|
31 May & 3 June 2021 |
MINUTES OF Western Bay of Plenty District Council
Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee
Meeting No. APLTP21-3
HELD IN THE Council Chambers, Barkes
Corner, Tauranga
ON Monday, 31 May 2021 AT 9.30am
1 Present
Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour (Chairperson), Cr G Dally, Cr M Dean, Cr J Denyer, Cr M Grainger, Cr M Gray, Cr K Marsh, Cr M Murray-Benge, Cr A Sole, Cr D Thwaites and Mayor G Webber
2 In Attendance
G Allis (Deputy CEO/Group Manager Infrastructure Services), R Davie (Group Manager Policy Planning and Regulatory Services), J Pedersen (Group Manager People and Customer Services), K Perumal (Group Manager Finance and Technology Services), E Watton (Policy and Planning Manager), P Watson (Reserves and Facilities Manager), D Pearce (Community Manager), D Jensen (Finance Manager), M Leighton (Senior Policy Analyst), J Rickard (Senior Policy Analyst), T Rutherford (Policy Analyst), G Payne (Strategic Advisor), and B Clarke (Senior Governance Advisor)
Community Boards
Nil.
Others
One member of the public.
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.1 Moved: Cr D Thwaites Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge That the apology for absence from Cr A Henry be accepted. It was noted that Cr Henry was on Bereavement Leave. |
4 Consideration of Late Items
Nil.
5 Declarations of Interest
A. Mayor Webber declared a Conflict of Interest in relation to the submission request for funding from Pirirākau Incorporated Society and, under the Community Building Activities topic, ‘The Incubator’. He noted he would take no part in the discussions arising or the voting thereon.
B. Cr Sole declared a Conflict of Interest in the Western Bay of Plenty Museum Society Katikati Incorporated, and noted that he would take no part in the discussion arising or voting thereon.
C. Cr Dean declared a Conflict of Interest in relation to the Waiariki Park Region and noted that he would take no part in the discussion arising or the voting thereon.
6 Public Excluded Items
Nil.
7 Public Forum
Nil.
8 Presentations
Nil.
9 Reports
|
9.1 Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Related Matters |
|
The Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee considered a report from the Policy and Planning Manager, who gave an introduction and spoke to Powerpoint Presentation (1) noting the following:
The report recommendations were structured into key categories as follows:
· Formally receive all feedback; · Consider the Consultation Document’s key proposals and related matters; · Consider the issues and options arising from community feedback; · Consider the other matters that were released for consultation concurrently with the Long Term Plan; · Consider internal submissions; · Consider re-budget proposals; · Discussion on the impacts on rates affordability - where Council would like to be positioned in relation to its key limits in the Financial Strategy; · Recommendations on responses to submitters.
Overview of community engagement was as follows:
· Phase one pre-engagement was from 9 March to 1 May 2020, and resulted in 27,274 pieces of feedback across all topics; · Phase two pre-engagement was from September to October 2020, resulted in 13,124 individual pieces of online feedback; · Phase three of community engagement on the Long Term Plan (LTP) was run in accordance with the Local Government Act (LGA) Special Consultative Procedure from 8 March to 9 April 2021. · The Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee had endorsed the consultation approach when adopting the Consultation Document and Supporting Information, on 23 February 2021.
Overview of feedback received through the formal consultation period was as follows:
· Overall, Council received 836 submissions through the range of opportunities to give feedback, with 3808 submission points reflected in the Issues and Options papers, which included proposed responses. · A total of 44,206 pieces of feedback had been received across the development of the LTP, and these informed the development of the consultation document and supporting information.
The Chairperson advised that the main recommendations from the agenda report would be taken in parts, as deliberative discussions would be held before each individual topic resolution was made, and in turn, these deliberations would inform the following ‘part resolutions’ taken from the agenda report main recommendations.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.2 – PART 1 OF THE REPORT MAIN recommendation Moved: Cr D Thwaites Seconded: Cr J Denyer 1. That
the Policy and Planning Manager’s report dated 31 May 2021, titled
‘Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and related
matters’, be received. 2. That
the report relates to an issue that is considered to be of high significance
in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. 3. That the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee receives all written and verbal feedback from the special consultative procedure from 8 March to 9 April 2021, as set out in Attachments 1- 4 of the agenda report. |
DELIBERATIONS
Key Proposals: Issues and Options for the six key proposals
|
9.1.1 Key Proposal – Issues and Options - Maintaining our Roading Network |
|
The Policy and Planning Manager noted that, within the agenda report, in section 8 there were a number of matters that were ‘for receipt only’, and these should be dealt with first. She also noted that all the reasons that had been provided had been taken from the ‘Advantages’ for each option, but were subject to any amendments or additions that the Committee wished to make.
In response to questions, the Committee was advised as follows:
· This was in relation to maintaining Council’s network, undertaking the rehabilitation needed on the network to do the reseals and some low cost improvements. The total $100m was already included in the LTP consultation document. · This would get Council through the next two years of the roading contract. It was still subject to Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency subsidy, which Council did not have an answer on yet. It was expected that when Council re-tendered, the cost would increase.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.1 Moved: Cr M Murray-Benge Seconded: Cr J Denyer 1. That Council incrementally increases rates to fund an increasing maintenance programme. The programme includes pavement rehabilitation, low cost low risk programme, seal widening and pavement surfacing.
2. That Council increases the budgets by $1.1 million per annum gross from 2022/23 and include low cost low risk projects.
This would amount to $100.54 million over the ten years of the Long Term Plan, of which $34.80 million is rates funded. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Road condition will be maintained. It is noted that this was subject to receiving Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency subsidy. · There was significant support for this option through the consultation process. · Road user safety risks will not increase. · Allows network seal widening deficiency to be addressed in some places. · Reduces sealed road maintenance costs. · Allows improvement works to be delivered with pavement renewals. · Matches investment with measured asset deterioration. · Allows more projects to be undertaken. · Works will be undertaken sooner to prevent further deterioration.
|
|
9.1.2 Key Proposal - Internal Submission - Transportation: Roading Contract – Budget Increase |
|
In response to a question, the Committee was advised that, in the event of flooding such as had recently occurred in Canterbury, none of Council’s budgets would be sufficient to cover such an eventuality.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.4 Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Mayor G Webber That Council increases funding, assuming matching Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency subsidy, makes contract adjustments to reduce cost and maintain the Level of Service. Budget Changes: 2021/22 Status quo, use levers to reduce contract cost and use current account 2022/23 $1.7 million increase and use levers 2023/24 $600,000 increase and use levers 2024/25 $1.9 million new contract estimate 2025/31 $1.9 million per annum new contract estimate.
Note 1. These budgets assume the additional renewal programme of $1.1 million per annum is funded. Note 2. Budgets are subject to obtaining Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency subsidy. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Reflects the reality of the situation and enables Council to maintain current levels of service. · Will improve safety outcomes. · Increases road user satisfaction. · Minimises asset ‘whole-of-life’ costs. · Minimises future contract cost increase risks. · Reduces community concerns. · Minimises reputational risks.
|
|
9.1.3 Key Proposal - Internal Submission - Transportation: Seal Extensions |
|
In response to questions, the Committee was advised as follows;
· In terms of this paper, the proposal was to use the same level of funding each year for 10 years, so this was a 10 year decision. If resolved, Council would be funding an increased amount of seal extension every year for 10 years. · From investigation, it was confirmed that what was in the budget, per discussions held in LTP workshops, Council had loan-funded a seal extension programme for three years of the 10 years, reverting back in year four. · $1m would generally fund the sealing of 2-3km of road, as it depended on where the road was, as to what standard was required. The full amount, which was $2m per annum, would fund 4-6km.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.5 Moved: Cr D Thwaites Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge 1. That the seal extension budget be increased by $1 million per annum for 10 years, the first three years loan-funded, with a repayment period of 10 years: · $850,000 loan funding · $150,000 rural roading financial contributions · $103,757 (per annum) loan service funded roading rate. 2. That the Seal Extension Policy review consider targeted reduction of dust to houses with the additional funding. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Council has received expressions indicating considerable pressure to increase the Seal Extension Programme and this would go ‘some considerable way’ to addressing that. · Council will review its Seal Extension Policy to ensure the criteria for prioritising road sealing is ‘fit-for-purpose’. · Additional seal extension of approximately 20-25km will be achieved. · Council recognises the wide range of benefits to people, communities and the environment that comes from sealing roads.
|
|
MINUTE NOTE:
Resolution APLTP21-3.5 above was revoked, in its entirety, by Resolution APLTP21-3.78 – Part 9 of the Report Recommendation during the reconvened meeting on 3 June 2021.
|
|
9.1.4 Key Proposal – Issues and Options – CCTV: Security Cameras |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.6 Moved: Cr M Murray-Benge Seconded: Cr M Gray That Council approves a budget of $50,000 per annum for the next three years, for new CCTV cameras, (preferred option in Council’s consultation document), and an additional 20% for operational costs. |
|
Reasons for Decision · This option had received the most support from submitters (favoured by 72% out of the total submissions). · Will enable Council to purchase new CCTV cameras for the District, which would act as a deterrent to criminal activity and aid policing matters by collecting visual evidence of criminal activities. · The Capital cost will remain each year at $50,000 and will not be affected by Operational costs. · Could be reviewed after three years.
|
|
9.1.5 Key Proposal – Internal Submission – Community Building: CCTV - Provision of Operational Funding |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.7 Moved: Cr M Dean Seconded: Cr G Dally Option 1: 1. That an annual budget provision of $52,500 be set aside for operational costs associated with Community Boards’ existing public safety stock of CCTV cameras.
2. That from 2022 to 2031 an additional $5,000 for each year be provided for operational costs associated with two cameras, purchased annually between 2022 and 2031.
3. That Community Boards can apply to the Council CCTV Fund.
4. That Community Board initiated CCTV cameras have to be approved by Council, in order for Council to fund the maintenance costs.
5. That, unless Council approves the installation of the new CCTV cameras, Community Boards cannot authorise new CCTV cameras. |
|
· Reflected the reality that operational costs were required to provide CCTV cameras. · Operational expenses, (including replacement costs), for existing and future proposed installations of CCTV cameras, within Community Board areas, will be budgeted for. · Community aspirations regarding the installation and maintenance costs relating to CCTV stock will be met.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.8 Moved: Cr M Murray-Benge Seconded: Cr M Grainger 1. That Council changes the areas of benefit, so that all rateable properties, (excluding Matakana Island), are included in an area of benefit for a community hall.
2. That these changes are made in accordance with the proposed geographical boundaries on the map included in Attachment 1 of the agenda report.
3. That Council confirms the areas of benefit for Otamarakau Hall, the Maketu community, Apata/Pahoia Hall and Pongakawa Hall are established, with no targeted rate set. The introduction of any targeted rate for community halls for these areas of benefit is subject to specific community consultation. |
|
Reasons for Decision
· Ensures that, for the Maketu community, an area of benefit is established for a future community hall.
|
|
9.1.7 Key Proposal – Internal Submission – Community Facilities – Community Hall Rates |
|
In response to a question, the Committee was advised that the original amounts had been based on figures provided by Consultants. However, they would be discussed with the Community Hall Committees, and would be adjusted based on those discussions and included with the planned programme for each of those Community Hall Committees.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.9 Moved: Cr M Murray-Benge Seconded: Mayor G Webber 1. That Council approves the maintenance costs schedule attached to the agenda report, for each Community Hall in its District, totalling $4,794,814 for the period of this Long Term Plan. (Note: this does not signify approval of the individual projects identified within the budget). 2. That Council approves a rate/per property for each Community Hall area of benefit on the schedule attached to the agenda report. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Community Hall committees will feel their work in reviewing costs would be justified. · Community Hall committees will have ‘buy in’ to the maintenance of their halls. · Community Hall committees feel more empowered to manage long term costs if their decisions are endorsed.
|
|
9.1.8 Key Proposal – Issues and Options – Community Facilities – Pukehina Hall Remediation |
|
In response to a question, the Committee was advised that the amount of $200,000 was included within the total of $4,794,814 for maintenance costs for each Community Hall in Council’s District.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.10 Moved: Cr K Marsh Seconded: Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour That Council approves loan funding of $200,000 for remediation of the Pukehina Hall weather tightness issues, to be funded over 10 years by a rate of $30.00 per property within the Pukehina Hall area of benefit. |
|
Reasons for Decision · There is considerable support for this option from the Pukehina Ratepayers and Residents Association and the wider community. · The new Hall Committee is already working hard to bring the hall up to Building Warrant of Fitness standards. · A community asset will be preserved.
|
|
9.1.9 Key Proposal – Issues and Options – Community Facilities – Te Puna Community Centre |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.11 Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Cr D Thwaites That Pirirākau be advised that Council will initiate a strategic assessment of community accommodation needs within the Te Puna area, in conjunction with Pirirākau and other community groups, and that a budget of $25,000 in 2022/23 be provided for that purpose. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Community accommodation needs for the whole Te Puna Community can be assessed and planned for. · A planned approach to future use of Council buildings and need for community accommodation in the Te Puna area can be assessed.
|
|
In response to a question, the Committee was advised that the second part of Option 1 made it clear that there would be criteria applied, and who was going to be eligible to live in these dwellings.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.12 Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Mayor G Webber 1. That Council retains and continues to operate elder housing, and redevelops its sites, over time, to increase the amount of housing available.
2. That Council prepares an operational policy for its elder housing activity that includes the criteria for setting rents, as outlined in the Section 17A review of the elder housing activity.
|
|
Reasons for Decision · Aligns with the majority of support received through consultation. · Enables Council to meet the key outcomes set out in its review of its Elder Housing activity, as expressed in Council’s Housing Action Plan, being that more affordable housing can be provided for elderly people. · It is administratively straightforward to deliver. · Will mean that the activity will be ‘self funding’.
|
|
9.1.11 Key Proposal – Issues and Options – Walking and Cycling |
|
In response to a question, the Committee was advised that there was a cycleway/walkway on the estuary side of Seaforth Road, Bowentown. It went through vegetation and took users to the housing area. There were patches towards the township where there was not a separate cycleway. It was not determined how many school children would be cycling 5-6km through to the school.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.13 Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Mayor G Webber That Council incrementally increases rates to fund an increased Walking and Cycling Development Programme.
Note 1: Over the 10 years of the LTP, this will result in an investment of $13.85 million from the Roading Rate and $2.7 million from Recreation and Open Spaces budget, (of which, 25% is rates funded and 75% is funded by financial contributions).
Note 2: This is the preferred option as per the LTP Consultation Document. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Will deliver the planned projects. · Will support community health and wellbeing. · Will create additional employment for the private delivery sector. · Will support the local economy. · The Walking and Cycling Strategy Action Plan will be implemented in a timely manner, to meet user expectations. · Viewed as a minor way of addressing the climate change issues the community is facing. · Provides safer options for cyclists rather than cycling on roads.
|
|
9.1.12 Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Related Matters |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.14 – PART 2 OF THE REPORT MAIN recommendation Moved: Cr G Dally Seconded: Cr M Grainger 4. That, in relation to the Consultation Document’s key proposals and related matters (as set out in Attachment 5 of the agenda report), the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee resolves the following preferred options [for the reasons stated]: Maintaining our Roading Network a) Key proposal: option [4] b) Roading contract budget increase: option [1] c) Seal extensions: option [2]. CCTV Security Cameras a) Key proposal: option [2B] b) Operational budget: [1]. Community Halls a) Key proposal: option [1] b) Community hall rates: option [1] c) Pukehina Hall remediation: option [1] d) Te Puna Community Centre: option [4]. Elder Housing a) Key proposal: option [1]. Walking and Cycling a) Key proposal: option [2]. Swimming Pools a) Key proposal: option [2]. |
|
MINUTE NOTE:
In the main recommendation No. 4 shown as Resolution APLTP21-3.15 above, it is noted that the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee resolved, during the reconvened meeting on 3 June 2021, in Resolution APLTP21-3.76 – Part 8 of the Report Main Recommendation, that the Committee would revisit the seal extension issues and options resolution: Part 4: Maintaining our Roading Network, Part (c) Seal Extensions. |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.15 Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Cr M Gray That Council confirms its levels of service for swimming pools and carries out its proposed investment programme to replace Te Puke Memorial Pool, undertake interim improvements until a new facility is open, upgrade Dave Hume Pool by providing an interim fabric roof enclosure, and purchase land in Ōmokoroa for future pool provision. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Enables proposed investment programme to be undertaken and collection of financial contributions to partially fund these facilities. · Aligns with the Bay of Plenty Spaces and Places Strategy, Council’s Recreation and Open Space Activity Plan and elected member decisions on the proposed level of service for swimming pools. · Enables external funding to be leveraged. · Gives effect to feedback received through the consultation process and the majority support received for this option. · Generates positive community interest toward recreation facilities and their development. · Submissions on specific features of pools can be considered through a work programme and community engagement on specific projects can take place as required. · Council viewed this as an investment in water safety for future generations.
|
The Policy and Planning Manager advised that the deliberative discussion and matters just resolved completed the matters that were outlined within number four of the main report recommendation, and that the Committee could now consider part 4 as a whole.
The Chairperson thanked her and put the following motion.
10.45am The meeting adjourned.
11.00am The meeting reconvened.
Issues and Options Papers – Matters arising from community feedback
|
9.2.1 Issues and Options – Other Matters – Planning for the Future: Rangiuru Business Park – Financial Contributions |
|
In response to a question, the Committee was advised that, in terms of the cost of capital recovered, this was about the Western Bay’s water supply.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.16 Moved: Cr M Murray-Benge Seconded: Mayor G Webber 1. That the revised Rangiuru Business Park financial contributions table, as submitted by Quayside Limited, be adopted.
2. That the schedule be updated to reflect the timing of development, expenditure and recovery over a 25 year period.
3. That the projects 350026 and 350027 for the water supply to Rangiuru Business Park be updated in accordance with Attachment 1 of the agenda report.
4. That Council will act as funder for $15m of infrastructure for the Rangiuru Business Park, recovered over the 25 year development of the park, from financial contributions. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Finally facilitates the commencement of the Rangiuru Business Park development. · The schedule reflects development and recovery timing. · Cost of capital recovered. · Approves Council’s commitment to fund $15 million, subject to a formal agreement. · Expenditure recovered from Financial Contributions. · Supports development of the Rangiuru Business Park. · Significant expenditure for Three Waters.
|
|
9.2.2 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Internal Submission – Rangiuru Business Park Roading |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.17 Moved: Cr K Marsh Seconded: Cr M Gray 1. That Council approves the inclusion of the Rangiuru Business Park roading projects in the Long Term Plan with the funding model of:
· Quayside 49%; · Waka Kotahi 51%.
2. That Council be the applicant for the Rangiuru Business Park projects (interchange and internal roads) to Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency.
3. That it be ‘agreed in principle’ that, if subsidised, the projects be delivered by Quayside Limited on behalf of Council.
4. That it be noted that inclusion of the projects impacts the capex profile and the internal and external reporting. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Supports the development of Rangiuru Business Park to enable economic development and employment. · Enables access to the Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency funding process. · Is consistent with the Rangiuru Business Park section of the District Plan.
|
|
9.2.3 Issues and Options – Other Matters – Planning for the Future – Social Wellbeing Audit |
|
In response to questions, the Committee was advised as follows:
· SociaLink had made a similar submission to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Tauranga City Council, which suggested they intended to look at all the policies and plans across the region, but through separate submissions to each council. · This Council could not commit to the review of other councils’ policies and plans, but could make a decision in relation to its own policies and plans. · Given the size of SociaLink’s organisation, it may not be realistic to expect audits of all three council’s to be undertaken within a three year period. SociaLink may wish to sequence each audit in a different way. · It was understood that the social wellbeing audit was generated in a conversation with the BOP Regional Council, and it was suggested to SociaLink that they make a submission to Western Bay of Plenty District Council and to Tauranga City Council, suggesting that a similar audit be undertaken.
|
|
MOTION
Moved: Mayor G Webber Seconded: Cr M Gray
Option 1: Amended as follows:
That Council approves funding of $20,000 in 2022/23 for SociaLink to undertake a social wellbeing audit of Western Bay of Plenty District Council’s policies, plans and activities, subject to a similar audit of Tauranga City Council’s and Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s policies, plans and activities being undertaken within the first three years of the LTP.
Reasons for Decision:
|
|
The motion was put and declared lost on the voices. A division was called and recorded as follows:
Division:
For the motion: Cr M Gray, Cr J Scrimgeour, and Mayor G Webber.
Against the motion: Cr G Dally, Cr M Dean, Cr J Denyer, Cr M Grainger, Cr K Marsh, Cr M Murray-Benge, Cr A Sole and Cr D Thwaites.
Absent: Cr A Henry.
The motion was declared lost.
|
|
FURTHER MOTION
The following motion was then put:
Moved: Cr D Thwaites Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge
Original Option 2:
That Council does not approve funding for SociaLink to undertake a social wellbeing audit of Western Bay of Plenty District Council’s policies, plans and activities.
The motion was put and declared carried on the voices. It became the substantive motion as follows:
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.18 – SUBSTANTIVE MOTION Moved: Cr D Thwaites Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge That Council does not approve funding for SociaLink to undertake a social wellbeing audit of Western Bay of Plenty District Council’s policies, plans and activities. |
|
Cr Gray voted against the motion and requested that her vote be recorded.
Reasons for Decision · There is a lack of scoping for this Council to be able to make a decision to fund $20,000. · Requires scoping and approval by all councils involved, prior to proceeding.
|
|
9.2.4 Issues and Options – Other Matters – Planning for the Future – Sport New Zealand |
|
In response to questions, the Committee was advised as follows:
· For clarification, this issues and options paper related to a submission from Sport NZ. Sport BOP was part of a separate paper and a separate submission. Council funded Sport BOP, which would be subject to discussion when the Committee considered that paper. · This request from Sport NZ was to fund three specific feasibility studies relating to disabilities in the District. The issues and options paper had been prepared in response to the submission that Council had received for that specific purpose. · Some of these projects were not specifically listed in Council’s capital programme, but they were identified in the Spaces and Places Strategy. This Council was one of six participating councils that operated a ‘funding split’, and these matters were dealt with on a ‘pro-rata’ basis. If this funding was approved, it would leverage other funding from Tauranga City Council, Kawerau District Council, Rotorua Lakes Council and others. · Sport BOP coordinated that work, but did not actually do that work, as it would require another layer of resource to deliver the coordination of the cycleway, the water access strategy and more.
This was a large body of work with a high volume of research and engagement undertaken with different sports clubs. Sport NZ was advocating that Council put funding towards achieving the implementation of the Spaces and Places Strategy. They had taken a similar submission to all the participating councils.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.19 Moved: Mayor G Webber Seconded: Cr A Sole That Council does not approve funding of $50,000 to be allocated towards supporting the implementation of the Bay of Plenty Spaces and Places Strategy and the priority projects identified within this strategy. |
|
Reasons for Decision · It is the responsibility of the participating councils to implement the plans that come out of the Spaces and Places Strategy. · This does not prevent the progression of the implementation of the Spaces and Places Strategy.
|
|
9.2.5 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Community Building – Western Bay of Plenty Museum Society Katikati Incorporated |
|
Cr A Sole declared a Conflict of Interest in the Western Bay of Plenty Museum Society Katikati Incorporated, and took no part in the discussion or voting thereon.
The Community Manager introduced the item, noting that the museum was seeking funding of $70,000 per annum for a museum qualified Collections Curator and that there was no staff recommendation on this matter. He reminded Council that it already contributed $70,000 per annum by way of a service delivery contract.
In response to a question, the Committee was advised as follows:
· The museum deemed the Collections Curator to be the greatest priority, and their storage facility was the second priority. Their view was that the Curator would help with the generation of funding to secure the storage unit. · If their request was declined, they would be disappointed but would understand that there were other applications being considered. They were also seeking funding from other sources. They had a good track record, were keen to progress and believed this was the next step.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.20 Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Cr D Thwaites That Council approves funding of $70,000 per annum, from year 2022/23 onwards, towards a Museum Qualified Collections Curator, funded from General Rates. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Collection Development - Helping to rationalise and develop the Museum’s collection. This will reduce storage costs and make the Museum’s collection more historically relevant.
· Enables return of Artifacts - Having a qualified Collections Curator and facility compliant storage will enable the return of artifacts.
· Training - Staff and volunteers and interns could work towards Museum qualifications, under the Museum qualified Collections Curator.
· Professional Support - Te Papa National Services Te Paerangi see the Western Bay Museum as a leader in the Museum sector in what small regional Museums can achieve whilst maintaining the Code of Ethics and the highest sector standards. The continuation of this special relationship is vital.
|
|
The motion was put and declared carried on the voices. A division was called and was recorded as follows:
Division:
For the motion: Cr G Dally, Cr M Dean, Cr J Denyer, Cr M Grainger, Cr M Murray-Benge, Cr D Thwaites and Cr J Scrimgeour.
Against the motion: Cr M Gray and Cr K Marsh.
Abstained: Mayor Webber.
Conflict of Interest: Cr A Sole (did not vote).
Absent: Cr A Henry.
The motion was declared carried.
|
|
9.2.6 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Community Building – Heritage BOP Charitable Trust |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.21 Moved: Cr M Murray-Benge Seconded: Cr M Grainger That Council does not approve funding of $40,000 + GST in 2021/22 to contribute to Taonga Tauranga Heritage Bay of Plenty Charitable Trust’s development of an independent Regional Intent for Tauranga city / Western Bay of Plenty.
|
|
Reasons for Decision · Council will continue to decide what it does with Heritage investment. · Council could reconsider its position in the future.
|
|
The motion was put and declared carried on the voices. A division was called and was recorded as follows:
Division:
For the motion: Cr J Denyer, Cr M Grainger, Cr M Gray, Cr K Marsh, Cr M Murray-Benge, Cr D Thwaites, Cr A Sole and Cr J Scrimgeour.
Against the motion: Cr G Dally, Cr M Dean and Mayor Webber
Absent: Cr A Henry.
The motion was declared carried.
|
|
9.2.7 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Community Building – The Incubator |
|
Mayor Webber declared a Conflict of Interest in relation to The Incubator Creative Hub and took no part on the discussion or voting thereon.
MOTION
Moved: Cr G Dally Seconded: Cr G Dean
Option 1: Amended as follows:
That Council funds $20,000 for the first year, and an additional $5,000 each year for ten years for the operational costs of The Incubator.
The motion was put and declared lost on the voices. The following motion was then put.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.22 Moved: Cr M Murray-Benge Seconded: Cr K Marsh That Council does not approve funding of $50,000 for The Incubator but retains the $20,000 per annum that is currently funded from General Rates. |
|
Cr Dally voted against the motion and requested that his vote against be recorded.
Reasons for Decision
· Continues supporting the Arts and Culture sector to the level they have been supported.
|
|
9.2.8 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Community Building – Museum Visitor Centre (Le Quesnoy) |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.23 Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Cr M Gray That Council declines the request from the New Zealand Memorial Museum Trust for funding to support the establishment of a New Zealand Memorial Museum in Le Quesnoy, France. |
|
Reason for Decision · Council supports the Museum Trust proposal in principle.
|
|
9.2.9 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Community Building – Tauranga Art Gallery |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.24 Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge That Council does not approve funding of $65,000, but increases the current funding of $35,000 per annum to $40,000 per annum (inflation adjusted), funded from general rates. |
|
Reasons for Decision
· $5,000 per annum increase is relatively small for Council, but would be of great assistance to the Art Gallery. |
|
9.2.10 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Community Building – Te Ranga Reserve / Historic Park |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.25 Moved: Cr D Thwaites Seconded: Cr M Dean 1. That Council joins the Pukehinahina Charitable Trust, Tauranga City Council and Ngai Tamarāwaho in support of the proposed work to develop Te Ranga Reserve, and the efforts to secure funding for the cost of developing Te Ranga Reserve; and
2. That Council provides a contribution of $50,000 per year for three years (2023, 2024, and 2025) towards the cost of developing the reserve, subject to the balance of the cost being secured from other funding sources. The contribution will be funded from the fund for supporting iwi/hapū management plans and Te Ara Mua implementation. |
|
Reasons for Decision
· Council’s contribution is dependant on the balance of the cost of developing Te Ranga Reserve being secured.
|
|
9.2.11 Other Matters – Issues and Options – Community Facilities – Waihī Beach Library |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.26 Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge That the timing of the Waihī Beach Library project be brought forward as shown in Attachment 1 of the agenda report, with consultation and site selection in 2021/22. |
|
Reasons for Decision · An early site selection allows clear planning and design process. · A new facility will be available sooner.
|
|
9.2.12 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Recreation and Open Space – Request for Funding for Four Interpretive Panels Depicting Tangata Whenua History |
|
In response to a question, the Committee was advised that any panels that were to be constructed in time and the knowledge on those panels, would be subject to the approval of the relevant hapū. Staff would support the Waihī Beach Community Board in that regard.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.27 Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Mayor G Webber That Council does not approve funding of $20,000 for four interpretive panels in the 2021/22 financial year, and that the Waihī Beach Community Board fund the interpretive panels from their reserve account. |
|
Reasons for Decision · The panels could proceed if funded by the Waihī Beach Community Board. · Engagement with Tangata Whenua is critical prior to any decisions being made.
|
|
9.2.13 Other Matters - Issues and Options - Recreation and Open Space - Maketu School Facilities |
|
In response to questions, the Committee was advised as follows:
· For clarification in Option 1, for Hardcourt Refurbishment and Synthetic Grass, the intention was for the year 2021/22 (not 2021/23), and should read 2021/22 accordingly. · The Facilities in the Community Fund would normally be open for applications in March-April 2022, with the intention that funds would be drawn down at the start of the following financial year, which was 2022/23.
MOTION
Moved: Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour Seconded: Cr K Marsh
Option 1: Amended as follows:
That Council approves a 50% contribution to the Maketu School facilities funded from the Facilities in the Community Fund:
2021/22 Hardcourt Refurbishment and Synthetic Grass $26,000
Subject to:
1. The school raising the balance of the funding; 2. The school entering into an ongoing public access agreement;
AND
That the Council notes that this is an early commitment to the next Facilities in the Community Fund.
|
|
AMENDMENT
Moved: Cr M Dean Seconded: Cr G Dally
Option 1: Further Amended as follows:
That Council approves a 50% contribution to the Maketu School facilities funded from general rates:
2021/22 Hardcourt Refurbishment and Synthetic Grass $26,000
Subject to:
1. The school raising the balance of the funding; 2. The school entering into an ongoing public access agreement.
|
|
In relation to the Amendment, a division was called and was recorded as follows:
Division:
For the amendment: Cr. G Dally and Cr. M Dean.
Against the amendment: Cr. J Denyer, Cr M Grainger, Cr M Gray, Cr K Marsh, Cr M Murray-Benge, Cr A Sole, Cr D Thwaites, Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour, and Mayor Webber
Absent: Cr A Henry.
The amendment was declared lost. The original motion was then put.
|
|
ORIGINAL MOTION
Moved: Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour Seconded: Cr K Marsh
Option 1 Amended as follows:
That Council approves a 50% contribution to the Maketu School facilities funded from the Facilities in the Community Fund:
2021/22 Hardcourt Refurbishment and Synthetic Grass $26,000
Subject to:
1. The school raising the balance of the funding; 2. The school entering into an ongoing public access agreement;
AND
That the Council notes that this is an early commitment to the next Facilities in the Community Fund.
The original motion was declared carried on the voices. It became the substantive motion as follows:
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.28 Moved: Cr M Gray Seconded: Mayor G Webber That Council approves a 50% contribution to the Maketu School facilities funded from the Facilities in the Community Fund: 2021/22 Hardcourt Refurbishment and Synthetic Grass $26,000 Subject to: 1. The school raising the balance of the funding 2. The school entering into an ongoing public access agreement AND That the Council notes that this is an early commitment to the next Facilities in the Community Fund. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Gives an opportunity to proceed with the hardcourt facility. · Provides certainty of $26,000 towards the refurbishment costs for the hardcourt facility. · Gives the Maketu School and the Maketu community the opportunity to discuss the best location for the playground facility. · Upgraded facilities would be available for the community. · The School would need to obtain other grants to match Council’s contribution. · Council considers that it would be beneficial for children to have greater opportunities to participate in Sport.
|
12.45pm The meeting adjourned.
1.15pm The meeting reconvened.
Issues and Options Papers – Matters arising from Community Feedback Continued
|
9.2.14 OTHER MATTERS - ISSUES AND OPTIONS – RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE – MIDWAY PARK, PUKEHINA |
|
MOTION
Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge
Option 2:
That Council does not bring forward project 2468-10 Midway Park - $65,000 from the 2024/25 financial year to the 2021/22 financial year, and that consideration on whether the funding could be allocated to other facilities in Midway Park be done through the review of the Maketu/Te Puke Ward Reserve Management Plan review.
|
|
AMENDMENT
Moved: Cr G Dally Seconded: Cr M Gray
Option 1 Amended as follows:
That Council brings forward funding for project 2468-10 Midway Park from the 2024/25 financial year to the 2023/24 financial year.
In relation to the Amendment, a division was called and was recorded as follows:
Division:
For the amendment: Cr G Dally, Cr M Dean, Cr J Denyer, Cr M Gray, Cr K Marsh, Cr A Sole Cr D Thwaites and Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour.
Against the amendment: Cr M Grainger, Cr M Murray-Benge, and Mayor G Webber
Absent: Cr A Henry.
The amendment was declared carried.
|
|
The Amendment was then put as the substantive motion. In relation to the Amendment put as the substantive motion, a division was called and was recorded as follows:
Division:
For the amendment: Cr G Dally, Cr M Dean, Cr M Gray, Cr K Marsh, Cr D Thwaites and Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour.
Against the amendment: Cr J Denyer, Cr M Grainger, Cr M Murray-Benge, Cr A Sole, and Mayor G Webber
Absent: Cr A Henry.
The amendment was declared carried. The Amendment then became the substantive motion.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.29 Moved: Cr G Dally Seconded: Cr M Gray That Council brings forward funding for project 2468-10 Midway Park from the 2024/25 financial year to the 2023/24 financial year. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Allows for further consideration on reallocation of funds for other recreation facilities in Midway Park. · No impact on rates. · Funds are budgeted in 2023/24.
|
|
9.2.15 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Recreation and Open Space – Moore Park |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.30 Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge That Council increases the budget for project 2129-12 Moore Park Toilets from $122,000 up to $350,000 ($228,000 increase) and moves the funding to the 2023/24 financial year to align with the proposed new facility. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Consistent with the approach for Pukehina Surf Club and Ōmokoroa Pavilion. · Increased funding will assist with building costs of the new facility, when it proceeds.
|
|
9.2.16 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Recreation and Open Spaces – Omokoroa Bike Park |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.31 Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Mayor G Webber 1. That Council declines the request to include $25,000 in the 2021/22 Financial Year and $100,000 in the 2022/23 Financial Year for the construction of a bike park in Ōmokoroa.
2. That it be requested that the Chief Executive Officer directs staff, in conjunction with the submitter, to identify a number of potential sites in Ōmokoroa for a bike park, and to analyse the pros and cons of each site, before reporting back to Council with costed options for consideration in the 2022/23 Annual Plan and Budget process. |
|
Reasons for Decision · The imminent Structure Plan Review should identify potential locations for a bike park facility. · Allows for external funding to be considered.
|
|
9.2.17 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Recreation and Open Spaces – Opureora Marae Coastal Protection Works |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.32 Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Cr J Denyer 1. That Council, as adjoining land owner, supports any future Resource Consent application for erosion protection works along the coastal boundary of the Opureora Marae.
2. It is noted that this includes the waiving of any Western Bay of Plenty District Council resource consent application fees, and
3. Includes Council funding $200,000 of the total construction costs from Council’s Transportation budget to provide erosion prevention to the adjoining section of public road. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Aligns with Council’s Coastal Erosion Responses Policy. · Protects the main transportation link for the local community. · Adjoining land owner / Territorial Local Authority support for an outcome that is difficult to achieve in a tough regulatory environment. · Less cost than Council going it alone in the future to protect public infrastructure (road). · Does not require Council project management / resourcing.
|
|
9.2.18 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Recreation and Open Spaces – Te Puke Gymsport |
|
In response to a question, the Committee was advised that Option 2 was to decline the request based on the facts that Council had contributed $18,000 towards a feasibility study a few years ago, and had also allocated land (which had value) for the project subject to it proceeding.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.33 Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge That Council does not approve any funding as a capital contribution towards the construction of the proposed Te Puke Gymsport Facility, but will provide a letter of support for funding applications prepared by Te Puke Gymsport, on the basis that Council has already provided a contribution of $18,000 towards the feasibility study and had allocated land for the building on Centennial Park. |
|
Reasons for Decision · No financial implications for Council. · Council is contributing 2000m2 of land estimated to be valued at $98,453. · Council is keen to see this project proceed. |
|
9.2.19 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Recreation and Open Space – Te Tawa Ki Tahataharoa |
|
In response to questions, the Committee was advised as follows:
· This paper related to future funding. Because the development of the cycleway was part of this development, Council did not require the funding for maintenance in the first years. On this basis, it was possible this matter could lie on the table; or it could be left in the LTP and be reviewed in the future. · If Council left this in the LTP, it would demonstrate Council’s commitment to the project. If the project was not progressing as the Council saw fit, there would be an opportunity to revisit the decision in future. · Part of the process that had to be worked through, in dialogue with the hapū, was identifying expectations. · Irrespective of the cycleway issue, this was about funding towards maintaining and enhancing the environmental and ecological aspects of the waterways. · This would be a joint management process with an agreed purpose for the area for the restoration. Funding would be put to environmental improvements and achieving public access. Some of the work that had been undertaken in the area had been done by Council’s contractors and some had been done by hapū contractors.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.34 Moved: Cr M Dean Seconded: Mayor G Webber That Council approves an increase of $10,000 from $20,000 to $30,000, to LTP project 306403 (Environment Support - Tahataharoa Long Term Wetland Restoration) from 2023/24, noting that this aligns with Council’s original proposal for this project. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Responds to increased operational costs. · Improved environmental and cultural outcomes. · Improved visitor experience.
|
|
9.2.20 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Recreation and Open Spaces – Thompsons Track Recreational Development |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.35 Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge That Council agrees to fund $15,000 in 2023/24 for a feasibility report to consider the issues, options and cost estimates to achieve a cycleway/walkway link via Thompsons Track, over to the Waikato side of the Kaimai Ranges, funded from general rates. |
|
Reasons for Decision · The implications and costs are better understood. · Issues and opportunities are identified. · Responds to the submission from the Department of Conservation. · The feasibility report would support external funding applications.
|
|
9.2.21 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Recreation and Open Space – Wilson Park Request for Larger Budget to Implement the Concept Plan |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.36 Moved: Cr A Sole Seconded: Cr M Dean That Council approves $25,000 of funding brought forward from 2022/23 to 2021/22 to undertake the Wilson Park Concept Plan review. |
|
Reason for Decision
|
|
9.2.22 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Recreation and Open Spaces – Te Puna Quarry Park |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.37 Moved: Cr M Dean Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge That Council approves funding of $90,000 in 2022/23, for the kerbing, channelling and sealing of the Te Puna Quarry Park carpark, and the Operational Expenses (OPEX) budget increase by $3,000. |
|
Reasons for Decision · This is a significant visitor attraction in the District. · Dust issues will be significantly reduced. · Improved visitor experience and satisfaction. · Better efficiency for car parking, as line marking can be done.
|
|
9.2.23 Other Matters - Issues and Options - Development Costs |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.38 Moved: Cr M Gray Seconded: Mayor G Webber
1.
That Council continues with the 50% reduction in Financial
Contributions (FINCO’s) that are available for Papakainga developments
that have been through the Papakainga Toolkit process (or similar) and the
abatement fund for application fees for Papakainga. 2. That to progress Council’s direction, as set out in the Housing Action Plan, Council requests that the Chief Executive Officer directs that the Policy and Planning Work Programme for 2021/22, includes a review of the Financial Contribution (FINCO) Policy and the Fees and Charges Policies, to explore an alterative approach for Papakainga and social/community housing projects.
|
|
Reasons for Decision · Enables Council to continue applying the agreed policy to support Papakainga and “like” housing developments. · Provides a clear process for considering how Council may charge for social / community housing projects, in the context of the District Plan review. · Aligns with Council’s agreed action in the Housing Action Plan to investigate fee reductions and waivers to support affordable housing developments.
|
|
9.2.24 Other Matters - Issues and Options - Regulatory Services - Financial Contributions Assessment - Te Puke Baptist Church |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.39 Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Cr M Dean That Council applies the policy exception currently applicable to Papakainga developments, which would enable a 50% reduction of the applicable Financial Contributions to $61,485 (excluding GST) |
|
Reasons for Decision · Enables this social housing project to take advantage of the special financial contributions policy exception currently only available to papakainga developments. · Reduces, to an extent, the overall cost of financial contributions and may be enough of a reduction for the project to still be considered commercially viable, and therefore proceed. · Aligns with Council’s agreed action in the Housing Action Plan to investigate fee reductions and waivers to support affordable housing developments.
|
|
9.2.25 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Transportation - Wednesday Challenge Initiative |
|
The Policy and Planning Manager noted that the supporting information in the consultation document included the Climate Change Action Plan, which Council had endorsed in the development of the LTP. This Plan clearly set out Council’s intentions to address climate change from both adaptation and mitigation perspectives over the coming three years of this LTP, and for Council to revisit in 2024.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.40 Moved: Cr M Murray-Benge Seconded: Cr A Sole That Council does not contribute funding towards the Wednesday Challenge Initiative. |
|
Reason for Decision · Council considers there are other ways to approach climate change mitigation.
|
|
9.2.26 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Stormwater – Highfields Pond |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.41 Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Mayor G Webber That Council allocates $130,000 in the 2022/23 financial year to undertake improvements at the Highfields stormwater pond. |
|
Reasons for Decision · This is following on the trial work Council undertook, and is the appropriate response. · Improved aesthetics of pond. · Improved recreational use of pond.
|
|
9.2.27 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Stormwater – Stormwater Control - Waihī Beach |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.42 Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Cr M Dean 1. That Council re-budgets existing storm water projects, as outlined in Appendix B of the agenda report, to complete Two Mile Creek works.
2. That Council review the Storm Water Works Programme if Two Mile Creek does not proceed.
|
|
Reasons for Decision · Taking a pragmatic, ‘best practice’ approach to stormwater project management. · Continued expenditure as per the draft LTP. · Reduces risk of flooding for some properties. · Considered the best overall value for money.
|
|
9.2.28 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Natural Environment and Sustainable Living – Funding for Otanewainuku Kiwi Trust |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.43 Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge 1. That Council approves funding of $30,000 per annum from Ecological Financial Contributions, to Otanewainuku Kiwi Trust, as a contribution to efficient and cost effective ongoing pest control and associated activities that envisages the use of toxins to a significant degree in addition to trapping.
2. That Council does NOT approve a contribution towards the employment of a part time General Manager for the Otanewainuku Kiwi Trust.
3. That Council approves funding to Otanewainuku Kiwi Trust of $50,000 per annum for two years, from Ecological Financial Contributions, for the purposes of costs associated with a Kiwi Inclusion Fence project. |
|
Cr Gray voted against the motion and requested that her vote against be recorded.
Reasons for Decision · Regular financial support for one of the Districts premier environmental groups. · Council supports effective pest control methods. · Council does not incur risk by committing to an unsubstantiated proposal. · Funding is available in a Natural Environment operational budget funded by ecological financial contributions. · No rates funding needed. · Seed funding would ‘kick start’ this project to be given a high priority and some sense of urgency for Otanewainuku Kiwi Trust.
|
|
9.2.29 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Natural Environment and Sustainable Living – Maketu Ongatoro Wetland Society Funding |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.44 Moved: Cr M Gray Seconded: Cr K Marsh That Council approves an increase in funding from $27,430 to $35,000 per annum, to Maketu Ongatoro Wetland Society, with the increase being funded equally by Ecological Financial Contributions and the Environment Protection Rate. |
|
Reasons for Decision · 50% of the increase would come from existing ecological financial contributions ($3,785). · Ability to meet increasing demand from Te Puke High School. · Ability to include Rangiuru School. · An increase in this contract will give us greater across District equity when compared to the Ecology Contract (Wild about NZ $51,500) which is predominantly operating in the western part of the District. · This increase is a more accurate reflection of the quality of this service which has been over delivering since its inception in 2015. · Shows support for a successful environmental care group and assists in fulfilling goals of the Natural Environment strategy.
|
|
9.2.30 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Natural Environment and Sustainable Living – Waiariki Park Region |
|
Cr Dean declared a Conflict of Interest in relation to the Waiariki Park Region and he took no part in the discussion or the voting thereon.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.45 Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge That Council does not approve funding of $20,000 per annum for three years, towards the establishment of the Waiariki Park Region. |
|
Reason for Decision · Council notes that this duplicates its Reserve Management Plans and the work of other organisations.
|
|
|
|
9.2.31 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Natural Environment and Sustainable Living – Ōmokoroa Greenwaste |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.46 Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Mayor G Webber 1. That Council approves removing the recycling staff costs from the calculations of the Ōmokoroa Greenwaste Targeted Rates.
2. That Council retains the 2021 Ōmokoroa Greenwaste Targeted Rates at $54.88 for 2021/22.
3. That Council approves funding $400,000 of the Ōmokoroa Greenwaste current account deficit from the Environmental Protection Rate Reserve.
4. That Council undertakes a review of:
· Recycle centre operations; · Future management of waste in the District; · The funding and financing model.
As a result of the establishment of the kerbside collection system. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Reduces Targeted Rates. · Addresses Ōmokoroa Greenwaste Current Account Deficit. · Addresses submitters concerns re the overheads.
|
|
9.2.32 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Economic Development – Te Puke Economic Development Group (EDG) |
|
In response to a question, the Committee was advised that Option 2 noted that the review would be undertaken as part of preparing the next Long Term Plan. It could be started sooner but would feed into that next LTP.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.47 Moved: Cr M Murray-Benge Seconded: Mayor G Webber That Council does not approve funding of $50,000, for Te Puke EDG to manage a localised Tourism Promotional and Development fund, but Council will undertake a review of its economic activity as part of preparing its Long Term Plan 2024-34. |
|
Reason for Decision · Council have begun conversations with Tourism Bay of Plenty to get them to reprioritise their investments in the Western Bay area.
|
|
9.2.33 Other Matters - Issues and Options – Finance – Pukehina Development Fund |
|
In response to a question, the Committee was advised that Council planned to have a ‘purpose designed’ consultation process with clearly articulated options, which would cover all ratepayers in the area. Council would re-check with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council regarding waste water and their predictive modelling about the demand requirement for a reticulated system in the future.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.48 Moved: Cr K Marsh Seconded: Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour 1. That Council consult with the Pukehina Beach ratepayers during the 2021/22 financial year regarding;
a) Continuing or ceasing the rate; b) Repurposing the rate and reserve balance; and
2. That the outcome of the consultation be implemented in the 2022/23 Annual Plan.
|
|
Reasons for Decision · Council needs to determine whether continued funding for wastewater schemes is appropriate for Pukehina. · Consultation can be undertaken without pressure of Annual Plan process restrictions. · The future of the Reserve will be addressed ahead of the Government Three Waters Reform.
|
The Policy and Planning Manager advised that the Committee had now concluded its deliberations on the matters set out in the report main recommendation No.5, and the Committee may now wish to consider that recommendation as a whole.
The Chairperson put the following motion, being No.5 and Part 3 of the report main recommendation.
|
9.2.34 Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Related Matters |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.49 - PART 3 OF THE REPORT MAIN RECOMMENDATION Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Cr D Thwaites 5. That in relation to the issues and options arising from community feedback (as set out in Attachment 5), the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee resolves the following preferred options [for the reasons stated]:
Planning for the future
a) Rangiuru Development: options [1 & 2] b) Rangiuru Business Park roading: option [1] c) Social wellbeing audit: option [1] d) Sport New Zealand: option [1].
Community building
a) Western Bay of Plenty Museum Society Katikati Incorporated: option [1] b) Heritage Bay of Plenty Charitable Trust: option [2] c) Incubator: option [2] d) Museum Visitor Centre, Le Quesnoy: option [1] e) Tauranga Art Gallery: option [3] f) Te Ranga Reserve historic park: option [1].
Community facilities
a) Waihī Beach library: option [1].
Recreation and open space
a) Interpretative panels: option [2] b) Maketu School facilities: option [1] c) Midway Park Pukehina: option [1] d) Moore Park: option [1] e) Ōmokoroa Bike Park: option [2] f) Opureora Marae coastal protection works: option [1] g) Te Puke Gymsport: option [2] h) Te Tawa Ki Tahataharoa: option [1] i) Thompsons Track recreational development: option [1] j) Wilson Park concept plan implementation: option [1] k) Te Puna Quarry Park: option [2].
Regulatory services
a) Development Costs: option [1] b) Financial contribution assessment – Te Puke Baptist Church: option [3].
Transportation
a) Wednesday Challenge initiative: option [2].
Stormwater
a) Highfields Pond: option [1] b) Stormwater control – Waihī Beach: option [1].
Natural environment and sustainable living
a) Funding for Otanewainuku Kiwi Trust: option [1 & 4 & 5] b) Maketu Ongatoro Wetland Society funding: option [1] c) Waiariki Park region: option [2].
Solid Waste
a) Ōmokoroa greenwaste: option [1].
Economic development
a) Te Puke Economic Development Group: option [2].
Finance
a) Pukehina Development Fund: option [1].
|
The Chairperson advised a member of the public who was present, that the meeting would now be adjourned for the purpose of holding a Policy Workshop, which had been scheduled to begin at 1.30pm, and could not be delayed. Staff advised that the Committee meeting would reconvene following the workshop, and the member of the public was welcome to return to attend the reconvened meeting if he wished.
2.35pm The meeting adjourned.
3.15pm The meeting reconvened.
Other Consultation Items
|
9.3 Other Consultation Items - Issues and Options – Wastewater – Multiple Plan Wastewater Remissions Policy |
|
The Policy and Planning Manager noted that Council would be notifying the revised Multiple Plan Wastewater Remissions Policy for adoption at its Council meeting scheduled on 29 June 2021. Councillors would be able to ensure that the amendments required has been added at that time.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.50 Moved: Mayor G Webber Seconded: Cr K Marsh 1. That Council approves the proposed changes to the Multiple Pan Wastewater Remissions Policy, and makes the further change to the policy:
· that the requirement to apply annually for the remission be removed; and
2. That Council adopts the revised Multiple Pan Wastewater Remissions Policy to come into effect on 1 July 2021. |
|
Reasons for Decision · The proposed changes reflect direction from the Committee. · The proposed policy supports the general current approach. · The proposed policy recognises the important contribution to community wellbeing of Council Community Halls and Marae. · Encourages connections to Council’s wastewater network and improves environmental wellbeing. · Meets the majority of submitters’ feedback. As per option 1. · Responds to submitters’ comments. · Simplifies the administration of the policy. · Similar to the approach other councils use. · Direction to staff on Clarification.
|
|
Staff advised that, under Council’s Standing Order 4.2 titled ‘Meeting Duration’, a meeting could not continue more than six hours from when it started (including any adjournments), unless the meeting resolved to continue.
The Chairperson put the following motion to the Committee:
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.51 Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Cr J Denyer That Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee meeting No. APLTP21-3 be continued at 3.20pm for the purpose of proceeding with deliberations in relation to agenda business. |
|
9.3.2 Other Consultation Items - Issues and Options – Revenue and Financing Policy |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.52 Moved: Cr M Murray-Benge Seconded: Cr M Gray That Council approves the proposed changes to the Revenue and Financing Policy as per the Statement of Proposal and adopts the revised Revenue and Financing Policy to come into effect on 1 July 2021. |
|
Reason for Decision · Enables Council to adopt the Revenue and Financing Policy in the timeline required to adopt the 2021-31 Long Term Plan.
|
|
9.3.3 Other Consultation Items - Issues and Options – Water Supply - Water Rates Remission Policy |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.53 Moved: Cr M Dean Seconded: Cr G Dally That Council approves the proposed changes to the Water Rates Remission Policy and adopts the revised Water Rates Remission Policy to come into effect on 1 July 2021. |
|
Reasons for Decision · The proposed changes reflect direction from the Committee. · The policy supports the current approach and provides increased clarity. · Meets the majority of submitters’ feedback.
|
|
9.3.4 Other Consultation Items - Issues and Options - Fees and Charges 2021-2022 |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.54 Moved: Mayor G Webber Seconded: Cr M Grainger That Council approves the Draft Fees and Charges Schedule for 2021/2022. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Council’s Fees and Charges are set to reflect the costs of services.
|
|
9.3.5 Deliberations of the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Related Matters |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.55 - PART 4 OF THE REPORT MAIN RECOMMENDATION Moved: Mayor G Webber Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge 6. That in relation to the following matters released for consultation concurrently with the Long Term Plan (as set out in Attachment 5), the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee resolves the following preferred options [for the reasons stated]: a) Multiple Pan Wastewater Remission Policy: option [3] b) Revenue and Financing Policy: option [1] c) Water Rates Remission Policy: option [1] d) Schedule
of Fees and Charges 2021/22: option [1]. 7. The Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee requests that the Chief Executive Officer directs staff to present the final policies and final Schedule of Fees and Charges 2021/22 (as amended by resolution 6) for adoption to Council at its meeting on 29 June 2021.
|
Internal Submissions
|
9.4 Internal Submission - Planning for the future – Dwelling, Population and New Lots |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.56 Moved: Cr M Murray-Benge Seconded: Cr M Grainger
That Council approves the adjusted projections in relation to Dwelling, Population and New Lots. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Reflects current trends.
|
|
9.4.1 Internal Submission – Impacts of Regional Safety and Rescue Services Funding – Surf Lifesaving Funding |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.57 Moved: Cr A Sole Seconded: Cr J Denyer That Council removes funding for the Surf Lifesaving service delivery contract from the budget for the full ten years of the LTP, with the understanding that the Bay of Plenty Regional Council will fund this through the new Regional Safety and Rescue Services rate. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Alignment with Bay of Plenty Regional Council. · Removal of duplication (both administrative and rating). · Can be amended through the Annual Plan process.
|
|
9.4.2 Internal Submissions – Recreation and Open Space – Omokoroa Structure Plan Stage 3 - Reserves Aquisitions |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.58 Moved: Cr M Murray-Benge Seconded: Cr J Denyer 1. That Council increases the budget for Project 3454 01 Ōmokoroa Active Reserve, (including neighbourhood reserves), for Ōmokoroa Structure Plan Stage 3 reserve land purchase as follows:
· Additional - $4 million for the Active Reserve; · New - $6 million for Neighbourhood Reserves.
2. That this will be funded from the Reserves Financial Contributions (FINCO’s). |
|
Reasons for Decision · The future needs of the community are met. · Council is resourced to deliver better community outcomes and well-beings.
|
|
9.4.3 Internal Submissions – Recreation and Open Space – 83 Ford Road, Maketu – Concept Plan Implementation Costs |
|
In response to a question, the Committee was advised that there was strong justification for the funding for the implementation of the concept plan for 83 Ford Road being entirely growth related.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.59 Moved: Cr G Dally Seconded: Cr K Marsh That the total indicative costs for implementation of the concept plan be included in the Long Term Plan 2021-2031, with the proposed funding model of 60% Financial Contributions (FINCO’s) and 40% rates. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Will enable implementation of full concept plan giving effect to key themes of pre-engagement feedback and reflects current use of site by different user groups. · Generates positive community interest towards reserves and their development. · Supports community aspirations and sense of ownership of reserve development. · Gives effect to public feedback supporting the draft concept plan and development of the site.
|
|
9.4.4 Internal Submissions – Recreation and Open Space – Pukehina Surf Club New Building Public Facilities Contribution |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.60 Moved: Cr G Dally Seconded: Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour That Council increases its District Reserves Assets Renewals budget contribution towards the replacement toilets in the proposed new Lifeguard Building by $200,000 in the 2023/24 Financial Year funded from the District Reserves Assets Renewals Account (Rates Funded). |
|
Reasons for Decision · The Lifeguard Building will proceed due to the increase in Council’s financial contribution. · Community benefit from the new building will be realised. · Positive impact on local economy.
|
|
9.4.5 Internal Submissions – Solid Waste – Kerbside Fees and Charges |
|
In response to questions, the Committee was advised as follows:
· The bins had an ‘identification chip’ that linked them to a property. Council was moving towards a scanned system for charges in the future. · Where a new dwelling had just been constructed, Council wanted people to have their bins available from day one, so would deliver a new set of bins. · Currently, Council did not provide the service to other than a ratepayer property. · The service was built into the contract.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.61 Moved: Cr M Murray-Benge Seconded: Cr A Sole 1. That Council approves the additional charge of $200 per annum (GST inclusive), for a Kerbside Collection ‘put back’ service for Waihī Beach, Athenree, and Bowentown property owners.
2. That Council approves the removal of the $75 charge to supply bins to new properties.
3. That Council approves the additional charges for the supply of replacement bins. Costs are as follows:
Refuse 140L $38.64 Mixed Recycling 240L $42.77 Glass Recycling 45L $11.12 Food 23L $9.45
Kerbside Collection
Delivery of replacement or additional kerbside collection bins (refuse and recycling) $75.00 Note: Bin delivery will be once a month.
‘Pay as you throw’ Tag
For 140 litre refuse bin: Fee applies when purchased from Council $3.95 Fee may vary when purchased from other outlets. |
|
Reasons for Decision
Put back service · Bins are returned to a place within the property boundary. · Avoids bins being left roadside and removes the potential for bins to be stolen, or vandalised. · Contractors’ costs are recovered from users of the service.
Supply bins to new properties · No additional cost incurred to contractor as allowed for in contract.
|
|
9.4.6 Internal Submissions – Support Services – Performance Measures |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.62 Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Mayor G Webber That Council approves the amendments to the Levels of Service performance measures for Emergency Management, Water, Stormwater, Transportation and Regulatory Services. |
|
Reason for Decision · Council is following best practice.
|
|
9.4.7 Internal Submissions - Support Services - Insurance Provision |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.63 Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Cr A Sole That Council approves additional funding of $4.977m, (over and above the $634,000 per annum provided in the draft LTP), to fund insurance premium increases of 10% for years 1-3 and 5% for years 4-10 of the LTP. |
|
Reason for Decision · Council recognises its current insurance premiums reflect the current market rate of insurance.
|
|
9.4.8 Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Related Matters |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.64 - PART 5 OF THE REPORT MAIN RECOMMENDATION Moved: Mayor G Webber Seconded: Cr M Grainger 8. That
in relation to the internal submissions (as set out in Attachment 5), the
Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee resolves the following preferred
options [for the reasons stated]: a) Dwelling population and new lots: option [1] b) Impacts of Regional Safety and Rescue Services funding - Surf lifesaving funding: option [1] c) Increased funding for Ōmokoroa Structure Plan Stage 3 – Reserve Acquisitions: option [1] d) 83 Ford Road concept plan implementation costs: option [1] e) Pukehina Surf Club new building – public facilities contribution: option [2] f) Fees and Charges – Solid Waste activity: option [1] g) Performance measures: option [1] h) Insurance provisions: option [1d]. |
Project Re-Budgets
|
9.5 Project Re-Budget – Recreation and Open Space – Reserves and Facilities Re-Budget |
|
In a response to a question, the Committee was advised that this paper was about community priorities and Council’s ability to deliver.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.65 Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge That Council approves the Recreation and Open Spaces activity re-budgets as per Appendix A of the agenda report. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Project delivery is achieved within the planned financial year. · Internal and external resources are sufficient to deliver. · Reduces capital spend in the 2021/22 and spreads it over the following years to better balance resource availability. · High quality/value project outcomes are achieved.
|
|
9.5.1 Project Re-Budget – Transportation / Utilities / Water Supply / Stormwater – Structure Plan Review |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.66 Moved: Cr G Dally Seconded: Cr M Dean That the updated Structure Plans for Ōmokoroa, Waihī Beach, Te Puke, and Katikati, as submitted in the Schedule of Projects for inclusion in the 2021-2031 LTP, attached in the agenda report, be approved. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Reflects timing and Council’s ability to undertake the work.
|
|
In response to a question, the Committee was advised that the two amounts of $650,000 that would be Financial Contributions funded, were for Te Puke for the off-site mitigation Council was likely to have to pay to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council for the impact of urban development on their draining and pumping. It would not impact on rates, and most of the three waters CAPEX was debt-funded.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.67 Moved: Cr D Thwaites Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge 1. That Council approves the stormwater activity re-budgets as per Appendix A of the agenda report.
2. That Council includes a new project, being Te Puke Growth Related Stormwater Network improvements, funded from Financial Contributions (FINCO’s) as follows:
2023/24 $650,000 2024/25 $650,000. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Reduces the network improvements required under the stormwater consent. · Improves LTP project alignment with actual asset renewal requirements. · Utilises the remaining life of assets, as opposed to replacing an asset earlier than required. · Project budgets meet project planning and construction timeframes. · Enables recovery from Financial Contributions (FINCO’s).
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.68 Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge That Council approves the water activity re-budgets as per Appendix A of the agenda report. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Project budgets meet project planning and construction in relative financial years. · Reduces capital spend in 2021/22 financial year significantly and spread over following years to better balance resource availability.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.69 Moved: Cr M Dean Seconded: Cr J Denyer That Council approves the wastewater activity re-budgets as per Appendix A of the agenda report. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Improved LTP project alignment with actual asset renewal requirements. Utilising the remaining life of assets as opposed to replacing an asset earlier than required. · Reduces capital spend in 2021/22 financial year to better balance resource availability.
|
|
9.5.5 Project Re-Budget – Support Services – Information Technology – Replacement of Council’s Enterprise Resource Planning Solution (ERP) |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.70 Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Cr J Denyer That Council proceeds with the re-budget for the replacement of Council’s Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) solution project as per Appendix A of the agenda report. |
|
Reasons for Decision · The spread of project budget better reflects the likelihood of when the project will commence. · The Committee notes that the project is long overdue and this action will update Council’s processes.
|
|
9.5.6 Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Related Matters |
|
The Policy and Planning Manager noted that, in part 10 of the report main recommendation, there was a referral to section 6, which required correction to state “section 8” of the agenda report, and related to the other matters the Committee had considered in workshops for inclusion in the Long Term Plan, as detailed in section 8 of the agenda report. She listed each of the other matters for the information of the Committee.
The Chairperson thanked her and put the corrected motion as follows:
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.71 – PART 6 OF THE REPORT MAIN RECOMMENDATION Moved: Cr M Dean Seconded: Mayor G Webber 9. That in relation to the re-budgets (as set out in Attachment 5), the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee resolves the following preferred options [for the reasons stated]:
a) Reserves and facilities: option [1] b) Structure Plan review: option [1] c) Stormwater: option [1] d) Water supply: option [1] e) Wastewater: option [1] f) ERP replacement project: option [1].
10. That the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee notes the other matters for inclusion in the final Long Term Plan set out in section 8 of the agenda report. |
|
9.5.7 Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Related Matters |
|
The Chairperson noted that, while the Committee was not able to consider No.11, it could consider No.12. of the report main resolution. He put the following motion:
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.72 - PART 7 OF THE REPORT MAIN RECOMMENDATION Moved: Mayor G Webber Seconded: Cr M Murray-Benge 12. That it be recommended to Council that the final Multiple Pan Wastewater Remissions Policy, Revenue and Financing Policy, Water Rates Remission Policy and Schedule of Fees and Charges 2021/22 be adopted, inclusive of the amendments in accordance with the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee resolutions of APLTP21-3 dated 31 May 2021. |
The Chairperson noted that, through the Chief Executive Officer, the Committee sought further direction from staff on financial strategy, in particular for the rates increases. He noted that it was the Committee’s preference for Council to remain within the financial strategy limits, in particular for rates increases. Staff were also requested to take into account all the decisions the Committee had made that day, and reinvestigate items where Elected Members considered figures may be able to be reworked.
As a result of this request, the Chairperson noted that Parts 11, 13, 14 and 15 of the report recommendation could not be considered until the meeting was reconvened. He noted that he would now adjourn the meeting, to be reconvened on Thursday, 3 June 2021 at 9.30am in the Chamber.
He requested that staff ensure that the member of the public, who had been in attendance, would be informed of the reconvened date and time.
The Chairperson declared the meeting adjourned at 4.10pm.
MINUTES OF Western
Bay of Plenty District Council reconvened
Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee
Meeting No. APLTP21-3
HELD IN THE Council Chambers, Barkes
Corner, Tauranga
ON thursday, 3 june 2021 AT 9.30am
1 Present
Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour (Chairperson), Cr G Dally, Cr M Dean, Cr J Denyer, Cr M Grainger, Cr M Gray, Cr A Henry, Cr A Sole, Cr D Thwaites and Mayor G Webber
2 In Attendance
M Taris (Chief Executive Officer), G Allis (Deputy CEO/Group Manager Infrastructure Services), R Davie (Group Manager Policy Planning and Regulatory Services), J Pedersen (Group Manager People and Customer Services), K Perumal (Group Manager Finance and Technology Services), E Watton (Policy and Planning Manager), D Pearce (Community Manager), D Jensen (Finance Manager), M Leighton (Senior Policy Analyst), G Payne (Strategic Advisor), and B Clarke (Senior Governance Advisor)
Others
One member of the public.
3 Apologies
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.73 Moved: Cr A Henry Seconded: Mayor G Webber That the apologies for absence from Cr K Marsh and Cr M Murray-Benge be accepted. |
9 Reports
|
9.6 Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Related Matters |
For clarification, the Chairperson advised that he had adjourned the meeting on Monday, 31 May 2021 at 2.35pm, in order to hold a workshop that had been scheduled to begin at 1.30pm. Having completed the business of that workshop, the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee meeting was then reconvened at 3.15pm, and was subsequently adjourned at 4.10pm.
He gave an overview of where the Committee had got to in its deliberations, noting that, before the meeting adjourned, the Committee, through the Chief Executive Officer, had given direction to staff to undertake further work on the financial strategy. In particular, in terms of the impact on the rates demands, also taking into account decisions that had been made during the course of the meeting. He invited the Group Manager Finance and Technology Services to report back to the Committee on findings.
The Group Manager Finance and Technology Services advised that direction had been sought from Elected Members by staff on the financial strategy. The direction given was that it was the preference of the Committee for Council to remain within the financial strategy limits, in particular for rates increases. These limits were 12% for year 1, for existing ratepayers, and 4% for existing ratepayers for years 2-10 of the Long Term Plan (LTP). Having taken the Committee’s direction into account, he noted that staff had investigated financial impacts. As a consequence of that financial review, there were three more items for the Committee to consider today, before staff presented advice on the preliminaries of rates increases.
The Chairperson advised that the Committee would now proceed to consider the three new items.
DELIBERATIONS
Internal Submission
|
9.6.1 Internal Submission – Transportation – Youngson Road Seal Widening |
|
The Group Manager Finance and Technology Services introduced the item, noting that Council was looking at funding considerations of ‘rates versus debt’ for this transportation project. He Tabled Item (1) “Internal Submission Paper – Transportation: Youngson Road Seal Widening”, noting it provided detailed information for the consideration of the Committee.
The Deputy Chief Executive/Group Manager Infrastructure Services advised as follows:
· Staff had looked at the funding source rather than the project itself. This was about the proposal to “loan-fund” in places, particularly as it was a “one-off” spike in the seal module programme. · It had been included in the programme in response to previous submissions and the Urban Form and Transport Initiative (UFTI) direction, which had come from the multi-million dollar State Highway 2 (SH2) works. · In relation to Youngson Road, there would be additional traffic, directional and quantity changes due to those works, so it was being treated as a “one-off” capital project with an appropriate funding mechanism.
In response to a question, the Committee was advised that the timing of this project had not been reviewed. However, it was proposed to have this ‘in place’ before that stage finished, as that work had to be done. It could be spread over two years. Council had a Seal Extension Policy and had not applied any different criteria for Youngson Road.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.74 Moved: Cr D Thwaites Seconded: Mayor G Webber That the Youngson Road seal widening and District seal widening funding source for 2025/26 change to include loan funding, with a 10-year repayment period, in accordance with the attached schedule.
Note: The schedule shows the full seal widening expenditure and funding for 2025/26. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Council recognised that Youngson Road would become a major feeder for that part of the District, once the new interchange was built. · Loan funding of capital expenditure would be spread over 10 years. · Would reflect known community views and requests. · The traffic flows would change due to the State Highway 2 (SH2) upgrades; traffic would increase in volume. |
Project Re-budgets
|
9.7 Project Re-budgets - Future Ready Organisation Initiative |
|
The Group Manager Finance and Technology Services introduced the item, noting that there were some changes to the support services for the Future Ready Organisation Initiative and timing changes in terms of when that project was budgeted across the 10 year period as an operational project. He Tabled Item (2) ‘Project Re-budgets – Future Read Organisation Initiatives’, noting that it provided detailed information for the consideration of the Committee.
The Finance Manager advised as follows:
· Staff had been working through the Future Ready Organisation Initiative for the last 12 months. · As part of the discussion on rates affordability, staff had looked at the deliverability of that project, and ascertained that, while Council was not in a position to change the “size of the envelope”, it could change the phasing of when this could occur. · The paper proposed to make some nominal phasing adjustments from years 3, 4 and 5 and to the later parts of the LTP. This was not changing the overall funding over the LTP, but proposed to change the budget phasing in terms of when this could occur.
In response to questions, the Committee was advised as follows:
· The programme for the Future Ready Organisation Initiative had already been set for the years 1-3. As Council considered changes to the organisation and demands on the organisation at the end of that planning period, it would revisit budget allocations and staffing requirements at that time. · At this stage, the programme that had been set for years 1-3 aligned with the budgets ‘factored in’ for those 3 years. · The programme had been adjusted to ‘factor in’ the budget change of $400,000 coming out of year 3 and allocated to later years in the LTP.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.75 Moved: Mayor G Webber Seconded: Cr M Grainger That Council approves the Future Ready Organisation Initiatives re-budgets as per Appendix A of the agenda report.
|
|
Reason for Decision · Would enable the planned programme to commence, but reflected the uncertainty that the future Local Government review presented in the latter years.
|
|
9.8 Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Related Matters |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.76 – PART 8 OF THE REPORT MAIN RECOMMENDATION Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Cr A Henry 11(a) Having considered the collective impact on rates arising from the matters set out in resolutions 4, 5, 8 and 10, in order to meet the rates increase limit set in Council’s draft Financial Strategy for 2021-31, the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee resolves the following preferred options [for the reasons stated] on the tabled items: a) Transportation - Youngson Road capital project: Option [1] b) Support services - Future Ready Organisation: Option [1]
AND The Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee Votes to revisit the seal extension Issues and options resolution (Part 4: maintaining our roading network, item c). |
MINUTE NOTE:
PART 7 of the report main recommendation (refer page 51 of the minutes), being No.12, was resolved on 31 May 2021 and, therefore, occurred before PART 8 of the report main recommendation, being No.11(a) above, and before PART 9 of the report main recommendation (refer page 57 of the minutes), being No.11(b), which were both resolved on 3 June 2021.
Key Proposals from the Consultation Document
|
9.8.1 Key Proposal – Issues and Options – Transportation – Seal Extension |
|
The Group Manager Finance and Technology Services introduced the item, noting that there were changes to the road seal extensions funding considerations of ‘rates versus debt’. He Tabled Item (3) “Key Proposal – Issues and Options Paper – Transportation – Seal Extensions”, noting it provided detailed information for the consideration of the Committee.
The Deputy Chief Executive/ Group Manager Infrastructure Services advised as follows:
· Following discussion during deliberations held on 31 May 2021 in relation to seal extensions, staff had looked at the option of ‘debt funding’ some of the seal extensions with a 10-year payback period. · The amounts varied in each year, but this would enable the increased programme to continue, which was about $2.3m per annum in terms of seal extension works. As previously advised, that, potentially, was in the range of 4-6km per annum depending upon individual sites.
|
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.77 Moved: Cr D Thwaites Seconded: Cr A Henry That the seal extension budget be increased by $1 million per annum and that the total seal extension programme be funded from a mixture of loan, roading rate and rural roading financial contributions.
Note I: That a review of the policy criteria is being undertaken by the Performance and Monitoring Committee.
Note II: The table for option 2 includes the full seal extension budget. |
|
Reasons for Decision · Council had received significant commentary about the Seal Extension Programme being inadequate, and this allows Council to go some way towards addressing this. · Council is in the process of reviewing its Seal Extension Policy.
|
|
9.9 Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Related Matters |
|
In response to a question, the Policy and Planning Manager advised that staff had provided alternative wording that made it clear that the following resolution relating to the seal extension item revoked the resolution that had been made on 31 May 2021. |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.78 – PART 9 OF THE REPORT main recommendation Moved: Cr M Grainger Seconded: Mayor G Webber 11(b) Having considered the collective impact on rates arising from the matters set out in resolutions 4, 5, 8 and 10, in order to meet the rates increase limit set in Council’s draft Financial Strategy for 2021-31, the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee revokes resolution [APLTP21-3.5 dated 31 May 2021] in its entirety, and resolves the following preferred option [for the reasons stated] on the tabled item named Transportation - Seal Extensions: Option [2]. Note: Option [2] is shown, in its entirety, in minor Resolution APLTP21-3.77 (above). |
Clarification
The Chairperson noted that No.12 of the report’s main recommendation had been resolved by the Committee at the meeting held on 31 May 2021.
[Refer Resolution APLTP21-3.73 – Part 7 of the report main recommendation]
Response
In response to a question in relation to updating the Schedule of Fees and Charges, the Committee was advised that, once the decisions had been made by the Committee today, the main report recommendation to Council included a number of specific related documents. Therefore, the Long Term Plan itself, the preparation of the Schedules of Fees and Charges, and any other relevant documentation would be updated prior to Council formally adopting them.
|
9.10 Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Related Matters |
|
The Group Manager Finance and Technology Services gave an introduction, revisiting the direction of the Committee at the conclusion of the meeting on 31 May 2021. He noted that the preference of the Committee was for Council to remain within the financial strategy limits for rates increases. These limits were 12% for year 1, for existing ratepayers, and 4% for existing ratepayers for years 2-10 of the Long Term Plan (LTP). In the context of that direction received and the decisions the Committee had made this morning, the Finance Manager would now present the indicative rates impact for the 10 years, to align with Council’s strategy.
In response to a question, the Committee was advised what the financial strategy was, noting that Council placed a ceiling on what the rates could be. The ceiling was 12% for the first year, followed by 4% for years 2-10. He noted that Council’s goal was to achieve a result under those percentages.
The Finance Manager provided a summary of the Total Rates Table provided, noting that, after factoring in all of the community requests and the updated staff information from internal submissions and from project re-budgets, Council was looking at a rates profile for existing ratepayers of 11.5% in year 1, and the subsequent years of the LTP all being under that 4% ceiling set in the financial strategy limits. He noted that the 11.5% in year 1, was marginally less than what Council had gone out with for consultation, after including all of the community requests.
The Group Manager Finance and Technology Services gave a summary, noting that, in light of the direction to maintain Council’s rates increase limits set out in the financial strategy, taking into account the items discussed this morning, and in particular, the changing of funding sources from rates to debt, there would be a consequential impact on Council’s debt levels, compared to what was signalled in the consultation document. This was for Council to consider.
In response to questions, the Committee was advised as follows:
· Council was within the financial strategy notes, as set out in the LTP consultation document, to demonstrate Council’s financial prudence. · Council’s lender had a ceiling of three times the revenue or 300% debt to revenue. Council had a ‘self-imposed’ limit of 1.8 times Council’s revenue, or 180%. Given Council’s debt profile, it would struggle to reach more than 170%, and Council was well within its own imposed limit, and that of its lender. · Inflation numbers were not ‘flat-lined’ and were the result of applying the Local Government Cost Index, and were a combination of the 10 year averages, both operational and capital inflation.
The Group Manager Finance and Technology Services further advised that the only other piece of information for the Committee to consider, was that the average rates increase over the 10 year period, per the consultation document and the rates information presented at the meeting, were just below 4%. |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.79 - PART 10 OF THE REPORT MAIN RECOMMENDATION Moved: Deputy Mayor J Scrimgeour Seconded: Cr M Grainger 13. That it be recommended to Council that the final Long Term Plan be adopted, inclusive of the amendments in accordance with the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee resolutions of APLTP21-3 dated 31 May 2021, and inclusive of any related consequential amendments arising from the decisions made through APLTP21-3 on 31 May 2021 and 3 June 2021. |
|
9.11 Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Related Matters |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.80 - PART 11 OF THE REPORT MAIN RECOMMENDATION Moved: Mayor G Webber Seconded: Cr M Dean 14. That the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee requests that the Chief Executive Officer directs staff to prepare a decision document as the formal response to all submitters, for adoption by Council alongside the Long Term Plan 2021-31, and that the decision document will be in general accordance with the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee resolutions contained in the minutes of APLTP21-3, dated 31 May 2021 and 3 June 2021.
|
|
9.12 Deliberations on the Long Term Plan 2021-31 and Related Matters |
|
Resolution APLTP21-3.81 – PART 12 OF THE REPORT MAIN RECOMMENDATION Moved: Cr J Denyer Seconded: Cr M Gray 15. That the Annual Plan and Long Term Plan Committee recommends to Council the approval of all comment responses (as set out in Attachment 6), to be sent to the respective individual submitters where appropriate, in addition to the decision document; subject to any minor editorial changes, being the responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer. |
10 Information for Receipt
Nil.
The meeting was declared closed at 10.20am.
The minutes were confirmed as a true and correct record by Council on 29 June 2021.