AGENDA

 

Ordinary Council meeting

Monday, 20 May 2024

I hereby give notice that an Ordinary meeting of Council will be held on:

Date:

Monday, 20 May 2024

Time:

8.30am

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

 


Terms of reference – Council

 

 

Membership

Chairperson

Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Members

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

Commissioner Stephen Selwood

Commissioner Bill Wasley

Quorum

Half of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority of the members physically present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.

Meeting frequency

As required

Role

·        To ensure the effective and efficient governance of the City.

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

Scope

·        Oversee the work of all committees and subcommittees.

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

·        The powers Council is legally prohibited from delegating include:

       Power to make a rate.

       Power to make a bylaw.

       Power to borrow money, or purchase or dispose of assets, other than in accordance with the long-term plan.

       Power to adopt a long-term plan, annual plan, or annual report

       Power to appoint a chief executive.

       Power to adopt policies required to be adopted and consulted on under the Local Government Act 2002 in association with the long-term plan or developed for the purpose of the local governance statement.

       All final decisions required to be made by resolution of the territorial authority/Council pursuant to relevant legislation (for example: the approval of the City Plan or City Plan changes as per section 34A Resource Management Act 1991).

·        Council has chosen not to delegate the following:

       Power to compulsorily acquire land under the Public Works Act 1981.

·        Make those decisions which are required by legislation to be made by resolution of the local authority.

·        Authorise all expenditure not delegated to officers, Committees or other subordinate decision-making bodies of Council.

·        Make appointments of members to the CCO Boards of Directors/Trustees and representatives of Council to external organisations.

·        Consider any matters referred from any of the Standing or Special Committees, Joint Committees, Chief Executive or General Managers.

Procedural matters

·        Delegation of Council powers to Council’s committees and other subordinate decision-making bodies.

·        Adoption of Standing Orders.

·        Receipt of Joint Committee minutes.

·        Approval of Special Orders.

·        Employment of Chief Executive.

·        Other Delegations of Council’s powers, duties and responsibilities.

Regulatory matters

Administration, monitoring and enforcement of all regulatory matters that have not otherwise been delegated or that are referred to Council for determination (by a committee, subordinate decision-making body, Chief Executive or relevant General Manager).

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

Order of Business

1         Opening karakia. 7

2         Apologies. 7

3         Public forum.. 7

4         Acceptance of late items. 7

5         Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 7

6         Change to the order of business. 7

7         Confirmation of minutes. 8

7.1            Minutes of the Council meeting held on 25 March 2024. 8

8         Declaration of conflicts of interest 17

9         Deputations, presentations, petitions. 17

Nil

10       Recommendations from other committees. 18

10.1         Matapihi Southern Pipeline Advisory Group. 18

11       Business. 20

11.1         Whareroa Marae - Future-proofing Option. 20

11.2         Tauranga Local Water Done Well - Preferred Structure. 29

11.3         15th Avenue to Welcome Bay Single Staged Business Case. 32

11.4         Speed Management Plan. 86

11.5         Ferry Proposal 107

11.6         Temporary Road Closure Report for Events 2024-2025. 113

11.7         Asset Realisation Reserve - Classification of Properties. 120

11.8         Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy. 146

11.9         Decisions on Independent Hearings Panel Recommendations on Plan Change 33 - Enabling Housing Supply. 159

11.10       483 Cameron Road - Indoor Court Project 166

11.11       City Centre Public Realm Design Guidelines. 174

12       Discussion of late items. 179

13       Public excluded session. 180

13.1         Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 25 March 2024. 180

13.2         Tauriko West Development Agreement 180

13.3         Te Tumu Infrastructure Corridors and Active Reserve Compensation Arrangements. 181

13.4         Tauranga Western Corridor: Specified Development Project Draft Project Assessment Report - Council Response to Kainga Ora. 181

13.5         Blue Haven - Procurement Approval 181

13.6         Supplementary Report - Harington Street carpark - Variation of Encumbrance. 181

13.7         Baypark Stadium.. 181

13.8         Baypark Tauranga Netball Centre. 181

13.9         Appointment of a Mana Whenua Representative to the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust Board. 182

13.10       City Wharf Infrastructure Funding. 182

13.11       Car Park Provision for 2 Devonport Road Developer 182

Confidential Attachment 1     11.5 - Ferry Proposal 182

Confidential Attachment 2     11.5 - Ferry Proposal 182

Confidential Attachment 3     11.5 - Ferry Proposal 183

Confidential Attachment 4     11.5 - Ferry Proposal 183

Confidential Attachment 1     11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy. 183

Confidential Attachment 2     11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy. 183

Confidential Attachment 3     11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy. 183

Confidential Attachment 4     11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy. 184

Confidential Attachment 5     11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy. 184

14       Closing karakia. 185

 

 


1          Opening karakia

2          Apologies

3          Public forum

4          Acceptance of late items

5          Confidential business to be transferred into the open

6          Change to the order of business


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

7          Confirmation of minutes

7.1         Minutes of the Council meeting held on 25 March 2024

File Number:           A15969296

Author:                    Anahera Dinsdale, Acting Team Leader: Governance Services

Authoriser:              Anahera Dinsdale, Acting Team Leader: Governance Services

 

 

Recommendations

That the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 25 March 2024 be confirmed as a true and correct record, subject to the following correction/s:

(a)    

 

 

 

Attachments

1.      Minutes of the Council meeting held on 25 March 2024 

 

 


UNCONFIRMEDOrdinary Council meeting minutes

25 March 2024

 

 

 

MINUTES

Ordinary Council meeting

Monday, 25 March 2024

 


 

Order of Business

1         Opening karakia. 3

2         Apologies. 3

3         Public forum.. 3

4         Acceptance of late items. 3

5         Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 3

6         Change to the order of business. 4

7         Confirmation of minutes. 4

Nil

8         Declaration of conflicts of interest 4

9         Deputations, presentations, petitions. 4

Nil

10       Recommendations from other committees. 4

Nil

11       Business. 4

11.1         Egret Avenue / Te Mutu Crescent Land Categorisation. 4

12       Discussion of late items. 6

13       Public excluded session. 7

13.1         Confidential Attachment 1 to Item 11.1 - Egret Avenue / Te Mutu Crescent Land Categorisation. 7

13.2         Confidential Attachment 2 to Item 11.1 - Egret Avenue / Te Mutu Crescent Land Categorisation. 7

13.3         Confidential Attachment 3 to Item 11.1 - Egret Avenue / Te Mutu Crescent Land Categorisation. 7

13.4         Confidential Attachment 5 to Item 11.1 - Egret Avenue / Te Mutu Crescent Land Categorisation. 7

11       Business   (continued) 7

11.1         Egret Avenue / Te Mutu Crescent Land Categorisation  (continued) 7

14       Closing karakia. 8

 

 


 

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council meeting

HELD AT THE Bay of Plenty Regional Council Chambers,

Regional House, 1 Elizabeth Street, Tauranga

ON Monday, 25 March 2024 AT 8.30am

 

 

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

IN ATTENDANCE:        Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (Chief Financial Officer), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Community Services), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance), Alastair McNeill (General Manager: Corporate Services), Sarah Omundsen (General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: City Development & Partnerships), Phil Kai Fong (Team Leader Strategic Property), Nick Swallow (Contractor: Corporate Solicitor), Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy & Governance Services), Anahera Dinsdale (Acting Team Leader: Governance Services), Caroline Irvine (Governance Advisor), Aimee Aranas (Governance Advisor)

 

1          Opening karakia

Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston opened the meeting with a karakia.

2          Apologies

Apology

Resolution  CO6/24/1

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the apology for lateness received from Commissioner Stephen Selwood be accepted.

Carried

 

3          Public forum

Nil

4          Acceptance of late items

Nil

5          Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

 

 

6          Change to the order of business

The meeting will move into Public Excluded for discussion as required.

7          Confirmation of minutes

Nil

8          Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9          Deputations, presentations, petitions

Nil

10        Recommendations from other committees

Nil

11        Business

11.1       Egret Avenue / Te Mutu Crescent Land Categorisation

Staff             Alastair McNeil, General Manager: Corporate Services

Phillip Kai Fong, Team Leader Strategic Property

Nick Swallow, Contractor: Corporate Solicitor

 

At 8.33am Commissioner Stephen Selwood entered the meeting.

 

Commission Chair Tolley acknowledged the devastation and impact on the lives of those living in the area as a result of the extreme weather event that occurred 14 months ago and noted the long and strict process set by central government when dealing with issues such as these. Commission Chair thanked the residents attending the meeting.

 

 

Key points

·        Two landslides that took place at the top of Egret Avenue in Maungatapu during the weekend of Auckland Anniversary in 2023 caused extensive damage to a number of properties.

·        It was noted that the full process of Land Categorisation had taken longer than expected.

·        Mr Kai Fong acknowledged and thanked the affected residents for their patience and co-ordination with Council and consultants throughout the process.

·        Central government concentrated on recovery in first instance in the most heavily affected areas in Auckland, Hawkes Bay and Te Tairawhiti.

·        A number of other Councils within the North Island had been working through similar issues where communities had been affected by flooding and landslides.

·        Acknowledged all of the staff for the extensive work done to get to this point.

·        There would be an on-going recovery process moving forward.  The report was a step in that process.

·        External contractors, consultants and expert guidance were employed to assist staff to understand the responses to the event. Their efforts were appreciated, given complexity of issues involved.

·        The report sets out the background to the severe weather event, how the Future of Severely Affected Locations programme (FOSAL) was developed, the offer from Central Government to use FOSAL in Tauranga and how to apply the process to properties affected by the landslides above Egret Avenue. Part of the process would include understanding the impact and risk that applied to certain properties.

 

In response to questions

·        A critical understanding in the report was that FOSAL was not a legislative or statutory process. It was clear that this was a locally led process with government support. A key element in this process was a best of science approach. Council went through an extremely robust process with Tonkin and Taylor Limited (T+T) with Whakatane District Council providing advice when needed. This process was also peer reviewed through Dr Tim Davies.

·        Due to there being no set outline of what needed to be provided, Council had to show the Cyclone Recovery Unit (CRU) that Council went through the best of science approach assessment that met the criteria which included residential properties that were significantly impacted by the severe weather event faced risk in future severe weather events, with a critical concern of intolerable risk to life.

·        The principle underlying FOSAL was to help a community move on faster from the effects of severe weather events. Council then needed to conclude with CRU the process which included resolution framework, the methodology to conclude agreements with landowners around valuation for properties, details received for insurance and EQC, settlements received or entitlements and timeframes involved.  CRU contracted Crown Infrastructure Partners to assist with the agreement. There would be a basis to assist with the assessment and an on-going reporting process to ensure that Council purchased the properties accordingly.

·        Category three properties were eligible to participate in the voluntary buy out process. It was emphasised that this was a voluntary buyout process and Council did not need to participate in FOSAL and similarly, property owners were not obliged to accept Councils buyout offer if their property was category three. Category three was where risk could not be mitigated or reduced to category two. 

·        M Category two recognised that there was a risk in the future which could be reduced or mitigated through community level interventions or residential property level intervention. Community level interventions included work on Council land or wider public works.  Property level intervention included grants to property owners to complete works to assist in reducing impact in future weather events and related to a limited number of properties in the area.  The report proposes to retain category two as an umbrella, rather than break it down to community or property level interventions. A category 2a needed further assessment.

·        The T+T consensual remediation options provided to Council  were high level and subject to final geotech investigation, detailed design and costing. Staff expected that there would be consenting issues that would need to be managed. There would be options to reduce the mitigation to category two properties but these were not confirmed until further assessment work had been completed.

 

Discussion points raised

·        Commissioners thanked the residents who had borne with the long and convoluted process noting that this meeting was hopefully the beginning of the end for this process.

·        Commission Chair noted that the adoption of FOSAL was one time only as Central Government had made it clear and this was part of process as they were a 50% partner.

·        It was noted that FOSAL was developed in response to the severe event affecting Hawkes Bay, Auckland and Te Tairawhiti and was potentially something that needed to be revisited. Category two was a prediction that it would be able to be remediated.

·        Commission Chair noted the processes for land categorisation and buyout for the land owners who were present at the meeting.

·        The net value of the property would be shared between the Council and the Crown.

·        Resolutions, (c), (j), (k) and (l) were resolved following the public excluded section. 

Resolution  CO6/24/2

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Egret Avenue / Te Mutu Crescent Land Categorisation".

(b)     Adopts the use of the Future of Severely Affected Locations process (FOSAL) for properties on Egret Avenue and Te Mutu Crescent noted in this report (the Taipari Properties).

(d)     Approves the Resolution Framework in Attachment 4.

(e)     Approves use of the Stormwater Reactive Reserve Fund to fund Council’s proportionate share of Category 3 property acquisitions.

(f)      Notes that Resolution (e) is inconsistent with Council’s Stormwater Reactive Reserve Fund Policy (SRRF Policy) because the purpose of that policy is to address flooding issues rather than issues arising from landslides, notes that Resolution (e) is a one-off use of the Stormwater Reactive Reserve Fund, and that Council does not intend changing the SRRF Policy in response to this one-off issue.

(g)     Instructs staff to progress an engineering brief for remediation / mitigation options for the Taipari Slips including (but not necessarily limited to) further geotechnical investigation, detailed design, consideration of consenting requirements, and final costing prior to any physical works beings undertaken.

(h)     Approves the purchase of Category 3 properties (should these be confirmed after consultation with relevant property owners) and delegates authority to the Chief Executive to implement FOSAL, including:

(i)      Final decision on land categorisation following consultation with owners of the Taipari Properties;

(ii)     Negotiation and entering into any associated contracts with the Cyclone Recovery Unit for the co-funded acquisition of properties categorised as Category 3 under FOSAL and the costs of any remediation / mitigation works to be funded through the Local Government Flood Resilience Co-investment Fund (Flood Resilience Fund); and

(iii)     Negotiation and entering into agreements with property owners for the acquisition of any Category 3 Properties.

(i)      Notes for the avoidance of doubt, that Council’s adoption of FOSAL is a one-time only decision taken solely because of the offer of Crown contributions in response to the 2023 North Island severe weather events and is not intended to be representative of how Council may approach natural disaster recovery on an ongoing basis.

Carried

 

 

12        Discussion of late items

Nil


 

 

13        Public excluded session 

Resolution to exclude the public

Resolution  CO6/24/3

Moved:       Commissioner Bill Wasley

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

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

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

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution

Confidential Attachment 1 to Item 11.1 - Egret Avenue / Te Mutu Crescent Land Categorisation

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

13.2 - Confidential Attachment 2 to Item 11.1 - Egret Avenue / Te Mutu Crescent Land Categorisation

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

13.3 - Confidential Attachment 3 to Item 11.1 - Egret Avenue / Te Mutu Crescent Land Categorisation

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

13.4 - Confidential Attachment 5 to Item 11.1 - Egret Avenue / Te Mutu Crescent Land Categorisation

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

 

11        Business   (continued)

11.1       Egret Avenue / Te Mutu Crescent Land Categorisation  (continued)

Resolution  CO6/24/4

Moved:       Commission Chair Anne Tolley

Seconded:  Commissioner Bill Wasley

That the Council:

(c)     Approves the preliminary categorisation of properties as shown in Confidential Attachment 3.

(j)      Retains Attachments 1 and 2 in confidential under section 7(2)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 until property owners have been notified of the outcome of this report and notes that part of Attachment 2 will be redacted on release for privacy reasons.

(k)     Retains Attachment 3 in confidential indefinitely under section 7(2)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 as it contains private information.

(l)      Retains Attachment 5 in confidential under section 7(2)(h) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 indefinitely as it contains information that will continue to be commercially sensitive.

Carried

 

14        Closing karakia

The closing karakia would be given after the Strategy, Finance and Risk Committee meeting.

 

 

 

 

The meeting closed at 9:20am.

 

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 8 April 2024.

 

 

 

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

Commission Chair Anne Tolley

CHAIRPERSON

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

8          Declaration of conflicts of interest

9          Deputations, presentations, petitions

Nil


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

10        Recommendations from other committees

10.1       Matapihi Southern Pipeline Advisory Group

File Number:           A15965093

Author:                    Anahera Dinsdale, Acting Team Leader: Governance Services

Authoriser:              Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy and Governance Services

 

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      The purpose of this report is to bring a recommendation from the Matapihi Southern Pipeline Advisory Group to Council for consideration. At its meeting on 8 May 2024, the Advisory Group passed the following resolution which includes a recommendation to Council.

Committee Resolution  MSP2/24/1

Moved:       Mr Anthony Fisher

Seconded:  Commissioner Shadrach Rolleston

That the “Matapihi Southern Pipeline Advisory Group”:

(a)     Receives the report Discussion on Matapihi Southern Pipeline Terms of Reference and Memorandum of Understanding ".

(b)     Recommends to the Council the following proposed changes to the Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of Reference for the Matapihi Southern Pipeline Advisory Group:

(i)   Meeting Frequency: No less than two meetings per year.

(ii)  Changes to Tauranga City Council Quorum: Either One (1) Elected Member or a General Manager and a staff member from Tauranga City Council present at the meeting.

Carried

 

2.      In accordance with the Committee recommendation MSP2/24/4 (b) (i) and (ii) Council are now asked to adopt the recommended changes to the Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of Reference for the Matapihi Southern Pipeline Advisory Group.

 

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Matapihi Southern Pipeline Advisory Group".

(b)     Adopts the recommendations of the Matapihi Southern Pipeline Advisory Group and makes the following changes to the Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of Reference for the Matapihi Southern Pipeline Advisory Group:

(i)   Meeting Frequency: No less than two meetings per year

(ii)  Changes to Tauranga City Council Quorum: Either One (1) Elected Member or a General Manager and a staff member from Tauranga City Council present at the meeting.

 

 

Attachments

Nil

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

11        Business

11.1       Whareroa Marae - Future-proofing Option

File Number:           A15883469

Author:                    Phil Kai Fong, Team Leader: Strategic Property

Danna Leslie, Contractor

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

 

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      This report seeks a decision from Council to progress providing a future proofing option for the Whareroa Marae community.

 

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)      Receives the report "Whareroa Marae - Future-proofing Option".

(b)      Agrees in principle to providing the Whareroa Marae community with land to be available as a future proofing option to mitigate some of the issues faced by this community subject to:

(i)      Appropriate mechanisms being available to achieve the objective while providing for the continued operation of the airport activity; and

(ii)     Discussions and agreements with Whareroa Marae community; and

(iii)     Discussions and agreements with the Crown and Western Bay of Plenty District Council as joint signatories to the ‘Deed Terminating Tauranga Airport Joint Venture’.

 

 

 

Executive Summary

2.      The proximity of Whareroa Marae to Te Awanui, Tauranga Harbour means it will increasingly be exposed to climate change impacts and sea level rise.  In addition, the Marae’s industrial neighbours are having on-going impacts to the physical health as well as the cultural wellbeing and activities of the Whareroa Marae community.

3.      Land currently situated on the southeastern fringes of the airport landholding has been identified as a potential future-proofing option for the Whareroa community.

4.      This report includes discussion and recommendations on the following:

(a)     Adverse effects experienced by the Whareroa Marae community;

(b)     Land identified as a future-proofing option for the Whareroa Marae community; and

(c)     A summary of the legislative frameworks which would need to be assessed and complied with when exploring possible pathways towards a future proofing option.

Background

5.      Whareroa Marae was established, in its current location, in the late 1860’s by Ngāi Te Rangi rangatira (chief) and tupuna (ancestor) Taiaho Hōri Ngātai.  The hapū associated with Whareroa Marae are Ngāti Kuku and Ngāi Tūkairangi.

6.      The wharenui at Whareroa Marae, was constructed in 1873 and this marae is one of the oldest marae sites in Tauranga today. The Whareroa Marae site now consists of the Marae, papakāinga, including kaumatua housing, kohanga reo, and associated facilities (including parking and recreational space to accommodate cultural activities). The area currently occupied by Whareroa Marae has been reduced to 3.3 hectares.

7.      The issues experienced by the Whareroa Marae community are well documented.  In summary, together with climate change, the growth of industrial activity around Whareroa Marae has, and will continue to, erode this community’s social, environmental, and cultural wellbeing.

factors impacting on Whareroa marae community wellbeing

8.      Whareroa Marae’s proximity to the sea means it will be increasingly exposed to climate change impacts from sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, groundwater rise, and increased exposure to increasing rainfall-related flooding. Currently, Whareroa Marae is at risk of coastal inundation and flooding from an extreme storm event.  Current scientific modelling shows that these climate change impacts will continue to grow and this in turn will also have impacts on health and wellbeing for this community.

9.      The construction of buildings and infrastructure around the Marae have removed the viewshaft from Whareroa to Mauao and the Ōtamataha Pā and Mission Cemetery, where Taiaho Hōri Ngātai is buried.  The importance of reconnecting the Whareroa community with Mauao should not be understated.  Mauao is a sacred tūpuna maunga of the Iwi and hapū of Tauranga Moana, and Whareroa Marae had direct sightlines to Mauao until being built out by surrounding industrial development.  This has resulted in Mauao seldom being referenced in whaikōrero, and the cultural integrity of the positioning of the marae and wharenui being compromised.

10.    While the industrial uses surrounding Whareroa, including the Port of Tauranga, have regional and national economic importance, mana whenua state that they have had significant negative effects including, deterioration of water quality, affecting the quality and quantity kaimoana (seafood) collected, and safe recreational activity.  It has also been raised that the noise and odour produced by industrial activity has detrimentally impacted their day-to-day living, as well as their ability to appropriately host cultural events, including tangihanga.

11.    There is concern around the compromised health of residents at Whareroa Marae from the deteriorating air quality.  The site is most often occupied by kaumatua (elders) and tamariki (children) at kohanga reo (early childhood facility).  The Toi Te Ora Public Health Study (2022)[1] (Toi Te Ora Health Study) records the negative effects on health as a result of the air quality issues, created by industrial activity, at Whareroa Marae.  Council commissioned an independent expert review of the Toi Te Ora Health Study.  The review[2] concurred with the findings in the Toi Te Ora Health Study that air quality in the Mount Maunganui area will result in premature mortality and hospital admissions.

12.    The Whareroa Marae community, reference to whom includes the hapū of Ngāti Kuku and Ngāi Tūkairangi, have raised concerns over many decades and consistently participate in forums, studies, and discussions to address issues with Tauranga City Council, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, and commercial and industrial neighbours, including the Port of Tauranga.

Future-proofing opportunity

13.    The proposal is for Tauranga City Council to make available a parcel of land to mitigate the threats and impacts affecting the Whareroa Marae community, and to provide them with a future-proofing option at a time, and in a way, that reflects their needs.

14.    While Council is under no legislative obligation to address the concerns raised, the discussion represents a unique opportunity to assist in meeting the specific needs of the Whareroa Marae community.  It is considered that this would not represent a precedent in addressing any individual issue, or a desire to dispose of operational land.  Instead, it acknowledges the culmination of the factors outlined in paragraphs 8 to 12 above, which have impacted the social and cultural wellbeing and activities of this community.

15.    Land forming part of Tauranga Airport has been identified as providing a potential future-proofing option for the Whareroa Marae community.  The land is part of the wider Airport landholding, and it is currently used for grazing purposes.  This use aligns with Council's continued operational requirement for the land, as it preserves the integrity of the Airport activity and ensures that this strategic asset can be utilised unimpeded by adjoining land uses.

16.    It is acknowledged by the Whareroa Marae community that, should this future-proofing opportunity be progressed, they would be exposed to increased impacts associated with air traffic noise and movements. However, these impacts will be known in advance enabling the marae community to make an informed decision of whether they wish to take up the future-proofing opportunity.

17.    The operational effectiveness of Tauranga Airport is a primary consideration for Council, as there is an ongoing operational requirement for the subject land.  It is therefore likely that restrictions and conditions on use would be placed on the land, should this proposal be supported by Council.

The Land

18.    The land the subject of this report forms part of the wider Airport landholding and is located to the southeast of Tauranga Airport.  The area, of approximately 28 hectares, is shown outlined in yellow on the plan below (“the subject whenua”):

19.    The subject whenua is culturally significant. In addition to providing a sight-line to Mauao, it contains the Horoipia stream that is a prominent component of tangata whenua history being a sacred place where warriors would be cleansed and blessed upon return from warfare. It also contains part of the Omanu urupā which is the burial ground associated with Whareroa Marae and separated by the Tauranga Airport. Of further significance, pre-European burials were mainly conducted in swamp areas such as that surrounding the Omanu urupā so the areas that may be considered less valuable from a commercial perspective still hold high cultural value for tangata whenua.

20.    Within the subject whenua are two areas, which as discussed below, are elevated and outside of the flood plains.  They are shown edged blue on the plan below.  The northern block is approximately 3.16 hectares, and the southern block is approximately 1.61 hectares (“the elevated land").

21.    The subject whenua is held for the purposes of an aerodrome by Tauranga City Council. It is held on Trust for the benefit of Tauranga City Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council and the Crown (Ministry of Transport).  This is discussed further at paragraphs 33-36 below, and the full extent of the jointly-owned land is shown shaded yellow on the plan above.

22.    The subject whenua, together with other parcels, was acquired through Public Works legislation in the 1960’s for the purposes of developing an aerodrome. Further details regarding the acquisition and history of the land are outlined in Attachment A.

23.    The subject whenua is zoned suburban residential and is subject to the following, which are identified on the City Plan; overland flow paths and floodplains, airport noise, airport height restrictions and slope surface, Areas of potential inundation from harbour surge, financial contributions to urban growth areas, and Areas of erosion and slope hazards.

24.    Below is a plan showing the overland flow paths (in purple) and flood plains (in blue).  The extent of the elevated areas shown on the plan at paragraph 20 above has been informed by the areas outside of the low-lying flood plains shown in this plan.

A map of land with water and roads

Description automatically generated

25.    High level valuation advice has been obtained as to the square metre rates for the elevated land, low-lying land, and wetland areas.  The indicative land values are outlined in the table below:

1.                   Land

2.                   Indicative Area

3.                               Valuation Advice based on m2

4.                   Indicative Value Land

5.                   Elevated land suitable for structures

6.                    

7.                   5 ha

8.                    

9.                               $225/m2

10.                 

11.                $11,250,000

Low-lying land

12.                20 ha

13.                 

14.                            $5m2

15.                 

16.                $  1,000,000

Wetland

17.                3ha

18.                 

19.                $0.50m2

20.                 

21.                $15,000

Total potential land area

22.                28 ha

23.                 

24.                 

25.                $12,265,000

Elevated land – value based on the same area as currently occupied by Whareroa Marae

26.                3.3 ha

27.                 

28.                $225/m2

29.                 

30.                $7,425,000

 

26.    The subject whenua forms part of a 114-hectare area currently leased to a third party for grazing purposes and a riding school.  This arrangement assists in preserving (rather than impinging on) the integrity of the Airport activity and ensures that this strategic asset can be utilised unimpeded by adjoining land uses.  This lease has been in place since August 1988, and the tenant is responsible for maintenance on the land including fences and gates.  While the lease is terminable on one months’ notice, the tenant, has an ongoing relationship with mana whenua, and is willing to work with Council and representatives of Whareroa Marae as appropriate.

Options Analysis

27.    There are a number of factors for Council to consider, to ensure compliance with its legislative obligations and to preserve the on-going operational integrity of Tauranga Airport.  Further investigations and discussions with Whareroa Marae are required before presenting any options to Council.

28.    A summary of the considerations are outlined below under Legal Implications / Considerations.

 

Legal Implications / CONSIDERATIONS

29.    The subject whenua is required by Tauranga Airport to preserve the ongoing operational activity of the Airport. Any alternative use of the subject whenua can only occur if it can be ensured that Council’s airport operations are unaffected.  Legal advice will be sought regarding the legal parameters within which any pathway could be progressed without compromising the future operation and development of Tauranga Airport.

Airport Authorities Act

30.    Activity on the subject whenua must be compliant with the provisions of the Airport Authorities Act 1996.

31.    There are currently several leases registered against the titles to the wider Airport landholding which are subject to this Act. The Airport Authorities Act 1996 allows for land to be leased “for any purpose that will not interfere with the safe and efficient operation of the Airport”.

32.    These existing leases are likely to include the following terms:

(a)     The consent of the airport authority would be required for any erection or structural alterations to any building or other installation.  The airport authority may not give its consent if the erection or structural alteration will interfere with the use and enjoyment of the land as an airport.

(b)     The airport authority is entitled to require any part of the leased property for airport purposes, and therefore terminate the lease for the whole, or in part.  Should this occur, no compensation is payable, however compensation may be payable for any improvements.

Any future lease(s) would need to reflect the above provisions.

Joint Ownership

33.    While the titles to the land are registered in the name of either Tauranga City Council (RT528369 and SA2B/115) or Tauranga Borough Council (RT SA852/267), the land is jointly acquired land, held in trust for a public work.  The beneficiaries of the trust are the Crown (acting through the Minister of Transport), Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Tauranga City Council (“the parties”).

34.    The parties originally operated Tauranga Airport as a joint venture dating back to 1961. The joint venture was terminated, and this was recorded by a Deed of Termination dated 30 April 1998 (“Deed of Termination”).

35.    The Deed of Termination confirms that the land is held on trust as noted above.  It also specifies at clause 7.3.1 that:

TDC {Tauranga District Council} may only sell the Jointly Owned Land for full market value to a purchaser at arm’s length.  Within 5 working days of receipt of any proceeds of such sale and of any part of them, TDC must pay 50% of such proceeds (including GST) to the Crown.

The consent of each of the parties would therefore be required prior to any opportunity being progressed.

36.    Preliminary discussions have occurred with Ministers and Western Bay of Plenty District Council regarding the proposal to provide a future proofing option to the Whareroa Marae community. If progressed, the formal consent of each of the Crown and Western Bay of Plenty District Council will be requested.

Public Works Act 1981

37.    Some of the airport land was acquired as a public work and therefore the provisions of the Public Works Act 1981 apply.  This may include offer back requirements if any land is no longer required (i.e. for the on-going operational activity of the Airport).  For the avoidance of doubt, Council has not declared any part of the land surplus and as noted above, the land is still required for airport purposes and may be needed for further airport operations in the future.

Significance AND ENGAGEMENT

38.    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.

39.    In making this assessment, consideration must be given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

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

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

(c)   the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

40.    An appropriate assessment of the above considerations would be undertaken as part of any options analysis and reported to Council.

41.    The subject whenua is part of the Tauranga Airport landholding which is identified as a “strategic asset” in Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy 2020.

Next Steps

42.    Upon Council direction being given, staff will notify representatives of the Whareroa Marae community of the decision and take the steps appropriate to the resolutions granted.

Attachments

1.      Acquisition History of Subject Whenua - A15952383  

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 



 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

11.2       Tauranga Local Water Done Well - Preferred Structure

File Number:           A15917261

Author:                    Cathy Davidson, Acting Director of City Waters

Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

Authoriser:              Wally Potts, Acting General Manager: Infrastructure

 

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      The purpose of this report is to provide a discussion on the preferred options for the Tauranga Local Water Done Well preferred options and CCO set up.

 

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Tauranga Local Water Done Well - Preferred Structure".

(b)     Notes the key objectives for the development of a water entity include obtaining sufficient borrowing capacity for waters and council, retaining local ownership, the development of partnership models and improving the efficiency of water delivery and its integration with council planning and operations.

(c)     Will continue to monitor legislative developments for the establishment of water entities and the impacts this will have on the establishment of a water entity for Tauranga as outlined in this paper.

(d)     Approves the preferred option of establishing a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) model with Western Bay of Plenty District Council. 

(e)     Establishes a project team to prepare the organisation for joint delivery of three water services across the Western Bay of Plenty.

(f)      Notes that council will continue to investigate structure options involving other councils and approves the development of a CCO model that enables further councils to be included in the future

(g)     Notes that options may include both two (water and wastewater) and three water (including stormwater) options both on immediate set up and over time.

(h)     As part of the CCO structure development, investigates opportunities for volumetric wastewater charging.

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

2.      Following recent announcements regarding Watercare and Auckland Council regarding Local Water Done Well Tauranga City continues to work on options for the establishment of a water entity.

3.      The focus of this entity is on the following key outcomes

(a)     To enable sufficient borrowing capacity for three waters and council through balance sheet separation or equivalent financing arrangements

(b)     Retaining local ownership of a water entity

(c)     The development of partnerships with other councils to improve efficiency of operations

(d)     Development of a model that may allow scale and growth over time

(e)     Ensuring integrations remains with Council for planning and delivery of infrastructure including growth planning and delivery.

4.      This paper outlines the preferred way forward to achieve these outcomes, noting the final solutions may vary over time in order to ensure these outcomes are achieved.  Also, this recognises that a staged approach may be the most appropriate way to achieve these outcomes.

DISCUSSION

5.      Recent announcements with regard to Watercare and Auckland Council have outlined legislation to be created which will enable local water done well. 

6.      For other Councils (i.e., TCC), they will need to wait for more details on how they can finance themselves appropriately and access the long-term debt structures.  There is an opportunity for councils to form CCOs already with finance through existing structures, including Local Government Funding Agency.  Further opportunity is expected to come from the Local Water Done Well Transition Bill due at the end of May 2024 together with follow up legislation at the end of the year.

7.      Tauranga continues to work on a structure that will support local waters done well based on a preferred option of the establishment of a waters CCO for two or three waters with Western Bay of Plenty Council in the first instance and having the ability to grow this model over time to include increased water functions (if two waters is developed in the first instance) and for the inclusion of additional councils in the future.

8.      Whilst this model is preferred it is noted that as this continues to be developed it may be varied in order to achieve the best outcomes.

9.      Suggested key outcomes for the initial establishment of this model are outlined below.

Increased borrowing capacity

10.    Currently Tauranga City Council is approaching its debt to revenue limits as outlined in the recently adopted Long Term Plan.  Work is continuing across the sector to enable greater financing capacity.  This will be considered alongside any water entity model with the focus being able to create greater investment capacity for both the water entity and the balance of council operations.

Retaining Local Ownership

11.    A Council Controlled Organisation is seen as the preferred model at present.  This ensures that Council remains the parent entity and therefor ensures local ownership of waters continues.  Models that allow other councils to be part of CCO modelling ensures that local ownership remains.

Partnership, efficiency, and future proofing

12.    Whilst the creation of balance sheet separation will assist with financing the establishment of a CCO model can also assist with improving efficiency by providing scale.  Any models proposed should have the ability to include other councils in the future to continue to develop greater efficiencies across the sector.

Integration with council

13.    Ensuring that planning and delivery remain integrated with council will be essential to ensuring the success of any CCO model and this will be considered in the structure of any entity going forward.  A working group for the establishment of the CCO will consider the wider organisational impacts of any structure put forward.

 

 

Water billing

14.    Currently Council has ring fenced activities for the three water activities.  This includes volumetric billing for water.  Volumetric charging may also be included for the wastewater activity and further work will be undertaken to explore the advantages and disadvantages of different pricing models.

NEXT STEPS

15.    The financially separate CCO model being developed for Auckland City Council will be carefully reviewed by TCC together with other alternatives as part of the “Local Water Done Well” program of work endorsed by Council on 29th April 2024.

16.    TCC are continuing to financially model a number of scenarios.  Once the models have been fully developed and peer reviewed, there will be a greater understanding of the benefits or disbenefits for a new CCO to managing 2 waters or 3 waters. 

17.    TCC are invested in understanding how a CCO arrangement can be developed with Western Bay of Plenty District Council, and have the door open for other partners.  A project team will be set up to focus on CCO establishment and implementation by 1 July 2025.

18.    Once the Local Water Done Well Transition Bill requirements for a Water Service Delivery Plan is understood, in conjunction with Western Bay of Plenty District Council, the option of that plan being a joint plan will be decided.

19.    As part of the CCO structure development, opportunities for volumetric wastewater charging will be investigated to support a financially sustainable organisation.

 

Attachments

Nil

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

11.3       15th Avenue to Welcome Bay Single Staged Business Case

File Number:           A15524991

Author:                    Derek McFadden, Senior Project Manager

Jason Spencer, Transport Programme Manager - Dual Funded

Authoriser:              Neil Mason, Programme Director: Major Projects

 

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      To present to Council the Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay Single Stage Business Case ‘the SSBC’ and seek Council approval for implementation of Stage 1 of the Project and seek Council endorsement for the submission of the SSBC to New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for their approval and consideration for co-funding of Stage 1.

 

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)      Receives the report "15th Avenue to Welcome Bay Single Staged Business Case ".

(b)      Approves Stage 1 Pre-implementation activities from October 2024 subject to:

(i)      NZTA endorsement of the SSBC with funding approval for the remaining Stage 1 pre-implementation activities at 51% Funding Assistance Rate (FAR).

(ii)     2025/2035 Long Term Plan approval of sufficient funding to complete the Pre-implementation of Stage 1.

(c)      Approves that Stage 1 of the Project moves from Pre-implementation to Implementation activities under management of Council’s Major Projects Unit subject to:

(i)      Stage 1 scope is generally as described in the Option Analysis section and attachments to this Paper noting that changes will occur as the designs are developed but these changes are not to significantly alter the overall Stage 1 scope and outcomes.

(ii)     NZTA endorsement of the SSBC with funding approval for Implementation at 51% Funding Assistance Rate (FAR) for Stage 1.

(iii)     The Stage 1 Forecast Cost at Completion (FCAC) (P95) is reforecast at the milestones set out in paragraph 51 (i.e., a, b and c) by an independent qualified Quantity Surveyor and tracks less than or approximately equal to the FCAC (P95) contained in the Final SSBC approved by NZTA.

(iv)    The Stage 1 Implementation Estimate (IE) (P95) is less than the approved 2025/2035 Long Term Plan budget for Stage 1 plus any other funds approved by the Council at the time.

(d)      Notes that Pre-implementation and Implementation phases for Stage 2 of the Project will be under management of Council’s Low Cost Low Risk unit (LCLR) or other programme with allocated budget as set out in para 43 below.

(e)      Approves Stage 1 as noted in (b & c) above irrespective of whether Hairini Bridge abutment strengthening is approved by Council.

(f)      Delegates authority to the Chief Executive to approve submission of the Final SSBC to NZTA.

(g)      Notes that the SSBC will only request NZTA co-funding for the Stage 1 amount detailed in para 43.

(h)      Notes that there is scope, cost and funding uncertainty with respect to stormwater treatment requirements in Stages 1 and 2 and relevant costs included in this report will need to be adjusted accordingly (an update on this will be given to Council on 20 May).

(i)       Notes that if Hairini Bridge abutment strengthening is approved this could affect the Project Programme (see Attachment 1).

(j)       Notes that on 12 February 2024 Council approved early Pre-implementation works between March-September 2024 to the value of $3.5M (P95) that are were forecast to be completed prior to the expected NZTA approval of Project funding.

(k)      Notes that the final SSBC is expected to be completed in June 2024.

(l)       Accepts the risk that if actual costs for Stage 1 exceed the P50 estimates contained in the Final SSBC and these costs are not fully covered by NZTA Cost Scope Adjustment(s), Council will have to fund 100% of the shortfall.

 

 

 

Executive Summary

2.      The Project will enhance the Fifteenth Avenue, Turret Road, and Welcome Bay Road corridor by alleviating congestion, improving options for active modes of transportation and public transit, and enhancing access to essential destinations such as schools, marae, and shops. The significance of the corridor lies in its role as the primary link connecting Welcome Bay, Ohauiti, Hairini, Maungatapu, and the central and northern Te Papa Peninsula.

3.      The Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan (TSP) identified parts of this corridor as having high operating gaps in level of service. It ranked as high as #4 in terms of the worst peak hour congestion, and there are level of service deficiencies for bus passengers, pedestrians and cyclists. These problems were confirmed through the Investment Logic Mapping process. The future form of the corridor is recognised as one of the key issues to address in the Western Bay of Plenty. This emphasises importance of this Project in addressing identified gaps in level of service, access and safety, particularly for cyclists.

4.      The SSBC commenced with the Indicative Business Case (IBC) phase in March 2022. Presently the Detailed Business Case (DBC) phase is nearing completion.

5.      This SSBC is a result of collaborative efforts between Tauranga City Council, tangata whenua, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, the NZTA and stakeholders.

6.      The SSBC identifies a Preferred Option which includes:

(i)      Completing the four-laning between Cameron and Burrows Street.

(ii)     Three-laning of Turret Road and the Hairini Bridge and Causeway.

(iii)     A tidal-flow (dynamic lane) system along Turret Road to provide an additional lane of capacity in the peak directions of travel.

(iv)    High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes along Fifteenth Avenue and Turret Road – starting as T2, but potentially changing to T3 or bus lanes at some point in the future.

(v)     Some Improved walking and cycling facilities, targeting the key journeys to schools for zone 1.

(vi)    Safety improvements.

(vii)    Opportunities to include cultural design elements that recognise the significance of the corridor to mana whenua.

7.      The Project has an overall Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 3.0 based on the costs eligible for co-funding[3]. With pavement rehabilitation costs included (these are not eligible for co-funding) the BCR is 2.5.

8.      It is proposed that the Project will be implemented in two stages from mid-2025 to early 2028 with Stage 1 being implemented by the newly formed Major Projects Unit and Stage 2 being implemented by Council’s LCLR or other Programme Unit.

9.      The combined Pre-implementation and Implementation costs for Stages 1 and 2 are $116.3M (P50)[4] and $149.7M (P95) (including pavement rehabilitation). It is expected that Stage 1 be co-funded with NZTA at a 51% FAR. Stage 2 will be funded from Council’s LCLR budget with co-funding where applicable and available from NZTA and other sources yet to be confirmed.

Background

10.    In October 2021 Stantec was commissioned to conduct a strategic review of the Project and offer recommendations to frame the scope of the business case. This ensured a well-informed and strategic approach to the Project’s development.

11.    Following a competitive bid process, the SSBC phase commenced in March 2022 with Stantec as the main business case consultant. At the same time Aurecon was direct appointed to provide specialised advice on the condition and performance of the Hairini Bridge and Causeway. Aurecon’s work has confirmed that three-laning of the bridge is possible.

12.    In February 2023, the Commissioners agreed to an investigation of the option of a clip-on shared use path (SUP) on the Hairini Bridge. This SUP will provide a safer way for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the harbour, whilst creating space for an additional lane (for traffic) to be added onto the existing bridge.

13.    Following public consultation in September 2023 the Commissioners approved the Preferred Option and the commencement of the DBC phase.

14.    On 12 February 2024, the Commissioners approved early Pre-implementation activities between March-September 2024 that are required to be completed before the expected date of NZTA approval of the Project (October 2024). This was to ensure that the Project meets the Long-term Plan (LTP) construction start date of July 2025. This approval was for $3.5M and it was acknowledged that this was unlikely to be co-funded by NZTA.

15.    Early Pre-implementation works to date have focused on the colony of approximately 20 pairs of tara / white-fronted terns, which nest on the historic bridge piers adjacent to the Hairini Bridge. The Project involves a clip-on Shared Use Path (SUP) that will clash with some of the current tern nesting sites. To minimise effects on the terns TCC has commenced work to locate, permit and design an alternative and permanent nesting habitat in Waimapu estuary that can be used by the terns for at least the construction period of the SUP and conversion of the bridge to three lanes.

16.    On 12 April 2024 the Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan (TSP) PMG agreed to recommend to the TSP Governance Group that it supports the Project.

17.    On 17 April the TSP Governance Group also supported the Project. However, it also recommended that in the light of the current draft GPS investment priorities the Project economics be presented for a) the entire project and b) only those interventions that are most aligned with the current draft GPS and, therefore, most likely to be approved by NZTA and attract funding.

18.    On 22 April the Commissioners decided that the Project should be implemented in two stages, with Stage 1 being implemented by the newly formed Major Projects Unit and Stage 2 being implemented by Council’s LCLR Programme Unit or other programme. The Commissioners also decided that the SSBC only request funding for Stage 1. Details of these stages and their respective economics are included in the Options Analysis section following and in Attachments 2 and 3.

19.    Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BoPRC) has been represented on the Project Control Group throughout the SSBC phase and staff and management have expressed support for the Preferred Option. The Project was presented to the BoPRC Joint Public Transport Committee (JPTC) meeting of 1 May 2024 with the Committee expressing support for the Project and the proposed timing.

20.    The SSBC is not finalised as of 20 May. However, the Executive Summary is finalised and included as Attachment 4. Consequently, the Council is requested to delegate authority to the CE to approve submission of the final SSBC to NZTA.

21.    The SSBC is expected to be completed in June 2024 following which it will be submitted to NZTA for consideration. It is expected that the SSBC will go before the NZTA Board meeting of 24 October 2024.

22.    At its meeting of 10 June Council will be updated on investigations into the strengthening of the abutments of the Hairini Bridge to improve seismic resilience of this structure and the harbour crossing.

Strategic / Statutory Context

23.    Turret Rd is one of only two bridges across the harbour that connect Tauranga’s central Te Papa peninsula to the east. This connection is of key strategic importance to the region.  With existing and growing congestion, upgrading this route is paramount to economic growth and productivity of the region.

24.    The Project has been identified as a priority in transport plans in Tauranga and the Bay of Plenty. The Project is one of Tauranga City Council’s five major transport projects and is included in the Long-term Plan (LTP). It is listed as the sixth highest strategic priority in the Bay of Plenty Regional Land Transport Plan 2024-34 (RLTP). It is listed with the highest priority of ’High’ in the TSP. The Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) notes the Project as a ’key move’ for the central corridor, and as one of the UFTI implementation first steps transport delivery actions.

25.    This Project delivers on each of the strategic priorities in the Draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport 2024-2034 (GPS). The strong BCR of 3.0 indicates good value for money (BCR for both Project and Stage 1 is 3.0). The significant travel time benefits (39% of benefits for Project and 58% for Stage 1) deliver economic growth and productivity. The Project would also generate safety improvements (3% of benefits for Project and 5% for Stage 1). Moreover, the GPS specifically notes interventions such as dynamic lanes to make better use of assets and deliver value for money. Hairini Bridge strengthening that is being considered would increase resilience.

26.    The Project would also improve multimodal access and help to address current deficiencies in the Welcome Bay area, including poor connections, lack of Māori land development opportunities and infrastructure constraints. These improvements align well with objectives in UFTI, the TSP, the LTP and the RLTP.

27.    In summary, the Project is:

(i)      of key strategic importance.

(ii)     delivers on strategic priorities in the GPS.

(iii)     delivers on objectives in UFTI, the TSP, the LTP and the RLTP and

(iv)    is identified as a priority in UFTI, the TSP, the LTP and the RLTP

 

 

Options Analysis AND DEVELOPMENT

28.    An initial wānanga held on 13 May 2022 convened stakeholders from TCC, BoPRC, NZTA and hapū to establish a strategic vision for a corridor project. This resulted in an agreed outcome statement: ’Acknowledging kaitiakitanga and improved wellbeing for future generations by delivering efficient movement and enhanced connectivity of people, place and identity’.

29.    A long-list workshop was held on 5 July 2022 convening stakeholders from diverse organisations to analyse key evidence and propose interventions aligned with the draft Investment Objectives. This resulted in the identification of 112 interventions addressing themes such as demand management, public transport, intersection upgrades, and safety measures.

30.    The Early Assessment Sieving Tool (EAST) was systematically used to evaluate potential project interventions, identifying fatal flaws, out-of-scope initiatives, quick-win opportunities, and interventions aligned with the investment objectives. This process ensured prioritisation of feasible, goal-aligned interventions whilst eliminating those unlikely to deliver desired outcomes.

31.   

The Multi-Criteria Assessment (MCA) process, conducted between August and September 2022, comprised initial briefing sessions on 30 August and 9 September, followed by a technical moderation session on 23 September. During this session subject matter experts shared scores and discussed assumptions. Subsequent follow-up sessions were held to further refine scores, leading to the identification of top programmes for each of the four zones shown in the figure below. The programmes that were favoured for Zones 1 and 2 where Walking and Cycling, Quality of Place and Transport Choice; while those for Zones 3 and 4 were Walking and Cycling and Do Maximum respectively.

Figure 1: Project extent showing Zones 1 to 4

32.    In early 2023 the short-listing assessment was undertaken confirming Zones 1 and 2 should include the introduction of T2 lanes in widening areas, raised medians along Fifteenth Avenue and the implementation of new pedestrian crossings around schools on Welcome Bay Road to enhance safety.

33.    In February 2023 Commissioners agreed to an investigation of the option of a clip-on shared use path on the Hairini Bridge and conversion to three traffic lanes. This was subsequently confirmed as technically feasible.

34.    Public consultation on the shortlist options took place during September/October 2023 to help inform selection of the Preferred Option. There was support for a tidal flow lane across Hairini Bridge, improved shared/cycle paths and High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes along Fifteenth Avenue, with only minor changes needed to the shortlist options.

35.    In October the Commissioners endorsed the Preferred Option which has subsequently been refined through further traffic modelling, a Safe Systems Audit and design development.

36.    The Preferred Option comprises the following interventions:

(a)     Zone 1 – Cameron Road to Burrows Street

(i)      Widen to create a consistent four lane corridor - one general traffic and one high-occupancy vehicle (T2) lane in each direction.

(ii)     Raised median (Cameron Road to Fraser Street)

(iii)     New pedestrian/cyclist signalised crossing at Devonport Road.

(iv)    Traffic signal at Grace Road*.

(v)     Shared path between Fraser Street and Turret Road (to the bridge)

(vi)    Shared path between Fraser Street and Burrows (on one side)

Zone 1 - Local road improvements

(vii)    Cycleway along Thirteenth Avenue to connect to Tauranga Boys College and Cameron Road.

(viii)   Completion of the shared path along Burrows Street, including new pedestrian crossings.

(ix)    Shared path along Eighteenth Avenue, outside of Tauranga Intermediate School.

(b)     Zone 2 – Turret Road and Hairini Bridge and Causeway

(i)      White fronted tern habitat relocation.

(ii)     Clip-on shared path to the existing bridge.

(iii)     Conversion of the existing bridge to three lanes.

(iv)    Tidal flow system in place along Turret Road and across the bridge.

(v)     New signalised pedestrian crossing across Turret Road.

(vi)    New traffic signal for the Holiday Park.

(vii)    Shared path along the causeway connecting to the bridge shared path.

(c)     Zone 3 and 4 – Welcome Bay Road

(i)      Shared path (on one side) along the full extent of Welcome Bay Road.

(ii)     New signalised mid-block pedestrian crossing close to Kaitemako Road.

(iii)     Signalisation of the Welcome Bay Road/James Cook Drive intersection.

(a)     Includes two approach lanes along James Cook Drive (one for buses only during the AM peak)

(b)     Removal of the right-turn out from James Cook Drive.

(iv)    Mini roundabout at Victory Street/James Cook Drive*.

(v)     Improving the path (the ‘goat track’) between Wickham Place and Welcome Bay Link Road*.

(vi)    New roundabout at Waitaha Road/Welcome Bay Road (LCLR project due for completion in June 2024 not included in the Project cost estimates).

(vii)    Recreational boardwalk across the mangroves, alongside Welcome Bay Road between James Cook Drive and Waitaha Road.

(viii)   Improvements for the Welcome Bay School (new pedestrian crossings & shared path).

(ix)    New signalised mid-block pedestrian crossing for Tauranga Waldorf School.

Note:
Scope and cost estimates for interventions marked * were added following completion of parallel estimate process. Also following this process, several raised tables have been removed from the scope and cost estimates.

37.    The Preferred Option has a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)[5] of 3.0, with benefits split as follows:

(i)      Travel time = 39%

(ii)     Vehicle operation costs and CO2 = 6%

(iii)     Public Transport = 2%

(iv)    Safety = 3%

(v)     Walking/Cycling = 50%

38.    The BCR of 3.0 excludes both benefits and costs of pavement rehabilitation because TCC is not requesting NZTA co-funding for pavement rehabilitation. If pavement rehabilitation is included the BCR is 2.5.

39.    On 22 April the Commissioners instructed that the Project be implemented in two stages with Stage 1 being implemented by the newly formed Major Projects Unit and Stage 2 being implemented by Council’s LCLR Programme Unit or other programme. Key details of each stage are shown in the following table and in Attachments 2 and 3:

 

Stage 1

Stage 2

Scope of Works

Zone 1

All scope excluding some local road improvements.

Zone 2

All scope

Zone 3

Only signalisation of the Welcome Bay Road/James Cook Drive intersection and the mini roundabout at Victory Street/James Cook Drive

All Project scope not delivered in Stage 1

Economics (BCR)

3.0

3.1

Programme

Mid 2025 to late 2026

Late 2026 to early 2028

 

40.    Both Stage 1 and Stage 2 are justifiable investments on their own merit. However, the Stage 1 BCR assumes Stage 2 is completed following completion of Stage 1. Without Stage 2 in place, the number of cyclists using the Stage 1 facilities (i.e., improved facilities along Fifteenth Avenue and the Hairini Bridge) is likely to be lower than the calculated value for “the whole scheme”. This is because some new cyclists using the Stage 1 facilities would be those who started their journey in Welcome Bay - and they may not switch to cycling without there being fully complete, and safe, ‘home to destination’ routes.

41.    The Project will be managed as follows:

(a)     Stage 1 will be managed under the newly formed Major Projects Unit with best practice standards of project delivery and a robust governance structure including a Project Management Board (PMB), a Project Steering Group and an Oversight Group comprising three nationally recognised leaders in large project delivery. All governance groups will meet monthly with a common progress reporting format.

(b)     Mana whenua will continue to be represented as Project Partners on the PMB. We will consult with the hapū representatives who are on the PMB with respect to details of engagement with iwi on impacts of Stage 1 works on waterways.

(c)     NZTA and BOPRC will continue to be represented as Project Partners on the PMB.

(d)     Pavement rehabilitation and City Waters projects, renewals and repairs will be integrated into the management of the Pre-implementation and Implementation phases of Stage 1 where it is efficient to carry out these works at the same time as roading works.

(e)     If Council decides on strengthening of the Hairini Bridge this will also be integrated into the management of the Pre-implementation phase of Stage 1. The Implementation phase of bridge strengthening work would likely lag the Implementation phase of the current in-scope works but would be expected to be delivered as part of this Project.

(f)      Interdependencies with other projects and activities will be monitored to manage demands on the supply chain, combined disruption to the traffic network and funding cashflow. This will be carried out primarily through the Major Projects Programme but the project team will also continue to monitor projects and activities that do not come under the Major Works Programme.

(g)     There will be an integrated communications and engagement strategy across all aspects of Stage 1 design and delivery. This will continue engagement with key stakeholders as design detail is developed, will generally keep the public informed via the Project website and align with consultation requirements for resource consent applications.

(h)     The project management team will comprise a Senior Project Manager, a Project Manager, a Junior Project Manager and a Project Co-ordinator. This team will be supported by the an external provider who will maintain programme and undertake all cost control and forecasting for at least the duration of the Pre-implementation phase. It is also proposed that the team is supported by a procurement specialist until such time as the last of the main physical works contracts is let.

(i)      Stage 2 will be managed by the LCLR or other programme unit.

42.    Consultant and contractor services for the Project will be procured as follows:

(a)     Aurecon has been direct appointed to carry out investigations, preliminary, detailed design and consenting for the Hairini Bridge and Causeway works and support TCC’s project management team during contractor procurement. Subject to satisfactory performance during Pre-implementation it is intended to negotiate with Aurecon for Management Surveillance and Quality Assurance (MSQA) services for the Hairini Bridge and Causeway construction works.

(b)     Consideration is being given to Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) for construction of the Hairini Bridge and Causeway works because traffic disruption will be very dependent on construction methodology. A decision on this will be made following the completion of the early Pre-implementation works that Aurecon is currently undertaking and before confirming details of Aurecon’s scope of works for the balance of the Pre-implementation works.

(c)     The remaining key procurement activities for Stage 1 will be led by a specialist consultant (yet to be appointed).

(d)     It is proposed that most of the investigation, design and consenting activities other than those being undertaken by Aurecon will be undertaken by a single Corridor Works Consultant who will engage sub-consultants and manage other consultants appointed directly by TCC. The scope of works will be all Stage 1 transport works, City Waters scope of works (details of which are to be confirmed) and pavement rehabilitation works in Zones 1 and 2. The procurement process for the Corridor Works Consultant will be a two stage Registration of Interest (ROI) and Request for Proposal (RFP) process with non-price attribute scores from the ROI evaluation carried over to the RFP evaluation. Subject to satisfactory performance during Pre-implementation it is intended to negotiate with the Corridor Works Consultant for MSQA services for the construction phase.

(e)     It is proposed that there would be two main contract packages for the Implementation phase as follows:

(i)      Zones 1 & 3 Contract – all works within these zones possibly with Separable Portions for different zones or sub-zones; and

(ii)     Zone 2 Contract - all bridge, causeway, roadworks and waters works in Zone 2. The reason for including road and waters works in this contract package is that the interfaces between these works and the bridge works will be quite significant and most if not all contractors who we would consider for the bridge works would also have the capability to do the roading and waters works.

(f)      It is proposed to procure the contractor for Zones 1 & 3 using a traditional design, bid, build process with measure and value payment contract type. This will provide a good balance of competitive pricing and cost certainty. 

(g)     A decision on the procurement approach for Zone 2 will be made following the completion of the early Pre-implementation works that Aurecon is currently undertaking. The approach will be either traditional design, bid, build or ECI. If the ECI approach is adopted a single ECI contractor would be engaged under a Pre-construction Services Agreement following a competitive tendering process that would include evaluation of rates and margins. The construction contract would be negotiated with the ECI contractor at the conclusion of the ECI phase and would likely be a cost reimbursable Target Outturn Cost with pain/gain mechanism.

(h)     There is also small (~$2M) design-build package of work required in Zone 2; this is the installation of pile jacketing and cathodic protection to the Hairini Bridge piles. WSP Laboratories, which has previously advised TCC on the feasibility and cost estimates for this work, will assist TCC with procuring a design-build contractor. This contract could be either managed directly by TCC or novated to the Zone 2 contractor if there are advantages to this.

(i)      If a decision is made to strengthen the Hairini Bridge it is proposed that the investigation, design and consenting for this would be varied into the Aurecon agreement. Depending upon timing of design, the strengthening works would be either included within the Zone 2 Contract or procured and performed separately. If the latter, the SUP would be designed and constructed to facilitate bridge strengthening works being performed later, i.e., sections of the SUP would be removable to allow strengthening works to happen around the abutment without damage to the SUP.

(j)      All procurement processes will comply with TCC and NZTA guidelines and significant procurement decisions will be discussed with NZTA.

(k)     Consultants and Contractors will be engaged for the Stage 2 in accordance with LCLR or other programme procedures.

 

 

Financial Considerations

43.    The Forecast Cost at Completion (FCAC) of the Pre-implementation and Implementation phases of the Project are presented below. These cost estimates including the Stage 1 and 2 allocations have been subject to an independent parallel estimate process.



Notes:

* Co-funded: SSBC will request co-funding from NZTA for this scope of works.

** LCLR or other funded: An assessment of NZTA co-funding available for this scope of works has not been made at the time of reporting.

***Major Projects overhead is $340K (P50) / $440K (P95) per annum for say 4 years allocated 50/50 to Transport (Stage 1) and Waters scope with transport costs assumed to be co-funded.

44.    The scope of stormwater treatment along the corridor, which is required to ensure current and future discharges meet Council’s consent conditions, has not been fully costed and funding options assessed at this time. This could increase costs for Stage 1 by approximately $6M. As noted elsewhere in this paper these costs have not been included in the estimates nor the reported BCRs. Council will be provided an update of these costs and potential for NZTA co-funding at the 20 May Council meeting. If NZTA co-funding can be confirmed the BCRs will be revised accordingly and reported at the 20 May Council meeting.

45.    Pavement rehabilitation is not expected to be funded by NZTA.

46.    Pre-implementation expenditure before any NZTA funding approval decision is also not expected to be funded by NZTA. A Request for Consideration of Prior Approval of Retrospective Funding for these Early Pre-implementation costs has been submitted to NZTA but has been declined.

47.    The LTP Budget submission for the Project as of 7 March 2024 is as follows:

48.    The LTP Budget for the Project Pre-implementation and Implementation phases, excluding any bridge strengthening or waters works, is $142.7M (P95) (i.e., total of $146.5M less $3.8M for SSBC costs)[6]. Therefore, there is a shortfall at P95 level of $7.0M (i.e., $149.7M less 142.7M). This shortfall could increase by approximately $6M depending on the additional stormwater treatment costs as noted in para 44. The reason for this shortfall is that the LTP Budget submission was based on capital cost estimates at the end of the Indicative Business Case phase in early 2023; the most recent cost estimates at the end of the Detailed Business Case phase were not available until after the LTP Budget submission on 7 March 2024.

49.    This shortfall is addressed by Recommendation (e) (iv), which makes Council approval for Stage 1 to progress to Implementation conditional on the Implementation Estimate (IE) (P95) being less than the LTP Budget or the LTP Budget plus other funding approved by the Council at the time.

50.    The FCAC and available funding will be monitored and reported to the Major Projects Oversight Group throughout the Pre-implementation and Implementation phases to ensure there will be early warning of any budget shortfall.

51.    Stage 1 cost at completion will be reforecast at the following milestones in accordance with NZTA procedures:

(a)     Pre-implementation Estimate (PE1): This will be prepared during the Pre-implementation phase prior to detailed design.

(b)     Pre-implementation Estimate (PE2): This will be prepared during the Pre-implementation phase once the design has been completed.

(c)     Implementation Estimate (IE): This will be prepared once the preferred physical works tender(s) have been evaluated and before contract award.

52.    As design and contactor procurement will progress to different timelines we are currently scheduling the above estimates at separate times for each of the two main work packages of Stage 1. For clarity only the latter of these (i.e., the Zones 1 & 3) are shown in the programme in Attachment 1.

53.    Ongoing alignment with broader transport and City Waters investments will be required to maximise the expected benefits, reduce disruption and to provide cost efficiencies through the Pre-implementation phase. The scope of the City Waters projects that will eventually be included in the scope of this Project is not yet defined. Therefore, the above FCAC and budgets exclude the City Waters projects.

54.    Bridge strengthening works are subject to a separate decision-making process but if approved would be delivered within this Project and would be funded from the N.000039.08 budget lines in the above table. However, at this stage of the investigations it appears that the allocated budget will be insufficient for the works required.

Legal Implications / Risks

55.    There is a risk that the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport (GPS) may result in delays of NZTA decision making, or funding potentially not being fully approved.

56.    The above risk has been mitigated as far as possible as the SSBC will highlight that: (a) value engineering has taken place, (b) there is a high BCR for active modes, (c) there is demonstrated high existing demand for active modes, (d) there is a clear safety benefit, and (e) the clip-on SUP for the Hairini Bridge is required to enable the three-laning of the Hairini Bridge and tidal flow through Zone 2.

57.    This risk has been further mitigated by dividing the Project into two stages with Stage 1 being most aligned with the current draft GPS and, therefore, most likely to be approved by NZTA and attract funding. Stage 1 will be implemented by the newly formed Major Projects Unit and Stage 2 will be implemented by Council’s LCLR Programme Unit or another programme. The SSBC will request co-funding from NZTA for Stage 1 only.

58.    Council has been advised that no investment decisions will be made by NZTA’s Board prior to October 2024 in alignment with National Land Transport Funding allocations. Council will continue to work with NZTA on submitting the SSBC to the NZTA Board for approval as soon as possible.

59.    To meet the LTP date for commencement of construction Council has already commenced Pre-implementation works which puts Pre-implementation costs both before and following the date of NZTA Board approval at risk. Council has accepted it will need to 100% fund Pre-implementation costs expended before NZTA Board approval. The funding risk on Pre-implementation costs that will be incurred following NZTA Board approval is being managed by ensuring that procurement of suppliers for Pre-implementation works follows NZTA procurement processes.

Consultation / Engagement

60.    Community engagement began with a workshop in May 2022 to connect with partners, discuss corridor issues, and share stories with representatives from Council, NZTA, Bay of Plenty Regional Council and mana whenua. Subsequent meetings involved a broader range of stakeholders, including emergency services, government agencies, community groups, and more.

61.    Mana whenua have been represented as Project partners on the monthly Project Control Group (PCG) meetings since the commencement of the SSBC. This representation will continue throughout the Pre-implementation and Implementation phases as the PCG transitions to the Project Management Board (PMB) under Major Projects. Several wānanga and hui have taken place from which a Cultural Map and Cultural and Urban Design Framework have been produced, both of which will inform design during the Pre-implementation phase of the Project.

62.    Public consultation was held in June/July 2022 seeking the community’s views of improving the corridor with a survey asking them to share concerns, ideas on how they travel, the environment and how community wellbeing could be improved. The community told us they wanted more lanes, widened roads, an upgraded harbour crossing, a tidal flow system, improved public transport, alternative travel modes, improved pedestrian and cyclist safety, reviewed speed limits, alternative routes and potentially additional schools to mitigate travel distances for students and parents.

63.    Public consultation on the short list options took place in September/October 2023. Support was strong for a tidal flow system across Hairini Bridge, improved shared/cycle paths and HOV lanes along Fifteenth Avenue. Several changes were made to design details because of the public feedback.

 

 

Significance

64.    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.

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

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

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

(c)     the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

(d)     the impacts of construction on residents and businesses and the staggered construction programme proposed along the corridor.

(e)     the impacts of the Project on the wider network with its interface with other projects and where the main arterial flow of traffic will be diverted to, in and the around the city.

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Click here to view the TCC Significance and Engagement Policy

Next Steps

68.    Council approval that Stage 1 of the Project proceeds to Implementation.

69.    Complete the SSBC and submit it to Waka Kotahi for Board approval.

70.    Continue with early Pre-implementation activities including integration of City Waters scopes of work.

Attachments

1.      Attachment 1: High Level Programme (Preliminary) - A15943867

2.      Attachment 2: Layout - Stage 1 - A15943868

3.      Attachment 3: Layout - Stage 2 - A15943869

4.      Attachment 4: SSBC - Executive Summary - A15916340

5.      Attachment 5: Engagement Summary Report - A15923681  

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 




Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 




Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 




Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 








Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 






























 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

11.4       Speed Management Plan

File Number:           A15595695

Author:                    Shawn Geard, City Centre Transport Advisor

Authoriser:              Nic Johansson, Head of Transport

 

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      To present the Speed Management Plan for approval and implementation.

 

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Speed Management Plan".

(b)     The speed management plan around schools and marae as per the attached map is adopted for Council approval and implementation, (with one of the below speeds adopted);

(i)      These zones are restricted to 30km/h,

(ii)     These zones are restricted to 40km/h, with provision for case-by-case reduction to 30km/h if speed continues contributing to safety concerns. The roads adjacent to Tauranga Intermediate reduced to 30km/h,

(c)     The speed management plan (30km/h) within the city centre is adopted for approval and implementation as per:

(i)      The attached map,

(ii)     The attached map (including the variable 30km/h zone on Cameron Road) however implementation of the 30km/h zone north of Harington Street is delayed and to be aligned with future development of the Culture and Historical Precinct.

(d)     The proposed changes to speed limits on Domain Road, Tara Road, Te Puke Highway, and Parton Road are deferred until such time future development changes the current road environment. This is would be decided by a future Council.

(e)     Delegate the Chief Executive to perform the road controlling authority responsibilities in relation to confirming and implementing the speed management plan documented within this report, as set out in the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022, including the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits Amendment 2023.

 

 

 

Executive Summary

2.      Tauranga City Council on 12 February 2024 carried Resolution CO1/24/13 adopting the approach of ‘Continue developing a speed management plan focusing on safe speeds around schools, marae, and the city centre This will include community engagement and a Council decision will be required prior to implementation.’

3.      Tauranga City Council has funding for the implementation of a speed management plan. This funding expires at the end of June 2024.

4.      The development of a speed management plan is no longer mandatory following a change in central government and subsequent rule changes. 

5.      Engagement with the community to understand their view on the speed management plan has been undertaken including a public survey that gained 1038 responses with the following outcomes:

(a)     71.7% are in favour of the 30km/h speeds restrictions around schools as proposed,

(b)     52.6% are in favour of the 30km/h speed restrictions within the city centre as proposed,

(c)     37% are in favour of the speed limit changes proposed on Domain Road and the roundabout intersection with State Highway 2,

(d)     36.1% are in favour of the speed limit changes on Parton Road.

Background

6.      A four-week consultation period between 5 April 2024 and 3 May 2024 including two community drop in sessions has been undertaken by staff,

7.      Tauranga City Council regularly engages with schools and their communities through the Travel Safe team within Transportation. Requests to reduce speeds around schools are regularly received as increased traffic, along with higher observed speeds, is considered a significant risk to student’s safety, often reports of near misses are noted,

8.      The development of a speed management plan was included in the Tauranga City Council Long Term Plan (LTP) Amendment 2021-31 as part of the Transport System Plan (TSP). This was also included within the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) where current funding of $1.5 million through Council and NZTA Waka Kotahi funds are committed to the development and implementation of the plan,

9.      The speed management plan consulted on included;

(a)     30km/h within on roads immediately adjacent to schools. These would be Variable Speed Limits (VSL) as a standard with static limits being reserved to low volume roads where expenditure of more expensive VSL signs are impractical and roads where the current operating environment does not allow for higher speeds.

(b)     Specific consultation was undertaken with Marae.

(c)     Introduce a permanent 30km/h zone within the city centre.

(d)     Introduce a VSL 30km/h zone on Cameron Road adjacent to Tauranga and Wharepai Domains.

(e)     Changes to speed limits on Domain Road, Tara Road, Te Puke Highway, and Parton Road to improve consistency and safety.

10.    During the 12 February 2024 council meeting, the need to understand the communities view on speed reductions, focusing on the city centre and variable limits around schools based on funding being available was expressed, the difference between 30km/h and 40km/h was also key.

11.    A temporary 30km/h speed restriction has been in place within the city centre between First Avenue and McLean Street since late 2018.

12.    In 2011 when speeds within Mount Manganui were reduced from 50km/h to 30km/h a 24% reduction in crashes was observed over a three-year period, compared to a 13% reduction in crashes within the surrounding area where speed limits were not reduced.

Summary of Rule Change and Minister’s Letter in Relation to Tauranga City Council

13.    Under the previous Land Transport Rule: Setting Speed Limits, Councils were required to decrease speeds around 40% of schools to 30km/h by 30 June 2024, with the remainder by 31 December 2027,

14.    Tauranga City Council through the Regional Transport Committee received a letter addressed to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council from Hon. Simeon Brown, Minister of Transport, on 12 December 2023 notifying changes to the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022. Among other points, the requirement for a Council to have a speed management plan was removed. The minister noted: “I consider it is undesirable for RTCs and RCAs to apply public money and resources in developing speed management plans only to have to revisit the plans when the new Setting Speed Limit rule takes effect. Given this, if you have not already finalised your speed management plan, I encourage you to consider the new Rule before making final decisions.”

15.    The rule change referred to above enables Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs) such as Tauranga City Council to choose to develop speed management plans rather than the previous mandate,

16.    An updated rule will implement requirements around variable speed limits rather than permanent speed reductions to keep young New Zealanders safe when arriving at, or leaving school,

17.    The letter states the Government’s commitment to road safety while stating ‘I also note the policies within the previous Government’s so-called ‘Road to Zero’ strategy, in relation to speed limits, are no longer the Government road safety strategy for the purpose of the Rule.’

Strategic / Statutory Context

18.    Ensuring safety around schools, enabling young people to access education through active modes of transport can be brought into the Our Direction framework under the community outcomes;

(a)     Tauranga Mataraunui – An inclusive city;

(b)     Tauranga Ara Rau – A city that we can move around easily; and

(c)     Tauranga a te kura – A city that supports business and education.

19.    Speed reduction within the city centre support the City Centre Movement Framework as part of the City Centre Action and Investment Plan and both community outcomes Tauranga Mataraunui, and Tauranga Ara Rau,

Options Analysis

20.    Three key options exist to Council, these being:

(a)     Adopt the speed management plan as per the attachment;

(b)     Adopt the Speed Management Plan as per the attachment however replacing ‘30km/h’ with ‘40km/h’ however with provision for case by case reduction to 30km/h if speed continues to present safety concerns. The roads adjacent to Tauranga Intermediate reduced to 30km/h; or

(c)     Maintain the current speed limits.

21.    The signalised crossing of Fraser Street adjacent to Fraser Cove Shopping Centre is within the current variable 40km/h zone for Tauranga Intermediate School. Speed has been observed to continuing to be a safety issue at this crossing, warranting a further reduced variable speed, this location is therefore included to be reduced to 30km/h if a 40km/h standard reduction around schools is adopted,

22.    The option of 30km/h or 40km/h is based on the collective assessment of acceptable risk, noting that while pedestrian fatalities are not a common occurrence, accidents do happen, and speed will have a factor in the occurrence and has a significant impact on the outcome,

23.    Two figures (Figure 1, and Figure 2 below) produced by Auckland Transport from data taken from Research Report AP-R560-18 published in March 2018 by Austroads - the Association of Australian and New Zealand Road Transport and Traffic Authorities are depiction of this risk,

Figure 1: Average stopping distances at various speeds

Figure 2: Risk of death and injury based on impact speed

Financial Considerations

24.    The current Council and NZTA Waka Kotahi commitments allow for Option 1 to be implemented with a 49% Council funded, 51% National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) funding arrangement until 30 June 2024,

25.    As NLTF funding is currently not allocated post 30 June 2024 there is no commitment from NZTA Waka Kotahi that they would fund any speed reduction after this time, meaning Tauranga City Council may be required to fund 100% of speed reduction through loan funding.

Legal Implications / Risks

26.    No legal implications/ risks have been identified.

Consultation / Engagement

27.    A four-week community engagement was undertaken from Friday, 5 April to Friday, 3 May 2024.

28.    The engagement included the establishment of a project email address, web page, survey and three community drop-in sessions at local markets (one of which was cancelled due to poor weather). This was supported by a print, digital and social media advertising campaign as well as targeted engagement with schools, marae, and other key stakeholders.

29.    Approximately 60 people attended the two drop-in sessions, more than 20 emails were received, and over 1000 surveys were completed.

30.    Social media posts reached an audience of more than 92,000 with more than 350 comments made. Feedback in the comments was mixed, with general support for reducing the speed limit to 30km outside schools during drop off and pick up times, less support for reducing the speed limit in the city centre, and some people who felt that change was unnecessary and/ or unwanted.

31.    Targeted consultation with Marae was undertaken, with the requests from three marae:

(a)     Waikari Marae, and Hungahungatoroa Marae (Matapihi), requested lower speeds to enable safer connectivity between marae and Te Kura O Matapihi.

(b)     Waimapu Marae, while this request has been for the entire length of Waimapu Pa Road we propose to target the closest 200m with the aim of achieving general compliance, an expansion of this could be achieved in parallel to infrastructure supporting reduced speeds.

These have been included within the proposed maps.

Significance

32.    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.

33.    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.

(c)   The capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

 

 

Next Steps

36.    Confirmation and implementation of the speed management plan is required as per the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2022, and the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits Amendment 2023.

Attachments

1.      Speed Management Plan Map - A15923545  

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 
















 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

11.5       Ferry Proposal

File Number:           A15966638

Author:                    Simon Collett, Manager: Commercial Property

Authoriser:              Nic Johansson, Head of Transport

 

  

Please note that this report contains confidential attachments.

 

Public Excluded Attachment

Reason why Public Excluded

Item 11.5 - Ferry Proposal - Attachment 1 - Appendix A

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

Item 11.5 - Ferry Proposal - Attachment 2 - Appendix B - Calculation Sheets 260424

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

Item 11.5 - Ferry Proposal - Attachment 3 - Appendix C - Preliminary naval architectural design - 260424

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

Item 11.5 - Ferry Proposal - Attachment 4 - Passenger and Bike Ferries Tauranga Harbour - Proposal to BOPRC

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest.

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.

 

 


 

Purpose of the Report

1.      To recommend Council underwrites up to 50% of the funding required to trial ferry operations up to a maximum amount of $1.4M payable over the first two years of the trial (i.e. $700K per annum) of rate funded expenditure.

 

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Ferry Proposal".

(b)     Underwrites up to 50% of the funding required to trial ferry operations up to a maximum amount of $1.4M payable over the first two years of the trial (i.e. $700K per annum) of rate funded expenditure.

(c)     Notes:

(I)         This underwrite is conditional on the other 50% being funded by Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

(II)        For the 2025 financial year Council staff will seek to identify savings throughout the year to fund this amount if required.  If the underwrite is required and savings cannot be achieved this will be funded by an increase in debt for that year. 

(III)       For the second year of the trial in 2026, the underwrite will be included in the 2026 Annual Plan and/or rate setting process.

(d)     The attachment’s can be transferred into open following completion of the trial.

 

 

 

Executive Summary

2.      This report evaluates the request for an operational expenditure underwrite with respect to the proposal presented by Hauraki Express.

3.      The proposal seeks to establish a passenger and bike ferry service in Tauranga Harbour. The proposal aims to provide a fast, efficient, and environmentally friendly transportation option connecting Tauranga City Centre and Mount Maunganui Town Centre.

4.      Key features include utilising existing shore-based infrastructure, reducing road traffic congestion and emissions, and promoting mode-shift towards public transport and active travel.

Background

5.      In 2019, Priority One (P1) initiated a study to explore the potential implementation of a ferry service in Tauranga. The primary objective was to assess the feasibility of such a service in enhancing transportation connectivity, promoting urban living within the city centre, and augmenting overall amenity.

6.      To gauge the perceived demand, P1 conducted a targeted commuter survey primarily focusing on major employers in the Tauranga City Centre. This survey reached approximately 4000 individuals, representing a significant portion of the working population in the city centre, with 1200 responses received.

7.      In January 2020, P1 produced a prospectus summarising the findings of the study. The prospectus highlighted:

(a)     The proposed ferry service garnered substantial support among respondents.

(b)     Key considerations included pricing and scheduling, provision of adequate parking or transport links at both embarkation and disembarkation points, necessary infrastructure such as wharves, user facilities, and parking amenities, the capability to operate high-speed ferries within the harbour, and ensuring a high-quality user experience.

8.      Based on the prospectus, P1 recommended that Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) initiate further exploration through a feasibility study to delve deeper into areas such as customer demand, pricing strategies, alternative modes of transportation, allocation of capital for infrastructure enhancements, and alignment with the Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) (now SmartGrowth Strategy 2023 and Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan).

9.      The Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) holds the Transport Plan for the region. It finally delivered its feasibility report in November 2023.

10.    Despite considerations for patronage estimates and mode share presumptions, the feasibility study underscored significant cost barriers associated with ferry operations. Transport planning experts highlighted the investment required for ferry services, expressing doubts about justifying such expenditure for a mode primarily serving a single destination. They recommended prioritising the optimisation of the existing bus-based public transport network in the short to medium term while preserving the option of future ferry services.

11.    Given these findings, BOPRC was advised to defer further investigation into Tauranga and Western Bay of Plenty ferry services until the development of the long-term plans and the National Land Transport Programme for 2027.

12.    BOPRC and now Council have since received a proposal from Hauraki Express. The proposal seeks a Council underwrite. This proposal and underwrite is outlined in the analysis below.

Analysis

Hauraki Express

13.    Hauraki Express is a family owned and operated start-up business which operates water taxi services within the Hauraki Gulf. Peter Bourke is the sole director of Hauraki Express Limited.

Proposal

14.    The plan entails developing a fleet of purpose-built ferries capable of accommodating passengers and bikes, with the initial two vessels to commence operations within 12 months. The service will initially operate between Tauranga Moana Waterfront and Salisbury Wharf, with potential expansion to other routes based on demand.

15.    Financial feasibility analysis indicates that after four years of operation and expansion to three routes, the service is projected to carry an average of 1000 passengers per day, with an annual subsidy of $1.6 million. The benefits-to-cost ratio is estimated at 2.5, with an annual reduction of 427 tonnes of CO2 emissions.

16.    Hauraki Express proposes to establish and operate the ferry service, securing all necessary approvals and funding. The service will operate at least 330 days per year, with two vessels making 20 crossings daily. Collaboration between Hauraki Express, BOPRC, and TCC is proposed to integrate the ferry service into the public transport network, develop a marketing plan, and provide fare subsidies.

Provisos

17.    Commitment to the proposal is contingent upon full due diligence, market research, and funding support from Kiwibank. Additionally, the proposal includes provisions for financial support for operational expenditure from the Councils, use of wharves, and service continuation based on performance metrics.

 

Passenger and Bike Ferry Plan

18.    The plan outlines the specifications and design of the ferries, emphasising capacity, seaworthiness, and sustainability. The vessels will be integrated into Tauranga's public transport network, with cashless ticketing and subsidies available. Marketing efforts will target mode-shift towards active travel, highlighting benefits such as cost savings, safety, and environmental impact reduction.

Conclusion

19.    Hauraki Express advocates for the implementation of the ferry service as a vital component of Tauranga's transportation system. The proposal offers an innovative and cost-effective solution to address congestion and promote sustainable travel practices. Political and community support for the concept is positive, and Hauraki Express urges BOPRC and Council to consider the proposal as a step towards making Tauranga a true harbour city.

Recommendation

20.    Based on the assessment, we recommend underwriting up to 50% of the funding required for a two-year trial period, with a maximum amount allocated from rate-funded expenditure. Funding for the trial will be sought through savings or debt financing, with considerations for operational requirements, health and safety, and potential disruptions from other projects in the area.

Strategic / Statutory Context

21.    The proposal aligns with the SmartGrowth Strategy 2023 and Western Bay of Plenty Transport System Plan.

22.    Investing in the ferry service aligns with the goal of fostering economic growth by enhancing transportation connectivity between Mount Maunganui and Tauranga. This could attract more tourists, facilitate smoother commutes for residents, and potentially stimulate business activities.

 

Options Analysis

23.    If Council supports the underwrite, the pilot will potentially proceed. This option is recommended.

Advantages

(a)     Support Economic Growth: As set out above (para 22).

(b)     Reduce Congestion and Emissions: A ferry service offers an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional modes of transportation, reducing congestion on roads and lowering emissions, thereby contributing to environmental sustainability goals.

(c)     Enhance Public Transport Network: Integrating the ferry service into the existing public transport network could improve the overall efficiency and accessibility of public transportation between Mount Maunganui Town Centre and the Tauranga City Centre.

(d)     Road Works Disruption: The service will provide people with an alternative means of transport during road works disruption.

(e)     Trial Period: Underwriting the ferry service for a trial period allows for the assessment of its viability without making a long-term commitment upfront. This approach enables the Council to evaluate the service's effectiveness and adjust its strategy accordingly based on real-world data and feedback.

Disadvantages

(f)      Financial Risk: Underwriting the ferry service entails financial risk for the Council, especially if the service does not attract sufficient ridership to cover its operating costs. There is a possibility of the investment will be a sunk cost if the service proves to be economically unsustainable.

(g)     Reputational Risk: If the pilot fails, Council may be seen to have approved an unnecessary expense.

24.    If Council does not provide the required investment, the pilot will most likely not proceed. This option is not recommended.

Advantages:

(a)     Risk Mitigation: By refraining from underwriting the ferry service, the Council avoids the financial risk associated with potential losses if the service fails to generate enough revenue to be sustainable.

(b)     Road Works Disruption: The opportunity to provide people with an alternative means of transport during road works disruption will have been missed.

(c)     Focus on Existing Priorities: Without allocating resources to the ferry service, the Council can concentrate its efforts on other priority projects that have been identified as more urgent or beneficial to the community.

(d)     Financial Constraints: Council is currently under balance sheet pressure. This underwrite will reduce its capacity further.

Disadvantages:

(e)     Missed Opportunity: Not underwriting the ferry service may result in a missed opportunity to improve transportation options, reduce traffic congestion, and promote environmental sustainability in the region. If successful, the ferry service could have provided significant benefits to residents and businesses.

(f)     

(g)     Limited Mobility Options: Without the ferry service, residents and visitors will continue to have fewer transportation options for traveling between Mount Maunganui and Tauranga, potentially leading to continued reliance on congested roadways and contributing to environmental pollution.

(h)     Public Dissatisfaction: Some members of the community may perceive the Council's decision not to underwrite the ferry service as a missed opportunity or a lack of commitment to improving transportation infrastructure and addressing environmental concerns.

Financial Considerations

25.    Underwriting the ferry service entails financial risk for the Council, especially if the service does not attract sufficient ridership to cover its operating costs. There is a possibility of he investment will be lost if the service proves to be economically unsustainable.

Legal Implications / Risks

26.    N/A

Consultation / Engagement

27.    Public consultation with respect to the need for a ferry service was effectively carried out by P1 and the BOPRC as set out in the background to this report.

28.    Hauraki Express has provided letters of support from Tourism BOP, Downtown Tauranga, Mainstreet Mount Maunganui and P1.

Significance

29.    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.

30.    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.

(c)   the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

33.    Council staff to confirm support for the proposal.

Attachments

1.      Appendix A - A15969212 - Public Excluded  

2.      Appendix B - Calculation Sheets 260424 - A15969213 - Public Excluded  

3.      Appendix C - Preliminary naval architectural design - 260424 - A15969214 - Public Excluded  

4.      Passenger and Bike Ferries Tauranga Harbour - Proposal to BOPRC - A15969217 - Public Excluded   

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

11.6       Temporary Road Closure Report for Events 2024-2025

File Number:           A15918540

Author:                    Lindsay Cave, Team Leader: Corridor Access & Temporary Traffic Management

Jenna Quay, Events Facilitation Manager

Authoriser:              Nic Johansson, Head of Transport

 

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      To seek Council approval of temporary road closures for upcoming season of events.

 

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Temporary Road Closure Report for Events 2024-2025".

(b)     Pursuant to Clause 11(e) of the Tenth Schedule of the Local Government Act 1974, grants approval to close the roads and car parks listed on Attachment A to ordinary vehicular traffic on the dates and during the hours stated for the purposes of facilitating safe and successful operations during the following events contingent on no objections are received during the formal notification period.

 

 

 

Executive Summary

2.      Pursuant to Clause 11(e) of the Tenth Schedule of the Local Government Act 1974 this report seeks the Council approve the temporary road closures associated with events in Tauranga for the coming event season as outlined in Attachment A if no objections are received during the formal notification period.

3.      The road closures aim to provide safe and well-organised events for public to attend, protect competitors, manage the transport network and minimise impacts to residents and businesses while events are taking place.

4.      The organiser of each event will:

·    Undertake engagement with affected residents and businesses prior to the event occurring.

·    Submit a detailed temporary traffic management plan to the Corridor Access & Temporary Traffic Management Team for approval as part of Councils overall event approval process.  This plan stipulates all traffic signage indicating sections of roads or carparks closed, alternative detours and any other appropriate signage for traffic control in accordance with the Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM).

Background

5.      Each year the Event Facilitation Team coordinates a calendar of events with event organisers, relevant Council teams and affected stakeholders across the city.  Event planning meetings are held in advance of events with representation from various Council teams, city stakeholders and the organisers.  Many of these events have been running for several years with traffic management and road closures playing an important role to support safety of event participants and public. 

6.      Road closures allow for safe access to, from, and during events by creating separation of vehicles from pedestrians.  The wider event approval process led by the Event Facilitation Team assists in managing the impacts of events on residents and ensures event activities are managed within Councils regulatory requirements such as noise management, building consents, liquor licences and communication plans. 

Strategic / Statutory Context

7.      Tauranga City Council has the authority to close roads for events under the powers of the Local Government Act 1974 – Clause 11(e) of Schedule 10.

Legal Implications / Risks

8.      The formal approval of road closures by the Council is part one of a two-part approval process.  In addition to seeking this approval under the Act, part two requires a warranted Site Traffic Management Supervisor (STMS) to submit a traffic management plan (TMP) to the Corridor Access team who has delegated authority as a Traffic Management Coordinator (TMC) to review and approve a temporary road closure in accordance with the Code of Practice for Temporary Traffic Management (CoPTTM).

9.      The traffic management contractor has a duty to ensure so far as reasonably practicable the safe and efficient movement of all road users through and around the working space.  This requires a risk assessment be completed prior to the implementation of a traffic management operation.

Consultation / Engagement

10.    All temporary road closures must be publicly notified by Tauranga City Council allowing a 21-day period for the public to submit comments. Any objections must be considered by the Council before making a final decision on the requested temporary road closure.  

(a)     The temporary road closures have been publicly notified in the Bay of Plenty Times.

(b)     The 21-day period for public notification concludes on 31 May 2024. Staff to advise any objections received to date at the Council meeting on 20 May 2024.

(c)     If any objections are received post 20 May 2024 a further report will be brought to a later Council meeting prior to any final approval being granted.

Significance

11.    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.

12.    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.

(c)   The capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

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

 

 

ENGAGEMENT

14.    Taking into consideration the above assessment of the decision being of low significance, officers are of the opinion that the following consultation is suggested/required under the Local Government Act 1974 Act.

Attachments

1.      Temporary Road Closures For Events 2024 2025 PDF - Attachment A - A15968598  

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 





 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

11.7       Asset Realisation Reserve - Classification of Properties

File Number:           A15781096

Author:                    Simon Collett, Manager: Commercial Property

Christine Tarrant, Strategic Property Advisor

Authoriser:              Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

 

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      This report seeks a Council resolution on the disposal classification of the properties set out in the below Recommendations section of this report (“the Properties”). The Properties were resolved to form part of the Asset Realisation Reserve at the Council meeting held on 24 July 2023. This classification will enable the initiation of a potential sale process, allowing the proceeds to be utilised for other capital projects.

 

Recommendations:

(a)  Receives the report "Asset Realisation Reserve - Classification of Properties ”.

(b)  Resolves that the disposal of the following properties be classified as Surplus Property in accordance with Council’s Property Acquisitions and Disposals Policy (“the PADP”) subject to first consulting appropriately with Mana Whenua and Mana Whenua not raising any specific objections to the proposed classification:

i.    59C Esmeralda Street, Welcome Bay;

ii.   53D Esmeralda Street, Welcome Bay;

iii.   2014L Kailua Road, Welcome Bay;

iv.  15 Herald Way, Welcome Bay;

v.   32 Keilor Road, Otūmoetai;

vi.  140 Grange Road, Otūmoetai;

vii.  96B Sherwood, Bellevue;

viii. 31,33,35 Glasgow Street, Tauranga;

ix.  149 Second Avenue, Tauranga;

x.   134-136 Greerton Road, Tauranga;

xi.  35A & 35B Third Avenue and 1-3 43 Third Avenue, Tauranga;

xii.  65-73 Cross Road, Tauranga; and

xiii. 85 Cross Road, Tauranga.

 (“the Surplus Properties”) noting that:

xiv. Subject to any legal obligations identified in this report, if these Surplus Properties are suitable for open market disposal, Council will follow the PADP and engage with Mana Whenua with respect to the proposed classification and then, should Mana Whenua not raise material objection to the proposed classification offer Mana Whenua the right of first refusal; and

xv. If Mana Whenua declines the offer, the Surplus Properties will be considered for disposal through an open market process.

(c)     Resolves that the disposal of part of the property at 376 No.1 Road, Te Puke (“the Orchard Block”) be classified as a Strategic Disposal under the PADP, with the site-specific strategic objectives if the Orchard Block is sold to New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited (“PFR”), including:

(i)   Improved community resilience and economic development as a sale to PFR will support the continued operation of PFR and the company’s research into sustainable crops; and

(ii)  Strategic Disposal to PFR will achieve market value, enabling the sale proceeds to be allocated towards other strategic works.

Notes that dependent on the outcome of consultation with Mana Whenua on the Orchard Block, the matter may need to come back to Council for a further decision.

(d)  Resolves that if an agreement for sale and purchase cannot be reached with PFR 12 months from the date of the Orchard Block’s classification under the PADP, then it is recommended that the Orchard Block be reclassified as a Surplus Property and the process to offer the property to Mana Whenua as prescribed under the PADP be carried out.

(e)  Resolves that as both the Surplus Properties and Orchard Block are held in the Asset Realisation Reserve, the proceeds of the disposal of the properties will be used to fund Council capital projects.

(f)   Resolves to initiate the procedure to revoke the reserve status, under section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977, of the property at 140 Grange Road, being a Local Purpose Reserve (Scout Hall Site), for the following specific reasons:

(i)      The Scout Hall building has been demolished;

(ii)     The reserve no longer provides any significant community value in terms of its status and classification under the Reserves Act. 

(iii)     The property has been reviewed from a whole organisation perspective and assessed as no longer required for strategic or operational purposes, and

(iv)    Subject to completion of revocation, the Council wishes to dispose of this property.

 

 

 

Executive Summary

2.      In July 2023, Council established the Asset Realisation Reserve (“ARR”) for managing the disposal of properties no longer needed for operational or strategic purposes or suitable for disposal to fulfil a strategic purpose within a defined timeline.

3.      This report proposes the classification and subsequent disposal methods for the Properties. The proposed classifications are in alignment with Council’s PADP and involves necessary engagement with Mana Whenua in compliance with policy obligations.

4.      The recommendations in this report suggest classifying specific properties as Surplus and one property as a Strategic Disposal. Both these classifications will allow their future sale and the use of the proceeds to fund capital projects.

5.      Council's approval is sought to proceed with these actions, ensuring compliance with legal and policy requirements.

Background

6.      On 24 July 2023 Council established the ARR as the first step in progressing the divestment of Council properties which have been identified as:

(a)     No longer needed for operational or strategic purposes; or

(b)     Available for disposal to achieve a strategic purpose with a defined trigger or timeframe for that disposal.

7.      A copy of the Council report from 24 July 2023 is included at Attachment 1.

8.      The ARR will also be used to hold resulting sale proceeds. Council has decided to utilise sale proceeds in the ARR as a funding source for Te Manawataki o Te Papa project in the first instance. Proceeds held in the ARR may also be used to fund other capital projects, subject to Council resolution.

9.      The report to Council which established the ARR also noted that identifying a property or asset to be managed through the ARR approach does not necessarily equate to an immediate decision to sell it. It is instead a recognition that the property/asset is no longer required by Council for operational purposes or is available for strategic disposal.

10.    Once a property is identified to be managed via the ARR, the next steps are to assess it on a case-by-case basis, and in accordance with Council’s legislative requirements and policies. The Properties have been identified for management via the ARR at the Council meeting of 24 July 2023, as part of the report establishing the ARR.

11.    This report addresses Council’s legislative requirements and policies and seeks a Council decision to classify the Properties as either a Surplus, Strategic or Atypical disposal as defined under the PADP.

Details on the Properties being considered in this report

12.    Attachment 2 provides a detailed summary for each of the Properties under consideration. These summaries cover general property information, the historical context of acquisition by Council, and initial assessments as required under the PADP.

13.    The rationale for proposing the disposal of each property is clearly outlined in Attachment 2, reflecting the current considerations of the Council regarding the best use and management of these assets.  

APPLYING THE PADP

14.    Before proceeding with the disposal of the Properties, Council must classify the Properties as either:

a)   Surplus - Property that has been reviewed from a whole of organisation perspective and assessed as no longer required for strategic or operational purposes; or

b)   Atypical – A unique property, which has a lack of similar sales to inform market value assessments, or a property with a range of uses (all with a significant range of values), or a property which has a different value for a sub-section of the market than it does for the market as a whole; or

c)   A Strategic Disposal - Disposal of property for the purposes of achieving strategic or operational outcomes for the community.

15.    When classifying a property for disposal, Council must firstly undertake three steps, these are addressed by the following sections.

Step 1: Assessment

16.    Council must assess three key elements: its statutory and legal obligations, whether the purpose of the sale is to achieve strategic objectives, and if the property is suitable for an open market sale process. Attachment 2 includes this assessment for each of the Properties.

17.    The PADP requires that once the assessment (referred above) has been made, Council will, as soon as reasonably practicable, notify Mana Whenua of the details of the property being considered and a summary of the assessment undertaken. If the property is not subject to pre-existing statutory or other legal obligations, Council staff are required under the PADP to meet with Mana Whenua within 30 days of giving the above notice and engage in good faith to ensure any cultural matters have been appropriately identified and considered in the assessment and to receive any comments Mana Whenua may have in respect to the possible classification of the property. Strategic Property in conjunction with Te Pou Takawaenga have prepared individual property reports (similar in content to the Property Summaries at Attachment 2) to be provided to key representatives of each of the relevant hāpu. Each of these property reports includes the full assessment required under the PADP. Takawaenga are currently in the process of distributing these reports and facilitating meetings with each of the relevant hāpu to enable engagement in good faith and to receive comments which they have in respect to the classification of the Properties.

It is considered that the PADP requirements in respect of Engagement with Mana Whenua on Cultural Matters have not yet been met and so the classification is sought subject to such engagement being completed and Mana Whenua not raising any material objections to the proposed classification.Step 3: Classification

18.    Following completing an assessment of the Properties and engaging with Mana Whenua, Council can classify each of the properties via Council resolution. Once Council has classified the disposal type, Mana Whenua will be advised within 30 days of the Council resolution.

19.    An assessment of the different classification options is set out below at the Disposal Classification Option and Recommendations section of this report.

20.    Notwithstanding this, it is considered that the classification of the Surplus Properties benefits Mana Whenua so immediate classification is sought. Dependent on the outcome with engagement with Mana Whenua on the Orchard Property, Council officers may need to come back to Council for a further decision.

Disposal classification OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for Surplus Properties

21.    There have been no strategic or operational outcomes identified for the Surplus Properties to date and the Surplus Properties do not meet the definition of an atypical property set out in the PADP. Accordingly, the recommendation in this report is for all the Surplus Properties to be classified as surplus property, not atypical or strategic.

22.    Option One: Classify the disposal of the Surplus Properties as Surplus Property on the basis that the sole objective is for realisation of financial return and removal of the asset from the property portfolio (RECOMMENDED) 

Advantages 

Disadvantages 

​ 

·      Provides greater flexibility regarding the terms of any sale and purchase agreement, as Council will not be prioritising the achievement of strategic outcomes via the sale. 

·      Likely result in a financial benefit to Council. 

·    Council has no control (or less control) over the strategic outcomes of the sale, as these are not prioritised via the property classification.  

 

23.    Option two: Classification of the disposal of the Surplus Properties as a Strategic or Atypical Disposal: NOT RECOMMENDED

 

​Comments:

·    Classification of the properties as either strategic or atypical is not appropriate for these properties. There are no site-specific strategic outcomes relevant to meet a classification of this type and none of the properties meet the definition of atypical as defined under the PADP.

 

 

 

 

 

24.    Option three: Refrain from classifying the Surplus Properties on the basis that Council will retain ownership and not dispose: NOT RECOMMENDED

Advantages 

Disadvantages 

​ 

·      May result in the Surplus Properties increasing in value overtime and being a more valuable asset to dispose of in the future.

·      Revenue will continue to be generated from leases for those of the Surplus Properties which generate a rental/lease income.

·    Maintenance and associated property risks of the Surplus Properties remains Council’s responsibility.

·    Retention of the Surplus Properties will not result in any generation of funds from a sale which could be applied towards other capital projects.

·    Property insurance costs will remain with Council.

 

DIVESTMENT APPROACH of surplus Properties

 

25.    In accordance with the PADP, if the Surplus Properties are classified as Surplus Property, then, following the discharge of any pre-existing statutory or other legal obligations by Council, Mana Whenua will be provided with the opportunity to purchase the Surplus Properties.

26.    The right of first refusal applies to Surplus Properties which have been assessed as suitable for sale via an open market process, which is the case for all these Surplus Properties. In respect of the Surplus Properties, Mana Whenua will determine if they have an interest in purchasing the property and which iwi or hapū will proceed with the purchase. If more than one iwi or hapū (to which the offer is made) express an interest in the purchase of the property, then the parties shall work together in good faith to determine which iwi or hapū will complete the purchase (or if the purchase will be a joint undertaking). Market value will be paid for the Surplus Properties sold via right of first refusal.

27.    If Mana Whenua decline the offer, then the Surplus Properties will be marketed for sale via an open market process.

The Orchard Block Strategic Disposal Proposal

28.    The Orchard Block is the only contemplated Strategic Disposal as defined under the PADP in this report.

29.    The property at 376 No.1 Road, Te Puke (outlined in pink in below image) was purchased by Council in 2004 for the construction of the Waiāri Water Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WWTP has now been completed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30.    That part of 376 No.1 Road (shown in the image below and referred to as The Orchard Block) is no longer required for operational or strategic purposes and was identified as potentially surplus to Council requirements in 2019.

 

The Orchard Block 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


31.    The Orchard Block is currently leased to The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited (“PFR”) for research and development purposes (“the Lease”). The Lease expires 31 May 2028. There is no licence or crop generated for sale. The fruit is for selection and evaluation.

32.    PFR are also the landowners of a large property adjoining the Orchard Block. PFR’s adjoining land is contained in record of title SA68D/236 and in outlined in pink the below image:

 

 

 

Orchard Block

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


33.    The Lease includes provision that Council may offer PFR the right to purchase the Orchard Block on terms and conditions agreed between them.

34.    PFR has indicated an interest (subject to price negotiations) in purchasing the Orchard Block as the Orchard has formed part of their established operation. Given this, it is recommended by this report that Council commences a negotiation process with PFR and only considers a open-market process if negotiations with PFR are unsuccessful.

Options Analysis for Disposal Classification of the Orchard Block

 

35.    Option One: Classify the disposal of the Orchard Block as a Strategic Disposal (RECOMMENDED) 

Advantages 

Disadvantages 

​ 

·      Improved community resilience and economic development as a Strategic Disposal to PFR will support the continued operation of PFR and the company’s research into sustainable crops;

·      A Strategic Disposal to PFR may result in a higher sale price due to the potential for an adjoining owner premium to be applied

·    A Strategic Disposal to PFR would mean that Council would not look to offer the property to Mana Whenua under the PADP.

Option Two: Classify the disposal of the Orchard Block as either an atypical disposal or surplus property (NOT RECOMMENDED)

Advantages

Disadvantages

·    Provides greater flexibility regarding the terms of any sale and purchase agreement, as Council will not be prioritising the achievement of strategic outcomes via the sale.

·    Council has no control (or less control) over the strategic outcomes of the sale, as these are not prioritised via the property classification.

·    The suitability of the Orchard Block being offered on the open market may affect the sale price due to the lack of licence, crop and lease requirements to PFR.

 

DIVESTMENT approach for Orchard Block

 

36.    We note that a right of first refusal to Mana Whenua does not apply to strategic disposals under the PADP and accordingly the recommendation is that the Orchard Block is divested by way of entering negotiations with PFR to dispose of the Orchard Block at a purchase price agreed upon by Council and PFR.

37.    If an agreement for sale and purchase cannot be reached with PFR 12 months from the date of the Orchard Block’s classification under the PADP, then it is recommended that the Orchard Block be reclassified as a Surplus Property and the process to offer the property to Mana Whenua as prescribed under the PADP be carried out.

Financial Considerations

38.    Updated market valuations for the Surplus Properties will be obtained before initiating the right of first refusal process described above. Similarly, updated valuations for the Orchard Block will be obtained as part of any negotiations with PFR. This will ensure that the Council has current market information, considering the unique characteristics of each property.

39.    Standard transaction-related expenses will apply to each sale, including necessary costs such as legal fees and valuation expenses.

40.    If Mana Whenua declines an offer to buy a property or if an agreement with PFR isn't reached, additional fees for commission and marketing will be incurred to prepare and promote the property for sale on the open market.

 

Legal Implications / Risks

41.    In any property sale, Council evaluates potential divestment implications under the Public Works Act 1981 (“PWA”) and considers other legislative, policy, and zoning aspects specific to each property.

42.    Since this report examines the disposal classification of multiple properties, various legal considerations apply to some of the Properties and not others. Details of these considerations and which properties they apply to are detailed below.

Public Works Act 1981

43.    Council must consider whether it has any ‘offer-back’ requirements under section 40 of the PWA when considering the disposal of all the Properties. An ‘offer-back’ requirement is when Council is obliged to offer back the property it is looking to dispose of, to its former owner or their successors for purchase at current market value prior to any other disposal process.

44.    The Council may decide, under s40(2)(a) of the PWA, that it would be unreasonable to be required to offer back the following properties under the PWA because of the explicit contractual waivers of such rights signed by the vendors upon the transfer of ownership to the Council:

(a)  59C Esmeralda Street, Welcome Bay;

(b)  53D Esmeralda Street, Welcome Bay;

(c)  2014L Kairua Road, Welcome Bay;

(d)  15 Herald Way, Welcome Bay;

(e)  32 Keilor Road, Otūmoetai,

(f)   96B Sherwood, Bellevue; and

(g)  35B Third Avenue and 1-3 43 Third Avenue, Tauranga

45.    Council has sought legal advice in relation to the waivers mentioned above and is awaiting receipt of this advice.

46.    Council has also commissioned reports from a LINZ-accredited supplier to determine whether it has statutory or legal obligations concerning the following properties before they can be disposed of. Specifically, Council officers have sought advice on any offer-back obligations to previous owners or their successors under the PWA and whether exemptions under s40(2) might apply to any of these properties:

(a)  65-73 Cross Road & 85 Cross Road Tauranga;

(b)  140 Grange Road, Otumoetai; and

(c)  134-136 Greerton Road, Greerton

47.    The advice received will influence the disposal process. If any of the properties listed in clause 46(a) –(g) and/or 48 (a) – (c) are considered to be subject to offer-back obligations under the PWA, the statutory process must be followed to offer these properties back to the former owners or their successors.

48.    Notably, if the Council finds that offer-back obligations exist under the PWA, the Right of First Refusal to Mana Whenua outlined in the PADP for Surplus Properties will not be carried out initially.

35A Third Avenue

49.    The Council purchased the property at 35A Third Avenue via an open-market auction in December 2008. Council is also awaiting legal advice in relation to offer-back obligations under the Public Works Act in relation to this property.

15 Herald Way

50.    As detailed in the property summary for 15 Herald Way (Attachment 2, page 15) the property was initially acquired for the potential maintenance and expansion of stormwater-related infrastructure additional to the existing ponds. However, this work was not pursued, and the property now primarily serves as an operational asset containing stormwater ponds and infrastructure in the low-lying area near Resolution Road.

51.    Before disposing of the property, the Council will initiate a 'setting apart' action in accordance with Section 52(4) of the Public Works Act 1981.

52.    The purpose of this action is to create two separate fee simple lots.

53.    The Council will retain the lot with the stormwater assets and associated infrastructure, while the second lot, which contains the existing dwelling, will be available for disposal. The diagram below provides a preliminary outline of the Council's stormwater ponds that will be retained. The remaining land will be considered for disposal. Note that the indicative boundaries shown below are subject to survey and specific legal guidance regarding the setting apart action, but this is the proposed outcome in principle.

Sections 140 & 141 of the Local Government Act 2002 (“LGA”)

54.    The properties at 31, 33, 35 Glasgow Street and part of the property at 149 Second Avenue in Tauranga are held as 'endowment land'. Contrast to the properties mentioned in paragraph  0 and 0 above (which the Council acquired for public works); the Crown vested these properties in the Council in 1885 as an endowment in aid of Borough Funds. Attachment 2, on pages 55 and 58, provides a summary of each of these property's specific details and historical background on how the land came into Council’s ownership via endowment.

55.    Sections 140 and 141 of the LGA provide for the sale or exchange of endowment properties and establish conditions for how the proceeds of such transactions should be utilised.

56.    The Minister has the authority to approve additional or alternate purposes for which the property or its derived income may be used. The proceeds of sale of any such endowment property must be used for a purpose consistent with the purpose of the endowment, that is, in aid of Borough Funds

57.    Section 141 of the LGA mandates that, in cases where the Crown originally donated the property to the Council, the Council must notify both the Minister for Land Information and the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations before disposing of endowment land.

58.    Once these endowment properties have been classified as Surplus Disposals under the PADP via a Council resolution, the Council will fulfil its obligations under Section 141 by notifying the appropriate Ministers of the proposed disposal.

59.    This notification will occur prior to initiating any divestment actions outlined in this report.

Section 24 Reserves Act 1977

60.    The property at 140 Grange Road is classified as a Local Purpose Reserve (Scout Hall site) under the Reserves Act 1977. Formerly the location of a scout hall, the building has since been demolished.

61.    Before divesting this property, a process must be followed according to Section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977 to determine if the reserve status can be revoked. The process will proceed as outlined below:

(a)        Council initiating process[7]: The Council as administering body of the reserve needs to resolve to initiate the process of revocation following a report that considers the “value” of the reserve, having specific reference to the purpose of the reserve under the Act, before initiating the process of revocation. The resolution will clearly state the reasons for the proposed revocation.

(b)     Consult with Commissioner:  The Council must consult with the Commissioner, an officer appointed by the Director-General under the Reserves Act, of its intention to seek the revocation of the reserve;

(c)     Consultation and Public Notification: Following consultation with the Commissioner, the Council will give public notice of the proposed revocation, stating the reasons for the proposed revocation consistently with the original resolution.

(d)     Public Objections: The public will have one month after the date of the public notice to submit written objections to the revocation.

(e)     Consideration of Objections: The Council must consider the objections received and may have a hearing to do so.  Following that consideration and hearing (if applicable) there must be a Council resolution on those objections.

(f)      Consideration by Minister: The Council must forward a copy of all objections and the Council’s resolution on those objections to the Minister to consider.

(g)     Minister's Decision: The ultimate decision to revoke the reserve status rests with the Minister of Conservation. The Minister will consider all objections and the Council’s resolution on those objections.

(h)     Ministerial Approval and Gazette Notification: The Minister may, at their discretion, revoke the reserve status of all or part of the land by publication of notice in the Gazette.

62.    If 140 Grange Road is deemed a Surplus Property l under the PADP, and pending a successful revocation of its reserve status, this report recommends rezoning the property from Open Passive Space to Residential for best compatibility with open-market sale approach.

63.    Before the disposal of 140 Grange Road, Council will also need to register easements on the property to protect and maintain Council stormwater infrastructure and ensure secure access to this infrastructure after the property is no longer under Council ownership.

 

 

 

Consultation / Engagement

64.    When Council is assessing whether to consult on an issue or matter, it applies Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy and considers legislative consultation requirements.

65.    The Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy provides guidance as to when Council should engage with the community. It includes a list of strategic assets. The decision to sell a strategic asset must be made via a Long-Term Plan and consulted on as part of that process (the LGA 2002, section 97). These Properties are not strategic assets, and therefore a decision to sell the Properties can be made without being provided for in the Long-Term Plan.

66.    Council’s Significance and Engagement policy also provides guidance to assess the significance of an issue, considering factors such as the level of community interest and financial impact. The proposed sale of the Properties is assessed as medium significance (see the following section) and Council’s degree of consultation, if any, is discretionary. Any consultation undertaken may be targeted.

Significance and engagement

67.    The LGA 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.

68.    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.

(c)   the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

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

70.    Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of medium significance, officers are of the opinion that other than the consultation required to be carried out with Mana Whenua under the PADP, further consultation/engagement is not appropriate or necessary for classification of the Properties.

Next Steps

71.    Following Council resolution of the disposal classifications, the following actions will be implemented by Council staff ensuring compliance with the PADP and other legislative requirements:

(a)     Confirm if any of the Surplus Properties are subject to legal obligations to offer back any of the Surplus Properties to the former owners or their successors under the PWA.

(b)     Subject to legal advice in relation to the above, promptly notify Mana Whenua re the classification of the Properties in accordance with the PADP. This step is crucial for maintaining transparency and honouring the cultural and historical significance of the properties to Mana Whenua.

(c)     Initiate the procedure to revoke the reserve status, under section 24 of the Reserves Act 1977, of the property at 140 Grange Road.

(d)     In accordance with s141 of the LGA notify the Minister of Land Information and the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations that the Endowment Properties are being considered for disposal.

(e)     Engage with Mana Whenua to discuss and potentially execute the right of first refusal process as outlined in Section 5.9 of the PADP stage. This engagement will include confirming their interest or lack thereof in purchasing the Surplus Properties.

(f)      Task independent registered valuers to assess the market value of the Properties, ensuring that valuations are conducted in an open and competitive environment, as required under Section 5.2 of the PADP.

(g)     Prepare an offer to PFR concerning the Orchard Block as a strategic disposal.

72.    These steps will be carried out with a commitment to transparency, adherence to statutory obligations, and in alignment with the strategic and operational goals of the Council.

Attachments

1.      Attachment 1 - Asset Realisation Reserve - A14836606

2.      Attachment 2 - Individual Property Summaries - A15966070 (Separate Attachments 1)   

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 















 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

11.8       Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy

File Number:           A15418020

Author:                    Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

Frazer Smith, Manager: Strategic Finance & Growth

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Helen Andrews, Business Analyst & Partner

Anne Blakeway, Manager: City Partnerships

Authoriser:              Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

           

Please note that this report contains confidential attachments.

 

Public Excluded Attachment

Reason why Public Excluded

Item 11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy - Attachment 1 - CONFIDENTIAL - TCC Civic Amenity Levy Proposal

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Item 11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy - Attachment 2 - CONFIDENTIAL - IFF Funding and Administration Agreement (IFFFAAA) - To be distributed

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Item 11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy - Attachment 3 - CONFIDENTIAL - Key Changes to IFFFAAA from February Draft

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Item 11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy - Attachment 4 - CONFIDENTIAL - Monitoring Deed - To be distributed

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Item 11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy - Attachment 5 - CONFIDENTIAL - Draft Levy Remission and Postponement Policies - To be distributed

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      This report provides an update to the financial strategy for Te Manawataki o Te Papa budgeted capital works programme, including updated estimates for external grant funding and the use of the Asset Realisation Reserve and Airport Activity funding.

2.      The report provides confirmation that Council will proceed with the Infrastructure Funding and Financing (IFF) levy for Te Manawataki o Te Papa (to be implemented from 1 July 2025) provided median levy amounts for the 2026 financial year remain within the ranges for residential and commercial ratepayers set out in paragraph 10 of this report.

3.      The report also outlines the process for concluding this transaction, which is expected to be finalised in August 2024.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy".

(b)     Notes the latest updated funding tables in paragraph 17 and 35.

(c)     Confirms, based on this updated funding, that loans will be available from the airport and parking activities to reflect the amounts noted in table 3 paragraph 35.

(d)     Confirms the Infrastructure Funding and Financing levy for Te Manawataki o Te Papa, with a levy amount up to $128 (including GST) for FY 2026 for a median residential levy payer and up to $464 (including GST) for FY 2026 for a median commercial levy payer.

(e)     Confirms the levy will commence 1 July 2025.

(f)      Notes the amounts of the maximum levy are within the consulted range for the residential ratepayer, and that for the commercial ratepayer could exceed the amount consulted on by approximately 6% to allow for a buffer amount for the levy at the time the levy proposal was drafted.

(g)     Notes that the amount of maximum levy contains a buffer amount to allow for potential movements in interest rates from the time the levy proposal was completed.

(h)     Confirms the delegation to two Commissioners to sign the Monitoring Deed once in final form and confirms the delegation to the Chief Executive (CE) or Chief Financial Officer (CFO) to negotiate minor or technical amendments to the Monitoring Deed.

(i)      Agrees that two Commissioners may sign any ancillary documents that are deeds.

(j)      Agrees the changes to the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Funding and Administration Agreement (IFFFAAA) outlined in a confidential attachment to this report and confirms the delegation to the CE and CFO to finalise these amendments to the IFFFAAA and any other documents that are agreements and agree any further changes to the IFFFAAA and such documents that are minor or technical amendments.

(k)     Agrees by delegation to the CE and CFO to sign any amendments necessary to the existing Transport System Plan IFF contractual documents to achieve consistency with the Te Manawataki o Te Papa IFF (as agreed between Council and the Special Purpose Vehicle).

(l)      Approves the ‘Draft Levy Remission and Postponement Policies’ included in a confidential attachment and delegates authority to the CE or CFO to agree minor or technical changes.

(m)    Attachments 1-5 can be transferred into the open upon the conclusion of the IFF transaction, subject to any commercial terms being redacted as agreed with Crown Investment Partners and other agencies

 

Executive Summary

4.      This report provides an update to the financial strategy for Te Manawataki o Te Papa (TMOTP), which was approved to provide sufficient funding for the approved project budget and deliver on the publicly consulted commitment to have a ratepayer funded loan no greater than $151.5 million.

5.      The financial strategy confirms the non-ratepayer funding will be utilised in the following priority order:

·    First priority - external non-rates funding.

·    Second priority – funding from the Airport activity, Parking Activity (related to parking buildings) and/or Asset Realisation Reserve.

6.      The Financial Strategy Report of 24 July 2023 outlined the external funding sources available to ensure sufficient funding was available for the programme of works. This report seeks to update these funding sources and confirm the sources of external funding going forward.

7.      The Infrastructure Funding and Financing (IFF) Levy will contribute the ratepayer portion of up to $151.5 million towards the TMOTP projects.  This paper confirms this levy will apply from 1 July 2025, subject to the final steps in obtaining necessary Government approvals and completing the IFF Act process and ensures that the levy will be materially within the range consulted on in September – November 2023.  These amounts are within range as agreed to through the previous Long Term Plan Amendment for residential levy payers, which confirmed the introduction of an IFF levy for TMOTP.  The commercial levy recognised an amount which may be up to 6% higher than that consulted on, due to interest rates allowing a buffer at the time the levy proposal was drafted.

Background

IFF Levy

8.      Council remains committed to limiting ratepayer funding for the Te Manawataki o Te Papa capital works project to $151.5 million.  This is to be funded through an IFF levy, paid by ratepayers.

9.      The consulted IFF levy was based on a median residential levy for FY 2026 of $107 to $128. The consultation included a median commercial levy for FY 2026 of $368 to $440. The $464 limit for commercial is 6% higher than the upper range of the amount consulted on of $440.  The amount of $464 was included in the levy proposal, which was based on interest rates at the time, and provides an additional buffer for financing. It is not materially above the amount consulted on. The final amount will be known upon the conclusion of the debt financing process and will not exceed the amount in the levy proposal. 

10.    The source for the ratepayer/levypayer share was confirmed through the previous Long Term Plan amendment to establish an Infrastructure Funding and Financing (IFF) levy. This IFF levy would replace the direct rates contribution to service and repay borrowing for the capital expenditure on the programme up to $151.5 million. This levy is reaching the final stages of development and will be implemented on 1 July 2025 (subject to the central Government process and financial close) provided the final amount of this levy does not exceed $128 for the median residential levy for FY 2026 and does not exceed $464 for median commercial levy for FY 2026.

11.    All documentation has currently been prepared for the levy and the levy has been lodged with the appropriate Minister. See Confidential Attachments 1 to 5, which includes the final levy proposal and the latest monitoring deed and IFF Funding and Administration Agreement (IFFFAAA). 

If approved, and the financing process undertaken via Crown Infrastructure Partners (CIP) confirms the levy does not exceed the amounts set out in paragraph 10 of this paper and a funding amount of $151.5m, Council will proceed with the transaction.  All delegations are in place to complete the transaction and the necessary contractual documents (IFFFAAA and Monitoring Deed) are expected to be signed in late June or early July. The effectiveness of these documents will be conditional on the transaction proceeding (including Executive Council approval of the Levy Order on Cabinet’s recommendation). Tauranga City Council (TCC) will note to the counterparties that it may pause or withdraw from the IFF transaction including if:

(a)     the IFF Funding is not confirmed (through issue of Order in Council) by 30 September 2024;

(b)     If a material adverse event occurred in the Tauranga Rating Area; and

(c)     the resulting levy amounts for median levies for FY26 (and associated costs of IFF) exceed the amounts set out in paragraph 10 of this paper and/or the funding amount is less than $151.5m.

12.    These steps are intended to be completed and the transaction fully completed by early August 2024, with the levy coming into force from 1 July 2025.

External Funding

13.    The updated project costs are currently $306.0 million, leaving $154.5 million to be funded via alternative sources (non-rates funding) with two main avenues being developed:

i.    External funding – this refers to funding provided to Council by other organisations. It includes the Waters Reform Funding (“Better Off” funding) and other government and community grants, as well as growth funding (developer contributions).

ii.   Airport and parking activities and / or Asset Realisation Reserve funding – this refers to non-ratepayer debt funding, which is only applied where there is insufficient external funding to meet the full $154.5 million. It includes funding from the Airport activity, i.e., non-ratepayer funded debt, and funds raised by disposal of Council assets as outlined in the LTPA consultation document. Following consultation on the disposal of parking buildings as part of the Long Term Plan, a decision was made to retain parking buildings and utilise parking revenue from buildings to fund loans associated with the TMOTP project if and when required.

14.    There is ongoing work to review costs and ensure cost effective delivery, which aims to help manage the overall costs of the project.

15.    Increases to the amount of external funding will reduce the amount of debt sourced from the Airport and parking activities and/or will allow Council to apply any proceeds from its Asset Realisation Reserve to other initiatives.

Proposed funding sources for Te Manawataki o Te Papa

16.    Table 1 summarises the changes in the projected external funding from that consulted upon in the LTPA through to the current budgets and finally to an updated risk weighted estimate.

17.    This table has been updated to reflect the latest estimates based on changes in the economic and political environment. For comparative purposes the LTPA and July 2023 estimates are included.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1: Comparison of the funding sources as per the LTPA with current estimates

Funding Source

LTPA Estimate Not risk weighted ($M)

July 2023 Risk Weighted[8] Estimated ($M)

May 2024 Risk Weighted1 Estimated ($M)

External Non-Rates Funding

 

 

 

Waters Reform “Better Off” funding

$33.2M

$12.1M*

$12.1M*

Other Government Grants

$49.1M

$14.2M

$13.0M

TECT Partnership

$27.0M

$21.0M

$21.0M

Local and Community Grants including corporate sponsorships and philanthropy

$31.7M

$4.5M

$4.6M

Growth Funding (Developer Contributions)

$10.9M

$11.4M

$0.7M

Total External Funding

$151.9M

$63.2M

$51.5M

Total Remaining Funding Required

$0

$91.6M

$103.0M

Total Non-Rates Funding

$151.9M

$154.8M

$154.5M

Rates Funded Debt (including Renewals)

$151.5M

$151.5M

$151.5M

Total Approved Budget for Programme of Works

$303.4M

$306.3M

$306.0M

*$6.7m already received.

External Funding Sources

18.    External funding sources are anticipated to include central government, charitable community trusts, corporate partnerships, and individual philanthropic donations.

19.    The $12.1M “Better Off” funding payment received from government as part of the water reforms has been allocated to Te Manawataki o Te Papa. We are in the process of confirming the application of this funding in response to a request from Department of Internal Affairs for consideration of the return of any unspent money. This funding continues to be included as an external funding source for this project.

20.    As part of the Infrastructure Funding and Financing transaction, a minimum of 10% of funding must be from non-TCC sources. Currently the external funding, which should be classified as non-TCC source, is 15.7%. 

21.    At a leadership meeting with the Mayors/Chair and CEs of Tauranga City Council, Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Priority One, it was decided that, while Te Manawataki o Te Papa is an important project for the city, it should not be included in the list of projects to be included in any ‘Western Bay of Plenty City Deal’ with the new government.

22.    Te Manawataki o Te Papa currently has not been included for funding in the new Regional Infrastructure Fund, subject to the impending announcement of the criteria by central government.

 

 

Tauranga Energy Community Trust (TECT)

23.    A draft funding agreement is now sitting with TECT to formally confirm their ‘Founding Funder’ contribution of $21 million towards the Museum and Exhibition Centre. This is the largest amount of funding that TECT has ever contributed to any project of regional significance. TECT has indicated that this is the beginning of a long-term strategic relationship with Council to fund community facilities and amenities. No change is expected to this funding, which will be received over several years as expenditure is undertaken.

Other government grants

24.    An expression of interest has been submitted to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage for significant funding from the Regional Culture and Heritage Fund, with a view to submitting a formal funding application closer to the construction date. This will be the first time that Tauranga has ever applied to this fund, which has provided significant funding towards similar projects in neighbouring councils, e.g., Rotorua. It should be noted that this is a “fund of last resort”, decided by the Minister when all other funding sources have been exhausted.

25.    The Lottery Significant Projects Fund remains closed for the 2023/24 financial year while it is undergoing a review, and the Lottery Community Facilities Fund has 46% less funding available compared with the previous year as a result of the cost-of-living crisis.

We will, however, be submitting a funding application to the Community Facilities Fund for $500K for the Innovation and Sensory Spaces in the Library/Community Hub in early August, once building consent has been approved and the planned programme of community engagement is complete.

26.    Staff have been working closely with various community and gaming trusts to determine which projects, or aspects of projects, might fit their respective criteria and eligibility thresholds. Bay Trust and Acorn Foundation have indicated that they would be unable to provide funding for a project of this scale. The Gaming Trusts, who have recently provided generous funding towards Destination Skate Park and the Art Gallery redevelopment, have indicated that Te Manawataki o Te Papa does not fit with their criteria, although there may be some interest to provide a small amount of funding towards the Innovation and Sensory Spaces in the Library/Community Hub. Funding applications will be submitted closer to the date of construction, as per their requirements.

Corporate sponsorship and individual donor programmes

27.    A detailed corporate sponsorship and individual philanthropic donor programme has been developed and staff are in conversations with potential corporates and high net worth individuals who are keen to support the Te Manawataki o Te Papa civic development programme. In response to their feedback, Acorn Foundation will be used as the vehicle for “through funding” of donations to enable donors to claim back tax credits. 

Reduction in Development Contribution Funding for the Library

28.    The development contribution funding for the library has been significantly reduced as the remaining growth share has been reassessed at $0.7M of the costs of the library, excluding the IFF funding share.

Potential impacts on the funding environment

29.    With the recent change in government and outline of policy positions with the coalition partners, an updated assessment of external project funding has been undertaken and a risk weighting applied to the remaining grants.

30.    The scale in Table 2 was used in the July report and has not changed for the current analysis. However, the assessment has now been updated based on the changes in economic and political environments, and these are reflected in Table 1 above. It is acknowledged that this may change over the construction of projects and more external funding will be sought where possible.

 

Table 2: Criteria for reviewing potential grants

31.    While this set of criteria has been used for determining the potential outcome of the external funding, this does not reduce the focus on collecting all the potential external funding.

32.    The confidence level adjustments made are for conservative “worst case” financial planning reasons only and are at the minimum of council expectations from applications regarding government support for arts, culture and heritage and other community facility funding support. Council staff will continue to work on maximising these and other external funding opportunities.

Other Funding Sources

33.    Although external funding is the priority funding source for the Te Manawataki o Te Papa capital works project, it is likely that Council will still require a level of other non-rates funding (other funding), to proceed with the project.

34.    Given current economic and political environments it is expected that this external funding pressure is likely to increase rather than decrease. Therefore, an updated assessment has been undertaken of the two other key sources of funds being:

·    Divestment of business interests and Council properties (refer Asset Realisation Reserve report on 24 July 2023 Council agenda).

·    Funding from the Airport activity and parking activity following the decision to retain parking buildings and use these income streams to fund debt related to TMOTP.

35.    Table 3 below shows the amount of gross estimated asset realisable value as at July, compared to the amount of asset realisation currently estimated based on further work undertaken between July and the date of this report.


 

Table 3: Potential other funding sources

Funding Source

Estimated Realisable Value Gross

$ millions

(July 2023)

Estimated Realisable Value Net of Debt Repayment

$ millions

(July 2023)

Estimated Realisable Value Gross

$ millions

(Jan 2024)

Estimated Realisable Value Net of Debt Repayment

$ millions

(May 2024)

Asset Realisation Reserve

$146.3

$97.7

$150.3M*

$108M**

Airport Activity Funding

$13.0

$13.0

$13.0

$13.0

Other Funding Options 

Nil ***

Nil ***

Nil ***

Nil ***

Total Other Funding Identified

$159.3

$110.7

$163.3

$121M

 

 

 

 

 

Total Other Non-Rates Funding Required (Table 1)

$91.6

$91.6

$83.4

$103.0

*     This figure includes $46M for the car parking buildings based on the decision on 4 March 2024 to raise this amount in debt against projected surpluses.  The amount to be funded from the loans via the parking activity will not materially differ from this amount.

**    Debt figure has reduced relative to previous reporting as it now excludes any existing debt on the assets being sold.

***   This is nil for this report but note that further opportunities will be available in the future. These opportunities need considerable work to realise and understand true value.

Funding from the Asset Realisation Reserve

36.    The gross estimated realisation valuation figure used above is the average of the most likely realisable values for each of the assets being sold. The individual sales values could be higher or lower than these amounts.

37.    The key changes to the Asset Realisation Reserve estimates since July 2023 are made up of:

·    A reduction in the expected proceeds for the Marine Precinct, based on the latest negotiations, from $33m to $13m. Note also the debt against this asset has been reduced as a result of being released from the Funding Agreement with BoPRC, appropriate apportionment for other assets that will continue to be held and adding back in the depreciation expense. 

·    An increase in the proceeds from Smith’s Farm from $11.2m to $24m (net of cost of access road).

·    An increase in the expected proceeds from Poteriwhi from $8.2M to $17.75M, based on the value achieved from the sale of Smiths Farm and the determination there is no need to refund development contributions utilised to acquire the property (given the ongoing provision of sports fields).

38.    Two of the assets that were considered for resale are Spring Street and Elizabeth Street carparks. As part of the LTP process, Council is now retaining these buildings and funding an equivalent amount of debt retirement through the parking activity.

 

 

Funding from the Airport activity

39.    Currently the airport activity is transferring $1m per annum into the Tourism Fund from its profits. This fund is then used to fund tourism related activities, such as the grant paid to Tourism Bay of Plenty.

40.    Our independent benefit analysis identified that a portion of TMOTP should be funded by people from outside the region (i.e., tourists). We have already identified a link between Airport revenue and tourism and from there to the funding of TMOTP.

41.    As a result of this we propose that an additional $1m per year is transferred from the Airport reserves to the Tourism Fund for 30 years, and that the Fund applies these additional funds to the TMOTP projects. $1m per year is sufficient to pay the interest and debt servicing on $13m of TMOTP debt.

42.    Table 4 identifies the risks and mitigations associated with this funding.

 

Table 4: Risks and mitigation in using Airport profits to fund part of TMOTP projects

Risk

Mitigation

Insufficient profits from Airport activity to fund this transfer.

From our review of the Airport activity projected financial statements over the LTP period, we are confident that there will be sufficient profits to support this additional funding.

Objection from the Crown as a significant portion of the Airport income comes from rentals on land that would revert to the Crown if no longer associated with an airport.

The term of the loan is set at 30 years, which is the maximum lease period allowed for commercial leases in this area. 

Objection from Air NZ who pay the majority of the landing fees collected by the airport.

The Airport Manager has discussed using some of the profits in this manner with senior Air NZ officials and they are comfortable with this approach.

Crown has expressed concern that part of the TMOTP funding needs to come from out of the district to reflect the benefit analysis.

A significant portion of the visitors flying into Tauranga Airport do not live in Tauranga and therefore will contribute to this funding

 

43.    A similar approach will be applied to the parking activity to ensure a loan is available, with no direct ratepayer impact, is funded through the revenue of parking buildings.

44.    Where Asset Realisation Reserve (including loans from the parking activity) and/or Airport Activity funding is used to fund any shortfall in external funding for projects, it is proposed that they are repaid through future external grant funding as this money is received. This ensures staff will continue to look for external funding throughout the life of the project and use the Asset Realisation Reserve and Airport Activity funding as a secondary funding option or to bridge timing gaps.

45.    It is expected that expenditure on the Te Manawataki o Te Papa programme of works will occur in advance of much of the external funding. To ensure there is no further ratepayer input into this programme of works, any interest incurred to fund this gap will be funded from the Asset Realisation Reserve and/or Airport Activity funding.

46.    As can be seen in Table 3 above, there is a greater amount of “other funding” for Te Manawataki o Te Papa than is currently required. It is important to maintain a “funding buffer” to ensure ratepayer funding does not exceed $151.5m in the event of one or more of the following:

·    Asset Realisation Reserve: Some of the assets identified for realisation require further analysis and market testing.  It is possible that Council may subsequently decide not to dispose of the asset or may attach conditions to the disposal that reduces the realisable value.

·    External funding shortfalls: This funding buffer could be used if Council is unable to secure further external funding within the required timeframe.   Estimates have been reduced downwards based on updated review of external factors.

·    Overruns: Council may decide to utilise the buffer if unforeseen/unbudgeted project costs (due to inflationary pressures, supply-chain uncertainties etc) occur.   This needs to be considered with the non TCC funding requirement under the IFF levy transaction.

Strategic / Statutory Context

47.    This report is consistent with the decision to limit ratepayer funding of Te Manawataki o Te Papa to no more than $151.5m and updates the latest financial strategy.

Financial Considerations

48.    These are noted in the body of the report and were reflected in the revised Long-term Plan budgets.

Legal Implications / Risks

49.    Risks are noted in the body of the report focused on the potential for reduced external funding and the timing of realising assets for the asset realisation reserve.

Consultation / Engagement

50.    The projects and funding and financing of these projects have previously been consulted on.

Significance

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

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

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

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

(c)   the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

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

Next Steps

54.    Continue to seek external funding where available and continue with the asset realisation programme.

55.    The IFF levy proposal and associated documentation is currently with the Minister for Housing for consideration and recommendation to Cabinet.  To finalise the IFF levy transaction other steps will need to take place with Government and CIP will need to complete its financing process.

56.    The Council will enter into the IFFFAAA and the Monitoring Deed with Council’s obligations under these documents only coming into effect upon financial close of the transaction. 

Attachments

1.      CONFIDENTIAL - TCC Civic Amenity Levy Proposal - A15946860 - Public Excluded  

2.      CONFIDENTIAL - IFF Funding and Administration Agreement (IFFFAAA) - To be distributed -  - Public Excluded  

3.      CONFIDENTIAL - Key Changes to IFFFAAA from February Draft - A15946463 - Public Excluded  

4.      CONFIDENTIAL - Monitoring Deed - To be distributed -  - Public Excluded  

5.      CONFIDENTIAL - Draft Levy Remission and Postponement Policies - To be distributed -  - Public Excluded   


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

 

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

11.9       Decisions on Independent Hearings Panel Recommendations on Plan Change 33 - Enabling Housing Supply

File Number:           A15676146

Author:                    Janine Speedy, Team Leader: City Planning

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

 

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      The purpose of this report is to seek decisions on the Independent Hearings Panel recommendations for proposed Plan Change 33 – Enabling Housing Supply.

 

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Decisions on Independent Hearings Panel Recommendations on Plan Change 33 - Enabling Housing Supply".

(b)     Accepts all recommendations in the report of the Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) on proposed Plan Change 33 – Enabling Housing Supply in accordance with clause 104, Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) and adopts the reasons in the report.

OR

(c)     Accepts all recommendations in the report of the IHP on proposed Plan Change 33 – Enabling Housing Supply in accordance with clause 104, Schedule 1 of the RMA and adopts the reasons in the report, with the exception of the IHP recommendations set out in Table 1 below, which includes the reasons for rejecting recommendations, and any alternative recommendations in accordance with clause 101(1)(b), Schedule 1 of the RMA:

Table 1- Rejected IHP Recommendations

A

Recommendation rejected

Alternative recommendation (if any)

 

 

Reason

 

(d)     Delegate to the Commission Chair the authority to sign and send a letter referring any rejected IHP recommendations, together with reasons for rejecting the recommendation and any alternative recommendations, to the Minister for Environment in accordance with the resolutions of Council.

(e)     Publicly notify the decisions of the Council in accordance with clause 102, Schedule 1 of the RMA by 30 June 2024 including any recommendations of the IHP that it accepts or that it rejects together with the reasons for doing so and any alternative recommendation that is has provided for a rejected recommendation.

(f)      Notes that on public notification under clause 102, Schedule 1 of the RMA, all the recommendations of the IHP that are accepted by Council are incorporated into the Tauranga City Plan and are deemed approved under clause 17(1), Schedule 1 and become operative in accordance with clause 20, Schedule 1 of the RMA.

(g)     That the General Manager: Strategy, Growth and Governance be delegated the authority to approve any minor editorial changes and consequential changes (if any) to the proposed plan under clauses 16 and 95(2)(o), Schedule 1 of the RMA.

(h)     Adopt the non-statutory urban design guide (Residential Outcomes Framework) included as Attachment 2.

(i)      That the General Manager: Strategy, Growth and Governance be delegated the authority to approve any minor editorial changes to the Residential Outcomes Framework.

 

 

 

Executive Summary

2.      On 15 August 2022, Council adopted proposed Plan Change 33 (PPC33) for public notification in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

3.      At the same meeting, Council appointed four independent hearing commissioners with expertise in planning, urban design, infrastructure and tikanga Māori to hear all submissions on PPC33 and make recommendations to Council.

4.      Proposed Plan Change 33 was split into two hearing sessions which were held in July and October 2023.

5.      The Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) have provided their recommendations on PPC33 in accordance with the requirements of the RMA. The IHP recommendations are set out in Attachment 1 to this report and is publicly available on the Tauranga City Council website at: www.tauranga.govt.nz/pc33-key-documents.

Background

6.      In response to the Resource Management (Enabling Housing Supply and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021, Council was required to notify changes to the Tauranga City Plan (City Plan) by 20 August 2022 to incorporate the Medium Density Residential Standards and give effect to Policy 3 and Policy 4 of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD).

7.      Proposed Plan Change 33 covers the following key aspects:

(a)     Incorporate current Suburban Residential, Wairakei Residential and Large Lot zones into new Medium Density Residential Zone consistent with the National Planning Standards to:

          i)       Enable the MDRS as a permitted activity;

          ii)       Enable four or more dwellings as a restricted discretionary.

(b)     Rezone Te Papa Peninsula and areas around commercial centres identified to meet Policy 3 in the NPS-UD to High Density Residential Zone and combine with the current High Density Residential Zone consistent with the National Planning Standards to:

          i)       Enable the MDRS as a permitted activity;

ii)       Introduce height maps to enable greater height adjacent to identified commercial centres to give effect to Policy 3(c) and 3(d) in the NPS-UD;

          iii)      Enable four or more storeys as a restricted discretionary activity, non-notified.

(c)     Commercial Zone provisions amended to:

          i)       Introduce on-site amenity and urban design provisions for residential activities;

ii)       Introduce height maps to enable greater height in identified commercial centres to give effect to Policy 3(c) and 3(d) in the NPS-UD.

 

(d)     City Centre Zone provisions are amended to:

          i)       Introduce on-site amenity and urban design provisions for residential activities;

          ii)      Enable greater development capacity to give effect to Policy 3(a) in the NPS-UD.

(e)     Urban design:

(i)      Introduce a non-statutory urban design guide known as the Residential Outcomes Framework (ROF);

(ii)     Reflect key aspects of the ROF in the objectives, policies and assessment criteria of the City Plan;

(iii)    Apply urban design requirements to developments of four or more dwellings and residential activities in the Commercial Zone.

(f)      Supporting amendments to:

          i)       Chapter 3 - Definitions

          ii)      Chapter 12 – Subdivision

          iii)      Chapter 4 – Transportation, Noise, Permitted Intrusions

(g)     Rezone Smiths Farm from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential Zone.

(h)     Identify Qualifying Matters that may limit height and density.

 

8.      On 15 August 2022, Council appointed four independent hearing commissioners with expertise in planning, urban design, infrastructure and tikanga Māori to hear all submissions on PPC33 and make recommendations to Council.

9.      Due to the number and complexity of submissions received, additional technical work required to respond to submissions received and outcomes of the expert conferencing the hearing for PPC33 was split into two sessions. Therefore, on 3 May 2023, Council applied in writing to the Minister for the Environment to amend the ministerial direction that sets out the date by which Council must notify its decisions on the IHP’s recommendations. Following this, the Chair of the IHP released Direction #3 on 5 May 2023, which advised that PPC33 be split into two hearing sessions scheduled for July and October 2023.

10.    On 16 August 2023, the Minister of the Environment granted Council’s request for more time to complete the ISPP until 30 June 2024 in accordance with s80L and s80M of the RMA.

11.    Session 1, held in July 2023, was a strategic hearing covering out of scope submissions and key themes raised through submissions. Session 2, which was held over two weeks in October 2023 was the substantive hearing which covered all submission points.

12.    On 24 April 2024, the IHP provided their recommendations on PPC33 in accordance with the requirements of the RMA. The IHP recommendations are set out in Attachment 1 to this report and is publicly available on the Tauranga City Council website at: www.tauranga.govt.nz/pc33-key-documents.

13.    The IHP largely accepted the Council officers’ recommendations from the section 42A report and closing statement.

14.    There are six recommendations of the IHP that do not align with the Council officers’ recommendations set out in the closing statement and s.42A report. These six recommendations are as follows:

(a)     retaining the heights and zoning for Mount Maunganui North as originally proposed by the Council when PC33 was notified;

(b)     limiting residential sites closest to Gate Pā/ Pukehinahina within the identified viewshaft to the same height limits as in the existing City Plan (9m+2m intrusion), along with a new matter of discretion to require the consideration of the effect of any height intrusions within the identified residential sites on the sightline to Mauao from the Pukehinahina viewing platform to avoid worsening the effect of any permitted development;

(c)     imposing a 12m height maximum over the existing building on the Mitre 10 Mega site in the Gate Pā town centre and 27m over the car park and the remainder of the town centre;

(d)     removing the height limit over Area F in the City Centre Zone and consequential changes to the maps in Chapter 17 and relevant provisions;

(e)     introducing an advisory rail line vibration alert layer at 60m from the designation boundary; and

(f)      setting the minimum carriageway width for an accessway servicing up to 4 dwelling units at 4m rather than 3.5m.

15.    There are also some minor editorial amendments that have been recommended by the IHP.

16.    On 29 April 2024, a public Council workshop was held where staff provided an overview of the IHP recommendations that differ from Council officer recommendations.

17.    The Residential Outcomes Framework is a non-statutory design guide to assist Council and developers achieve good urban design outcomes. The Residential Outcomes Framework was consulted through the formal public notification on PPC33.  There were no submissions received seeking amendments. The Residential Outcomes Framework is included as Attachment 2.

Strategic / Statutory Context

18.    The provision of a good supply and variety of housing to meet market demand over time is a key part of the overall city growth objectives. Proposed Plan Change 33 partially addresses residential development constraints and contributes towards achieving the targets for housing development capacity as set out in the City Plan.

19.    Proposed Plan Change 33 enables a more compact city, particularly within and around commercial centres and aligns with the Urban Form and Transport Initiative.

20.    Intensification of existing urban areas and enabling increased heights within and round identified commercial centres also gives effects to Policy 3 of the NPS-UD.

Options Analysis

21.    Option 1: Accept all the IHP recommendations without amendment. Any recommendations that are accepted are incorporated into the City Plan and made operative.

Advantages

Disadvantages/Risks

·    Makes PPC33 operative in full and would bring it into force with the greatest speed and certainty.

·    Prevents any delay or uncertainty that comes referral of decisions to the Minister.

·       Accepting the IHP recommendations, the Council also accept the reasoning and weighting of evidence used by the IHP in coming to their recommendations.

 

22.    Option 2: Reject some of the IHP’s recommendations on the provisions. Any recommendations that are rejected are sent to the Minister for Housing. Council must set out why the Council does not support the recommendation, provide an alternative recommendation and why the alternative recommendation is preferred. The Minister can choose whether to accept or reject the recommendations referred to them. 

Advantages

Disadvantages/Risks

·    Allows the Council to ensure that those parts of the IHP recommendations which might not align with the Council’s strategic goals, interpretation of evidence or reasoning can be referred to the Minister with an alternative that does.

 

·    Any new provisions associated with the rejected recommendations are unable to be used until the Minister provides a decision. There are no timeframes for the Minister to make a decision on those recommendations that are rejected.

·    The Minister may not elect to take the option referred to them by the Council and choose the IHP recommendation.

 

Financial Considerations

23.    There are no financial considerations associated with this report. The costs associated with the PPC33 has been within existing LTP budgets.

Legal Implications / Risks

24.    Proposed Plan Change 33 has been prepared and notified to meet the legislative requirements under Schedule 1 of the RMA.

25.    In accordance with clause 101, Schedule 1 of the RMA, Council is required to decide whether to accept or reject each recommendation of the IHP and provide an alternative recommendation for any recommendation that the authority rejects.

26.    Council must make decisions on the recommendations of the IHP by 30 June 2024 by direction of the Minister for the Environment. If decisions were not made by this date, Council will be in breach of this direction.

27.    Commissioners are not permitted to consider any submissions or other evidence that was not made available to the IHP before they made their recommendations. In making decisions on the IHP recommendations, Commissioners should disregard any information that may have been received after the hearings closed.

28.    There are no rights of appeal against any decision or action of the IHP, the Council or the Minister.  However, their respective decisions are potentially subject to judicial review in the High Court.  Such proceedings examine the decision-making process but do not generally allow the High Court to revisit the merits of a decision under review.

Consultation / Engagement

29.    Proposed Plan Change 33 was publicly notified on 20 August 2022 in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA. Public notices were included in newspapers on 19 and 20 August 2022 and letters sent to all landowners affected by the plan change. In additional to public notices and letters being sent, the following was undertaken:

·    Advertising through online, social media and radio;

·    Information through Council newspapers; and

·    Emails to Council’s key stakeholders list comprising of central government agencies, infrastructure providers, community groups and developers.

30.    Submissions closed on 23 September 2023, 25 working days after public notification. Public notices were included in newspapers on 25 and 26 November 2022. Correspondence was sent to all submitters advising that the summary of submissions was available and that the further submission period was from 28 November to 9 December 2022. Letters were also sent to residents within the Mount Maunganui North area advising that submissions have been received seeking additional height.

31.    The Friend of the Submitter was made available throughout the plan change process to provide independent advice to submitters.

32.    A total of 404 submissions were received and a total of 205 further submissions were received.

33.    Following the submission and further submission process, consultation was undertaken with various submitters through the preparation of the s42A report to clarify submission points and discuss options to resolve submission points.

Significance

34.    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.

35.    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.

(c)   the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

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

ENGAGEMENT

37.    Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of high significance, officers are of the opinion that Council publicly notify its decision in accordance with clause 102, Schedule 1 of the RMA. No further public consultation is provided for in law with respect to the decisions outlined in this report.

Next Steps

38.    Advise Minister for Housing of any IHP recommendations that are rejected.

39.    Publicly notify the decisions made by Council on PPC33.

40.    Serve notice of the public notice on every person who made a submission on PPC33.

41.    Make a copy of the public notice and the decisions publicly available on Council’s website and in physical form in all libraries.

Attachments

1.      Independent Hearings Panel recommendations on Plan Change 33 - A15891067

2.      Residential Outcomes Framework - April 2024 (A15911138) - A15969281 (Separate Attachments 1)   

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 



Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

11.10     483 Cameron Road - Indoor Court Project

File Number:           A15920986

Author:                    Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Community Services

Authoriser:              Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Community Services

 

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      To seek Council approval for the use of the recently purchased building at 483 Cameron Road (previously known as The Warehouse), for an Emergency Operating Centre, Public Parking as well as the establishment of Community Basketball (which has previously been approved).

2.      To seek approval of the ownership structure.

 

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "483 Cameron Road - Indoor Court Project".

(b)     Approves that the 483 Cameron Road building remains in Council ownership and a lease or heads of agreement be executed to ensure Bay Venues Limited have the necessary ability to operate and maintain a Community Basketball facility.

(c)     Approves the conversion of a section of the mezzanine floor for the purpose of establishing an Emergency Operating Centre.

(d)     Approves staff to liaise with Bay Venues Limited and proceed with the policy framework to enable dedicated free and public paid carparking at 483 Cameron Road. 

 

 

 

Background

3.      The existing building at 483 Cameron Road consists of a single-storey portal frame structure, with a mezzanine floor, built over a basement carpark, constructed circa 1995.

4.      The project currently underway and previously approved, is to convert the warehouse building from its current use as a retail store into a community sports facility. Under the Building Act, this is a change of use from retail to community sports facility, therefore triggers a change in Importance Level of the building from IL2 to IL3. As the building triggered the change of use criteria, it must comply as near as reasonably practicable to every provision of the building code that relates to fire, structural performance, sanitary facilities, and access and facilities for persons with disabilities.

5.      On 11 December 2023, the Council approved a project to develop the warehouse building into an Indoor Court Facility comprising of four full-sized basketball courts, along with a reception area, tournament control room, storage, new toilets and changing facilities including accessible provisions as required for the expected occupancy to meet the building code.  

6.      There will also be:

·        358 retractable bleacher seating.

·        Approximately 50 fixed seating.

·        Additionally, there are standing spaces around the courts.

7.      All of the above-mentioned work will be undertaken within the project budget of $7,350,000 including 15% contingency and professional fees.

8.      This component of the project is progressing and should be completed in October 2024, in time to move from the QEYC building which will be demolished.

THE BUILDING’S MEZZANINE FLOOR

9.      Upgrading the existing mezzanine floor including offices, staff room, kitchen, ablutions, storage room etc was not in scope in the above-mentioned project. 

10.    The mezzanine floor area is approximately 600m2.

11.    Any use of the mezzanine floor would require a refresh such as paint, carpet, updated toilets, installation of a ceiling and kitchen facilities. Given there was no budget in the “main” build any of this work would need to be funded by the individual activities, unless there is saving within the project budget, which given the small contingency is unlikely.

12.    A plan of the mezzanine floor is attached which outlines an open area which could be used for two co-located uses:

Emergency Operating Centre (EOC)

13.    Council is required to give effect to the Civil Defence Emergency Act 2002, therefore a key responsibility in the case of an emergency is having the capacity and capability to respond.

14.    Council’s EOC is currently situated at 46 Spring Street and once 90 Devonport Road is completed, the lease of 46 Spring Street will cease. Given that 90 Devonport Road has not been built to Importance Level 4 (IL4) of the Building Regulations 1992 (the building code), this building cannot provide the primary or sole EOC facility. It is however noted that an alternate or secondary meeting room within 90 Devonport Road will ensure Council can meet the expectations of the CDEM Act.

15.    Need for EOC Facility:

·        There is no practical means of fulfilling Councils Civil Defence Emergency Management functions without having an EOC to coordinate a response. Having a dedicated EOC separate from Council’s main building has many advantages.  

·        The first hour in response is crucial and requires efficiency in activation. In the absence of a dedicated, fit for purpose EOC space, the first hour (and likely longer), will be lost trying to respond immediately to the event and at the same time setting up an EOC which could require commuting to an identified site, setting up desks, computers, getting digital support in terms of sourcing resource for monitoring, e.g. surface hubs and monitors. The lag in becoming fully operational would take valuable time at the front end of the response.

·        As stated within the Report of the Government Inquiry into the Response to the North Island Weather Events (March 2024),

“Without adequate investment in readiness, the impacts of disasters will continue to be devastating”.

·        Council undergoes an annual EOC audit by BoP CDEM Group as part of the BoP CDEM Group Assurance Framework, as approved by the CDEM Joint Committee. The regional auditing process is used to ensure each organisation has the capability to activate and effectively establish a response capability. The audit process is used to assess the ability to contact and activate staff along with ensuring access to appropriate facilities, infrastructure, and equipment during an emergency to enable effective and efficient response management. Should Council not have a EOC facility, we would be deemed to lack the capability to activate and effectively establish a response capability as per the BoP CDEM group plan, which we work to deliver on as a member of the BoP CDEM Group.

·        As noted above, resilience (and hence redundancy of facilities) is a key consideration.  If the event that we are responding to is an earthquake, an assessment of any building would need to be undertaken prior to use. If for some reason the building at 483 Cameron Road is compromised, then a practical option of utilising a meeting room at 90 Devonport Road as the secondary EOC facility would be appropriate subject to any damage to that building. 

16.    Suitability of Cameron Road site:

·        Location is central and strategically placed and allows for good access to the state highways via Cameron Road corridor, in more than one direction.

·        Location is out of the geotechnical hazard zones and is expected to be viable for most responses.

·        There is extensive parking for the EOC when activated, more specifically when a multi-agency response is needed, thus providing for external stakeholders.

·        If the event was a significant event such as the Tauranga 2005 floods, the total size of the building would accommodate a large and significant response. It is not anticipated (hoped) that this would occur often as most events could be accommodated within the proposed dedicated EOC, but the option is there if required, particularly in a large multi discipline response.

·        The mezzanine floor would be large enough to provide for an open plan EOC with break out rooms for IMT/Controller meetings or media briefings, there is existing kitchen and bathrooms, so no cost in establishing these spaces.

·        The building does require structural and general upgrades as part of it changing from a retail building to a recreational courts facility, which requires categorisation as an Importance Level 3 building.  The level of seismic strength that the building will achieve from the strengthening work has yet to be determined, but will be above the earthquake prone threshold at Importance Level 4. More importantly, as a low-rise building with a steel-framed superstructure, there is a reasonable likelihood of it being functional following a 500 year return period earthquake.

Surplus resource such as desks, chairs, tambours, etc from 306 Cameron Road, would be used to fit out seating for the EOC, meeting and training room.

17.    Opportunities for EOC use in peace time.

The 483 Cameron Rd facility will be utilised as follows:

·        Monthly EOC stand ups for all EOC staff training (approximately 30 staff).

·        Quarterly EOC forums for all EOC staff training (approximately 30-40 staff).

·        Annual EOC exercise (approximately 50 staff).

·        Weekly radio checks.

·        Bespoke, on-going professional development training for all Emergency Management staff, including Controllers and Recovery Managers.

·        Storage of all EOC gear, including Starlink, Stinger, Satelite phones, laptops, phones and all Function Role resources, so that all response gear is at one site for ease of deployment.

18.    It is envisaged that the EOC would be set up and ready to use immediately with key tools such as Starlink phones and laptops stored, so the facility could also be booked out and used by others, such as Bay Venues Limited, when not in use by Emergency Management, whether for training, meeting rooms, etc.

19.    We have the majority of equipment required and there is budget within the Emergency Management activity that can be used to purchase new equipment, such as notice boards and service hubs.

Staff facilities and meeting rooms for Bay Venues Limited

20.    Bay Venues Limited have signalled that they require room for 10 staff, three have been accommodated in the reception downstairs. They have also signalled that they require room for tournament control, this has also been accommodated on the ground floor, albeit a large event would benefit from a larger room.  The attached floor plan identifies that a large area could be made available for Bay Venues Limited to fit out for these purposes.

21.    Bay Venues Limited have indicated that they have office furniture that could be re-used, however any building upgrade would also need to be funded.

22.    Bay Venues Limited have also indicated a need for public carparking as outlined below.

car parks

23.    The building includes 221 car parks consisting of:

·        179 covered car parks (of which there are six accessible car parks); and

·        42 uncovered car parks (of which there are four accessible and two EV charging car parks).

24.    The intention is that the 42 uncovered car parks are allocated for the activity and can be used for public carparking. The uncovered car parks will be utilised by users of the facility on a free basis, with parking limited, for example 120 minutes.

25.    The 179 covered car parks can be utilised for public paid car parking. The property is some 1.8km from the City Centre. This equates to a 7-minute bus ride (there is a bus stop adjacent to the building on Cameron Road), or a 20-minute walk.

26.    Council would need to install parking machines; the cost would be re-covered from the car parking fees. If this recommendation is supported staff would need to commence the process of changing the Parking Bylaw and install parking machines.

ownership structure

Note:  Where lease is mentioned below, this could be lease or heads of agreement.

27.    If the above recommendations are supported, this building will have three distinct activities within one building. Community Indoor Sports (including office space), Emergency Operating Centre, and public car parks.

28.    From a balance sheet perspective, the debt on this facility will remain within the Spaces & Places activity regardless of whether the asset is transferred to Bay Venues Limited or remains with Council. Accordingly, the decision on ownership structure should be based on the best asset management, rather than balance sheet outcome.

29.    The ownership structure has two options, Bay Venues own, and Council lease or Council owns and Bay Venues lease.

30.    Given the varied nature of the activities within the building it seems logical that the property would be owned by Council (via the Spaces & Places activity) and leased to Bay Venues Limited.

31.    The requirements and regular use of the area designated to the EOC means that while staff will not be located in the building it will have regular use as identified earlier in this report and there is Council interest in a significant car parking amenity. Council currently has systems and processes in place to manage a car park building. The Parking Management activity would “own” the covered park area together with the ramps and be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of this aspect of the building.

32.    It is possible that the property can be owned by two activities within council. A partition agreement between, say, the Parking Management activity and the Spaces & Places activity would provide that as between those activities:

·        The Parking Management activity owns and operates the covered car park area together with the ramps with ingress and egress over the exterior car park as well as off Cameron Road; and

·        Spaces & Places owns the indoor sports building and exterior car parks (to be leased to Bay Venues Limited, Indoor Sports Facility).

·        This would provide the Parking Management activity with control over the Parking Facility arrangements in order for it to meet the ongoing needs of the city.

·        The arrangement would include provision for Spaces & Places and Bay Venues Limited (as operator) to utilise the Parking Facility after work hours, during weekends and on public holidays.

·        It is noted that this decision will be subject to tax review.

·        An appropriate proportionate ownership would be (as an appropriation of the original purchase price):

o   Parking Facility – 30% = $5.4M; and

o   Indoor Sports Facility – 70% = $12.6M.

Financial Considerations

33.    The cost to implement the above recommendations are minimal and can be accommodated in existing budgets.

Significance

34.    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.

35.    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.

(c)   the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

38.    It is noted that Council has engaged with Bay Venues Limited in the development of these recommendations.

 

 

Next Steps

39.    If the recommendations in this report are approved, staff will commence the process of changes to Bylaws and install appropriate equipment to give effect to the decisions.

Attachments

1.      483 Cameron Road - Proposed Ground & Mezzanine Floor Plan - A15946792  

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 



 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

11.11     City Centre Public Realm Design Guidelines

File Number:           A15917203

Author:                    Emily McLean, Programme Lead: City Development

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

 

 

Purpose of the Report

1.      To seek endorsement for the proposed “Tauranga City Centre Public Realm Design Guidelines”.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "City Centre Public Realm Design Guidelines".

(b)     Endorses the proposed guidelines “Tauranga City Centre Public Realm Design Guidelines” (Attachment 1) to be utilised to promote cohesive, high-quality public space design and development, including public streets.

 

 

 

Executive Summary

2.      The preparation of a city centre public realm design guide that establishes a framework for consistent, high quality public space design (including public streets), is identified as an action in the City Centre Action and Investment Plan 2022–32 (CCAIP).

3.      The Tauranga City Centre Public Realm Design Guidelines 2024 (the guidelines) have been prepared by landscape, urbanism and placemaking design consultants, LandLAB.

4.      The purpose of the guidelines is to provide design guidance and direction to establish a cohesive and consistent public realm that:

(a)     identifies and consolidates a coherent look and feel for Tauranga’s city centre public realm and streetscapes;

(b)     simplifies the design, briefing, procurement and delivery process for future projects;

(c)     provides opportunities for efficiencies and economies of scale for the supply of materials and design elements;

(d)     optimises and simplifies maintenance, and asset management budgets/issues; and

(e)     aggregates design guidance into one place.

5.      These guidelines will be used by Council project staff as the starting point for public realm and streetscape projects within the city centre. The Tauranga Urban Design Panel will use them in their review of public realm projects in the city centre, and private developers may utilise the guidelines in their developments to adopt a cohesive threshold between private and public space. 

6.      The guidelines will be accessed via the Council website with key links to the Infrastructure Development Code (IDC), and the urban design panel web pages.

7.      Two stand-alone extensions to the guidelines are currently underway including:

(a)     the “Signage and Wayfinding Masterplan and Strategy” for the city centre (in conjunction with the city-wide signage and wayfinding strategy); and

(b)     a peer review of the guidelines to assess opportunities to incorporate Council’s sustainability strategic priorities including creation of a base case that will be used to measure and demonstrate how future projects are contributing to sustainable outcomes.

8.      It is anticipated that the guidelines may need to be reviewed periodically (circa every three years) to respond to changes taking place in public realm projects, and to account for the impact of other guidelines that may be drafted, including guidelines on universal access and safety.

Background

9.      Tauranga’s city centre streets and public spaces are largely tired, cluttered, and are underperforming for the expectations of a thriving and modern city centre.

10.    Recent streetscape upgrades at Durham Street, Wharf Street and Elizabeth Street (east and west) have set the bar high for streetscape upgrades, yet they have all adopted different street furniture and material palettes. As a result, there is an inconsistency which lessens the city centre’s identity and character, as well as adding further complexity to maintenance and asset management operations.

11.    The city centre is being redeveloped with significant public realm projects underway (or recently completed) that would benefit from a cohesive and ‘complete street’ approach to the public realm including:

(a)     Elizabeth Street East and Tunks Reserve;

(b)     Masonic Park;

(c)     Waterfront;

(d)     Willow Street shared space (between Hamilton and Wharf Streets); and

(e)     Te Manawataki o Te Papa (public realm).

12.    Future projects including the Red Square ‘sanctuary space’ upgrade, and extensive streetscape upgrades across city centre, will also benefit from the guidelines.

13.    A draft of the guidelines was presented to the Tauranga Urban Design Panel in June 2023. Many of the recommendations from the panel have been accommodated in the final version including:

(a)     providing greater emphasis on the ‘relaxed urbanism’ approach to give the city centre a more ‘Tauranga-specific’ look and feel; and

(b)     sustainability (which is being addressed in greater detail in an addendum to the guidelines).

Strategic / Statutory Context

14.    The Council adopted the CCAIP in August 2022, which sets the vision for the city centre and outlines the key actions that Council will take with our partners to continue to achieve the vision and revitalise the city centre.

15.    A cohesive design-led approach to public realm improvements and streetscape upgrades will deliver on a number of strategic outcomes in the CCAIP including:

(a)     a city centre for people (develop and deliver a programme of upgrades to existing parks and open spaces [tying in with a programme for streetscape upgrades], considering the needs of both visitors and residents);

(b)     an accessible city centre (develop and deliver a programme of short-, medium-, and longer-term streetscape and laneway improvements, including streetscape and public realm guidelines for a consistent city centre-wide approach to design); and

(c)     a city centre with identity and culture (implement the four pou as part of public and private projects, building on the Tauranga Moana Design Principles and deliver a programme of art, sculpture, interpretation and wayfinding across the city centre, elevating the visibility and tangibility of Māori history and relationship to the city centre, European history and contemporary culture, as appropriate);

(d)     an engaging city centre (prepare a city centre public realm design guide that establishes a framework for consistent, high-quality public space design, including public streets); and

(e)     a city centre in nature (through urban design guidance and council’s Infrastructure Development Code, encourage green infrastructure to be incorporated into public and private projects at project initiation).

Options Analysis

16.    Options include:

(a)     endorse the guidelines as proposed;

(b)     provide edits to the guidelines and endorse an amended version; or

(c)     leave the city centre without public realm design guidelines and rely on staff to create cohesiveness across individual projects.

Consultation / Engagement

17.    The guidelines were prepared through a series of internal workshops, with subject matter experts from across council providing input to ensure the guidelines are fit for purpose and appropriate for their specific requirements. Feedback was received and considered throughout the drafting of the guidelines from various parts of council including:

(a)     Te Pou Takawaenga;

(b)     Arts, Culture and Heritage;

(c)     Civic Development;

(d)     Urban Communities including urban design;

(e)     Transport including transport safety and asset managers (including lighting);

(f)      Sustainability and waste;

(g)     Community Services including accessibility and events facilitators; and

(h)     Spaces and Places including asset managers and urban/landscape design.

18.    It is noted that there are often competing objectives in public realm design; for example, championing a universally accessible and welcoming city for all users while designing curb-less multi-functional shared spaces to attract a greater variety of public events that can be challenging to navigate safely for those with various accessibility needs.

19.    The guidelines seek to provide the starting point for projects and they will not remove the need to engage with key advisors through the project including tangata whenua, and through accessibility and safety in design reviews and following other best practice guidance. Specific solutions to place-based challenges and opportunities will need to be considered on a project-by-project basis.

20.    Input from tangata whenua focused on strengthening the significance of the city centre’s four pou (guiding principles for development) within the guidelines, as well as resolving the cultural map with more accuracy and detail. The guidelines also reiterate the importance of engaging with Council’s Te Pou Takawaenga and mana whenua early in public realm and streetscape projects.

Significance

21.    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.


 

22.    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; and

(c)   the capacity of the local authority to perform its role, and the financial and other costs of doing so.

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

25.    Council staff will publish the endorsed guidelines on the Council website and share the guidelines with council staff through the City Centre portfolio governance structure.

Attachments

1.      Tauranga City Centre Public Realm Design Guidelines FINAL 2024 - A15967061 (Separate Attachments 1)   

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

12        Discussion of late items


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

13        Public excluded session

Resolution to exclude the public

Recommendations

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

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

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution

13.1 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 25 March 2024

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

13.2 - Tauriko West Development Agreement

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

13.3 - Te Tumu Infrastructure Corridors and Active Reserve Compensation Arrangements

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

13.4 - Tauranga Western Corridor: Specified Development Project Draft Project Assessment Report - Council Response to Kainga Ora

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

13.5 - Blue Haven - Procurement Approval

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

13.6 - Supplementary Report - Harington Street carpark - Variation of Encumbrance

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

13.7 - Baypark Stadium

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

13.8 - Baypark Tauranga Netball Centre

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

13.9 - Appointment of a Mana Whenua Representative to the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust Board

s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons

s7(2)(c)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

13.10 - City Wharf Infrastructure Funding

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

13.11 - Car Park Provision for 2 Devonport Road Developer

s7(2)(b)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

s48(1)(a) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Confidential Attachment 1 - 11.5 - Ferry Proposal

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Confidential Attachment 2 - 11.5 - Ferry Proposal

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Confidential Attachment 3 - 11.5 - Ferry Proposal

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Confidential Attachment 4 - 11.5 - Ferry Proposal

s7(2)(c)(ii) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest

s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Confidential Attachment 1 - 11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Confidential Attachment 2 - 11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Confidential Attachment 3 - 11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Confidential Attachment 4 - 11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Confidential Attachment 5 - 11.8 - Te Manawataki o Te Papa Financial Strategy including Infrastructure Funding and Financing Levy

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)

s48(1)(a) the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

 

 

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

20 May 2024

 

14        Closing karakia



[1] https://www.esr.cri.nz/search/?q=Mount%20Maunganui%20Air%20Quality%20Monitoring%20Review%202022%20%20

[2] Review report received at Council meeting 29 April 2024.

[3] The additional stormwater treatment costs noted in Recommendation (h) have been assumed not eligible for co-funding and hence all BCRs presented in this report exclude these costs.

[4] Unless otherwise stated all costs exclude the additional stormwater treatment costs noted in Recommendation (h).

[5] BCRs presented in this paper include the Early Pre-implementation costs that TCC is 100% funding. Therefore, when the Final SSBC is presented to NZTA for consideration we will also include a calculation of the BCR net of the Early Pre-implementation costs that are forecast to be expended by the time of NZTA Board approval of the Project. Given these will be sunk costs it is expected that NZTA will make its assessment based on this revised BCR for Stage 1, which is expected to be higher than 3.0.

[6] LTP Budget includes escalation. When comparing with forecast P95 costs it should be noted that the latter do not include escalation (this is as per NZTA requirements).

[7] as defined in the interpretations section of the Reserves Act 1977 “Commissioner, in relation to any reserve, means an officer designated by the Director-General for the purposes of this Act”.

[8] Refer Table 2 for detail on Current Risk Weighted Estimate methodology for local and Community Grants