Source: http://infocouncil.huttcity.govt.nz/Open/2018/06/CPC_06062018_AGN_2562_AT.htm
Timestamp: 2019-03-22 20:05:48
Document Index: 436929846

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art1', 'art 1', 'ART 1']

Agenda of Community Plan Committee - 6 June 2018
Wednesday 6 June 2018 commencing at 9.30am.
3. Setting the Scene by Mayor Wallace and Chief Executive (18/837)
5. Consultation Results - 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (18/678)
Report No. CPC2018/3/148 by the Corporate Planner 9
6. Riverbank Carpark Tariff Changes (18/833)
Report No. CPC2018/3/152 by the Divisional Manager City Growth 99
“Notes the City Development Committee’s recommendations from its meeting held on 1 May 2018 and
amends part (iii) to read: endorses the following tariff structure for the Riverbank car park zone effective from 1 July 2018, as follows:
No daily maximum parking duration”
7. Lower Hutt Homelessness Strategy (18/944)
Report No. CPC2018/3/159 by the Principal Research and Policy Advisor 110
8. Sea Level Rise - Actions and Recommendations (18/687)
Report No. CPC2018/3/150 by the Divisional Manager, Strategy and Planning 115
“That recommendation (i) (a) contained in the report be endorsed and amends part (i) (b) to read:-
makes adequate provision to begin engagement with Lower Hutt communities to build a common understanding of the risks faced by the community particularly the potential environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts associated with of climate change. “
9. Encroachment Licence Fees (18/686)
Report No. CPC2018/3/149 by the Principal Policy Advisor 130
10. Rates Postponement Policy for Residential Ratepayers Aged 65 Years and Over (18/910)
Report No. CPC2018/3/155 by the Chief Financial Officer 142
“(i) notes there is support for the introduction of the Rates Postponement Policy for Residential Ratepayers Aged 65 Years and Over (the Policy) from the consultation; and
(i) adopts the Policy with effect from 1 July 2018.”
11. Hutt City Development Charges and Rates Remission Policy (18/923)
Report No. CPC2018/3/153 by the Divisional Manager City Growth 149
12. Rates Remissions for Community, Sporting and Other Organisations (18/924)
Report No. CPC2018/3/156 by the Chief Financial Officer 152
13. Parks Asset Renewals (18/816)
Report No. CPC2018/3/151 by the Divisional Manager, Parks and Gardens 157
14. Additional Information Requested (18/908)
Memorandum dated 28 May 2018 by the Divisional Manager, Democratic Services 161
“That the recommendation contained in the memorandum be endorsed with a new part (ii) to read:
thanks officers for their work in compiling the additional information.”
15. Finalising the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (18/896)
Report No. CPC2018/3/157 by the Corporate Planner 168
16. Proposed Budget Changes for 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (18/802)
Report No. CPC2018/3/154 by the Budgeting and Reporting Manager 457
“(i) notes and receives the report; and
(ii) discusses the carryovers and budget changes required as part of the Community Plan Committee meeting deliberations.”
(ii) authorises the Long Term Plan Subcommittee comprising the Mayor and Chairs of Standing Committees (City Development, Community Services, District Plan, Finance and Performance and Policy and Regulatory) to provide ongoing guidance and sign off the final document to enable the document to be submitted for design and layout mid-June. “
17 06 June 2018
File: (18/678)
Report no: CPC2018/3/148
Consultation Results - 2018-2028 Long Term Plan
1. This report outlines the results of the consultation undertaken on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.
(i) notes 198 submissions (including five late submissions) were received for the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan and 94 individuals or groups presented their submissions in person to the Community Plan Committee (CPC) on 16 and 17 May;
(v) notes a parallel survey was conducted by Public Voice using our Citizens Panel and that overall the views of the panel were similar to that of submitters;
(vii) notes the results of the consultation, Citizen’s Panel survey and requests for funding are attached as Appendices 1 – 4;
(viii) notes that the results of the wage surveys are at paragraphs 22- 27; and
(ix) considers the information presented in these reports as part of the Committee’s decision-making on the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.
For the reason(s) outlined in the report below
2. On 20 February 2018 Council agreed the key theme for the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan and consultation would be the continuation of rejuvenating Lower Hutt City/”Growing our City”. It was agreed the Consultation Document was to connect the four strategies with the issues the city is facing to tell the rejuvenation story, specifically:
3. Council agreed to focus on increasing online participation for the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan consultation, as well as greater emphasis on those typically under-represented in civic decision-making processes. This included youth, Maori, ethnic minorities and the disability community.
4. The Consultation Document was adopted by Council on 28 March 2018 and received an unmodified opinion from Audit New Zealand. Audit New Zealand concluded that the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan Consultation Document provided an effective basis for public participation in the Council’s decisions about the proposed content of our 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.
5. Consultation ran from 3 April to 3 May 2018. The overall theme of the consultation was the continuation of the rejuvenation journey. There were four key topics of consultation:
a. Should we continue to rejuvenate our city?
b. Hutt City development charges and rates remissions policy
c. Rates postponement scheme for residential ratepayers aged 65 and over
d. Rates remissions for community, sporting and other organisations.
6. There was extensive advertising of the consultation, including:
a. a public notice and advertisement in the Hutt News
b. flyer included in rates bill
c. radio advertising across eight stations
d. billboards on State Highway 2
e. signboards and posters around the city and suburbs
f. on our Council website and facebook page (facebook posts and advertisements)
g. displays in libraries and community hubs
h. media releases
i. promotional video created by Naenae Computer Clubhouse and the Youth Council which featured several Councillors
j. email newsletters to subscribers interested in receiving Council news
k. notification emails to special interest groups from Council officers and the Mayor
l. front line staff wearing branded t-shirts
m. public information sessions and stakeholder meetings
n. independent telephone survey.
7. Hard copies of the Consultation Document were made available by request, and were distributed to all libraries, community hubs, the main Council administration building and other appropriate Council facilities. Copies of the hard copy Consultation Document were also available at all public information sessions. A computer was made available at all libraries, community hubs, the main administration building and public information sessions so the public were able to do their submission online at the premises.
8. 194 submissions were received before submissions were closed on Tuesday 8 May (later than advertised to allow for any submissions still to come through the post), with 94 people indicating they wanted to present to Council on 16-17 May. Following close off there were five late submissions.
9. Although the number of submissions is lower than in previous years, a higher proportion indicated they wanted to be heard. The lower number of submissions was expected given the nature of this year’s consultation. Council had already consulted heavily in previous years on significant projects, so the consultation was a continuation of past consultations. Consultation topics were limited and less emotive. The reduced number of submissions may also suggest the community supports the overall direction that the Council is heading, and has confidence. This is consistent with past consultations and our resident satisfaction survey.
10. The consultation was successful in driving up online participation with over half (51%) being received online compared to 18% last year.
(+ hard copy flyer in 2017-18 and 2016-17)
11. Progress has been made on engaging with those who are typically under-represented in civic-decision making processes. Among those who provided demographic information, submitters on average were younger and more ethnically diverse than in previous years.
12. Of the submitters that indicated their address, the majority of submitters identified as living in Lower Hutt City, with all Wards represented. Compared to last year there were a greater proportion of submissions from Petone and Wainuiomata, and fewer from Eastbourne.
Harbour Ward (Eastbourne)
Harbour Ward (Petone)
Public Voice Citizen’s Panel Survey
13. In addition to the public consultation process, a parallel survey was conducted by Public Voice using our Citizens Panel. The survey asked the same questions as those asked in the Consultation Document.
14. 515 residents responded to the survey. The survey participants represented all ages, ethnicities and wards. Compared to those who put in a submission, survey respondents were older and slightly less ethnically diverse. There was also a greater representation from the Central and Western Wards, and a lower representation from the Harbour and Wainuiomata Wards.
LTP Consultation submitters
Citizen’s Panel Survey
Middle Eastern, Latin American/African
Summary of results for the four consultation topics
15. In general those who put in a submission had a similar opinion to those who participated in the Citizen’s Panel Survey, although there was some variance in strength of opinions.
Preferred option for consultation topic
Topic 1: Complete our planned sportsville and community hub projects.
Topic 2: Suspend the Hutt City development charges and rates remissions policy from 31 December 2018.
Topic 3a: Introduction of a rates postponement scheme for residential ratepayers aged 65 years and over.
Topic 3b: Draft rates postponement policy best ensures the total cost of the rates postponement is cost neutral to the Council.
Topic 4a: Extend rates remission policy to include all charitable organisations, which are used exclusively or principally for sporting, recreation or community purposes, regardless of whether they hold a liquor licence.
Topic 4b: Increase the rates remission to 100% of the general rate.
Topic 4b: Increase the rates remission to 50% of the general rate.
16. Across the four consultation topics the majority of submitters and survey respondents agreed with Council’s preferred options. The exception was whether rates remissions for sporting, recreation or community facilities should be increased to 100%; here opinions were more evenly divided between a rates remission of 50% and 100%. Among survey respondents a higher proportion favoured the remission to remain at 50%.
17. Suspending the Hutt City Development Charges and Rates Remission Policy from 31 December 2018 had the highest level of support from both submitters and survey respondents with three quarters (76%) of submitters and two-thirds (68%) of survey respondents supporting suspending the policy from 31 December 2018..
18. Nearly half of submitters (86) provided their view on what Council should focus on over the next 10 years. A focus on maintaining/upgrading infrastructure, housing/accommodation and reducing expenditure on unnecessary projects were the most common themes identified by submitters. Similar key themes were identified by survey respondents with ‘maintaining/upgrading infrastructure’, ‘traffic management issues’ and ‘improve public transport’ taking the top three spots. Other areas commonly mentioned by survey respondents were ‘Improve resilience and infrastructure’, ‘business development in the CBD’ and ‘housing development’.
19. Full results of the consultation and Citizen’s Panel survey are attached as Appendices 1-3. A list of funding requests has been included in Appendix 4.
20. On 16 and 17 May 2018, 94 submitters took the opportunity to speak in front of the Mayor and Councillors on a range of topics including resilience and sustainability, living wage, RiverLink, Sportsville and other sporting and recreational facilities, housing, homelessness, and the future of Petone wharf.
21. The Community Plan Committee requested additional information following the hearing of submissions. This information has been included in the Memorandum “Additional Information Requested”.
Wage Surveys 2018
22. During April and May this year Hutt City Council conducted two surveys with residents regarding its approach to paying Council’s lowest paid staff.
23. Public Voice conducted a Citizen’s Panel Survey which received 803 responses. Peter Glen Research conducted a telephone survey of 400 residents, a sample which was selected to be broadly representative of the adult population of the city.
24. Both surveys asked residents to select one of the three following options.
1) Retaining the current budget with Council’s minimum wage increasing to $20 per hour by April 2021 in-line with Government’s commitment; or
2) Increasing Council’s minimum wage to $20 per hour from 1 July 2018. This is 33 months ahead of the Government’s commitment; or
3) Fully implementing a Living Wage of $20.55 per hour for all Council staff from 1 July 2018.
25. Responses to the Citizen’s Panel survey are separated into three categories. The random group has been recruited to be broadly representative of the city’s population. The self-selected group contains people that have requested that Council contact them in relation to its work. The non-panel group contains respondents who received the survey via social media platforms such as Facebook.
Public Voice Citizen's Panel – sample of 803
26. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being Low/No importance and 10 being Very Important, the majority of residents in both surveys considered it ‘moderately’ to ‘very important’ for Council to adopt the option they had selected.
27. The report for the telephone survey is in Appendix 5 and the Citizen’s Panel survey report is in Appendix 6.
28. The requirements of the Local Government Act have been followed in respect of the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan process.
29. All work required as part of the Long Term Plan process has been, and will be undertaken within current budgets.
30. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that opportunity has been provided for members of the public to comment on the manner in which Council proposes to meet the current and future needs of the community. It has done this in a way that is cost-effective as the Consultation Document, and supporting information was made accessible for residents both online and by hard copy. Computers were made available at all libraries, community hubs and the main administration building to reduce barriers for online participation. There was extensive advertising of the consultation to encourage public participation.
Consultation topics results from submitters
2018-2028 LTP Consultation - text analysis of submissions
Final 2018-2028 LTP Panel survey
Funding requests from submissions
PG HCC Wage Survey Report
HCC Living wage survey 14 May 2018
Senior Research/Policy Advisor
2018-2028 LONG TERM PLAN FUNDING REQUESTS
Te Runanganui o Te Atiawa
Fund and build 14m shell equivalent to the square footage of the two buildings. Te Aroha Hutt Valley Association will commit and be responsible for the 'Fit Out" of the community hub and assist with a percentage of funding as its contribution to the new extension
DAP18/42
Consideration be given to moving the capital funding for the Petone Recreation Ground Pavilion to the 2019-2020 financial year based on design concepts and costs soon to be obtained by Council Officers
DAP16/69
Lower Hutt City Association Football Club
Our submission is asking the Council to look favourably on the advantages of having Ignite Sport programmes delivered from Bell Park, utilising the existing clubrooms. We are asking the Council, through the Community Funding Plan, to make this a reality by nominating funds in the Community Funding Plan 2018-19, to assist Ignite Sport to achieve their vision for the park and community
DAP18/76
Friends of Waiwhetu Stream request that a budget of at least $50,000 per annum be allocated for maintenance and improvements in the Waiwhetu Stream corridor as the present the budget of $30,000 per annum is insufficient. We have been advised that the spend for maintenance on Waiwhetu Stream has exceeded the budgeted amount several months before the end of this financial year.
To provide a fully accessible public toilet/shower in Lower Hutt for those requiring additional help
One off amount to reinvigorate and build an urban culture into High Street from Andrews Avenue to the south end of High Street
Love Wainuiomata Team
Request for $450K + GST to complete Wainuiomata Development Plan over the next 3 years
Stokes Valley community
Request for additional facilities at Stokes Valley Hub. Includes costing for a basketball court.
$145,560 (quote for asphalt basketball court)
“Lower Hutt! Don’t let it reach the beach” programme
DAP18/105 & DAP18/107
Request for funding for Wainuiomata Trail project
Marcel Watt
Renovation of the playing surface at Naenae Park. Renovation or rebuild of the Green Room training facility
Upgrade Dowse Drive Recreation Reserve
Last year supported with $84,000, which equates to approximately .75 cents per person in your district, have already agreed to increase this to $1 per person in 2018.
~$112K
DAP18/133
Lower Hutt (Host) Lions Club
Support remedial work to replace the track of the Avalon Park Lion Train
Hutt Valley Tennis Management Committee and members
1. Build an indoor tennis court structure
2. Demolish and rebuild a new Mitchell Park pavilion
Total HCC funding for the Indoor Project = $1.1m. Remaining $700k is responsibility of HVT
New $880K
Remaining $250K to be allocated towards the Indoor Court Project
Hutt Recreation Ground Sports hub.
· Operational Funding: Employment of a part time development manager to recruit other partners, help establish a formal management structure for any future facility, act as secretary to a future development committee and consult with local schools over potential use.
· Project development and costings - engage consultants to produce building options and indicative costings.
$25K operational funding
$30K project development and costs
DAP18/146
Wellington Hockey Association and Wellington Regional Hockey Stadium Trust
Contribution towards replacing turf carpet
$150000 per annum for P2040 group with further funding allowances in individual departments’ budgets ie heritage incentives; roading etc could be a starting point.
Support of Enviroschools
The Rimutaka Inline Hockey
Rejuvenate roller skating rink at cnr of Harcourt Werry and Percy Cameron
TBC ~$700K
To meet increasing costs that CAB faces e.g. rental rates, staff salary etc
$5,000 for Multifest to continue at present level
At least $10,000 pa to engage a part time co-ordinator at least.
Proposal for Re-development of Bell Park and the establishment of an Ignite Sport Centre and Multi Court Surface
Te Whare Trust
Business case for Te Whare Tane - House for Men. Creating a place in the Hutt Valley where men are supported in their journey to live free of family harm.
DAP18/179
Request further financial support for: Meth Clinic; 10 year celebration for Christmas n da hood and Tumeke Taita; and community healthy lifestyle initiatives
DAP18/181
Continue and Increase funding to assist with E.M.P.O.W.E.R program (3 prong program - Young Women, Tama Toa & whanau). Part time coordinator for these programs Currently run on a budget (very tight) of $10k for six months of programs
Not specified but suggest $50K
DAP18/196
The annual running cost of Volunteer Hutt is $61,635. The income we acquired in the 2017/18 year for Volunteer Hutt was $33,000 from grants (including $10,000 from HCC) and community members’ fees. This leaves a shortfall of $28,635. We ask Hutt City Council to help reduce the funding shortfall by providing $10,000.
2018 HCC WAGE SURVEY
Which of the three wage policy options do Hutt City residents prefer?
Preference by subgroups
Reasons for choosing each option
Conclusion/executive overview
By way of background, the Living Wage is defined as the income necessary to provide workers and their families with a basic lifestyle. The Living Wage is currently calculated to be $20.55 per hour, approximately $4.00 per hour above the current minimum wage.
In 2017 Hutt City Council resolved to support the Living Wage in principle, but only where this could be justified as the most cost-effective way to deliver services. About 200 Council staff will receive wage increases following this decision at a total annual cost of $213,000. The majority of these staff members are still paid below the current Living Wage of $20.55 per hour.
The Living Wage is independently calculated by the Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit. It is defined by them as the income necessary to provide workers and their families with a decent but modest lifestyle. The Living Wage is currently calculated to be $20.55 per hour. It is adjusted annually and is generally expected to increase each year.
Government recently committed to increase the statutory minimum wage from $16.50 to $20 per hour by April 2021. In preparation for the anticipated rise, Council has increased the budgets for future years to ensure staff members will be paid at or above the statutory minimum wage at all times.
Council is considering three options with regard to paying its lowest paid staff.
1) Retaining the current budget with Council’s minimum wage increasing to $20 per hour by April 2021 in-line with Government’s commitment. (This would be funded within current budgets); OR
2) Increasing Council’s minimum wage to $20 per hour on 1 July this year. This is 33 months ahead of the Government’s commitment. (This would require an estimated additional $250,000 over the next two years); OR
3) Fully implementing a Living Wage of $20.55 per hour for all Council staff on 1 July this year. Subsequent annual wage increases would be based on the Living Wage calculation by the Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit. (This would require an estimated additional $450,000 over the next two years and additional annual expenditure beyond that).
The additional funding for options 2 and 3 would require sourcing from some changes in other areas, such as:
- Increasing income through user charges; or
- Reducing funding on projects; or
- Reducing services or activities.
Council’s total annual operating budget is $165 million. The additional spending that would be required in relation to options 2 or 3 would be small in the context of Council’s overall expenditure.
To assist Council with decisions that are needed regarding wage policy, Hutt City Council are currently consulting with residents, to check their views and gather information that will help decide if and when changes should be made. As part of the consultation process, Hutt City Council have commissioned Peter Glen Research to conduct a survey of Hutt City residents, to capture their views. The results of the survey will sit alongside other feedback mechanisms, such as its own online polling.
The results of the survey are presented in this report.
a) To determine which of the three wage policy options, outlined above, Hutt City residents would prefer Hutt City Council to adopt
b) To ascertain the degree of importance residents place on Hutt City Council adopting their preferred option
c) To understand residents’ reasons for selecting each of the options presented.
The survey participants were recruited using random selection procedures, but sample quotas were set to ensure that the survey was broadly representative of the Hutt City adult population (16+ years of age) by age, gender and ethnicity.
It is estimated that this provides a sampling variance on the total sample base of +4.1% at the 90% confidence level.
Fieldwork for the survey was undertaken by an experienced team of interviewers employed by Peter Glen Research. The interviews were administered by way of a structured questionnaire which was prepared in consultation with Hutt City Council. A copy of the questionnaire is attached in Section 6 of this report.
Fieldwork was conducted from 23 April to 17 May 2018.
5.1. WHICH OF THE THREE WAGE POLICY OPTIONS DO HUTT CITY
RESIDENTS PREFER?
Respondents were initially read an introductory outline, detailing the wage policy options that Hutt City Council are considering for their lowest paid staff. The explanation is essentially that covered in the introduction to this report (see Section 1 on page 3). The explanation is also included in the questionnaire attached in Section 6.
Having considered the explanation, the respondents were then asked to select which of the following three options they would prefer Hutt City Council to adopt.
Retaining the current budget with Council’s minimum wage increasing to $20 per hour by April 2021 in-line with Government’s commitment. (This would be funded within current budgets)
Increasing Council’s minimum wage to $20 per hour on 1 July this year. This is 33 months ahead of the Government’s commitment. (This would require an estimated additional $250,000 over the next two years)
Fully implementing a Living Wage of $20.55 per hour for all Council staff on 1 July this year. Subsequent annual wage increases would be based on the Living Wage calculation by the Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit. (This would require an estimated additional $450,000 over the next two years and additional annual expenditure beyond that).
The overall result of this questioning was as follows:
5.2. PREFERENCE BY SUBGROUPS
(a) BY WARD
The overall result shown in the previous section has been broken down further, to provide an indication of preferences across the six wards that form Hutt City. Results of this analysis should be taken as indicative only, as the base sizes for each ward are relatively small. Whilst the overall sampling variance on the total sample (n=400) is estimated at +4.1% at the 90% confidence level, the comparative variance for the sub-groups (wards) could be as high as +10.0% on average.
Whilst differences can be noted across the wards, the overall majority of opinion indicates that residents in all areas favour a move to increasing the minimum wage this year, ahead of the Government’s 2021 commitment. That is, an average 75% of residents support either Option 2 or Option 3.
An analysis of the overall result by residents’ age groups reveals that all three wage policies have some support across the age spectrum. However, in this survey, Option 2 had a stronger level of support among residents under 30 years of age, whereas Option 3 was favoured more strongly by residents in the middle and older age brackets.
(c) BY GENDER
This analysis indicates that preference is fairly similar by gender, although a slightly higher percentage of men favour Option 1. In comparison, a slightly higher percentage of women favour Option 2. Option 3’s support remains consistent between men and women.
5.3. LEVEL OF IMPORTANCE
After the respondents selected the option they preferred, they were asked the following question:
“On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 equals ‘not at all important’ and 10 equals ‘very important’, how important is it to you that Council adopts the option you selected?”
RESPONDENTS’ RATINGS OF PREFERRED OPTION
(Retain budget. Minimum wage to $20/hr by April 2021)
(Minimum wage to $20/hr from 1 July ’18)
(Full Living Wage of $20.55/hr from 1 July ’18)
Moderately Low Importance
Low/No Importance
Average (Mean) Importance Score
The majority of Hutt City residents considered it ‘moderately’ to ‘very important’ for Council to adopt the option they had selected. However, those choosing Option 3 considered it more important overall than did the respondents who chose the other two options. This is reflected in the average (mean) point scores expressed.
5.4. REASONS FOR CHOOSING EACH OPTION
The research participants were asked to outline their reasons for selecting their preferred option. A wide range of perspectives emerged. These are summarised in the following section of the report, using examples of the respondents’ verbatim comments.
It can be noted that the percentages shown are based on the total 400 respondents who were interviewed. The percentages add to more than the net percentage of respondents who selected each option, because some of the research participants gave more than one reason for their selection.
SUPPORT FOR THE GOVERNMENT PLAN
“The Government have got it sussed. The Government’s commitment of increasing the minimum wage to $20 per hour by April 2021 seems to be the obvious option.”
“The Council should keep to the Government plan and to their budget.”
“Hutt City Council should adopt the Government guidelines. The minimum wage should be adopted, as planned, by April 2021.”
“Let the Council follow the Government guidelines and increase only in 2021.”
“I believe that the Council’s vision to pay staff a Living Wage is great. However, this should be implemented gradually and also in time with the Government’s plans. Council can make better use of taxpayers’ money at present and not rush ahead of the Government’s commitment.”
“Hutt City Council should stay with the Government’s guidelines. They should support the Government policy and work toward the bigger picture that has been planned.”
“Hutt City Council should stay with the Government’s guidelines.”
“Minimum wages should be in line with Government policy.”
HCC NEED TO KEEP TO THEIR BUDGET AND EXISTING COMMITMENTS
“The other options mean that HCC would not be able to keep to their budget. They would need to source money elsewhere, which would not be good.”
“The Council need to be realistic about where money comes from and how it is spent. Keep to the present plan and budget, so that other projects do not fall behind any further.”
“Hutt City Council would have to source money from somewhere to pay for any higher wage bill, otherwise they would fail their budget. It needs careful assessment to balance the books. It seems to me that going with the Government commitment would allow them to do that.”
“If wage increases are paid earlier than currently planned, it would cost more and would mean a loss of other things that the Council currently provides and funds.”
“I do not want to see Council projects fall behind any further by reprioritising money for wages, when they do not have to do it.”
“Because present Council projects should be completed in their present budgets. Do not take money from these to pay additional wage increases. Stay with the Government guidelines.”
KEEP WAGE POLICY CONSISTENT FOR ALL LOW PAID WORKERS
“Make it the same for all workers. Go with the Government plan for 2021. Then it will be the same for all who earn low wages, including me now. This will be fair.”
“Wage policy for low paid workers will affect many people in other sectors, not just council. The health sector, for example, has many staff earning less than $20 per hour. Council should link with the Government commitment to keep wage payments equitable.”
“I do not think Council staff should receive a benefit that the public is not entitled to until 2021.”
“I hope to get the Living Wage sometime in the future. I relate to the plight of lower paid workers. I do not get $20 per hour myself, but it should be applied consistently for everybody, with regard to timing and amount.”
WAGE INCREASES SHOULD BE PERFORMANCE RELATED/ PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE TO IMPROVE
“Wage increases should be performance related, even at a lower level.”
“Keep to low wages for unskilled workers, so they have an incentive to improve.”
“If they are earning below $20 per hour now, they must be unskilled workers. A small increase might be justified, but they will have a chance to earn more when they become skilled.”
“Some council staff might not be doing a good job. I don’t like the idea of just giving a wage increase. Any increase should be based on performance.”
WOULD FAVOUR INCREASING WAGES GRADUALLY/WITH SMALLER INCREASES
“I think the Council should keep to its current budget and improve the wages of its lowest paid workers gradually over time, with smaller increases.”
“Some small increases in wage rates will signal the intent and will help but will enable Council to keep to its budget and work towards the plans for 2021.”
“Make small movements in wages initially. Don’t do it all at once.”
“Just increase the minimum wages now to $17.50 or $18.00. Start the process of moving toward $20.55 in 2021.”
RATES ARE HIGH ENOUGH NOW; DO NOT WANT RATE INCREASES
“Rates are high enough now. Options 2 and 3 will just add to our rates bill.”
“It will be the ratepayers who pay if workers are paid earlier than 2021.”
“Call me selfish, but I do not want rate increases.”
“Council can make better use of ratepayers’ money at present and not rush ahead of the thirty-three months to which Government is committed. Any increases are likely to impact our rates.”
WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF WAGES BETWEEN COUNCIL’S HIGHER & LOWER PAID WORKERS
“I would be pleased to see the lower wages increased and Councillors and high paid Council staffs’ wages reduced to a more realistic level for what they do.”
“The Council must have staff on very high wages. Even junior council staff are very highly paid there. They could cut the wages of the very high paid and then they could afford to increase the wages of those at the bottom.”
“The problem of low paid workers comes about because some people earn too much. They need to restrict earnings at the top end of the scale, so that they can pay more realistic wages to the lowest paid workers.”
WAGE INCREASES WILL JUST ADD TO INFLATION
“More wages will just add to inflation for all of us.”
“I am concerned about where the wage increases lead to. If the Council increases the wages of its lowest paid staff, it sounds a good thing to do. However, it will also mean that other staff will want a relativity adjustment and people in other sectors will also want an increase. This leads to inflation and, at the end of the day, none are any better off.”
“This policy sounds inflationary to me. It is not up to the Council to fix social injustice.”
EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE A GOOD/FAIR WAGE (THAT ALLOWS THEM TO LIVE)
“I think everyone should have a fair wage that allows them to live and not just exist.”
“A good minimum wage would help many people/families.”
“All workers are entitled to a good wage. I support the principle of a fair wage for a fair day’s pay.”
“All workers should get a decent wage for the work they do.”
“I think all people should earn a decent wage. I have chosen this option for council staff to receive a minimum wage level a.s.a.p. They need to support themselves and their families, the same as all of us.”
“The increase should be paid a.s.a.p., so people can be paid fairly and respected.”
THE COST OF LIVING HAS INCREASED/IS INCREASING
“The cost of living has increased and many families are struggling.”
“We have expensive living costs now and many families are not living healthily. A good minimum wage would help lots of people.”
“Living costs are constantly rising and so middleclass and lower income families need the extra money to survive the daily costs.”
“Living costs are going up, especially for families, but generally wages are not going up.”
“My reason for choosing this option is that everything is going up. Costs have been increasing in recent years, everything has gone up.”
THE CURRENT MINIMUM WAGE IS NOT FAIR/IS INADEQUATE/ NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED
“The minimum wage is shocking right now. Please pay $20 this year.”
“The current minimum wage is not fair. I know what it is like to be on the minimum wage and is a struggle to survive.”
“The minimum wage now is not a fair wage. Everyone is entitled to a fair wage.”
“The minimum wage is totally inadequate and needs to be improved.”
“I believe that most people on low wages work hard. They cannot get the benefits that some people who are unemployed can get on the dole. Low paid workers need to be better paid and rewarded for their effort.”
COUNCIL HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO SUPPORT THE LIVING WAGE/IMPROVE THE MINIMUM WAGE THIS YEAR
“Council should have a social conscience and recognise the Living Wage.”
“Council has a social responsibility and should improve the minimum wage right now.”
“Council should raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour this year. It should show leadership to its employees and other employers should follow suit.”
OPTION 2 PROVIDES A MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THE OTHER TWO OPTIONS
“Option 2 provides a middle ground between the other two options. It signals that the minimum wage needs to be improved but leaves room to increase it further.”
“I chose this option because it provides a balance between the other two alternatives.”
EVERYONE SHOULD BE PAID (AT LEAST) A LIVING WAGE
“Everyone should be paid a Living Wage, i.e. one that they can live on.”
“People on lower wages should be paid a Living Wage. It is a struggle to pay for essentials these days and many cannot afford a house, either to rent or buy, that is affordable.”
“I support the paying of reasonable rates to all wage earners. A Living Wage is important for everyone.”
“I feel that everyone who works should have dignity and be able to have their head above water and be able to earn at least a Living Wage.”
“Decent hourly rates of pay are essential. People need to earn a good basic wage for their efforts, so they can live.”
“I think everyone should be able to work and earn to support themselves and their families. If $20.55 has been found to be the figure, this should be paid.”
“The Living Wage should be paid to all. It is very expensive to live, especially if you have a family. Rent is $400 minimum for a family these days. One person can barely pay the rent.”
“All people should be able to receive a decent wage. I support the Council paying the Living Wage amount now.”
“Wages are important. The Living Wage should be adopted by Hutt City Council. It would benefit everyone and help them pay their bills.”
“The lower paid workers need at least the Living Wage and if you pay it they will respond, as it recognises them as worthy contributors.”
“Everyone should be able to afford the basics. If everyone in society earns a Living Wage, society as a whole will flourish.”
“We all need to sustain homes, families and have a healthy life. This should be within the reach of all workers.”
“People on lower wages should be paid a Living Wage. It is a struggle to pay for essentials and virtually impossible to buy a house if they earn less than $20 per hour.”
“A Living Wage is important. Wages are low, when two working adults still cannot afford a home.”
THE COST OF LIVING HAS INCREASED/IS INCREASING (AND PEOPLE ARE STRUGGLING)
“The basic cost to live has gone up a lot in recent times and will go up more. It is a struggle for most people to pay for things these days. As one example, vegetables have gone up significantly in price. Do not wait until 2021. The cost of living will be a lot more then.”
“Wages have not kept up with inflation, to the point that two working adults cannot afford the basic costs of living.”
“The cost of living has gone up. The Council should pay $20.55 at least, to cover the basic cost of living.”
“Because costs are mounting. Accept the Living Wage recommendations.”
“The cost of living has gone up a lot in recent years. The Living Wage should be adopted by Hutt City Council, to help people pay their bills.”
“They need to pay their staff at least $20.55. This would recognise the increase in the cost of living and show that they value their staff. Many costs have gone up in recent times, even this year.”
“People on lower wages should be paid a Living Wage, because they struggle to pay for essentials. The cost of living has really gone up lately.”
“The Living Wage should be paid to cover the mounting cost of living. Give people the chance to live and not struggle.”
“I feel that lower paid workers should be able to earn the minimum rates and ensure they are living well, healthy lives and not struggling to do so.”
HCC SHOULD TAKE LEADERSHIP ON THIS WAGE ISSUE
“Council should be at the forefront in leading payment of the Living Wage to those they employ. Lead by example.”
“I have heard that other Councils are looking at this also. It is time HCC paid up and became leaders.”
“Council has a responsibility to lead in this area.”
“If $20.55 is the figure for a Living Wage, the Council should lead he way and pay it. Other Councils and employers should follow suit.”
“If the Hutt City Council do this, then other companies will notice and all low paid workers might get a rise. Everyone should be on at least $20.55 New Zealand-wide.”
IT IS ONLY REASONABLE/FAIR TO PAY THE LIVING WAGE NOW/ THIS YEAR
“It is only reasonable that lower paid persons get paid the Living Wage now.”
“Be fair and pay the Living Wage that has been calculated and agreed now.”
“Be fair and see that people get a decent wage – this year.”
“A Living Wage is fair. It should be a minimum for everyone and it should be paid now.”
“Council have a job to be responsible. All employees should be paid fairly for the work they do, so recognise the independent figures and pay $20.55 per hour this year.”
I CAN RELATE TO BEING ON A LOW WAGE AND STRUGGLING
“I can relate to being on a low wage and struggling, not being recognised for the work I do. The basic cost to live should be paid now.”
“I can relate to being on a low wage. I am 50 and do not work now. Computers took my work. I support Council paying the $20.55 and giving their workers a wage on which they can live and not struggle.”
“If HCC do this, other companies will follow suit and I might get a rise. I do not earn $20 an hour, so I can relate to the situation their workers are in.”
“I was a Council employee on low wages, so I can empathise with them from my own experience.”
PAYING THE LIVING WAGE WILL HELP THE LOCAL ECONOMY
“I chose this option, because it will lead to more spending power for the community at large.”
“People having more money in their pockets is better than no money and it leads to more spending power within the community.”
“It is important for people to have more money to spend and the local economy will benefit because of this.”
“I’d like to see as many people as possible on a Living Wage. That would benefit the whole community – financially and socially.”
THE LIVING WAGE WILL LEAD TO HAPPIER, MORE MOTIVATED WORKERS
“Surely if their workers get $20.55 per hour, they will be happier and more committed than they will be on a very low wage that doesn’t cover the bills.”
“Their workers will be more motivated if they are valued and paid at a fair rate.”
HCC NEED TO ENSURE THAT IT IS STILL A LIVING WAGE WITH INFLATION/AFTER TAX
“They need to ensure that it is still a Living Wage after tax. The taxman will take his share, so individuals will not actually receive $20.55 per hour in the pocket. The lower paid workers need at least a Living Wage and I would add ‘after tax’.”
“Every little bit helps, but costs are constantly rising. The Living Wage should be regularly reviewed to ensure that the wages people are paid keeps up with inflation.”
5.5. CONCLUSION/EXECUTIVE OVERVIEW
The results of this research have shown that the most favoured wage policy option, of those presented, is Option 3. This option proposes to fully implement a Living Wage of $20.55 per hour from 1 July this year. Just on half (49% of) the Hutt City residents interviewed in the study favoured this option.
Option 2, which proposes to increase the minimum wage to $20 per hour from 1 July this year, was chosen by a further 26% of residents.
This gives a total of 75% of Hutt City residents who favour HCC moving to increase the wage of its lowest paid workers in 2018, ahead of the Government’s 2021 commitment.
Options 2 and 3 were primarily selected by respondents for the following reasons:
- They believed that all workers should be paid ‘a good, fair, basic wage’, or ‘a Living Wage that they can live on’.
- It was acknowledged that ‘the cost of living has increased’, ‘many people/families are struggling’ and ‘wages have not kept up with inflation’.
- Some respondents also argued that HCC should ‘take leadership’ or ‘has a responsibility to lead’ on this issue.
Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that 25% of the Hutt City residents interviewed selected Option 1, which proposes to retain the current budget with Council’s minimum wage increasing to $20 per hour by April 2021 in line with Government’s commitment. These respondents raised several points for consideration:
- They supported the intent of the Government’s plan/guidelines.
- They noted that it would enable HCC to keep to its budget and existing commitments.
- Some respondents felt that policy relating to the minimum wage ‘should be consistent for all low paid workers’ (not just council workers).
- Others would favour ‘smaller increases over time’ and felt that ‘increases should be performance related/provide incentive to improve’.
- A few respondents specifically noted that they ‘do not want rates to increase’ and others would like ‘a more equitable distribution of wages between Council’s higher and lower paid workers’.
Finally, the policy decision was considered of ‘moderately high importance’ to ‘high importance’ to the majority of residents who participated in the research. This suggests that the Council will need to have clear justification for the decision it takes and communicate the decision accordingly.
“Good morning/afternoon/evening. I am …… from Peter Glen Research, a market research company. We are conducting a survey on behalf of Hutt City Council, who wish to gather feedback from Hutt City residents, about the future wage policy it is considering for paying its lowest paid staff.”
“For this interview, I need to speak to a Hutt City resident.”
“Is there somebody in your household who would be able to help me with the interview please? The interview will take approximately ( … ) minutes.”
“I would like to arrange a time to get your input to the possible wage options that Hutt City Council are considering. This is an important decision for Hutt City and the Council would value your input on the matter. Your input will be treated confidentially and will be combined with the views of other residents who are participating in the survey. Peter Glen Research will provide an overall interpretative report, to inform Council of public opinion, but will not link people’s names to the views expressed.”
“The interview will take approximately ( … ) minutes. Is it convenient to make an appointment time now, or is there a more convenient time I should call you back?”
We are interested in your thoughts on the wages Hutt City Council should pay its lowest paid staff.
The Living Wage is independently calculated by the Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit.[1] It is defined by them as the income necessary to provide workers and their families with a decent but modest lifestyle. The Living Wage is currently calculated to be $20.55 per hour. It is adjusted annually and is generally expected to increase each year.
Options (and cost)
“Which of the three options, that Council is considering, do you prefer?”
Option 1: - Retaining the current budget with Council’s minimum wage increasing to $20 per hour by April 2021 in-line with Government’s commitment; _____________
Option 2: - Increasing Council’s minimum wage to $20 per hour on 1 July this year. This is 33 months ahead of the Government’s commitment; _______________________
Option 3: - Council fully implements a Living Wage of
$20.55 per hour for all staff on 1 July this year_________
Write in number:
“We would like to understand why you answered the first two questions as you did. Can you please tell me why you selected your preferred option and gave your rating? Are there any other reasons?”
101 06 June 2018
File: (18/833)
Report no: CPC2018/3/152
Riverbank Carpark Tariff Changes
1. To recommend to Council a change to the Tariff Structure for the Riverbank car park Zone from 1 July 2018.
That the City Development Committee recommends that the Community Plan Committee recommends to Council:
(ii) notes that metered parking areas are covered by Council’s Traffic Bylaw 2017 and that Council may by resolution specify the days and times for which fees apply and may by resolution prescribe, abolish or amend fees as Council may reasonably require; and
2. At its meeting on 1 May 2018 the City Development Committee considered the paper entitled “Riverbank Market” attached at Appendix 1 and passed the following resolution – Minute No. CDC 18204
(i) Notes the Market is operated under a Licence which expires on 31 August 2019
(iii) Notes that a review of the traffic effects was undertaken and a traffic control response was trialed from 2 February 2018;
(v) Notes that the traffic control costs for the 4 week trial from 2 February were $18,634. Ongoing traffic control costs are $4,098.50per market day amounting to $213,122 per annum;
(vi) Notes that these costs could be recovered (in part or in whole) through the through the introduction of a user pays parking scheme during the hours of the market on Saturday. Estimated revenue could be up to $5,186 (GST excl.) per market day. This $269,672 per annum revenue would cover the cost for the traffic control and any additional parking wardens;
(vii) Agrees to continue the Riverbank Market until 31 August 2019; and
(viii) Recommends to Council the introduction of user pays parking at $2.00 per hour in the Riverbank Market on Saturdays from 7am to 2pm.
3. This paper addresses the implementation of the recommendation (viii) above).
4. Under its Traffic Bylaw 2017 (Clause 4.1) Council may by resolution specify:
(a) Any geographic area as……metered parking area (abbreviated);
(b) The days and times for which fees apply to each ……metered parking area (abbreviated);
(c) …..Not applicable….
(d) The date and time at which a decision made under this clause 4.1 comes into effect, which must not be before all appropriate road markings and signs are in place in the……metered parking area. (abbreviated)
5. Under its Traffic Bylaw 2017 (Clause 24.1) Council may be resolution, prescribe, abolish or amend fees, whether annual, hourly or otherwise as Council may reasonably require for any parking space, parking spaces or permission required under this Bylaw.
6. The Riverbank car park area is defined as its own zone referred to as the Riverbank car park Zone.
7. The current tariff structure and amended proposed tariff structure are outlined as follows:
Amended proposed tariff structure
8. The Committee can accept, reject or amend the recommendation.
9. No consultation has been undertaken but commentary since the City Development Committee meeting has been mixed both for and against the recommendation to introduce a parking charge.
10. The parking charge recommended to be introduced is to offset in whole or in part the annual traffic management charge for the Riverbank market of $213,122 per annum.
11. If no parking charge is introduced this unbudgeted expense will need to be funded from alternative charges, rates income or savings.
12. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it meets the need for good quality local services by mitigating the impact of traffic created by the Riverbank market. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it utilises a user pays model to cover the additional charges being incurred.
City Development Committee Report - Riverbank Market - 1 May 2018
notes that the traffic control response appears to be effective in mitigating the road congestion; (v) notes that the traffic control costs for the four week trial from 2 February were $18,634. Ongoing traffic control costs are $4,098.50 per market day amounting to $213,122 per annum; and
114 06 June 2018
File: (18/944)
Report no: CPC2018/3/159
Lower Hutt Homelessness Strategy
1. The report seeks Council’s agreement to the timeline and budget for developing the Homelessness Strategy requested by Council at its meeting of 22 May 2018. The recommendations followed a workshop held on 21 May at which Councillors discussed the findings of the Homelessness in Lower Hutt research.
(iv) notes that the Working Group will report progress to Policy and Regulatory Committee during the strategy development process.
For the reason that Councillors decided that Council should lead work on a Homelessness Strategy at the meeting of 22 May 2018. The work to develop the strategy is not in the current work-programme or budget and extensive engagement and consultation is required and outlined in Council’s second recommendation at the meeting of 22 May.
2. Council completed its research to explore homelessness in Lower Hutt in April 2018. The findings were reported to Council at a workshop on 21 May 2018 in order to inform Council discussions about its role in contributing to addressing homelessness in the city. Participants in the research identified a number of ways Council could respond to homelessness, including leading the development and coordination of a homelessness strategy and increasing the supply of suitable homes in the city.
3. Following discussion at the workshop Councillors supported the development of a Homelessness Strategy for the city. At the Council meeting on 22 May councillors voted unanimously in favour of the recommendations that officers and a working group, including representation from elected members, begin work on a Homelessness Strategy.
4. The Homelessness in Lower Hutt research was primarily conducted between January and May 2018, with preliminary work conducted in December 2017. The research involved engagement with service providers and non-housing organisations in the city and people experiencing homelessness. The findings of the research were discussed with organisations in April and the full report of the research will be circulated to participants.
5. Completing the research required the time of both the Principal Research and Policy Advisor and a Policy Advisor to design the research and conduct initial scoping of organisations, arrange, conduct, transcribe, and analyse the notes of interviews with over 30 participants – including the interviews with people who are homeless, arrange and analyse the survey and gather the other data, arrange and conduct a workshop with agencies, and produce the research report and presentations. Other officers were also involved in commenting on and proof-reading the report and in providing support to arranging the workshop.
6. Homelessness in Lower Hutt identified gaps and weaknesses in the response to homelessness in the city. Work to develop the strategy will need to build on these findings and map the activities and interventions available to households that are either at risk of homelessness or who are homeless. The strategy’s action plan would subsequently identify the response, such as additional services and/or ways of delivering services more effectively.
7. To be effective the Homelessness Strategy will need to be owned jointly by Council and the partners who will be primarily responsible for service delivery. It will be important to build on the engagement and collaboration which underpinned the research into homelessness in the city with an aim to agree a cross-sector approach to stop homelessness happening, deal with it quickly and effectively when it happens, and stop repeat homelessness. Council will also need to agree how it, alongside other partners, will contribute to resourcing the delivery of the strategy.
8. Developing the strategy requires in-depth engagement with a range of individuals and organisations. Effectively tackling homelessness will mean mapping needs and resources and also linking with programmes and interventions that aim to address the wide range of factors that contribute to homelessness in the city.
9. Developing the strategy will therefore need to include work with sectors such as Health, Education, Justice, as well as Ministry of Social Development, Oranga Tamariki, Iwi, housing providers and a range of organisations in the city, to contribute to responding to homelessness and improved social policy outcomes overall. We will also work with people in the city particularly those who are homeless or in housing hardship to understand their experiences of the systems and barriers.
10. The work will explore the mechanisms, processes, and services, required to:
Preventing homelessness requires a range of interventions including increasing the availability of affordable housing, and working with people who are at risk of homelessness. In terms of service delivery, prevention requires having good protocols and procedures to ensure that vulnerable people can access the right help at the right time, for example when leaving health care, being released from prison, for young people leaving care or experiencing relationship breakdown with families, and for families experiencing domestic violence.
b. Deliver the services and accommodation required to deal effectively with homelessness when it happens
Dealing quickly and effectively with homelessness means having good referral and joint working processes, suitable temporary accommodation, and the wrap-around support services.
c. Preventing repeat homelessness
Ensuring that the housing is appropriate and that, if required, people have the support they need to sustain accommodation.
11. Homelessness is fundamentally a housing problem and addressing the issue requires action on housing supply through a number of different channels, including the need for social housing, assisting with improved access to private rented sector housing eg, work with landlords, land for affordable housing and enabling the delivery of housing through the District Plan.
12. Other key aspects of the work will include:
· Establishing ongoing leadership and a funding strategy
· Developing an action plan to deliver the objectives of the strategy; and
· Considering the benefits of cross-boundary cooperation on service delivery.
13. Council has established a working group for the Homelessness Strategy and a meeting of that group will be arranged as soon as possible to discuss the approach and work-programme, engagement with people experiencing homelessness, and membership of the working group. Officers have developed relationships with key agencies during the recent research work and these contacts will be useful in providing support in developing the strategy. We will also need to expand this network.
14. Initially we will need to investigate the approaches taken by other local authorities both in terms of the methods used to develop homelessness strategies and the approach to implementation.
15. To inform the strategy we will also need to build on the research completed to assess the current and future levels of homelessness. This will mean using data and information from agencies, etc. in addition to considering the factors that can affect the levels of homelessness eg, housing supply, costs of housing, interventions by government or partners, and so forth.
16. Similarly to the approach taken to the research we will be taking a participatory approach to developing the strategy. This is likely to mean a combination of both kanohi ki te kanohi meetings with organisations and individuals, as well as larger scale workshops and meetings.
17. Given the extensive coordination and engagement required, and referred to in the recommendations passed unanimously by Council at its meeting on 22 May 2018, we anticipate that developing the strategy will take between six and nine months. This time reflects the need to agree the approach and the detail e.g. action plan, and that the strategy will need to be owned jointly by Council and organisations in the city.
18. Developing the homelessness strategy will be a considerable addition to the work-programme. The work requires additional staff resources and capacity in Communication and Marketing.
i. Additional staff resources will be needed. Although in the time available we have not fully scoped the project, we anticipate that an additional policy budget of $65,000 will be required. This will enable Strategy and Planning to appoint an advisor to work on the project.
ii. The project will require Council to initiate and maintain a good level of engagement with other organisations and our community, developing and implementing the communication and engagement plan, working with the communications staff from our partner agencies and proactively managing the communications process. We have taken advice from colleagues in Communication and Marketing and, given existing commitments, this work would require an additional $40,000 to engage a communication advisor on a fixed-term contract.
19. The Working Group will provide update reports to the Policy and Regulatory Committee.
20. These are included in the recommendations and in paragraph 18 above.
122 06 June 2018
File: (18/687)
Report no: CPC2018/3/150
That the Policy and Regulatory Committee recommends that the Community Plan Committee recommends that Council:
(i) makes a budget allocation in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan of :
(a) $100,000 to acquire and use sea level rise maps to identify threatened places, assets and communities in Lower Hutt and develop specific response options; and
(b) $100,000 to begin engagement with Lower Hutt communities to build a common understanding of the risks faced by the community particularly the potential environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts associated with of climate change.
2. On 30 April 2018, the Policy and Regulatory Committee meeting made the following resolution:
3. There are several pieces of work currently being undertaken addressing issues related to sea level rise and climate change that are occurring around the region. Below is a short summary of these.
4. The purpose of this Strategy is to ensure that the communities of the Wellington region work together to understand and reduce risks from natural hazards. Membership comprises:
5. There is a Steering Group (which is there to ensure there is regional collaboration within these disciplines on the issues relating to all the natural hazards relevant to Wellington) and three Working Groups (each with its own terms of reference) which are focused on:
6. The research group is currently pulling together data on regional sea level rise trends to:
7. The planning group is developing consistent seismic provisions and a consistent sea level rise policy with common standards across the region. This will include a guidance toolbox to assist planners.
8. The engagement group (while recognising that each Council may be at different stages in the planning process and have different relationships with their community) is focused on:
9. This group includes one main and one alternate elected member from each council in the Wellington region[2] and three mana whenua representatives. The purpose of the group is to provide a forum via which councils and mana whenua from across the Wellington Region can network, discuss issues, share information and where appropriate, achieve a consistent approach across all jurisdictions on climate change mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation (preparing for impacts such as sea level rise, drought and enhanced natural hazards effects).
10. There are benefits for each Council from participating in a regional working group that provides coordination, facilitates joined up action and enables consistent leadership, advocacy and communications in relation to climate change. Hutt City Council agreed the Terms of Reference for the group in principle at its meeting in December 2017.
11. At its last meeting on 16 March the Wellington Region Climate Change Councillors Working Group moved towards recommending that the Wellington region use the same approach as that used in Hawkes Bay (Clifton to Tangoio Coastal Hazard Strategy 2120) to progress their work.
12. The Project Team in Hawkes Bay based their work on the Ministry for the Environment Guidance for Local Government on Coastal Hazards and Climate Change. They undertook comprehensive hazard and risk assessments for coastal erosion and coastal inundation, and seven coastal units for priority response were identified and agreed. Each priority unit has a recommended 100 year plan that is divided into approaches to managing coastal hazard risks in the short (0 to 20 years); medium (20 to 50 years) and long term (50 to 100 years).
13. A key concept underlying this approach is responding to uncertainty with pathways – people have choices about the pathways that they follow at different points in time. Adjustments can be made in response to changing hazards and pre-defined triggers (decision points).
14. Securing broad community support for the approach was key to the success of the project. Lessons learnt included:
15. Council officers from around the region have met with Mitchell Daysh to discuss the possibility of implementing an approach for the Wellington region that is similar to that used in Hawkes Bay. Mitchell Daysh presented a draft project brief – this is attached as Appendix I. Council Officers are continuing discussions about how a region-wide approach might work.
24. At this stage there are no plans to undertake comprehensive regional mapping of sea level rise in the short term. Hutt City Council will not have access to firm data on which to plan for adaptation and mitigation for individual assets and households until mapping is completed. This will impact on Council’s ability to successfully progress plans to protect vulnerable parts of the city
25. The following information is provided to assist the Committee in its discussions. This information is contained in the latest Ministry for the Environment guidance document “Coastal hazards and Climate Change: Guidance for Local Government” http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate-change/coastal-hazards-and-climate-change-guidance-local-government
26. With regard to sea level rise observations and projections, the document notes the following:
Historic sea level rise and observations:
· Page 77: …” very likely that the mean rate of globally averaged sea-level rise was 1.7±0.2 millimetres per year between 1901 and 2010, producing a total rise in global sea level over that period of 0.19 metres (±0.02 metres). A slightly higher annual rise of 2.0±0.3 millimetres per year occurred in the 40-year period from 1971 to 2010”
· Page 80 …” an absolute SLR of around 2.0 mm/yr for New Zealand ocean waters”…
· Page 80: However: “When comparing locations, there is a noticeable spread of trends in local SLR, ranging from 1.37 mm/yr for Port Taranaki to 2.23 mm/yr at Wellington”
· Page 86: “Due to the non-linear and delayed responses of ocean and ice environments to ongoing climate change, natural variability and uncertainty on rate of global emission, it is not appropriate to extrapolate historic or even recent trends in sea-level rise observation”
· Page 105-107: NZ sea level rise projection scenarios shown below, with sea level rise of at least 30cm in the next 30-40 years
27. The options are that the Community Plan Committee:
a. Agrees to make a budget allocation in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan:
i. Of $100,00 to begin the process of acquiring and use sea level rise maps to identify threatened places, assets and communities in Lower Hutt and develop specific response options once that information is available
ii. Of $100,000 to begin engagement with Lower Hutt communities to build a common understanding of the risks faced by the community particularly the potential environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts associated with of climate change; OR
b. Does not agree to making these budget allocations in the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan; OR
c. Directs officers to complete further work to develop more accurate costings for consideration in the 2019 Annual Plan.
28. Officers recommend Option (a).
29. Officers have had discussions with GWRC and Wellington Water Ltd.
30. Officers have completed an initial analysis of Council’s potential legal liability vis a vis land use decisions and the impact this may have on where people decided or will decide to build/live/carry out business. A separate paper will be prepared to address this question for the Policy and Regulatory Committee meeting on 2 July 2018.
31. In summary, forewarned is forearmed – it is better to tell people of the possibility that they may be affected by sea level rise and/or climate change than not to say anything. To do this it is also best for Council’s to ensure that they take into account the most recent, accurate information known to inform decision. Citizens have expectations that local councils will make prudent decisions regarding where people can settle and buildings erected.
32. Investing in sea level rise mapping and community engagement has budget implications for the 2018-2028 Long Term Plan.
33. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it addresses the issue of sea level rise and climate change and their likely impact on the current and future needs of the lower Hutt community. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it recommends that the Committee consider recommending that the Community Plan Committee be asked to consider funding sea level rise mapping and community engagement as part of the Long Term Plan budget.
Briefing Note on Sea Level Rise Approach for Wellington Region _Draft for Comment.pdf
136 06 June 2018
File: (18/686)
Report no: CPC2018/3/149
144 06 June 2018
File: (18/910)
Report no: CPC2018/3/155
1. Following public consultation, the purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with a Rates Postponement Policy for Residential Ratepayers Aged 65 Years and Over for final consideration.
That the Committee recommends that Council notes the Rates Postponement Policy for Residential Ratepayers Aged 65 Years and Over, attached as Appendix 1 to this report and the associated consultation results; and EITHER
(a) adopts the Rates Postponement Policy for Residential Ratepayers Aged 65 Years and Over with effect from 1 July 2018; or
(b) does not adopt the Rates Postponement Policy for Residential Ratepayers Aged 65 Years and Over.
2. At its meeting on 28 March 2018, The Council adopted a draft Rates Postponement Policy for Residential Ratepayers Aged 65 Years and Over, for consultation purposes (Report CPC2018/2/69).
3. The 2018-28 Long Term Plan public consultation process ran from 3 April 2018 to 3 May 2018. 194 public submissions were received. In addition to the public consultation process, a parallel survey was conducted by Public Voice using our Citizens Panel. The survey asked the same questions as those asked in the Consultation Document. 515 residents responded to the survey.
4. Throughout the 2018-28 Long Term Plan public consultation process, the Council’s preferred option was to introduce a rates postponement scheme for residential ratepayers aged 65 years and over. The draft policy conditions and criteria were established to best ensure the total cost of the rates postponements are cost neutral to the Council.
5. In general, those who put in a public submission had a similar opinion to those who participated in the Citizen’s Panel Survey.
6. The results of the public consultation regarding rates postponements for residential ratepayers aged 65 years and over are summarized below. Further details can be found in Report CPC/2018/3/148 on the agenda to this meeting.
7. Importantly, the results from public submissions and the Citizen’s Panel Survey show majority support for a rates postponement scheme and most submitters considered the draft policy conditions and criteria would best ensure the total cost of the rates postponements are cost neutral to the Council.
8. Accordingly, the Rates Postponement Policy for Residential Ratepayers Aged 65 Years and Over, includes no changes as a result of the public consultation process and is attached as Appendix 1 to this report, for final consideration by the Committee.
9. On 28 March 2018, Council adopted the draft Rates Postponement Policy for Residential Ratepayers Aged 65 Years and Over for consultation purposes only between 3 May 2018 to 3 April 2018. There are no further consultation requirements arising from this report.
10. Legal considerations regarding the draft policy were discussed in reports FPC2018/1/6 and CPC2018/2/69 respectively. There are no further legal considerations arising from this report.
11. Similarly, financial considerations regarding the draft policy were discussed in reports FPC2018/1/6 and CPC2018/2/69 respectively. There are no further financial considerations arising from this report.
12. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it provides support to eligible residential ratepayers by way of a rates postponement policy that is cost neutral to the Council.
Draft Rates Postponement Policy for Residential Ratepayers aged 65 Years and Over
28/03/02018
Approved by Council for public consultation
6/06//2018
Approved by Council with effect from 1 July 2018.
2.3 Risk. 3
2.4 Insurance. 4
2.5 Rates Able To Be Postponed. 4
2.6 Conditions. 4
2.7 Review Or Suspension Of Policy. 5
2.8 Procedures. 5
Only rating units defined as residential and used for personal residential purposes by the applicant(s) as their sole or principal residence will be eligible for consideration of rates postponement under the criteria and conditions of this policy.
Current and all future rates may be postponed for a term exceeding twenty four (24) months if at least one ratepayer (or, if the ratepayer is a family trust, at least one named occupier) is 65 years of age or older.
If the property in respect of which postponement is sought is subject to a mortgage, then the applicant will be required to obtain the mortgagee’s consent before the council will agree to postpone rates.
When a property is owned by a family trust the council must be satisfied that all people with an ownership interest in the property have agreed to be part of the scheme. As well as the trustee(s) this may also include beneficiaries depending on the terms of the family trust. Therefore, the council will require a letter from the family trust’s lawyers to confirm that the family trust has the ability to postpone rates. The council’s conditional letter of offer will need to be signed by the applicant(s) and those parties whose consent is required.
Council must be satisfied, based on reasonable assumptions, that the risk of any shortfall when postponed rates and accrued charges are ultimately paid is negligible. To best safeguard the Council, the total amount of rates postponed may not exceed 60% of the applicant(s) equity in the property.
For prudential reasons, the council will need to register a statutory land charge against the property to protect its right to recover postponed rates.
The property must be insured for its full replacement value and evidence of this must be provided to the Council annually.
All rates are eligible for postponement except for:
a) The death of the ratepayer(s) or named individual or couple, (in this case the council will allow up to 18 months for payment so that there is ample time available to settle the estate or, in the case of a family trust owned property, make arrangements for repayment); or
b) Until the ratepayer(s) or named individual or couple ceases to be the owner or occupier of the rating unit; or
c) If the ratepayer(s) or named individual or couple continue to own the rating unit, but are placed in long term residential care, council will consider them to still be occupying the residence for the purpose of determining when postponement ceases and rates are to be paid in full. (In this case the council will allow up to 18 months for payment so that there is ample time for the property to be sold); and
d) Until a date specified by Council.
The administration cost will include a once-off establishment fee of $500 plus GST on postponed rates and the council will charge an annual management fee of $100 plus GST on postponed rates for the period between the due date and the date they are paid. These fees are designed to cover Council’s administrative costs to establish the rates postponement account, confirm adequate annual insurance cover is in place and provide half yearly statements to eligible ratepayer(s).
The financial cost will be the interest that Council will incur (being Council’s average cost of borrowings, calculated half yearly, for funding rates postponed, plus a margin of 1% to cover staff costs related to calculating and applying such interest charges to respective postponed rates accounts(s).
To protect council against any suggestion of undue influence, applicants (including their immediate family members wherever possible), are required to first obtain independent legal and financial advice. A certificate confirming this advice has been received will be required by the Council before rates postponement is granted. At the request of the applicant ratepayer(s), all costs associated with this condition can be borne directly by Council and applied to respective postponed rates accounts(s).
The postponement rates, or any part thereof, may be paid at any time. The applicant may elect to postpone the payment of a lesser sum than that which they would be entitled to have postponed pursuant to this policy.
Postponed rates will be registered as a statutory land charge on the rating unit title. This means that council will have first call on the proceeds of any revenue from the sale or lease of the rating unit.
The policy is in place indefinitely and can be reviewed subject to the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 at any time. Any resulting modifications will not change the entitlement of people already in the scheme to continued postponement of all future rates.
Council reserves the right not to postpone any further rates once the postponed rates exceeds 60% of the rateable value of the property as recorded in council’s rating information database.
This will require the ratepayer(s) for that property to pay all future rates but will not require any payment in respect of rates postponed up to that time. These will remain due for payment on death or sale of the rateable property.
Applications must be on the required application form which will be available from the Council’s main office or online at www.huttcity.org.nz
The policy will apply from the beginning of the rating year in which the application is made although council may consider backdating past the rating year in which the application is made depending on the circumstances.
The administration of this policy may be sub delegated to a Council Officer(s) as appropriate.
151 06 June 2018
File: (18/923)
Report no: CPC2018/3/153
Hutt City Development Charges and Rates Remission Policy
1. The purpose of the report is to recommend to Council that it suspend the Hutt City Development Charges and Rates Remission Policy (“the Policy”) from 31 December 2018.
(i) notes that the Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028 consultation demonstrates strong support for Council’s preferred option to suspend the Policy from 31 December 2018, outlined in paragraph 7; and
(iii) instructs officers to make all necessary amendments to the Policy to give effect to the suspending of the Policy from 31 December 2018.
2. Council adopted the Urban Growth Strategy in 2012. This strategy signalled a new bold approach to foster development in the city after nearly 30 years of little growth in new houses and population. One of the initiatives adopted to encourage more urban development was the Hutt City Development Charges and Rates Remission Policy (“the Policy”). This policy incentivises certain types of development across the city by remitting consent fees and Development and Financial Contribution fees, as well as rates remissions for five years for developments in certain locations.
3. As at early 2018 the policy has been successful in:
· Stimulating housing and population growth
· Attracting new developers into the city
· Changing the mix of housing types in the city, better suited to the city’s future population
· Returning confidence and development activity to parts of the city seen to be in decline
4. The volume and scale of new developments being proposed in the city has increased significantly as the market becomes more favourable to development activity. From the start of the Policy to May 2018 there have been 1,578 houses or units built.
5. For this reason a review of the Policy was undertaken in early 2018, reported to the Community Plan Committee and 2 options consulted on in the draft Long Term Plan 2018 - 2028.
6. The options consulted on in the draft Long Term Plan 2018 – 2028 were:
· Option 1 - Continue the Policy until 30 June 2020 (the current end date of the Policy)
· Option 2 - Suspend the Policy from 31 December 2018 (Council’s preferred option)
7. The results of the consultation on this topic are as follows:
8. Changes to the Policy must be consulted on as part of the Long Term Plan.
9. As at May 2018 it is estimated that $6.8M is required over the next seven financial years to allow for the development charges and rates remissions currently in place or currently known to likely be in place by the proposed end of the scheme at 31 December 2018.
10. This compares with a further $12.1M over the next nine years in the event the Policy is continued to 30 June 2020.
11. To ensure there is no impact on rates or debt these additional remissions are being funded by increasing other developer fees and using part of the Urban Growth Fund, a fund established to fund infrastructure to realise development of greenfield areas in the city.
12. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it will help provide good quality local infrastructure and encourage economic development. It does this in a way that is cost-effective because it is administratively easy and is offset by expansion of the rating base.
154 06 June 2018
File: (18/924)
Report no: CPC2018/3/156
Rates Remissions for Community, Sporting and Other Organisations
1. Following public consultation, the purpose of this report is to provide the Committee with a revised Rates Remission Policy, Part 1 – Remission for Community, Sporting and Other Organisations, for final consideration.
(i) notes the Council’s revised Rates Remission Policy, Part 1 – Remission for Community, Sporting and Other Organisations, attached as Appendix 1 to this report; and
(ii) adopts the Council’s revised Rates Remission Policy, Part 1 – Remission for Community, Sporting and Other Organisations, attached as Appendix 1 to this report, with effect from 1 July 2018.
2. At its last meeting on 28 March 2018, the Council adopted a revised Rates Remission Policy, Part 1 – Remission for Community, Sporting and Other Organisations, for consultation purposes (Report CPC2018/2/71).
3. The 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (LTP) public consultation process ran from 3 April 2018 to 3 May 2018. 194 public submissions were received. In addition to the public consultation process, a parallel survey was conducted by Public Voice using our Citizens Panel. The survey asked the same questions as those asked in the Consultation Document. 515 residents responded to the survey.
4. Throughout the 2018-2028 LTP public consultation process, the Council’s preferred option was to provide a 100% remission of the general rate levied on community, sporting and other organisations, regardless of whether they hold a liquor licence or not, and to fund this from rates instead of debt.
5. The results of the public consultation regarding the Rates Remission Policy, Part 1 – Remission for Community, Sporting and Other Organisations are summarized below. Further details can be found in Report CPC/2018/3/148 on this meeting’s agenda.
6. Across the four consultation topics the majority of submitters and survey respondents agreed with the Council’s preferred option. The exception was whether rates remissions for community, sporting and other organisations should be increased to 100%. Here opinions were more evenly divided between a rates remission of 50% and 100%. Among survey respondents a higher proportion favoured the remission to remain at 50%.
7. Accordingly, the Rates Remission Policy, Part 1 – Remission for Community, Sporting and Other Organisations, has been revised such that general rate remissions will be 50% of the amount charged (set at 100% for public consultation purposes) and is attached as Appendix 1 to this report, for final consideration by the Committee.
8. On 28 March 2018, Council adopted a revised Rates Remission Policy, Part 1 – Remission for Community, Sporting and Other Organisations for consultation between 3 May 2018 to 3 April 2018. There are no further consultation requirements arising from this report.
9. Legal considerations regarding the revised Rates Remission Policy, Part 1 – Remission for Community, Sporting and Other Organisations was discussed previously in Report CPC2018/2/71. There are no further legal considerations arising from this report.
10. Similarly, financial considerations regarding the revised Rates Remission Policy, Part 1 – Remission for Community, Sporting and Other Organisations were discussed in Report CPC2018/2/71. There are no further financial considerations arising from this report.
11. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it ensures that the objectives of Part1 of Council’s rates Remission Policy will be best achieved.
Part 1 Remission for Community, Sporting and Other Organisations
2. PART 1 - Remission for Community, Sporting and other Organisations
§ To facilitate the ongoing provision of non-commercial community services that meet the needs of the residents of the city.
§ To facilitate the ongoing provision of non-commercial recreational opportunities for the residents of the city.
§ To assist the organisation's survival.
§ To make membership of the organisations more accessible to the general public, particularly disadvantaged groups. These include children, youth, young families, aged people, and economically disadvantaged people.
Council may remit rates where the application meets the following criteria:
§ The policy will apply to land owned by Council or owned and occupied by a charitable organisation, which is used exclusively or principally for sporting, recreation, or community purposes.
§ The policy does not apply to organisations operated for private pecuniary profit.
§ The policy will also not apply to groups or organisations whose primary purpose is to address the needs of adult members (over 18 years) for entertainment or social interaction, or who engage in recreational, sporting, or community services as a secondary purpose only.
§ Applications for remission must be made in writing to Council prior to the commencement of the rating year. Applications received during a rating year will be considered for remission from the commencement of the following rating year. Applications will not be backdated.
§ Organisations making application should include the following documents in support of their application:
o Statement of objectives.
o Financial accounts.
o Information on activities and programmes.
o Details of membership or clients.
§ Any remission granted in relation to the general rate under this policy will be 50% of the amount charged.
§ Qualifying organisations rated in the Community facilities differential 1 (CF1) and 2 (CF2) category will be eligible for rates remissions under this policy.
§ The policy shall apply to such organisations as are approved by Council as meeting the relevant criteria
§ No remission will be granted on targeted rates for water supply and recycling under this policy.
§ Remission of targeted rates for wastewater disposal under this policy will only be granted as follows, to the types of organisations specified:
o Places of Religious Worship will be charged for a maximum of two pans, except in circumstances where it is evident that there is regular weekday use of the building for non-worship purposes.
o Child Care Facilities will be charged for a maximum of two pans.
o Sports clubs will be charged for a maximum of two pans, unless the club holds a liquor licence
o No more than 200 pans are to be charged on any one property.
o Marae and other similar meeting places are to be charged for a maximum of two pans.
o In cases of doubt each application shall be referred to Council’s Finance and performance Committee for a final decision.
Council may delegate the authority to make such approvals to particular Council officers as specified by a resolution of Council.
160 06 June 2018
File: (18/816)
Report no: CPC2018/3/151
1. This report summarises the asset renewal funding requirements for Parks and Gardens assets following the latest condition assessment reports.
(iii) notes that $350k has been added to draft budgets over the next five years from a projected increase in reserve contributions to help offset potential shortfall in renewal budgets.
2. At its meeting of 1 March 2018 the Community Services Committee requested officers to report to the Community Plan Committee on asset renewal funding, following a presentation on parks assets. This report summarises information at a high level on each of the main groups of park assets.
3. The following table summarises these main groups of parks assets. Recent condition assessments have been undertaken for hard surfaces, buildings and playgrounds, with assessments still to be undertaken on tracks and park furniture. This information will feed into an update of the Asset Management Plan.
Current Annual Budget Provision
Forecast Annual Shortfall
Car parks Roads Footpaths Paved areas
Changing rooms Toilets Other
Playgrounds**
Play equipment Skate parks
Seats Rubbish bins Picnic tables
*Excludes Petone Grandstand
**Excludes Avalon Park
4. The following information provides some context to the information in the table.
a. Hard Surfaces – a condition assessment was undertaken in June 2017 by engineering consultants. The forecast requirement of $580k per annum is based on the total asset renewal value over the maximum life of the asset. Officers will undertake a detailed review of the life values used in the calculations for each site to determine their appropriateness. It is likely that for some of these assets, longer life values will be able to be used based on actual use patterns. Priority 1 works identified in the report were costed at $900k.
b. Buildings – a condition assessment and resulting 10 year maintenance plan was undertaken by UPL in late 2017. The works identified in the plan amounted to $2.4M. This excludes any work on the Petone Recreation Grandstand which will be considered as a separate item by Council.
c. Playgrounds – an independent assessment was undertaken in late 2018. This inspection has resulted in officers planning to remove 22 individual play items from 10 of the 56 playground sites on safety grounds without replacement. The first of these was the fort at the Randwick Crescent playground in Moera. The forecast requirement of $350k to renew playground assets is based on the standard life cycle of 15 years. Officers will carefully consider extending this to 20 years and review the range of playgrounds. Avalon Park is not included in these figures.
d. Park Furniture – There is a total of just under 1,300 individual seats, bins, tables and BBQs distributed in Council parks and reserves. Using maximum recommended life cycle replacement criteria (12 years for bins and 25 years for other furniture), a sum of $150,000 per annum is required, on a straight line basis, to replace these assets at the end of their expected useful lives.
e. Tracks – Officers will need to undertake a review of track assets to be able to report with some confidence on this asset group. This is expected to take at least 6 months. Council has over 160 kilometres of track to maintain.
f. Signs – A new Parks sign template has recently been developed to roll out across the parks network. The first of these new signs (4) have been installed at Walter Mildenhall Park. The budget of $30,000 per annum will enable Council to upgrade between 5 and 8 parks per year, depending on the number of signs required.
5. The annual provision of funding as shown in the long term plan has traditionally been managed on a straight line basis, with the total cost of forecasted renewal works averaged out over a given period (e.g. 10 years) or over the life of the asset. While that approach provides a consistent level of funding it does not take into account fluctuations that are likely to occur in reality, as historically assets have not been developed evenly over time.
6. Recent condition assessments of three groups of parks assets appear to indicate that there is insufficient funding in the Long Term Plan to maintain these assets over their life cycle and thereby maintain current levels of service. One aspect that needs to be considered is the standard asset life data used, particularly for hard surfaces, to determine their suitability. Once this has been considered, further detailed analysis will need to be undertaken to determine options to address any shortfall which could include culling assets, reducing levels of service and increasing funding or combinations of each.
7. With the recent large investment in capital improvement projects, such as Avalon Park and Riddiford Garden, the situation with the adequate provision of renewal funding to maintain assists becomes even more important.
8. Officers consider that further detailed analysis needs to be undertaken before Council will be in a position to consider its options.
9. There has been no consultation in the preparation of this report.
10. There are no legal considerations at this time.
11. The financial implications will be reported back as detailed analysis is undertaken and options are developed.
12. In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it considers the long term maintenance of community assets.
MEMORANDUM 167 06 June 2018
Our Reference 18/908
SUBJECT: Additional Information Requested
That the Committee notes the additional information provided in response to information requests.
1. The purpose of the memorandum is to respond to information requests made by the Mayor and Councillors during the hearing of submissions on the Long Term Plan.
2. The Community Plan Committee at its meeting held on 16 and 17 May 2018 requested additional information prior to its final deliberations on the Long Term Plan. This memorandum has been compiled from information provided by Council officers and is outlined below under key strategy headings.
Hutt Valley Tennis (DAP18/136)
This matter has been addressed in a separate report titled “The Proposed Budget Changes”.
At its meeting held on 3 May 2018 the Community Services Committee considered targeted swimming programmes and passed the following recommendation – Minute No. CSC 18204:
Maintenance Playgrounds/Sportsgrounds
This matter has been addressed in a separate report titled “Parks Asset Renewals”.
Team Naenae (DAP18/135)
Officers are meeting with the relevant Ward Councillors to better understand the concerns raised by Team Naenae regarding the development of a new Naenae Hub.
Colleen Dunne (DAP18/148)
Information on a proposal for chronic disease classes in Council’s leisure facilities will be prepared for consideration by Council’s Community Services Committee.
Eastern Community Panel (DAP18/101-002 & DAP18/101-001)
Over the last 10 years Hillary Court received four stages of paving upgrades in total value of circa $500K from Council’s Suburban Shopping Centres Improvement Fund. The Long Term Plan funding is $300K every two years and there is a priority list of shopping centres which officers are working their way down. It is worth nothing that Naenae is not due for further funding for at least another 10 years.
Outdoor Basketball Court and Hoops Speldhurst Park
Based on a preliminary design, the construction costs for a full sized basketball court is approximately $280k + GST. A half court would cost around $150k. Officers do not support the full court proposal due to the impact on the character of this park.
Wainuiomata Trail Project (DAP/18/107 and 105)
Wainuiomata Trail Project is seeking increased funding to speed up the rate of track construction to expand the mountain bike park. Officers are supportive of the track proposals and appreciate the economic and social benefits it would bring. However, this would involve the creation of new track assets at a time when officers do not have a clear picture on the maintenance/renewals cost in relation to available budgets. The volunteers commit to maintenance in their submission, but this may not be a reliable resource in the long-term.
Bell Park (DAP18/168)
Officers have liaised with Ignite Sports and the local residents to develop a concept plan for the Bell Park, which is ready for final approval. This includes hard court areas for use by Ignite and the local community as well as drainage, footpaths, potential fitness trail and general landscaping. The outline costs are still being developed but will be in the region of $250,000 for the hard courts and a further $300,000 for the wider landscaping.
Constance Gervasi (DAP18/46)
Officers will make contact with Constance Gervasi regarding Avalon Park and the exercise equipment.
Elle Abel (DAP18/166)
Officers will action the request for the installation of a changing table at Wainuiomata Shopping Centre from existing budgets.
Toimata Foundation (DAP18/149)
Officers will invite Toimata Foundation to present to Council’s Community Services Committee on their excellent work as a national support organisation for Enviroschools.
Te Awakairangi Health Network (DAP18/175)
Information on a Te Awakairangi Policy/Strategy will be prepared for consideration by Council’s Community Services Committee.
Hutt Valley Gymnastics (DAP18/74)
Information on funding for a regional facility will be prepared for consideration by Council’s Community Services Committee.
Ngaire Lambourn (DAP18/157)
Information on extending the Moera Library and flooding issues will be prepared for consideration by Council’s Community Services Committee.
CAB (DAP18/161)
Information on CAB options for the organisation to be based in the Hutt Libraries will be prepared for consideration by Council’s Community Services Committee.
Te Whare Tane – House for Men (DAP18/172)
Information on funding for the Te Whare Tane Project will be prepared for consideration by Council’s Community Services Committee.
Moera Community House (DAP18/126)
Information in response to the Moera Community House’s submission will be prepared for consideration by Council’s Community Services Committee.
Baseball NZ and Wellington Baseball Association (DAP18/52)
Information on a national baseball facility will be prepared for consideration by Council’s Community Services Committee.
Western Community Panel (DAP18/115)
Information on walkways in the Western Hills will be prepared for consideration by Council’s Community Services Committee.
Maungaraki Community Association (DAP18/116)
Information on the Dowse Drive Reserve and the recent knoll turning plus costings for any consequential works will be prepared for consideration by Council’s City Development Committee.
Keri Brown (DAP18/144)
This matter has been addressed in a separate report titled “Lower Hutt Homelessness Strategy”.
Officers will explore how Council will integrate heritage as a city not only physical buildings but also the history of mana whenua and the place that we preside in.
Riverlink Funds
To make Council’s contribution to the Riverlink project more visible, officers will be renaming all budgets for Riverlink in the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan as follows:
· Riverlink – promenade, urban improvements and footbridge – total $25.5M – funding over various years
· Riverlink – strategic property purchases – will be funds from the carryover
· Riverlink – replacement riverbank car parking” - $0.8M LTP 2020-2021
· Riverlink – East Access Route (51% subsidy)” - $3.5M LTP 2020-2012
· Riverlink – contribution to Melling Bridge Renewal (1/3 share at 51% subsidy)” - $6.5M LTP 2025-2026
· Riverlink – stormwater requirements” - $2.1M
Officers will explore aspects of local stories being told in the Riverlink Project alongside local mana whenua.
Extending Free Wi-fi Around Wainuiomata Shopping Centre
With planning currently being undertaken on the Wainuiomata town centre in conjunction with the proposed redevelopment of the Mall by Progressive Enterprises, an investigation into the cost of extending free Wi-Fi around the Wainuiomata Shopping Centre will be undertaken as part of this work.
At its meeting held on 1 May 2018 the City Development Committee considered the Riverbank Market proposal. This matter has been addressed in a separate report titled “Riverbank Carpark Tariff Changes”.
P2040 Funding 2018-2019
The P2040 Group has requested $150K to:
1. Implement the protection and enhancement of heritage buildings in Jackson Street as prioritised by Council in 2017. This work would include demonstration projects with building owners to upgrade blocks of buildings and staged over several years. Perhaps a block of five to six buildings per year. These demonstration projects would trial and test building upgrades eg smartening up facades, removing poor features, rebuilding heritage features, replacing signage with more appropriate ‘heritage friendly’ designs in accordance with Council guidelines, street furniture and lights, footpath and parking reconfiguration trials etc. These small demonstration projects would demonstrate the intent of the more costly longer term (10-30 years) upgrade projects proposed by the JSSD. The demonstration projects could be partnered between Council, Petone 2040, Jackson Street Programme, Petone Community Board and with building owners. This work will show progress by Council on heritage, it will help the economic performance of Jackson Street, and it will continue the roll-out of (P2040) one of Council’s few spatial plans for the city.
2. Progress the 14 other key projects identified by the P2040 Strategy. For example, CVL is one of these and there is potential to strongly align Council’s business case with NZTA’s most recent GPS (government policy statement for land transport) criteria if led by design to emphasis walking, cycling, public transport, sustainability, resilience of city, population and economic growth, and safety. This will require external skills in transport planning, urban economics, urban design, landscape, biodiversity and social outcomes. Protecting heritage and character across the residential areas of Petone – this could be investigated as a heritage overlay in Council’s District Plan.
3. Facilitate progress with P2040 and manage ongoing community engagement (similar to the “Love Wainuiomata” project by utilising a part time co-ordinator). It would not be appropriate for this to be undertaken by JSP as the majority of P2040 projects have little to do with Jackson Street.
At its meeting held on 30 April 2018 the Policy and Regulatory Committee considered the Sea Level Rise proposal. This matter has been addressed in a separate report titled “Sea Level Rise”.
At its meeting held on 30 April 2018 the Policy and Regulatory Committee considered the Encroachment Licence Fees proposal. This matter has been addressed in a separate report titled “Encroachment Licence Fees”.
Taranaki Whanui Memorandum of Understanding and Service Level Agreement (DAP18/192)
The current MoU and SLA were reviewed and signed off by Mayor Wallace on behalf of Council and Mr Wayne Mulligan for the Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust on 17 July 2017 and the documents will expire 30 June 2020.
Michael Gray (DAP18/90)
Officers are organising a CBD Spatial Plan workshop. The workshop will include Rejuvenation of south High Street. Officers are working with Mr Gray and South High Street Rejuvenation Group.
A report will be prepared for consideration by Council at its meeting to be held on 28 June 2018.
Information on enviroschools and sustainability will be prepared for consideration by Council’s City Development Committee.
Jackson Street Programme (DAP18/156)
Officers have performance related discussions with contractors. Officers are happy to contact Jackson Street Programme to explain the process and are open to suggestions for process improvements. For the Committee’s information, officers notified all affected businesses of the works prior to them starting and then the contractor kept them informed throughout the job. Unfortunately, wet weather considerably extended the works and unforeseen ground conditions further compounded this. Officers are aware that road works are disruptive to residents, businesses and traffic but they have to be completed if Council wants safe and effective transport infrastructure.
Andrew Fuller (DAP18/108)
Information on the environmental impacts of 4K LED streetlights and options for the way they are used will be prepared for consideration by Council’s City Development Committee.
Max Shierlaw (DAP18/25)
Information on a model to reduce traffic issues near K-Mart, Petone will be prepared for consideration by Council’s City Development Committee.
Michelle Ducat (DAP18/177)
Information on emission targets will be prepared for consideration by Council’s City Development Committee.
Following works commencing on wharves, new information has been shared by consultants regarding costs. Officers are analysing this information and plan to prepare a detailed report outlining all available options to Council. Officers expect to complete this report in the coming months. Officers want to reassure Council that all of the City’s wharves have been maintained to a standard consistent with expert advice. The reality and challenge is the wharves are old. Officers continue to take all practical steps to ensure all the wharves remain safe for current use.
Preparedness and Resilience across the City
Officers will organise a Preparedness, Sustainability and Resilience workshop along with the Lifelines Group. The workshop will include transport links, electricity and the role of wharves.
Officers will facilitate a workshop with Wellington Electricity regarding its investment in the Hutt.