocated budgets to ensure financial sustainability and accountability.

Legal Implications / Risks

57. This monitoring report has no specific legal implications or risks.

Consultation / Engagement

58. This report is made public.

Significance

59. 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.

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

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

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

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

63. This report ensures monitoring of Council performance to ensure compliance with Council’s budgets, policies and delegations. The non-financial monitoring report summary will be presented on the Council website.

Attachments

1. December 2023 Financial Report - A14380321 (Separate Attachments 1)

2. Q2 (Oct-Dec2022) - Non-Financial Performance Off Track Measures Report - A14379421 (Separate Attachments 1)

3. Annual Residents Survey 2022/23 - Wave 2 Performance Report - A14379436 (Separate Attachments 1)

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting Agenda

13 February 2023

9.3 Community Funding Policy Review - Issues & Options Report

File Number: A13899145

Author: Sandy Lee, Policy Analyst

Richard Butler, Community Partnerships Funding Specialist

Authoriser: Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Community Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To consider the issues arising from the review of council’s Community Funding Policy and provide direction for the revised policy.

Recommendations

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Community Funding Policy Review - Issues & Options Report".

(b) Provides the following direction for the purpose of revising the current policy:

Issue 1: More Balanced Funding Across the Sectors

(i) Agree to identify priorities for community grant funding that help balance council’s support of different sectors.

Issue 2: Robust Accountability for All Community Funding Streams

(ii) Agree to requiring all forms of community funding to have formal agreements in place with specific accountability, reporting and monitoring requirements commensurate with the value of the funding received.

Issue 3: Clarity and Consistency in Community Organisations’ Eligibility for Multiple Sources of Council Funding

(iii) Agree to make explicit that decisions on community grant funding applications will take into consideration any other funding (in-kind and cash) the applicant has received in the last financial year, or currently, and that preference will be given to those who do not already receive some other form of support from council.

(iv) Agree to specifying that any community organisation can only receive one type of community grant (excluding the Development Match Fund Grant) from council for a specific project and/or initiative.

Issue 4: Size and Structure of the Community Grants

(v) Agree to increase the Match Fund Small Grant to $5,000 max., remove the Match Fund Medium Grant and incorporate the remaining value into the Community Grant Fund (from $10,001 min. to $5,001 min.) with the details provided in Table 4, option 4a.

Issue 5: Options to Clarify the Purpose of Partnership Agreements

(vi) Agree to separate partnership agreement funding into two distinct funds: ‘Partnership Agreements’ and ‘Multi-Year Funding’ as per the details provided in Table 5, option 5a.

Issue 6: Options for More Specific Purpose and Priorities for Community Funding

(vii) Agree to align the purpose of community funding with the approved strategic vision and the priorities within the approved Action and Investment Plans.

Issue 7: Legal Status Requirement Limiting Kaupapa Māori Groups

(viii) Agree to keeping the status quo, requiring Kaupapa Māori groups without legal status to work with other entities so they provide a legal umbrella for them when making funding applications.

Issue 8: Inconsistent Community Funding Boundaries

(ix) Agree to include exceptions to the boundary restrictions only for community-led projects that are located on TCC co-managed and/or co-owned sites that are outside TCC boundaries.

Executive Summary

2. Council supports community organisations through various types of funding. This includes grants and cash funding as well as in-kind assistance such as lease subsidies and rates remissions. However, council’s Community Funding Policy (the policy^{^[2]}) only covers three specific grant funds (Community Grant Fund, Community Development Match Fund and Partnership Agreements), which only account for 11% of the total amount of council investment.

3. When the draft policy was first recommended for Council adoption on 12 July 2021 it was noted that the policy is intended to eventually serve as an umbrella policy for all community funding streams and that ‘additional work will be undertaken to determine if all council funding streams should come under the auspices of the policy, including consideration of Council funding for community facilities’ (Resolution CO13/21/15). The policy was then formally adopted on the 26 July 2021 with the resolution that ‘the policy and the amount of the Community Grant Fund be reviewed within 18 months to align with Annual Plan planning cycle’ (Resolution CO14/21/10). Staff are now undertaking the review.

4. Feedback was provided by staff across the business units and representatives of Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana. We held a workshop with representatives from three philanthropic and five key stakeholder organisations and sought comment via email from applicants and recipients of a community grant in the last financial year.

5. Staff are seeking direction on the issues and options identified through the review. Following direction, the policy will be amended, and the draft policy will be brought to the Committee for approval for broader public consultation.

Background

Development of the policy

6. During the Annual Plan deliberations in July 2020 Council requested staff investigate the creation of a contestable grant fund in response to the significant number of requests for funding from community organisations. The intention was to provide a dedicated fund that all future funding requests from community organisations could be referred to. The aim was to reduce the risk of any further ad-hoc and potentially unfair distribution of funding.

7. In October 2020, the Policy Committee supported the recommendation to amend the Community Investment Policy to reflect the new grant fund and inform its administration and distribution.

8. When work started on updating the policy, a community funding framework had already been drafted following a review in 2019 of all the ways in which council supports community organisations and of the total amount of the investment. The framework was to enable more consistency, fairness and transparency in how support is provided across all of council’s activities. The review work was put on hold in 2020 as efforts were focused on ensuring the new grant fund and updated policy were established in time for the next Long-term Plan when more requests for funding were anticipated.

9. Findings from the community funding framework review informed the update of the policy. Other funding streams across council’s activities were considered for inclusion in the policy, but with the short timeframe, only the Community Development Match Fund and proposed Partnership Agreements were included along with the new Community Grant Fund. In December 2020 Council approved the draft Community Funding Policy and the Community Investment Policy being revoked once the new one was adopted. The new funding policy still captured the intent of the Community Investment Policy.

10. When the draft Community Funding Policy (the policy) was recommended for council adoption in July 2021, it was highlighted that the policy had been written so that in the future it could serve as an ‘umbrella’ policy, providing general guidance as to council’s expectations and decision-making around how we support community organisations. The report on 12 July 2021 also recommended that Council note that more work would be undertaken to determine if all council funding streams should come under the auspices of the Community Funding Policy (Resolution CO13/21/15). When Council subsequently adopted the policy on 26 July 2021, there was a resolution that the policy and amount of the Community Grant Fund be reviewed within 18 months to align with the Annual Plan planning cycle (Resolution CO14/21/10).

Review of the policy

11. The Community Funding Policy currently covers the contestable Community Grant Fund ($10,001 up to $50,000), the contestable Community Development Match Fund Small (up to $1000) and Medium ($1001 to $10,000) Grants, and non-contestable multi-year funding through Partnership Agreements.

12. The Match Funds are intended as seed funding for new projects and require applicants to provide an in-kind ‘match’ of the funding they receive. These funds are open to a range of community groups including informal and grass roots neighbourhood groups and communities of interest, as well as formal groups with legal status, whereas the Community Grant Fund is only available to formal groups that are registered charities, not for profit schools or Early Childhood Education Centres or legal entities that deliver Kaupapa Māori outcomes.

13. Since the implementation of the policy the grant funds have been significantly oversubscribed. In the last financial year (FY 21/22), there were 107 applications to the Community Grant Fund (40 approved), 25 to the Medium Grant (15 approved), and 19 to the Small Grant (14 approved).

14. In reviewing the policy, engagement has taken place with a range of internal and external stakeholders which has informed the issues and options discussed in this report. There have been regular discussions with staff implementing the policy to understand what they think is working and what areas need improving. There were also discussions with staff who administer and/or manage other community funding streams across the council.

15. In general, staff across the business units support the principles and purpose of the policy to have transparency, consistency and fairness in the way the council distributes funding to community organisations. At a scoping workshop in mid-September with relevant staff and managers there was unanimous support for bringing all other community funding streams into the policy, with the understanding that some may be taken out again as the review progressed.

16. Currently the policy covers a small number of the community funding streams which make up only 11% of the total investment to community organisations (see Attachment 1: Summary of Community Investment). The different funding streams cover thirteen types of arrangements with varying degrees of council-imposed conditions and direction, as illustrated in the Community Funding Continuum (see Attachment 2). On one end of the continuum are funding for projects, services and activities that are initiated by the community (e.g., one-off contestable and non-contestable grants, lease and rental subsidies, direct multi-year funding, and rates remissions) which require recipients to meet the specific criteria for each type of funding, and on the opposite end of the continuum are funding arrangements where council dictates what services they want and which community organisation will be funded to deliver it (e.g. direct contract for services).

17. The various funding streams are currently administered by the respective business units that manage the activities. Staff described the difficulty sometimes in getting visibility of any other funding an organisation receives and that there could be improvements so that they are as fully informed as possilble when making funding decisions.

18. Council staff administering the policy and the community grants noted that if they had all the information at hand, they could see whether some organisations and sectors are receiving more funding than they would be comfortable with compared to other sectors. Increased transparency and visibility could also encourage greater public recognition of the various ways that the council supports community organisations. Staff also questioned whether recipients of other sources of council funding were subjected to similar accountability requirements and whether improvements could be made to ensure fairness.

19. In mid-October a workshop was run with an external advisory group consisting of representatives from the three philanthropic organisations^{^[3]} and five key community organisations that have funding agreements with the council. The philanthropic funders provided useful feedback on the whole funding programme, including the need for more specific purposes and priorities and considering the funding environment as a whole. Representatives from the key community organisations emphasised a similar point as staff about ensuring funding is more equitable across the sectors, and to consider trends, while also stressing the importance of funding assurance for community organisations.

20. We met with two representatives from Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana in mid-October to discuss some specific issues that had been raised in relation to supporting Kaupapa Māori activities and initiatives through community funding. They also provided insight into some of the barriers that Kaupapa Māori groups and organisations face in relation to accessing funding, emphasising the need for better in-person communication and engagement with Māori about the funding to build confidence and encourage applications^{^[4]}. Broad feedback on community funding was also solicited at the Rangapū hui a couple of days later by staff presenting the Tauranga Mataraunui – Inclusive City Strategy.

21. Feedback was also sought from external stakeholders to understand how they think the current policy is working and if they had any suggestions for improvement. A total of 94 applicants and recipients were emailed for their feedback with 16 responding. The feedback was generally positive, with most expressing their support and appreciation of the current policy and funding arrangements. At least a quarter of the respondents did, however, emphasise the importance of longer-term/multi-year funding options being available to enable a level of certainty and forward planning.

22. Feedback from a couple of organisations that currently have Partnership Agreements emphasised the importance of the ‘partnership’ relationship as well as the need to realise this more fully.

23. A draft of the Issues and Options Report was discussed with the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee at the meeting on 5^th December 2022. The Committee provided comments and feedback on each matter and questioned the recommendation for addressing the unbalanced funding across the sectors as well as the recommended option for clarifying partnership agreements. The implications of the legal status requirement on Kaupapa Māori groups were also discussed with the agreement that more information and work was needed on the matter. Amendments and additions have since been made to the draft report following the feedback from the committee meeting.

Strategic / Statutory Context

24. The new City Vision adopted by Council and developed in conjunction with the community outlines our collective vision for the city. ‘Tauranga, together we can’ captures the vision for a collaborative approach to realising a city that ‘prioritises nature’, ‘lifts each other up’, and ‘fuels possibility’. These three pillars inform council’s refreshed strategic framework, with our five primary strategies geared towards delivering the five community outcomes that together contribute to the vision.

25. The vision and strategic framework inform the council’s plans and policies, including the Community Funding Policy, which guide the operationalisation of these higher-level strategies in council’s day-to-day activities. It is therefore important that council’s approach to community funding is aligned with the overall vision for the city. More specifically, the services, activities and projects council support through the distribution of funding should assist community organisations to contribute to the delivery of the community outcomes.

Options Analysis

Issue 1: More Balanced Funding Across the Sectors

26. The four main sectors (Sport and Recreation; Arts, Culture & Heritage; Social; Environment) currently receive different amounts of council funding. Some members of the external advisory group raised concerns about the unequal funding going to the different sectors and that funding should be more balanced. The main concerns were that Sport and Recreation receives considerably more, and that there needs to be more support for the Environmental sector, particularly given it is one of the key pillars of the new City Vision.

27. The total amount of community investment is approximately $22 million per year distributed through a range of funding streams. Approximately 77% of the total investment goes to organisations in the Sport and Recreation sector, 14% to Social sector organisations, 6% to Arts, Culture & Heritage, and 3% to Environmental sector organisations^{^[5]} (see Attachment 3: Summary of Community Investment by Sector for details). The amount of funding per member also differs considerably both within and between the sectors depending on the funding stream, and in some circumstances, excerbates funding imbalances.

28. Looking just at the contestable community grants that are covered in the current Community Funding Policy, the funding distribution by sector is different. While the Arts, Culture & Heritage and the Environmental sectors still receive the least amount, almost two thirds of the contestable grants are distributed to projects, services and activities in the Social sector. In the last financial year (21/22) 64% of the funding was for the Social sector, 14% for Sports and Recreation, 13% for Arts, Culture and Heritage, and 9% went to the Environment sector.

29. The distribution of contestable grant funding is also influenced by the size of the sector and is not necessarily a direct reflection of the quality of applications from each sector. There were 101 applications to the Communtiy Grant Fund in the last financial year but only 40% were able to be approved due to significant oversubscription. Almost another third (32%) of the applications were considered good quality by the assessors but they were not funded due to the limited funding available. Attachment 4 provides a schedule of all the applications to the Community Grant Funds in the last financial year (2021-22) including the sector and community wellbeings they contribute to.

30. Feedback from the philanthropic funders emphasised the need to take into consideration the whole funding environment that council is a part of when considering how to fund the different sectors in a more balanced way. They highlighted that the council is just one of the sources of community funding. The other sources available to community organisations include, for example, the regional council, central government agencies, gaming machines (pokies)^{^[6]} and lottery grants, as well as the local philanthropic funders. It was suggested the council could exclude sport and recreation organisations from community grant funding due to their ability to access other external funding sources.

Table 1: Options for More Balanced Funding Across the Sectors

	Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
1a.	Identify priorities for community grant funding that help balance council’s support of different sectors. See Issue 6 for the recommendation on funding priorities and purpose. Recommended.	· Helps lift council’s support for certain sectors while still enabling organisations from other sectors to apply for community grant funding. · Contributes to a more equitable funding process which is one of the underpnning principles of the policy. · Flexibile approach to supporting sectors.	· May require more work from staff to develop cability within certain sectors to apply for grant funding.
1b.	Exclude sport and recreation organisations from being eligible for the contestable Community Grant Fund and refer potential applicants to other external funding sources.	· Increased funding available due to reduced competition. · Takes a more holistic approach to council’s whole community funding programme. · Sport and recreation organisations still have access to other external funding for projects and activities.	· Potential negative impacts on council’s relationships with sport and recreation organisations that have currently and historically received support from council through grant funding. · Negatively impacts sport and recreation organisations that do not receive any other support from council.
1c.	Apportion specific amounts of contestable grant funding for each sector (Environment, Social, Arts, Culture & Heritage, Sport and Recreation) based on funding priorities.	· Could provide aspirational funding targets that council seeks to meet over a period of time that are aligned with council’s strategic funding priorities. · Provides a clear amount of funding for each sector. · Can help increase support for specific sectors and balance funding more.	· Potentially higher competition for grant funding in a larger sector compared to a smaller sector. · May require more work from staff to develop cability within certain sectors to meet grant funding expectations. · Potential impact on the quality of funded projects during the period when building capability within sectors.
1d.	Status quo. Maintain current eligibility for community grant funding for all sectors.		· Unlikely to address the imbalanced and inequitable support for the different sectors across council’s funding streams.

Issue 2: Robust Accountability for All Community Funding Streams

31. The Community Funding Policy (the policy) includes clear accountability and reporting measures for grant recipients. Recipients are required to report on their delivery of the objectives and targets they specify in their funding agreement at a level that is commensurate to the funding they receive. Staff also review the grants programme so that it continues to meet community needs. These measures help ensure that the funding distributed provide an actual benefit to the community.

32. The accountability and reporting measures vary significantly across council’s funding streams and there is potential for improvement. Currently it is not always clear whether the value of the funding an organisation receives is proportional to the community benefit they provide.

33. For example, council currently provides more than $13million in total in lease subsidies, which are not included in the policy scope, to 168 community organisations for their lease of council land and/or buildings. These subsidies help support and enable the organisations to deliver their services, by providing a space to operate at significantly reduced rents (most subsidies are for more than 75% of the rent). Approximately a third of these are historical lease agreements that were originally put in place more than 20 years ago. Land values have increased significantly since these agreements were first established, and many are now in prime locations with considerable market values. Council could look at how the community benefit provided could better reflect the value of the subsidies the organisations receive.

34. Improvements could also be made to ensure that all funding arrangements have formal agreements with clear deliverables and reporting requirements in place. This would help staff in theirassessment of whether the funded organisation is delivering on their objectives or what the community benefits are. Clear accountability, reporting and monitoring processes could be included in these funding agreements so that there is consistency across the funding streams.

Table 2: Options for Robust Accountability for All Community Funding Streams

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

2a.

Require all types of community funding to have formal agreements in place with specific accountability, reporting and monitoring requirements commensurate with the value of the funding received. This includes funding agreements for direct funding (i.e. one-off grants, multi-year funding, and lease subsidies) having additional deliverables in them negotiated with council that provide some direct benefits to the general public.

(Refer to Attachment 5: Proposed Community Funding Continuum)

Recommended.

· Ensures that the funding council distributes to community organisations deliver a community benefit and reflect current community needs.

· Ensures community organisations that receive any source of funding from council are subjected to similar accountability and reporting requirements.

· Helps ensure that community benefits are proportional to the value of funding provided to community organisations.

· Does not reduce funding for community organisations.

· Increases the deliverables expected from community organisations.

· Potentially some resistance from organisations that have not had this level of accountability previously.

· Different expiry dates for current funding agreements mean that some funding recipients will be subjected to the new requirements later than others.

· Potentially difficult to determine what proportional community benefits would be.

· Increases the deliverables expected from community organisations.

2b.

Status quo. Keep the current accountability and reporting requirements as they are for the different funding streams.

· No additional requirements or expectations for funding recipients or staff.

· Does not address the issues and inconsistencies across the funding streams

Issue 3: Clarity and Consistency in Community Organisations’ Eligibility for Multiple Sources of Council Funding

35. There is no explicit approach as to whether funding will or should be approved for community organisations that already receive other funding from council. This has meant that decision-making has varied across council. In some circumstances, for example, grant funding applications have been approved for organisations already receiving support through lease subsidies or rates remissions. However, in other situations where a single organisation has submitted funding applications for more than one project, staff have had to make the discretionary decision to only approve one contestable grant per financial year in response to the high demand on community grant funding, and in the absence of any clear stance from Council.

36. Guidance on whether the same project will or should be approved for funding multiple times is also necessary. In some cases, community organisations have applied for funding for projects that have already previously received funding in order to continue providing the service and/or initiative to the community. However, with the significant demand on grant funds, this makes it difficult for council to support other important initatives. In the current policy only the Community Development Match Fund explicitly excludes repeat projects from receiving more funding, reinforcing its purpose of supporting new, one-off projects and initiatives. A clear approach is needed to provide clarity for potential applicants and to inform consistent decision-making that recognises the important contributions community organisations make to supporting the communities’ wellbeing, while also ensuring a range of eligible, quality organisations receive support.

Table 3: Options for Clarity and Consistency in Community Organisations’ Eligibility for Multiple Sources of Council Funding

	Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
3a.	Make explicit that decisions on community grant funding applications will take into consideration any other funding (in-kind and cash) the applicant has received in the last financial year, or currently, and that preference will be given to those who do not already receive some other form of support from council. Recommended.	· Signals to applicants what Council’s preference is while still allowing some flexibility. · May help to reduce the overall number of applications to the community grant fund by reducing applications from organisations already receiving some other form of funding from council. · Still allows for staff discretion to accommodate unique situations and projects serving important community needs. · Provides clarity for staff administering the grant funding that will help enable more consistency.	· Applicants may not always have the information about past funding their organisation has received from council. · Council may lose quality applications for new projects from organisations already receiving some form of funding or support from council.
3b.	Specify that any community organisation can only receive one type of contestable community grant (excluding the Development Match Fund Grant) from council for a specific project and/or initiative. Recommended.	· Reduces the number of applications received for contestable grant funding. · Saves organisations from spending time writing grant applications if they are not eligible if their project has already received funding from council.	· Does not in isolation address the more common issue around organisations applying for and/or requesting different streams of funding.
3c.	Limit eligible community organisations to one contestable grant per year.	· Reduces the competition for contestable grant funding. · Saves organisations from spending time writing grant applications if they are not eligible.	· Impacts community events that run more than once per year.
3d.	Status quo. Leave eligibility decisions to the discretion of staff administering the funds.		· Some organisations may continue to get multiple forms of funding. · Inconsistency in how different business units make decisions on eligibility.

Issue 4: Size and Structure of the Community Grants

Ambiguous distinction between the Match Fund Medium Grant and the Community Grant Fund

37. The distinct purpose and benefit of the Match Fund Medium Grant compared to the large Community Grant is currently ambiguous. The match grant is aimed at supporting community groups to deliver new projects by contributing at least 50% of the total project value (up to $10,000). Applicants must demonstrate they have an equal amount of community support and investment in the project by ‘matching’ the fund through in-kind support, volunteer time, donated materials, or dollar value. While the Community Grant Fund does not require applicants to exactly ‘match’ council’s contribution, they do however need to demonstrate community investment in the project. As such, organisations that have sought funding and other non-financial contributions from other providers are prioritised for funding.

38. One of the intentions for the two separate funds is that organisations can get initial support for their new project through a one-off Match Fund Grant then apply to the Community Grant Fund to continue, develop, or expand it. However, based on the applications from the previous funding rounds, this has rarely occurred. In the last two funding rounds, the Match Fund Grants received less than a third (29%) of the number of applications than the larger Community Grant Fund, which means most Community Grant applications are for new projects. For instance, only two of the seed projects funded through the Match Fund Medium Grant in 2021/22 have gone on to apply for funding through the Community Grant in 2022/23. In reality, the size of the project and the amount of funding required is the key determining factor on which grant applicants apply to.

39. Staff have suggested removing the Medium Match Fund Grants altogether as there is a somewhat arbitrary cut-off between the two grants. For example, three of the ten projects funded by the Medium Grant in May 2021 were for $1,000 meaning that a difference of one dollar determined whether they were governed by the criteria for the Match Fund or the Community Grant Fund.

Longer-term funding for successful community projects

40. The Community Development Match Fund is intended for new projects and explicitly excludes already completed projects or those that have previously been funded by the council. Some key stakeholders raised concern that this restriction does not align with the purpose of the fund as it prevents, rather than enables, successful community-led projects.

41. There are no criteria in the Community Grant Fund excluding previously funded projects from receiving another grant. But, given how oversubscribed the Community Grant Fund has been (in the last two funding rounds only 38% of applications were able to be approved), staff have tended to prioritise new projects. However, with the lack of options for longer-term funding, some successful applicants do re-apply for more funding. At present, there are nine repeat applications for projects that were funded in the 2021/22 funding round.

42. Staff administering these grants recognise the need for longer-term funding to support projects that are providing an important service to the community. This has meant that, at times, applications from previously funded projects have been approved or recommended for a Partnership Agreement.

Value and importance of the Match Fund Small Grant

43. The Small Match Fund Grant is the only grant directly open to unregistered, informal community groups (as well as registered organisations) without requiring an umbrella organisation. Applications are received on an on-going basis throughout the year. Feedback from stakeholders valued the availability of funding outside the current bi-annual funding cycle and the ability for projects/initiatives responding to new and emerging needs in the community to be supported by council. Feedback from one of the philanthropic funders also highlighted that they look to the council to cover non-registered groups as their funds are only available to registered groups.

44. The Small Match Fund Grant is also an important source of funding for organisations unable to find a suitable umbrella organisation to access one of the larger grants. Feedback from an ethnic community organisation that had received three of the small grants highlighted how newer, unregistered organisations such as theirs, may be seen to be competing with larger, more established registered community organisation for the same pool of council funds. The philanthropic funders noted the contestable process itself can prevent collaboration. These factors create conflicts of interest that can deter the registered organisations from acting as umbrellas for unregistered community groups.

45. Several key stakeholders, including the philanthropic funders, emphasised the importance and value of the small community grants, but that the size is currently small with a relatively large administrative burden. Suggestions were made to increase the size of the grant to help balance the application process and accountability requirements with the amount of funding they provide.

Table 4: Options for the Size and Structure of the Community Grants

	Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
4a.	Increase the Match Fund Small Grant to $5,000 max., remove the Match Fund Medium Grant and incorporate the remaining value into the large Community Grant Fund (i.e. from $10,001 min. to $5,001 min.). The following is proposed for this new grant arrangement option: · Match Fund Small Grant (up to $5,000) - Keep year round applications. - Keep direct access to informal clubs/groups without requiring an umbrella organisation. - Enable successful repeat projects to be funded. · Match Fund Medium Grant - Discontinue. · Community Grant Fund ($5,001 up to $50,000) - Keep existing eligibility to registered community organisations with charity status. - Do not fund any repeat projects. Recommended.	Match Fund Small Grant: · Provides access to higher amounts of funding for unregistered community organisations that cannot secure a suitable umbrella organisation. · Provides an avenue for more funding to enable successful small projects to continue. Community Grant Fund: · Excluding repeat projects reduces the competition for an already oversubscribed fund. Projects initially funded through this grant could apply for a contestable multi-year fund (see Issue 5 for details) General: · More clarity and distinction between the different grant funds available. · Removes the arbitrary distinction between the Match Fund Medium Grant and Community Grant and the potentially unfair ‘match’ criteria for projects that may only differ in value by a small amount.	Match Fund Small Grant: · Greater accountability risk for council distributing grants of up to $5,000 to community groups with no legal status. · Potentially a significant increase in the number of applications to this small grant.
4b.	Increase the Match Fund Small Grant to max. $2500, change the Match Fund Medium Grant to between $2501 and $10,000 and remove the match requirement, and keep Community Grant Fund as is. The following is proposed for this new grant arrangement option: · Match Fund Small Grant (up to $2,500) - keep year round applications. - keep direct access to informal clubs/groups without requiring an umbrella organisation. · Match Fund Medium Grant ($2,501 up to $10,000) - enable successful repeat projects to be funded. · Community Grant Fund ($10,001 up to $50,000) - keep existing eligibility to registered community organisations with charity status. - do not fund any repeat projects.	Match Fund Small Grant: · Provides access to slightly higher amounts of funding for unregistered community organisations that cannot secure a suitable umbrella organisation. Match Fund Medium Grant: · Provides an avenue for more funding to enable successful projects of this value to continue. · Helps reduce the demand on the Community Grant Fund from seed projects looking for more funding. Community Grant Fund: · Excluding repeat projects reduces the competition for an already oversubscribed fund. Projects initially funded through this grant could apply for a contestable multi-year fund (see Issue 5 for details) General: · Clarifies the distinction between the Medium Match Fund Grant and Community Grant Fund.	Match Fund Small Grant: · Slightly increased accountability risk for council distributing grants of up to $2,500 to community groups with no legal status. · Up to $2,500 is still a relatively small amount of funding. · Does not address the arbitraary cut-off between the values of the Match Fund Medium Grants and the larger Community Grants.
4c.	Status quo. Leave the current values and arrangements of the three grant funds.	· Avoids any potential confusion for applicants about the changes.	· Does not address any of the issues raised.

Issue 5: Clarify the Purpose of Partnership Agreements

46. Partnership Agreements provide multi-year funding for select community organisations previously supported by a one-off contestable Community Grant Fund. These agreements are currently the only longer-term funding available and recipients have increased accountability and reporting requirements in line with the greater investment from council.

Clarify the purpose of Partnership Agreements

47. Council has eight Partnership Agreements with community organisations which have been progressively entered into. However, the reasons for selecting them vary and create some ambiguity in the purpose of the Partnership Agreements for both council staff and recipients. Some of the agreements were based on council historically supporting organisations to provide an important service to the community. Some were considered to be delivering programmes and activities that aligned with council’s current strategic priorities, and therefore council wanted to provide longer-term support than just a one-off grant. Others were identified as cornerstone organisations that play a key advisory role to help support and develop their sector, including assisting organisations in applying for grants. Currently council staff provide some assistance to organisations needing help, but this is often a time-intensive process with potential for conflicts of interest if council is also the decision-maker.

Make the process for securing Partnership Agreements more fair

48. Staff administering the Partnership Agreements have acknowledged that the current process by which organisations receive these funding agreements could be improved. Potential organisations are identified by staff and approached to discuss the multi-year funding, after which formal Council approval is sought. In some circumstances, the organisations themselves approach council for such partnership arrangements. Unlike the other community grants, there is no open or contestable process that enables other community organisations to apply for and secure multi-year funding.

Distinguish the Partnership Agreements from other similar funding arrangements

49. Discussions with staff highlighted concerns around the use of the term ‘partnership’ for these funding agreements. ‘Partnership’ suggests a mutual relationship between council and the ‘partner’ organisation that does not necessarily reflect the reality of all of the funding arrangements and has also created expectations from some of the organisations of continuous funding. Some staff members consider them to be more accurately multi-year funding agreements and suggested changing the name.

50. Council also has other similar funding arrangements with communtiy organisations that council has close links with. These other arrangements have been variously termed ‘relationship’, ‘partnership’, or ‘service’ agreements, or referred to as ‘community partnerships’, and improvements could be made to ensure consistency in the termonology to avoid any confusion around what the differences in the funding arrangements are. See Attachment 6: Partnership Funding Arrangements for an overview of the various organisations and their funding arrangement with council.

Table 5: Options to Clarify the Purpose of Partnership Agreements

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

5a.

Separate the funding into two types based on the different reasons (and purpose) of the current partnership agreement holders.

The following is proposed*:

· Partnership Agreements – these are three-year funding agreements with cornerstone community organisations for each of the key sectors that include them playing an advisory role.

· Multi-Year Funding – these are contestable fixed term funding for particular projects that aligns with Council’s funding priorities.

(Refer to Attachment 5: Proposed Community Funding Continuum)

*Note that these are a re-organisation of existing funding rather than requests for more funding.

Recommended.

General:

· Clarifies the purpose of each of the funding arrangement types for both staff and stakeholders.

· Greater clarity and consistency between the different multi-year funding arrangements and service agreements provided by council.

Partnership Agreements:

· Empowers community organisations to show leadership by supporting and developing their sector.

· A clear collaborative arrangement between council and the cornerstone organisations that helps provide distance between council as funder and council assisting potential funding applicants.

Multi-Year Funding:

· Provides an option for longer-term support for projects that align with council priorities that helps to give the recipient organisations some security. Also alleviates pressure on the Community Grant Fund.

· Provides flexibility for council to support different community-led projects without expectations of on-going funding by community organisations.

· Enables other organisations that have demonstrated their capability to deliver projects to apply for multi-year funding.

Partnership Agreements:

· Council potentially seen to be pitting key sector organisations against each other for the funding agreement for their respective sector.

· A sector may not currently have a suitable cornerstone organisation with the capacity and cability to deliver on the agreements.

Multi-Year Funding:

· More work for staff to administer another contestable multi-year fund.

5b.

Status quo. Keep the name ‘Partnership Agreement’ for all the varied funding arrangements.

· Some current Partnership Agreement holders value the specific ‘partnership’ term and the relationship with council that it communicates.

· Avoids any potential confusion by current Partnership Agreement holders.

· Does not address any of the identified issues.

Issue 6: More Specific Purpose and Priorities for Community Funding

51. The general purpose of community grant funding in the current policy is to support community organisations to ‘achieve council’s strategic priorities, community outcomes, and principles of support, and be appropriate to the purpose and role of a local authority’. Relatedly, the general funding criteria stipulates that applicants must demonstrate how their project or activity contributes to one, or preferably more, of the community well-beings and the community outcomes specified in the LTP. The stated purpose and criteria align council’s community funding with the broad direction and purpose of local government and enables a wide range of projects and initiatives to be eligible for funding.

52. Further details on the grant criteria are also provided within the schedules for the Community Grant Fund and the Community Development Match Fund on how council approaches community wellbeing. These are captured under the six ‘Principles of Support’: Communities of need and social equity; Encourage Kaupapa Māori Outcomes; Community Pride and Belonging; Wellbeing and Participation; Safe and Resilient Communities; and Environmental Sustainability. An additional 15 areas of interest are articulated for the Match Fund on ‘priority communities’ for the funding.

53. Feedback from both internal and external stakeholders highlighted challenges associated with such expansive purpose and criteria. Staff administering the community grants have found the lists too exhaustive and unhelpful in providing specific decision-making guidance when assessing applications that all meet the funding criteria. As noted earlier, council currently receives three times more applications to the large Community Grant and two times more for the Medium Match Fund Grant than what is able to be funded. Staff have indicated the need to prioritise funding areas and reduce the number of principles of support, areas of interest and assessment criteria.

54. A number of the key external stakeholders, including some of the cornerstone community organisations, commented on the application process becoming a ‘tick-in-the-box’ exercise regarding the well-beings as they feel the pressure to tick multiple well-being boxes. There is also the risk of potentially diluting what an organisation does rather than funding them for contributing fully to one well-being.

55. The representatives from the philanthropic organisations pointed out that the broadness of council’s stated community funding purpose means that all sorts of projects could argubly make a case for funding, even if it may not be want council would want to fund. They suggested narrowing down the purpose and priorities to help reduce the number of grant applications.

Table 6: Options for More Specific Purpose and Priorities for Community Funding

	Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
6a.	Focus the purpose of community funding on just the community wellbeings (social, environmental, cultural, economic).	· Maintains some continuity with the current grant funding criteria. · Clarifies and simplifies the overall purpose of community funding. · Enables all sectors to be eligible for funding.	· Community wellbeings are very broad and may not help to narrow down the number of applications.
6b.	Focus the purpose of community funding on just the community outcomes.	· Aligns with outcomes specifically developed for the Tauranga community to help deliver on the wellbeings. · Clarifies and simplifies the overall purpose of community funding.	· May be difficult to administer and monitor if the set of community outcomes change and/or are amended with the Long Term Plan.
6c.	Align the purpose of community funding with the approved strategic vision and the priorities within the approved Action & Investment Plans. See Attachment 7: Alignment of Sectors, Vision, Strategies and AIPs. Recommended.	· Aligns community funding with a recently approved strategic direction, and actions that are specific to Tauranga and developed with the community. · Clarifies and simplifies the purpose of community funding for potential applicants. · Encourages more meaningful contribution from the community to the collective vision for the city. · Can help inform more specific grant funding criteria based on the priorities in the Action and Investment Plans that assists decision-making for staff. · Enables flexibility in funding as the priorities in the Action and Investment Plans change over time. · Helps increase funding to sectors that currently receive less funding, as per Issue 1.	· Depending on the number of priorities in the Action and Investment Plans, they might not reduce the number of applications to the oversubscribed community grants.
6c.	Status quo. Keep the current broad purpose of community funding and areas of interest.	· Enables a wide range of community projects and initiatives to be eligible for funding.	· Does not address any of the identified issues.

Issue 7: Legal Status Requirement Limiting Kaupapa Māori Groups

56. The existing policy limits community grant funding to organisations with legal status (except the Small Match Fund Grant), while those without legal status may apply through an umbrella organisation. This helps mitigate accountability issues by ensuring funding goes to, and is managed by, groups rather than any individualHowever, not all community-focused groups are registered legal entities.^{^[7]}

57. Kaupapa Māori organisations and groups, including marae, are seldom legal entities. A representative of Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana also highlighted that Kaupapa Māori organisations are not always interested in becoming legally incorporated. Despite this, these organisations and groups often work closely with iwi and hapū and provide significant benefit to their communities, but without legal status are not eligible for any support from council.

58. The Kaupapa Māori Legacy Event Fund (KMLEF) administered by Tauranga City Council on behalf of TECT, BayTrust and Council is another source of funding that focuses on supporting Kaupapa Māori events. Like all the other event funds administered by the council, only not-for-profit organisations with legal status are eligible to apply, and applicants must demonstrate their event is either driven by or run in partnership with local iwi and/or hapū.

Table 7: Options for Legal Status Requirement Limiting Kaupapa Māori Groups

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

7a.

Enable Kaupapa Māori groups without legal status to be eligible for community grant funding provided they:

· have documented proof of membership to the group

· documented their practices, including evidence that the group has structures in place to act as a group

· can demonstrate their ability to deliver projects

can document their connections to iwi and hapū.

· Reduces a barrier to accessing funding and enables more Kaupapa Māori initiatives to be supported for the benefit of the communities and aligns with the purpose of community funding.

· Accountability risk for council distributing funding to groups with no legal status.

· Potentially increases demand on already oversubscribed grant funds.

7b.

Status quo. Require Kaupapa Māori groups without legal status to work with other entities so they provide a legal umbrella for them when making funding applications.

Recommended.

· Ensures funding is provided to organisations that have formal governance and management arrangements in place.

· Groups with no legal status still have direct access to smaller amounts of funding through the Community Development Match Fund.

· Consistent with other community grant funding criteria, including the Kaupapa Māori Legacy Event Fund.

· Potentially limits the number of Kaupapa Māori activities and initiatives from being funded.

Issue 8: Inconsistent Community Funding Boundaries

59. The policy currently excludes funding for projects that are outside Tauranga City Council boundaries. Grant applications received for projects located outside the council territory but primarily benefitting the Tauranga community have had to be declined. For example, a community grant application was received for a project at Oropi Mountain Bike Track which is on council-owned land but is technically in the Western Bay of Plenty District Council area.

60. There are also a number of other Tauranga City Council-owned (or jointly-owned) sites that are outside the official city boundaries. This includes McClaren Falls which is entirely managed by the council, and the TECT All Terrain Park and Huharua Park which are jointly owned, developed and managed by Tauranga City Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council in recognition of the opportunities and benefits they provide both for Tauranga residents as well as visitors.

61. Discussions with two representatives from Te Rangapū also highlighted the fact that iwi and hapū boundaries do not directly align with the city boundaries but they would still be considered part of the Tauranga community.

Table 8: Options for Inconsistent Community Funding Boundaries

	Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
8a.	Include exceptions to the boundary restrictions only for community-led projects that are located on Tauranga City Council co-managed and/or co-owned sites that are outside the city boundaries. Recommended.	· Recognises council’s current management of these sites and their primary benefit to the Tauranga community, including sites located within iwi and and hapū boundaries and/or co-managed with iwi and hapū (e.g., Omanawa Falls and McLaren Falls). · Consistent with council’s current approach to funding community organisations that are on council-owned land and/or buildings through supporting them to provide their service to the community.	· Potentially increases the number of applications to already oversubscribed grant funds.
8b.	Include exceptions to the boundary restrictions only for community-led projects that are on sites within the Bay of Plenty region where there are proven benefits to the Tauranga community.	· Recognises that there are projects and activities not immediately within the city boundaries that still benefit Tauranga residents.	· Potentially increases the number of applications to already oversubscribed grant funds. · Difficult to determine whether Tauranga residents are primarily beneficiaries. · Difficult to determine which council should be responsible for providing funding.
8c.	Maintain current funding to activities strictly within Tauranga City Council boundaries. Status quo.	· Makes it very clear to applicants what the physical boundaries are.	· Inconsistent with other council policies (e.g. Sub-Regional Parks Policy) and the other sites outside of the city boundaries that council owns and manages.

Financial Considerations

62. All community funding covered in this policy review has already been approved. While some of the options and recommendations provided in this report may require the re-organisation of some existing funding arrangements, no additional funding is being requested.

Legal Implications / Risks

64. This report has no legal implications. Any risks associated with the recommended or selected options will be investigated when detailed amendments are being made to the existing policy document.

Consultation / Engagement

65. We engaged with a range of internal and external stakeholders for the policy review to understand their thoughts about community funding, what is working, and what could be improved.

66. A workshop was held with an external advisory group consisting of representatives from the three philanthropic organisations in Tauranga and five key community organisations that have some form of funding agreement with the council. They were chosen because of their previous involvement in the policy development and funding framework. Email feedback was also sought from the group on the draft issues and options.

67. Engagement took place with Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana, including the chair and another representative, to hear their views on funding for Kaupapa Māori activities and initiatives as well as community funding more generally. Broad feedback was also sought from Te Rangapū during a hui on the Tauranga Mataraunui Strategy.

68. Feedback on the policy was also sought from the successful and unsuccessful applicants to the two community grant funds covered by the policy. A total of 94 stakeholders were emailed from the last two funding rounds for their views on how the policy is working, with 16 responses received.

69. We engaged with staff across council’s business units who manage and/or administer some form of community funding through workshops and on-going discussions, to understand the details and arrangements of the funds as well as their views on bringing all community funding into the policy scope.

Significance

70. 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.

71. 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.

72. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the issue is of high significance, however the decision proposed in this report is of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

74. Staff will amend the existing policy based on the direction provided by the Committee. The draft policy will then be brought to the Committee for approval for broader public consultation.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1: Summary of Community Investment FY2021-22 - A14345714 ⇩

2. Attachment 2: Community Funding Continuum (current) - A14345614 ⇩

3. Attachment 3: Summary of Community Investment by Sector FY2021-22 - A14345740 ⇩

4. Attachment 4: Community Grant Fund Applications FY21-22 - A14345591 ⇩

5. Attachment 5: Community Funding Continuum (proposed) - A14362894 ⇩

6. Attachment 6: Partnership Funding Arrangements - A14279676 ⇩

7. Attachment 7: Alignment of Sectors, Vision, Strategies and AIPs - A14329982 ⇩

[1] At the time of writing the 2021/22 results for Dunedin City Council and Rotorua Lakes Council were not publicly available.

[4] Similar concerns related to barriers to applying for funding for some community groups (for example, groups where English is their second language) were also raised during discussions with staff. Suggestions were made on how to better support these groups to overcome the initial application barrier by diversifying the way council accepts applications. However, as this is an operational issue, it has not been included in this policy issues and options report.

[5] These percentages exclude the funding from three types of funding: Mayoral Grants, Event Funding, and Rates Remissions. Lease subsidies make up a significant portion of the funding, particularly for the Sport and Recreation sector. The distribution of cash only funding is 58% Sport and Recreation, 15% Arts, Culture & Heritage, 19% Social Services, and 8% Environment (see Attachment 3 for details).

[6] Pokies funding is a major source of community funding with almost $8.4 million of grant funding distributed in 2021 in Tauranga. Fifty nine percent of the funding in 2021 went to sport, 22% to community, 6.5% to arts and culture, and 6.3% to health and welfare. Source: https://granted.govt.nz/dashboard.html.

[7] There are different approaches to eligibility across different councils. For example, Auckland Council allows informal community groups to only apply for grants up to $1000, while they must nominate an umbrella organisation for larger grants. Palmerston North City Council requires an umbrella organisation for all applications from informal community groups, while only legally constituted community organisations may apply for community funding through Hamilton City Council. In contrast, Whakatane District Council and Dunedin City Council both allow community groups to apply for community grants so long as their activities benefit the local community.


AGENDA Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting Monday, 13 February 2023
I hereby give notice that a Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting will be held on:
Date:	Monday, 13 February 2023
Time:	9.30am
Location:	BoP 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