Minutes of Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee meeting

unconfirmed Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee meeting minutes

18 November 2024

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee meeting

HELD AT THE Bay of Plenty Regional Council Chambers,

Regional House, 1 Elizabeth Street, Tauranga

ON Monday, 18 November 2024 AT 9.30am

MEMBERS PRESENT:	Cr Kevin Schuler, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Rod Taylor.
ALSO PRESENT:	Cr Rozeboom
APOLOGIES:	Mayor Drysdale
LEAVE OF ABSENCE:	Cr Sydney Mikaere
IN ATTENDANCE:	Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (Chief Financial Officer), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Community Services), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Sarah Omundsen (General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance), Alastair McNeill (General Manager: Corporate Services), Annabel Bayes (Strategic Advisor to the Mayor and CE ), Jeremy Boase (Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning), Andrew Mead (Manager: City Planning & Growth), Emily McLean, (Programme Lead: City Development), Dan Smith (Manager: Sustainability and Waste), Sandy Lee (Policy Analyst), Dylan Makgil (Team Leader: Environmental Planning), Jane Barnette (Policy Analyst), Nigel McGlone (Manager: Environmental Regulation), Steve Pearch (Manager: Building Services), Nigel McGlone (Manager: Environmental Regulation), Ceilidh Dunphy (Community Relations Manager), Lucy Reed (Team Leader: Strategic Community Relations), Lucy Brake (Strategic Community Relations Advisor), Paula Naude (Manager: Community Development & Emergency Management), Lucy Brake (Strategic Community Relations Advisor), Anna Rengstedt (Team Leader: Climate & Sustainability), Wally Potts (Director of City Waters), Peter Bahrs (Manager: Water Services), Jack Furnish (Water Engineer), Keren Paekau (Team Leader: Takawaenga Māori), Joanna Thomas Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy & Governance Services), Caroline Irvin (Governance Advisor), Aimee Aranas (Governance Advisor).
EXTERNAL:	Matire Duncan, Chairperson, Te Rungapu Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana

1 Opening karakia

Cr Baker opened the meeting with a karakia

2 Apologies

Apology

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/1

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

That the apology for absence received from Mayor Drysdale and the leave of absence from Cr Mikaere Sydney be accepted.

Carried

3 Public forum

3.1 Acorn Foundation Presentation

Lori Luke (CEO) and Jo Wilson (Scholarship and Community Engagement Specialist) spoke to a PowerPoint presentation providing the following points:

· The Acorn Foundation (AF) worked by investing capital for perpetuity, a portion of which was distributed annually, with local donors choosing the recipients of their donated money. Ten percent of money donated was able to be distributed to other regions depending on the wishes and circumstances of the donor.

· The benefit of the ‘Smarter Giving Model’ was that money was distributed but the fund continued to grow as long as investment returns were delivered in advance of what was being distributed.

· Many AF donors were pensioners, often with no children, who left the Foundation their estate.

· The AF partnered with Tauranga City Council (TCC) and did a lot of research to understand the local community. The first research done post Covid was the Whakahou Takektake Vial Update 2023 survey which demonstrated that vulnerable people became more vulnerable to financial struggles, mental health concerns and being a victim of crime.

· Funding priorities were adapted annually depending on research and concerns which ensured areas of greatest need were being covered. The needs of the community drove where the Foundation spent its money.

· This year there had been a stronger focus on wellness, including mental health support, disability funding and support for carers.

· The ‘Vital Impact Fund’ allocated funds every year to areas of deepest need. This year there was a focus on food in the region with six organisations supported. Food security was a huge concern in the region. One of the biggest areas of concern was elderly renters who did not have enough money to buy food in the Tauranga region rental market.

· The AF was one of the founding members of ‘Super Support’, a collaboration with other senior support organisations and TCC to provide food for the elderly in need. This had been very successful.

· AF’s 2024 impact included funds gifted to the community, scholarships awarded, local charities being supported and new funds being established. However, it had also been the toughest year for funding.

· It had been difficult to adhere to funding priorities with a lot of organisations that had been supported in the past missing out. Contributing factors were loss of government contracts, reduced funding from other sources, the increase in demand for basic needs such as food and housing and support organisations closing, amongst other things.

· The AF had many partnerships in place with TCC and there were many more future opportunities for collaboration to support the community.

The Chairperson thanked the presenters, commenting that people would be happy that their money was being well looked after and acknowledging the challenges they were presently facing.

In response to questions

· Every fund was ring-fenced and reported on annually.

4 Acceptance of late items

Nil

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6 Change to order of business

Nil

7 Confirmation of minutes

7.1 Minutes of the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee meeting held on 15 October 2024

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/2

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

That the minutes of the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee meeting held on 15 October 2024 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Cr Rod Taylor declared a conflict of interest in relation to item 10.8 and took no part in the discussion or voting on the matter.

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions

9.1 Petition - Reconsideration of Tauranga City Council's Dog Licence Fees

Mr Geoff Latter spoke to his petition providing the following points:

· Many people living in Tauranga had dogs not just as pets, but as an integral part of their lives providing companionship and therapy. However, current dog licence fees seemed to disregard this important bond and put a strain on peoples budgets.

· Nearly 15% of Tauranga’s population were retires, many relying on fixed incomes.

· The need for dog licence fees to cover the cost of animal control services was understood, however, the current rates placed a financial burden on dog owners.

· TCC had an opportunity to follow other regions who had found innovative solutions to manage this, such as responsible dog owner fees.

· Given these circumstances, this was an appeal to TCC to reconsider the current dog licence fees and introduce a responsible dog owner fee which would reflect what a responsible dog owner should do and enjoy the benefits.

Mr Geoff Latter in response to questions

· It was thought a total of six cities around NZ had responsible dog owner fees.

· A better dog culture needed to be established in New Zealand around better practices regarding such things as behaviour and removing dog excrement.

· A detailed responsible dog owners guide could be provided that included criteria to be met to receive a responsible dog owner classification. Dog owner’s properties could be inspected to ensure they met the criteria for fencing and any responsible dog owner whose dog was impounded could have their discount cancelled.

Staff in response to questions

· Historically, Council had moved away from responsible dog owner fees due to having to increase another fee to account for the reduced income, and that all dog owners were thought responsible until proven otherwise, with a robust infringement approach in place. However, the thinking around this had changed somewhat.

· The Tauranga dog owner community requested TCC introduce a responsible dog owner fee discount. Council was reviewing its animal control policies and bylaws which would be presented to Councillors next week. Included in this was looking at what other councils were doing in this space, how might the responsible dog fee be applied and what the cost would be.

· Council’s Animal Control Services were funded 10% by the ratepayer and 90% by animal owners. The question was if a reduced fee was introduced, would that have an impact on the proportion ratepayers had to pay. An analysis was being undertaken on this, to be brought back to Councillors next year.

· A lot of Council’s compliance and enforcement action was associated with the registration process itself, and staff following up on whether a dog had been registered or not. This was a very time consuming process.

Discussion points raised

· The Manager: Governance Services advised that electronic petitions enabled signatures from across the country and world and the current software made it difficult to verify or validate these signatures. It was up to Council, when presented with a petition, to determine whether such petitions were accepted.

· Cr Baker commented his concern around credibility with petitions signed by people outside of their own communities. There needed to be a mechanism in place to ensure transparency and accountability in particular for the community. Going forward, his personal stance was that he would not be accepting any more petitions if the majority of the signatures were from outside Tauranga.

· The General Manager: Corporate Services advised the number of ratepayers that resided outside New Zealand but owned a property in Tauranga was around five percent and were valid petition signees.

· Cr Taylor commented that some of the petitions presented to Council could be quite serious and as such the question of signatories outside the region or country needed to be addressed.

Action

· That staff provide information on the proportion of registered versus unregistered dogs.

· That staff to look into the ways in which petitions are accepted and bring back some options for Councillors to consider.

The Chairperson thanked Mr Latter for his attendance and presentation.

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/3

Moved: Cr Hautapu Baker

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

That the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Petition - Reconsideration of Tauranga City Council's Dog Licence Fees".

Carried

At 10.15am, Cr Hautapu Baker withdrew from the meeting.

10 Business

10.1 Chief Executive's Summary Report

Staff Alastair McNeil, General Manager: Corporate Services

Key Points

· Councillors had been provided with an information sheet outlining the different types of communication with the community in terms of informing, engagement and formal consultation.

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/4

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

That the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee:

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

Carried

10.2 Annual Plan 2025/26 - Communications and Engagement Approach

Staff Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Ceilidh Dunphy, Community Relations Manager

Key Points

· The Community Relations Manager provided an summary of the report.

In response to questions

· Media placement was the biggest cost. Council could spend as much or little on media placement as it wanted, adding more or less content. This also included a market research option, in addition to having TCC’s own generated survey, which would generate more cost.

· Councillors were being asked for a decision today on how communication and engagement success was measured in terms of numbers of submissions, being more demographically sound and enabling better decision making. This was reflected in Option 3’s enhanced approach.

Discussion points raised

· To enable involvement of a better and bigger cross section of the community, a market research survey should be considered as an option.

· As a new Council, it was important that the draft Annual Plan issues were clearly communicated to the community so feedback could be received and decisions made accordingly.

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/5

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Annual Plan 2025/26 - Communications and Engagement Approach".

(b) Adopts “Option 3: Enhanced” approach to communications and engagement for the Annual Plan 2025/26 and confirms the description and budget from the options:

o Increased paid media schedule (mix of digital, newspaper, billboard and radio advertising).

o Utilise Newsbeat, our newly launched webpage hosting TCC news, to share councillor video content promoting engagement opportunities and consultation questions.

o Pre-engagement with identified stakeholders.

o Community drop in sessions in each ward where councillors and staff go to community events and areas of high foot traffic to promote consultation and answer questions on the draft annual plan.

o Council based Q&A session is replaced by Town hall large scale event at the University of Waikato, led by the mayor and recorded.

o A demographically representative market research survey managed by a research company.

· Estimated Cost: $81,000 - $200,000

(c) Notes that Elected Members will need to make themselves available for communications and engagement events during the period 28 March to 28 April 2025.

(d) Notes that that a further report with the full communications and engagement plan for the Annual Plan 2025/26 will be reported to the Community, Transparency and Engagement Committee on 3 March 2025 along with the draft annual plan consultation document.

Carried

10.3 Annual Residents Survey 2024/25 - Wave One Results and 2023/24 Benchmarking Report

Staff Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Key Points

· The Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning provided a summary of the report.

In response to questions

· Rates affordability was not covered in a quantitative way in the survey.

· The 30 day ‘wave’ survey process was used to avoid a single point issue coming through at one time which could influence Council’s decision making.

Additional recommendation

· Cr Curach requested that a question regarding the affordability of rates be added to the survey, in order to obtain a more direct measure of how affordable Council rates were for residents. This was reflected in additional recommendation (b).

At 10.57am, Cr Hautapu Baker re-entered the meeting.

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/6

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Annual Residents Survey 2024/25 - Wave One Results and 2023/24 Benchmarking Report".

(b) Recommends that Council considers including a question around rates affordability in the Annual Residents survey, i.e. ‘Are rates affordable for you?’ If not affordable then are they: 1) severely unaffordable, 2) moderately unaffordable, 3) somewhat unaffordable.

Carried

10.59am The meeting adjourned

11.16am The meeting reconvened

10.4 Supplementary Item: Overview of Council Policy

Staff Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Key Points

· A policy was a mechanism whereby a group (e.g. Councillors) could provide direction to another group (e.g. staff) so they could act in their image.

· A policy framework provided staff with guidelines and a delegated authority to work within, and crucially, to not work outside of. Any matter outside of policy came back to full Council to be considered.

· Council policies were available on its website and assisted people engaging with Council to understand decisions it made in a particular area.

· Policies belonged to Council and were created when a community and/or stakeholder need arose or a current policy was not working due to the passage of time or changes to legislation.

· Policy experts and subject matter experts sat within the organisation and worked together to draft policies to bring before Council for consideration which could then be adopted as final or further engagement could be undertaken with relevant stakeholders if necessary.

· Legislation dictated as to whether the whole or a part of the community needed to be consulted with.

· Consultation results would be provided to Councillors for deliberation in the form of a report that outlined the issues that arose from the consultation and provided options for the policy framework.

· Policies did not constrain Local Government decision making. Section 80 of the Local Government Act 2002 allowed Council to work outside of its policies. However, if it did so, it must clearly identify the inconsistency, the reason for it and whether or not there was an intention to change or amend the policy to accommodate the decision.

In response to questions

· It was better to address these policies on a case by case basis as sometimes policy became redundant due to the issues no longer being relevant or so few issues being dealt with under the policy.

The Chairperson advised that item 10.5 would be addressed before item10.4.

10.5 Consultation with Tangata Whenua on Resource Consent Applications Policy Review

Staff Sarah Omundsen, General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance

Sandy Lee, Policy Analyst

Dylan Makgil, Team Leader: Environmental Planning

Keren Paekau, Team Leader: Takawaenga Māori

External Matire Duncan, Chair Te Rungapu Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana (Te Rangapu)

Key Points

· The General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance introduced the presenters and provided a summary of the report.

In response to questions

· In some cases, there were not enough hapū resources in place in terms of capacity and capability to process resource applications. Consideration needed to be given as to how this resourcing could be improved.

· Te Rangapu received a resource consent application schedule that triggered engagement for both TCC and tangata whenua. This had worked well, however there were workload and understanding Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) processes issues.

· The main factor in engagement was when a cultural consideration was triggered. There was always a requirement to have considered cultural effects. What triggered a more thorough process and early relationship building depended on scale. Consideration of cultural effects was at the heart of any application.

· Early engagement with iwi regarding a cultural issue allowed for a smother consenting process that was in turn better value for money.

· Providing training to better understand the RMA and its processes was required. ‘RMA 101’ and ‘Making Good Decisions’ courses provided support for those needing training in these areas. TCC had covered the cost of some of these courses for Te Rangapu members.

Discussion points raised

· The evolution from consultation to engagement was important. Mātauranga Māori was the oldest knowledge system in Aotearoa and provided another set of recorded data that had been passed down from generation to generation. This added depth to knowledge. Tangata whenua drew on this when informing and making decisions that benefited the people but more importantly, the environment.

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/7

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

That the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Consultation with Tangata Whenua on Resource Consent Applications Policy Review".

(b) Approves the following noteworthy changes in the updated draft Engaging with Tangata Whenua on Resource Consent Applications Policy:

(i) Revising the policy principles to: early, good faith, open mind, ongoing, genuine, respectful, and active protection (as per section 4 of draft policy).

(ii) Clarifying what engagement in relation to this policy entails, including:

a) Defining engagement as “the intentional process of working meaningfully with tangata whenua to shape and inform the idea or proposal related to a resource consent application and to better understand the potential effects of a proposal on tangata whenua” (section 3.1 of the draft policy);

b) Highlighting that engagement “may include informing, consulting, involving, collaborating and/or empowering” (section 3.1 and schedule 1);

c) Replacing ‘consultation’ with ‘engagement’ throughout the draft policy; and

d) Including a flowchart of best practice early engagement with tangata whenua (schedule 2 or draft policy).

(iii) Removing any misrepresentation of the Council’s ability to “require” consultation and clarifying that the Council can only require and ensure adequate consideration of the cultural effects of any proposed development (clause 6.1.9 of draft policy).

(iv) Expansion of the Council’s role to include supporting tangata whenua to participate effectively in the resource consent process (clause 6.1.4 and 6.2.2.1 of draft policy).

(d) Delegates to the General Manager Regulatory Services the authority to make minor editorial or presentation changes to the draft policy for correction or clarity prior to the commencement of consultation.

Carried

10.4 Sponsorship from Corporates and Others Policy and Other Funding Related Policies Review

Staff Jeremy Boase, Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning

Emily McLean, Programme Lead: City Development

Key Points

· The Programme Lead: City Development and Manager: Strategy & Corporate Planning provided a summary and explanation of the report.

In response to questions

· Recommendation (b) (v) of the report related mainly to any obvious conflict. Anything beyond that was about adherence to policy that could be brought before Council for consideration.

Discussion points raised

· It was important to be open to other sources of funding to take advantage of other opportunities that may arise.

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/8

Moved: Cr Hautapu Baker

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Sponsorship from Corporates and Others Policy and Other Funding Related Policies Review".

(b) Gives direction on its preferred options of those proposed in paragraph 22 of this report, and in the draft Support and Sponsorship of Tauranga Community Facilities and Activities Policy:

(i) Rename the policy to reflect a wider approach.

(ii) Confirm the definition and use of support agreements as it is in the draft policy.

(iii) Confirm the definition and use of supporter as it is in the draft policy.

(iv) Confirm clause 5.1 that support opportunities are limited to community projects, facilities and activities.

(v) Confirm clause 5.2 to exclude entering into arrangements with parties whose values, practices or products conflict with the Council’s values and policies, or are injurious to health.

(vi) Confirm clause 5.4.2 to allow use of the Council name, logo or images in relation to support arrangements without Council approval unless specifically required.

(vii) Confirm clause 5.7.2 to use an open, competitive process to enter into sponsorship arrangements where that is practical.

(viii) Confirm clause 6.2 to use delegated authority limits for expenditure as a guide to delegated authority for Council staff entering into support arrangements of various values.

(c) Approves the draft Support and Sponsorship of Tauranga Community Facilities and Activities Policy for consultation with key stakeholders, subject to any amendments required to give effect to the decisions made under recommendation (b).

(d) Delegates to the General Manger: City Development & Partnerships the authority to amend the draft Support and Sponsorship of Tauranga Community Facilities and Activities Policy as required following the decisions made under recommendation (b) and make minor editorial or presentation changes to the draft policy for correction or clarity.

(e) Rescinds the following outdated policies:

(i) Community Share Agreements Policy; and

(ii) City Partnerships Policy.

(f) Delegates to staff the authority to make the marked-up amendments to the Naming Policy for consistency, when the Support and Sponsorship of Tauranga Community Facilities and Activities Policy is adopted.

Carried

10.6 Proposed Draft Amended Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy

Staff Sarah Omundsen, General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance

Jane Barnette, Policy Analyst

Steve Pearch, Manager: Building Services

Key Points

· The General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance provided a summary of the report.

In response to questions

· This was an existing policy that had been in place for ten years and as such staff were not expecting any submissions.

· The current Chief Executive had not declared a building dangerous under the Building Act 2004. Council would seek independent expert advice and be guided by that before declaring a building unsafe.

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/9

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Proposed Draft Amended Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings Policy".

(b) Approves the proposed draft amended Dangerous, Affected and Insanitary Buildings policy (Attachment One) and Statement of Proposal (Attachment Two) for community consultation.

(c) Authorises the General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance to make any necessary minor drafting or presentation changes to the draft Dangerous, Affected Building and Insanitary Buildings policy, the Statement of Proposal and related consultation material prior to the commencement of consultation.

Carried

10.7 Potential Expansion of Papamoa Mainstreet Targeted Rate Area

Staff Emily McLean, Programme Lead: City Development

Kendyl Sullivan, Team Leader: City Partnerships Specialist

Key Points

· The Programme Lead: City Development provided a summary of the report.

In response to questions

· This was essentially a self-driven process for Mainstreet organisations where Council provided support in terms of timing and the requirements needed for it to be brought before Council. It was clear this might be a challenge for Papamoa Mainstreet given their financial constraints at this time and was recommended they build sufficient financial balance to support this process.

· The draft report had been shared with Papamoa Unlimited, their feedback sought and incorporated into the final report. The biggest challenge for them was understanding the correct process to go through in order to be supported by Council.

· There was a minimal amount of money needed in order for Mainstreet organisations to professionally manage themselves. This was a challenge at this time for Papamoa Mainstreet particularly in terms of expansion.

· There were issues such as how much engagement was needed, whether existing members were willing to have their attention diluted into a wider area and, once a proposed expansion area was prepared, whether new members would be happy. If they were not, Council would then be asked to make a decision that could put them at direct odds with new members.

· Not going through the correct process could incur the risk of conflict with existing and new members. The onus was on Papamoa Unlimited to sell the ‘value proposition’ in terms of being a rate payer.

· It was up to Councillors to deliberate and decide if they preferred a different ballot win ratio than the one put forward in the report. It was about good decision making and what Council felt it needed in order to achieve this.

Discussion points raised

· To obtain an enduring and robust outcome for the community, this process needed to be led by the community. Council’s assistance with the process would be very valuable.

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/10

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

That the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Potential Expansion of Papamoa Mainstreet Targeted Rate Area".

(b) Supports Papamoa Unlimited commencing a process consistent with the attached expansion process document, and ensure they report back to this Committee periodically on progress.

Carried

10.8 Draft Alcohol Fees Bylaw

Staff Sarah Omundsen, General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance

Jane Barnette, Policy Analyst

Nigel McGlone, Manager: Environmental Regulation

Cr Rod Taylor withdrew from the meeting due to a conflict of interest and took no part in discussion or voting thereof.

Key Points

· The decision required today was to improve the draft bylaw as a tool to allow Councillors to set charges. It was not setting the charges. Any decisions that needed to be made on setting charges would be brought to Councillors at a later date when the draft bylaw was in place.

In response to questions

· Under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Regulations Act 2013 (the Act), Council had to undertake community consultation to decide whether it should set fees through a bylaw or using the prescribed fees as set out in the Act.

· Councillors could provide direction on the scope of the consultation to ensure that all sections of the community were aware of the consequences of the bylaw.

· There was a question for ratepayers as to how much they would be willing to subsidise alcohol licencing for premises and managers across the city. There was also targeted consultation required for those premises where the cost implications could have an impact.

· Managers licence fees were set by the Government and could not change. The charge of this did not cover the cost of administration and processing, which was a lot more. In order to balance 100% cost recovery, licences for premises carried the weight of this somewhat. Councillors would be provided with options around this when setting charges at a later date.

Discussion points raised

· It would be useful for Councillors to see what other councils were charging to provide some perspective in terms of numbers.

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/11

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

That the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Draft Alcohol Fees Bylaw".

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

(c) Authorises the General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance to make any necessary minor drafting or presentation changes to the draft Alcohol Fees Bylaw, the Statement of Proposal and related consultation material before consultation.

Carried

At 12.35pm the meeting adjourned.

At 1pm the meeting reconvened.

10.9 Library Community Hubs Cashless Payments

Staff Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Community Services

Joanna Thomas, Manager: Libraries & Community Hubs

Key Points

· Library cash payments were generally very small amounts. It was recognised this would be a change for cash paying library customers. The report detailed plans to help them adjust to this process so that no one was disadvantaged.

· Digital and finance staff had been working towards migrating payments into Council from the old unsupported system to the new SAP system. The payments would start migrating from July 2025. It was a cost saving not having cash as a payment option in the SAP system.

In response to questions

· The Reserve Bank had advised that Council had no obligation to obtain cash, but to ensure Council had reviewed its Terms and Conditions to ensure clarity with its customers before the change occurred.

· This report had been brought to this Committee to inform Councillors of what was happening at an operational level and in terms of transparency and information for the community.

Discussion points raised

· It was important to start advising the public at the earliest stage of the process.

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/12

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

That the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Library Community Hubs Cashless Payments".

(b) Notes the proposed approach for informing the community of the change.

Carried

10.10 Community Emergency Hub Pilot

Staff Barbara Dempsey, General Manager: Community Services

Paula Naude, Manager: Community Development & Emergency Management

Key Points

· This report was to advise Councillors about the Community Emergency Hub Programme pilot so that they were informed when staff undertook open events in their wards to help the community gain a better understanding of the project and how it would work for them in an emergency.

· Of particular concern was the loss of communication during an event and how to manage this.

· Marae were not included in this report as they were a separate programme of work under Marae preparedness and were already supported in a number of ways.

In response to questions

· Neighbourhood support groups were stakeholders in this space and were funded to deliver some safety aspects.

· Community wide meetings and extensive consultation with various stakeholders had taken place in terms of organisations wanting to partner with Council. The next stage of consultation would be directly with the organisations supporting this.

· There was nothing to prevent marae/iwi working with the organisations involved in the Community Emergency Hub Programme. Marae provided a place for people to sleep and be fed and had been provided with funding to be better able to cope with this in an event.

· In terms of risks for stakeholders, this was an initiative that they could use or not. Staff had consulted with Council’s legal team around this. If they chose to be involved, they were made aware of what support Council could offer them and worked together with them in terms of their capabilities.

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/13

Moved: Cr Hautapu Baker

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

That the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Community Emergency Hub Pilot".

Carried

10.11 Communication & Engagement - Our Changing Climate

Staff Emily McLean, (Programme Lead: City Development

Dan Smith, Manager: Sustainability and Waste

Lucy Brake, Strategic Community Relations Advisor

Anna Rengstedt, Team Leader: Climate & Sustainability

PowerPoint Presentation

Tabled Item: Cost Options for Investment in Engagement

Key Points

· The Manager: Sustainability and Waste spoke to a PowerPoint presentation providing key points on Tauranga’s two main climate challenges, Council’s statutory obligations, a timeline of what staff proposed to undertake and what other initiatives Council was involved in.

In response to questions

· The budget for this work was provided for in the Climate Action and Investment Plan which was funded through the LTP. Councillors were provided today with a table outlining low and value added cost options for the three year period. A critical factor was how wide an audience was wanting to be reached. It was important that it was a city wide approach.

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/14

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

That the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Communication & Engagement - Our Changing Climate".

(b) Approves progressing with the three-stage approach to engage with communities on our changing climate.

Carried

Attachments

1 Tabled Item: Cost Options for Investment in Engagement

10.12 Backflow Prevention Device Installs - Mount Maunganui and Te Papa Central Business Districts

Staff Wally Potts, Director of City Waters

Peter Bahrs, Manager: Water Services

Jack Furnish, Water Engineer

Key Points

· Backflow prevention devices were installed all around the city and were an ongoing piece of work. This had been brought to the Committee today as it financially affected a number of businesses in Mount Maunganui Central Business District (CBD).

In response to questions

· 100 devices had been installed around the city. Staff had received a quote for Mount Maunganui CBD and were confident the figure provided was adequate.

· The process involved a two to three hour water shut down of the water meter, excavation of the site and installation of the new device.

· The potential for a negative back flow was based on the potential risk of business activities undertaken via the water connection. A chemical producer was an example of high risk where any backflow could cause contamination.

· Generally, new buildings had backflow devices built into them, providing the level of risk was established before construction of the building. This could not be put into a consent process as a requirement.

· There had been some resistance to payment within the central business district however, the installation of these devices was a legislative requirement.

· Backflow devices were of mutual benefit to business properties within their local area in terms of preventing water backflow contamination, for example in the event of a water mains break where drinking water could be affected.

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/15

Moved: Cr Kevin Schuler

Seconded: Cr Steve Morris

That the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Backflow Prevention Device Installs - Mount Maunganui and Te Papa Central Business Districts".

(b) Approves the installation of required backflow prevention devices in the Mount Maunganui and Te Papa central business districts, to commence in February 2025.

(c) Approves on-charging the full costs of the backflow prevention devices and installation to customers via a single lump sum invoice.

Carried

10.13 Remote Metering Trial – Windermere

Staff Wally Potts, Director of City Waters

Peter Bahrs, Manager: Water Services

Jack Furnish, Water Engineer

Key Points

· The Windermere area was chosen as there had been specific challenges in this area with water leakage in the past, it was an appropriate size for a trial, and was a good area to test the technology.

In response to questions

· The current cost of a meter was circa $200. The expectation was it would be more economical to install these city-wide, given economies of scale and the added economic benefits post installation such as leak detection.

· Water leak detection was at the meter itself and read the usage through the meter. If no zero reading was taken over a 24 hour period, it indicated a leak. A third party system was used to read this information and set off an alarm.

· The part of the meter that communicated the data was not built into the meter mechanism itself and so could be retro-fitted which made it more efficient in terms of minimal shut down time and saved costs.

· If the business case was successful, it would be put forward for consideration in the LTP.

Committee Resolution CTE3/24/16

Moved: Cr Hautapu Baker

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Community, Transparency & Engagement Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Remote Metering Trial - Windermere".

(b) Notes that the Windermere remote metering trial is on track, with meters scheduled for installation March 2025.

(c) Notes that this trial is accompanied by a community engagement plan to ensure residents are aware of the trial and understand how remote metering can benefit them.

Carried

11 Discussion of late items

Nil

12 Closing karakia

Cr Baker closed the meeting with a karakia

The meeting closed at 2.11pm.

As this Committee was discharged by Council on 10 December 2024, the minutes are confirmed as a true and correct record by the Chairperson and Chief Executive

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

Cr Kevin Schuler

CHAIRPERSON

………………………………………

Marty Grenfell

CHIEF EXECUTIVE