strategy, policy & finance committee · the policy objective is to improve the health and...

1 Strategy, Policy & Finance Committee meeting

Doc No. RDC-686209 8 December 2016

File No: 01-15-227

Notice of an ordinary meeting of the

STRATEGY, POLICY & FINANCE COMMITTEE

to be held on Thursday 8 December 2016 at 9.30am in the Council Chamber, Rotorua Lakes Council

Chairperson:

Cr Raukawa-Tait

Members: Cr Hunt (Deputy Chair) Mayor Chadwick Cr Bentley Cr Donaldson Cr Gould Cr Kent Cr Maxwell Cr Sturt Cr Tapsell Cr Kumar Mr Berryman-Kamp Ms Morrison Phill Thomass Shirley Trumper

Quorum: 8

A G E N D A

1. APOLOGIES 2. DELCARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as a Member of the Council and any private or other external interest they might have. This note is provided as a reminder to Members to review the matters on the agenda and assess and identify where they may have a pecuniary or other conflict of interest, or where there may be a perception of a conflict of interest.

If a member feels they do have a conflict of interest, they should publicly declare that at the start of the meeting or of the relevant item of business and refrain from participating in the discussion or voting on that item. If a member thinks they may have a conflict of interest, they can seek advice from the Chief Executive or the Governance & Partnerships Manager (preferably before the meeting). It is noted that while members can seek advice the final decision as to whether a conflict exists rests with the member.



3. URGENT BUSINESS Section 46A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 states: (7) An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at the meeting if – (a) the local authority by resolution so decides, and (b) the presiding member explains at the meeting at a time when it is open to the public, - (i) the reason why the item is not on the agenda; and (ii) the reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting. (7A) Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting, - (a) that item may be discussed at the meeting if –

(i) that item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and (ii) the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is

open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but (b) No resolution, decision, or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to

refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.

Page

4. STAFF REPORTS RECOMMENDATION 1: Smoke-free outdoor spaces policy ....................................................... 7 RECOMMENDATION 2: Waste Management and Minimisation Plan/ Waste Strategy 2016 - 22 ................................................................... 22 RECOMMENDATION 3: Sister Cities and international relations ............................................ 26 RECOMMENDATION 4: Schedule of meetings – 1 January to 31 December 2017 ................. 38 RECOMMENDATION 5: Community housing partnership ....................................................... 41 5. RESOLUTION TO EXCLUDE THE PUBLIC

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, for the passing of this resolution are as follows

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under Section 48(1) for passing of this resolution

RECOMMENDATION 6 Exchange of reserve land – Utuhina Stream

Enable any local authority holding the information to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

Section 48(1)(a) Section 7(2)(i)

RECOMMENDATION 7 Disposal of surplus property



RECOMMENDATION 8 Enterprise Resource Planning





This resolution is made in reliance on Section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by Sections 6 or 7 of the Act or Sections 6, 7 or 9 of the Official Information Act 1982, as the case may require, which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public are as shown above (in brackets) with respect to each item.

Rotorua Lakes Council is the operating name of Rotorua District Council

6. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS 6.1 Staff reports (cont.) RECOMMENDATION 6: Exchange of reserve land – Utuhina Stream ........................................ C1 RECOMMENDATION 7: Disposal of surplus property ................................................................. C5 RECOMMENDATION 8: Enterprise resource planning ............................................................... C9



STRATEGY, POLICY & FINANCE COMMITTEE DELEGATIONS

Type of Committee Committee

Subordinate to Council

Subordinate Committees

Legislative Basis Schedule 7, clause 30 (1) (a), Local Government Act 2002.

Purpose The purpose of the Strategy, Policy and Finance Committee is to have oversight and make recommendations to the Council on the adoption and development of all Council’s strategic, policy, planning and regulatory frameworks.

Reference

Membership Councillor Raukawa-Tait (Chair) Councillor Hunt (Deputy Chair) All elected members and the Mayor, and two Te Arawa representatives as non-elected members (with speaking and voting rights).

Quorum

8

Meeting frequency

Monthly

Delegations The Committee’s function is recommendatory only.1 It is authorised to take actions precedent to the exercise by the Council of its statutory responsibilities, duties and powers, by:

Receiving, considering, hearing submissions and making recommendations on draft plans (except the District Plan), strategies and policies (such as the Long-term Plan, Annual Plan; funding and financial policies; reserves management plans and asset management plans);

Considering and making recommendations on the development of the Council’s rating policy; financial strategy and budgets;

Considering and making recommendations on the development of Council bylaws, including hearing submissions in relation to making, amending and revoking bylaws;

Considering and making recommendations on Council’s strategic direction to ensure efficient and effective delivery of Council’s objectives and District Vision;

Receiving and considering reports from working/strategy groups;

Considering and making recommendations on the development of guidelines for decision making to assist Council in achieving its strategic outcomes;

1 Council is authorised to delegate anything precedent to the exercise of Council’s powers, duties and functions - Schedule 7, clause 32, Local

Government Act 2002



Considering and making recommendations on the establishment of levels of service across Council services to ensure alignment with strategic goals and priorities;

Considering and making recommendations on the development of Treasury and funding functions;

Considering and making recommendations on proposals for the establishment of Council controlled organisations (including the appointment and remuneration of Directors, formation of constitutions and shareholder agreements);

Considering and making recommendations on proposals for the sale and purchase of land;

Considering and making recommendations on issues relating to Council leases;

Considering and making recommendations on draft Council submissions/responses in relation to: o Central government policies, plans and proposed legislative

reform; o Proposals by other organisations/authorities (Local and

Regional).

Performing such other functions as the Council may direct from time to time.2

Relevant Statutes All the duties and responsibilities listed above must be carried out in accordance with the relevant legislation.

Limits to Delegations The Committee does not have the delegated authority to make decisions for and on behalf of the Council. All matters requiring a decision of Council must be referred, by way of recommendation, to the Council for final consideration and determination. In the event that the Council resolves not to approve or adopt a Committee recommendation, the item shall be returned to the Committee via the Chief Executive for review and subsequent referral to the Council for further consideration and determination.

2 A committee is subject in all things to the control of the local authority, and must carry out all general and special directions of the Council given in

relation to the committee - see Schedule 7, clause 30(3), Local Government Act 2002.

Staff reports

6/3 7 Strategy, Policy & Finance Committee meeting


File No: 01-63-099-7

RDC-679634

ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL Mayor Chairperson and members STRATEGY, POLICY AND FINANCE COMMITTEE SMOKE-FREE OUTDOOR SPACES POLICY Report prepared by: Rosemary Viskovic, Senior Policy Advisor Report reviewed by: Aimee McGregor, Strategy Manager Report approved by: Jean-Paul Gaston, Group Manager Strategy and Partnerships

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of the report is to propose a new policy extending smoke-free outdoor spaces across the Rotorua district.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Council has held a Smoke-free Outdoor Spaces Policy since 2008 covering specified locations. In recent years there have been a number of approaches to Council requesting extension of the coverage of the policy, as well as examples of community groups and businesses voluntarily supporting extended smoke-free areas. A survey undertaken late in 2015 indicated strong public support for a wider range of public open spaces being included in a Smoke-free policy. The policy objective is to improve the health and wellbeing of Rotorua communities by reducing the prevalence of smoking and de-normalising smoking behaviour. It is recommended that the policy includes e-cigarettes as some e-cigarettes contain nicotine and use of the devices mimics cigarette smoking. The paper recommends extending the smoke-free public outdoor spaces utilising a non-regulatory approach aimed at behaviour change and promoting a positive smoke-free message. Compliance with the policy is voluntary and is not enforced by the Council. Compliance is instead encouraged by educating the public to model and promote appropriate behaviour, which in turn encourages others to be smoke-free. The recommended option is to implement in two phases enabling effective communication with the public and stakeholders.

3. RECOMMENDATION 1:

1. That the report “Smoke-free Outdoor Spaces Policy” be received.

2. That the recommendation for a new policy extending smoke-free outdoor spaces in two phases be approved.



4. BACKGROUND

Central government In March 2011 the Government adopted the Smoke-free 2025 goal for New Zealand. This was in response to the recommendations of a landmark Parliamentary Inquiry by the Māori Affairs Select Committee. The Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 (the Act) requires all internal areas of workplaces, licensed premises and certain public enclosed premises to be smokefree. The internal areas of all of these premises are required to be smokefree and smoking is only legally permitted in open areas. Employers/proprietors may choose to prohibit smoking in their open areas as well. http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/tobacco-control/smokefree-law/internal-and-open-areas-under-smoke-free-environments-act-1990 Council’s initial response In May 2011 Council adopted the Smoke-free Outdoor Spaces Policy as part of the Activities on Open Places Policy. The current policy includes Tokorangi Forest, playgrounds, Youth Centre, tennis clubs, child care centres, public toilets, sports turfs and courts, and Rotary North Market in Kuirau Park. In January 2015 Council’s Workwell Steering Group developed internal policy in accordance with our legal obligations under the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990, and the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and 2002 amendments. This made council venues smoke-free to protect the health and safety of employees and visitors from the effects of identified hazards which includes tobacco smoke in the workplace. The policy includes outdoor areas around Aquatic Centre, Castlecorp, City Focus, Civic Centre, Crematorium, Destination Rotorua, Energy Events Centre, Landfill, Library, Museum, Nursery, Parking Building, Recycling Centre, Redwoods, Transfer Stations, Visitor Information Centre and i-Site, and Waste Water Treatment Plant. The policy outlines designated smoking areas for some of these locations where feasible. The provision of designated smoking areas goes some way to reducing visibility of smoking, keeps smoking away from building entrances, and reduces spread of butt litter. Subsequent requests Council was approached by the Rotorua Smoke-free Coalition (participants include Lakes District Health Board, Toi te Ora Public Health, Cancer Society, Heart Foundation, smoking cessation service providers) regarding the possibility of expanding the Smoke-free Outdoor Spaces Policy by including bus stops around the city. The Rotorua Smoke-free Coalition strongly supports extending smoke-free outdoor spaces as contributing to public health. Concern was also raised by the Rotorua Visitor Centre and i-Site Manager, about the amount of smoking occurring within the forecourt area of the visitor centre (effectively a larger version of a bus stop) and the negative impact that this may have on visitors’ perceptions of Rotorua upon arrival. In 2015, Rotorua Junior Rugby sought advice on making the Westbrook and Ray Boord Park grounds smoke-free for junior players. In the absence of council policy covering these grounds, they introduced smoke-free signs at playing times to discourage smoking. They report this has been respected by people attending games. Toi te Ora Public Health supports smoke-free environments and submitted to Council’s Long-term Plan:

“Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in New Zealand and causes much personal, social and economic cost. Cigarette smoke, including second-hand smoke, is unsafe at any level of exposure and is a known cause of ill health in infants and children. While

http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/tobacco-control/smokefree-law/internal-and-open-areas-under-smoke-free-environments-act-1990

http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/tobacco-control/smokefree-law/internal-and-open-areas-under-smoke-free-environments-act-1990



smoking rates in Rotorua have decreased, one fifth of all residents aged over 15 years still smoke regularly, with rates highest among Maori and young adults.”

Advice from Te Tatau o Te Arawa has been to ensure engagement with Māori health providers. The providers are part of the Smoke-free Coalition and have contributed over previous months. The Department of Conservation has provided the following statement in support of proposed Smoke-free reserves:

“With support from the Bay of Plenty Conservation Board, the department is supportive of expanding Rotorua’s smoke-free open areas policy, providing appropriate consultation with iwi has taken place. Inappropriately disposed of cigarette butts pose a risk to wildlife, increase fire risk and compromise aesthetics. Rotorua Lakes Council’s community survey has shown the community are strongly supportive of smoke free reserves –some of which are administered by DOC and contain designated recreational areas such as campsites and walking tracks.”

Surveys As a result of the approach by Rotorua Smoke-free Coalition, Council conducted an online survey of residents in 2013. 89% of respondents were in favour of making bus stops smoke-free, while only 11% were against. A survey conducted by the Rotorua Smoke-free Coalition at the main bus stop, then located on Pukuatua Street, indicated strong support for this initiative from actual users. Of the 114 people surveyed, only two users were against making bus stops smoke-free. Given the time since the above public survey and a need to gauge public opinion on further locations, a questionnaire was developed and administered both face to face at a variety of locations for consideration and as an online questionnaire targeting businesses (refer to Attachments 1 and 2). The face to face survey was administered by volunteers between September and December 2015 and attracted 569 responses, mostly local people, but also NZ and overseas visitors. The online questionnaire was distributed to business stakeholders identified through the economic and inner city portfolios in December 2015, and attracted 36 responses, with 95% identifying as Rotorua businesses. The survey indicated strong support for a wide range of public places being smoke-free (refer to Attachment 2).



Further engagement The Eat Streat businesses have a Charter and have considered the outdoor area being smoke-free, however this was not universally agreed and some businesses are smoke-free and others are not. The outdoor eating areas are subject to the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990. Toi te Ora Public Health Smokefree Enforcement Officer and a Ministry of Health consultant have indicated that many of the Eat Streat outdoor areas would not meet the requirements to be considered open and therefore intend to encourage those businesses to voluntarily move towards being smoke-free in preference to being formally measured and issued with a notice to comply. Council Officer has met with the Eat Streat businesses group and the Inner City Block Champions group in November 2016 to discuss, and the groups indicated their willingness to work with Council to ensure an implementation plan is practical and effective.

5. DISCUSSION AND OPTIONS The policy objective is to improve the health and wellbeing of Rotorua communities by reducing the prevalence of smoking and de-normalising smoking behaviour. Reducing the visibility of smoking in public places is particularly important to de-normalise smoking behaviour for children and young people. Reduced prevalence also reduces the impact of second-hand smoke on others. There is strong support for the extension of a policy on smoke-free outdoor spaces demonstrated by the survey of public opinion, as well as other feedback. Feedback from Hutt City Council Officers has been the importance of public awareness to support policy implementation and the time this takes. Given some e-cigarettes contain nicotine and use of the devices mimics cigarette smoking, it is recommended that the policy includes e-cigarettes. This approach is supported by the Ministry of Health:

“The use of e-cigarettes in smoke-free places is not prohibited by the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990. However, individual organisations can ban the use of e-cigarettes as part of their own smoke-free policies. The Ministry encourages people to avoid using e-cigarettes in areas where smoking is not permitted”. http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/tobacco-control/e-cigarettes

The policy follows a non-regulatory approach aimed at behaviour change and promoting a positive smoke-free message. It utilises passive signage and public awareness to influence behaviour, supported by public opinion. There is strong public support to extend outdoor smoke-free areas. Council will work collaboratively with Toi te Ora Public Health, Healthy Families Rotorua and Manaaki Ora to develop a shared public awareness campaign and determine effective signage design and placement to implement the policy. Option 1: Status Quo- no change to the policy which includes the following smoke-free areas:

Council-managed Tokorangi Forest

Council-owned playgrounds

Rotorua Community Youth Centre Trust premises

Tennis facilities – Lynmore, Okareka and Manuka Crescent Tennis Club

http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/tobacco-control/e-cigarettes

http://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/preventative-health-wellness/tobacco-control/e-cigarettes



Child Care Centres- including kindergartens, play centres, crèches and Kohanga Reo that are on

Council reserve land and their immediate surrounds

Public toilets

Sports areas –Smallbone Park hockey turfs and Westbrook netball courts

Kuirau Park - Rotary North Market

Council workplace properties- internal policy

Option 2: Extend smoke-free outdoor places in a two phased approach: Phase 1 - from February 2017 the following areas would become smoke-free:

All bus stops and shelters

i-Site and library surrounds including Jean Batten Park

All sports grounds

Rotorua International Stadium

All youth spaces and skate parks

All Council-controlled reserves and parks including lakefront reserves In recognition of the role that public events can play in promoting a positive smoke-free message, under this policy all council-delivered events as well as events held at any smoke-free public places will be smoke-free. As more public places become smoke-free, more events will adopt a smoke-free status. All agreements for the hire or rent of Council premises or reserves, or receiving Council funding for events be required to include a Smoke-free event clause. Phase 2 – based on learning from Phase 1 above and further consultation with stakeholders, from January 2018 the following spaces become smoke-free:

Outdoor pavement eating places

Eat Streat

Markets held in the inner city

Entrances and exits to public buildings and facilities used by the public

Option 2 is recommended as in keeping with public opinion, and the phased approach allows time for effective public awareness to implement.

6. ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE The decisions or matters of this report are not considered significant in accordance with the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

7. COMMUNITY INPUT/ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLICITY Late 2015, a face to face questionnaire and online questionnaire were administered to identify public perceptions on smoke-free outdoor spaces, with just under 600 responses. The online questionnaire was distributed through Rotorua business networks and was available on the council’s web site. The face to face questionnaire was administered by volunteers across a wide range of outdoor public spaces.



In 2013 two forms of consultation were used to determine the public views on this issue. The first was a user intercept survey at the main bus stop on Pukuatua Street conducted by Te Toi Ora Public Health and second was an online survey conducted by Council in August 2013 on Council’s main website and Facebook page. The views of Toi Te Ora Public Health Unit were expressed in the submission of the Medical Officer of Health to the Long-term Plan in 2015.

8. CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 Financial/budget considerations The implementation of the proposed policy is expected to include elements of signage as well as public awareness-raising. Compliance is through passive social and public awareness rather than direct enforcement or ban. Specific funding for costs of signage and awareness has not been budgeted but activities would be undertaken over time alongside signage renewals and in collaboration with the Smoke-free Coalition, Toi te Ora Public Health and Healthy Families Rotorua.

8.2 Policy and planning implications The promotion of smoke-free environments contributes to three particular Rotorua 2030 goals: A Resilient Community, Outstanding Places to Play and Enhanced Environment. The smoke-free outdoor areas policy is an action of the Sustainable Living Strategy. It is also in keeping with the national goal to be smoke-free by 2025.

8.3 Risks The risks associated with not extending smoke-free outdoor spaces include:

Continued negative impact on public health

Negative public perception that Council policy is not in keeping with majority public opinion

Negative public perceptions where second-hand smoke continues to affect children and young people; non-smokers, visitors and children are exposed to smoking in public as normal behaviour

Negative impact on public transport use

Negative impact on participation in public spaces including Eat Streat The risks associated with extending smoke-free outdoor spaces include:

Displacement of smoking activity to other locations

Potential confrontation of smokers in smoke-free areas

Stigmatisation of people who smoke

8.4 Authority Implementation of the policy amendment will be delegated to the Reserves and Transport departments in relation to relevant signage, and through the Strategy and Partnerships teams in collaboration with Toi te Ora Public Health and Healthy Families Rotorua in relation to public awareness.



9. CONCLUSION There is strong public support for extending outdoor smoke-free spaces. A two-phase approach to extend smoke-free public outdoor spaces is proposed, based on public awareness and signage and in collaboration with public health providers.

10. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Questionnaire Attachment 2: Summary of questionnaire results Attachment 3: Proposed new policy


Doc No. RDC-686209 ATTACHMENT 1 8 December 2016

Attachment 1: Questionnaire

Rotorua Lakes Council Smoke-free/ Auahi Kore Open Spaces Questionnaire 2015:

1. Where do you usually live?

2. Which of the following areas in Rotorua do you think should be Smoke-free?

Children’s playgrounds are smoke-free. Do you think they should be? YES/ NO

The netball courts, hockey turf and tennis clubs are smoke-free. Do you think they should be?

YES/ NO

Do you think other sports fields and grounds should be smoke-free? YES/ NO

Rotorua International Stadium? YES/ NO

Youth spaces and skate parks? YES/ NO

Reserves and parks? YES/ NO

Lakefront reserves? YES/ NO

Cycle-ways including the Green Corridor? YES/ NO

Bus stops and shelters and I-site forecourt? YES/ NO

Public outdoor areas in town centre? YES/ NO

Footpaths outside your local block of shops? YES/ NO

Near the entrance of public buildings such as offices, shops, museum, library, I-site, Events

Centre, Sir Howard Morrison Performing Arts Centre, Arts Village, Rotorua Youth Centre,

Aquatic Centre? YES/NO

Near the entrance of the Courthouse? YES/ NO

Outdoor eating places, cafes or pubs? YES/ NO

Markets? YES/ NO

3. Do you have any other comments or suggestions?

4. What is your Smoke-free/ Auahi kore status?

Rotorua NZ, not Rotorua Another country

Not answered

Not smoke-free

but want to quit Ex-smoker Not smoke-free Smoke-free



Attachment 2: Summary of questionnaire results

Rotorua Lakes Council Smoke-free/ Auahi Kore Open Spaces Questionnaire 2015:

To assist with decision-making around smoke-free outdoor spaces, volunteers administered a questionnaire for Rotorua Lakes Council at various locations in December 2015 with 569 returns. The locations visited included: Agrodome, Puarenga Park, Rotorua Village Green, Lakefront, DOC Reserves, Youth Council, Fenton Street, Skate Park, Waiariki, Rotorua Hospital, Aquatic Centre, bus stops and i-Site, Museum, Kuirau Park, Shops, Positive Ageing network, Courthouse, Events Centre, Government Gardens, Night Market. An online version was also completed via business community networks (15 Dec – 15 Jan) with 36 returns. Results summaries follow:

Above indicates the number of respondents by usual residence. Respondents included local Rotorua people, as well as other New Zealanders and overseas visitors.

Above indicates number of respondents by smoking status. Respondents identified their smoking status with the majority being smoke-free, a similar number of ex and current smokers and a proportion indicating they want to quit.



Smoke free support for types of outdoor spaces

Across all those surveyed, there was strong support across the range of proposed locations, with highest support for playgrounds at 97% and lowest support for outdoor eating and drinking areas , which were however still supported by 78%

60%

80% 81%

93%

79%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Not Smokefree Want to quit Ex-smoker Smokefree Status not provided

% s

up

po

rtin

g sm

oke

-fre

e a

reas

Smokefree / Auahi kore status



Support across all locations by smoking status ranged 60-93%

For ‘Smoke-free’ respondents- all locations were strongly supported; lakefront, parks/ reserves (88%) and outdoor eating and drinking (87%) had slightly lower support

For ‘Ex-smokers’- all locations were strongly supported; the location with lowest support was 68% support for outdoor eating and drinking places

For ‘Want to quit’- 7 locations indicated over 80% support; with lower support for markets (67%), and outdoor eating and drinking places (52%)

For ‘not smoke-free’- 4 locations indicated over 70% support, the locations with lower support were town centre outdoor areas (45%), outside local shops, outdoor eating and drinking places and markets (all 48%)

There was generally a high degree of support for smoke-free locations across Rotorua residents, non-Rotorua people and overseas visitors, with slightly higher support overall by Rotorua residents

The pattern of responses for both overseas visitors and non Rotorua New Zealanders followed the pattern of the wider survey, despite being a relatively small component of the sample



A variety of comments were received:

People smoke in these places regardless. How to combat it?

Focus on Youth Areas

Smoking is associated with drinking culture

You can't really restore all areas, every place should be smoke free (x2), very bad for health, creates a

bad environment, 2025 smoke free NZ, more information on how to quit, stop smoking while you're

ahead

Should not smoke in NZ, everyone should just quit smoking, smoke-free country would be nice,

shouldn't smoke around kids, smoking should be made illegal and those on the benefit should not be

allowed to purchase it

No smoking around kids

Some areas where there are kids, sports etc. should be smoke free, smoke free Rotorua would be

awesome, quit for the kids, some area should be designated and away from crowds

Smoke free Aotearoa, should be banned altogether

All public spaces should be smoke free, we should do all we can to discourage it

I think all places should be clean, some smokers degrade and disregard smoke free zones, more help

given to smokers to quit

Power should be a choice made by the café and pub owners, smoking should be phased out

Save our babies, ban smoking in homes, put out incentives for people to quit, smoking should be

banned all over New Zealand, provide designated smoking areas

Kept away from professional places, own choice- if people don't like they can walk away

Its people’s choice, can't smoke at courthouse because will get fined, all areas fine as long as it’s away

from people, not good around children

Tobacco plus alcohol should be more heavily taxed, create smoke-free zones

Make some areas smoke-free, force places

Places to smoke, no smokers in bars, no smoking around children, smoking designated areas, need

some place for me to smoke

Be considerate of children, ban entirely, everywhere kids are should be smoke-free, all public places

have a designated area where kids can be seen but smoke can't be smelt, have designated smoking

areas

Don't like smokers hanging around buildings/butts on the ground, have you tried yoga?

No smoking with children around, don't care either way, bring back instant fine for litter (smoker butts)

Smoke-free Rotorua, unfortunately some allowance has to be made for smokers in some areas, I have

asthma and I would like everywhere to be smoke-free, smoke-free 2025!

Online Comments:

Reduce it as much as we can. Lead from the front and use that position as part of supporting a healthy

community programme. Iwi must be involved

Rotorua and NZ should be working towards being 100% smoke free by 2025.

Smoking should be illegal for pregnant mothers.

Smoking near children should be prohibited.

Smoking kills, stub it out!

The Thursday night market needs to be smoke free and enforced

We don't allow or condone other drug taking in public spaces or in view of the public. Why do we

consider that tobacco should be treated differently?



All public assessable areas should be smoke free.

If people want to smoke there is the privacy of their own homes otherwise a total ban should apply

Especially Eat Street!

Ban smoking where there are non-smokers

Public areas should be public areas. Around children and youth spaces sure, make it smoke free. but let

adults make adult decisions and nipp outside for a smoke if they need to

In cars and everywhere possible!!!

I think all public spaces should be smoke free with the exception of some very limited spaces in major

gathering areas, i.e. a designated place near Eat Street etc.

Smoking should be restricted to your own home



Attachment 3: Proposed new policy SMOKEFREE OUTDOOR SPACES POLICY

Date Adopted Next Review Officer Responsible

1 January 2020 R Viskovic, Senior Policy Advisor

Policy Purpose: The objective of this policy is to improve the health and wellbeing of Rotorua communities by reducing the prevalence of smoking and de-normalising smoking behaviour. This aligns with the Government’s goal of becoming a smoke-free nation by 2025. Principles:

The wellbeing of children and young people is a central consideration for the policy

Where possible, high-density areas and places where people congregate should be prioritised

In order for the council to lead by example, areas that people directly associate with the council should be prioritised

The policy should encourage behavioural change in a manner that is acceptable to and supported by Rotorua’s communities

The policy should focus on promoting a positive smokefree message, especially to children and young people.

Policy: 1. Approach The policy follows a non-regulatory approach aimed at behaviour change and promoting a positive smokefree message. Compliance with the policy is voluntary and is not enforced by the council. Compliance is instead encouraged by educating the public to model and promote appropriate behaviour, which in turn encourages others to be smokefree. Council will work in collaboration with Toi te Ora Public Health Unit and other community organisations to implement the policy through public awareness including signage. The public will be asked to refrain from smoking or use of electronic cigarette-like devices in the following public places and at public events.



2. Smokefree Public Places Upon adoption of this policy, the following public places will be smoke-free:

Phase Date Locations

Existing Continue Council-Managed Tokorangi Forest Council-Owned Playgrounds Rotorua Community Youth Centre Trust Premises Tennis Facilities – Lynmore, Okareka and Manuka Crescent Tennis Club Child Care and Early Childhood Education Centres Public Toilets Sports areas – Hockey Turfs and Netball Courts Kuirau Park - Rotary North Market Council workplace properties

1 1 February 2017 All bus stops and shelters I-site and library surrounds including Jean Batten Park All sports grounds Rotorua International Stadium All youth spaces and skate parks All Council-controlled reserves and parks including lakefront reserves

2 1 January 2018 Outdoor pavement eating places Eat Streat Markets held in the inner city Entrances and exits to public buildings and facilities used by the public

3. Smoke-free events Rotorua Lakes Council recognises the role that public events can play in promoting a positive smoke-free message. Accordingly, under this policy all council-delivered events as well as events held at any of council’s smoke-free public places will be smoke-free. As more public places become smoke-free, more events will adopt a smoke-free status. All agreements for the hire or rent of Council premises or reserves, or receiving Council funding for events will be required to include a Smokefree event clause from 1 February 2017.



File No: 55-27-204 RDC-682717

ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL Mayor Chairperson and members Strategy, Policy and Finance Committee WASTE MANAGEMENT AND MINIMISATION PLAN / WASTE STRATEGY 2016 - 2022 Report prepared by: Stavros Michael, Transport / Waste Solutions Director Report approved by: Geoff Williams, Chief Executive Officer

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek the agreement of the Strategy, Policy and Finance Committee to refer the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (Rotorua’s Waste Strategy 2016 – 2022) to Council for final adoption as required by the Waste Minimisation Act (WMA) 2008.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The adoption by Council of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) 2016 -2022 is the final process to close off a journey that commenced in 2015/16 year. Through that process the community’s input was sought in terms of desirable waste management objectives for the Rotorua District. Those objectives have been incorporated into the Council’s delivery systems and the proposed WMMP encapsulates the levels of services currently agreed as well a schedule of possible future improvements. The Council developed a “draft” Waste Strategy in 2015/16 through which it reviewed waste collection/diversion services and landfill operations within the district. The review was followed by meaningful community engagement and consultation as part of the Council’s Long Term Plan 2015-2025. The consultation identified key objectives and issues that required resolution and improvement across both activities. The “draft” Waste Strategy presented a series of options to Council with the aim of meeting those objectives. Council selected full kerbside refuse and recycling collections as the option for implementation. Waste management is a key activity for the Council. Our approach to waste management and minimisation should contribute to and be consistent with the vision, purpose and performance targets of the Long Term Plan (LTP) and the goals of Rotorua 2030. The LTP 2015-2025 was consulted on at the same time as the Draft Waste Strategy. The LTP and the Rotorua 2030 goals describe where the District wants to be, and how Council will contribute to getting there. The Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (WMA) requires the Rotorua Lakes Council to consider and adopt a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP) for the purpose of enabling the effective and efficient management and minimisation of waste within this District. The Act requires the WMMP to contain a summary of the Council’s objectives, policies, methods and funding to “achieve effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within the territorial authority’s district”.



The overall vision of this WMMP is to provide residents and ratepayers with highly effective, efficient and safe waste management and minimisation services and to contribute to achieving environmental, social, economic and cultural benefits.

3. RECOMMENDATION 3:

1. That the report titled ‘Waste Management and Minimisation Plan / Waste Strategy 2016 – 2022’ be received.

2. That the committee recommends to Council to adopt the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan / Rotorua’s Waste Strategy 2016 – 2022.

4. BACKGROUND

Local Authorities play an important role in managing waste, reducing the harm waste can cause and encouraging communities and businesses to reduce the creation of waste. This role is recognised in the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 (the Act). Under the Act councils are required to develop a Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (WMMP). Section 43 of the Act requires a WMMP to contain a summary of the council’s objectives, policies, methods and funding to achieve effective and efficient waste management and minimisation within its district. The WMMP is a guiding document which identifies Rotorua’s waste, recycling and general waste minimisation objectives in addition to illustrating the method as to how these are to be achieved. The purpose of the WMMP is to:

Describe the Council’s vision and how we will meet our long term goals for waste management and minimisation for the district;

Set strategies, objectives, operational policies and related activities to achieve these goals and establish how to measure progress;

Provide general information on how the Council intend to fund the activities of this WMMP; and

Help to meet all statutory requirements of the Council in respect to waste management. The WMMP considers waste and diverted materials in keeping with the order of priority in the Act. It recognises the current NZ Waste Strategy goals of:

reducing the harmful effects of waste improving the efficiency of resource use. In line with the requirements of section 50 of the Act, this WMMP will be reviewed at least every six years after its adoption. The Draft Waste Strategy was submitted and accepted as part of the 2015 – 2025 Long Term Plan (LTP). The draft strategy identified a number of deficiencies within the previous waste management and minimisation services provided by Council. Amongst other issues the following were highlighted:

1. A steady reduction of waste has eroded the landfill’s financial sustainability. 2. Low level of recovery of recyclable materials from the household waste stream. 3. Around 10% of properties in the district receive no kerbside collection services. 4. General household waste contained a high level of material that could be recycled.



5. Community demand for kerbside recycling services remained high.

Following the Long-term Plan submissions, the council resolved in June 2015 to:

Progress Option 4 from the range of options explored for the collection services in the district. Officers undertook the staged implementation of Option 4 from July 2016. Early indications are encouraging and appear to be consistent with the objectives of the final waste strategy 2016 – 2022. Key early indicators include:

High resident participation in kerbside recycling (in excess of 90% of households)

Increased volumes of materials diverted to beneficial use (at least 50% higher than previously)

Decreased waste volumes to the landfill (at least 25%) Funding support and certainty for the implementation of the WMMP is critical to its success. The Council’s waste services’ action plan describes how the activity will be funded. Funding considerations take into account a number of factors including:

Prioritising harmful wastes Waste minimisation and reduction of residual

waste to landfill(s) Full-cost pricing – “polluter pays” Protection of public health Affordability Cost effectiveness

That the environmental effects of production, distribution, consumption and disposal of goods and services should be consistently costed and charged as closely as possible to the point they occur to ensure that price incentives cover all costs.

Council may resolve to alter the indicated in the Plan funding framework through its Annual Plan process to recognise shifts in activity benefits, additional services, community affordability and/or different objectives in its funding and revenue policy.

5. DISCUSSION

The adoption of the recommended Waste Management and Minimisation Plan is a statutory requirement and a required prerequisite for Council to be entitled to received disbursements from the national consolidated waste minimisation fund. The fund is dispersed through a formula based on relative population distribution and for Rotorua is between $220 – 250,000 p.a.

6. ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The decisions or matters of this report are not considered significant in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This states that a matter shall be determined to be significant if/when the following criteria have been met:

The proposal or decision adversely affects all or a large portion of the community.

The impact or consequences of the proposal or decision on the affected persons (being a number of persons) will be substantial.

The proposal or decision will be difficult to reverse once the Council has committed to it.



The proposal or decision is likely to generate a high degree of controversy in the community.

It involves a proposal or decision to significantly change the intended level of service provision for any significant activity, including a proposal or decision to commence or cease any significant activity. A proposal is generally only considered significant if it relates to the activity as a whole.

The recommendations in this report relate to optimisation of waste services and in the main will generate community benefits.

7. COMMUNITY INPUT/ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLICITY The community has been engaged extensively with regard to the potential options that have been considered for both Collections and Landfill Contracts. The options that were considered by Council were submitted for community consultation as part of the LTP.

8. CONCLUSION

The adoption of the Waste Management and Minimisation Plan (Waste Strategy 2016 – 2022) will ensure Council’s compliance with statutory requirements and will support the delivery of a modern and upgraded level of waste management service to the community.

9. ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1: Waste management and Minimisation Plan/Rotorua’s Waste Strategy 2016 - 2022 (circulated as a separate document)



File No: 01-24-020 RDC-681005

ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL

Mayor Chairperson and members STRATEGY POLICY & FINANCE COMMITTEE SISTER CITIES AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Report prepared by: Debbie Cossar, Policy Advisor Report reviewed by: Jean-Paul Gaston, Group Manager Strategy and Partnerships Report approved by: Geoff Williams, Chief Executive

1. PURPOSE

This report seeks to confirm an approach to:

international relations

international travel by elected members

sister cities

delegation visits

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Rotorua Lakes Council (Council) ‘Sister City Policy’ has remained unchanged for at least 10 years. Current policy stipulates the number of overseas sister city visits in each electoral term of Council, but does not provide criteria on which the value of proposed travel can be assessed. This report proposes that going forward, a business case approach be used to determine the value of:

hosting sister city delegations when the proposed scale of the delegation/itinerary is out of proportion with any potential benefits from the relationship/visit.

international travel by elected members at council’s cost.

Business cases are to be approved through Council and justified on the activity’s contribution to the promotion of Council’s priorities, project or policy commitments, or economic development projects/ priorities. The perceived benefits of having an international sister city programme alone is no longer seen as justifying ongoing relationship management investment. This report recommends that formal and prescribed contact with sister cities cease and that Council respond to or pursue contact only when initiated and sustained by Rotorua’s current sister cities; and when it is beneficial to Council.



In addition, this report recommends that: 1. Council continue to respond positively to requests for visits, investment meetings and Chinese

friendship city links where Rotorua Economic Development Ltd or RLC Strategy advice suggests that support may encourage economic or investment value.

2. Income generating delegation visits continue to be supported where elected member assistance

can be obtained. It is proposed that revenue generated through these visits be applied in the first instance to any international travel by elected members or costs related to hosting international delegations.

3. No dedicated resourcing be applied to supporting international relations, sister cities or

delegations. Instead, the Office of Mayor will operate as the point of contact with a Governance Policy Advisor providing coordination. Requests for contact from sister cities and strategic relationships will be evaluated by the Strategy department. Support for visits and delegations to be coordinated by the Governance team with the assistance of Rotorua Economic Development Ltd and the Mayoral Office.

3. RECOMMENDATION 3: 1. That the report “Sister Cities and international relations” be received.

2. That the committee recommends to Council the adoption of the following policies (Attachments 1, 2 and 3):

Sister City Relationship Policy

Mayoral and Elected Representatives International Travel Policy

Conference Attendance for Elected Members Policy

4. BACKGROUND Councils involve themselves in sister cities/international relations for three main purposes:

World peace / understanding – origins of sister city movement post World War II

Economic / business relations

Knowledge exchanges where similar issues are experienced eg: Beppu around spa It is difficult to assess the contribution to peace and understanding that this Council’s four sister cities have made. Council has sister city relations with Klamath Falls (Oregon, USA), Beppu City (Oita, Japan), Lake Macquarie (NSW, Australia) and Wuzhong District (Suzhou, China). Further detail on the sister cities and strategic relationships are included in Attachment 4. Council’s sister city policy, which has remained unchanged for at least 10 years, stipulates the number of overseas sister city visits in each electoral term of Council but does not provide criteria on which the value of proposed travel can be assessed. The number of visits has not been adhered to over at least the last two terms of Council and contact with several sister cities over this period has diminished. Approximately five years ago the half FTE in the organisational structure dedicated to the support of sister cities relations was removed. This has contributed to a steady decline in contact with three of the four sister cities.



Council currently has two friendship/economic city relations with Chinese cities and Memoranda of Understanding with China Southern Airways and the Chinese province of Henan. Over the last 15 years there have been a number of visits and hosting of business delegations. Economic and business benefits are reported as a result of visits and relationships with the Chinese cities particularly. It is however impossible to state from this feedback whether similar gains would have been achieved by individual business people using contacts they had personally established outside of the Council assisted relationship. In addition, Council provides written invitations to international delegations requesting a visit to Rotorua and a presentation from Council. A charge is levied for both the letter and the visit to Council. Over the last four years the revenue from visiting delegations has varied:

2013 - $76,100

2014 - $33,200

2015 - $36,600

2016 - $42,900

5. DISCUSSION AND OPTIONS Since the dedicated support for the sister city relations was removed five years ago, assistance from the Mayor and Mayor’s office, (the former) Destination Rotorua and from external contractors has been used to support specific visits. A small number of councillors also provide assistance with delegation visits. While this approach has been reasonably successful in regard to the coordination of delegation visits, there has not been a reliable process for following up on commitments made by elected officials and this has led to some criticism of Council, its elected officials and council officers (e.g. recent representative schoolboy rugby team visit to Beppu). The Mayor has expressed concerns as to the efficiency and effectiveness of this adhoc assistance. At this stage, it is not proposed to resource a coordinator. Instead, it is proposed to better define the responsibilities within existing roles. The following flow chart details the responsibilities of elected representatives and by department for visiting delegations.



Table 1 shows the business as usual process that is proposed for visiting delegations where the proposed hosting of a delegation is not out of proportion with any potential benefits from the relationship/visit.

It is proposed that for international travel and the hosting of significant delegations, a business case will be prepared through the Chief Executive and provided to Council for a decision. This report will include the current funding level obtained via the income generating delegations and an indication of the cost of hosting the delegation/travel. The business case would focus on whether: 1. the travel/visiting delegation support’s Council’s vision, business objectives and aspirations for

the future as encapsulated in the Long-term Plan, and/or

2. the travel/visiting delegation support’s Council’s current priorities and/or flagship projects. At the conclusion of the travel/visiting delegation the elected representative assisted by the CEO’s Department will be required to provide a written report to Council. The report will include all commitments made as a result of the activity, so that they can be actioned by council officers. The following flow chart shows the recommended process for coordinating requests for international travel by elected representatives.

Coordination of requests to host Sister Cities, strategic delegations and income generating delegations

Request for contact

Contact through

Mayor’s office

Governance Policy

Advisor coordination

Income generating

delegations

Sister Cities

Strategic relationships

Governance to deliver

action

Strategy confirm action

Strategy Team confirm action

Delivery by:

Governance

Mayor’s office

Delivery by:

Rotorua Economic Development

Strategy

Governance

Mayor’s office

Councillor report

Yes

Yes

No

No

Council meeting to

review report



The recommendations in this report and the attached policies exclude travel by elected representatives that has been undertaken at the request of and paid for by other international, national or local organisations; including Rotorua Economic Development Ltd. Such travel may be undertaken at the discretion of the elected representative.


The decisions or matters of this report are considered significant in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This states that a matter shall be determined to be significant if/when a request is made for council to host a delegation where the proposed hosting of a delegation is out of proportion with any potential benefits from the relationship/visit; or when an elected representative makes a request to travel internationally at council’s cost.

7. COMMUNITY INPUT/ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLICITY

No external consultation has been undertaken in the development of this report or in establishing the revised policies. Consultation on this matter has not being undertaken as Council already has a sound understanding of the views and preferences of the persons likely to be affected or interested in the matter.

8. CONSIDERATIONS

8.1 Financial/budget considerations

Income from the income generating delegations will be used to subsidise travel by elected officials and hosting international delegations. Business cases proposing international travel or the hosting of delegations will include the current revenue situation.

Table 2: Coordination of requests for international travel

Councillor

request

Governance Policy

Advisor

Council confirm action Report by councillor

following travel Yes

No

Council meeting to

review report

Business case requesting travel prepared through

Chief Executive



8.2 Policy and planning implications

The proposed policies and the use of a business-case approach to decision-making will ensure alignment with Council’s strategic direction.

8.3 Risks

Risk Mitigation

Risk to long-term sister city relationships Better management of Council’s international programme that is more reflective of council priorities and better linked to the Long-term Plan

Commitments made during delegations not actioned

Governance Policy Advisor will be responsible for ensuring that any commitments listed in the report from elected officials are actioned

Cost of international programme Subsidised by use of funds from income generating delegations Bringing in-house some of the co-ordination activities that have previously been actioned by external contractors

8.4 Authority

Councillors will be responsible for approving requests relating to hosting delegations and international travel by elected officials that is funded by Council.

9. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Draft Sister City Relationship Policy Attachment 2: Draft Mayoral and Elected Representatives International Travel Policy Attachment 3: Draft Conference Attendance for Elected Members Policy Attachment 4: Sister City and Other Strategic Relationships Information



Attachment 1: Draft Sister City Relationship Policy

SISTER CITY RELATIONSHIP POLICY


December 2016 December 2019 Group Manager Strategy and Partnerships

Policy Purpose:

To guide decision making in relation to Council’s sister city relationships. Policy:

Rotorua Lakes Council (Council) has four sister cities: Beppu (Japan), Klamath Falls (USA), Lake Macquarrie (Australia) and Wuzhong District of Suzhou City, China. These relationships are long standing and were undertaken via the international Sister Cities programme between 1962 and 2000. The international programme seeks to foster communications across borders to promote the mutual exchange of ideas, people and materials in cultural, educational, youth, sports, municipal, professional and technical projects. Council has seen a decline in active contact with the majority of its sister cities. As part of the 2016 review all relationships are considered null and void unless contact is initiated and sustained by current sister cities and when that contact is considered beneficial to Council. Proposed travel that relates to a sister city relationship needs to be supported by a business case that outlines the benefits of the travel against the following criterion: 1. The travel/activity must support council’s vision, business objectives and aspirations for the future

as encapsulated in the Long-term Plan, or 2. The travel/activity must support council’s current priorities and/or flagship projects.

The business case to be approved by a recommendation from the Chief Executive to council. Generally travel costs of accompanying persons will not be paid for. At the conclusion of the travel the elected representative/staff member is required to provide a written report to council. This policy does not include travel by elected representatives that has been undertaken at the request of and paid for by other international, national or local organisations; including Rotorua Economic Development. Such travel may be undertaken at the discretion of the elected representative.



Attachment 2: Draft Mayoral and Elected Representatives International Travel Policy

MAYORAL AND ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL POLICY



Policy Purpose:

To guide decision making in relation to international travel undertaken by the Mayor and/or councillors as elected representatives of the Rotorua District, that is not covered by the Sister City Relationship Policy.

Policy:

There are occasions when the Mayor and/or elected representatives may be invited or required to attend international events overseas as representatives of Rotorua at the cost of the ratepayer. Proposed travel needs to be supported by a business case that outlines the benefits of the travel against the following criterion: 1. The travel/activity must support council’s vision, business objectives and aspirations for

the future as encapsulated in the Long-term Plan, or 2. The travel/activity must support council’s current priorities and/or flagship projects.

The business case to be approved by a recommendation from the Chief Executive to council. Generally travel costs of accompanying persons will not be paid for. At the conclusion of the travel the elected representative is required to provide a written report to council. This policy does not include travel by the Mayor and/or elected representatives that has been undertaken at the request of and paid for by other international, national or local organisations; including Rotorua Economic Development. Such travel may be undertaken at the discretion of the elected representative.



Attachment 3: Draft Conference Attendance for Elected Members Policy

CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE FOR ELECTED MEMBERS POLICY



Policy Purpose:

To guide decision making in relation to elected members representation of council at conferences and professional development seminars.

Policy:

That for the annual LGNZ conference, the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chief Executive, two councillors and a representative from the Te Tatau o Te Arawa Board; attend as council’s delegates. All councillors will have the opportunity to attend sessions of their choice at Rotorua-based conferences. Any proposed conference attendance outside of Rotorua needs to be supported by a business case that outlines the benefits of the event against the following criterion: 1. The conference/event must support council’s vision, business objectives and aspirations

for the future as encapsulated in the Long-term Plan, or 2. The conference/event must support council’s current priorities and/or flagship projects.

The business case to be approved by a recommendation from the Chief Executive to council. Generally travel costs of accompanying persons will not be paid for. At the conclusion of the conference the elected representative is required to provide a written report to council.



Attachment 4: Sister City and Other Strategic Relationships Information

Sister city relationships

BEPPU, Japan (Sister City) Key Stats: Pop. 119,582, Area 125km2, Rotorua Sister City since 1987 Key Attributes: Spa, Bathing, Hot Springs, Tourism, Lakes and Waterfalls Mayoral Details: Mr Yasuhiro Nagano, Elected Contact Details: +81-0977-21-1111, 1-15 Kaminoguchi-cho, Beppu-shi, Oita-ken Recent Official Visits: Mayor Steve Chadwick to Beppu in 2014. Visit by Mayor

Nagano and delegation Jan 2016. Visit to Beppu to attend Onsen Spa Academia 2016.

Comment The relationship has been driven by Mr Kenji Nishi (Honorary citizen of Rotorua) in the main through a strong relationship with former Mayor Grahame Hall. More latterly Mayor Steve Chadwick has rekindled this relationship through Mayor Yasuhiro Nagano and his predecessor Mayor Hiroshi Hamada, with a specific geothermal and hot springs focus. This has been further developed with the recent visit of Mayor Yasuhiro Nagano to Rotorua in January 2016 and Mayor Chadwick’s acceptance of an invitation from Mayor Nagano to speak at an Onsen Academia Conference in Beppu. In general the relationship has maintained a fairly solid standing through multiple visits over the years with ongoing interests that have accentuated mutual interests and potential for learning and exchange in key areas such as spa, wellness, geothermal and export education.

KLAMATH FALLS, (Oregon) USA (Sister City) Key Stats: Pop. 21,005, Area 48km2, Rotorua Sister City since 1962 Key Attributes: Timber, Fishing and Agriculture Mayoral Details: Mr Todd Kellstrom, Elected 1992 (5th Term) Contact Details: +1-541-883-5316, [email protected], 77601 Last Official Visit: September 2002, followed by a return visit from Klamath Falls

delegation in March 2003. Comment Rotorua Lakes Council has had relatively minimal to nil engagement with Klamath Falls since March 2003 when a delegation from Klamath Falls visited Rotorua. There has been no substantive ongoing sector or economic connections of substance beyond the initial friendship accord of Sister City. For varying reasons of connectivity and economic opportunity, this circumstance is unlikely to change in the immediate future.

LAKE MACQUARIE, (NSW) Australia (Sister City) Key Stats: Pop. 21,000, Area 110km2, Rotorua Sister City since 1997 Key Attributes: Lakes, Walking, Fishing, Biking Trails, Arts. Mayoral Details: Ms. Jodie Harrison, Elected 2012 (1st Term) Contact Details: +61 2 4921 0223, [email protected], NSW 2284 Last Official Visit: Previous Mayor of Lake Macquarie flew on inaugural ROT/SYD

Air New Zealand flight (2009). Comment Rotorua has had relatively minimal to nil engagement with Lake Macquarie with no substantive ongoing sector or economic connections of substance beyond the initial friendship accord of Sister City. For varying reasons of connectivity and economic opportunity, this circumstance is unlikely to change in the immediate future.



WUZHONG, (Suzhou City) China - (Sister City) Key Stats: Pop. 580,000, Area 770km2, Rotorua Sister City since 2000 Key Attributes: Building, Architecture Tech, Chemical, Biomedicine. Mayoral Details: Governor, the People's Government of Wuzhong District,

Suzhou, Jiangsu. Contact Details: Bruce Lee, Foreign and Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of

Wuzhong District of Suzhou. Last Official visit: By M Rawson and T Maxwell as part of a China Tourism mission

in 2012. Comment The relationship with Wuzhong, Suzhou City continues to have merit (given the prominence and economic opportunity of China). The focus over the past decade has been placed on the special or ‘Economic City Relationship’ with Jiangning District of Nanjing (e.g. Nanjing Rotorua Town). There is a logical correlation between the Nanjing and Wuzhong relationship as they are effectively neighbouring provinces of China with a strong linkage to Shanghai and fit the target market education and tourism profiles.

Strategic Relationships: Rotorua Lakes Council has an Economic Cooperation Agreement with the Jiangning District of Nanjing, a smaller friendly city agreement with Xuyi, and a MoU with China Southern Airways. All three of these relationships sit outside the formality of the sister cities context. Economic Cooperation Agreement - Jiangning District of Nanjing, China Jiangning is the local government for the district where Nanjing Rotorua Town is located. In 2011 the Municipal City of Nanjing approached Rotorua to ask if Rotorua would consider establishing an economic cooperation agreement with the Jiangning District. The Nanjing Moon relationship fits under the Jiangning agreement and is based on the Nanjing Rotorua Town property development. All properties in ‘Rotorua Town’ are at a high price point entry level and as part of the agreement with RDC to use the name ‘Rotorua’ any customers of Nanjing Moon Corporation purchasing property within the development receive a holiday trip to New Zealand, part of which, is to visit the ‘real’ Rotorua paid for by Nanjing Moon Corporation, (in their purchase price). To date we have had over 400 residents visit Rotorua over the 2011-16 period. Rotorua’s current relationships in Suzhou and Nanjing are geographically aligned and also have a strong connection to Shanghai, which is a major source of New Zealand visitors and tertiary education students. China Southern Airways MoU In 2012 Rotorua Lakes Council signed an MoU with China Southern Airways as they began their new service flying daily between Guangzhou and Auckland. The MoU specifically focuses on developing the semi FIT and high end (luxury) visitor market with Rotorua being a key destination in any New Zealand itineraries. The initial elements of the MoU have been implemented which included a fairly intensive set of marketing activities. The MoU has also provided Rotorua with a premium position when dealing with China Southern famils and trade missions to New Zealand. There are a number of continued on-going benefits afforded to Rotorua as a result of this position including linkages with the likes of associated strategic partners Auckland International Airport and Tourism NZ.



Xuyi, Huai’an Jiangsu, China (just to the north of Nanjing) In 2010 RDC signed a Friendly Cooperation Agreement with Xuyi. This agreement is based around general friendly exchanges with no particular focus in any specific area. This relationship agreement is based off a strong relationship between Cr Trevor Maxwell and the Government of Xuyi. There is little commitment of resource required to maintain the relationship. Province of Henan, China In 2016, Mayor Steve Chadwick signed a memorandum of understanding with Zhengzhou Airport Economic Zone director Wang Fei in order to strengthen the tourism co-operation between Rotorua and the Chinese province of Henan.



File No: 01-15-010\25 RDC-686415

ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL Mayor Chairperson and members STRATEGY, POLICY & FINANCE COMMITTEE SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS – 1 JANUARY TO 31 DECEMBER 2017 Report prepared by: Rick Dunn, Governance Lead Report reviewed by: Oonagh Hopkins, Governance and Partnerships manager Report approved by: Jean-Paul Gaston, Group Manager Strategy & Partnerships

1. PURPOSE This report proposes a schedule of meetings for council and committees for the period 1 January to

31 December 2017.

RECOMMENDATION 4

1. That the report “Schedule of meetings – 1 January to 31 December 2017” be received. 2. That the committee recommends that Council resolves to adopt the schedule of meetings for

the period 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017 based on a monthly cycle and that the following starting times are agreed to:

a) that Operations and Monitoring Committee meetings shall commence at 9:30am

b) that Strategy, Policy and Finance Committee meetings shall commence at 9:30am

c) that Council meetings shall commence at 9.30am

d) that extraordinary meetings may be scheduled as required.

3. BACKGROUND Each year the council needs to approve a schedule of meetings, so that the meetings can be notified publicly, in accordance with statutory requirements. The approval of a meetings calendar also provides the ability for councillors, the executive leadership team and leadership team to structure as best it can, up and coming issues for debate and decision making. The calendar also ensures, that statutory timeframes are met in terms of adoption of annual plans, annual reports etc.

4. DISCUSSION AND OPTIONS It is proposed that Council continues with a monthly cycle for the following reasons:

better coordination with financial reporting cycles;

management of agendas to ensure timeliness – appropriate time frames to allow full debate of the recommendations before they are recommended to full council

agendas can be kept to a manageable size ensuring effective and transparent decision making



For consistency it is proposed that all meetings will commence (unless otherwise advised) at 9.30am:

Operations and Monitoring Committee meetings

Strategy, Policy and Finance Committee meetings

Annual Plan forums, Annual Plan hearings and Annual Plan deliberations meetings

Council meetings

Extraordinary council meetings 5. ASSESSMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

The decision does not prompt consideration of Council’s Policy on Significance.

6. COMMUNITY INPUT/ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLICITY Council is required to publically notify all our public meetings. Dates and times of meetings are on

the Council’s website and advertised in the local newspaper. The notification period is that meetings scheduled for the following month must be publicly notified not more than 14 days and not less than 5 days before the end of every month.

7. CONSIDERATIONS


Not applicable.

7.2 Policy and planning implications Not applicable.

7.3 Risks There are no major risks associated with the decisions or matters.

7.4 Authority The Governance team are responsible for the notification of the schedule of meetings and the public notices required leading up to each meeting round.

8. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Proposed schedule of meetings for 2017

School TermsTerm 130 Jan to 7 Feb - 13 AprilTerm 21 May - 7 July

Term 324 July - 29 Sept

Term 416 Oct - by 14 Dec (secondary) or 20 Dec (primary/intermediate)

TMOK CE's forum Pukaki CE's forum

9.30am9.30am

9.30am9.30am1:30pm9.30am

23-24 May 2017

6-7 June 2017

29 June 2017

26 October 2017

Statutory

Hearing

Statutory

Hearing

Council 29

25

RTC

LCB

10

13

10

12

21

15

CE's forum

23 Labour Day

24

Citizenship11

12

SP&F

Statutory Hgs

LCB

CitizenshipLCB

Statutory

HearingStatutory

Hearing

Statutory

Hearing

Statutory

Hearing

Statutory

Hearing

Statutory

Hearing

TMOK

Statutory

Hearing

Statutory

Hearing

Statutory

Hearing

15

6

11

DLC

RTC

8

SP&F

8

7

SP&F

10

SP&F

LCB

Rural & Provincial

10

10 TMOK

9

16 13 12

CouncilCouncil

23

RTALSG

RTALSG

19 17

DLC

DLC

TMOKSP&F SP&F

Statutory

Hearing

Statutory

Hearing

24

11

TMOK

RCB

22

12

RCB

RTALSG

23 27

O&M

Rural & Provincial

RCB

21

RCBRural & Provincial

25 23

24 22

17 15 19 17

18 16 20 18

RTC

Audit

LCB

Rural & Provincial Rural & Provincial

28

DLC

26

26

CE's forum

22

27

THU31 28 26 30 28

FRI27

O&MZone 2

2929 Zone 2

WED27 25

District Licensing Committee

Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes Strategy Group

BOPRC Public Transport Subcommittee

Civil Defence Emergency Management Group Council CDEMG

PTSC

DLC

20 25 22Council

Council

20

RCBCE's forum

CDEMG

18

LCBTriennial

AP forums

RCB

AP hearings

AP hearings

DLC

27

DLCCouncil

RTC

SP&F BOP CE Forum

12 16 16 13 18Rural & Provincial

Strategy, Policy & Finance Committee

PTSC PTSC

Citizenship

BOP Chief Executives' Forum

27

31

WED 18 22 22 19

O&M

TMOK Te Maru o Kaituna

31 TUE

LCB RTC BOPRC Regional Transport Committee

Rotorua Rural Community Board

Rotorua Lakes Community Board

RCB

LT Leadership Team AP Annual Plan RTALSG

Audit Audit & Risk Committee

DLCSH Statutory Hearings

Council

Operations & Monitoring Committee Citizenship Citizenship

TUE 31

29

MONAP Decision Making

AnniversaryAuckland

AP Hearing of Submissions

MON 30 31 30DLC

31

Adopt Annual Report

Adopt Annual Plan 2017/18

SUN

Key Dates

30

30 30

SATfor consultation

SUN 29

29 29 30Adopt Draft AP 2017/18

29 March 2017 SAT 28

26

FRI 27 31 28 30 28

RTC

Statutory

Hearing

CouncilCouncil Spare

TUE29 26 24 28

Note that additional extraordinary meetings may be

scheduled from time to timeTHU 26 30 27

28 26 30

29

WED 25

MON

ANZAC Day

29 26 24 28 25 27

TUE 24 28 28 25 30

Citizenship Ceremonies

Boxing Day

MON 23 27 27 24 XMAS DayAnnual Plan Forums/Hrings/Delibs

SATStrategy, Policy & Finance 22 27 24 22 26 23

Spare meetings28 25

Operations & Monitoring SUN 22 26 26 23 SUN

Meeting TimesCouncil

SAT 21 25 25

26 23 21FRI 20 24 24 21

Ro

toru

a La

kes

Co

un

cil

Ye

ar P

lan

ne

r 2

01

7

THU 19 23 23

SUN

LCB

8 12

SAT

FRI25 22 20

20 18 22 20

21 19 23 21 THU24 RCB

WED23

Council

PTSC

CouncilPTSC

RCB

LCB

MON

21 19 TUE

MON 16 20 20 17 22 19 17 21Easter Monday DLCDLC

TUE 17 21 21 18

Audit

Statutory

Hearing

Statutory

Hearing

SAT

SUN 15 19 19 16 21 18

20 17 15 19 16 14

SUN16 20

SAT 14 18 18 15 18 16

THU13 17

FRI 13 17 17 14 19 16 14 18Good Friday

14 12 16 14

15 13 17 15 FRI

CouncilTHU

CitizenshipCitizenship

TUE

WED 11 15 15 12 15 13 WED12 16 13 11

TUE 10 14 14 14

17 14

MON DLC

TUE4 5

12

SAT

8 FRI8 6

7

SP&F

WED

SP&F

5 39

4 8

7

SP&FTMOK

Statutory

Hearing

Citizenship Citizenship

7

LCB

THU6 10 7 5O&M11 8 SP&F O&M

SUN13 10 8

99

MON10 14 11 9

12

9 13 13 10 15 12

14 119

Citizenship

THU

FRI

DLC

6

Zone 2

TUE 4

DLCWaitangi Day

WED 4 8 8 5

5 9 9 6 O&M

7

95AP forums

Statutory4

6 10 10 7

New Year's Day

9 7

3 6

SP&F

Statutory

Hearing

Statutory

HearingObserved 7 7 8

6 3 DLC

Citizenship

Citizenship AP deliberations

O&M

4

5

Holiday

SAT

MON8 5 3 7 4 2Triennial

CDEMG

SAT

SUN

6

MON 2 6QueensBirthday 6

TUE 2

RTALSG

5 2

WED 1 1

Zone 2

24 1

FRI 3 3

4 12 2

4Zone 2Statutory

Hearing

O&M O&M

APRIL MAY

13

RCB

MON

JUNE

3

1

DLC

Citizenship

THU

3 FRI

WED

TUE

Citizenship

Ver

sio

n 1

MON 1

JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBERJANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH

2 1

O&M O&M23

3

Rotorua Lakes Council is the operating name of Rotorua

District Council

1

6 3 1

5 2

New Year's DaySUN 1 5 7 4 2

3 2

1CDEMG

4

O&MTHUTriennial

Statutory

Hearing

Audit Audit

AP deliberations

1 5

11

24

25

20

11

19

AP forums

RCB

DLCDLC

9

CDEMG

LCB 11

11

29

LG

NZ

Confe

rence



File No: 01-63-107-16 RDC-650208

ROTORUA LAKES COUNCIL Mayor Chairperson and members STRATEGY POLICY AND FINANCE COMMITTEE COMMUNITY HOUSING PARTNERSHIP Report prepared by: Rosemary Viskovic, Senior Policy Advisor, Strategy Report reviewed by: Aimee McGregor, Strategy Manager Report approved by: Jean-Paul Gaston, Group Manager Strategy and Partnerships

1. PURPOSE

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s direction with regards to development of a proposal for the future management of Council’s pensioner housing.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Council provides 152 housing units in five locations around Rotorua for older people who meet age, income, asset and independent living criteria. Reform of the social housing sector by government has resulted in local government not being eligible to be a Community Housing Provider (CHP), and our tenants therefore cannot access the Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS). If Council were to partner with other organisations to form a Community Housing Provider status Trust, this would provide an avenue to finance and increase the number and quality of social housing for older people in Rotorua. Such a Trust could potentially umbrella further social housing collaborative work. Initial investigation has included a data review of the Rotorua housing continuum. A contractor recently engaged on our behalf met with a number of potential partners including iwi trusts, who indicated strong interest in a partnership approach. It is recommended that Council support in principle the investigation and development of a business case for the creation of a Community Housing Provider Trust, noting any proposal may require wider community consultation in line with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The proposal would consider models for partnering with community housing providers and/ or lease of Council pensioner housing stock to community providers.

3. RECOMMENDATION 5

1. That the report “Community housing partnership” be received.

2. That the Committee recommends to Council to support in principle Option 1: that Council investigate and develop a business case for the creation of a Community Housing Provider Trust, noting any proposal may require wider community consultation in line with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.



4. BACKGROUND

Councils have provided social housing, predominantly for older persons, since World War 1. The government incentivised councils to build these through offers of low-interest loans by the State Advances Corporation, particularly throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Most councils manage their housing portfolios in-house with little acquisition or disposal. There are financial implications of this, as stock may require upgrading to meet current building standard requirements and may not be conducive to meeting the needs of its predominantly older population. The Sustainable Living Strategy identifies the need to plan for Rotorua district’s future quality housing needs. The actions toward this strategy being:

Investigate the future social and general housing needs of Rotorua in terms of number, tenure options, location and design requirements;

Work collaboratively with stakeholders including iwi, property, land and other businesses, agencies and community organisations to prepare a housing plan; and

Seek partners for the provision of sustainable and quality social housing for pensioners. One of Council’s 2016 priorities is for sustainable infrastructure and affordable, effective council services. Council provides 152 housing units in five locations around Rotorua for older people who meet age, income, asset and independent living criteria. The value of the 152 properties is just under $10m. Council undertook insulation retrofitting works to the extent permitted in older design buildings, and a rebuild of 30 units at Rawhiti Street was undertaken in 2005 with the support of government funding. This was a 20 year loan by Housing Corporation of $1,532,362, approximately 50% of the cost of the rebuilding, which was not required to be repaid as long as Council retained the units for pensioner housing. Council has subsequently not been eligible to access central government funding to further upgrade the facilities. In the current financial year Council is renovating three units at the Rawhiti Street complex at a cost of approximately $56,000 per pair of units. Extensive renovation has been required to remedy water damage. Reform of the social housing sector by government has resulted in local government not being eligible to be a Community Housing Provider (CHP), and our tenants therefore cannot access the Income Related Rent Subsidy (IRRS). If Council were to partner with other organisations to form a Community Housing Provider status Trust, this would provide an avenue to finance and increase the number and quality of social housing for older people in Rotorua. Such a Trust could potentially umbrella further social housing collaborative work.

5. DISCUSSION AND OPTIONS

5.1 Issues facing Council A. Specific to Council’s pensioner housing assets:

Cost of pensioner unit refurbishment and improvement

Requirement to retain ownership of 30 pensioner units, for which government loan funded rebuild, for 20 years from 2005

Council inadvertently provides social support to our tenants, but is not well-equipped to do so



Councils are not eligible to be Community Housing Providers and so our tenants do not attract the Income Related Rent Subsidy resulting in below market rent received by Council

Consideration of strategic value of other council owned property with potential for community housing

B. Wider community issues:

Interest shown in papakāinga and property on Māori land but little sign of investment

Trend of increasing demand for pensioner housing based on ageing population pattern and reducing home ownership

Growing inequity of home ownership

How to encourage development of quality, energy-efficient and right-sized homes for the future

Spatial and urban planning of communities

Trend of lack of supply to meet demand for quality homes for rent or purchase

Continued deterioration of housing stock

No clear co-ordinating group of critical size emerging as a local Community Housing Provider

There are also opportunities emerging. There is strong interest in our community to respond to the demand for housing. A contractor recently engaged on our behalf met with a number of potential partners including iwi trusts, who indicated strong interest in a partnership approach. There are a number of examples of councils taking approaches to partner with community groups to address social housing needs, for instance Ōtautahi Community Housing Trust in Christchurch. A continuum model of housing has been developed which considers the interplay between needs and levels of support. It is important to note that social housing should not be seen in isolation from the wider housing continuum as events affecting one sector have flow-on effects to the others. Furthermore it is not static; ideally support enables people to increase their degree of independence over time where appropriate.

Housing status for a community exists in terms of a continuum – from homelessness and emergency housing through to unsupported home ownership (freehold ownership). Between those two points are supported rental housing (subsidised rental tenancy agreements), unsupported rental housing (private/commercial rental tenancy agreements) and supported home ownership (debt funded financing arrangements/mortgaged property/other supported home purchase).

5.2 Community Housing Provider (CHP) structure

The Community Housing Regulatory Authority (CHRA) manages the eligibility assessment and registration of CHPs provided for under the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Community Housing Provider) Regulations 2014. To be eligible to register as a CHP, you must meet the eligibility criteria and demonstrate capacity to meet the prescribed performance standards. These aim to provide the government assurance that social housing tenants are appropriately housed and that their rights are protected.



To be eligible for registration as a Class 1 Social Landlord, you must be a CHP. This means a housing provider that has as one of its objectives the provision of social rental housing and/or affordable rental housing. The CHP governing body must, after having reviewed the Performance Standards, support the application for registration. Finally, the CHRA must be satisfied, on reasonable grounds, that the CHP has the capacity to meet the performance standards. It is noted that local authorities and council-controlled organisations (CCOs) cannot register. However, a subsidiary of a local authority or CCO may apply to register as a CHP if it is operating at arm’s length. The subsidiary must be genuinely operating independently from the parent as if not part of its corporate structure. This should be evident from its constitution, membership of its governing body, and its governance and financial management structure. One of the advantages of becoming a Class 1 Social Landlord is the ability to access Income Related Rent Subsidies for tenants which can assist with the financial sustainability of the CHP entity going forward.

5.3 Review of Rotorua Housing Data

We have recently commissioned a review of data to understand the supply and demand across the housing continuum in Rotorua, taking into consideration:

Rotorua district supply and demand previous, current and trend data

Affordability measures

Demographic specific trends- age , ethnicity, household size

Key influencers and drivers of historic and current trends

Overcrowding

Identifying specific data limitations, potential distortions or questions.

The key findings of that review are:

Emerging evidence confirms that in the past 12 months it has become harder to find houses to purchase or rent in Rotorua, and house prices have been increasing.

Monthly valuation data shows that Rotorua’s average residential house value accelerated rapidly since the latter half of 2015.

Real estate sales show a significant increase in the price of lower-value homes in Rotorua, which negatively impacts on affordability for lower income groups.

The broader Waikato/BOP regional housing market is in ‘catch-up mode’ compared to other parts of the country.

There is an increasing under-supply of affordable rental housing options due to a large number of first-home buyers and a decrease in investment property purchases.

Housing affordability is lowest among those who are young, single and have lower income and wealth, including a substantial proportion of Māori and Pacific residents.

Around 700 people in Rotorua can be described as ‘severe housing deprived’, many of whom are living temporarily in over-crowded private dwellings.

As at 2013, an estimated 100 Rotorua people were living in some form of non-private accommodation such as a campground, boarding house or motel, and a further 57 were living rough or in a mobile dwelling. Chronic street homeless in Rotorua is currently estimated at between 28 and 40 people.

Housing growth projections for Rotorua vary substantially depending on underlying assumptions. Long-range scenarios may be impacted by a wide range of factors, and policy responses need to take into account this high level of uncertainty and associated risk.

Data gaps have been identified through this review, most notably in terms of housing condition measures. Further work on estimating aspects of housing condition in Rotorua and the potential costs and benefits of housing improvements may be warranted.



It is intended that this review information be shared at a local housing symposium with all potential partners. This would create an informed basis for consideration of the objectives and scope of a community housing trust.

5.4 Local Government Act Section 17A Assessment

The Local Government Act Section 17A requires councils to review services to improve service efficiency and governance. The following table template was developed by Wellington City Council and is adapted here to illustrate assessment of governance arrangements for in-house versus a Community Housing Provider Trust.

Context and activity specific

questions In-house CHP Trust Commentary

Are frequent political trade-offs likely to be required or are the objectives enduring?

Flexibility needed

X

Enduring objectives

Community housing objectives require longer term commitment and should not require frequent adjustment

Is political influence important? Responsive

X Independence Greater independence aligns with the desire for strong partnering with the broader community

Is the activity a series of shorter, one-off activities or an ongoing service being provided?

Shorter, one-off

X Ongoing business

Community housing requires ongoing, consistent delivery and development of key relationships

Does the service need to be integrated with other council activity or will a particular focus add value to performance?

Integrated X Specific focus

The activities have a defined focus with little need for integration with other Council services

Will there be added value from aggregating like activities? No

X Yes There is value in aggregating like community housing activities for access to funding for development, quality and specialty support

Is the activity in a stable or dynamic business phase? Stable

X Dynamic There are demographic and economic impacts affecting the housing continuum and requiring broad sector response, wider than just pensioner housing

Will the activity be delivered as part of a joint venture? Single owner

X Multiple owners Opportunity for multiple partners coordinating activity across the housing continuum

Will the activity benefit from specific/commercial governance expertise?

Less commercial/

specific focus

X

More commercial/ specific focus

The activities identified within the scope of this review all benefit from specific expertise- delivery of housing and support services

Does the activity require general management or specific leadership? Management

X Leadership Leadership is required in the development/ change management phase; however in the longer term specialist management is required.

Are improved service levels needed? Similar service level

X

Significant change/ innovation

Opportunity for new and improved services

Are significant efficiency gains required? Not so

important

X Significant change important

There is scope to make some efficiency gains dependent on precise model and subsequent development opportunities taken

Are the objectives specific and measurable? General measures

X Specific measures Specific measures can be readily set once

objectives agreed with partners Will increased external funding be available?

Reliance on ratepayer

funding

X Increase external funding likely

The ability to access the IRRS is an objective of the proposal

Is there an opportunity to reduce expected council funding and/or investment?

No X Yes Expect the pensioner housing asset to be

fully self-funding Is it expected that the activity will generate a profit?

No (maybe some

fees/charges)

X Self-funding/ profit making

Infrastructure sustainability/ self-funding and affordability of housing is the objective rather than profit

Is entrepreneurial risk-taking involved? No X Yes Entrepreneurial skills are required for

further development or expansion



Context and activity specific questions

In-house CHP Trust Commentary

Do resources need to be ring-fenced? No

X Yes The CHP Trust has clear parameters and objectives to meet government requirements for status

Do risks need to be ring-fenced? No

X Yes The arms-length arrangement of a CHP Trust shares risk with the private sector partners

5.5 Options:

Tompkins Wake was asked to provide a legal perspective on Council’s pensioner housing options (refer to Attachment 5). These options are based on that legal advice. 1. Council investigates and develops a business case for the creation of a Community Housing

Provider Trust, noting any proposal may require wider community consultation in line with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. The proposal would consider models for partnering with Community Housing Providers and/or lease of Council pensioner housing stock to community providers. (Recommended option)

2. Status quo: This option is not recommended as it does not address the objective to provide

sustainable infrastructure and affordable, effective Council services. It also does not address the need for funding to improve the quality of the existing pensioner housing stock or to address increase in pensioner housing needs.

3. Outright sale: This option is not recommended. During community engagement on the

Sustainable Living Strategy, there was strong feedback that Council should continue to be involved in the provision of pensioner housing.


The decisions or matters of this report are part of a process to arrive at a decision that may be significant in accordance with Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This states that a matter shall be determined to be significant if

g) It involves a proposal or decision to transfer ownership or control, or abandonment, of a strategic asset from Council.

As a significant decision or matter, the Council must apply greater diligence to the decision making requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 sections 76-82. This includes, but is not limited to, the degree to which different options are identified and assessed and the extent to which community views are considered, including whether consultation is required.

7. COMMUNITY INPUT/ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLICITY

To date initial investigation has canvassed the views of a range of people to ascertain interest and seek supporting information, including Te Tatau o Te Arawa, Pukeroa Oruawhata Trust, Ngati Whakaue Tribal Lands Incorporation, Ministry of Social Development, Te Arawa Whanau Ora, real estate and property investors, NGO providers. People currently residing in Council’s pensioner housing and staff involved in the management of that service require early engagement to ensure they are fully informed with regard their concerns about any potential impact of changes on their housing. There is no expectation that current tenants



would be detrimentally impacted and we would seek learning from councils who have already undergone transition of their pensioner housing to CHP to ensure current tenants continue to be supported and well-informed. A communication plan will be required including:

Current pensioner housing tenants

Staff involved in managing pensioner housing

Wider interested public

Potential partners

Wider housing continuum sector

Key government agencies A full consultation process will be required once a proposal has been formed.

8. CONSIDERATIONS


The costs of progressing the development of a proposal can be met within existing operating budgets. A full business plan will be required with the developed proposal.

8.2 Policy and planning implications The proposal to investigate and develop a Community Housing Provider Trust is in keeping with Rotorua 2030, in particular the goal for ‘Homes that match needs’, and with the 2016 priority for sustainable infrastructure and affordable, effective council services. It is further in keeping with the Sustainable Living Strategy which identifies the need to plan for Rotorua district’s future quality housing needs, the actions toward this strategy being:

Investigate the future social and general housing needs of Rotorua in terms of number, tenure options, location and design requirements;

Work collaboratively with stakeholders including iwi, property, land and other businesses, agencies and community organisations to prepare a housing plan; and

Seek partners for the provision of sustainable and quality social housing for pensioners. 8.3 Risks

At this stage of the project, there are no major risks associated with the decision or matters as we are seeking approval to investigate and develop a proposal to form a Community Housing Provider Trust. There is potential for current pensioner housing tenants to be concerned about their tenure; however we expect to allay any fears through our communications plan and ensuring their welfare is paramount in any planning. Initial engagement has resulted in very positive feedback and support in principle for the establishment of a CHP entity.

8.4 Authority

This committee has the authority to decide this matter.



8. ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1: The New System Attachment 2: How social housing providers are paid Attachment 3: The Housing Continuum Attachment 4: Rotorua Community Housing Model Attachment 5: Tompkins Wake letter



Attachment 1: The New System



Attachment 2: How social housing providers are paid



Attachment 3: The Housing Continuum

ATTACHMENT 4



Attachment 5: Tompkins Wake letter

strategy, policy & finance committee · the policy objective is to improve the health and...

Documents