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, including the Corporate Risk Register.

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

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

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

B3 - Internal Audit

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

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

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

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

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

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

B4 - External Audit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B5 - Fraud and Integrity

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

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

· Review, adopt and monitor the Protected Disclosures Policy.

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

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

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

B6 - Statutory Reporting

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

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

· Compliance with applicable legal requirements relevant to statutory reporting.

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

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

· Any decisions involving significant judgement, estimation or uncertainty.

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

· The disclosure of contingent liabilities and contingent assets.

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

· Significant adjustments resulting from the audit.

Power to Act

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

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

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

o make a rate;

o make a bylaw;

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

o adopt the LTP or Annual Plan;

o adopt the Annual Report;

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

o adopt a remuneration and employment policy;

o appoint a chief executive.

Power to Recommend

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

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting Agenda

26 June 2023

8 Business

8.1 2024-2034 Long-term Plan - Significant Forecasting Assumptions Update

File Number: A14724978

Author: Josh Logan, Team Leader: Corporate Planning

Sheree Covell, Treasury & Financial Compliance Manager

James Woodward, Manager: Capital Programme Assurance

Authoriser: Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to present updates made to Significant Forecasting Assumptions (SFAs) that underpin planning for the 2024-2034 Long-term Plan (LTP) to Council and recommend Council adopt them for public consultation alongside the LTP.

Recommendations

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report “2023-2034 Long-Term Plan – Significant Forecasting Assumptions Update”.

(b) Approves the recommended changes to the Significant Forecasting Assumptions as proposed in Attachment 1.

(c) Approves the updated Draft 2023 – 2034 Long-Term Plan Significant Forecasting Assumptions and associated mitigation actions as set out in Attachment 2.

(d) Recommends to Council that Council:

(i) Adopts the full updated Draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions (Attachment 2) to form part of the supporting documentation for the purpose of public consultation for the proposed Long-term Plan 2024-2034 in November 2023.

(ii) Authorises the Chief Executive to make minor amendments to the documentation to ensure accuracy and correct minor drafting errors.

Executive Summary

2. The draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions are presented to Council for adoption to underpin the planning for the 2024-2034 Long-term Plan (LTP).

3. The Significant Forecasting Assumptions have been developed iteratively since late 2022 building on those used for the Long-term Plan 2021-2031 with adjustments, additions and exclusions made to reflect updated data from third parties, legislative changes and the impacts of COVID-19.

Background

4. An LTP is prepared every three years, covers ten years (and includes an Infrastructure Strategy for a 30-year period), must include specific information as prescribed in the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), must be audited, and can only be adopted after a period of public consultation on a consultation document which itself also needs to be audited[1].

5. The LTP is a lead Council document and key to our public accountability. It is developed with substantial community consultation, and we regularly report on our performance against it.

6. The updated Significant Forecasting Assumptions (Attachment 2) set the basis for developing the LTP. They provide the common set of data and direction for the organisation to use in its planning.

7. The Significant Forecasting Assumptions are used by activity and asset managers to inform their planning and development of issues and options. They also underpin Council’s decisions and funding approaches.

8. The Significant Forecasting Assumptions have been reviewed regularly to take account of the implications of COVID-19 and the latest data available from third parties including Tatauranga Aotearoa Stats NZ.

9. The Significant Forecasting Assumptions were presented to Council on 27 February 2023 and adopted with some additional points to be actioned. Those included: a rewording of assumption 12, add two further assumptions one that growth outside of the city boundaries will impact on planning and investment in infrastructure and another that legislative change including Resource Management and associated risks of impacts on planning and investment.

10. The resolution also specified that the waters assumption be reviewed based on announcements by both Labour and National political parties on the nature, extent, and timing of reform.

Updates since February 2023

11. There has been an update to the data (December 2022) used as the basis for the employment and sector projections assumption (5) as part of the latest Smart Growth Housing and Business Capacity Assessment 2022 (HBA). The report is done as part of the work required under the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. To reflect the new information assumption five has been updated and a new data source referenced. The graph used has also been updated to reflect this new data.

12. The traditional source of inflation assumptions via BERL are not currently available until later this year, therefore requiring an alternative solution. GHD have been engaged and have provided assumptions using five separate indices across the capital programme to allow for the differentiation of vertical and horizontal assets being delivered across the programme. These have been smoothed over the ten-year period. Operational inflation assumptions have also been updated based on using a combination of Treasury’s May CPI forecasts and GHD assumptions. Inflation across the capital programme is forecast to sit within a range of 2% to 4% over the LTP for capital expenditure and operational expenditure.

13. With regard to interest rate assumptions (15 and 16), the most recent Reserve Bank monetary policy statement set the Official Cash Rate (OCR) at 5.50% which is 0.75% higher than in February when the significant forecasting assumptions were first set. While this is the expected peak for the OCR, there is no certainty that it will not increase further in the short term, so the external borrowing and investment rate assumptions range has been increased by a further 1% to allow for further increases to the OCR.

14. The additional assumptions requested to be included in the February meeting have been drafted and are included. Those are an assumption (11) on resource management reform and an assumption (41) impact of growth beyond city boundaries.

15. Lastly, with regard to water reform, we have updated the assumption (20) on the ownership of water assets to reflect the latest information announced by the government in April 2023.

Purpose of the Significant forecasting assumptions

16. The Significant Forecasting Assumptions are one of the essential building blocks in developing the LTP. They represent the important trends and projections that are expected to affect the Council and the city.

17. The Significant Forecasting Assumptions outline the key assumptions. These include demographic assumptions around population growth, aging, socioeconomic deprivation and the ethnic profile of the city. It also includes assumptions around our environment, employment in the city and technological change.

18. The key assumptions represent the most important items for consideration in our planning. However, each activity may also have their own specific assumptions.

19. These assumptions have been used by the LTP project team and activity managers to inform and underpin the LTP. They are applied consistently across activity areas.

20. The assumptions will be revised prior to finalising the LTP, to ensure that we are using the most up to date and relevant information.

Strategic / Statutory Context

21. Schedule 10, Section 17 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA 2002), requires Council to identify significant forecasting assumptions. Similarly, section 94(b) LGA 2002, requires that these assumptions be audited, with the quality of the information and assumptions underlying the forecast information to be commented on. Assumptions are also a requirement of the financial accounting standards (under the GAAP – Accounting standard PBE FRS 42 Prospective Financial Information).

22. The assumptions are part of the key underlying information that drive good planning.

SIGNIFICANT FOReCASTING ASSUMPTIONS Document overview

23. The 41 assumptions are outlined in Attachment 2. These are significant forecasting assumptions as they address key drivers for council, or City-wide issues.

24. Each assumption is considered under a series of headings:

(a) Forecasting assumption: general topic to which the assumption relates

(b) Detail: further detail regarding the nature of the assumption

(d) Risks: the risks to Council if the events occur which are materially different to those assumed

(e) Level of uncertainty: the level of uncertainty as to whether events will unfold as assumed

(f) Effect: the impact of the risks eventuating; and

(g) Mitigation: steps taken by Council to mitigate the effects.

25. The Significant Forecasting Assumptions are based on reliable data sources, both internal and external. External sources include Tatauranga Aotearoa Stats NZ, NIWA and GHD, among others.

Options Analysis

Option 1: Strategy Finance and Risk Committee approves and recommend to Council to adopt the updated draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions to underpin planning for the 2024-2034 Long-term Plan

26. Strategy Finance and Risk Committee approves and recommends Council adopts the draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions (SFAs) as per Attachment 2.

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Managers have reviewed the SFAs and have made recommendations based on reasonable expectations · The SFAs reflect best practice guidance · The SFAs provide clarity and certainty to council staff in preparing the LTP · The assumptions form the basis of planning and are auditable.		· Changes to SFAs after detailed LTP preparation has started will require some re-work.
Key risks	Some updating of assumption and re-work of elements of the LTP may be inevitable due to the ever-changing environment which it is being prepared in.
Recommended?	Yes

Option 2: Strategy Finance and Risk Committee does not approve and does not recommend to Council to adopt the updated draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions

27. The Strategy Finance and Risk committee does not approve and does not recommend Council adopt the draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions as proposed in Attachment 2.

Advantages		Disadvantages
· Potential opportunities for SFAs to be amended and reconsidered.		· Further staff time required to consider or reconsider SFAs · Delay in adopting the SFAs (depending on the duration) may delay preparation of the LTP.
Key risks	Delay in accepting the SFAs may jeopardise timely delivery of the LTP.
Recommended?	No

Financial Considerations

28. There are no specific costs associated with option one, however pursuing option two could lead to time delays as processes and decision-making may need to be revisited.

Legal Implications / Risks

29. The recommendation meets the legislative requirements of the LGA and reflect best practice in preparing the LTP.

Consultation / Engagement

30. The community are able to submit on the Significant Forecasting Assumptions as part of the formal consultation on the LTP in November-December 2023.

Significance

31. The LGA 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.

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

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

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

33. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the LTP and its contents is of high significance. However, this decision is considered to be of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

34. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, staff are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council undertaking engagement on the Significant Forecasting Assumptions as part of the supporting information alongside the LTP Consultation Document.

Next Steps

35. If the Committee decide to recommend to Council the adoption of the Draft Significant Forecasting Assumptions, they will be consulted on as supporting information alongside the Long-term Plan consultation document as part of the Long-term Plan consultation scheduled currently in November-December 2023.

Attachments

1. Draft SFAs LTP 2024-34 Tracked Changes June 2023 - A14781736 (Separate Attachments 1)

2. Draft SFAs LTP 2024-34 - June Update_PDF - A14781746 (Separate Attachments 1)

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting Agenda

26 June 2023

8.2 Alcohol Control Bylaw Amendment

File Number: A14741083

Author: Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst

Authoriser: Sarah Omundsen, General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance

Purpose of the Report

1. To adopt the draft amended Alcohol Control Bylaw and Statement of Proposal for community consultation.

Recommendations

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Alcohol Control Bylaw Amendment".

(b) Approves the draft amended Alcohol Control Bylaw (Attachment One) and the Statement of Proposal (Attachment Two) for community consultation.

(c) Resolves that in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002, the proposed amendments to the Alcohol Control Bylaw are the most appropriate and proportionate way of addressing the perceived problem and do not give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

(d) Authorises the Chief Executive to make any necessary minor drafting or presentation amendments to the draft amended Alcohol Control Bylaw, the Statement of Proposal and related consultation material prior to the commencement of consultation.

Executive Summary

2. For the past five years a temporary alcohol-free area has been put in place during the summer period along the coastal strip along Marine Parade from its intersection with Grove Avenue, and Ocean Beach Road and Maranui Street.

3. This alcohol-free area was first put in place in 2018 in response to community feedback and evidence from the Police of alcohol related harm in the area.

4. Police report that the temporary ban has assisted them to manage potential alcohol-related disorder and minimise the risk of alcohol-related harm.

5. The Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee’s approval is sought to incorporate this alcohol-free area in the Alcohol Control Bylaw (the bylaw). This will formalise a consistent approach across the coastal strip. Including the alcohol-free area in the bylaw will be more efficient than continuing to initiate it each year.

Background

6. The purpose of the bylaw is to control the consumption of alcohol in public places to reduce potential alcohol-related harm. As well as setting out permanent alcohol-free areas and areas that are alcohol-free at recurring times during the year, clause 8 of the bylaw states Council may, by resolution, make temporary alcohol-free areas on or in a public place for a time period and/or event specified in that resolution (temporary alcohol-free area).

7. Typically, clause 8 has been activated to put in place temporary alcohol-free areas around events to assist the Police in managing potential alcohol-related disorder, and to help minimise alcohol related harm at and around these events.

8. In December 2018, in response to community and Police concern, Council resolved, under clause 8 of the bylaw, to implement a temporary alcohol-free area along the coastal area between the two existing coastal bans already in the Bylaw.

9. Every year since then, Council, supported by the Police, have put in place this temporary alcohol-free area.

10. We are seeking Council’s approval to formalise this alcohol-free area by incorporating it in the bylaw as a recurring temporary ban. As such, the following changes to the bylaw are proposed. These amendments are shown by tracked changes in Attachment One.

*Proposed Change*	*Reason*
Change the title of Section 7 from ‘New Year Alcohol-Free Areas’ to ‘Recurring Temporary Alcohol-Free Areas’	To accommodate the proposed summertime alcohol-free area
Add the following section as section 7.2 to the bylaw 7.2 The consumption, bringing and possession of Alcohol in the Public Places specified in map 3 of Schedule Two is prohibited between the hours of 9pm and 7am for the period beginning on 21 October and ending at 7am on 2 April each year.	To specify the summertime period
Change the heading for Schedule 2 to Schedule 2: Recurring Temporary Alcohol-free areas	To better reflect the nature of the alcohol-free areas included in the schedule
Add the following to Schedule 2 and insert map 3 The following places, as shown on map 3* are Alcohol-free areas between the hours of 9pm and 7am from 21 October to 7am on 2 April each year:* All reserves, Beaches and Public Places on and including the seaward side of; · Marine Parade (eastwards from its intersection of Grove Avenue to its intersection of Tweed Street) · Oceanbeach Road · Maranui Street · Omanu Way · Yale Street · Sunbrae Grove · Surf Road The following places, as shown on map 3* are Alcohol-free areas 24 hours a day during the period from 26 December to 6am on 6 January each year:* All reserves, Beaches and Public Places on and including the seaward side of; · Marine Parade (eastwards from its intersection of Grove Avenue to its intersection of Tweed Street) · Omanu Surf Club and car park area · Waiariki Street The following places, as shown on map 3* are Alcohol-free areas between the hours of 9pm and 7am from 6 January to 25 December each year:* All reserves, Beaches and Public Places on and including the seaward side of; · Waiariki Street	To incorporate the alcohol-free area that has been applied over the past five summers in the bylaw To clarify that during the New Year period a 24 hours a day, seven days alcohol-free area applies to some of this area.

11. These proposed changes to the bylaw require the special consultation process to be carried out. Strategic / Statutory Context

12. The proposed amendments to the bylaw are consistent with the purpose of the bylaw to reduce alcohol-related harm in our community.

13. The proposed changes will help people feel safer in their communities, a key goal of Council’s Tauranga Mataraunui – Inclusive City Strategy and community outcome. This in turn contributes to the community and inclusivity pillar of the vision for Tauranga, Together we can … lift each other up, as outlined in Council’s Our Direction framework.

Options Analysis

14. The table below sets out the advantages and disadvantages of adopting the draft amended Alcohol Control Bylaw.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Approve the proposed changes and adopt the amended draft Alcohol Control Bylaw and Statement of Proposal for community consultation.

Recommended

· Ensures a consistent approach along the coastline.

· Formalises the current practice of implementing an alcohol-free area along this part of the coastline during the summer period.

· Provides the Police with an additional tool to assist in the provision of a safer environment for the community.

· Provides greater clarity and certainty to the community and Police.

· Some residents and visitors may view the proposed temporary alcohol-free areas as being too restrictive.

Do not approve changes to the Bylaw and do not adopt the amended draft Alcohol Control Bylaw for community consultation.

· Nil

· The ability of the Police to successfully limit alcohol harm and manage public disorder along the coast would be reduced.

· Creates an inconsistent approach to managing alcohol-related harm along the coastal strip.

· Requires an annual resolution of Council to achieve the same outcomes as Option 1.

Legal Implications / Risks

15. The Local Government Act 2002 empowers Council to make bylaws for the purpose of controlling the consumption and possession of alcohol in public places. However, before it makes a bylaw, Council must be satisfied that:

· There is evidence that any new alcohol-free area has experienced a high level of alcohol related crime or disorder (or if an alcohol-free area is already operative, then Council must be satisfied that a high level of alcohol-related crime and disorder is likely to arise in the area without the bylaw being made); and

· The bylaw is appropriate and proportionate in the light of that crime and disorder.

16. Council must also determine whether:

· A bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing the perceived issues;

· The draft bylaw is the most appropriate form of bylaw; and

· The draft bylaw gives rise to any implications under the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990.

Section 147A and 155 Considerations

Is a bylaw the appropriate means to deal with the problem?

Is the bylaw in the appropriate form?

Is the bylaw consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights?

Is there justification for changes to the bylaw?

A bylaw is the most appropriate mechanism to effectively deal with people drinking in public places in a manner that negatively impacts the enjoyment and safety of other people using that public place.

The Police have reported that the temporary ban along the coastal strip has had the desired effect and assisted when calls for service were received.

The proposed amendment to the bylaw is consistent with the current form of the bylaw that focuses on specific locations where Council considers there is a high level of alcohol-related disorder and crime.

The extent and timing of the proposed amendment is supported by the Police.

The Bill of Rights protects the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people in New Zealand, including the right to freedom of movement. While the proposed amendment to the bylaw means that people can be asked to leave the area that the amendment applies to, it is considered that the restrictions are fair and reasonable in the interest of public safety.

The amendment does not restrict the movement of people who are not in the possession of alcohol. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed changes to the bylaw do not give rise to any implications under the Bill of Rights.

The proposed alcohol-free area was first put in place in 2018 in response to community feedback and evidence from the Police of alcohol related harm in the area.

The Police report that the temporary ban has assisted the management of potential alcohol-related disorder and minimise the risk of alcohol-related harm. Including this area in the bylaw is more efficient and provides greater clarity and certainty for the Police and community.

Significance

17. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

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

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

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

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

ENGAGEMENT

20. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the issue is of medium significance, it is noted that public consultation is required under the section 156 of the Local Government Act 2002.

21. The consultation will be specifically focused on the proposed changes to the bylaw. The required full review will be carried out in 2028 in accordance with the current review schedule.

Next Steps

22. If the Committee approves the draft amended Alcohol Control Bylaw (Attachment One) and associated Statement of Proposal (Attachment Two) community consultation will take place between 3 July and 4 August 2023.

Attachments

1. Draft amended Alcohol Control Bylaw - A14775952 ⇩

2. Draft Statement of Proposal - A14775956 ⇩

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting Agenda

26 June 2023

8.3 Draft Revised Community Funding Policy

File Number: A14402892

Author: Sandy Lee, Policy Analyst

Richard Butler, Community Partnerships Funding Specialist

Authoriser: Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Community Services

Purpose of the Report

1. To approve the draft revised Community Funding Policy for community consultation.

Recommendations

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Draft Revised Community Funding Policy".

(b) Agrees to establishing a Community Funding Programme to identify and make visible the whole collection of community funding provided by the council.

(d) Agrees to continue to exclude Community Event Funding, funds provided by central government, Grants for Development Contributions for Community Housing and Papakāinga Housing, and Rates Remissions from the scope of the Community Funding Policy but include them in the Community Funding Programme.

(e) Agrees to continue to exclude Service Agreements and Mayoral Grants from the scope of the Community Funding Policy and from the Community Funding Programme.

(f) Agrees to include the definitions for each of the principles specified in 4.1 of the revised policy.

(g) Agrees to remove specific details in the policy in line with making it an umbrella policy for community funding.

(h) Agrees to delegate authority for approving future amendments to the Funding Schedules to the chief executive.

(i) Approves the draft revised Community Funding Policy and attached Funding Schedules (Attachment 1) for community consultation from early July to early Aug 2023.

(j) Authorises the chief executive to make any necessary minor drafting or presentation- amendments to the draft revised Community Funding Policy and Funding Schedules and related consultation material prior to the commencement of consultation.

Executive Summary

2. The Community Funding Policy was adopted in July 2021 with the requirement that it be reviewed within 18 months. Discussions have been held with internal and external stakeholders to understand where the policy is working well and areas for improvement. The key changes proposed are:

- establishing a Community Funding Programme to bring together and make visible all the types of community funding distributed by the council

- bringing Community Leases and Capital Funding into the Community Funding Policy and making it a higher-level policy that provides direction on the distribution of community funding, including adding definitions for the policy principles

- moving the details of each funding type to the funding schedules attached to the policy and delegating authority to approve future amendments to the schedules to the chief executive

3. Staff are now seeking approval on the draft revised Community Funding Policy and attached Funding Schedules for public consultation.

Background

4. The Community Funding Policy was first adopted on 26 July 2021 with the resolution that it be reviewed within 18 months to align with the Annual Plan planning cycle^{^[2]} (Resolution CO14/21/10). Prior to the adoption, a report on 12 July 2021 highlighted that the policy had been written so that it could eventually serve as an umbrella policy and noted that more work would be undertaken to determine if all council funding streams should come under the auspices of the policy (Resolution CO13/21/15).

5. Staff commenced the policy review in the second half of 2022 with the aim of assessing how the policy is working and whether improvements can be made. This included looking at what other types of community funding can be brought into the policy to ensure consistency, transparency, and fairness across all the ways council supports community organisations. Currently the policy only covers the Community Grant Fund, Community Development Match Fund, and Partnership Agreements, which make up around only 11% of the total community investment by the council.

6. In September 2022, a scoping workshop with managers and relevant staff took place to determine what other funding types should be included in the policy review. Previous work on a Community Funding Framework in 2019 had identified several relevant funding types: Events Funding; funds distributed by the council on behalf of others; Lease and Rental Subsidies (Community Leases); Capital Funding; Service Agreements; Rates Remissions; Grants for Development Contributions; and Mayoral Grants, and there was unanimous support during the workshop for bringing all these into the policy review, with the understanding that some may be taken out again as the review work progressed.

7. Early engagement took place subsequently with a range of stakeholder groups, including all teams managing and administering community funding to understand each type of funding, what staff thought were working well and what needed improvement. Meetings were also held with representatives from Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana, as well as key community organisations and the philanthropic organisations. Online engagement was also undertaken with recent applicants and recipients of community grants. Feedback from these engagement activities identified eight key issues, including:

· significant imbalance in the amount of funding going to the different sectors

· inconsistent accountability, reporting and monitoring requirements across the various types of community funding

· lack of clarity around whether community organisations are eligible for multiple types of community funding from the council

· too many stated purposes and priorities for community funding that make it difficult to inform decision-making

· inefficiencies in how the current trio of community grants are structured

· existing barriers to accessing grant funding by Kaupapa Māori and other minority groups

· lack of clarity around the particular purpose of Partnership Agreements and how they differ from multi-year funding

· inconsistencies in the community funding boundaries with sites the council currently co-manages.

8. On 5 December 2022 a draft issues and options report was taken to the Committee to discuss the identified issues. Feedback was provided on each issue and an updated report addressing the comments was considered by the Committee on 13 February 2023^{^[3]}.

9. Following the approved direction, staff have amended the policy and attached funding schedules in line with making it an umbrella policy for community funding. All identified types of community funding were assessed for their fit into the amended policy informed by discussions with relevant teams.

10. The assessment considered:

· Potential consequences of inclusion (both positive and negative)

· Whether inclusion would have contrary impacts to the purpose of the specific funding,

· Possible ways of mitigating negative impacts to enable greater transparency, equity, consistency and accountability across all community funding provided by the council,

· Whether policies or frameworks already exist for the individual funding types.

11. The attached Diagram of Community Funding Distributed outlines the results of the analysis which are discussed in the issues and options below.

Strategic / Statutory Context

12. The 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.

13. The vision and strategic framework inform the council’s plans and policies, including the Community Funding Policy, which guide the implementation 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 council’s strategic direction. 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: Establish a Community Funding Programme

14. Staff propose establishing a Community Funding Programme made up of the different types of funding from council that all have the same broad purpose of helping to support community groups to deliver their own initiated project, service or activity to the community, either through cash grants or discounts on fees charged. As many of the funds are managed and administered separately by different teams, there has been little recognition or consideration of them as a collection distinct from any other council funding. This has made it difficult for staff to assess whether community funding is operating as would be intended.

15. Having an overarching view of community funding as a programme would enable council to consider how the collection of funds operate together and provide clear direction on how decisions will be made in relation to the other funds available. These could also be achieved without necessarily requiring all community funding types to be brought into, and adhere to, the specific details of the Community Funding Policy (see Fig. 1). Currently, in the absence of direction on the whole collection of community funding, there have been circumstances where community organisations have applied for and received multiple types of funding while others missed out entirely. Recognising a programme of community funding would also enable any inconsistencies and/or opportunities for greater complementarity between the individual funds to be more easily identified.

Fig. 1. Diagram of the relationship between the Community Funding Programme, the Community Funding Policy and other related funding policies and frameworks

Options for the Community Funding Programme (Table 1)

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

1a.

Establish a Community Funding Programme to identify and make visible the whole collection of community funding provided by the council.

[Note: this does not change the operation of the individual types of funding]

Recommended.

· Sets clear directions on funding as a whole, and how all the funds will operate in relation to each other without bringing all funding types under a single policy^{^[4]}.

· Provides transparency and clarity on what funds are to be considered or not when making decisions.

· Helps clarify the relationship between the different community funding types.

· Existing policies and frameworks still inform the particular purpose and approach for specific funding types.

· May create some confusion around the difference between the Community Funding Programme and the Community Funding Policy.

1b.

Status quo. Continue to manage and administer the different community funding types individually.

· None.

· Unable to set clear directions on the collection of funding that will help enable consistent decision-making.

Issue 2: Funding considered appropriate for the Community Funding Policy

16. The Community Funding Policy sets out the distribution of cash and in-kind funding to community groups/organisations to ensure there is transparency, equity, accountability and recognition of our partnership relationship with mana whenua in how we design and implement our funding. The policy outlines the purpose of community funding, the eligibility criteria, exclusions from funding, how funding decisions will be made, and transparency and accountability requirements of funding recipients.

17. Currently the policy covers the Community Development Match Fund, Community Grant Fund, Partnership Agreements, and the new Multi-Year Funding Agreements. The other existing funding types have been assessed for inclusion in the policy scope (refer attachment 3 summary). Staff consider two of the eight existing types of community funding appropriate for inclusion in the policy – Capital Funding and Community Leases^{^[5]}.

18. Capital Funding are provided in response to requests to help fund some of the costs of developing community facilities or amenities by community organisations. Requests are relatively infrequent and typically made by organisations through their Long-term Plan or Annual Plan submissions, with staff providing an assessment of each request to inform the council’s consideration on a case-by-case basis. Currently there is no single document that clearly outlines for the public and staff how funding requests should be made, who is eligible^{^[6]}, and under what general terms and conditions so that there is some consistency with other community funding available. (See analysis 1 in attachment 3 for more details.)

19. Community Leases are discounts provided to community groups on annual rents for their on-going exclusive use of council owned land and/or buildings. There are currently more than 160 community leases, with the annual savings varying from a few hundred to a few million dollars depending on the size and location of the land parcel. As these leases are in-kind support rather than cash grants, they are rarely recognised as a type of funding provided by the council and there are no formal processes in place to ensure the community benefit from these leases are proportional to the value of annual discount. (See analysis 2 in attachment 3 for more details.)

Options for funding considered appropriate for the Community Funding Policy (Table 2)

	Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
2a.	Include Capital Funding and Community Leases in the scope of the Community Funding Policy^{^[7]}. Refer to Funding Schedule Five and Six in the draft revised Community Funding Policy for the details. Recommended.	· Helps achieve consistency with decision making for other community funding · Helps ensure the expectations, accountability and monitoring requirements for Capital Funding and Community Leases are comparable with other funding types, increasing fairness across the funding programme. · Greater transparency of Capital Funding and Community Leases makes it easier for staff to be fully informed when considering funding applications for contestable community grants. Community Leases: · Helps increase community benefits so that they are proportional to the value of the discounted lease.	· Potential resistance to the additional expectations and requirements under the policy, particularly from community lease holders. Capital Funding: · Future applicants would need to have registered charity status or demonstrate intention to become registered.
2b.	Include Capital Funding and Community Leases in the Community Funding Programme only (exclude from the Community Funding Policy).	· Enables these two types of funding to be taken into consideration when making decisions on other community grant applications.	· Cannot ensure there are comparable processes and requirements for monitoring and accountability appropriate to the value of funding.
2c.	Status quo. Continue to manage Capital Funding and Community Leases separately.	Capital Funding: · All legal entities can continue to be eligible regardless of whether they are a registered charity.	· Does not achieve more consistency with other funding types, including in relation to monitoring and accountability, for greater fairness. · Less public recognition of these as types of funding from council.

Issue 3: Funding to be included in the Community Funding Programme

20. Four types of community funding are considered appropriate for the Community Funding Programme but not the Community Funding Policy. These are Community Event Funding, Grants for Development Contributions for Community Housing and Papakāinga Housing, central government funding distributed by the council, and rates remissions.

21. These four types of community funding are not recommended for inclusion in the policy for three main reasons^{^[8]}:

· there are policies or frameworks already in place detailing their specific purposes and how the funding is to be distributed^{^[9]}, or the funder determines the specific purpose (as the case for the Creative Communities Scheme and Resource Wise Community Fund provided by central government).

· likely changes to some of the community funding types require some flexibility. The development contributions grants are currently only intended to be available for three years, while the Event Funding Framework is currently under review by an external consultant.

· inclusion would place restrictions on the funding that may be detrimental to achieving their respective objectives. For example, the requirement to be a registered charity under the policy limits council’s ability to support a range of community events, while this requirement would also hamper community participation in the activities that the Creative Communities Scheme and Resource Wise Community Fund are intended to increase.

22. Including the four funding types into the Community Funding Programme instead would enable staff to be fully informed when making any decisions on funding applications and/or requests. It would also be easier for staff to identify any potential gaps and opportunities for improving particular types of funding to work in a more complementary way with the other funding.

Options for funding to be included in the Community Funding Programme (Table 3)

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

3a.

Include Community Event Funding, Grants for Development Contributions, central government funding distributed by the council and rates remissions in the Community Funding Programme but not the Community Funding Policy.

Recommended.

· Greater transparency across the different funding types makes it easier for staff to be fully informed when considering grant funding applications.

· Enables a consistent and transparent approach to how funding applications/requests are considered if an organisation has another form of community funding from the council.

· Makes it very clear to the public all the ways the council supports community organisations, including bringing greater recognition to in-kind (i.e. discounts) forms of funding.

· None.

3b.

Status quo. Keep Community Event Funding, Grants for Development Contributions, central government funding distributed by the council and rates remissions outside of the Community Funding Programme and Policy.

· None.

· Reverse of the advantages in 3(a) above.

Issue 4: Funding considered outside the scope of Community Funding

23. Service Agreements and Mayoral Grants are considered not to be appropriate for either the Community Funding Policy or Programme as the nature of each of these funding types do not completely align with the definition of community funding in the policy. Service Agreements are direct contracts for services where the council purchases specific services from community organisations, rather than council funding community-led projects. Given the small size of the community sector in Tauranga, some of the organisations have also applied for and received other community funding from the council, such as a grant, but these are for their own projects and initiatives.

24. Mayoral Grants are from a small pool of money that the mayor can distribute at their discretion in response to direct requests from the community. These may be for individuals and/or groups to support a range of activities that do not necessarily have to be for the benefit of the wider community. For example, a small group of young people were supported to represent the region in their sport, and financial support was provided for each of the five families impacted by the recent flooding. These grants have also been used to support activities that would be considered appropriate for a community grant, for example, money to help cover the cost of equipment hire for Carols in the Park.

Options for funding considered outside the scope of Community Funding (Table 4)

	Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
4a.	Include Service Agreements and Mayoral Grants in the scope of the Community Funding Policy.	· Provide clear guidance for the distribution of these funds that are consistant with the other community funding available.	Mayoral Grants: · Does not allow as much flexibility in decision-making for the mayor. Service Agreements: · Disadvantages organisations that have agreed to deliver a service for the council as they will not be preferred if they apply for a contestable grant for their own project. · May deter community initiatives and leadership which contravenes the intention of community funding.
4b.	Continue to exclude Mayoral Grants from the Community Funding Policy and Communuty Funding Programme, but clarify and distinguish the purpose of these grants from the community funding grants. Recommended.	· Maintains a high degree of flexibility for the grants to be distributed at the mayor’s discretion. · Helps ensure all entities requesting community funding go through the same contestable process by directing any relevant requests made to the mayor to the appropriate funds in council’s community funding programme.	· None.
4c.	Status quo. Continue to exclude Service Agreements from the Community Funding Policy and Programme. Recommended.	· Recognises these are different to funding provided for community-led initiatives. · Skilled and capable community organisations are encouraged and supported to help meet community needs through service agreements and/or grant funding.	· None.

Issue 5: Definitions for each of the policy principles

25. The current policy specifies four principles that guide council’s decision-making and inform the design and implementation of community funding. The principles are transparency, equity, accountability, and recognition of our partnership relationship with iwi and hapū from Tauranga Moana. However, no definitions are provided to clarify what these principles mean in the context of community funding leaving them open to interpretation by staff and the community that may not be in line with the original intention. For example, equity is commonly misunderstood as being synonymous to equality and can lead to processes being implemented that do not achieve equity.

Options for defining each of the policy principles (Table 5)

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

5a.

Include the definitions provided in section 4.1 of the revised policy for each of the four principles.

Recommended.

· Clarifies what each principle means in the context of community funding which will help ensure they are appropriately and consistently implemented by staff across the council.

· Clarifies for the public and potential applicants what the principles mean which will also help manage expectations.

· None.

5b.

Status quo. Do not include any definitions for each of the principles in the policy.

· None.

· Less able to ensure appropriate and consistent implementation as the principles are open to interpretation by staff across the council.

Issue 6: Umbrella Policy for Community Funding

26. There are details currently contained in the policy that are too specific for an umbrella policy, including references only to grant funding and details specific to the Community Grant Fund, Community Development Match Fund, and Partnership Agreements (in sections 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5 of the existing policy). The specific funding details would be more appropriate in attached funding schedules, while the policy sets out the council’s overall purpose for community funding, underpinning principles, and some general criteria and requirements that apply broadly across all funding types.

27. Aligning the purpose of community funding with the council’s strategic vision and the priorities in the Action and Investment Plans^{^[10]} provides an overarching purpose for community funding. This helps ensure that all funding types are designed to contribute to the same overall vision, while the approved strategic documents also inform what to prioritise funding for. These documents negate the need for additional lists/details in the policy, including the extensive details covered in the Principles of Support and Priority Communities currently under the schedules for the Community Grant Fund and Community Development Match Fund.

28. Specifying the overarching purpose for community funding allows staff to make decisions on how the priorities in the strategic documents will be achieved through distribution of community funding. Decisions can be made at the operational level on what priorities in which Action and Investment Plans will be the focus for each funding round and/or LTP cycle in response to the most prevalent needs at the time. Currently, however, the policy contains specific details on the assessment criteria that the panel are to use to assess grant applications (in Schedule One). This level of operational detail makes it difficult to be flexible in relation to the funding priorities and would be more appropriate as an operational guidance document.

Changes to the policy content to support an umbrella Community Funding Policy (Table 6)

	Options	Advantages	Disadvantages
6a.	Remove details that are too specific for an umbrella policy, including removing the Principles of Support and Priority Communities from the schedules. Recommended.	· Simplifies and clarifies the policy and the purpose of community funding. · Removes redundant details that make it difficult to narrow down funding priorities to inform decision-making. · Enables staff flexibility in identifying funding priorities for each funding and/or LTP cycle from an approved set of priorities in the Action and Investment Plans.	· Some of the details in the Principles of Support and Priority Communities may not be covered in the priorities in the Action and Investment Plans.
6b.	Move details for the Community Grant Fund, Community Development Match Fund, and Partnership Agreements into the Funding Schedules attached to the revised policy. Recommended.	· Removes details that are not relevant to all community funding from the policy. · Necessary information for each of the funds are still provided for potential applicants and staff in the attached funding schedules.	· None.
6c.	Remove the assessment criteria from the policy schedule and include them as an operational guidance document. [Note: this will still be visible to the public/grant applicants] Recommended.	· Enables assessment criteria to be amended efficiently when different funding priorities are identified for each funding and/or LTP cycle. · Oversight and approval of the funding priorities and associated assessment criteria still provided at the GM level to ensure consistency across the different community funding types.	· None.
6d.	Status quo. Keep the specific details in the policy and schedules.	· None.	· Material in the policy is not consistent with an umbrella policy. · Confusing and difficult for readers to follow.

Issue 7: Authority to approve amendments to Funding Schedules

29. The current policy states that the council (or Committee of Council with delegated authority) may amend the schedules at any time via resolution (clause 5.2.4). Given the recommended changes to the schedules to only include details of each funding type covered in the umbrella policy (as per recommendation 6b. above), it is necessary to reconsider whether this approach to amending the funding schedules is still appropriate.

30. The funding schedules attached to the revised policy now contain details specific to each of the six funding types proposed for the policy. They include information on how each of the funding types will be implemented in line with the general approach to community funding set out in the policy, including eligibility criteria, exclusions, application processes, and monitoring and reporting requirements. Any amendments to these funding schedules are therefore more operational and do not impact the policy approach.

Options for authority to amend Funding Schedules (Table 7)

Options

Advantages

Disadvantages

7a.

Delegate authority for approving future amendments to the funding schedules to the chief executive.

Recommended.

· Avoids involving the council or Committee of Council in operational details.

· Easier and more efficient way of making any changes necessary to the distribution details of each funding type to better achieve the policy intent based on feedback and learnings after initial implementation.

· Easier to make amendments to the details of the funding types if/when funding priorities change.

· None.

7b.

Status quo. Continue to require Council to amend the schedules via resolution.

· Highly transparent for the community when changes are made.

· Time-consuming and involves the governing body in operational decisions.

Financial Considerations

31. All community funding covered in the policy review has already been approved. Some of the recommended changes to the community funding types will require a reorganisation of existing funding, but no additional funding is being requested.

32. The addition of two existing community funding types into the policy will mean some additional work for staff in Spaces and Places due to the increased accountability and monitoring requirements for Capital Funding and Community Leases. The management and administration of the new Multi-Year Funding Agreements, as well as the new process for allocating Partnership Agreements and the greater expectations around performance monitoring, will also require additional staff time in the Community Development team. The additional workload has been considered as part of the new ‘funding hub’ proposal that has now been completed by the consultant.

Legal Implications / Risks

33. The recommendations in this report help mitigate accountability risks associated with the provision of funding through:

· Increasing the monitoring and reporting requirements to a level commensurate with the value of the funding received for all funding types under this policy, and

· Increasing transparency in decision-making for all funding types, including ensuring the process of allocating all cash grants is open and contestable.

Consultation / Engagement

34. To inform the review of the policy we engaged with a range of stakeholders at various stages of the review. The stakeholders included recent applicants and recipients of community grants, some key community organisations currently with a funding agreement with council, the three philanthropic organisations in Tauranga, representatives from Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana, as well as staff in teams across the council (Community Development, Events, Spaces and Places, Property, Takawaenga Māori Unit, Rates, Sustainability and Waste, and Arts and Culture) who manage and administer some form of community funding.

35. Initial engagement with the stakeholders helped identify some key issues with the current approach to community funding, which were then taken to the Committee meeting on the 13 February for direction. Following this meeting, we undertook further engagement with some of the stakeholders to understand each of the funding types in more detail while we assessed their fit for the revised policy.

36. Meetings were held with the relationship managers of the current Partnership Agreement organisations to get their input on what the key criteria, roles, responsibilities and requirements for cornerstone organisations on the new Partnership Agreements should be. The role and expectation of the council, as well as the process for allocating the funding going forward, were also discussed.

37. Individual meetings then took place with each of the ten organisations currently on some form of Partnership Agreement. The meetings were to inform them of the proposed new arrangements for Partnership Agreements and Multi-Year Funding and to get their feedback on the proposed details of the two funding types that had been drafted with the relationship managers.

38. Through-out the process of drafting the revised policy, we engaged with relevant teams to discuss what the likely ramifications are of bringing each funding type into the policy scope. Input and feedback were also sought from all teams that administer some form of community funding in the council.

Significance

39. 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.

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

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

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

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

ENGAGEMENT

42. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of medium significance, officers are of the opinion that the following consultation is appropriate under the Local Government Act.

43. In addition to online engagement with the general public, and recent and potential community funding applicants and recipients, targeted engagement will be undertaken with community lease holders and organisations with capital funding approved. Further engagement will also be undertaken with Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana, past and present community grant applicants and recipients, including priority subgroup community organisations, and current organisations on Partnership Agreements. Information on the draft revised policy will also be available at libraries and service centres.

44. The consultation will be scheduled to commence early-July and will run until early-August.

Next Steps

45. Any minor changes to the draft policy will be made, if required, before the draft revised policy goes out for public consultation. Public consultation will be in accordance with the engagement details above, with hearings planned for mid-September.

Attachments

1. Draft revised Community Funding Policy - A14756473 ⇩

2. Diagram of community funding distributed by TCC - A14773594 ⇩

3. Summary analysis of each community funding type for inclusion in the Community Funding Policy - A14777430 ⇩

4. Draft revised Community Funding Policy_June2023 with tracked changes - A14761631 ⇩

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting Agenda

26 June 2023

8.6 Infrastructure Resilience Programme update

File Number: A14510005

Author: Kim Martelli, Resilience Specialist: Natural Hazards and Infrastructure

Authoriser: Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of the report is to provide an update on the resilience component only of the Resilience and Sustainability Programme, as it is relevant to the Strategy Finance and Risk committee from a risk perspective, and to receive any feedback on resilience investments prior to the Executive’s review and prioritisation of the projects for consideration by the Commissioners through the 2024-34 Long Term Plan process.

Recommendations

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Infrastructure Resilience Programme update".

(b) Notes that the Executive will review and propose prioritisation of the projects within the Infrastructure Resilience Programme for consideration by Commissioners through the Long-term Plan process.

Executive Summary

2. The Infrastructure Resilience Programme started in 2017 and progressed to overlay detailed hazard maps on high resolution asset maps of roads and three-waters and identified “at risk” assets. Appropriate risk reduction measures and costs were determined, and projects prioritised for inclusion into the 2021-31 LTP.

3. The Infrastructure Resilience Programme has progressed since adoption including: 1) implementation of the CAPEX budgets for five identified projects, 2) prioritisation of projects for 2024-34 LTP and 3) updates to natural hazard data.

4. A high priority for the 2024-34 LTP is to ensure the resilience of bridges in the city. This is timely due to projects identified in 2020, and exemplified by vulnerabilities at bridges following Cyclone Gabrielle in Hawkes Bay / Tairawhiti. Though the cause of the vulnerabilities in Tauranga will be different i.e. earthquakes and harbour inundation rather than the impact from forestry slash, the lessons learnt from other regions are transferable.

5. Project costs for Y1-10 of the 2024-34 LTP for four bridges (Chapel Street, Turret Road, Waihi Road, Matua) is estimated at $39.7M. Not all projects include a new bridge, but to provide resilience to natural hazards and climate change where possible i.e. deck raising, stabilizing abutments, and/or scour protection.

6. Further investment in Y1-2 of the 2024-34 LTP is proposed to ensure the resilience of the following wastewater and water projects: Opal Drive Pump Station, Wairakei Pump Station and Rising Main and Cambridge Reservoir trunk main relocations. The infrastructure resilience contribution of $20M is already captured in the projects.

Background

7. Infrastructure resilience to natural hazards, and climate change, has become an increasingly important issue as the impacts of extreme weather events and other natural disasters are more frequent. When cities (and regions) are impacted by natural hazards the consequences can be severe, as has been seen in the 2023 Auckland Anniversary Floods and during Cyclone Gabrielle.

8. Infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and other services, are critical to the functioning of cities and communities, and strategies and investment are required to ensure communities remain resilient. In 2017, Tauranga City Council (‘Council’) committed to building a resilient City. A strategic goal was developed, with robust infrastructure and urban form being the first and underlying components of the wider consideration of moving towards a resilient City

9. Council researched, mapped and assessed the natural hazards, that impact the city, to understand areas of risk. The areas of risk were assessed against infrastructure criticality and services that support the community (e.g. water pipes, bridges, roads, etc.) to identify ‘hot spots’ of risk exposure.

10. Projects were formed to mitigate the risk, and each project’s ability to reduce the risk to a residual level (impact on baseline risk) informed approx. $200M of capital expenditure on Infrastructure Resilience through the 2021-31 LTP.

Current activity / Key updates

11. The Infrastructure Resilience Programme has progressed on three fronts since adoption including: 1) implementation of the CAPEX budgets for five identified projects, 2) prioritisation of projects for 2024-34 LTP and 3) updates to natural hazard data.

12. In addition, natural hazards, infrastructure criticality, ‘hot spots’ of risk exposure and infrastructure resilience projects have been communicated with teams in Council to allow resilience to be incorporated in other projects.

13. An update of the projects funded in 2021-31 LTP is presented below:

Capital Works

Table 1: Infrastructure Resilience Project Progress

Activity	Project Name	Details
Transport	Chapel Street Bridge	Essential interim maintenance including crack injection, joints, kerb drain replacements on bridge deck, joint replacement of footpath slabs, and coating of clip-on brackets. Replacement of timber boards will be undertaken in 2022/23. Information review, GAP and fatal flaws analysis, and high-level risk assessment (i.e. risk v cost v benefit) for both the bridge and causeway is August July 2023. The study will provide robust evidence to answer: 1) What is the remaining useful life of the bridge and causeway? 2) When should it be replaced? 3) How should it be managed until replacement?
	Turret Road Bridge	Resilience-focussed business case for Welcome Bay to 15^th Ave including GAP and fatal flaws analysis of the bridge and causeway. Ground investigation has recently been completed and interim work underway to further understand the elements at risk from natural hazards. This includes possible solutions to ensure continued operation of the bridge and causeway in the face of natural hazards and climate change.
	Emergency Route Study	This project is in the scoping stage to define the most important routes in the city and is significant for prioritising projects. This work will be undertaken in conjunction with the Emergency Management team.
Waters	Oropi and Joyce WTP supply Trunks	Scoping study completed in November 2021 for 'Oropi WTP Outlet Mains Upgrade' and identified five potential corridors for development. To determine route corridor, pipe size for trunk main, and location for Oropi Pump Station (PS), a feasibility study was initiated in 2022 and in progress. The project is essential to implement as high priority to ensure reliable water supply to Tauranga. Scoping study for Joyce WTP supply trunks will be undertaken in the coming financial year.
	Joyce WTP Raw Water Inlet Slip Mitigation along Pyes Pa Rd	This project is critical to water supply, however low water levels and continued high demand challenges limits of the consented take. This could lead to restrictions of supply in reconsenting, and changing sizing, location or need. The budget has been moved out to allow time to plan and co-ordinate.
	WS/WW/SW and slope stability - Tauranga Hospital	In 2022 the liquefaction and landslide risk to council owned three water assets was reviewed as part this project. The study concluded that there are several three waters assets that are located within, or crossing zones designated as vulnerable to a natural hazard (liquefaction or landsliding). Solutions were provided to create some redundancy in the adjacent water supply network or enabling the pipe to be isolated and easily repaired, where it crosses the landslide hazard, by installing shut-off valves (e.g., installation of shutoff valves). Three water pipes in this area are planned for renewal and the recommendations from the review will be taken in consideration at that stage.
	Cambridge Reservoir trunk main relocations	Scoping study completed in November 2021 for 'Oropi WTP Outlet Mains Upgrade' and identified five potential corridors for development, including the 'Cambridge Reservoir Trunk Main'. The Cambridge Road reservoirs supply water to one-third of the city's population. The existing two supply mains have performance issues and run through hazard locations, making the supply vulnerable. There is no alternative mode of supply and recent pipe failures have compounded the problem. A feasibility study was initiated in 2022 to assess options to provide greater resilience to natural hazards and ensure security of supply.

Project Prioritisation

14. A deep dive has been undertaken into the Infrastructure Resilience projects, including where projects overlap, project risk has been overstated, and/or the project is an operational rather than capital expenditure.

15. Project prioritisation is an ongoing task and likely to be updated with programmed projects and renewals, strategy documents, legislative changes (i.e. Water Services Reforms, RMA, National Adaptation Plan), growth areas, updates of asset criticality and hazard layers.

16. As part of the prioritisation process, 129 projects have been removed from the Infrastructure Resilience Programme (324 Projects were originally identified in total). Where appropriate, these projects have been provided to the activity teams to consider implementation with ongoing and upcoming projects, and renewals.

17. Ninety-five projects were identified as placeholders, located in private property, had no risk improvement and/or were not costed. These projects comprise:

(a) Major council project placeholder - Outside resilience

(b) 7 Migration under another project

(d) 35 Resilience Cost Zero

(e) 60 Resilience Project Removed - No Risk Improvement

18. Some projects that have been assigned Resilience Cost Zero are operational expenditure or part of programmed renewals.

19. An additional 32 projects with a resilience costing have been removed from Infrastructure Resilience Programme at a cost (2020) of $35M. One project (Project 152-WS/WW/SW and slope stability - Tauranga Hospital) was completed before construction was undertaken, saving $2M. A summary of the projects with costs assigned, and now removed, are provided in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Projects re-prioritisation in the Infrastructure Resilience Programme

Number	Purpose	Reason Removed	Cost (2020)
3	Contingency plan – no construction	OPEX	$128,700
19	Emergency response plan – no construction	OPEX	$3,202,747
10	Construction cost post-event Ongoing monitoring and / or emergency response plan	Operations and Maintenance	$29,439,860
1	Project complete before construction	Project complete	$2,384,208

Data Updates

Landslides

20. A city-wide landslide study has been undertaken to assess and map landslide susceptibility and to update the landslide hazard zones used in the City Plan. An initial GIS analysis indicates that approximately 5,000 properties have been affected by the update in slope hazard maps.

21. We are currently reviewing the updated maps in relation to the affected properties and using the 2022 and 2023 landslides to recalibrate the model. Data is anticipated for release in 2023 and will be incorporated into updates of the Infrastructure Resilience Programme.

Review of National Seismic Hazard Model 2022

22. An update to the National Seismic Hazard Model (NSHM) was released in October 2022. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE) will consider how the NSHM results will be applied in the building regulatory system and updates to the relevant design codes are anticipated in 2023.

23. Updates to the city-wide liquefaction assessment maybe required, and further work is being undertaken to see if the seismic model developed for Tauranga in 2019 is appropriate for use.

Groundwater

24. GNS has undertaken a new groundwater model for the City which takes into account topography, geology, hydrology and the distance from coast. Council has received a working draft which includes the future influence of sea level rise including expected state at mean high water springs (MHWS) that is based on tidal response in the boreholes.

25. The data is yet to be peer reviewed, and has been provided to Council for provisional work, testing and review.

26. Future updates of the Infrastructure Resilience Programme could include areas where groundwater is expected to interact with critical assets. In addition, groundwater level can influence future liquefaction ground damage scenarios.

Coastal Inundation

27. Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BoPRC) has been progressing since 2019 the production of open coast inundation. Following a high-level desktop review of draft coastal inundation and Council provided initial comment / questions in October 2022.

28. The final draft of coastal inundation layers and technical report are expected in 2023, along with the release of the data. Data will be incorporated into updates of the Infrastructure Resilience Programme.

Other anticipated updates

29. Review of the sea level rise projections maybe required for Tauranga harbour following updates to the Coastal Hazard Guidance (and possible incorporation of the 2022 NZSeaRise data) in late 2023.

Proposed activity for 2024-34 LTP

Capital Projects

30. The delivery of a resilient city, and the proposed programme and budget is important, as the Infrastructure Resilience Programme is subject to future LTP prioritisation and funding decisions. A summary of the projects proposed for the 2024-34 LTP are attached to this document. Whilst the projects start in the 2024-34 LTP, many of the projects extend past Y10.

31. A high priority is to ensure the resilience of bridges in the city given that bridges carry lifeline and communication services as well as essential traffic in an emergency. This is timely due to projects identified in 2020, and now exemplified by vulnerabilities at bridges following Cyclone Gabrielle in Hawkes Bay / Tairawhiti. Though the cause of the vulnerabilities in Tauranga will be different i.e. earthquakes and harbour inundation rather than the impact from forestry slash, the lessons learnt from other regions are transferable.

32. The Infrastructure Resilience Programme budget is proposed to undertake GAP assessments and deeper physical resilience assessments of key bridges, and to identify priorities based on routes, risk, and outcomes. The end result might not necessarily be a new bridge (as highlighted by the 2020 bridge resilience high level desktop study) but to provide resilience to natural hazards and climate change wherever possible i.e. deck raising, stabilizing abutments, scour protection.

33. Project costs for Y1-10 of the 2024-34 LTP for four bridges (Chapel Street, Turret Road, Waihi Road, Matua) is estimated at $39.7M.

34. Further investment in Y1-2 of the 2024-34 LTP is proposed to ensure the resilience of the following wastewater and water projects: Opal Drive Pump Station, Wairakei Pump Station and Rising Main and Cambridge Reservoir trunk main relocations. The infrastructure resilience contribution is already captured in the projects.

35. Waters projects post Y3 are anticipated to transferred to the Water Services Entity. For completeness, they are described further in the table attached to this document.

36. All projects have been prioritised based upon each project’s ability to reduce the risk to a residual level (impact on baseline risk), cross-over with other programmed projects, ability to address operational risk (e.g. wastewater and water supply), and ability to be achieved with the allocated funding.

Other activities

37. The following activities are proposed to support the Infrastructure Resilience Programme:

(a) Expand resilience project to include other infrastructure and enable better risk-informed decision-making by addressing gaps and updating hazard modelling (also Climate Action Plan goal L9 and PC4)

(b) Expand hazard studies

(d) Update Resilience Project asset database

(e) Review risk ratings in light of new hazards and infrastructure upgrades

(f) Possible implementation of automated programme

(g) Risk baseline studies

(h) Look into cascading hazards as may become new legal requirement

(i) Traffic modelling study

(j) Contingency and emergency response plans – cross-over with transport / water / emergency management teams

Strategic / Statutory Context

38. Council has responsibilities under a range of legislative functions to understand natural hazards, natural hazard risk and reduce this risk. This includes the consideration of the effects of climate change (i.e. sea level rise) over 100 years.

Financial Considerations

39. The following Infrastructure Resilience Programme capital works costs are anticipated for 2024-34 LTP (Table 3):

Table 3: Proposed resilience project costs (P95) for 2024-34 LTP

Project	Proposed P95 Costs ($)
Project	Y1-Y3 inflated	Y4-Y6 inflated	Y7-Y10 inflated	Total 10 Years inflated	Total 30 Years inflated
Chapel Street Bridge	825,800	-	14,829,650	15,655,450	105,032,467
Matua Bridge	112,290	282,950	9,614,310	10,009,550	31,183,391
Turret Road Bridge	561,450	10,712,451	-	11,273,901	11,273,901
Waihi Road Bridge	112,290	282,950	2,378,760	2,774,000	42,423,889
Resilience Total	1,611,830	11,278,351	26,822,720	39,712,900	189,913,648

40. An infrastructure resilience contribution of $20M is captured in the following projects: Opal Drive Pump Station, Wairakei Pump Station and Rising Main and Cambridge Reservoir trunk main relocations.

41. Approximately $105M (uninflated) Infrastructure Resilience Programme capital works costs for water (and to be transferred to the Water Services Entity) are anticipated for Y3-10 of the 2024-34 LTP.

42. Justification for the projects is provided in the table attached to this document.

Implications / Risks

43. The risks of not making infrastructure resilient to natural hazards and climate change can be significant and can have negative consequences for individuals, communities, and economies including:

(a) Economic costs: Natural disasters can cause damage to infrastructure, resulting in costly repairs and disruptions to business operations. In addition, failing to invest in resilient infrastructure can result in increased insurance premiums and reduced property values, which can have a negative impact on local economies.

(b) Human costs: Natural disasters can cause injury, loss of life, and displacement of populations. Communities that lack resilient infrastructure may be more vulnerable to these risks, which can have long-lasting physical, emotional, and economic impacts.

(c) Environmental costs: Natural disasters can cause damage to the environment, including soil erosion, habitat destruction, and pollution. Failing to invest in resilient infrastructure can exacerbate these impacts.

(d) Social costs: Communities that lack resilient infrastructure may experience social disruption, including displacement of populations, breakdowns in social services, and increased crime rates.

(e) Climate change risks: Failing to invest in resilient infrastructure can increase the risks associated with climate change, including sea level rise, extreme weather events, and other impacts. These risks are likely to become more severe over time.

44. Due to increased project costs, and reduction of the Infrastructure Resilience Programme budgets, reducing the risk to infrastructure in the city will take longer to achieve.

Significance

45. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

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

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

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

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

49. Periodic status updates to this Committee as required.

Attachments

1. Rationale of High Priority Mitigation Projects - June 2023 - A14776908 ⇩

Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting Agenda

26 June 2023

8.7 Mount to Arataki Spatial Plan Update

File Number: A14650804

Author: Carl Lucca, Team Leader: Urban Communities

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

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the Mount to Arataki Spatial Plan (MSP) and Mount Industrial Planning Study (MIPS), including outcomes of engagement to date and next steps.

Recommendations

That the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Mount to Arataki Spatial Plan Update".

Executive Summary

2. This MSP seeks to deliver a 30-year blueprint that provides strategic direction for existing and future growth needs of the area, forming the basis for the coordination of decision making within and across multiple agencies in a growth context.

3. The MIPS is being prepared at the same time as the MSP. The purpose of the industrial study is to plan for the future of the industrial area and identify a programme of actions, which considers current issues and the needs of all stakeholders. Both projects will sit within the wider Mount Planning and Delivery Programme.

4. Initial engagement on both projects was completed during March and April, including engagement with tangata whenua, key stakeholders and the community. Over 960 responses were received to the community survey across the various topics, as well as more than 2,000 comments through face-to-face engagement. Drop-in sessions and pop-up shops were held at the Arataki Community Centre, Little Big Markets, Bayfair, Gratitude Café, at the base of Mauao, Omanu School, Arataki Primary, Mount College and Mount Maunganui Intermediate.

5. During late May / early June a three-day design sprint workshop was held with mana whenua, internal and external subject matter experts, partners and key stakeholders, focused on responding to key issues identified through proposed interventions (physical projects and policy changes) for both project areas.

6. Next steps are to continue to work with mana whenua, subject matter experts, partners and key stakeholders to assess the interventions and bring together draft plans for both projects. This will be followed by further consultation with mana whenua, the community and wider stakeholders in September, prior to the finalisation of the plans.

background and context

Strategic Context

7. The strategic context has previously been reported to the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee on 5 December 2022 as part of the Mount Planning and Delivery Programme. Key strategic direction includes:

(a) The National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD)

(b) SmartGrowth’s Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) and the Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan (TSP)

Mount to Arataki Spatial Plan

8. The MSP seeks to deliver a 30-year blueprint that provides direction for existing and future growth needs of the area, forming the basis for the coordination of decision making within and across multiple agencies in a growth context.

9. Working with mana whenua, our community and key stakeholders, the spatial plan will include a 10-year implementation plan for growth in the Mount Maunganui/Arataki area, providing direction in relation land use, movement, open space and public realm, 3-waters infrastructure and culture and identity, having regard to key opportunities and challenges such as hazards and climate change impacts.

10. The MSP has a primary focus on commercial and residential land uses (and includes the interface with industrial uses), from Mauao to Arataki, covering the communities of Mount Manganui, Bayfair, Omanu, Arataki and Whareroa. The MSP will also include direction for the Mount Industrial area, informed by the outcomes of the MIPS. Refer map below.

Mount Industrial Planning Study (MIPS)

11. The MIPS is being prepared at the same time as the MSP. The purpose of the industrial study is looking to plan for the future of the industrial area and identify a programme of actions, which considers current issues and the needs of all stakeholders. Those issues include future land use, cultural and social impacts, natural hazards, air quality, transportation and economic growth. An integrated approach is being taken to the two projects, particularly in relation to engagement with mana whenua and key stakeholders.

Related Projects

12. There are currently over thirty Council-led projects of varying scale planned or underway for the Mount Maunganui to Arataki area over the next 12 months and beyond, and additional projects being delivered by other agencies. The MSP and MIPS teams are liaising with the relevant teams and ensuring a coordinated approach to planning through the Mount Programme. Of note are the following projects where direct integration is occurring:

(a) Connecting Mount Maunganui Business Case

(b) Accessible Streets Area A

(d) Mount Air Quality Working Party

(e) SmartGrowth Strategy 2023/Future Development Strategy.

Progress to date

13. The MSP and MIPS projects follow the following key steps during their preparation:

Key Step	Timing
1. Project planning, including early mana whenua, partner and key stakeholder engagement	Late 2022
2. Mana whenua engagement – refer detail below	Ongoing
3. Analysis and key issue identification	Early 2023
4. Values engagement with the community and key stakeholders	April / May 2023
5. Stakeholder and design sprint workshops - long list of interventions (physical projects and policy changes) responding to key issues	May / June 2023
6. Detailed assessment of options (short listing) including input from mana whenua, partners and key stakeholders, and draft plan preparation; community consultation preparation	July / August 2023
7. Consultation with community and key stakeholders	Sept 2023
8. Final refinement of spatial plan and industrial planning study, including liaison with mana whenua, partners and key stakeholders	Final quarter 2023

14. In relation to timeframes both mana whenua and key stakeholders noted early in the process the fast pace of the project and need to ensure time for adequate engagement. The above timeframes have responded to that feedback.

15. To assist in facilitating integrated planning and delivery, the MSP and MIPS has established a Reference Group comprising representatives of the following organisations, who will likely have a role in implementing the MSP and MIPS outcomes:

(a) Mana whenua

(b) Waka Kotahi

(d) Health NZ/Toi Te Ora

(e) Kāinga Ora

(f) Ministry of Education

(g) Ministry of Housing and Urban Development

(h) Port of Tauranga

(i) Priority One

(j) Sport BOP

(k) Tourism Bay of Plenty.

16. The Reference Group has held two workshops to develop the draft problem statements (key issues) for the MSP and MIPS, as well as direct involvement in the stakeholder and design sprint workshops.

17. In addition to community engagement (summarised below), targeted stakeholder workshops have been held for both the MSP and MIPS. Engagement with these groups will continue as the plan is drafted.

18. Two workshops have been held with stakeholders on the Mount Industrial Planning Study to date at Club Mount Maunganui:

· Workshop 1 on 7 March 2023 – identified issues, opportunities and a vision for the Mount industrial area

· Workshop 2 on 11 May 2023 – considered three draft scenarios (business as usual, expansion and environmental limits) and groups developed their preferred scenario and interventions (physical projects and policy changes).


MSP General Stakeholder Workshop, April 2023

MIPS Stakeholder Workshop, May 2023	MSP Design Sprint, The Hub, May / June 2023

19. Most recently the project teams have completed design sprint workshops. The purpose of the design sprint process is to provide an opportunity for a multidisciplinary, integrated approach to workshopping responses to the agreed problems identified for the MSP and MIPS (refer below). The three-day design sprint included over 30 participants from mana whenua, the Reference Group and internal and external subject matter experts.

20. As an output, the objective of the design sprint workshops was to establish a number of scenarios that respond to the key issues, from which further assessment and prioritisation can take place to form a preferred way forward.

21. The team are now working on the detailed assessment of options and preparation for September engagement.

Evolving Direction

22. The following overarching problem statements (key issues) have been developed for the MSP and MIPS. These do not preclude wider issues being considered, but assist to focus the development of the plans on key issues facing the area:

(a) Past decision making and investment has created land use conflicts that harm the rohe’s Mauri / environment and community wellbeing

(b) Lack of prioritisation of mana whenua voice and views has compromised mana whenua input and values

(c) Competing land uses and growth creates a movement network that compromises safety, efficiency, environment and choices for moving about

(d) Climate change elevates hazard risks to existing and future communities (wellbeing, financial, social and safety) and for growth potential

(e) Housing stock in the Mount to Arataki area is not meeting the social and economic needs of current and future residents of Tauranga.

23. A snapshot of the key directions evolving from the process to date are summarised in paragraph 24 below. A wide range of other directions related to environment, land use, urban form, movement, culture and wellbeing have also been brought forward and are being included in the draft plans and actions to be assessed.

24. Key directions are:

(a) Support growth around centres in line with NPS-UD direction and premised on 15-minute neighbourhood principles, including Mount Manganui North, Tweed Street and Bayfair/Arataki.

(b) Recognise the inherent differences between communities, with a greater focus on visitors at the Mount Maunganui area, and community outcomes in the Omanu, Arataki and Whareroa areas.

(c) Protection of the environment, noting this is an essential part of the community identity and culture (including health of the moana and whenua).

(d) For the Arataki / Bayfair community, focus on maintenance and safety; local area planning; enhancing local and wider movement connections; supporting growth of the area over time for housing; and overall enhancement of community wellbeing.

(e) For the Central Maunganui Road Corridor and Omanu area:

(i) Maximise the multi modal function of this corridor (as part of the wider connections with the city centre and western corridor), including residential and commercial densities

(ii) Provide buffer treatment between the industrial area and Maunganui Road, including consideration of land uses and other interventions

(iii) Support a local connected centres network, including neighbourhood centres along Ocean Beach Road

(iv) Enhance local east west connections, including with the industrial (employment) area.

(f) For the Mount Industrial Area, investigate regulatory and non-regulatory tools to enhance the existing and future environmental quality outcomes and amenity of the area, which may include:

(i) Environmental accord with businesses

(ii) Landscaping treatment (private and public realm)

(iii) Stormwater treatment and stream restoration

(iv) Creating buffer areas with sensitive areas, i.e., Whareroa community and residential areas

(v) Introduction of light industrial areas to support progressive change to appropriate uses where they interface with other activities

(g) Culture and identity: Wayfinding, storytelling and protection of the environment.

community and stakeholder engagement

25. This section provides an overview of the stage 1 ‘values’ engagement process. The focus of the engagement with the community and stakeholders was to better understand what they love about the area and what they would like to see changed in the future. A full overview of the outcomes of the engagement is contained in Attachment 1 to this report – Mount to Arataki Spatial Plan Values Engagement Summary Report.

26. The feedback received during the ‘values’ engagement will assist to inform the option development and assessment for the MSP and MIPS, alongside wider inputs from mana whenua, partners, key stakeholders and technical experts. Following development of options, we will then share a ‘preferred option’ with the community during a second round of engagement in September 2023.

27. For the ‘values’ engagement, we focused on gathering feedback that was high-level and broad, but still addressed and provided direction on the key areas we were interested in. A key objective of the engagement approach was to ensure that we made it easy for the community to provide their feedback. To do this, we used several engagement techniques, both online and in-person, that we thought the community would best respond to. This included:

(a) An online survey

(b) Several in-person pop-ups and drop-in sessions

(d) Sessions with schools

(e) Stakeholder workshops

(f) One-to-one meetings.

28. To generate awareness and interest of engagement, we used a letter drop to residents; social media; media (Sunlive etc); council’s website; and physical presence at events and popular venues in the area.

29. Overall, 932 surveys (approximately 8,000 comments), and over 2,000 comments from in-person engagement were received. Across the engagement, we asked broad questions on specific themes to get the information needed to inform the spatial plan. These themes included:

(a) Better transport

(b) Celebrating our history and culture

(d) The natural environment and responding to climate change

(e) Fostering a healthy and safe community

(f) Improving our shopping, entertainment and business centres

(g) Planning for the future of the Mount Industrial area

(h) Dreams for the area.

30. Where the feedback received relates to existing or projects currently underway in the area, we have passed this on to the relevant teams working on these projects.

31. For the survey responses, 74% of respondents lived within the study area, with another 11% in Papamoa, and the remainder generally from the wider Tauranga area. Overall, the age demographic was relatively well split, acknowledging that despite specific targeting and a creative campaign designed to entice this demographic the under 24 age category was less represented than others (this age group traditionally provides less response and hence direct engagement with schools was considered important).

32. Seven pop-ups were held at Bayfair (2), Mount Surf Club (1), the Little Big Markets (1), Arataki Community Centre (1) and Gratitude Café (2). We did not collect demographic information from people we interacted with, however, across the events, we reached a mix of people with different perspectives and views of the area.

33. We also visited four schools – Mount Maunganui Intermediate, Omanu Primary, Arataki Primary and Mount Maunganui College. We held an hour-long session with each of the schools.

34. While all topics received a high level of response, transport (72%), parks and open spaces (70%), and healthy and safe communities (61%) received the highest response rates through the survey and face to face engagement events. Some themes were common and heavily commented on throughout feedback received. This included:

(a) A desire for more public amenities like rubbish bins, toilets, showers, seating, barbecues, and shade sails

(b) Maintaining access to the beach while preserving the coastal environment

(c) The need for safer roads, separated cycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and traffic calming measures like roundabouts and speed bumps

(d) Crime reduction and personal safety, particularly in the Bayfair and Arataki area

(e) Parking and accessibility at key centres

(f) Managing traffic congestion across the network, including traffic generated by the industrial area

(g) The risk of natural hazards and climate change related impacts including flooding, sea level rise, and tsunami.

Mana whenua ENGAGEMENT

35. There is a significant opportunity to work in partnership with mana whenua on both the MSP and MIPS such that the outcomes enhance identity and culture, delivered across all layers. This includes working with mana whenua to enhance the intrinsic cultural values of the Mount to Arataki area while also recognising mana whenua rangatiratanga within their rohe.

36. Mana whenua representatives identified in the initial hui for the MSP and MIPS are listed below, however this is not exclusive and it is acknowledged that there may be additional hapū groups with an interest in the project:

(a) Ngā hapū:

(i) Ngāi Tūkairangi

(ii) Ngāti Kuku

(iii) Ngāti Tapu

(iv) Ngā Pōtiki

(b) Ngā Iwi:

(i) Ngāi Te Rangi

(ii) Ngāti Ranginui

(iii) Ngāti Pukenga

(iv) Waitaha

37. An engagement plan has been developed with input from mana whenua to guide the process and matters for specific consideration, including:

(a) Enhancing local identity and culture, specific to the study area.

(b) Identifying opportunities to provide greater awareness of culture and heritage

(c) The challenges which mana whenua currently face in their rohe and ways the spatial plan can assist to address these issues, e.g.:

(i) Environmental impacts i.e. air quality, harbour water quality and biodiversity

(ii) The impact of growth of industrial activities on ancestral lands

(iii) The health of mana whenua in the rohe.

38. Ongoing steps in the process include:

(a) Regular hui with mana whenua and project team representatives.

(b) Design wānanga through the process, for mana whenua to build and refine inputs into the strategy.

39. At the time of writing two facilitated wānanga have taken place with mana whenua representatives, with a focus on developing the cultural narrative based on the following elements:

(a) Ngā tātai kōrero: Heritage narratives, Whakapapa, Te Mana i te whenua

(b) Ngā Uara me ōna whakamārama: Insight, Reflections & understanding

40. Mana whenua representatives also attended and contributed to both the MSP and MIPS stakeholder workshops and design sprints.

41. Next steps in relation to mana whenua engagement will include:

(a) Continued development of the cultural narrative

(b) Community / whanau wānanga, led by mana whenua

(d) Further input into the development of draft plans.

Financial Considerations

42. The timing and priority of interventions (physical projects and policy changes) identified as part of the spatial plan process will be considered as part of Council’s LTP process and in partnership with project delivery partners, including central government. Consideration will also be given to funding options for TCC’s share of capital costs as part of the LTP including the use of development contributions.

Legal Implications / Risks

43. Risks of not acting (i.e., not preparing a spatial plan) include inconsistency with central government and SmartGrowth direction and the inability to support growth and sustainable planning outcomes.

44. The implementation of the spatial plan relies on stakeholders, partnerships with mana whenua and the community, through execution of the projects, delivered by Council, Central Government and/or the private investment sector. This is being managed through ongoing engagement and partnership as outlined in the report. In addition, ongoing management will occur through the Mount Programme and project delivery. Risks of individual projects will be identified through the detailed project planning phases for those projects and as the programme of work is implemented.

Significance

45. Having regard to Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy, significance of this project is considered ‘high’. It affects a wide range of people; has moderate to high public interest; and will have a large consequence for the city in terms of growth over time. As outlined within this report, community, stakeholder and mana whenua engagement is ongoing, including opportunity to provide feedback in relation to aspects of the urban form, transport and wider proposals developed as part of the Spatial Plan. Further opportunities for engagement will also be provided through the Long-Term Plan process and project delivery stages.

Next steps

46. Detailed assessment of options (short listing) including input from mana whenua, partners and key stakeholders, and draft plan preparation in advance of community consultation is currently underway.

47. Community consultation on draft plans and actions will be undertaken during September 2023. This will include use of the Social Pinpoint online tool for feedback, as well as face-to-face sessions with the community. The consultation period will be closely preceded by key stakeholder workshops for both the MSP and MIPS

48. Final refinement of MSP and MIPS, responding to consultation feedback and including liaison with mana whenua, partners and key stakeholders, will occur in the final quarter of 2023, before reporting to Council.

Attachments

1. Mount to Arataki Spatial Plan Values Engagement Report June 2023 - A14782076 ⇩

2. Appendix 1_ Mount to Arataki Spatial Plan Values Engagement Report June 2023 - A14782075 (Separate Attachments 1)

[1] Sections 93(3), 93(7), 101B(1), 94, 93(2) and 93A(4), Local Government Act 2002 respectively.

[4] See clause 5.1.3, 5.1.4, 5.5.2 and 5.6.2 in the attached draft revised policy.

[5] The other six funding types are considered in Issues 3 and 4 that follow.

[6] Unlike the approach to community funding in the policy, legal entities without registered charity status are currently eligible for capital funding.

[7] Inclusion in the Community Funding Policy means automatic inclusion in the Community Funding Programme.

[8] See analysis 3-6 in attachment 3 for a summary analysis of the four funding types.

[9] This includes the Rates Remissions Policy, Grants for Development Contributions on Community Housing and Papakāinga Housing Polices, and the Event Funding Framework.

[10] The recommendation was approved at the 13 February 2023 Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting.


AGENDA Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting Monday, 26 June 2023
I hereby give notice that a Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting will be held on:
Date:	Monday, 26 June 2023
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Bay of Plenty Regional Council Chambers Regional House 1 Elizabeth Street Tauranga
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz.
Marty Grenfell Chief Executive