Informal Workshop Notes

LTP 2024-2034 Workshop No. 11

Regional Council

Held:                            1:20 pm, Thursday 23 November 2023, Council Chambers, Regional House, 1 Elizabeth Street, Tauranga and via Zoom (Audio Visual Link)

Chairperson:               Chairman Doug Leeder

Deputy Chairperson:  Deputy Chairperson Jane Nees

Present:                       Cr Malcolm Campbell (Via Zoom)

Cr Stuart Crosby

Cr Toi Kai Rākau Iti

Cr Matemoana McDonald

Cr Kat Macmillan

Cr Ron Scott

Cr Ken Shirley

Cr Paula Thompson

Cr Lyall Thurston

Cr Andrew von Dadelszen

Cr Kevin Winters

In Attendance:            Staff: Fiona McTavish – Chief Executive; Mat Taylor – General Manager, Corporate; Namouta Poutasi – General Manager Strategy and Science; Kataraina O’Brien – General Manager Strategic Engagement; Kumaren Perumal - Chief Financial Officer; Antoine Coffin – Manager, Spatial Planning; Gillian Payne – Principal Advisor; Olive McVicker – Corporate Performance Team Lead; Mark Le Comte – Principal Advisor, Graeme Howard – Corporate Planning Lead (via Zoom); Angela Foster – Communications and Engagement Manager; Stephan Lamb – Environmental Strategy Manager; Alicia Burningham - Corporate Planner; Jo Pellew- Rates Manager, Charlie Roddick – Rates Engagement Team Leader; Merinda Pansegrouw – Committee Advisor.

Apology:                     Cr Te Taru White

1.     Declarations of Conflicts of Interest

None

Public Excluded Session

The table below sets out the general subject of each paper to be considered while the public is excluded from the proceedings of this workshop, the reason for excluding the public, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for excluding the public:

Item No.	Subject of each paper to be considered	Reason for excluding the public in relation to each paper	Grounds under Section 48(1) for excluding the public	When the paper can be released into the public
1	Quayside Holdings Limited Paper	•  Withholding the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely to unreasonably prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information; •  Withholding the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely to prejudice the supply of similar information, or information from the same source, and it is in the public interest that such information should continue to be supplied; •  Withholding the information is necessary to protect information which is subject to an obligation of confidence or which any person has been or could be compelled to provide under the authority of any enactment, where the making available of the information would be likely otherwise to damage the public interest; •  Withholding the information is necessary to enable any local authority holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities; •  Withholding the information is necessary to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to members or officers or employees of any local authority, or any persons to whom section 2(5) applies, in the course of their duty.	48(1)(a)(i) Section 7 (2)(b)(ii); 48(1)(a)(i) Section 7 (2)(c)(i); 48(1)(a)(i) Section 7 (2)(c)(ii); 48(1)(a)(i) Section 7 (2)(h); 48(1)(a)(i) Section 7 (2)(f)(i).	On the Chief Executive's approval.

1         Quayside Holdings Limited Paper - Public Excluded

Open Session

Informal Workshop Papers

1

Spatial Planning - Option 1B

Presented by: Namouta Poutasi, General Manager, Strategy and Science and Antoine Coffin, Manager, Spatial Planning. Guidance Sought from Councillors · To note information provided to the 8 November 2023 Workshop discussing the Spatial Planning Activity scenarios · Confirmation of preferred scenario. Key Points - Staff: · Provided further detail regarding the Spatial Planning expense areas: implications of reductions in proposed cost centre areas of grants, contributions, consultancy. Key Points - Members: · Reiterated the need to reduce spending overall · Was important to signal to SmartGrowth the need to be more efficient/effective · Enquired about the model/robustness of the analysis used to identify the proposed savings · Would be useful to see the split in contribution towards SmartGrowth – distinguishing the contribution made by government/Priority One · Reiterated the need to reduce expenditure but was conscious of  partnership agreements. Acknowledged that partners would be afforded the opportunity to comment/provide feedback through the submissions process · Highlighted the importance of openness/transparency on Councils viewpoints, which would be based on the rationale/principles of budgetary constraints/inflationary impacts · In the context of the imminent City Deal, acknowledged the bigger picture and the need to have further/deeper conversations regarding spatial planning in the region · Acknowledged that this work was initially intended as preparation/lead into the new Resource Management system (Natural Built Environment Act (NBEA) and Spatial Planning Act (SP)); notwithstanding, spatial planning remained a useful tool · Reinforced the importance of spatial planning as a relationship building tool. Supported that the workstream continue. Staff in response to Questions: · Scenario planning was used as the basis to model the various options for possible cost reduction and the associated implications Direction Provided: · Supported Option 1B for the Spatial Planning Activity.

2

Regional Economic Development - Bay of Connections Option 2A

Presented by: Namouta Poutasi, General Manager, Strategy and Science, and Stephen Lamb, Environmental Strategy Manager. Guidance Sought from Councillors · To note information provided to the 8 November 2023 Workshop discussing the Regional Development Activity scenarios. (Refer Attachment 1) · To note that under Scenario 2A or 3 there was a need to manage the withdrawal from the current structure and brand, with a break point of January 2024 suggested · To provide direction on the preferred scenario. Key Points - Staff: · Option 2A had been developed based on an internally delivered economic function, with a governance structure to be determined via future Strategy and Policy Committee decisions · Highlighted the natural break point in January 2024 that would allow a managed withdrawal from the current structure. Key Points - Members: · Supported having the function in-house; provided that the correct process would be followed, involving staff in future discussions · Suggested the inclusion of a question in the Consultation Document (CD) regarding economic development (a repeat of a previous CD question regarding regional economic development). The nature of Regional Council’s business was within the regional economic development space. A question in the CD could provide an opportunity to provide context/ demonstrate where Regional Council added value) · Emphasised the importance of not losing sight of the following matters included in Council’s draft strategic direction: low carbon, climate action focused economy/Māori development/zero waste regenerative agriculture/a resilient future proofed economy. Council would require a vehicle to deliver · Supported that it was time for rationalisation; needed to retain the function at a staff level – a stand-alone governance structure no longer required/fit for purpose · Once moved away from the current structure, could potentially look at setting aside some funding to support individual economic development agencies in the rohe · Critical to consider a new way/more efficient way to deliver the function/achieve outputs. Key Points - Staff: · Speaking to Scenario 2A, staff stated that current projects (including those relating to low carbon economy/climate change) would not be lost; but would be delivered differently/internally and by working closely with industry sectors. Operating model to be reviewed and included in internal work programme. Guidance Provided: · Supported Scenario three: $500k reduction – Fundamental change to operation of the activity - BOC disestablished, little to no operational expenditure.

3

Fees and Charges policy review

Presented by: Kumaren Perumal, Chief Financial Officer and Alicia Burningham, Corporate Planner. Guidance Sought from Councillors · Fees & Charges Policy to be updated for the following activities or charges and request guidance on the following: o Inclusion of Navigation Safety Bylaw charges o Inclusion of gravel management charges o Updates resulting from regulatory reform · To consider draft of the proposed Fees & Charges policy 2024/25 with tracked changes · To note Fees and Charges schedules would be reviewed prior to adoption for audit to ensure that the fees were set appropriately to meet the revenue targets as per the guidance received on the Revenue & Finance Policy which was currently under review · Invited any further comments from Councillors. Inclusion of gravel management charges in the Fees & Charges Policy Key Points: Members: · Suggested an increase in the fee to at least $3/m3 to align with the market (realistic transport costs/value of the resource) · With regard to “Option 1 – increase the fee to $1.42/m3, cost recovery based on current hourly” enquired why the cost recovery was based on hourly rates – should have a forward looking approach rather than backwards · Did not wanted to discourage removal of aggregate from rivers · Emphasised the importance of consulting with the River Advisory Groups on changes to gravel management charges. Guidance Provided: · Supported Option 2 – increase the fee to $2.34/m3, cost recovery based on charge out rates. Noting, this rate would be reviewed following the review of Schedule A – staff charge out rates. Key Points: Members: · Charges to recover costs under the National Environmental Standards Commercial Forestry: emphasised the importance of ensuring/enabling an effective system of cost recovery. Needed to take a firm stand on forestry harvesting practices. Item for Staff follow-up: · Page 42, Table 1, General resource consent application deposits: To provide Councillors with a definition of “deemed permitted activities”. Note: The following definition was circulated to Councillors via email: “Deemed permitted activity certificates can be issued to an application for an activity that is close to being a permitted activity (but is not a permitted activity) i.e. there is a marginal or temporary rule breach. The effects of the activity must be no different in character, intensity, or scale than they would be in the absence of the rule breach. The adverse effects on any person must be less than minor. We authorise that they can operate in accordance with the relevant permitted activity rule. It is a much less extensive assessment that we do for these, compared to a resource consent application.”

4

Presentation - Rates Remission for Māori Freehold Land Financial Information Presentation - Rates Remission Workshop No 11 23 Nov 2023 - MFL info sought: Objective ID A4540419 ⇨

Presented by: Kumaren Perumal - Chief Financial Officer, Gillian Payne - Principal Advisor, Jo Pellew - Rates Manager, Herewini Simpson - Kaihautu Te Amorangi Lead and Merehini Waiari, Senior Advisor Te Amorangi. Key Points: Background: On 8 November staff presented a paper with options and recommendations, and an initial draft of a Policy for Rates Remission on Māori Freehold Land (MFL) and sought direction on: 1. Developing a separate policy for remissions and postponements on MFL 2. Including General Land owned by Māori in the policy definition of MFL  3. Objectives, options for criteria for remissions for Economic Development on MFL. Council indicated agreement on actions 1 and 3 above, but sought further information on the financial implications of recommendation 2. Guidance Sought from Councillors · Recommendation 2: Including General Land owned by Māori in the policy definition of MFL. Key Points - Members: · Noted further information on the financial implications of recommendation 2 · Supported alignment/unification with territorial authorities across the region. Direction Provided: · Supported action 2, inclusion of General Land owned by Māori in the policy definition of Māori Freehold Land .

Conclusion

3:00 pm – The workshop concluded.