Chairperson

Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Deputy Chairperson

Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Members

Cr Hautapu Baker

Cr Glen Crowther

Cr Rick Curach

Cr Steve Morris

Cr Marten Rozeboom

Cr Kevin Schuler

Cr Mikaere Sydney

Cr Rod Taylor

Quorum

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

Meeting frequency

As required

Resolution  CO22/24/1

Moved:       Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded:  Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the following items be included in the agenda:

Accepts the following late items for consideration at the meeting:

·        11.9         Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Update

·        13.4         Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Updated Business Case  (Public Excluded)

The above suplementary items were not included in the original agenda because they were not available at the time the agenda was issued, and discussion cannot be delayed until the next scheduled meeting of the Council because a decision is required in regard to these items.

Carried

7.1         Minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 August 2024

Resolution  CO22/24/2

Moved:       Cr Rick Curach

Seconded:  Cr Rod Taylor

That subject to the following correction the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 26 August 2024 be confirmed as a true and correct record:

·        Spelling of Jan Gyenge on pages 10, 12 and 14.

·        Item 11.3 to read “staff were working with the government, hapū and iwi to get clarity with regards to Te Mana o te Wai.”

Carried

7.2         Minutes of the Council meeting held on 16 September 2024

Resolution  CO22/24/3

Moved:       Cr Kevin Schuler

Seconded:  Cr Rod Taylor

That subject to the foregoing correction the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 16 September 2024 be confirmed as a true and correct record:

·        Item 11.8 – change the increase in debt from $155.5M to $151.5M.

Carried

10.1       Appointment of Deputy Chair of Nga Poutiriao o Mauao

Staff:          Anahera Dinsdale

Resolution  CO22/24/4

Moved:       Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded:  Cr Rick Curach

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Appointment of Deputy Chair of Nga Poutiriao o Mauao".

(b)     Accepts the recommendation of Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao and approves reviewing the appointment of Deputy Chair of Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao in early 2025 pending the return of Councillor Sydney (Te Awanui Ward).

(c)     Accepts the recommendation of Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao and appoints Councillor Baker as the Deputy Chair of Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao.

Carried

Message from Mayor Drysdale

Mayor Drysdale spoke to the meeting and advised:

·        That Council were commmited to being transparent which had been seen in a a number of reports, however there had been a lot of chatter and communication and he was disappointed to see personal attacks occuring on staff. 

·        This was unacceptable as staff were doing the best job they could, and, as governors Councillors were there to make sure to hold staff to account but it was not acceptable to attack them.  Nor was it acceptable for staff to be attacked by the public who may not know as much as the Councillors, whether they agree or disagree with the information.

·        He asked that Councillors work with staff and to make sure that even, if not agreeing with decisions, there was a need to be respectful to staff.

·        All of these types of comments seen would be investigated and unless there was actually evidence of dodgy dealings, it was up to each person to absolutlely take accountablity as if they made that decision.

·        Mayor Drysdale advised that he was happy for the public to come to him and ask questions and he would share the information that he could.

·        The Mayor reiterated that he did not want to see either staff or Councillors attacked when they were doing the best job they could and noted that we all needed to move forward.  If information was used in the wrong way it would be harmful.

11.1       Chief Executive's Summary Report

Key Points

·        Of note in the report was the capital programme for 2024/25, the decisions and considerations to reforecast the capital programme and budgets and the adoption of the annual report.

Discussion points raised

·        Councillors noted their appreciation for the report advising that it was a great addition to the agenda.

Resolution  CO22/24/5

Moved:       Cr Rick Curach

Seconded:  Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

         (a)     Receives the Chief Executive’s Summary report.

Carried

11.2       Reforecasting 2024-25 Capital Programme Budget

Staff           Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

                   Susan Braid, Finance Lead Projects Assurance

                   Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

Key Points

·        Seeking to reforecast the budget changes made since adopting the Long Term Plan (LTP) in relation to funding for Te Manawataki o Te Papa and amendments to the National Land Transport programme.

·        The amendments took Council to a 275% debt to revenue ratio and in terms of the existing borrowing covernance, conversations were being held for the growth councils to remain within 280% debt to revenue ratio. 

·        There were capital programme deferrals of $88M (reduced from $102M) and budget approval changes to be made, some of which were included in separate reports for discussion at this meeting.

·        Included were reductions in interest charges and savngs in operational costs.

·        Changes to consider included defering projects, subject to Council decisions in the annual plan, of $250-300M, the details of which would be included in the upcoming annual plan workshops.

·        The Chief Executive had delegation to approve amendments to $500,000 and could bring projects forward when timing allowed and reported these to the Accounabilty, Performance and Finance Committee. 

Cr Steve Morris left the meeting at 10.02am

·        All amendments needed to stay within the cap and be identified in reporting to Accounabilty, Performance and Finance Committee. 

·        Attachment 1 provided a fulll project list with the budget that existed in the annual plan year.  Not all of these projects had been included in the LTP.

·        Year 1 included the revised LTP budget, adjustments, carry forwards and rephasing of projects.

·        Deferments were included until the 2026 annual plan process with two exceptions, an absolute reduction in the green area and $100,000 for the Kopurererua Valley development cycle path

·        Corrections – the library archive off site climate control was reduced from $1.6M to $228,000 as the lease option had been chosen.

·        Water fluoridation had reduced from $866,000 to $850,000.

·        Kopurererua Valley provision of $300,000 not $400,000 which included the cycle path.

In response to questions

·        In response to a query as to whether deferals were prudent with some projects to be delivered over multiple years, it was noted that in most cases these were multi-year projects and were likely to call upon the contingencies within that time.

·        In response to what was driving the decision to increase the reforecasts presented at the workshop by another $16M, it was noted that staff had used stage gates to manage this process, before coming back in March 2025 for the next stage of the annual plan.  Some projects were given more to spend to get them through to completion.  Information would be provided on this later in the meeting.

·        $200,000 included for Baypark was a lump sum in readiness for a decision around the netball court concept plan and to allow them to be expanded.

Cr Steve Morris returned to the meeting at 10.13am

·        Savings were identified when projects were set in the LTP. Some of the costs had been identified as concrete amounts and others would be worked on throughout the year.  There was a net impact on the opex costs as the debt this year ensured the Council did not exceed the rate requirement for the year.

·        In relation to getting better value for money, the meeting was advised that opportunities were sought within each project when it got to the design phase. 

Resolution  CO22/24/6

Moved:       Cr Glen Crowther

Seconded:  Cr Kevin Schuler

That the Council:

(a)     Agrees to let the report lie on the table until the end of the meeting to allow for decisions to be made on the separate reports included in this agenda.

Carried

11.3       Implications of National Land Transport Programme 2024–27 on Transport Programme

Staff           Mike Seabourne, Head of Transport

                   Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Key Points

·        Information gleened from the recent workshops had been included in the report, noting the impact of the new National Land Transport Programme (NLTP), borrowing, the debt limits and what could be accomplished with the local share. 

·        It was financially imperative to meet the budget target for 2024 with the focus on Year 1 as there were also implicatons in Years 2 and 3.

·        The annual plan process and feedback would be used to give an analysis and to assist with making decisions.

·        There was a shortfall of $160M with a lot of reaction to reprioritise within the programme, to deliver projects and meet the reduced level of contribution to Council.

·        As well as the major projects, there were those in the Waka Kotahi space including the small safety projects, with cycling the hardest hit with fuding declines in Years 2 and 3.  Unless Council was to match the Waka Kotahi funding with their own, projects like these would not be commenced in Years 2 and 3.

·        Policy changes were made through a strategic lens.  The previous LTP was the starting point and then adjusted, with the table noted in the report giving a sense of those changes.

·        Minor improvements subsidy was $2M less and the large improvements around the CBD bus hubs and the like would also receive $2M less funding.  Network operations received an increase in funding as this was the government’s focus and withTauranga being a trusted partner they had received more.

·        There were major projects in construction, including the Tauriko West.

·        The implications of the NLTP and what steps needed to be taken now to build the pipeline to get value for money would be carried out when opportunities arose in the future.

·        Staff had interpreted the Government Policy Statement (GPS) as a way of prioritisng the existing programme.  Many of the candidate projects were under the old GPS not the new one so staff wanted to ensure there was sufficient resilience and optimisation projects flowing through.

·        Within the chart noted in the report was a renewals programme and capital projects under the maintenance banner of $90M in 3 years and the development of projects with an arrangement made for $30M a year. 

·        If Council was to continue with the planned works, there would be a big drop off in Year 3.

·        Appendix 1 was put together to explain the projects where there were some projects stopped in 2025/25 and some spanning several years and noting where the money ran out.   Prioritisation was a key discussion as to what should and should not be included in the programme and had been ranked by staff against the GPS.

In response to questions

·        The projects were over the 3 years of the LTP with some having started in Y1, others could slide forward and some not done at all.  Those projects noted in purple of over $2M usually took more than a year, with others on the list being done within one year.

·        There were principles on how projects should be run and to ensure those that were started did not run out of money.  The community told Council about risks in the network and safety items were always on the lists, however the ability to do that now was constrained, so Council needed to either repriortise or find the money.  This would be a balancing act and there were some councils that were using their share money to respond to those types of issues.

·        As projects included in the to-do-list progressed to the design phase, the problem would be considered along with what would work to solve the issue.  These principles helped with tradeoffs, and while the aim was to meet the required standard with 51% subsidy, it was not the same with other partners. 

·        Staff needed to ensure all candidate projects were on the list and to run a ruler over it before bringing it back to Council. It was a methodical process that happened regularly.

·        The information provided was the first cut and would be adpated prior to the annual plan process.  Staff had clearly heard the value for money message and would continue to look at costs. 

·        In response to how the cuts would impact on the ability to provide housing growth areas over next two years, it was noted that it was a more direct element when paying for infrastructure as there were provisions for that, however there was a need to balance the cash flow and programme management.  Wider management of the provision of housing was left to the planners. 

·        It was noted that the asteriks in the table related to notations or place holders that had not been removed from the spreadsheet. 

·        In answer to a query as to what was being sought going forward it was noted that this was the start of a two stage conversation, with the second stage being in the annual plan process.  This could not be completed until the capital projects conversations had been had as Council was responsible for 42 activities of which transport was one.

·        The early anticipation of what could be delivered was included in the report, but there were a range of other activities that would inform the overall annual plan decision making.  Decisions should not be made in isolation without understanding the whole annual plan.

·        Decisions made by NZTA would determine how much money Council had and the prioritisation process would provide what could be delivered with that funding.  Council could chose to allocate additional funding to get different or greater outcomes.  This report was starting with how much, whether there was an appetite to put more in or take some out, providing an early indcation of that base line and the options for additional projects.

·        The Cameron Road Stage 2 business case was being self-funded, with no co-funding from Waka Kotahi at this stage.  Council would seek retrospective funding if the business case was approved.

·        In reponse to a query relating to the $1.7B included in the LTP, the proposed reforecast figure of $1.748B and the annual plan of $1.4B it was noted that it was the most ambitious version and highlighted the substantive changes in the LTP. This would continue to change as Council worked the flow through to the annual plan.  The workshop on 5 November 2024 was to set high level financial framing to the annual plan and a range of programmes and how they related to the LTP.  This would include high level capital project limits by acrtivity to get right mix of community, transport and waters.  The figures did not pick up some of the projects such as those in the CBD, but these would be included in the workshop. 

·        In response to the differention between projects in green and red in the report, it was noted that it was a calculation for the next three years and what it looked like over the 10 years of the LTP to provide a better understanding.  The information was a snapshot of a point in time as there were a lot of factors and business cases needed before any approvals.

·        Concern was expressed that the Hairini Street bus lane was not on the list with the safety risks and the engagement that had taken place with hapū and the community.  It was noted that this was an example of the transport funding nationally.  There were often programmes where there had been a lot of effort in consultation and then changed leaving a negative impact.  The Project, Planning and Monitoring Committee would be kept up to date with the risks, the closing off conversations and a list of what was being progressed on a project by project response. 

Discussion points raised

·        Consideration needed to be given to the community, while they wanted to engage there were times that they became fatigued.  It was requested that there be a high level of certainty of  tangible outcomes before consulting rather going out with wishy washy projects.

·        Acknowledgement of the staff effort which would provide for some good discussion and was clear that the transport team were competent at identifying issues, showing how vunerable decisions were made elsewhere and noting the government constraints.

·        Receiving the report was not accepting any direction, those decisions would be a separate report and resolution. 

·        The Bureta Road intersection was also a hot topic that was unlikely to be funded. 

·        It was suggested the Council listen to the communty and fund a consultation engagement process on strategic transport seeking views of the public on what projects they wanted the Council to do.

·        There was a need to give the issue a lot more thought as it was going to be difficult, with some genuine life and death issues that needed to be considered when government funding was available.

Resolution  CO22/24/7

Moved:       Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded:  Cr Hautapu Baker

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Implications of National Land Transport Programme 2024–27 on Transport Programme".

Carried

11.4       TravelSafe funding

Staff           Mike Seabourne, Head of Transport

                   Karen Hay, Acting Manager: Safety and Sustainability

                   Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Key Points

·        A delivery programme was being held, with staff wanting a steer to understand the priorities.

·        The programme was one of the critical points for which the community had successfully engaged with Council.

·        Greater outcomes would be achieved by working with all parties to address the targeting of at risk areas.

·        The programme was funded by the LTP to train young people on long term changes in behaviour, including learning road rules and the safe use of the roading and cycling networks. 

·        There had been a significant reduction in incidences across the areas within the programme.

·        The proposed reduced programme would still deliver the community’s needs but some would have a reduced level of service in the cycling and workplace reductions.

·        3,500 students had been given access to learn better skills and build their confidence so they could travel to and from school safely. 

In response to questions

·        In reponse to a query as to why Council would reduce the funding when the programme was so important, it was noted that it was the way safety was managed with Waka Kotahi as a series of acticvities with items being removed that did not allign with the NLTP.  The agency had disbanded the road safety unit and it was now a policy role.

·        The majority of other councils were using their own share to deliver the programme, or accessing external funding opportunities. 

·        It was noted that Council already received some external funding support from roading contractors such as Downers and Fulton Hogan.  Other funding organisations such as TECT were challenged with the number of requests they received.  Council was still able to provide a good level of service at present with the use of the local share. 

·        It was considered that it was time to review what Council was delivering to ensure it was right and gave value for money.  A report would be provided once this had been carried out.

·        The level of service was around how Council delivered a safety programme to the right targeted group, through the use of other people. 

·        School children provided the opporuntiy for changes in behaviour with regular reports being provided to take stock on how it was tracking. 

·        There were 37 schools currently participating in the Tauraunga and Western Bay of Plenty schools, but with the cut it would reduce to between 30-33 schools.  Those participating was based on the highest demand from the school or the surrounding community.  

·        In response to a question as to how much Council would need to contribute to continue with all 37 schools, it was noted that figure would need to be provided. 

·        Western Bay of Plenty District Council had confirmed their contribution to the programme.

·        In response to a suggestion of a small user pays fee towards the cost of running the programme it was noted that could be a possibility, but many school budgets were constrained.  Staff were open to potential options such as a local sponsor for a local school.

·        It was noted that all schools were not participating and suggested to target a larger programme rather than just maintaining it.

·        The $65,000 reduction noted was partially salaries and partially other reductions.  The program would remain the same size and staff would review what could be carried out in-house and understand the impact of that. 

·        Very few schools do not participate if given the opportunity.  The programme commenced in 2007.

·        Six monthly updates would be provided to the Community, Transparency and Engagement Committee.

Discussion points raised

·        Councillors noted that it was an important programme that had visible effects of saving lives through the training of children.  The government retreating funding was against Section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002 which required Council to provide stability.  Dissatisfaction was expressed at the extent of the government seeking to reduce costs noting this was a backward step for the communty and it was considered that Council needed to step in on behalf of the community.

·        Council needed to look at the social return on the investment and when Council had the capacity it needed to do more so that the level of service remained the same.

·        Councillors agreed it was an essential programme and needed to work alongside the government to retain the funding as road safety was crutial. 

·        The programme had clear outcomes with safety initiatives that were working.  The decision put staff under pressure and if there was a reduction in the programme Council would become the messenger and may end up getting blamed.

At 11.38am the meeting adjourned.

At 12.03pm the meeting reconvened.

Additional information

·        To provide the “Kids can Ride” programe to the full compliment of 43 schools in Tauranga was $120,000 of the $330,000.  It would cost $70,000 to bring it back to the current number of 37 schools, but would mean that funding would need to be taken off another activity. 

·        It was suggested that the recommendations be accepted and to provide staff with guidence of Council’s objectives, so that a proposal could be provided based on those clearly defined objectives.

·        The programme was resouce intensive with the use of contractors to deliver and added to the overall road safety programme.  Staff were always aware of how to make the best use of every dollar.

Resolution  CO22/24/8

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr Hautapu Baker

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "TravelSafe funding ".

(b)     Approves the programme noting a reduced level of service.

(c)     Approves a decrease in annual investment from $667k to $602K.

Carried

11.5       Remuneration fees for external representatives on Council Committees

Staff           Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy & Governance Services

Key Points

·        Strategic Pay had been used to provide information on the range of fees for external repsresentatives on Council’s committees and forums.

In response to questions

·        In relation to a query as to whether any benchmarking had been undertaken with other councils it was noted that Strategic Pay was had not been specifically requested to include benchmarking as part of their methodology and relied on the Cabinet Fees Framework and other data to provide their recommended range of remuneration.

·        The recommendation near the top of the range was to cover the four-year term so that Council did not have to revisit the matter within that time.  It was also based on the amounts that had been paid for these positions in the past.

Discussion points raised

·        Recommendation (b) was amended for the Audit and Risk Committee Chair to change from $53,000 to $1,430 per day or $800 per half day, to a maximum of 30 days per annum. 

·        The statement made by Strategic Pay indicating a Chair may take up to 40% of the time spent by Councillors, was questioned, and it was suggested that any Chair involvement would be at the lower end of the range.

·        It was considered it made more sense to consider the fees on an annual basis rather than set them now for the term. 

·        It was important to see the benchmarking of similar Councils such as Hamilton and Dunedin before making a decision. 

A motion was proposed by Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

seconded by Cr Hautapu Baker

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Remuneration fees for external representatives on Council Committees".

(b)     Approves the remuneration of $1,430 per day, $800 per half day, to maximum of 30 days per financial year for the Independent Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee.

(c)     Approves the remuneration of $8,500 per annum for the Independent Chairperson of the Tangata Whenua/Tauranga City Council Committee.

(d)     Approves the remuneration of $605 per meeting for the Tangata Whenua representative appointed to the Chairperson or Deputy Chairperson role on the Wastewater Management Review Committee.

(e)     Approves the remuneration of $435 per meeting for Tangata Whenua members appointed to the Wastewater Management Review Committee.

(f)      Approves the remuneration of $297 per meeting for the Tangata Whenua members appointed to the Tangata Whenua/Tauranga City Council Committee.

(g)     Approves changes to the Tangata Whenua Remuneration Policy 2021 as follows:

(i)      Levels of remuneration - section 5.1.2 – a meeting fee set at $297 will be paid to tangata whenua representatives appointed to all other governance committees, advisory groups with joint tangata whenua and elected member membership.

(ii)     Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana section 5.2.5 – Council will pay a meeting fee of $297 per individual mandated member (except the chairperson) (one per iwi or hapū) per meeting.

(iii)     Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana section 5.2.6 – The Chairperson will be paid a meeting fee of $402 in recognition of the extra duties undertaken by the Chairperson.

Procedural motion  

Resolution  CO22/24/9

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr Glen Crowther

That the Council:

(a)     Agrees to let the report lie on table until additional information on benchmarking from other Metro Councils such as Hamilton and Dunedin was obtained. 

Carried

11.6       Delegations Manual Review

Staff           Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

Key Points

·        The manual had been updated to reflect changes from Commissioners to Council and some changes to staff titles, with no quantum changes proposed.

In response to questions

·        In response to a query as to whether the level of delegations had been benchmarked and how long they had been in place it was noted that some had been reviewed over time and some set in 2014. 

·        Procurement had been reviewed by the Commisisoners and financial delegations were benchmarked with similar sized councils at the time but were now dated. There was a wide variations of delegation even with those of similar sized councils and it depended on the council what delegations were given. 

·        Councillors could be provided with the 2014 report to Council which included the information on benchmarking of the delegations.  At that time this Council were significantly lower than others and some moved into the average bracket.

·        The Chief Executive noted that being given a delegation did not mean that he would exercise it.  In the event that he did it was reported to the Audit and Risk Committee. The Chief Executive would not enter into a settlement agreement without seeking authority, unless there was an absolute extraordinary reason to do so.  He had not done this in the past and did not envisage doing it in the future and suggested that delegation could be revisited.

·        The report sought a delegation resolution which was explicit in the limits for any unbudgeted items, bringing forward of budget items included in the LTP, but not for settlement.  All of which were reported to Council through the Audit and Risk Committee.

Discussion points raised

·        It was noted that the majority of changes to the manual was from the Commissioners to the Council and the tidying up of different staff positions. 

·        It was agreed that more time was needed to consider other issues and it was requested that a report be presented to the an Audit and Risk Committee to clarify the financial delegations. 

Resolution  CO22/24/10

Moved:       Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded:  Cr Rod Taylor

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Delegations Manual Review".

(b)     Amends the staff financial delegations made by Council resolution M14/15.13 on 17 March 2014 (and amended by further resolution) as specified in Attachment A to this report.

(c)     Amends the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 delegations made by Council resolution M14/15.13 on 17 March 2014 (and amended by further resolution) as specified in Attachment B to this report.

(d)     Amends the Resource Management Act 1991 delegations made by Council resolution M13/72.7 on 26 November 2013 (and amended by further resolution) as specified in Attachment C to this report.

(e)     Requests a further report to Council on changes to the Financial Delegations.

Carried

11.7       Adoption of 2023/24 Annual Report

Staff           Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

                   Sheree Covell, Treasury and Financial Compliance Manager 

External     Anton Labuschagne, Manager Audit NZ

Leon Pieterse, Director, Audit NZ

Key Points

·        The only changes to the report were technical audit points,some tidying up of the document and further clarfication of some points .

Resolution  CO22/24/11

Moved:       Cr Rick Curach

Seconded:  Cr Hautapu Baker

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Adoption of 2023/24 Annual Report".

Carried

Key Points

·        Mr Pieterse noted that the annual report clearly reflected the financial position of Council, it made reference to a lot of items and complied with generally accepted accounting practices.

·        The audit opinion was an unqualified opinion and there were no paragraphs referring to anything in the report.

Resolution  CO22/24/12

Moved:       Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded:  Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(b)     Receives the Audit NZ report on Tauranga City Council’s 2023/24 Annual Report.

Carried

Resolution  CO22/24/13

Moved:       Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded:  Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(c)     Adopts the audited Tauranga City Council 2023/24 Annual Report pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Act 2002.

(d)     Authorises the Chief Executive to make any necessary minor numerical, drafting or presentation amendments to the 2023/24 Annual Report prior to final publication.

(e)     Notes the audited 2023/24 Annual Report Summary will be published using summarised material from the approved Annual Report.

Carried

11.8       Council-Controlled Organisations' Annual Reports 2023/24

Staff           Caroline Lim, CCO Specialist

                   Gareth Wallis, General Manager: City Development & Partnerships

External     Stephen Boyle (CEO) - BOPLASS

                   Simon Clarke (Chair) and Chad Hooker (CEO), Adam Ellmers (CFO) and Nick Lowe, (Director) - Bay Venues Limited

                   Rosemary Protheroe (Chair) and Sonja Korchina (Director) - Tauranga Art Gallery Trust

                   Russ Browne (Chair), Oscar Nathan (General Manager) and Richard Beer - Tourism Bay of Plenty

                   Te Manawataki o Te Papa Ltd Kim Wallace (Chair), Mike Naude (Director of Civic Development Programme), Helen Andrews (Financial Analyst)

Key Points

·        Council considered CCO’s to be value for money, costing less and receiving more.  They were efficient and transparent in their operations. 

·        Each CCO would provide an overview of who they were, what they had achieved, the challenges they had faced for the past financial year and the key focus and opportunities for the future.

Stephen Boyle – BOPLASS

·        BOPLASS was as a result of colloboration between nine Councils throughout the Bay of Plenty and had a successful year with a number of new initiatives being introduced.

·        Advisory groups were set up to identify oppportunities and have input into programmes.

·        Improved services with a total of 45 joint procurement and other initiatives resulting in $34M savings and leverage across market for the councils. 

·        There was an estimated savings to Tauranga City Council of $895,000 last year and $8.7M over the past 10 years.  Each initiative had ongoing savings attached to them. 

·        All of the objectives had been achieved in the four programmes.  Key was the reduction in youth crime with co-funding to support crime prevention initiatives, including the purchase of CCTV’s.

·        Solid waste managmeent was a Bay of Plenty/Waikato/Gisborne initiative to provide consistency across the greater region and accurate reporting of waste streams.

·        Aerial imagery programming had been increased to six-montly for Tauranga and was also used extensively during emergency management and flood related events.

·        Insurance was a collective approach which had saved the councils over $18M in premiums since it began, ensuring that the right cover was provided for each asset, especially in relation to the underground services.  BOPLASS enagaged directly with the underwriters, with all parties having a proactive approach to get the cover that was needed.

·        A total of $3.7M had been saved across the BOPLASS group this year, and additional to that was the reduced resources needed for each of the entities if they were to do it themselves.

·        Turnover last year was $2.46M ending up with a deficit of $1,000 at the end of the year.  The turnover was higher than normal due to the crime prevention programme.

·        There would be a focus on regional and cross regional alliance over the next year and alignment with a sustainable future and an adaptable environment.  Parterships had already been developed with the Waikato and Manawatu/Whanganui LASS’s for some services.

·        Mahi Tahi was the local government portal where projects that were being worked on could be viewed by the 42 councils that had signed up to encourage the sharing resources and information.

·        They would continue the centralising of services, simplifying engagement, long term regional and interregional planning and the gaining of financial savings. 

In response to questions

·        There were a lot of opportunties around shared services where all councils were providing the same service.  A list of these would be provided to Councillors. 

·        In relation to a query regarding the Collab srucutre, it was noted that it was different to BOPLASS with 50 staff.  Western Bay of Plenty District Council had looked at opportunities in Collab and Taupo had withdrawn as they got better value for money with BOPLASS. Some activities required significant investment with only one being available for building services in the Bay of Plenty and was not operational.

·        The Board had looked at projects where another LASS was using the same service and worked with them rather than take something over or duplicating it.  A number of services were shared with Collab, especially in procurement, as they could take on different projects as they had more staff. 

·        In answer to a question as to what happened with sustainability initiatives following Covid, it was noted that a lot of work went into those services, but they had not been progressed again as BOPLASS was a small organisation with limited resources. 

Bay Venues Limited – Simon Clarke, Chad Hooker, Adam Ellmers, Nick Lowe

Key Points

·        There were a lot of experience and ranges of skills within the members sitting at the Board and they along with the Executive were a committed and passionate team that would deliver outcomes for the city.

·        A total of 400 staff, two-thirds of which were either part time or casual and for some it was the first point in their careers.  The staff were a diverse group with 50% female, 50% non NZ ethnicity, with all being paid a living wage. 

·        The premises they were responsible for housed a variety of events, sports, fitness and  aquatic activities as well as the community centres and halls which had received over 2.2M visitors last year.  All facilities were busy and running at capacity at peak times. 

·        They aimed to provide the best facilites in the Bay and be the Kaitiaki of the network of communty facilities connecting people through exceptional experiences. 

·        They had the communty at heart and were financially prudent by seeking opportunities for making revenue to offset the running of venues. 

·        Highlights for the year included the growing demand, the diversity and inclusion initiatives that they ran including swimming lesson in a number of languages, and supporting significant events. 

·        They would continue formalising relationships with mana whenua and were seeking ways to deal with the anti social behaviour experienced at some locations. 

·        Challenges included the capacity of the facilities and the economic conditions - Survive till ‘25 applied to Bay Venues.  Offsetting the cost of running facilites, noting what was and was not funded.  A small profit had been gained on non-funded activities, but as they did not want to be seen to be competing with local businesss so were limited to what they could do.  $1.8M of the costs were to non-funded business resulting in savings to ratepayers.

·        Fresh information was to develop and assess the benefits to cost ratio, increase digital technology as a tool to ensure that they were getting good value for money.  They were still assessing how useful that was as a tool. 

·        Challenges going forward included the age of some of the facilities, venue capacity, economic conditions, having a strong focus on cost management, targeting the right sizing, to deliver all services safely and effectively and to continue to look for revenue opportunities.  A partnership had recently been signed with the University of Waikato with some naming of events and centres.

·        Projects included the addition of the 483 Cameron Road sport and recreation centre which would provide a lot of opportunites.

·        The city was desperately short of aquatic space with each of the facilities filled to over capacity for structured sport and leisure time use. 

·        Working with Council to achieve the extention of the netball court space at Baypark, the high perfomance expansion for Adams Centre at Blake Park and possibly the development of the neighbouring land.

·        Keen to work with Council, other CCO’s and user groups to deliver the best facilities in the most cost effectively way they could.

In response to questions

·        In reponse to a query as to what activities they could collaborate with Council leveraging in elements, such as shared services in IT and the like, it was noted that at the end of 2021 the relationship with the Board, Executive and Council was at a low point and needed to be rebuilt at the people level.  This had been successful and included Gareth Wallis being appointed to the Board as a critical linkage with Council, and allowed opportunites to colloborate and some had been worked through. IT provided some services, but it had got a bit hard with the financial services and Bay Venues decided to go their own way.  There were areas that overlapped, such as events where there was some greyness as to who was operating what and where.  Bay Venues would like to provide more services to Council such as catering. 

·        Bay Venues was happy to collaborate with items like the electronic notice boards at Baypark which could also be used by the other CCO’s. Gareth Wallis always looked for opportunities to come together with shared services and as a default always looked to get efficiencies.

·        Last year an extensive exercise was undertaken to look at user fees and charges in a low inflation environment with more activities to offset costs.  It was important to get the right balance of how much could be gained from user pays so a benchmarking exercise was undertaken for all activities noting what was being charged in other metro cities.  While there was some push back from users, they were able to work with them to phase the increases in over a 12 month period.

·        A separate report would be provided to Council on the Mount Hot Pools, including the range of hours.

·        In relation to the finances, a query was raised regarding payment of $1M in consultancies showing it was noted that a lot of the costs included the Board and administration.  Bay Venues did not hire consultants, that was done in conjuction with the Council.

·        In relation to the economic climate and people not spending as much, where they may go to Baywave instead of the hotpools, not using the hydroslide and the like, it was noted that they managed those costs to reach the budget and reported back to Council.  Revenue was up 9%, but there were also additional costs to run the older facilities so any new venues should have lower operational costs. 

·        The financial perspective had evolved over the years and the organisation was currently in the best position it had ever been in. They had a strong financial team and were able to deliver their services in an effective and efficient way.

·        In response to what was break even it was advised that it was $5M as they were trying to get on top of the depreciation and operating costs. The Council grant went to that part of the operation and they were tasked to get the operating budget as close to break even as they could.  This excluded funding debt depreciation but did include non funding debt depreciation. 

·        Council provided $20M with the debt servicing, $5M of which was an operation grant, $1.3M was debt servcing and a renewal grant.

·        Directors fees were set by Council. Bay Venues had adopted a living wage for most positions to keep in step with Council.   Some casual staff, especially those that were just out of school were not paid to this level. The amount was relative compared to what others were earning and to how this sat in other similar entities around the country. 

·        Benchmarking was a fair exercise with user charges, but it was a challenge to get to where they did with user fees as the feedback from other local recreation facilities needed to be managed, so that no matter which sport was being played there was equity in place. 

·        In relation to consultancy fees and holiday pay remediation, it was noted that managing compliance with the Holidays Act had been identified as a possible issue.  An ongoing process was being undertaken to understand whether there was an issue and to update systems to ensure they were paying the right amount.  The next step was to remediate this to ensure it was done correctly.  The issue had been raised with Council, but they were unsure where it was currently at. 

Tauranga Art Gallery – Rosemary Protheroe, Sonja Korchina  

Key Points

·        It was the wish of the Art Gallery Trust to work in a collaborative partnership with Council.

·        A bequest of $1.5M in 1998 established the group as a chairtiable trust for a variety of art activities for the city.

·        Since 2007 there had been 1M visitors and 100,000 children undertaking the Gallery’s educational programmes. 

·        Diverse group of Trustees with diverse experience led by Gallery Direcrtor Sonya Korchina and the Executive Team. 

·        Last year was unusual moving out of the gallery and relocating to a small pop up gallery.  They were now focusing on the reopening programme.

·        Staff numbers were presently 6.5 FTE’s but this would increase when the upgraded premises opened.

·        The Trust had revised the vision to give all the opportunity for lifelong experiences with art and had created six priorities to guide the operations. 

·        Turnover for the year was $2M with a 75% operational grant from Council and the balance from other donors.  They expect to increase revenue through a number of avenues with the upgraded facilities.

·        The Gallery provided value for money which also allowed them to apply for other funding partnerships. 

·        Construction on the redeveopment was funded with Council covering 50% of the cost and the Gallery and others the balance.  It would be completed to a standard to ensure the Gallery contiued to meet international standards and were able to loan major art items.

·        Ex-Deputy Mayor Brownless and Mayor Genge were acknowledged for their support for the partnership between Council and the Gallery.

·        There were recently 112 LTP submissions supporting the Art Gallery noting that these expressed the diverse needs of the community, to be able to hold a number of events and to met the financial and KPI’s.  There had been a recent mobile artwork “Terminus” that had finished a four year, five venue tour at Otago Museum. There had been 100,000 views on one artist’s talk in one year. 

·        Bay Venues had assisted the Gallery to develop a strategy for visitors.

·        They had retained key staff and had grown the number of corporate donors. 

·        Children started a lifelong relationship with art at pre-school, so the Gallery worked to align with the education cirriculum receiving contributions from the Ministry of Education. 

·        In 2016 research was undertaken to develop Tauranga as a magnet to a creative city.

·        The Gallery was always in an active development mode, as it took 2-3 years to develop an exhibiton. All shows would be supported by an audio guide in English and Te Reo with the digital resources provided with a grant from Lotteries funding.

·        Storing the art colleciton was possible with funding to fit out premises within the city centre.  This would be launched in mid-2025. 

·        With the recent cost of living crisis, fundraising was hard and the Council contribution was valued. 

In response to questions

·        There would be 15 Fte’s when the gallery reopened.  The first exhibition would be a teaser of artists with a signature show in the atrium Whaharoa, as the realities of the carving would create a wow factor.  

·        A recent self funded trip to Sydney of 15 Friends of Gallery was a group from a variety of ages and backgrounds.  It was also about building relationships and an opportunity for fundraising as the first group who went sponsored an exhibition.

·        A strategy was being developed so that there was no duplication within each space in the precinct.  While there was no official Memorandum of Understanding, the Gallery was working closely with the Musuem, Library and Baycourt on what each others programming looked like and think about what audiences and visitors were being offered.

·        In response to whether the increase in FTE’s had implications for the Council’s grant and the role of the Museum Director, it was noted that when they opened, costs had been forecasted for scaling the operational to fit within the grant and they were working more closely with collegues looking for opportunities and to have conversations.  Each entity already met and worked informally together with education programmes with school groups visiting the library and Art Gallery when coming to the city centre.

·        It was noted that it was early days for the precinct, there were opportunities for shared staff and to avoid duplication with positions such as one marketing manager for the museum and the library and include working with the Art Gallery and Tourism BOP. 

Tourism Bay of Plenty – Russ Brown, Oscar Nathan, Richard Beer

Key Points

·        They were one of 30 regional tourism agencies nationally which included contributions from Tauranga City Council at 87%, Western Bay of Plenty District Council at 10% and Whakatāne District Council paying 3% to make it a bigger coastal regional space.  

·        The Board Members and staff were experienced with a team 15-16 FTEs and two additional staff in the summer months.  The living wage was supported and they had little turnover of staff.

·        The purpose was the delivery of services and to grow the visitor economy and to attract people to the area.

·        The Destination Management Plan included four pillars of oceans and beaches, natural environment, Māori culture, and horticulture provenence, which “are in our DNA”.

·        They attended a lot of trade shows, hosting visitors and travel agents, working with other regional partners, running information and visitor Isites and operated in the port where 93 ships were expected to visit this season.

·        Much of the promotion was digital, they supported the Council’s events team and leveraged opportunities when people were visiting the area.  They contributed to magazine articles, worked with public relations and media to promote good news stories to the world, operated social channels and created maps for Downtown Tauranga and the Mount groups which were updated as required. 

·        65% of the visitors were from cruise ships who wanted to get out and about doing things.

·        A cycle trails brochure with maps had been created and while some were printed and provided to the retail cycle shops to distribute, most were digital. 

·        Prepartory work was carried out with local ambassadors, Main Street and other groups as well as working with the Port prior to the summer season starting.

·        Looking at a place brand for the region to see it moving from a spot on the map to become a magnet that people had to come to.  As this was a four-year council, it provided an opportunity to look at “why is it” and “what is it” that was so special and to craft an identity to define what it was all about.

·        They had achieved 9 out of 10 of their KPI’s and were proud of their achievements, especially the Green Room regenenerative environmental programme with 100 businesses participating from Waihi Beach to Whakatāne.  This year they would be targeting 30 businesses within Te Manawataki o Te Papa.

·        In order to win bids for business events it was important to get more commerical accommodation in the city.

·        They did not achieve in the Flavours of Plenty in that they had set a target of 20% out of region ticket sales, although there was some locals who brought tickets for their visitors. They were considering changing that target. 

·        They were winners of the Best Lifestyle Event and Best Local Government Event for 2023 and were finalists with two more awards this year.  

·        Visitor expenditure was $726M which was a 1% increase on the year before.  The domestic market was showing signs of weakness with the current cost of living making an impact.  The international visitors were up from 15% to 19%.  The spend was made up of a broad spectrum of spends with the biggest being in retail. 

·        Tourism BOP was doing things more efficiently and looking for external partnerships.  Other Tourism groups including Taupo, Queenstown and Rotorua received more funding from their councils. The amount for Tauranga was equal to $10 per ratepayer, with a return of $291 for every $1 spent. 

·        Iwi lea partnerships, they were working with Ngāti Hangarau with the Te Rere o Omanawa  experience alongside Council and Western Bay of Plenty District Council to wrap this as an  awesome experience of a natural icon in the region. 

·        Tauranga had the highest number of cruise ships than the other areas.  A recent survey result noted that 85% of residents in the Mount, Tauranga and wider Bay area either supported or strongly supported the cruise ship visits.  

·        The Waka, which was a covered area at the Viaduct during the Americas Cup, was stored in nine containers with Ngā Potiki at Pāpāmoa.  It was made of the same material as the cloud at the Viaduct and could be erected at the Port for $2.5m.  It could be used to create an area at Coronation Park for cruise passengers and a shared facility for all sorts of activities to take place including arts and crafts.  

·        Working hard on an innovative item to future proof with digital kiosks telling cultural stories and destination information, they were also able to be used for safety by pushing out emergency messaging when needed and were working with BOP Emergency Services.

In response to questions

·             Tourism BOP worked collaboratively with officers in other areas as there were two options the Pacific Coast Highway or the Explorer Highway.  Tourism NZ advertised the country off-shore as they could not afford to do that.

·             While people saw the ”Flavours of Plenty” as a ten day festival, it also included connecting growers to providers and restaurants. Time was spent with niche growers of foods like truffles and working with operators to conduct foodie tours. They were now looking at Matariki Kai and making it a family occasion, but noted that they needed to work smarter in that space.

·             In relation to a query was to what was occuring in the sustainable inte- regional tourism economy it was noted that the key challege mantra was what was good for the community was good for tourism.  Most of the tourism was international from the cruise ships from October to April, and they wanted to work with operators in the low season and create resilience in case another border closure may occur.  They would also align with what the communty was doing and regional travel opportunities with key markets being the Waikato, Auckland and the wider Bay of Plenty, followed by the international market.

·             Hotel and large accomodation was lacking in the city, and because of that there were no big city events.  If there were more rooms, Tauranga could become a central convention centreand businesses could plan events around it with attractions and activities, both indoor and outdoors. Air BnB’s provided the most accommodation, then holiday parks followed by motels and hotels. 

·             The Hamilton Regional Tourism Organisation was funded from six councils. Mr Nathan was unsure of the amount of support they received but would notify Councillors of the amount.

Te Manawataki o Te Papa Ltd – Kim Wallace, Mike Naude, Helen Andrews

Key Points

·        Ms Wallace noted the experience that each Board Member had in managing large construction projects, noting it was more difficult with public funded projects.

·        Ms Wallace gave confidence and assurance of the dellivery of the projects within the approved Council scope, time and budget.

·        The Board had a big focus on safety engagement reporting at every board meeting and this was followed by a visit to a different site each month.

·        The Board worked within accepted procurement principles and practices, looking at tangible items, following methodology and carrying out early procurement for high risk and long lead items to ensure projects did not incur delays.  Quantity surveyors were tasked to get the best price and they looked closely at all risk exposure as stewards on behalf of Council.

·        The Team had worked hard to strenghten building consent applcations to ensure they were of a much higher standard before being submitted, also reducing the consenting risk.  

·        Delivering projects to pass on to other CCO’s as totally fit for purpose.

·        A strong relationship had been developed with Willis Bond to ensure that they got value from the other development partners.

·        The Council grant of $779,000 for the year included Board fees of $272,000 and Consultant costs of $366,000.

·        Of the fifteen performance measures, thirteen had been achieved.

·        Not measured were the safety totals as the Board does not measure these, they were measured by the Consultants.  The Board went directly to the project managers to get assurances that each site was monitoring, recording and reporting all safety issues.

·        Did not achieve two budget costs which were the Dive Crescent carpark and the Spring Street carpark seismic upgrade due to major scope changes to both of these projects.  Spring Street carpark was not actually overseen by the Board and Dive Crescent was already in the implementation phase when the Board was established.  In contrast to these both the Tunks Reserve and Beacon Wharf projects were dellivered under budget. 

·        Looking forward included the opening of Masonic Park, the underpass and boardwalk which although they had happened would all be included in the next annual report. The Strand Reserve, seawall and playground would be opened before Christmas.

·        The CWEM (Civic Whare, Exhibition and Museum Centre) contract was about to be awarded, the Art Gallery design was nearing completion and the Library and Community Hub building was now above ground level. The waterfront design was also on track.  The Board would continue to deliver value for money as the number one focus going forward.

·        The vesting of Lot 45 into Te Manawataki o Te Papa Ltd was an historically significant event and a highlight for the Board. 

·        Sufficient funding had been included in the LTP to complete the projects.

·        While the projects were not without risk, the Board was focusing on these on behalf of Council to ensure they were delivered on time and on budget with a focus on a positive safety culture throughout, despite the complex building consent processes and higher construction costs. 

·        The Board looked forward to working with Council as they progressed through the projects.

In response to questions

·        In response to a query as to the scope changes, it was noted that the Spring Street carpark required a full siesmic upgrade with the existing building designers and consultants to complete designs.  Often when in the implementation phase unknown problems arose and in this case extensive additional strengthening needed to be undertaken within the walls to ensure its integrity, costing an additional $2.4M on the $12M project.

·        The Dive Crescent carpark started as a Stage 1 project of a basic carpark, however as it  progressed a number of design complexities came to light including it being a contaminated site.  Instead of digging into the face it was built up at additional cost and a boundary fence installed.  The demand on city carparking brought Stage 2 forward, which was the demolition of the Fixation Coffee premises, resulting in a large scope change.

·        In relation to a comment regarding the amount of contingencies set aside for each of the projects, it was noted that the Site A group of projects were at all different design phases.  Advice from quantity surveyers RBL as to how much should be held was 15% at the preliminary stage of the design and as the construction commenced it could be reduced to between 5-10% depending on the nature of the build and the inherent risk of each site.  Once the CWEM tenders were received they would get more certainty and hope to be able to reduce the amount of contingency.

·        All of the greenfield projects had been built on the land.  483 Cameron Road cost overrun was due to the purchase of the building, which they knew was on the light side.  There were a number of decisions and judgements that had to be applied at the time of the costings and how much contingency may be needed due to the change in the use, the seismic strengthening and consenting process.  The team actively try to reduce delays so that they did not get into any extension of time clause.

·        The procurement of aquatic services had moved to the design detail for prefered contractor as a proposed procurement model and would be discussed in the public excluded section of the meeting.  Novated contracts from one provider to another with the construction and implementation revised.

·        In response to a query as to what the benefit of selecting a contractor was rather than going to open market with a specific requirement, it was noted that the CWEM design had been completed and had gone to tender, with the best tender received being selected based on non price and price attributes.  The pre-procurement work had been carried out in 2018 when Council had signed a partnership agreement. 

·        In relation to the Aquatic Centre, the facility was to be a design and build NZS3016 and then tendered in the open market.  Submissions had been received and evaluated resulting in a change of contractor that was still within the original tender process.  Council held a pen on the design as clients sat around the table with all key stakeholders and the design completed.  The early involvement of Apollo as the contractor was to ensure that when they go to the detailed design they were part of the co-ordinated specification design scope.  As soon as they get to the final design and build all contractors would be novated to Apollo and managed by them.  The Team were managing the project with Apollo. The project had been put on hold, but when they get to the design feasibility report with full plans and specifications, this would be presented to Council again and be advised what was included in the tender price submitted.

·        In December 2023 the concept design was provided for the Memorial Park recreation centre which included both indoor and outdoor facilities at an estimate of $185M, then the Warehouse building came up for sale and Council looked at it to develop four additional indoor courts.  The cost for the courts at the Warehouse ment the cost of the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre was brought back to $123.4M.

·        The Warehouse property worked through a shortened due diligence process as there was only enough time for initial sizemic assessment (ISA), by looking through the plans and design and a site visit.  It was always understood that a detailed siesmic assessment would be required and Council made the decision based on the ISA and included an allowance for a detailed assessment.  The building was suitable, but the carpark basement needed to be strengthened and the budget was insufficient to cover the additional amount. 

·        Based on the quality of advice and guidance from RBL, the Board was continually assessing and working out whether the advice was correct and they could place reliance on it.  The Board noted that to renovate an existing building they needed to ensure there were sufficient contingencies in place as there were always unknowns.

·        To date the draw down on the Library and Community Hub was $300,000 on an $8M contingency which reflected the high standard of the designs.  Provisional sums were needed and the team worked hard to reduce those and manage the contingency.

·        Ms Wallace noted that it was made clear to be transparent with the CWEM at a $12M contingency and escalation allowance. 

·        The original budget for the Dive Crescent carpark was $1.45M, but with stage 2 the total spend was $5M.

·        In relation to a query regarding the budget for Masonic Park, it was noted that the amount was $9.2M and while the final costings had not yet been completed, it would be close to or under budget, not over. 

·        There were two rail crossings to be installed at a cost of $8M with $4M being sourced from the Te Manawataki o Te Papa suite of projects as they lined up with the Wharf Street and Masonic Park.  The Central Plaza budget of $9M included the other $4M for rail crossings and $1.8M for The Strand upgrade.  $9M budget for the new Central Wharf to line up with Wharf Street and the old Coronation Wharf.  All of the projects were within budget.

·        Willis Bond and LT McGuiness contracts covered all of Site A and all others outside that would go through a procurement process with the Team managing the projects.

·        Tendering was a two sealed envelope process, one for non-price attributes which was opened first and was subject to an external evaluation with a recommendation before the price envelope was opened.  A strict formula was followed with the Team checking the companies register and references from previous clients to ensure the firm could deliver.  Also taken into account was the list of trades that were local and those from out of town.  A debrief of the process could be provided to Councillors at some stage in the future. 

Te Manawataki o Te Papa Charitable Trust

·        Mayor Drysdale noted that he was a Member and reiterated that the Council gifting land back to the Otamataha Trust was a significant moment in the history of Tauranga for a $1 peppercorn lease.  The significance was so much bigger than the $1 paid.

Resolution  CO22/24/14

Moved:       Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded:  Cr Glen Crowther

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Council-Controlled Organisations' Annual Reports 2023/24".

(b)     Receives Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services Limited’s final audited annual report on its performance for the year to 30 June 2024 (Attachment 1).

(c)     Receives Bay Venues Limited’s final audited annual report on its performance for the year to 30 June 2024 (Attachment 2).

(d)     Receives Tauranga Art Gallery Trust’s draft unaudited annual report on its performance for the year to 30 June 2024 (Attachment 3).

(e)     Receives Tourism Bay of Plenty’s draft unaudited annual report on its performance for the year to 30 June 2024, noting that it will also be provided to Western Bay of Plenty District Council as joint shareholder at their meeting on 12 December 2024 (Attachment 4).

(f)      Receives Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited’s draft unaudited annual report on its performance for the year to 30 June 2024 (Attachment 5).

(g)     Receives Te Manawataki o Te Papa Charitable Trust’s draft unaudited annual report on its performance for the year to 30 June 2024 (Attachment 6).

Carried

Attachments

1       Presentation - Item 11.8 - CCO's collated annual report pdf

11.9       Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Update

Staff           Mike Naude, Director of Civic Development

Alison Law, Manager Spaces and Places

Ross Hudson, Manager: Strategic Planning and Partnerships

Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Community Services 

Key Points

·        The project had been included in last 3 LTP’s from 2018 to 2024, with work orginally commencing in 2016.  The concept design was completed and approved in December 2023, and included a hydroslide and outdoor facility at a total estimated budget of $123.4M at time of the concept design and extended to $124M, with the defeement and the project being pushed out to completion 2029. 

·        The proposal had been halted on 8 September 2024 to allow Council to review the scope and wider capital works programme.  The Geotech design to include 25m piles had been redesigned to a raft system, resulting in the revised cost of $99-$105M.

·        $2.65M had been expended to date to get to the concept design stage, and with the preliminary design it would increase to $4M.  A further $2.2M was requried to complete to a design feasibility report stage and to allow it to proceed to a design and build contract. For the delivery of an indoor facility now and an outdoor facility to be delivered as Stage 2. 

·        The facility had been spoken about for some time with targeted engagement being undertaken over a number of years with user group forums meeting three times since July 2023.  The engagement had covered a lot of people, including mana whenua, to agree on a wider Memorial Park concept. They had also met with the disabled community and continue to work with them throughout the design stages.

·        The project goes beyond Council’s current level of service, understanding the aquatic needs of community and the diversity of space provision for the separate groups  There was currently a disconnect with the demand for aquatics leisure time use to what the network was curently providiing. 

·        A major multi-use aquatic centre beside the harbour on council owned land was much simplier from a consenting perspective.

·        A community survey was currently being carried out to receive feedback and if the process was to proceed it was requested to authorise expenditure of $2.2M to get to it to the design feasibility report stage and then proceed to the delivery of the proposed facility or something similar in another format.

In response to questions

·        Currrently there was $1.2M in the budget of which $988,000 had been spent.  Any change to that would need to be found from other projects. The additional requirement of $2M this year was due to the rephasing of the project. 

·        It was noted that there was no specific question on the aquatic centre in the residents questionaire so there were only general responses.  It was noted that it would be helpful to have that information.  The user group meetings which included Sport BOP and Bay Venues Limited had minutes recorded.  All were keen to see the results of the survey currently being carried out and to talk with user groups.

·        In relation to a discussion on establishing a 50m pool in the centre of the city, it was noted that Council had not spent time analysing where it would go.  The site at Memorial Park was not suitable for a larger pool, but options could include Wairākei or Tauriko West.  There was also potential for Baywave to be extended as it was built with that extension in mind.  Any 50m pool delivered in Tauranga would need to account for the wider catchment as a sub-regional facility so it was important that it be sited for easy access.   

·        In answer to a query regarding the $2.2M required, the meeting was advised that as the design stages moved through, the project continued to develop from what was wanted to being designed into a concept to get sign off.  Consultation continued to a detailed concept design and then a preliminary design which included much more detail of mechanical plant and equipment, tanks, filtration, air conditioning, the foundations and the like.  The developed design was then recosted to determine if it could be delivered within budget, and this was followed by a more detailed design which included every item from tiles on wall, plumbing to floor finishes.  This process was still two steps away, with the need to ensure all aspects were compatible.  If the detailed design work was not carried out, there was a risk for the contractor not knowing the detail of what they were delivering, it also provided that certainty to proceed. 

·        It was noted that the survey questions would be provided to Councillors.

·        It would take Baywave up to three years to be able to extend the 25m pool to a 50m pool.  Mr Hooker advised that no detailed work had been carried out on extending Baywave and he considered that the city needed at least 1 or 2 more 25m pools before that was considered as they needed aquatic facilities to fill a wide range of activities and there were already missed opportunities for using space.  70% of the users were not those swimming lengths and while a 50m pool would be good there were more pressing needs to satisfy leisure swimming, hydrotherapy and learn to swim programmes which would satisfy the community much better.  Swim NZ had indicated that they did not need anymore 50m pools, therefore two 25m pools would give the most benefits and outcomes for the budget.

·        There were challenges with the Greerton and Otūmoetai pools and any option to create a 50m pool at one of those facilites would cost a lot more.

·        The Council had commenced network planning for aquatics in 2018 with a community facilities needs assessment which looked at a number of things and had now turned into an aquatics network plan.

·        In answer to a query as to what was needed by 2034, it was noted that there was currently a gap in the network and Council was playing catchup with the growth of the city.  Community pools were needed in the growing city to meet the needs of residents with good neighbourhood pools on both sides of the bridge and maybe at Tauriko later on.

Discussion points raised

·        Summaries of community feedback which were closing on 8 November 2024 were requested along with how much had been collected in development contributions.

Resolution  CO22/24/15

Moved:       Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded:  Cr Glen Crowther

That the Council:

(a)         Receives the report "Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Update" to lie on table and relook at it again on 12 November 2024 when updated information was to hand.

Carried

3.0         Public Forum

Mayor Drysdale noted that there were a number of speakers in the Public Forum and indicated that  the Memorial Park reports would be considered on 14 November 2024.  5,200 responses had been received on the recent survey which gave Councillors a good gauge of the engagement and information to take into account as they make their decisions on the issue. 

3.1         Suzie Edmonds - Speaking about Memorial Park Aquatic Centre

Key Points

·        Agreed with Elected Members that Council needed to positively move forward, but to ensure the facility was given robust scrutiny as the tail had been wagging dog for too long.

·        Alarmed at the misinformation the community had endured regarding the Memorial Park Recreation Hub and considered that the planned closure of Ōtūmoetai pool was outrageous.

·        There was a need to grow aquatics in the city in a sustainable and honest manner and was totally wrong for Council to manipulate or mislead the community. 

·        Council requested that they be able to attend a community meeting regarding the Ōtūmoetai pool on 20 February 2024 and had the discussed a strategy on how to deal with the submitter. 

·        In January 2024 the submitter, Amanda Lowry and Glen Crowther had attended a meeting with the Spaces and Places team who advised that the decision had been made by the Commissioners and nothing could be done about it. The submitters response was that we were here to save the Ōtūmoetai pool and am at this meeting to do that. 

·        Council and Bay Venues gave a presentation at the community meeting and also reported that the QEII building was being demolished as it was full of asbestos, when it was not.  The submitter asked that Councillors read the 2019 Asbestos report that she had sent to them and questioned how a Bay Venues representative could have made that statement. The lab test showed that no asbestos was detected on site and it was considered a low risk and asked how the Council could mislead people so much.  The reason to close was then changed to earthquake risk.

·        Bay Venues wrote to Council in August 2022 which was over a year before the LTP submissions stating that it was important to get the new Memorial Park facility under construction as soon as possible to replace the two end of life swimming facilities, indicating that they had already made up their mind.

·        Bay Venues provided an 8 year old Opus report on the condition of the Ōtūmoetai pool.  There were no geotech issues noted in the report, but at the community meeting it was advised that the pool had significant geotech issues when no report was every done and questioned who had spun that narrative to the Commissioners.

·        The Opus/WPS report commissioned by Council in March 2024 was a copy and paste version of the previous report but did show the maintenance, repairs and upgrades.  The submitter noted that she could not believe the contrast and had spoken to pool specialists who were aghast at Council’s lack of due diligence.

·        The pool demolition was still alive in the LTP.

·        After seeing all of the information put to Council the submitter considered that the Memorial Pak recreation hub had not been done properly and said that real leadership was needed not a CCO or staff wagging the tail.

·        An apology was offered to staff if they felt attacked, but the misinformation and lack of detailed assessments were a public record, and the bullying that she had received from staff was disgraceful. 

·        The truth must prevail and those binding it must not be bullied by Council and it was now up to Councillors to get the truth and lead in honour noting that she was happy to assist. 

·        The submitter requested that the demolition of the QEII Centre be looked at and asked if there had been any costing carried out to repair it and while she was not a specialist, she believed that it could have been repaired rather than rebuilt.

·        In relation to the use by date, the submitter noted that pools could be 100 years old if kept and maintained in good condition which was nothing like what the community had been told.

In response to questions

·        Mayor Drysdale noted that while the previous governance had made a decision, it was still on the table.  A geotech report was provided as part of the reporting and Council needed to consider what was required to upgrade the Ōtūmoetai pool before making that decision.

·        In relation to whether the Ōtūmoetai community linked their pool and the Memorial Pool, the submitter noted that at the public meeting most people were not against a new aquatic centre as Tauranga was a growing city, but they wanted to keep the Ōtūmoetai pool open.  She considered that Bay Venues wanted a wonderful complex at Memorial Park with a café, gym and the like and many consider that the pricing and whole process had been out the gate.  Council needed to consider both as two separate entities and they should be addressed as such instead of being pulled together. 

Discussion points raised

·             Mayor Drysdale noted that Council were relooking at the issue and making a decision and agreed on comments around the initial budgets and were looking to reduce them significantly.  

3.2         Duncan Pearce, Larissa Cuff and Nick Chambers – Sport Bay of Plenty

Key Points

·        Sport Bay of Plenty had provided a written submission and commended Council that the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre was still on the table and that the current plans in the LTP terms of the play, active recreation and sports sectors.

·        Reinforce the invaluable role that physical activity plays in supporting community wellbeing of which aquatic centres were part of.

·        Encourage Council to continue with the investment into the aquatic centre as it was identified as a high priority project within the 2024 Bay of Plenty Spaces and Places Strategy.  It identified facilities across the region to meet critical current and future community needs and support long term engagement in sport, active recreation and play.

·        Recommend that Council do not proceed with a 50m pool, and that multiple pools of varying sizes to allow more dedicated spaces for different activities.  This was supported by a case for multiple pools from the 2020 Memorial Park Recreation Hub feasibility study which noted that the Tauranga aquatic network had insufficient leisure provision for the majority of the aquatic users supporting a recommendation of multiple pools. 

·        There was also the National Aquatics Facility Strategy, conducted by Sport New Zealand which also supported multiple pools of various uses. The priority and focus of the 15 years of the strategy was to increase the level of facilities with more participative centres inclusive . environmentally sustainable, affordable and critically more accessible for play and recreation.

·        Reinforced that Sport New Zealand had also submitted suggesting that Council not to proceed with a 50m pool but to provide multiple pools of various sizes and uses.

In response to questions

·        In relation to the reasoning of not recommending a 50m pool, it was noted that although there could be a need for 50m pools nationally to meet national and international competition level standards and high performance training it was not the case for the community need particularly for Tauranga.  Sport New Zealand had a detailed outline in their submission which included a cost analysis. 

·        In response to a query as to whether two 25m pools would be an advantage, it was noted that it would be provided there was not a not bulk head in middle of them.

·        In answer to seeking clarity on why there was a disparity between the local communities and other Councils, some of whom had installed 50m pools against the recommendation of national and regional aquatic specialists, it was noted that while there had been an increase in 50m pools, from a national entity perspective there were sufficient 50m pools.  The Sport New Zealand submission had detailed information noting they would be used by a small niche of high performance athletes or national or international competitions.

·        To provide an understanding of having two 25m pools with the flexibility to provide a 50m pool looking at it from a lens of recreation rather than structured swimming and as noted in the strategy the concept of how people were engaging with pools with much of the feedback from tamariki and schools was they wanted to bomb, play, provide for learn to swim, hydrotherapy and to prevent increased drownings that occur within the district. 

·        A 50m pool split in two does not provide that flexibility.  Assessing the Tauranga aquatic network the difference between two varying pools to a 50m pool and the type of activities they want to engage in not just swimming in a structured sense.  If there was one 50m pool split in two there would be limitations in depth and what it could allow compared to standalone pools of varying sizes, depths and temperature abilities to cater for more.

·        In noting that the community had overwhelmingly said they want a 50m pool and whether this was what people felt that was what they needed and other regions going against the strategy by providing these, it was noted that there was an element of nice to have, trade-offs and choosing one option over another.  A 50m pool does not provide the flexibility that it should and had less useable space, rather than double the space.  It was suggested that Council look at how some of these new facilities were being utilised as the results may be surprising.  

·        There was also the question as to why the 2020 feasibility study says one thing and the most recent short term community consultation says another.  It was suggested that Council look at the responses that had been received in the short engagement time frame and consider what community consultation had actually been done. 

·        In answer to a query as to Sport Bay of Plenty’s view from a location perspective on whether the Otumoetai pool should be retained as an aquatic facility, it was noted that it played a role in the network and while they would like to see it retained as a community poo, it should not be to the detriment of the development of a facility at Memorial Park.

Attachments

1       Tabled Document - Sport BOP Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Submission November 2024

2       Tabled Item - Sport NZ Submission to TCC Memorial Park Aquatic Centre - final

3.3         Mark Rogers and Chris Longman– Tauranga City Basketball Speaking about Memorial Park Redevelopment

Key Points

·        A written submission had been put forward. 

·        Organised basketball had been in the city since 1928 in a variety of locations with nearly 5,000 members currently residing in the city.

·        They were 12 courts short on what the New Zealand Sport survey requirements were for the population. 

·        The LTP had plans for indoor facilities, but none would be ready for 4-5 years to add to the current 10 courts.

·        Social return on investment in sport was $2.12, so in terms of community spend, spending on sport was a great investment. 

·        Sport New Zealand participation trends showed that 30% of young people played basketball every week and this grows to over 40% when added to other indoor sports. 

·        The demographics of the city were changing along with the needs. 

·        The city does need new swimming pools, however the location and cost needed to be considered as there may be other opportunities to meet these and other needs.

·        There was an opportunity for Council with a potential facility at Mairangi Place and the submitter had commissioned a business case for Council to consider along with the facilities that were being considered at present. 

In response to questions

·        Mayor Drysdale thanked the submitter for the proposal noting shortage of courts and that Council wanted to deliver value for money and were looking at options and opportunities to deliver those cheaper. The proposed four courts from Memorial Park had been shifted to 483 Cameron Road reducing the cost from $60M to $28M and if another similar deal would be made, eight courts could be provided for the original cost. 

·        In relation to a query to the submitter regarding his perspective of the overall development of Bay Park, the consolidation of formats to one area and the difference between that or a more dispersed model, it was noted that there definitely needed to be facilities on the Tauranga side of the city in terms of growth of the sport.  There were a lot of comments from people that they would not go to Bay Park to play a 30 minute game of basketball because of the traffic.  They were not opposed to more courts at Bay Park, they just need more on this side of the city.

·        In answer to a query as to how to best deliver 12 courts, the submitter noted that the best sized facility was 3 courts which was big enough to run competitions and in terms of economies of scale to have them around the city with Bay Park as the main facility able to host major events. 

·        The Warehouse added only one additional court as they were losing three and they were unsure how many were planned for Bay Park.  Basketball could fill nine more courts at present if they had the opportunity to use them.  Facilities in the vicinities of Tauriko, Bethlehem/Otumoetai and Papamoa areas were included in the LTP and would be welcome.

·        As an organisation they contributed $250,000 to Bay Venues budget no matter where the players were from.  Approximately 10% of the regular players came from the Western Bay, Rotorua and Matamata areas and when regional events were held teams came from the wider Bay of Plenty, Waikato and King Country. 

·        In response to a query regarding the amount paid to Bay Venues and whether the sport would like to have an independent group to manage the sport to ensure the players got good value for the service the group were providing, it was noted that while their preference was to  manage their own space, they did not envisage that this would result in paying less than they currently did to Bay Venues.

Attachments

1       Tabled Item - Tauranga City Basketbaal Submission

3.4         Moss Burmester – Aquatic Survival Skills Trust (via Teams)

Key Points

·        Noted that he was speaking from the perspective of a Board Member of the Aquatic Survival Skills Trust in the Bay of Plenty, a survival skills programme that teaches teachers to teach children to survive. 

·        Grew up in the area and made his first Commonwealth Games and Olympics here spending a lot of time in and around the water. 

·        See the aquatic centre as an and/and scenario, not an and/or one, with the key for the programme being the square meterage of the pool space.  When talking of a 50m pool, it needed to be at least 51m with a bulkhead in middle to divide the space into two 25m pools.  This would be ideal as the closest 50m pool was Rotorua and was also the slowest in the country. 

·        The realities were the cost to run the centre and the water temperature.  With a 50m pool even with a bulkhead it was one area of water and could not change the temperature if it was to be run as two 25m pools.  From a competitive perspective the temperature needed to be colder than that for general public use, learn to swim and hydro therapy.  Having two 25m pools as separate bodies of water the temperatures could be changed very easily making it warmer and shallower to teach survival skills.

·        There was a lot of data around drownings and there was a connection between Tauranga and the Mount being hot spots for drownings with less pool space per capita than other areas. 

·        The and/and scenario also included retaining the Otumoetai pool to keep as much pool space as possible as the data showed that the city was falling behind.  It was key to add to current facilities rather than take them away.

·        In assuming that there was not the resource and budget for a 50m and two 25m pools. A 50m pool had to be considered in the context of use for international competition sports with a 2.5m depth for underwater hockey and water polo which could become an issue with one pool. Consideration could be given to providing a moveable floor at one end, but that would add to the cost. 

·        It would be prudent to build 25m pools that were able to be extended into a 50m in the future as it would be ideal to have both. 

In response to questions

·        There were a number of 33.3m pools, and a query was made as to whether this would provide an alternative. It was noted that many of these pools had been converted to 25m with a bulkhead put in.  If Council were to consider a 33.3m it would need to be 34.3m with a 1m bulkhead.  Water sports needed additional space around the pool and if that could be built it would be great, but Council need to factor all considerations into it.  The submitter remembered Clive Power, who used to manage all pools in Tauranga saying it was double the cost to run and heat one 50m pool to two 25m pools, even though it was the same volume of water.  This was mostly around the heating and if there was geothermal like at Rotorua it would significantly change that.

·        In answer to a query as to whether the submitter had to leave Tauranga to train because of the pool facilities, he noted that yes the closest 50m facility was Rotorua so made a decision to move to Auckland.

3.5         Cameron Templer and Andrew Templer – Tauranga Indoor Sports

Key Points

·        Presentation attached. 

·        Presentation of two fully costed proposals to Council that would double the city’s indoor sport capacity and meet the needs of the growing population.

·        National recommendations were to have one court to every 7,500 residents, but currently it was one court per 15,000 residents equating to half of what was required. 

·        To deliver more indoor courts currently costs Council $7M per court, with the current $50M allocated for courts in the LTP, the problem would only get bigger and leave residents with a significant unmet need.

·        The submitter offered a solution to align with Council’s goals and provide more courts at good value for money.

·        Proposal 1 was a single large scale facility with three indoor courts with nets, 4 basketball courts and 8 badminton/pickle ball courts under one roof.

·        Proposal 2 provided the same amount of courts split across either side of the city with accessibility for residents.

·        Each proposal had the equivalent of nine full size courts bringing the city closer to the national standard of one court to every 8,000 residents.

·        Multiple sporting codes such as basketball, indoor cricket and pickleball would benefit from a dedicated home with Tauranga Indoor Sports managing and maintaining the facilities with no operating costs to Council. 

·        Proposal 1 for nine full size indoor courts was $10.1M, just over $1M per court offering value for money.  This was possible through the submitters excessive experience in indoor sports and construction giving them the knowledge of how to achieve cost effective and quality results.

·        Leverage of a construction known as SmartBuild which was a standardised plan, ready to go and met all local requirements using local building materials and cold rod steel which was three times stronger than conventional materials while producing 60% fewer carbon emissions and 90% less cost than traditional structural steel. 

·        The group already owned $2M in assets saving a lot of money in the fit out.  They had fitted out multiple indoor sports facilities to deliver a top quality centre at a minimal cost. 

·        Potential sites identified included Bay Park, Merrick Farm, Soper Reserve and the Papamoa interchange area. 

·        Proposal 1 could be located at Bay Park which was ideal due to the existing infrastructure, ample parking and available land that was to be used for overflow carparking.

·        The submitters were open to exploring any site that the Council deemed suitable, especially if there were environmental or community based priorities. 

·        Why us – as Tauranga’s longest standing private indoor sports centre operator with 20 years of experience they understood the specific needs of the community and the longevity was a testament to their value.  They had the combination of building experience, building knowledge, with fit out experience and assets it made them the best people to solve the court space problem for Council. 

In response to questions

·        The submitter noted that he was seeking land and $10.1M from Council.

·        The building was 7m high to the apex, 6m from the lighting with a 40m span, was built with cold rolled steel, included a thermal break and was lined on the inside with insulation. 

·        The intention was to run the current lease and make arrangements with key stakeholders such as City Basketball and the Badminton Club to use the courts on agreed days at an agreed cost so they were aware of what use they had of the facility. They would manage the operational costs and use based on the number of players in a sport and who needed the most court space in a fair and equitable way.  Badminton and pickle ball would be the only codes that could use their spaces, as they had no purpose built facilities like other sports such as basketball, volleyball, netball.

·        In answer to what proportion of the space would be open to current council users and private business, it was noted that they would retain ownership of their assets of three courts with nets that would be managed and ran privately.  Other court space would be owned by Council agreed upon with key stakeholders on what they were getting out of it and would manage and run their own leagues.  The use of the Tauranga Indoor Sports space would go towards managing the operation of the court space and keep them clean and tidy. 

·        In relation to costs to users, it was noted that they had made contact with Mark Rogers, and it was expected that the standard industry rate would be charged.  The current charge for their own courts were $13 for indoor cricket and $11 for netball.  Their costs could be reduced if the proposal was accepted as there would be no massive costs, apart from the cost to maintain the facility.

·        In relation to the stakeholder engagement undertaken the submitter noted that they had spoken to many administrators of sporting codes and Sport Bay of Plenty who had all indicated that there was not enough court space and would support more.  Many would like their own space, but the Council did not have the funding to meet that demand. 

·        In response to how the facilities were built for the amount quoted, it was noted that this was a proven method, without the need for a lot of consultants to put it together and build.  The facilities were already designed, quality surveyed and structurally guaranteed as an out of ground build so the exact cost was known and set in stone.  The consideration at Bay Park was that there was already some knowledge of the geotech conditions.  One of the unknown factors with the builds was the ground conditions. 

·        The facility was nothing new and had been built 12,000 times around the world.  Two basketball courts and a swimming pool were currently being built at St Stephens School in Auckland by the construction company.

·        They would not be competing with other facilities as there was not enough court space to meet the demand.  Indoor netball, cricket, futsal and dodgeball had always been a commercially run business as they did not use the same court space and needed their own facility.  They had sought permission from Council in 2005 to build a facility on Soper Park, when it was $55m² and was now $120m².

·        Their sport facility was unsustainable and they were looking at other options know that they could build the buildings cost effectively, they needed space and it was about how to involve other groups.  They don’t need to use the courts they are for the groups to use.

·        In response to a query regarding the construction costs being separated out in the event of Council wanting a different model, it was noted that these were costed to them as the plans were already done, the asset fit out was important to the cost and they had connection with people who could provide items such as the wooden spring floors for good deals.    

·        They were willing to talk to Council in terms of the build and would be open to Council if they just wanted them to build the building, however they would like to do the indoor sports management as well rather than Council continuing to lose money.  They had paid a commercial lease for 20 years and were running their current facility as a family business and wanted to expand and carry it on. 

·        If the locations were split into two there would be eight badminton/pickleball courts and two basketball courts with the locations being discussed with Council to see what was necessary.

·        Construction steel was heavy with a lot of cost in the ground.  The use of cold rolled steel was not new and used in Canada and America and got stronger over time, it was a lightweight patented system so were able to get a bigger span.

·        $10.1m would include four basketball courts, three indoor courts with nets and eight badminton/pickleball courts.  The buildings were lightweight and habitable which looked good from both the inside and outside and it was a smart way to build. 

Discussion points raised

·        Mayor Drysdale noted that staff would liaise with Mr Templer and bring a proposal back to Council. 

Attachments

1       Presentation - Cameron Templer Indoor Sports Centre

3.6         Greg Cummings and Trudy Smith - Liz van Welie Aquatics Swimming Club

Key Points

·        The submitter noted that he had built pools and was disappointed that no one had engaged with him about the building an aquatic centre in Tauranga.

·        On arrival at the meeting he had to introduce Chair Trudy Smith from the largest sporting club in Tauranga to the Chair of Sport Bay of Plenty as they had never been in contact.

·        The submitter noted he wanted to give context to a possible gap in knowledge of the proposal currently being put to Council.

·        Acknowledgement that the proposal was inherited by this Council and commended Councillors for stopping and taking stock of the proposal as he considered that it did not quite add up and to check where the project was at.

·        When starting the business they looked at how to inspire the next generation of swimmers and named the squads making Hilary the pinnacle, Loader as the next level down followed by Devoy, Carrington, Lang and then Drysdale as they wanted children to look up to and aspire to high standards.  Unfortunately the Drysdale squad was now tainted because it was overflowing and they could not take any more.  Parents look at that and think what’s the point and where can we go. There are 200 10-12 year old swimmers in the Drysdale squad which had become the glass ceiling to their business.  

·        Since opening in 2017, they run 10 full lanes of the 25m pool 6 days a week and have waiting lists for every session so there was a definite shortage of space.

·        No support had been received from Council, it was all done on their own. 

·        There had been a lot of talk about what people know about aquatic centres and the cost, and he questioned where the information come from and who had they spoken to as no one had ever met with the submitter or Chair Trudy Smith.

·        They had attended a consultation evening where the aquatic sector were spoken at rather than spoken with and the submitter noted that he took exception to that.

·        The group carried out a feasibility study in 2013, the SmartGrowth strategy and the Tauranga Aquatic Strategy with everything pointing to further aquatic support in Tauranga West.  The proposal at Memorial Park goes against this strategy.  Pyes Pa was chosen as the location for their facility, and if as a businessman he was to build another pool it would be at Tauriko or Bethlehem West as that was where the city was going and maybe another one in the Kaituna area.

·        The Club had submitted and he asked that to be taken as read.

·        Support for a 52m pool with a 2m bulkhead to allow a transit space between the two pools so they could be run simultaneous with multiple use.

·        Suggested that Councillors stop, go back to the drawing board and engage with a proper working group instead of just Council, Sport NZ, Sport BOP and Bay Venues, both of which were major contractors to Council.  The submitter noted that he failed to see the objectivity, transparency and engagement of the aquatic sector and those directly using or working in it and considered that any information would come third hand from a consultant who had never actually worked at the coal face.

·        Pleased to hear there were over 5,000 submissions and that there was a strong community interest in a 52m pool.

In response to questions

·        The submitter noted that the facility included a swim school as a subset of the business with 2,000 children swimmers and 1,000 adults using the facility per week only closing for three weeks over the Christmas holiday period.  There was a 6m x 12m pool with a temperature of 33.5-34° which needed its own separate area to control the air environment above the pool to match the pool temperature. There was also a 25m x 15m pool, running 6 lanes of 2.5m wide, to ensure that swimmers doing the butterfly had sufficient distance for the wing span. The Greerton pool lanes were only 2m wide.

·        In relation to the pools at Memorial Park and Greerton that were struggling without maintenance and no pool at Papamoa and where pools should be focused, it was noted that as a long term view for the city a 52m pool model in a standalone fit for purpose aquatic centre needed to be considered for swimming, a variety of pool sports, surf lifesaving and the like as it would run at capacity each night from the first week and provide a good day facility.  It would require good access and bus parks for school groups. 

·        The submitter accepted the need for recreational space as the current facilities were always busy, but putting the aquatic sport and recreation together was like oil and water and he strongly encourage Council to build a competition pool for aquatic sports.  The eight lanes in the concept plan would not meet the needs of competition meets as they required 10 lanes.  Consideration of another 25m aquatic centre in the vicinity of Te Timu to meet the needs. If families had more than 1 or 2 children needing to go to different venues across town it was a nightmare so one large centre centralising the swimming needs rather than contributing to Tauranga’s traffic problems. 

·        Aims Games was held annually and was the biggest meet in the area, but Baywave had to be closed as there were so many children warming up and swimming they had to turn the water temperature down.  There was no  room for spectators and barely room for athletes.  That was the pinnacle event and now Council were proposing to build something that was not as big as the Baywave hub which was already outgrown. 

·        In answer to a query as to how big the aquatic and competitive scene and the value of competition sport in Tauranga, it was noted that Moss Burmester had advised that he had to leave Tauranga to swim in a 50m pool, Hayden Wilde used to swim with their club, but it could no longer meet his training needs, as well as his daughter as a top triathlete.  The city is growing world leading athletes, but with an over capacity 25m pool and no longer able to use the Greerton pool as it was broken.  Having a 50m pool allowed flexibility to work in with other sports and cover the opex costs of a facility.  A 50m pool changed the way in which people trained, changed the energy assistance that swimmers used and would give better overall to athletes of all sports. 

·        The submitter advised that he would not propose creating a facility for international athletes  as it would expose Council to risks and trouble as the level of compliance was prohibitive. 

·        While Architects would provide a bigger and better facility, their fee was also bigger.  The submitter asked that Council work from a pragmatic point of view to build a really good facility that met local needs and catered for a community of different swimmers.

·        The Commissioners and previous Councillors were responsible for the depth of the clubs.  There used to be a Tauranga Swimming Club, a Greerton Swimming Club and an Otumoetai Swimming Club with all three clubs testifying that their programmes were continuously disrupted by sub-standard pools and not being able to use some of their swimming time.  Parents were getting frustrated having children across different venues so people left in droves.  The Evo club were now running a junior league programme at the Otumoetai pool. 

·        In relation to the difference in temperature for various activities he noted that their training pool is 28° as swimmers could learn and it allowed for a multi-use pool.  A young swimmer would not last much below 28° in the pool as it would be too cold.  A separate air system was required for any pool above 28° to deal with the condensation and evaporation.

·        There was scope for Council to investigate geothermal heating and air treatment with the cost being only 10% of the $400,000 in heating costs for a 50m pool compared to that in other centres without geothermal. With modern engineering, modern heat exchanges, good water filtration and good planning a pool could be run very efficiently and effectively providing quality water in a good environment.

7.1         Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 14 October 2024

Resolution  CO23/24/1

Moved:       Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded:  Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 14 October 2024 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

7.2         Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 23 October 2024

Resolution  CO23/24/2

Moved:       Cr Rick Curach

Seconded:  Cr Rod Taylor  

That the minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 23 October 2024 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

9.1         Petition from Lisa Parker and Peter Dartfield on Harrington Street

Key Points

·        Representing her business Liquorland CBD in Lower Harrington Street.

·        Experiencing considerable backlash from the public on access and safety with the change in Lower Harrington Street to one way and the submitter and her staff want to be able to direct an action rather than what ha become a daily rant, hence the petition.

·        Had been the owner of the franchise since 2003 and purchased the store in 2015, upgrading the premises at considerable cost which she had yet to recover.

·        Covid was challenge in the CBD with a long recovery as people chose to work from home.

·        Just as they were recovering from that they were asked to attend a roading meeting on 2 February 2024 outlining the proposed changes and spent time advising of her concerns to Council at that meeting.

·        Nervousness followed that afternoon when a Council employee contractor purchased from the store and commented to her team that their owner was feisty yet hot. While appreciating the apology that followed, she felt a lack of respect and consideration that any feistiness was a desperate attempt to protect the business income and that of her team.

·        The submitter noted that she had worked closely with authorities to provided a legal service of alcohol beverages to people responsibly and did not take lightly the responsibilities of selling alcohol. They were part of the Liquorland franchise that hold owners to strict standards and compliance checking with bimonthly mystery shoppers which were reported to the support office.  

·        The submitter noted that she did not believe that the consultation process was just and was told at the 2 February 2024 meeting that the work would start in March.  Concerns over lost sales and business viability, along with the safety concerns of having a bus stop outside a liquor store were raised and dismissed by Council.

·        During the consultation there was no consideration that McLean Street was also one way and both streets travel in the same direction. The plan actually showed McLean Street to be a cul de sac and highlighted the concerns with heavy trucks being forced to use The Strand.  The reason given was to streamline the city traffic which had clearly not met its objectives and considered that the real reason was the big city constructions.

·        The submitter and customers were staggered that Council had installed a bus stop outside a liquor store and with limited space having buses parking across the shop entrance was a further deterrent for customers.

·        It was a liquor ban area, but staff daily picked up bottles and cans from around the store and bus stop.  Two seats were provided outside the store under the shade of a tree.

·        Prior to the change Police commented on 8 February 2024 – “while alcohol is problematic in the CBD at times I am reasonable in my opinion that the minority of society should not prevent the good majority of people being able to access legal items for purchase – alcohol and the CBD or shopping mall seems to be an appropriate place for such services”

·        By 6 June 2024 the submitter noted that she had received an email from the Police advising that the amenity and good order in the CBD was decreasing to the point where her licence renewal could be in jeopardy.  So not only was the business in jeopardy because of lack of traffic and reduced sales there was also a threat that the licence may not be renewed, all of which could be linked to the change in the road. Peter Dartfield from Liquorland head office was in support of the submitter at the meeting.

·        The shop sales had dropped by over a third, the business was no longer viable, yet there were two years left on the lease, with the added cost of rates, insurance and costs for maintaining the building.  The submitter noted that she had tried to sub-lease but the lack of traffic and restricted access had not been successful.  She had provided notice to the landlord that she would not be renewing on lease expiry and had franchise permission to shut the doors in February 2025, but would still have $200,000 in lease obligations.

·        The submitter noted that she had only asked for Lower Harrington Street to return to a two way street as it would mean a lot to their customers, it would allow her team to hold their jobs and as a business owner to remain open. 

·        The submitter questioned whether Council wanted to keep the faith of small business owners with consideration of their needs or were they willing to sacrifice this for a future city of large corporates and newer smaller businesses.

In response to questions

·        The current one way system was a two year trial at this point and staff reviewed the data, functionality and feedback as it was received.  A workshop was planned with Council in early 2025 to consider the data.

·        In relation to a comment regarding the reason for the change in the roading, the submitter noted that at no stage was it mentioned that it was to do with the construction and were told that it was a trial to assist the traffic flow throughout town.  It was the submitters belief that the main reason was because of the construction being extended onto the footpath which had pushed parking out before they decided it was one way.  She considered that there was still space for a two way.

·        Consultation consisted of being told it was a done deal and the Police were also shocked that the bus stop would be located in the street.  They were assured that it was just a stop and not a depot.  The situation had gotten worse with the two seats being installed and now the Council sent them pictures of people intoxicated and drinking.  As the people had said that they had purchased the alcohol from the shop they now got visits from the Police saying it was the shops responsibility.  The submitter was now watching security cameras to see what was happening on the street had the safety of the team to consider if they stepped out onto the street to tell the drinkers it was a liquor ban area.  The team were not responsible for enforcing the liquor ban, they advised people about the ban when purchasing liquor and told them they would be trespassed if they were drinking outside the store.  The shop was struggling to survive, but we tell them they can not come into the store but fail to understand why Council would put a bus stop and two seats in the area as it was asking for the trouble they got. 

·        In terms of a change to the lower end of Harrington Street being considered it was acknowledged that the changes in the city had affected a lot of people who were surprised showing that this had not been well understood or communicated as the driver for the trail.  With the growth of the city there were a lot of competing interests and had become lanes verses parking.  It was possible to do something different in Lower Harrington Street with options being provided to Council at the workshop in February 2025. 

·        The submitter noted that after 21 years in the industry she took it as a privileged and responsibility to own the business and only opened from 10am-7pm,shutting at 8pm on a Friday and Saturday.  She knew her customer base and could stay open later and open earlier, but there was a certain demographic shopping for alcohol very early in the CBD. They did not shut late because of the safety of the team and to increase the amenity in the CBD. 

·        The submitter noted that she felt sad from personal point of view and warned that when she had to shut and give the licence back, it was unlikely to get someone who considered it a privilege to serve her customers and the responsibility that goes with it, rather than it being a money making venture 

·        It was requested that a staff report be provided on the petition, the consideration of returning Lower Harrington Street to two way and wider information on the one way trial and how that was proceeding.  It was noted that the Council were intending to undertake engagement in early 2025 on the one way trial and bring that back to Council in February 2025.  Information could be provided on returning Lower Harrington Street to a two way street, noting that it needed to be treated as a system for the 9 December 2024 Council meeting.

·        In relation to the bus stop, it was noted that it was not in front of the liquor store it was adjacent, however by default there were buses that did stop there.  The location of bus stops had gone through quite a vigorous process of feedback and decision making before landing on that location. 

Discussion points raised

·        Apologies were offered to Ms Parker for the comments directed at her as that was not what the Council stood by.

·        Deputy Mayor Scoular noted that as a tenant in Harrington House they had only recently been advised that the road was changed so that other roads would not be closed with the construction. It was important that Council hear from people that had been consulted with and to learn the meaning of that.  Council were also hearing that this needed to be done better.

·        It was requested that as part of the reporting in February 2025 that the engagement on the CBD bus pilot system be clearly outlined as there was a lot of confusion about what was temporary and what was semi permanent for bus locations.  It was noted that liaison would be needed with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the Public Transport Committee.

·        Appreciation was passed on to the petitioner for her honesty and highlighting the situation within the CBD noting that it was a learning for Councillors and staff that consultation was not just telling people and to work out what engagement mean as the busines people y were important to Tauranga. 

Resolution  CO23/24/3

Moved:       Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded:  Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the Council:

(a)         Receives the Petition from Lisa Parker on Harrington Street".

(b)         Requests staff report on the petition and considers the request to return Lower Harrington Street to a two-way street at the Council meeting at 9 December 2024.

Carried

11.1       Chief Executive Summary Report

Staff           Marty Grenfell, Chief Executive

Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

In response to questions

·        In relation to key principles for the budget and whether the consideration of affordability was defined when considering budgets, it was noted that the LTP signalled rate increases over the 10 year period. Part of the process of resetting the capital programme and income to revenue budgets was to consider whether or not the proposed rate increase was affordable to the community.

·        In response to whether affordability was included in the consultation document, it was noted that while there was no specific question asking about a specific size of an increase, the community let the Council know whether they agreed with the proposed increases in rates. Council then determined what they considered was the right programme and gauged the affordability of that.  The closest proximity to mentioning affordability was in the broad conversation asking if residents wanted to put rates up or cut services, with a 60/40 split to put rates up rather than cut services. 

Discussion points raised

·        Mayor Drysdale noted that this Council had a strict criteria and were not prepared to put rates up above the LTP and until they got to a balanced budget, it was not time to have a conversation about lowering rates or have a conversation around affordability.  The consequence of that was that the community understood the compromise on the level of service.  Council would be looking to answer questions within the upcoming annual plan discussion and in later years to look at where rates would go from there. 

·        It was considered important to discuss affordability at all stages and not just the levels of service, it was also about delivering at every level and how do it better, by doing some things differently, being more efficient and utilising the rates money better.  This included utilising current staff and not using consultants and moving projects back as there was no money to do them now.  

·        It was suggested to consider the space around affordability and seeing evidence of the best balance of the changing dynamics around what the latest census was indicating with ethnic communities, styles of living, shortage of housing and the like rather than going out with one option.  Auckland Council was an example with a more comprehensive range to get back in touch with those on the ground and balance the budget with an affordable outcome for the city.  Three options were nuance, evidence and what was included in the capital programme as it was considered that the current LTP increases were too high and should be brought back to single figures.

Resolution  CO23/24/4

Moved:       Cr Rick Curach

Seconded:  Cr Glen Crowther

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Chief Executive Summary Report".

Carried

11.2       Annual plan process and principles

Staff           Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Key Points

·        The report was to set the scene for the annual plan, the time line of where the process was currently at as well as outlining the basic principles for developing the document from the LTP process with the a definition of value for money added. 

In response to questions

·        In response to a query as to how Council could try and do projects differently and get value for projects such as the courts and aquatic centre to overcome the  potential inherent problem of these being over defined by providing a building that could serve the function rather than design and deliver grandiose buildings for community, it was noted that the processes included gaining independent advice from the private sector.  Local government did operate differently as they had to ensure procurement laws were adhered to, with transparency in front of mind with a better balance being sought within the sector, especially with professional services who added facts to a design and looked at value to Council rather than finding a supplier and trying to limit the scope and not getting the life expectancy Council required.  Generating what was value for money was a long game and when some push this too far it could end up undermining the longevity of the solution. 

·        The Council focus was as a team to ensure that they were getting the best community facility in the most cost of effective way and managed as a whole of life cost.  When a project included a wider community usage, independent advisory groups had been set up and commercial people brought in to allow Council to think outside the square .  There were a number of different relationships and needs with the community hub design and build, with a lot of work being done during each of the design stages to get best the outcome, which was not always the cheapest.

·        It was important to have a set of principles as the elected members had different demands from their predecessors. The principles needed to outline affordability, value for money financial stability and have a robust and transparent financial, community and environmental analysis. 

·        It was noted that the fair share how the organisation spread the encumbrance across all of the people who used and benefited from it with the balance being made up from rates and fees and other Council projects.  Affordability was to create a fair share within the three separate considerations.  

Discussion points raised

·        Discussion ensued on the principles, the understanding of values, affordability, growth paying for growth, monetary verses the social side, value for money, community engagement, sustainability and working towards a budget that delivered good community outcomes for the people of Tauranga resulting in the recommendation in the report being changed to reflect these. 

Resolution  CO23/24/5

Moved:       Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded:  Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Annual plan process and principles".

(b)     Agrees to the proposed timetable for the Annual Plan 2025/26 outlined in this report.

(c)     Endorses the key principles for the development of the Annual Plan 2025/26, detailed in paragraph 23 of this report under the headings:

·    Looking after what we have got

·    Paying a fair share

·    Ongoing financial, economic, social, cultural and environmental sustainability

·    Affordability

·        Robust and transparent financial analysis

·    Growth pays for growth

·    Value for money.

(d)     Endorses the following proposed definition of Value for Money to be used for the prioritisation of capital projects in the development of the Annual Plan 2025/26:

·        Value for Money is defined as the most advantageous combination of cost, quality, and sustainability, and refers to the efficient, effective, and economical use of public resources to achieve the best possible outcomes for Tauranga.

In this context:

-                 cost means consideration of the whole life cost.

-                 quality means meeting a specification which is fit for purpose and sufficient to meet the needs of the people of Tauranga.

-                 sustainability means economic, social, cultural and environmental benefits, considered in the business case in support of council procurement.

Carried

11.3       Annual Plan 2025-26 Capital Budget Prioritisation

Staff           Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Susan Braid, Finance Lead Projects Assurance

Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

Key Points

·        The reforecast for the 2025/26 had been reduced by $88M setting the annual plan budget at $76M.

·        Staff advice was to remain within existing covenants, the figure needed to be closer to $500M, noting that there was a risk around the revenue which may impact on that. 

·        Confirming the approach for the annual plan with the projects showing the principles of looking after what Council had with renewals budgets remain in tact within the plan. Projects that were committed under contract or by other means were included within the plan .

·        There were various groupings of prioritisation with those considered high priority to fit within the financial envelope and then other projects.

·        A workshop would be held on 4 December 2024 to allow Councillors to consider information and work with projects included to confirm the programme at the Council meeting on 9 December 2024.  Staff would put those decisions into the system to provide a draft annual plan for consideration in February 2025 to go out for consultation in March 2025.

·        The prioritisation process was noted in the graph on paragraph 10 of the reports summarising the approach with the $765M divided into each activity budget based on the LTP of 60% to transportation and 40% to civic community.  Allocation of the available budget of $500M was shown as the red line for each activity identified and prioritised, renewal and committed projects.

·        Green were the projects that were currently sitting in the LTP and would be prioritised within the red line for next year.

·        When the LTP was completed, there was an assumption that the IFF would take $150M off the balance sheet and there would be higher levels of NZTA funding for roading projects.  The reforecasting process from this year resulted in putting more budget into next year.

·        The $500M included the key financial metrics from the LTP noted in paragraph 7 but had not been updated for the annual plan. As well as the loss of subsidy and the debt being higher, there were other factors towards favourable which were being worked through.  The capital  prioritisation needed to generate through the system to determine what the financial metrics would be.

·        $500M was a maximum based on the estimate that would be at a debt of approximately $1650, with capital subsidies of $40M not $85M.  This made quite a difference to revenue ratios.

·        With the proposed changes Council were getting close to the limit of 280% debt to revenue which was 272% in the LTP.

·        $250- $300M needed to come out of the LTP as there had been a loss of $150M IFF and NZTA subsidy reductions.

·        There were several things that would influence whether sums had to be taken out, revenue that was considered appropriate as there would be influence by the revenue, the current debt level and new debt being brought on. Also the debt to revenue limit may change.  Part of the decision of providing IFF was awareness that LGFA were looking at bespoke covenants and trying to increase financial convenance.  More about whether this had been approved as a concept would be known after the LGFA Board had meet on 19 November 2024.  The second item to affect ability was the water CCO as they would lend up to 500%.  

·        Information provided to Councillors on 11 November 2024 included capex information broken down by groups and the 25 reforecast budget items which had been spread across the programme.  Further deferrals had been proposed on the $766M  totalling $117M deferrals most of which were across the transport and community services infrastructure spaces.  It included rephasing of initiatives such as Cameron Road Stage 2, Turret Road, Hewletts Road, Bay Park master planning and Memorial Park leaving a draft planning budget of $646M.  To get to the $500M, there would need to be a reduction or remove another $146M next year.

·        There were renewals budgets of $107M and a further $290M committed leaving $103M capacity to balance a priority programme

·        The second page showed how prioritisation was shaped up, with an exercise being undertaken to categorise the most high priority projects that fit within each teams respective target limit.

·        The orange category needed the most interrogation which showed high priorities from each of the teams that could not fit within that limit.  The red category was a group of lesser priority projects.

·        The third table provided an organisation wide view of how projects had been categorised as high priorities.  The 10 year view was overstated as it was not just a one year problem. 

·        The second attachment provided programme summaries and set out the most up to date funding priorities.

In response to questions

·        In answer to a query as to how to get to the place of community aspiration and increase the level of service or add efficiency to the transportation budget to alleviate congestion it was noted that the 60/40 was a starting point based on what had been seen in the plans.  The process would unfold as move into the conversations especially in the orange projects and if the collective view to include more transport projects from the orange to the green.  To do this would need to determine what other projects would come out and could result in the revision of the 60/40 split, but it would need to be done understanding the projects that collectively the Council want to see back in.  This could also be a conversation held with the community.  Also complicating this was the conversations potentially to bring to Council bespoke covenants as a further overlay and a conversation with the community as part of the consultation process.

·        In answer to a query to put greater weighting on the efficiency and access aspects as opposed to safety elements programme, it was advised that the Government Policy Statement (GPS) and National Land Transport Plan (NLTP) had largely done that with a focus on efficiency and economic growth.  Safety now had a different focus from central government which steered the NZTA investment programme which had been put together following that programme.  If there were other objectives to focus on or different weightings on the current objectives in the investment assessment manual, these could be shifted and provide examples given on what that would look like, however it was very limiting to what could be done within the orange envelope at present.

·        It was requested in paragraph 14 to separate out NZTA and Te Manawataki o Te Papa as they were different activities. 

·        In relation to paragraph 15 further noting that the negative risks incomes that may change and how these would be tracked throughout the process, it was advised that this would be reported and included in the finance reporting.  The changes would also be included when the annual plan draft was provided and again time for deliberations by noting where the budget was heading with risk changes and best estimates of the changes. Any changes made to the funding environment would be brought to Council as soon as possible outlining the impacts of those.

·        If the forecasting went over the covenant of 280%, staff would have a conversation within the business activity and bring any decisions to Council to stay within the borrowing covenant.  If Council breached the level they would be given a months notice from LGFA to rectify or refinance.  Track was kept within the quarterly monitoring and it breached would be brought to Council very quickly with options to remedy that situation.  Council had a good relationship with LGFA and would work closely with them as they were aware of the position Council were in.  LGFA would call on the debt to be repaid in that month period and Council would need to refinance on the open market.  Any bespoke convenances would be higher and staff always tried to keep headroom so that they did not get in that situation at year end.   LGFA had allowed some capital revenues in the past ratio calculation, but were conscious of the variability and were most likely to look at those less favourably and exclude those from calculations, so how the ratios were treated would be important.

·        If the LGFA Board allowed bespoke convenances, a decision would need to be made whether Council would make an application for those and what the implications of that would look like.

·        Finalisation of NZTA funding and not achieving grants and subsidies as budgeted figures would be provided.

·        The first four years was overstated in the orange category and would probably be added on to future years unless decisions were made to reduce budgets or stop projects.  The orange categorisation was applicable to the 2025/26 and renewals and committed was flowing through those projects and where need to be in the next four years.  NZTA’s green fund was in place and was of the same trend to what Council had at present. 

·        The $500M was a gross figure which had come down after inflation the amount would shrink over that period and there was also the unknowns at present around bespoke convenances, water reforms and the like that could put more back in, but it was approximately $500M.

·        It was commented that Councils were not investing enough in three waters and the concern with the water reforms being left to the future, it was still the people of Tauranga that would need to take care of it.  In relation to a concern that the $109M included in the budget was insufficient it was noted that it was $95M two years ago and $100M this year, so was a similar input to this point.  There had been a big investment in waters over the past two years.  The programme was focused on the waste water component to be able to run the system more efficiently and staff were comfortable with the position in the programme.

·        In relation to whether all of the necessary central infrastructure had been put into the LTP and consciously investing significant amounts in non core infrastructure as noted by the Auditor Generals recent comments, it was noted that this was the 60/40 split and if this could be done differently more could be spent on waters projects.  However other areas would suffer and Council had adopted the principle of dollar in and dollar out. 

·        In relation to the comments of non essential and not necessary, and the infrastructure strategy saying they were essential, it was advised that staff could provide a breakdown for waters noting the investments that had occurred and the investments proposed spend to provide reassurance of the spend along with a breakdown in the done well narrative.  The water spend was higher in contrast to other areas of council with a large amount of infrastructure being delivered across all of the activities within the city and these needed to be prioritised accordingly.

Discussion points raised

·        Appreciation was passed on to staff for all of the work that had gone into the annual plan. 

·        It was requested that when debt was listed to put a footnote so that residents were able to determine what the debt was.

·        Consideration needed to be given to the 60/40 split with options for high, medium and low priorities and giving people a choice with the annual plan.

·        Consideration needed to be given to the 2023 Vital Signs Survey and the changes requested with alleviating congestion being residents most pressing issue.

·        It was noted that while one of the ways to address this was a congestion charge, it was not seen as a popular solution.   

Resolution  CO23/24/6

Moved:       Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded:  Cr Glen Crowther

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Annual Plan 2025-26 Capital Budget Prioritisation".

(b)     Endorses the general approach to prioritising capital projects within a $500m limit for the draft annual plan.

(c)     Agrees that Council will further consider the first cut prioritisation of projects through a workshop undertaken prior to the 9 December Council meeting.

(d)     Agrees that the initial prioritisation of capital projects for the draft annual plan will be confirmed by Council at its 9 December meeting.

(e)     Notes that the proposed $500m capital programme limit risks exceeding existing LGFA covenant levels if external revenue is not received at the levels budgeted to be received in 2025/26.

(f)      Agrees that further consideration of borrowing limits and bespoke borrowing covenant options will be considered at the 9 December Council meeting.

Carried

11.4       Greenfields Growth Planning - Funding Requirements for 3-Waters Planning and Upper Belk Road Planning

Staff           Andy Mead, Manager: City Planning & Growth

Claudia Hellberg, Team Leader: City Waters Planning

Carl Lucca, Team Leader: Structure Planning

Key Points

·        This was the result of the work done on the SmartGrowth strategy and implementation plan focusing on planning for future growth upper Belk Road to deliver business land and address housing shortfalls.

·        It had been made clear through the process that it was unfunded and to look at how to provide implementation to the action and fund it. 

·        The purpose was to ensure that Council were working on the basis that they would meet the governments requirements around development capacity and growth needs of the city.

·        In the past Council had experienced times where early planning funding was pulled back and growth was slow which had set the city back and it had taken time to recover.  This was one of the reasons that they were now facing housing and growth challenges, but there were also budgetary constraints to consider.  

·        Upper Belk Road planning aspect had a priority short term action to move forward looking at the feasibility and then move towards structure planning with a plan change to change the rezone of the land.

·        The area was currently located in the Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOP) and adjacent to Tauriko Business Estate consisting of 300 ha of developable land, with a potential use of 50% each for industrial and residential.  It was subject to feasibility as to what any development would look like.

·        Council were working closely with WBOP to work with the community and mana whenua in terms of any boundary issues going forward and to set up an action group with key stakeholders.

·        A stepped approach would be undertaken over the next six months to provide gateways to completing a feasibility analysis, engaging with WBOP and reporting back to Council with the results of this as to whether it was feasible, if there were any fatal flaws that they were not aware of.  In 2025/26 it would move into the next stage which was a more detailed analysis of feasibility including cost, benefits and funding pathways. This would then be followed by the structured plan change from the study.

·        Seeking funding through the annual plan for external costs around flood modelling assessment, stormwater velocity and initial transport modelling to test some of the feasibility elements and fatal flaws.  

·        There would be a 3-5 year planning period before moving into detailed development as this took a lot of time and the longer it took to start the process, the longer it would take for land to be opened up for development. 

·        One of the key issues for the area was waste water services.  Tauriko West was a grouped network from the Orini sub station to the southern pipeline to the Waiari treatment plant was at full capacity and required an upgrade of the trunk infrastructure which was a significant investment. 

·        Council would need to look at the potential cost and whether there were other alternatives to service the area, which would take some time to determine.

·        The water supply concept plan for the area was being reviewed in regard to cost and feasibility as the population changed with additional reservoir and increased pipe sizes but would require further assessments to ensure the system still worked.

·        There should be no change in the order of service to the Upper Belk area from the treatment plant but they would need to bring the coastal trunk mains works forward which had been delayed in the LTP.  These were the pipelines servicing from the Waiari treatment plant to the Mount.

·        The eastern corridor had some new fast tracking projects as they want to be serviced by waste water but there was no capacity for servicing on the eastern strip, so were currently designing and implementing for the growth in Waiariki.  There was nothing for Te Tumu area with further assessment having to be done to move into that area.  It was suggested to work in with WBOP regarding growth around that area to determine if there were some joint projects. 

In response to questions

·        In relation to how much of the $980,000 spend was internal and external, it was noted that   the budget was exclusive of staff time, within the senior planning team there would be 1-2 planners on the project full time and the would call on additional staff across the organisation in addition to external consultants. 

·        The response to a query as to whether the new legislation would make a difference, it was noted that growth requirements would likely solidify and bring forward the need of releasing growth in the Upper Belk Road.  It was not likely that a simpler process would be introduced on structure planning for rezoned land, so Council would need to work under the current RMA requirements.  This would become clearer in early 2025 once the draft policy changes were made available which could then be reflected through the annual plan.

·        In response to why Council would plan this early with fast tracking in place, it was noted that one was Tara Road, another on the district boundary by the Papamoa Interchange and the Te Tumu urban growth area.  There was an expensive waste water solution for the area with 13-14kms from the Te Tumu boundary to the treatment plant at around $200M as well as internal infrastructure and looking at whether there were more cost effective solutions for growth in the eastern corridor.   Those capital works could be recovered through development contributions.  In areas such as Upper Belk Road, there were fragmented land ownership so Council needed to take the lead at this stage which were mainly operational.  The costs would be recovered at the time of delivering the infrastructure.

·        In terms of the new set of principles adopted that growth paying a fair share and how to recover those costs it was noted that the introduction of a targeted rate would be an option. 

·        In answer to a query as to whether WBOP were sharing the cost, it was advised that the area would likely to become part of the city and using TCC infrastructure so over time it would transfer.  Those discussions still needed to be held more fully with them over the next 3-6 months.  WBOP were not looking to fund these exercises but would be interested in looking at waste water solutions in the eastern corridor so Council would expect contributions for that.  WBOP were funding their own growth projects in other areas of their district.

·        In consideration of SmartGrowth determining this should occur but not taking any of the cost of planning in advance.  A query was raised as to whether Council took a step back to give the proposal more vigour to see if the area was an unfeasible place to grow and expand as it needed roading, was hilly and hard to get to before spending an unbudgeted $980,000 when not looking at the whole budget and were unsure of how much traffic congestion was being giving up to do it.  It was noted that there was growth happening in the vicinity, Council were a partner to SmartGrowth in all growth options, and there was no where easy to grow areas within the city, like those which could be seen with the advanced projects at Tauriko West and Te Tumu.  The first stage of the work was carrying out a deeper dive to understand whether the project was feasible before moving on to the next steps and investing money in infrastructure. SmartGrowth was a sub-regional collaboration to set a strategy but the implementation falls on the Council and it was their responsibility to rezone the land. 

·        It was suggested that Council may be better spending time on growing up rather than sprawling out, but it was noted that industrial development needed large tracts of relatively flat land and rather than building multi-storey units.  The area had been identified in the SmartGrowth industrial study as the best opportunity for large scale future industrial land as it would be well connected to future transport infrastructure and the Waikato and Auckland markets and had a high chance of succeeding from that perspective.

·        With regard to residential, Council wants to do as much as it can to make intensification successful as it would mean that the city would need have less need to grow outwards.  There have been a number of zones freed for intensification and the infrastructure was in the ground and it was now up to the private market to pick that up. 

Discussion points raised

·        It was noted that it was uneconomic for WBOP to develop the area as they did not have the infrastructure to support it. Unless more land was found to open up to more housing within the city, it was this area or Te Tumu and the city potentially needed both of these areas.

·        Cr Baker noted that there were large areas of untapped Māori land blocks, many of whom were wanting a reasonable partnership with Council and asked whey the opportunity to build hundreds of homes across the city and alleviate pressure on the current market by putting whanau in those homes.  Kaitemako were wanting to develop whanau homes and social housing but needed a level of financial support to enable the spaces to grow.  Some of these groups had been consulted on for years and it was suggested that this be put to the table so that robust conversations were held to address those issues as it would serve multiple purposes for the people of Tauranga.  It was noted that the Council were doing a number of factors in that space and information would be brough back through the Vision, Planning, Growth and Environment Committee. 

·        There were partnerships with WBOP and it was suggested that as there were a number of opportunities for growth within that region, the Councils should join together.  

·        It was considered worthwhile to start the process to determine whether it was feasible to continue as progress to solve the housing crisis.  Any delay at this point would become another year without solving this issue.

·        If Council did not invest in opportunities to grow the city they would also miss opportunities to receive central government funding,

·        It was considered that the exasperator was central government with immigration driving growth, and there was no choice but to let it happen. 

·        There were other opportunities to look at to achieve growth before this one. 

·        Council needed to do a lot of planning up front and less on execution and open up a lot of areas for growth and do the work now.  Delivering on the SmartGrowth strategy with partners was also important.  The strategy for the 10-30 year time frame hedged bets on Keenan Road, Upper Belk Road and the eastern town centre and clarity was sought in the LTP process as to where Council were wanting to go with those areas.

Resolution  CO23/24/7

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Mayor Mahé Drysdale

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Greenfields Growth Planning - Funding Requirements for 3-Waters Planning and Upper Belk Road Planning".

(b)     Approves funding within the 2025/26 Annual Plan for the following operational activities:

(c)     Notes that funding for subsequent years outlined in this report will be considered as part 2026/27 Annual Plan and 2027-30 Long Term Plan processes.

 Carried

Against:  Deputy Mayor Schoular and Cr Hautapu Baker

11.7       City Operations in-housing

Staff           Greg Steele, Manager: City Operations

Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Community Services

Presentation attached to minutes.

Key Points

·        The presentation was based on the service Council were receiving and bringing the operation in-house from 12 staff working out of a container at the Airport in July 2022 to building a new Council business.

·        Took over many of the areas that were not well maintained and were now working from two depots with 110 staff with processes and procedures in place.  A point of difference being the culture, with the team as ambassador wearing the brand of TCC on their chest and making sure they were hiring the right people who were proud of the city. 

·        Performing maintenance across the city on gardens, reserve mowing, playgrounds, structures, natural and wetland vegetation, dunes and walkways.  

·        The team were mowing 23ha a day, maintaining large areas of tracks and walkways, there were two CBD caretakers picking up litter in Tauranga and the Mount walking 80km a week, 600 tonnes of weeds were removed from gardens in the past year. 

·        The induction model for staff was to prioritise routine maintenance and every month to make it better.

·        Council were starting to recognise the efficiencies in scale.

·        There was a wide range of experience with the team who were sharing together, with honesty, being reliable, taking ownership and sharing stories of what they were doing with the community.  

·        Strategies were put in place for Mount Maunganui to upgrade the service in that area. 

·        Extending the life of areas with water blasting, repairs and maintenance rather than replacing. 

·        Mt Drury walkway had recently been upgraded and was seeing increased foot traffic.  A new walkway was being provided at McLaren Falls with natural vegetation areas being made to be self sustained by infilling and keeping it maintained for 2-3 years until it was able to become self sustainable.

·        Effectiveness was measured with before and after photographs, looking at trends and trying to improve. 

·        Last year 1,600 jobs had been raised by the community and staff had self raised over 12,000 jobs.

·        Follow up was made with the call customer to explain what action had been taken and how long it would take to be done, resulting in a 49% increase in compliments which were shared with the field staff.  

·        Increased applicants when recruitment drives were carried out and have a staff with a number of different backgrounds and trades.

·        Delivering awesome community outcomes and each team has own purpose and flavour.  34 staff achieved a certificate in horticulture in primary industry operational skills last year which was central government funded and another 32 would be completing it this year some of whom had never had qualification. 17 staff internally moved within the city operations unit and the 4 supervisors had undertaken customised TCC leadership training. There were also some doing landscape and horticulture 3 qualifications.  

·        Celebrate wins where staff were recognised for work they do through a self nomination form and the Toolbox awards.

·        Health and safety was important and front of minds for all staff with monitoring and auditing being undertaken every day.  Industry standards had been adopted and industry leading with proactive learning teams being established to test methodology before someone got hurt.  The unit had its own Health and Safety Manager and committee. Internal communication was carried out in various ways to ensure they were understood such as videos.   

·        Consideration was being given to wildflowers, beekeepers for honey and an opportunity to sell services.  Improvements included an auditing system from Auckland and different ways to improve through technology, such as the use of a robot spider mower which was saving man hours in mowing and working well. 

In response to questions

·        In relation to a query on the use of agrichemicals was two fold and the start was the landscaping and where gardens should be and how they were developed in conjunction with the roading team at the concept stage.  This helped to minimise concerns and to think about how many more gardens were needed while keeping the look and feel of what each place needed. 

·        The Team employed their own Health and Safety and human resources and were paying for those and the equipment that they brought so the depreciation and interest was going directly into that activity, paying its own way with that activity, plus the overheads of employing staff directly. 

·        In response to a query at attempting to keep the cost of providing safety at sites down, it was noted that there were opportunities to reduce this and do it better.  It was also noted that the  industry was also changing and they would be able to take advantage of that.

Discussion points raised

·        The appreciation of Council was noted and to know that they were getting good value for money doing more for less and looking for further opportunities.  Compliments were received on the change of how much nicer parks, roadsides and paths were looking thanks to the team. 

·        It was requested that the tables also include the previous year to see what it costed before the until became in-house what it cost and the overheads paid to TCC should be part of the cost structure. 

Resolution  CO23/24/8

Moved:       Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded:  Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "City Operations in-housing".

Carried

Attachments

1      Presentation - City Ops Toolbox October 2024 Councillor Pack - Council 12 November 2024

11.5       To Make Operative Plan Changes 34 and 35

Staff         Andy Mead, Manager: City Planning & Growth

Key Points

·        A change to the recommendation (c) from 23 to 25 November 2024.

·        While there were submissions to the plan change, there were no appeals as all of the issues were able to be resolved. 

Discussion points raised

·        It was noted the amount of work that had gone into the plan change and the importance to ensure that consents were consistent.

Resolution  CO23/24/9

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Cr Rick Curach

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "To Make Operative Plan Changes 34 and 35".

(b)     Pursuant to Clause 17(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, approves Plan Change 34 Belk Road Rural Residential (as per Attachment 1) and Private Plan Change 35 Tauriko Business Estate Stage 4 (as per Attachment 2), and authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive to affix the seal of Council on the Plan Change 34 and Plan Change 35 documents.

(c)     Pursuant to Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, notifies that the approved Plan Changes 34 and 35 shall become operative on 25 November 2024.

Carried

11.6       Temporary alcohol-free areas update for the summer period 2024/25

Staff          Sarah Omundsen, General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance

Key Points

·        Date changes had been made to some of the events and approval was required to accommodate the change

Resolution  CO23/24/10

Moved:       Cr Steve Morris

Seconded:  Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the Council:

(a)     Receives the report "Temporary alcohol-free areas update for the summer period 2024/25".

(b)     Revoke the Council resolution CO19/24/1 (e) made on 16 September 2024 that resolved the temporary alcohol-free area around Mercury Baypark from 10am, 31 December 2024 to midnight, 4 January 2025.

(c)     Resolves under clause 8 of the Alcohol Control Bylaw 2018 to implement a temporary alcohol-free area 10am, 28 December 2024 to 6am, 1 January 2025 as follows:

Carried

3.7         Peter Cooney and Kevin Hill – Tauriko West Density Debate

Key Points

·        As one of the largest developers in the country the submitter noted that he saw issues on density of the type which the Council were trying to achieve.

·        There was no technical report supporting 25 lots per hectare (ha) and can not work out how the 800 lots at 22 houses per hectare increased to 25 as there was no data or information to be found on that rate.

·        The handout included that a report commissioned by Council in 2020 carried out by Market Economics, with the submitter noting he could not understand why this had been ignored and the evidence produced for the upcoming hearings.  The report recommended a range of potential housing based on the potential land allocated to different housing densities of 15-19 net dwellings per hectare was physically achievable within the Tauriko West.  This information had not been raised in any of the discussions held and he was unsure why the Council were not using the information.

·        There were a number of grey areas under Plan Change 33 where you were only required to develop 13 lots per hectare.  The submitter questioned where the 25 lots per hectare had come from noting that some of Tauriko and the whole Te Papa peninsula had no densities on it.  The submitter asked what commercially sound basis was there for 25 lots per hectare for their lots, when it did not stack up.

·        Kenny’s report used examples of where the density had been used which were misleading.  The submitter noted his development was a joint venture arrangement with WBOP, using a small sample of Stage 1 where they did 300 lots.  The area was 17.5 lots per ha not 20.2 apart from an area where terraced housing had to be put as part of a deal with Affordable Housing and WBOP.  Only half of the affordable housing had been sold and the balance was for sale at $599,000 were not selling and they were losing money on it.  If they had not been forced to do that by Council, it would have been 17.5 lots per hectare not what was included in the Veros report.

·        One small area of East Quarter had been used for the density and they were also sitting on those as they could not sell the terraced housing so why would they go to Tauriko West and build 70% in terraced housing when they could not sell those in the East Quarter. 

·        The submitter pointed out that they were the ones taking the risk, it was his and shareholders money being put in, they had analysed and understood the market and had invested millions of dollars over the eight years since it started.

·        When looking at all of the projects they took into account best practice, what a property would sell for, what it would cost to build and work their way back to what the land was worth.   

·        The submitter noted that they had a joint venture arrangement with the NZ Superannuation, stating that they became partners with them as they knew what they were doing. 

·        Examples were used in the report of 5ha at Hobsonville when it was 80ha.  Stonefield was used but that was $2.5M and as an expensive product market, the density did get higher but that example was not the same as this priced market. 

·        There were so many things wrong with the information in the report.

·        Council wanted density but were not prepared to give the area an amenity, they had cut the amenity value and were not prepared to spend it nor could Council tell them when it would be done. 

·        Council want the submitter to take a risk when Council were not prepared to assign an amenity.  The submitter advised that he was not  prepared to sign an agreement with Council on that basis. 

In response to questions

·        In response to a query of other areas with the larger density the submitter noted that this area was 140ha.  Medium density may be on the periphery of a town centre or amenity of a small area of 5-6ha such as a retirement village or gated community.  He was not able to provide an example of 20 lots over a130ha subdivision which was why the report could not link to any evidence.  There would be an area of 25 lot in the development, but this would not be done from Stage 1, it would be done much later and would more likely be in the vicinity of the river.

·        The Lakes started at 12 lots ha and slowly crept up to 18 over time with the market dictating when they would do that density.  The time was not now as terraced housing was well out of favour all around the country.

·        In relation to a comment as to whether they would be given a fair hearing the submitter noted that the hearing was about the plan change.  They had appealed and said no to 25 lots ha and argued from day one that they did not agree to it .  Th submitter stated that they would not develop at that rate and rather just keep farming the land.  They did not want to take that massive risk as they were the ones putting the money up front. The submitter considered that it should be a development contribution policy where Council claimed it back as the developers were taking just as much risk as Council paying the money up front.  He suggested that Council purchase the Kainga Ora land and build at 25 lots ha and tell the ratepayers what happened when it did not give a financial return.  While Council had dictated the density with Smiths Farm it was only a small area and while they would have 10-12 ha in their subdivision at that density they would not do it for the whole area as it would be suicide.

·        The submitter recommended that Councillors read the report that Council had paid for.

·        In response to a query as to where the 25 lot ha came from and the aspiration behind it, the Manager: City Planning & Growth noted that it was not appropriate to talk about merits at this point as it was before a hearing panel where the views of various parties would be put to the hearing and Council needed to let that process run.  A recommendation would be brought back to Council for consideration and decision making at that point. 

·        The density had come from the general planning process through AFTI and SmartGrowth with 30 dwellings ha as the target aspiration for greenfield developments moving forward.  Council had held specific discussions around this projects and whether the density was appropriate or not.  Other parties had a strong line for 30 lots ha, but these had been able to be dialled back to be able to allow enabling works to proceed at the level of 25 per ha.  The densities were not absolute, there was a planning framework in place through the city plan to enable them to be considered through the consenting process, market conditions and feasibility of development.  The purpose of the framework was to set out the strategic direction and aspiration of what Council want to achieve over the 20-25 years of development in Tauriko West.

Resolution  CO23/24/12

Moved:       Cr Hautapu Baker

Seconded:  Cr Kevin Schuler

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:

Carried

11.8       Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Update – Supplementary Information

Staff               Alison Law, Manager: Spaces and Places

                       Ceilidh Dunphy, Community Relations Manager 

External         Chad Hooker, Bay Venues Limited

In response to questions

·        In reponse to a query to understand the airspace with the mixture of pools it was noted that, it was the same ventilation and separation, but an acoustic environment rather than air temperature would be the same.

·        Development contributions were only available on the growth of water space across the network and features in addition to what was currently provided. 

·        Development contribution figures for Te Manawataki o Te Papa would be provided, noting that these had changed over time and the amount had reduced.  .  

·        In relation to how the recent survey differed from that done it the past it was noted the latest survey was provided to the community at large with specific questions.  Council did not previoulsy undertake extensive consultation, but had received feedback within the last two LTP’s supporting a new aquatic facility and to retain the Otumoetai pool. 

·        Mr Hooker noted that the café and fitness centre was to drive revenue to offset the cost of running the facility as without it, the revenue would be reduced increasing the amount of subsidy required to be put in by Council.  Bay Venues operated a gym at Bay Wave for a good return and the one at Greerton pool broke even.

·        If the Otumoetai pool was retained, staff would need to reasssess the amount of development contributions and provide the information.  It was noted that $1.2M had been collected in that area and would need to be refunded. 

·        In relaiton to the opex funding included in the LTP for the Otumoetai pool and at what point it would not be operational, it was noted it would operate until the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre was due to open.  The resolution was to establish a working group and as part of that process geotech testing would be carried out.

Supplementary Report

Key Points

·        The team was well experienced and noted the importance of getting the right balance for the majority of the community.

·        The existing facilities were at capacity with a major gap in the leisure, learn to swim, hyrdotherapy and water sports as per the Sport NZ strategy.

·        Baywave was the only pool that catered for water sports and the proposed aquatic centre with the current design would fill those gaps and enable most people to have the water space they required.

·        Aquatic centres provided physical and social hubs, with a small percentage of space needed for the elite and high performance athletes coming out of Tauranga. 

·        The community was made up of a diverse range of user groups with varying needs, requiring varying depths and water temperatures. 

·        Expertise from Bay Venues,Council, Visitor Solutions and Apollo to reach the best outcomes as they had delivered many recent facilities across the country. 

·        Mr Hooker noted that the operations team was a group of dedicated aquatic professionals who worked within the sector each day, from high performace to aquafit classes.

·        The community survey highlighted that the area was short on facilites and there was an under investment in community facilities. 

·        The centres were at capacity at peak times and they struggled to find space for others.  There was little resilicence if one of the pools has to close.

·        The smaller pools were 50-70 years old and built when the city had smaller population.  These were now failing and not fit for purpose and Baywave, which was 20 years old also needed some reinvestment as there had been a 50% increase in the population within that time. A start needed to be made to solve these problems as it could be up to ten years before more was provided.

·        Bay Venues were tasked with delivering the best outcomes for the commmunity in the best cost effective way, to prioritise invesment, to deremine what would give the best value for investment now and for future generations.

·        The designs had been provided based on expert advice to give the best value for the cost following a lot of engagement, regular user forums and discussions on whether to install a 50m pool or not.

·        Apollo had delivered $20M in savings and had included revenue generating elements to offset the opex cost.  Option 3 seemed to provide the widest benefit for the best whole of life cost and would drive the most use in the most cost effective way. 

·        Large bespoke buildings could provide false economies as they required ventilation and plant rooms to control the moisture and cholrination and to protect the electircal equipment. 

·        If a decision was made next year, it would be 2028 before it was operational.

·        The funding requested was to allow the project to keep moving forward on the 4 options proposed. 

In response to questions

·        In response to whether any work had been done on the current pool site, it was noted that yes and if it was to be built in a different location, the pool could still be used and the space not retired.  The area was to include indoor courts, but this had been moved and the pool would placed in the best location on the site.

·        When the pool was replaced it was intended to redevelop the area and extend the mini golf and include an enabled play space on other side of park, with connections to them both. 

·        In response to a query regarding the inclusion of a fitness centre and café, it was noted that more work would be done on this.  It was widely understood that the cost to run a fitness centre was minimal and that this worked in well for the learn to swim programme. Baywave had a gym which the private sector had resented the competition, but the package was with the pool and gym access at a discounted rate.  In relation to this competing with the private sector it was noted that Bay Venues would try to do other things like catering and gyms partnering with Council but there was a limit to what they could do.  If a gym was not included, the subsidy required from Council and ratepayers would need to be higher to offsets the running of the facility.  Mr Hooker noted that he would provide the cost of the fitness centre.

·        It was suggested that the cost of aquatics was equavilent to 1% rates if depreciation interest was not included, depending on the type of facility and what was in it.  In response to a query as to why depreciation interest was not included, it was noterd that the facility would cover its costs, but may not have been picked up in the business case at this stage.

·        A breakdown of figures could be provided on the single use of either the pool or fitness centre and how many used both facilities during a visit.  

Key Points

·        The engagement for the recent survey included the rates data base and engagement platform resulting in a high level response rate of 5,000 responses received.  This was higher than previous engagements.  The clear result was an overwhelming support for Memorial Park Aquatic Centre and 71% for a $80-105M spend.

·        The bulk of the respondents were existing pool users with 54% of those wanting new facilities.  25% of the respondents were not pool users.

·        Learn to swim and a 50m pool came out on top. 

·        A query in the survey sought responses to what people wanted the additional money in the LTP set aside for a pool to be used for, the overwhelming response of those not supporting the pool was to bring back reduced borrowing levels and 44% wanting Council to reduce debt. 

In response to questions

·        In answer to a query as to whether there was any limit on the number of responses from one IP address, it was noted that there had been none placed on this survey and while that information had not been sought, there was nothing of concern showing up with the results.  

·        It was considered that there were generally glitches in surveys of this scale with 1% indicating that they had an issue with the functionality and it was suggested that the instructions be made clearer.  It was noted that some comments had been received via email noting the issues the respondents had encountered.  

·        Concern was noted that there was only 1% of under 18 year olds responding to the survey and a query was raised as to how to ensure that the childrens voices were heard for a facility of this nature moving forward.  It was noted that the channels skewed a bit on the data base and on face book where there would normally be a better lead in time would be able to target different platforms that young people used.  The Communty Development team would reach out to youth and they also use paid marketing campaigns and channels that register more with young people. Bay Venues had shared the survey with their groups and networks. 

·        The information received was checked quickly to be able to provide it to this meeting.  

·        In relation to page 4 of the report where other suggestions provided 37% for a 50m pool were and whether they were added to the other numbers, it was noted that not all recipients filled that section out as the question had already been asked.  There were not counted again but recipients wanted to reinforce their support or otherwise.

·        The Sport NZ aquatic strategy was a national strategy, with every town having the same shortfall in leisure, learn to swim and hydrotherapy water spaces.  They, and Sport BOP were supporting what was proposed rather than a 50m pool as it would not achieve what the community wanted.  The 50m pool conversation was from those that need it for their sport or high performance and while they want to support them, the majority of pools users wanted the other spaces.  A fact sheet from Sport NZ explained their rationale of a 50m verses a 25m pool and provided the answers to the questions being asked. 

Discussion points raised

·        It was noted that the gym and manu pool had ranked bottom and there was not the relativeity when asked to rank items, where some may only answer a few options making it difficult to draw insights correctly.

·        Appreciation was passed on to all of the team for the work done so far, the Communications team for providing the survey and getting the results in so that Councillors could understand residents views and to those who had contributed noting it was a great response rate. 

·        It was resounding result that more aquatic facilities were needed and that residents actually wanted to commit to a pool at Memorial Park.

·        While the 50m pool shone out highly, it was understood that there was a need to separate this out from a leisure facility as the two did not fit together.

·        There was some discomfort at the cost of between $80-105M, and a struggle to know which was the right figure.  It was a huge commitment of ratepayer money and Councillors needed to be sure that they received value for money and at this stage they were unsure whether it did that.

·        An alternative motion was proposed to commit to building an aquatic facility at Memorial Park and to continue to pause and do more work, leaning on user groups and understanding the strategy and where a 50m pool could be sited if it was not at Memorial Park.

·        Reconsideration of the closure of the Otumoetai pool was suggested to determine how long it would be able to remain in service and to give consideration to how the whole network worked.

·        There were risks involved which may cause delays for the team, but Elected Members wanted to be sure that they were comfortable with the proposal and explore more funding options so that the burden was not as large as if Council were committing by themselves.

·        There was a need to ensure that the entry charges were fair so that users were paying their fair share. 

·        In relation to a suggestion to put time frames into the recommendations to determine what was to be included in the annual plan, the Chief Executive noted that they would be in a position early in 2025 to include funding in the annual plan to either advance the project or any other options chosen.  It was not expected that the work required would not be as much as the $2.2M sought.

·        It was important to be provided with a robust honest report on the entire process, learnings moving forward providing something to measure against.

·        Hold conversations with the wider network and WBOP.

·        An amendment was made to add (k) to the resolution seeking a firmer commitment to retain the Otumoetai pool.  

·        Council could not afford an expensive option and should not use ratepayer funding to subsidise a fitness centre.

·        It was noted that a report had already been requested for a strategic paper on the aquatic network and specifically on the recommended option with a solution that understands the desire for a 50m pool to be added to the network at some stage, the desire to keep the Otumoetai pool open.  It was a timing issue.

A motion was proposed by Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded by Cr Rod Taylor

That the Council

(a)     Receives the report “Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Update” and "Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Update - Supplementary Information".

(b)     Notes that the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre project has been put on hold pending a decision from the Council on the project’s future.

(c)     Continues with an Aquatic Centre at Memorial Park, but continue to pause work on the current design while we assess further options.

(d)     Engages in further stakeholder engagement to be undertaken on aquatic strategy within the sub region and further design options for the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre.

(e)     Assesses alternative scope, design, build and cost options, with a focus on delivering value for money for the people of Tauranga.

(f)      Notes that the intention of the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre will be to meet the current deficit in aquatic leisure and recreation facilities.

(g)     Approves the reallocation of the expenditure of up to $2.2m allocated toward the Design Feasibility Report to the work to assess alternative options.

(h)     Requests a report be brought back to the Project Planning and Monitoring Committee to outline alternative scope, design, build and cost options.

(i)      Notes that in making resolution (c) above, the Council is agreeing not to progress the current Design Feasibility Report at this point.

(j)      Explores external funding options.

An Amendment adding (k) was proposed by Cr Glen Crowther

Seconded by Cr Steve Morris

(k)     Requests a report be brought back to the first Council meeting in 2025 about the Otumoetai Pool geotechnical report, with a decision to be made at that meeting about whether to add Otumoetai Pool maintenance and operating expenditure back into the draft annual plan and into future LTP.

The amendment was put and declared lost

For:   Crs Rick Curach, Steve Morris, Glen Crowther

Against:   Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Crs Hautapu Baker, Marten Rozeboom, Kevin Schuler, Rod Taylor

Discussion points raised

·        The annual residents survey comments in regards to the current pools noted that there were concerns of overcrowding at Baywave and that the city needed more pools. The recommendations reflect the community concerns regarding the cost with some expressing frustration with the financial management of Council, prudent spending, unnecessary expenditure and value for money.

·        There needed to be a focus on affordibiliy and to drive further savings, looking at all costs.

·        Mayor Drysdale thanked all for their input, commitment building a facility at Memorial Park and pausng the current design to ensure that they got value for money for the sake of a further three months.  

·        Appreciation was also passed on to the community as the results of the recent engagement had swayed the decision with the overwhelming result.

Resolution  CO23/24/13

Moved:       Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded:  Cr Rod Taylor

That the Council

(a)     Receives the report “Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Update” and "Memorial Park Aquatic Centre Update - Supplementary Information".

(b)     Notes that the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre project has been put on hold pending a decision from the Council on the project’s future.

(c)     Continues with an Aquatic Centre at Memorial Park, but continue to pause work on the current design while we assess further options.

(d)     Engages in further stakeholder engagement to be undertaken on aquatic strategy within the sub region and further design options for the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre.

(e)     Assesses alternative scope, design, build and cost options, with a focus on delivering value for money for the people of Tauranga.

(f)      Notes that the intention of the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre will be to meet the current deficit in aquatic leisure and recreation facilities.

(g)     Approves the reallocation of the expenditure of up to $2.2m allocated toward the Design Feasibility Report to the work to assess alternative options.

(h)     Requests a report be brought back to the Project Planning and Monitoring Committee to outline alternative scope, design, build and cost options.

(i)      Notes that in making resolution (c) above, the Council is agreeing not to progress the current Design Feasibility Report at this point.

(j)      Explores external funding options.

 Carried

Public Excluded Attachment

Reason why Public Excluded

Item 11.1 - Civic Whare, Exhibition and Museum (CWEM) Project Update and Next Steps - Attachment 1 - Summary of TECT Funding Agreement

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

Item 11.1 - Civic Whare, Exhibition and Museum (CWEM) Project Update and Next Steps - Attachment 3 - Project Director's cover report - CWEM Stage 2 Tender

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

Item 11.1 - Civic Whare, Exhibition and Museum (CWEM) Project Update and Next Steps - Attachment 4 - CWEM Stage 2 Tender Recommendation and Evaluation

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

Item 11.1 - Civic Whare, Exhibition and Museum (CWEM) Project Update and Next Steps - Attachment 7 - RLB - Theoretical Scope Options Review

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

Contributes

We are an inclusive city

ü

We value, protect and enhance the environment

☐

We are a well-planned city

ü

We can move around our city easily

☐

We are a city that supports business and education

ü

CWEM Option 1 vs Option 2

Option 1
($m)

Option 2a
($m)

Difference
(1 - 2a)
($m)

Option 2b
($m)

Difference
(1 - 2b)
($m)

Debt Impact compared to LTP/AP (Current Yr)

(14.4)

34.9

(49.3)

34.9

(49.3)

Debt Impact over LTP period

53.2

58.6

(5.4)

63.6

(10.4)

Net Rates Impact 2024/25

0.1

2.2

(2.2)

2.2

(2.2)

Net Rates Impact when fully operational

8.7

3.9

4.8

4.0

4.7

Net Present Value (NPV) to 2034 (Cost)

81.7

71.0

10.7

76.3

5.5

Level of Service Impact

Significant Increase

No Change

No Change

IFF drawdown summary

Claimed $million

Project update

Hewletts Road sub access area

0.5

NZTA have advised that the project is not expected to progress past endorsement of the IBC in this NLTP period

Connecting the People Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay

2.5

Going to NZTA board for the next stage of approval targeting December board meeting.

Tauriko West Enabling Work Package

8.6

Currently in construction we will have drawn the $10m we budgeted by the end of the 25F/Y

Cameron Road Multi Modal Upgrade stage 1

50.0

Drawn to funding cap of $50m no further draw downs are planned

Cameron Road multimodal upgrade stage 2

3.4

Business case was not supported for funding by NZTA.  Currently reworking the business case to get better alignment to the updated GPS

Cameron road corridor connections (cycle, PT and pedestrian)

0.2

First stage of the Cameron Road connections projects are completed.  No further funding available from NZTA through low cost low risk program.

Primary cycle route facilities (Accessible Streets programme - Area A Mount / Papamoa / CBD

1.0

Business case for main project not started as there is no funding available through NZTA.  Some small components of the project have been done / designed

Primary cycle route facilities (Accessible Streets programme - Area B Otumoetai / Bellevue / Brookfield

1.6

Business case endorsed by council and submitted to NZTA but did not progress due to change in GPS away from walking and cycling projects

Tauranga Crossing bus facility improvements

0.6

Planning for first stage of project to improve access in progress with construction expected to start early next year with NZTA funding. Currently reconsidering the design and layout of the bus hub which is not approved for funding by NZTA

City Centre Transport Hub

1.2

Approved for construction by council proceeding without NZTA funding.

Barkes Corner to Tauranga Crossing Multi-modal Local Road component

0.0

nothing budgeted or forecasted in the next 1 - 3 years

SH2 Revocation – Cameron Road to Bethlehem

0.0

nothing budgeted or forecasted in the next 1 - 3 years

Maunganui Rd

8.6

Construction expected to be completed in the next few months.

Total claimed date

78.2

Contributes

We are an inclusive city

☐

We value, protect and enhance the environment

☐

We are a well-planned city

☐

We can move around our city easily

ü

We are a city that supports business and education

☐

Contributes

We are an inclusive city

☐

We value, protect and enhance the environment

☐

We are a well-planned city

ü

We can move around our city easily

ü

We are a city that supports business and education

ü