Agenda of Council - 14 00 2020

Council

14 December 2020

Reports

Zero Carbon guidance for the draft 10 Year Plan

Department: Civic

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides:

a) an update on initiatives underway to support Council to reflect its Zero Carbon 2030 target in the draft 10 Year Plan, and the timing of reporting to Council on these initiatives;

b) an update to the Dunedin Community Carbon Footprint 2018/19, based on an updated methodology; and

c) high level guidance for Council on progressing towards the DCC’s Zero Carbon 2030 target through its decision-making on the draft 10 Year Plan.

2 A primary focus for the Zero Carbon 2030 work stream during 2020 has been to develop processes and options to enable the DCC’s Zero Carbon ambitions to be reflected in the draft 10 Year Plan. Individual 10 Year Plan options reports have a Zero Carbon section, setting out the degree of alignment with the DCC’s emissions reduction ambitions. Along with the high level guidance provided in this report, follow-up reports in January 2021 will include:

a) the final Climate 2030 Rapid Review report

b) a long list of potential initiatives to reduce emissions from DCC operations

c) Zero Carbon elements to the draft Infrastructure and Financial Strategies

d) opportunities to better reflect emissions reduction ambitions in Levels of Service, and

e) Zero Carbon work programme resourcing embedded in operational budgets.

3 The December 2020 update to the Dunedin Community Carbon Footprint 2018/19 provides a more accurate picture of emissions produced in the 2018/19 year, but compromises the comparability of the 2014/15 and 2018/19 Footprints. Emissions from the Transport sector have been revised down to 39% of total gross emissions, and the Agriculture sector now represents a very similar proportion (38%). Emissions from all other sectors have increased slightly as a proportion of total gross emissions.

4 Based on an assessment of Dunedin’s highest emitting sectors, the areas in which the DCC has the greatest influence, the DCC’s ‘split gases’ approach to its emissions reduction target and opportunities/need for investment/renewal it is recommended that to facilitate emissions reduction, priority should be given to low emissions initiatives in Transport, followed by Waste and Stationary Energy.

5 High-level themes relevant to Council’s consideration of options reports from a Zero Carbon perspective are provided by sector, drawn from the final draft of the Climate 2030 Rapid Review and work to date on the refresh of the DCC’s Emissions Reduction Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the update on Zero Carbon work programme initiatives related to the 10 Year Plan

b) Notes the December 2020 update to the Dunedin Community Carbon Footprint 2018/19; and

c) Notes the Zero Carbon guidance for the 10 Year Plan.

BACKGROUND

DCC’s commitments to climate change mitigation/emissions reduction

6 Since 2015, a number of Council resolutions have affirmed a commitment to emissions reduction city-wide.

7 The Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, previously known as the Compact of Mayors, is a commitment under which cities need to measure their emissions, adopt emissions reduction targets, and develop a formally adopted plan(s) addressing climate change mitigation/low emission development, and access to sustainable energy.

8 In November 2015, the Council resolved to commit the (then) Compact of Mayors, as follows:

“It was moved (Hawkins/MacTavish):

That the Dunedin City Council:

a) urges the New Zealand Government to commit to a carbon emissions reduction target of 40% by 2030, relative to 1990 levels

b) expresses a willingness to support the development and implementation of a clear action plan to achieve that target, including interim goals

c) commits to the international Compact of Mayors

d) calls on the New Zealand Government to place a moratorium on deep sea oil and gas exploration and extraction, in New Zealand waters."

Councillor Vandervis left the meeting during the course of discussion at 6.28 pm.

Following discussion Motion (a) was put and carried on a division 8:6.

For: Councillors Benson-Pope, Hawkins, MacTavish, Peat, Staynes, Thomson, Wilson, The Mayor

Against: Councillors Bezett, Calvert, Hall, Lord, Noone, Whiley

Motion (b) was put and carried on a division 8:6.

For: Councillors Benson-Pope, Hawkins, MacTavish, Peat, Staynes, Thomson, Wilson, The Mayor

Against: Councillors Bezett, Calvert, Hall, Lord, Noone, Whiley

Motion (c) was put and carried on a division 9:5.

For: Councillors Benson-Pope, Hawkins, MacTavish, Peat, Staynes, Thomson, Whiley, Wilson, The Mayor

Against: Councillors Bezett, Calvert, Hall, Lord, Noone

Motion (d) was put and carried on the Mayor's casting vote after a division had resulted in an equality of votes, 6:6 with two abstentions.

For: Councillors Benson-Pope, Hawkins, MacTavish, Peat, Thomson, The Mayor

Against: Councillors Bezett, Calvert, Hall, Lord, Noone, Whiley

Abstentions: Councillors Staynes, Wilson”

9 In February 2018, to give effect to its commitment under the Global Covenant of Mayors, the Planning & Environment Committee resolved to adopt an emissions reduction target as follows:

“Moved (Cr Aaron Hawkins/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Committee:

a) Recommends that to give effect to its commitment under the Global Covenant of Mayors, Council:

1. Adopts a Net ‘Zero Carbon’ emissions reduction target, excluding methane, by 2050.

2. Develop a series of targets, as a pathway from 2020-2050, as a matter of urgency.

3. Set methane reduction targets in line with the outcomes of the government’s Zero Carbon Act consultation process.

b) Request an update on work completed to date to identify local options for carbon off-setting.

The Committee voted by division:

For: Crs Dave Cull, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Aaron Hawkins, Marie Laufiso, Jim O'Malley, Damian Newell, Chris Staynes, Conrad Stedman, Kate Wilson and David Benson-Pope (11).

Against: Crs Doug Hall, Mike Lord, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley (4).

The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 4 (PLA/2018/006)”

10 In June 2019, following consideration of community requests to declare a climate emergency, the Council resolved to bring forward its emissions reduction target by 20 years, as follows:

“Moved (Cr Aaron Hawkins/Cr Marie Laufiso):

That the Council:

a) Declares a Climate Emergency.

b) Acknowledge that all levels of central government need to act.

c) Agrees that a business as usual transition to a low carbon economy is inadequate.

d) Develops a Climate Emergency Plan that:

i) Sets a city target of net zero carbon by 2030, with interim milestones;

ii) Quantifies the actions available to Council, community and central government to ensure these targets are met.

Division

The Council voted by division:

For: Crs David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Aaron Hawkins, Marie Laufiso, Damian Newell, Jim O'Malley, Kate Wilson and Dave Cull (9).

Against: Crs Doug Hall, Mike Lord, Conrad Stedman, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley (5).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 5

Motion carried (CNL/2019/154)”

11 As part of the 2019/20 Annual Plan deliberations, the Council resolved to establish a dedicated work programme to meet climate change mitigation and adaptation planning needs, as follows:

“Moved (Cr Aaron Hawkins/Cr Kate Wilson):

That the Council:

a) Approves establishing and commencing the delivery of a detailed work programme for climate mitigation and adaption at a cost of $525,000 for 2019/20 and $572,000 in 2021/22, with progress reported to Council.

Division

The Council voted by division:

For: Crs David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Aaron Hawkins, Marie Laufiso, Damian Newell, Jim O'Malley, Andrew Whiley, Kate Wilson and Mayor Dave Cull (11).

Against: Crs Mike Lord and Lee Vandervis (2).

The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 2

Motion carried (AP/2019/015)”

12 The climate change work programme currently comprises two core work streams, one of which is focused on emissions reduction and achieving the Zero Carbon 2030 target.

Recent legislative and regulatory developments relating to climate change mitigation

13 Since 2019, there have been a number of climate change mitigation-related national legislative and regulatory developments with implications for local government.

The Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act

14 The Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act was passed in 2019. It set a new domestic greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for New Zealand, as follows:

· net emissions of all greenhouse gases (except biogenic methane) to zero by 2050; and

· emissions of biogenic methane to 24–47 per cent below 2017 levels by 2050, including to 10 per cent below 2017 levels by 2030

15 Relevant to emissions reduction, the Act also established:

a) a system of mandatory national emissions budgets and plans (with the Government legally bound to have the first in place by 31 December 2021), and

b) a new, independent Climate Change Commission to serve an advisory and monitoring function.

Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act 2020

16 The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has historically been central government’s primary tool for meeting domestic and international climate change targets. The scheme aims to encourage a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by placing a price on greenhouse gas emissions (the measurement of ‘emission units’ which represent one metric tonne of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalent).

17 Sectors currently captured by the scheme (including forestry, landfill, energy) must quantify their emissions and surrender/purchase units (New Zealand Units, or NZUs) to cover their emissions liability.

18 Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Reform) Amendment Act 2020 linked the ETS to the Government’s 2050 target, signalling that the ETS will continue to be an important tool in achieving emissions budgets, and that the provisional emissions budget for 2021–2025 will be used to inform the unit supply settings. Interim amendments to ETS price control settings have resulted in increases in the cost of NZUs.

19 Modelling and analysis by the Productivity Commission suggests that the price on carbon would need to rise significantly to support delivery of the Government’s target of net neutrality by 2050 (NZ Productivity Commission 2018: Low Emissions Economy).

Growing expectations of regulatory bodies

20 In June 2020 the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) released Insights into local government: 2019, with an increased focus on climate-change related matters (attachment A). While a great deal of their emphasis lies with adaptation, in relation to climate change mitigation the report emphasised:

a) the importance of council transparency with communities about mitigation activity; and

b) the role of appropriate structures and policies in promoting a sound understanding of climate change throughout councils (both at staff and governance level), in embedding a focus on climate change, and in ensuring consistency of approach.

21 The report singled out councils that had declared climate emergencies, signalling that it is their expectation that such a declaration would result in a “tangible response to accelerate council actions or programmes relating to climate change mitigation and/or adaptation in the form of governance, management and prioritisation of council activity and investment”.

22 The report also encouraged councils to consider the role audit and risk committees have in managing the “transition to a disrupted climate and low-emissions future”, including the implications that might arise from the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act 2019 (e.g. increasing costs, expectations to align council activity with national targets, and requirements around transparency and reporting).

Carbon Neutral Government Programme

23 In December 2020, the Government declared a climate emergency and launched a Carbon Neutral Government Programme, which will require public sector agencies to measure and publicly report on their emissions and to offset any they can’t cut by 2025. There will be an immediate focus on phasing out largest and most active coal boilers, Government agencies will be required to purchase electric vehicles and reduce the size of their car fleet, and a green standard will be required for public sector buildings.

24 Local government is not covered by the requirements. All Government Departments and Ministries are covered, and crown agencies will have to measure, verify and report emissions annually.

DISCUSSION

Update on Zero Carbon and the draft 10 Year Plan

25 A primary focus for the Zero Carbon 2030 work stream during 2020 has been to develop processes and options to enable the DCC’s Zero Carbon ambitions to be reflected in the draft 10 Year Plan. An update on the various elements of this, and the timing of reporting to Council, is provided in Attachment B.

26 This report is primarily to provide the Council with an update to the Dunedin City Community Carbon Footprint 2018/19, and to provide high level guidance for Council on promoting progress towards the DCC’s Zero Carbon 2030 target through its decision-making on the draft 10 Year Plan. Individual options reports also have a Zero Carbon section setting out option-specific considerations relating to Zero Carbon, and follow-up reports in January 2021 will include:

a) the final Climate 2030 Rapid Review report

b) a long list of potential initiatives to reduce emissions from DCC operations

c) Zero Carbon elements to the draft Infrastructure and Financial Strategies

d) opportunities to better reflect emissions reduction ambitions in Levels of Service, and

e) Zero Carbon work programme resourcing embedded in operational budgets.

Update to the Dunedin City Community Carbon Footprint 2018/19

27 In September 2020 the Dunedin City Community Carbon Footprint 2018/19, produced by AECOM, was presented to Council.

28 In December 2020, AECOM provided an update to the Footprint following a recalculation of the emissions produced from petrol and diesel fuel consumption in Dunedin based on an updated methodology (refer Attachment B for AECOM’s full summary of changes).

29 This methodology provides a more accurate picture of the greenhouse gas emissions produced in Dunedin City in 2018/19, and makes Dunedin’s results more comparable with other results across New Zealand (as this is the methodology used in footprints elsewhere). However, it compromises the comparability of the 2014/15 and 2018/19 Footprints, and therefore the ability to draw conclusions about trends.

30 It has been decided that accuracy of the 2018/19 Footprint takes interim priority, and this update is provided on that basis. This section of the report sets out the change in methodology, associated changes to the 2018/19 Footprint, and the affect of that on the comparability of previously described emissions trends.

Methodology change

31 The primary dataset that underpins the calculation of petrol and diesel consumption in Dunedin is the total petrol and diesel sold annually within the Tax Area of Coastal Otago. The Tax Area was defined in 1971 and includes Dunedin City, Clutha District and Waitaki District. For the calculation of the original 2014/15 Footprint, a rates-based method to apportioning the sales between councils was employed, with Dunedin allocated a proportion of the total fuel sales based on yearly rates income in each district (the same approach taken to apportion the tax revenue across the three territorial authorities). This was the best approach available when creating the 2014/15 Footprint, and in the interests of having a comparable dataset, it was initially decided to use the same methodology to calculate the 2018/19 Footprint.

32 With improved data availability, a more accurate method of allocating the quantity of petrol and diesel consumed between territorial authorities is to base the proportion of total fuel sales based on the total distance travelled by vehicles in each district in the financial year (known as Vehicle Kilometres Travelled or VKT). The VKT dataset is published annually by Waka Kotahi (NZTA) and is broken down by territorial authority.

33 The VKT data on which this approach is based was not available when creating the 2014/15 Footprint (produced in 2016), and the VKT-based method is not able to be retrospectively applied to the 2014/15 data at this time, due to a gap in the Tax Area of Coastal Otago dataset for the local authorities areas other than the Dunedin.

34 The difference in the results from using each approach is significant. Using the original rates-based method for 2018/19, 70% of petrol and diesel consumption in these three districts is allocated to Dunedin, while using the November 2020 updated VKT-based method, 54% of petrol and diesel consumption in these three districts is allocated to Dunedin.

Change in Reported 2018/19 Emissions due to the Update

35 The changes in methodology has resulted in lower calculated emissions from petrol and diesel emissions sources, and therefore a reduction in the reported emissions from the Transportation and Stationary Energy sectors. In turn, this revises down the reported total emissions for the 2018/19 Footprint. The changes are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1: Changes in the Dunedin City Community Carbon Footprint 2018/19, by sector and in gross terms, resulting from application of the VKT-based method to fuel sales data

Emissions source	August 2020 Original 2018/19 Footprint (tCO2e)	November 2020 Updated 2018/19 Footprint (tCO2e)	% change between August 2020 Original and November 2020 Updated Footprints
Transportation	728,347	613,793	16% reduction
Agriculture	599,051	599,051	No change
Stationary Energy	207,433	200,464	3% reduction
Waste	120,157	120,157	No change
IPPU	39,544	39,544	No change
Total Gross Emissions	1,694,532	1,573,008	9% reduction

36 The changes in methodology also change the proportion of total emissions from each sector (refer Figure 1). Prior to the update, the Transportation sector was the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the City by some margin, representing 43% of total gross emissions. In the November 2020 update this has been revised down to 39%, and the Agriculture sector now represents a very similar proportion of the City’s emissions. Together, these two sectors represent more than 75% of Dunedin’s total gross greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions as a proportion of total gross emissions from all other sectors have increased as a result of the November 2020 update.

Figure 1: Dunedin City’s gross greenhouse gas emissions in 2018/19, split by sector, as revised in the AECOM November 2020 Update

Emissions trends affected by the Update

37 Due to the difference in data allocation method for petrol and diesel emissions, Dunedin’s total emissions, Transport emissions and total Stationary Energy emissions between the 2014/15 and 2018/19 Footprints cannot be reliably compared.

38 Emissions trends from all other sources and sectors (i.e. those not related to petrol and diesel consumption in the Transport and Stationary Energy sectors) are able to be directly compared between the two Footprints due to consistencies in the data sources and methods used for emissions calculations.

39 If the 2014/15 Tax Area of Coastal Otago dataset becomes available for the areas other than Dunedin, recalculation of the 2014/15 petrol and diesel emissions will be possible which would enable full direct comparison of the 2014/15 and 2018/19 Footprints. Staff will make further attempts to retrieve the relevant 2014/15 data, early in 2021, to enable this analysis.

Impacts for decision-making

40 AECOM’s advice is that little has changed from the November update in terms of priority focus areas for emissions reduction. They suggest the DCC should remain focussed on the highest emitting sectors and the areas where the DCC has the most influence.

Zero Carbon guidance for the 10 Year Plan

41 This section sets out high level guidance for Council on promoting progress against the DCC’s Zero Carbon 2030 target, through its decision-making on the draft 10 Year Plan.

42 It recommends priority sectors for investment to achieve emissions reduction, and summarises the high-level themes relevant to Council’s consideration of options reports, the latter drawn from the final draft of the Climate 2030 Rapid Review and work to date on the refresh of the DCC’s Emissions Reduction Plan.

General Rapid Review findings

43 The final draft of the Rapid Review includes some general findings that are not sector specific. From a climate change mitigation perspective, it recommends that the DCC’s Zero Carbon Plan development include:

· More specific climate change mitigation targets, including interim targets and offsetting targets, and the potential costs and timelines for achieving these targets, based on a number of scenarios;

· Assessment, ranking and prioritisation of potential climate change mitigation initiatives, and engagement with stakeholders in this process;

· Development of suitable measures to track progress towards achieving the above specific targets;

· A focus on risks and opportunities associated, and communication of these;

· Development of partnership and collaboration mechanisms and structures, both internal to the DCC and with stakeholders;

· Integration of the Plan with other DCC programmes, strategies and plans, and other related regional and national climate change initiatives; and

· Review mechanisms.

44 The Rapid Review also emphasised the value in greater collaboration across the DCC in relation Zero Carbon ambitions, and the importance of embedding an emissions reduction focus in performance management systems and processes.

45 Informed by these recommendations, resourcing to:

a) produce a Zero Carbon Plan for the city;

b) improve the DCC’s Zero Carbon-related performance management;

c) build both internal and external capacity to deliver emissions reduction (including through asset management and procurement processes); and

d) support improved internal and external communication and collaboration on Zero Carbon related deliverables

will be included in draft operational budgets, to be reported to Council in January 2021.

Criteria used to determine recommended priority sectors

46 As set out above, external guidance suggests that the DCC focus on initiatives that will support emissions reduction in the highest emitting sectors, and the areas in which the DCC has the greatest influence.

47 In addition, the ‘split gases’ approach that the DCC has taken to its emissions reduction target (setting a higher level of ambition for gases other than biogenic methane) provides some direction on the relative urgency of DCC emphasis on different emissions sources. As the DCC’s target is aligned with the Government’s on biogenic methane, it is more likely that Government-driven policy interventions will promote the changes required to achieve this part of the target. As the DCC’s target on all other gases (net neutrality by 2030) is significantly more ambitious than the Government’s (net neutrality by 2050), it is very likely that the DCC will need to actively drive the policy changes required to achieve this at a local level.

48 Finally, given the proximity of the DCC’s 2030 target and the DCC’s limited resources, it is considered that opportunities/need for investment/renewal should be weighted in the analysis. Where investment in infrastructure assets needs to be made for reasons of asset renewal or capacity, or an opportunity to reshape a network exists because of DCC involvement in a major strategic planning process (especially where this is driven by external players), placing a clear emphasis on emissions reduction in these investments is recommended.

Reducing emissions from the Transport sector

49 It is suggested that investment to reduce emissions from the transport sector should be the highest priority for the DCC, for five reasons:

· Transport is the city’s largest source of emissions, at 39% of total gross emissions in 2018/19.

· Indications are that emissions from this sector appear to be growing faster than those in any other sector.

· Emissions from this sector are dominated by carbon dioxide, which is to be reduced to ‘net zero’ under the Council’s Zero Carbon 2030 target.

· The DCC has significant strategic network planning functions and asset ownership/management functions in the Transport sector. Its statutory roles in land use/urban planning also have a significant impact on the city’s Transport sector and associated emissions. In addition, the DCC can also promote changes to Transport sector emissions through its procurement processes, its role as a partner/funder, and as an employer/’user’ of the transport network. The DCC therefore has a significant degree of influence over outcomes in this sector.

· The DCC’s involvement in the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport project provides a unique opportunity for the DCC to promote low emissions outcomes in the Central Business District.

50 The final draft of the Climate 2030 Rapid Review sets out several ‘mitigation levers’ for emissions reduction in the transport sector. These, and the associated opportunities identified, are listed Table 2.

Table 2: Mitigation levers and associated opportunities for emissions reduction in the transport sector, identified by the Climate 2030 Rapid Review

Mitigation lever	Opportunities
Reduce the need to travel, or reduce vehicle kilometres travelled (VKT)	Intensifying land use and mixed-use development in central city and suburban nodes Closely integrating land use and transport system planning, especially in areas of higher population growth and where there are network deficiencies Promoting flexible working practices Car parking management (DCC-owned) - providing short term/higher cost parking in central areas; shifting longer term parking to the periphery of the centre; aligning financial incentives with mode shift ambitions; providing priority parking for electric vehicles Car parking management (Private) - removing minimum parking requirements from the District Plan and considering a maximum parking requirement in selected areas (as per National Policy Statement – Urban Development) Considering feasibility and likely benefits/costs of road pricing/fuel price increases
Increase sustainable modes	Ensuring a network-based approach to walking and cycling infrastructure is taken Ensuring levels of services for active modes relative to the private motor vehicle reflect mode shift ambitions, including through road space reallocation, using a ‘tactical urbanism’ approach to kick-start or trial improvements Reducing vehicle speeds Supporting travel behaviour change e.g. through workplace/school travel planning, bike subsidies, ensuring end-of-trip facilities are available, providing clear information and wayfinding, integrating low emissions travel planning into public events
More efficient vehicle use	Public transport improvements e.g. provision of high-quality infrastructure, priority bus lanes, affordable fares, express services/park and ride (with an emphasis on commuter travel from Mosgiel) Promoting carpooling (e.g. through high occupancy vehicle lanes, online platforms), Mobility as a Service, and car sharing schemes Promoting efficiency in the freight industry e.g. eco-driver training, logistics optimisation and consolidation centres
Increase lower emission vehicles	Providing EV charging infrastructure at appropriate DCC-owned locations and aligning regulatory incentives to promote access to appropriate infrastructure Investigating low emissions vehicle lanes Electrifying the DCC vehicle fleet Advocating for lower emissions buses Supporting appropriate micro-mobility schemes Increasing the use of rail for freight Increasing the conversion of heavy vehicles to low emissions Increasing the use of sustainable modes for freight

51 Activities identified that may increase emissions include relaxing land use zoning to allow high trip generating activities to disperse through the city, and/or development of dispersed pockets of urban land on the fringes of the city. In addition, the importance of avoiding unnecessary construction emissions through rigorous advance assessment the likely benefits of infrastructure for mode shift, was highlighted.

Relevant 10 Year Plan options reports

52 The options in a wide range of 10 Year Plan options reports will have some impact on transport emissions. However, those setting out investment options that will significantly influence the city’s transport emissions include:

a) Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme

b) City to Waterfront (Bridge) Connection – Update

c) 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Roading and Footpaths

d) 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Governance and Support Services

e) 2021/31 Draft Capital Budget

Reducing emissions from the Waste sector

53 It is suggested that investment to reduce emissions from the waste sector should be the second highest priority for the DCC. While emissions from this sector are just 7.6% of the total in 2018/19 and are dominated by biogenic methane, of the remaining sectors it is the one in which the DCC has the greatest direct involvement, and the clearest current opportunity for strategic leadership.

· While waste sector emissions (including emissions generated by biological processes during wastewater treatment) are responsible for only 7.6% of the city’s emissions, most of these (5.3% of the city’s total emissions) are generated from assets owned by the DCC (Green Island Landfill – 5.1%, and wastewater treatment plants – 0.2%). In addition, emissions from these sources are responsible for over 80% of the DCC’s operational emissions.

· The DCC has significant strategic planning functions and asset ownership/management functions relating to waste and wastewater. Its statutory roles in land use/urban planning also have an impact on the city’s waste sector and associated emissions. In addition, the DCC can also promote changes to waste sector emissions through its procurement processes, its role as a partner/funder, and as an employer/’user’ of waste infrastructure. The DCC therefore has a significant degree of influence over outcomes in this sector.

· The DCC is part way through a significant planning exercise for waste infrastructure, coinciding with planning for the closure of Green Island landfill. It is also part way through a major planning exercise for some of its most significant waste streams to landfill (e.g. sludge from wastewater treatment, through the Bioresources Strategy), and its wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), through the Wastewater System Plan. The need for significant investment presents a unique opportunity to reduce emissions from the sector.

· While waste sector emissions have reduced, this appears to be due to an increasing amount of waste being trucked out of Dunedin, and improved gas collection systems at Green Island Landfill, rather than a reduction in waste produced.

Reducing emissions from solid waste

54 Emissions from waste are mainly created by landfilling of biodegradable (organic) material, such as food waste, paper, textiles, cardboard, wood and green waste.

55 In 2017, general waste comprised 68% of waste to Green Island Landfill. Based on 2018 waste composition data, the most significant reductions in emissions from general waste would be achieved by diverting timber from landfill, followed by organics (split relatively evenly between garden waste, and other organics) and then paper.

56 In 2017, sludge from the DCC’s wastewater treatment plants amounted to 6.8% of waste to Green Island Landfill. This is also a significant biodegradable emissions-generating waste stream.

57 The final draft of the Climate 2030 Rapid Review generally supports the diverted material approach set out in the DCC Waste Futures ‘Towards a Circular Economy’ programme, which has been assessed as resulting in a 24% reduction in emissions from general waste, and has key components as set out in Table 3. Additional considerations raised by the Rapid Review are also flagged against each relevant initiative.

Table 3: The Waste Futures ‘Towards A Circular Economy’ programme, and additional considerations raised by the Climate 2030 Rapid Review

TCE programme intervention	Detail	Additional considerations raised by Rapid Review
Urban domestic recyclables collection and processing	Retain existing kerbside “yellow and blue bin” collection service and processing facilities	Recommends electrifying the kerbside collection model
Resource Recovery Parks (RRPs)	Upgrade three existing transfer stations (TSs) to RRPs: - Green Island - Middlemarch - Waikouaiti RRPs to receive garden organics as well as ‘yellow and blue bin’ material. Garden organics at Middlemarch and Waikouaiti periodically chipped and sold on-site. Garden organics at Green Island composted and sold.	Recommends electrifying RRP servicing model
Urban RRPs	Develop three urban RRPs: - Mosgiel - South Dunedin/ Peninsula - North Dunedin/ wider area RRPs to receive garden organics as well as ‘yellow and blue bin’ material. Garden transferred to Green Island for composting.	Recommends electrifying RRP servicing model Suggests garden waste is best retained on-site or as locally as possible
Rural Drop-off Facilities	Replace rural skip days (3/year, 8 sites) with 10 unmanned, rural drop-off facilities. Rural Drop-off Facilities to receive ‘yellow and blue bin’ material and clothing, possibly garden organics.	Recommends electrifying Rural Drop-off Facilities servicing model
Urban organics collection/drop-off, processing and sale of product	Residential kerbside bin collection for kitchen organics; commercial kitchen organics drop-off at Green Island; green organics drop-off at Green Island RRP and urban RRPs; separate kitchen and garden organics processing at Green Island; product sold at RRPs	Recommends consideration of anaerobic digestion of food waste instead of/as well as composting, including investigating potential synergies with digestion processes associated with wastewater treatment Suggests garden waste is best retained on-site or as locally as possible Recommends electrifying the kerbside collection model
Construction and Demolition (C&D) & general waste minimisation	Dedicated staff to work with C&D sector and implement interventions; review DCC purchasing policy; review RRP and landfill acceptance and charging regime; review DCC building consent fees/conditions; develop Solid Waste Bylaw; community and industry grants.	Recommends placing greater emphasis on connecting entrepreneurs with available resource streams

58 In addition, the Rapid Review notes the importance of maximising the landfill gas collection system, and beneficial re-use of this. Flows from the landfill are now such that they significantly exceed the capacity of the biogas generator engine at the Green Island wastewater treatment plant, meaning operation of the back-up flare in parallel with the biogas engine.

Reducing emissions from biological processes in wastewater treatment

59 Opportunities to minimise emissions associated with biological processes in wastewater treatment identified in the final draft of the Climate 2030 Rapid Review can be summarised as follows:

a) At WWTPs where gas is collected (Mosgiel, Green Island), systems should be established and/or the capacity of existing systems increased, to minimise emissions to atmosphere and maximise beneficial reuse.

b) At WWTPs where there is no gas collection (Tahuna), strategic planning for these sites should consider establishing gas collection a to minimise emissions to atmosphere and maximise beneficial reuse.

c) Sludge produced during wastewater treatment should be diverted from landfill, and beneficial re-use should be established.

d) Important links with waste sector planning were noted (specifically linking generation capacity with landfill gas production at Green Island, and processing options for organics).

Relevant 10 Year Plan options reports

60 10 Year Plan reports setting out investment options that might reduce the city’s waste emissions include:

a) Kerbside Collections and Options

b) 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Waste Management

c) 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – 3 Waters

d) 2021/31 Draft Capital Budget

Reducing emissions from the Stationary Energy sector

61 It is suggested that investment to reduce emissions from the Stationary Energy sector should be the third highest priority for the DCC. Emissions from this sector are just 12.7% of the total in 2018/19, but are dominated by carbon dioxide emissions, and it is considered the DCC has opportunities for strategic leadership in the area.

· The DCC is one of the city’s major energy users, and so has an opportunity to reduce emissions from stationary energy through improvements to energy systems within its portfolio. Its statutory roles in land use/urban planning also have an impact on the city’s stationary energy sector and associated emissions. In addition, the DCC can also promote changes to stationary energy sector emissions through its procurement processes, and in its role as a partner/funder. The DCC therefore has reasonable influence over outcomes in this sector.

· Excluding emissions associated with waste to Green Island Landfill, stationary energy is the DCC’s largest source of operational emissions (16% of total DCC emissions).

62 Stationary energy sector emissions both for Dunedin and the DCC are dominated by emissions from electricity use (5.5% of the city’s total emissions; 9% of the DCC’s total emissions). This is a function of the dominance of this energy source, rather than its relative emissions intensity. While improving efficiency of electricity use will reduce emissions, achieve cost savings, and make emissions reduction from the National Grid more achievable overall, the Government has signalled its intention to transition the National Grid to 100% renewable by 2030. If this is achieved, significant reductions in emissions from this source will be achieved without action from the DCC.

63 To maximise emissions reduction by 2030, interventions should rather focus on reducing the use of fossil fuels for stationary energy purposes. This includes coal (2.8% of the city’s total emissions, 0% of the DCC’s total emissions), petrol and diesel (1.5% of the city’s total emissions; 2% of the DCC’s total emissions) and LPG (1.9% of the city’s total emissions; 5% of the DCC’s total emissions).

64 As far as stationary energy is concerned, the final draft of the Climate 2030 Rapid Review focuses primarily on DCC-owned assets. The initial phase of the Emissions Reduction Plan review has also identified opportunities for emissions reduction from stationary energy use in the DCC’s asset portfolio. Initiatives considered to have the highest emissions reduction potential are listed in Table 4, starting with initiatives that will displace fossil fuel use, then those that will generally improve energy management/energy efficiency, then those that will displace electricity use.

Table 4: Mitigation levers and opportunities identified to reduce the DCC’s emissions from stationary energy sources, identified by the Climate 2030 Rapid Review and through Emissions Reduction Plan development

Mitigation lever	Opportunities
Displace fossil fuel use through process changes	Tahuna WWTP (diesel use) – Through development and implementation of the Bioresources Strategy, sludge produced during wastewater treatment should be diverted from incineration, and beneficial re-use should be established
Displace fossil fuel use in existing plant through energy efficiency	Moana Pool (LPG use) - Install a second heat recovery heat pump at Moana Pool to displace an estimated 75% of annual LPG consumption at the facility
Displace fossil fuel use in existing plant with alternative energy sources	Civic Centre/Dunedin Public Library/DPAG/Municipal Chambers/Town Hall/Wall St Mall and Regent Theatre (LPG use) – Finalise investigations into shortlisted low emissions heating systems (connection to a Dunedin-wide biomass-fuelled district heating scheme, or establishment of a mini-DES powered by off-peak electricity) Moana Pool (LPG use) - Eliminate final balance of LPG use at Moana Pool through installation of a biomass boiler or air source heat pump
Improve energy management	Upgrade building management systems in DCC buildings Upgrade energy monitoring systems in DCC buildings, starting with major energy users Establish an Energy Graduate role (full time, two-year fixed term, 75% EECA funded) to progress energy management and efficiency initiatives Establish an internal training and support network for DCC staff managing property, plant and equipment Establish an internal policy that controls and influences the emissions on new construction, including aiming for net carbon neutrality for new projects
Improve energy efficiency of plant and equipment	Streetlights (electricity) - complete conversion of network to LED Tahuna WWTP (electricity) - consider improvements to energy efficiency through the Wastewater System Plan DCC Aquatic facilities (electricity/LPG) - optimise mechanical and pool water systems All DCC facilities (electricity/LPG) - optimise energy use, starting with largest energy users 3 Waters pump network (electricity/diesel) - consider optimisation of energy efficiency through the Water System Plan
Reduce energy use in 3 Waters plant and networks by reducing loads	3 Waters network (electricity/diesel) - through the Water, Wastewater and Stormwater System Plans, consider approaches to reduce plant and network loads: - More aggressive inflow and infiltration reduction - More aggressive leak detection - Water demand management and education - Rainwater collection and household water storage - Sustainable Urban Drainage
Displace grid-drawn electricity use in existing plant with renewable generation	3 Waters WWTP/WTP (electricity) - through the Water and Wastewater System Plans, consider opportunities to displace existing grid-drawn electricity use from sites with high energy use, with renewable generation: - anaerobic digestion/maximising use of biogas - solar photovoltaics

65 In terms of further actions that the DCC could take to support city-wide reductions in emissions from the Stationary Energy sector, the Rapid Review identified support for Enviroschools’ work to decarbonise school energy systems, and advocacy for wider adoption of green building rating tools.

Relevant 10 Year Plan options reports

66 10 Year Plan reports setting out investment options that might reduce the city’s stationary energy sector emissions include:

a) Low Emissions Heating Upgrade options / possible District Energy Scheme connection

b) Dunedin Performing Arts Feasibility Study – Revised Options Appraisal

c) Community Housing – Strategy Review

d) 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Property

e) 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Reserves and Recreational Facilities

f) 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Governance and Support Services

g) 2021/22 Draft Operating Budget – Ara Toi (Arts and Culture)

h) 2021/31 Draft Capital Budget

Reducing emissions from the Agriculture sector and from Industrial Processes and Product Use

67 It is suggested that opportunities to reduce emissions from the Agriculture sector and from Industrial Processes and Product Use (IPPU) are best explored during development of Dunedin’s Zero Carbon Plan, scheduled to commence in 2021.

· While emissions from agriculture are significant (38.1% of the city’s total emissions), they are dominated by biogenic methane, and reduced 12% over the period 2014/15 – 18/19 through a reduction in livestock numbers. In addition, with the exception of some land use planning functions, there are fewer immediately obvious strategic leadership roles for the DCC to support emissions reduction in the sector. It is considered that potential roles for the DCC would need to be carefully explored and developed with partners, and that the Zero Carbon Plan process is the most appropriate time for this.

· To date, Dunedin’s emissions from IPPU have been calculated from national data, due to a lack of local information. Given that emissions from this sector represent only 2.5% of the city’s emissions, identifying opportunities to reduce emissions from this source is not considered an immediate priority.

Reducing emissions through offsetting

68 By setting a target of net zero emissions of all greenhouse gases other than biogenic methane by 2030, the Council has left open to the DCC the option of insetting/offsetting emissions that it cannot avoid.

69 Significant DCC policy development is required in this area. As part of the Climate 2030 Rapid Review, some initial investigation into carbon insetting/offsetting as a possible contributor to achieving Dunedin’s Zero Carbon 2030 target, has been undertaken.

70 The extent to which the future cost of carbon can be anticipated/controlled depends on the DCC’s appetite to own and develop permanent plantation/forestry assets (‘insetting’), as opposed to simply purchasing carbon credits as part of the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme or on the international voluntary market (‘offsetting’). Insetting has higher short-term costs but is projected to have lower long-term costs, than offsetting. Insetting also offers the option to design in co-benefits.

71 Attachment C sets out indicative, high level estimates of the potential costs associated with insetting/offsetting emissions based on emissions at 2018/19 levels (at the city-wide scale, and in terms of DCC emissions).

OPTIONS

72 As this report provides updates and guidance only, there are no options.

NEXT STEPS

73 Follow-up reports in January 2021, will include reporting on:

a) the final Climate 2030 Rapid Review report

b) a long list of potential initiatives to reduce emissions from DCC operations

c) Zero Carbon elements to the draft Infrastructure and Financial Strategies

d) opportunities to better reflect emissions reduction ambitions in Levels of Service, and

e) Zero Carbon work programme resourcing embedded in operational budgets

Signatories

Author:

Jinty MacTavish - Principal Policy Advisor

Authoriser:

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Robert West - Acting General Manager City Services

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Emissions reduction comittments in the DCC's strategic and policy framework	41
⇩b	Update on Zero Carbon work programme initiatives related to the 10 Year Plan	43
⇩c	'Councils' activity on climate change' (OAG Insights into Local Government 2019)	46
⇩d	AECOM November 2020 Update - Summary of Changes	53
⇩e	Indicative high level costings of DCC insetting/offsetting options	65

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

The Zero Carbon work programme is anticipated to promote the social, economic and environmental well-being of communities in the present and for the future, by facilitating a transition to a low carbon economy.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

The Zero Carbon work programme has been assessed as directly contributing to the goals of the Economic Development and Environment Strategies, with clear links to the 3 Waters Strategy, Spatial Plan and Integrated Transport Strategy, Energy Plan 1.0, the DCC’s Carbon Management Policy and the DCC’s Emissions Management and Reduction Plan. Action to reduce emissions is also likely to have co-benefits that contribute to the goals of the Social Wellbeing and Arts and Culture Strategies.

Māori Impact Statement

The Māori Participation Working Party, Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki and Ōtākou Runaka have all signalled their in principle support to work collaboratively on city-wide emissions reduction initiatives. Discussions about establishment of a Zero Carbon 2030 Alliance are being progressed in parallel with 10 Year Plan development.

Sustainability

Climate change mitigation/emissions reduction efforts are considered key to sustainability. ‘Climate Action’ is one of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, reflecting the centrality of action on climate change to the achievement of sustainable development. Without significant cuts to emissions, climate change impacts will further accelerate, with commensurate negative impacts on the social, environmental, cultural and economic wellbeing of New Zealand communities. Conversely, actions to reduce emissions generally have significant co-benefits in terms of community wellbeing.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Draft operational budgets, to be reported to Council in January, will include resourcing to:

- produce a Zero Carbon Plan for the city;

- improve the DCC’s Zero Carbon-related performance management;

- build both internal and external capacity to deliver emissions reduction (including through asset management and procurement processes); and

- support improved internal and external communication and collaboration on Zero Carbon related deliverables

However, the extent to which the DCC’s Zero Carbon 2030 target is achievable, will depend on decisions made across a wide range of budget lines as part of the 10 Year Plan process. The guidance set out in this report is provided to support Council to promote emissions reduction through its decision-making on the draft 10 Year Plan.

Financial considerations

As this report presents guidance only, there are no financial considerations.

Significance

As this report presents guidance only, it has been considered low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

This report draws on the advice provided by a number of consultants, including AECOM, Coffey Services (NZ) and subconsultants Ekos, Powell Fenwick, Calibre, KPMG and Abley.

Engagement - internal

The Climate 2030 Rapid Review has involved workshops with teams across the organisation (Transport, 3 Waters, Parks and Recreation Services, Property Services, Waste and Environmental Solutions, Events and Community Development, Enterprise Dunedin, Customer and Regulatory Services, Ara Toi, City Development). Initial work on the Emissions Reduction Plan has involved discussions with a more limited range of teams.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

It is considered that there are some reputational risks for the DCC associated with non-delivery on emissions reduction ambitions, given the target adopted by Council in 2019.

Conflict of Interest

No conflict of interest has been identified.

Community Boards

There has been no engagement to date with Community Boards as part of the Zero Carbon work programme.

Council

14 December 2020

Strategic Framework Refresh

Department: Community and Planning

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to update Council on the findings of an initial evaluation of the Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) Strategic Framework and for Council to note the next steps in the process to refresh the DCC Strategic Framework.

2 Work to refresh the DCC Strategic Framework will be aligned with development of the sustainability framework ‘Thriving Cities’ City Portrait and mana whenua partnership discussions.

3 In order to achieve this, a phased process will be developed to closely align the following three strategic areas into a single integrated work programme:

a) Discussions with mana whenua about priorities and opportunities to integrate Te Ao Māori and Treaty principles into DCC strategy and implementation

b) Development of the ‘Thriving Cities’ City Portrait, establishing opportunities to integrate sustainability principles into DCC strategy and implementation

c) Refresh of DCC Strategic Framework, comprising existing strategic goals for Dunedin.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes the findings of the DCC Strategic Framework evaluation and the next steps in the refresh of the DCC Strategic Framework.

b) Notes that staff will work with mana whenua and key stakeholders on a process for undertaking the review and report back to Council in May 2021 with a project plan.

BACKGROUND

4 On 29 September 2020 Council considered a range of sustainability frameworks and approved development of the ‘Thriving Cities’ City Portrait for adaptation for a Dunedin context.

“Moved (Cr Steve Walker/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

a) Considers the sustainability frameworks set out in the report, and

b) Approves development of the City Portrait framework for development and adaptation.

Division

The Council voted by division:

For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Mike Lord, Jim O'Malley, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (9).

Against: Crs Rachel Elder, Jules Radich, Lee Vandervis and Andrew Whiley (4).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 9 votes to 4

Motion carried (CNL/2020/072)”

5 The September 2020 report noted that a process for undertaking a refresh of the strategic framework would be presented to Council for approval later in 2020.

DISCUSSION

DCC Strategic Framework

6 The DCC’s strategic vision was developed through a city-wide engagement process ‘Your City Our Future’ that started in 2011. It was a comprehensive collaborative process which extended over an 18 month period. This process was the genesis for early strategic partnerships including the Creative Dunedin Partnership.

7 The DCC’s vision is for Dunedin to be one of the world’s great small cities. The Strategic Framework identifies key strategic goals for Dunedin in order to deliver on the vision. The purpose of the framework includes:

a) communicating the long-term vision for Dunedin

b) ensuring the city’s strategic goals are clear and well-recognised

c) informing DCC’s activities including the 10-year-plan and BAU delivery

d) taking a holistic approach to achieve community outcomes.

8 The existing Strategic Framework incorporates eight high-level strategies, underpinned by a commitment to the principles of sustainability and the Treaty of Waitangi. The framework is shown below.

9 The key strategies were developed by the DCC working with the community and stakeholders over a period of approximately eight years. The first strategy, the 3 Waters Strategic Direction Statement was adopted in 2010, and the last, the Parks and Recreation Strategy was completed in 2017.

10 The strategies provide guidance for staff and the community and are used to guide decision-making. All Council reports identify alignment of proposals with the Strategic Framework. Requests for funding and grants are also assessed against the key strategies.

11 Ara Toi, Te Ao Tūroa, the Social Wellbeing Strategy and the Economic Development Strategy each have a governance or advisory group comprising the DCC, mana whenua and external stakeholders and organisations. The formal remit of these groups extends only to the strategy they are directly involved with. There is no formal governance or oversight of the strategic framework as a whole.

DCC Strategic Framework Stocktake Evaluation findings

12 As a first step in the refresh of DCC Strategic Framework, in November 2020, staff commissioned consultants Harrison Grierson to provide an initial high-level stocktake of the existing framework. The evaluation included analysis of the framework itself, DCC staff and Councillor feedback, a survey of existing governance groups and mana whenua feedback.

13 The evaluation noted core strengths of collaborative intent and community involvement in the original strategic framework development.

14 The evaluation also identified the following key areas for improvement:

a) Increased focus on overarching strategic vision, governance and oversight at a framework level (as opposed to an individual strategy level)

b) Greater clarity of commitments to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and sustainability

c) Alignment of presentation of strategies and goals

d) Embedding a formal process for ongoing strategic review and update

e) Embedding a formal process for measuring progress against strategic goals

f) Greater consideration of information management and digital presentation

g) Consideration of opportunities for streamlined resourcing

15 The evaluation identified areas for improvement and opportunities that DCC could pursue as part of a Strategic Framework refresh. One of the key evaluation recommendations was that, as a first step, the DCC consider developing an overarching strategy or set of principles and a governance approach to the framework.

16 It was recommended that an overarching approach articulate the specific sustainability and Treaty of Waitangi principles that underpin the framework.

17 The evaluation suggested this high-level process would lay the groundwork for individual strategy reviews, as refreshing and strengthening the overarching strategic content would create a basis for alignment between all strategies.

Refresh – proposed approach and timeline

18 In line with the evaluation findings, it is proposed that the approach to a refresh of the Strategic Framework is undertaken in the following project phases.

Project phase	Expected output	Timeframe
Phase One Work with mana whenua and key stakeholders to develop a detailed project plan, including: · process to identify priorities for mana whenua and opportunities to integrate Te Ao Māori and Treaty principles into DCC strategy and implementation · process for collaborative engagement with city stakeholders, using the Thriving Cities’ City Portrait tool.	Complete strategic framework evaluation (Report completed) Identify key stakeholders, including alignment with University of Otago expertise Project team established Mana whenua/DCC Councillor hui Project plan finalised	January - May 2021 Report back to Council May 2021
Phase Two Procurement of consultancy support to guide Thriving Cities’ City Portrait development, with input from DCC Kaiwhakamāherehere and Aukaha Collaborative engagement process with stakeholders, potentially using the Thriving Cities’ City Portrait tool (with community input)	Development of overarching strategy/strategic goals that can be applied across the DCC strategic framework	From May 2021 TBC by outcome of Phase One
Phase Three Assessment of approach/next steps to updating individual strategy or strategies	Refreshed overarching framework structure approved Approved process for revising individual strategies	TBC by outcome of above phases
Phase Four Revise individual strategies and monitor the effectiveness of the DCC Strategic Framework	Revised individual strategies Embedded process for monitoring and review	TBC by outcome of above phases

Project phase

Expected output

Timeframe

Phase One

Work with mana whenua and key stakeholders to develop a detailed project plan, including:

· process to identify priorities for mana whenua and opportunities to integrate Te Ao Māori and Treaty principles into DCC strategy and implementation

· process for collaborative engagement with city stakeholders, using the Thriving Cities’ City Portrait tool.

Complete strategic framework evaluation (Report completed)

Identify key stakeholders, including alignment with University of Otago expertise

Project team established

Mana whenua/DCC Councillor hui

Project plan finalised

January - May 2021

Report back to Council May 2021

Phase Two

Procurement of consultancy support to guide Thriving Cities’ City Portrait development, with input from DCC Kaiwhakamāherehere and Aukaha

Collaborative engagement process with stakeholders, potentially using the Thriving Cities’ City Portrait tool (with community input)

Development of overarching strategy/strategic goals that can be applied across the DCC strategic framework

From May 2021 TBC by outcome of Phase One

Phase Three

Assessment of approach/next steps to updating individual strategy or strategies

Refreshed overarching framework structure approved

Approved process for revising individual strategies

TBC by outcome of above phases

Phase Four

Revise individual strategies and monitor the effectiveness of the DCC Strategic Framework

Revised individual strategies

Embedded process for monitoring and review

TBC by outcome of above phases

NEXT STEPS

19 Staff will work with mana whenua and key stakeholders to develop a detailed project plan in alignment with the Phase One outputs described in this report.

20 In determining key stakeholders, staff will review the range of stakeholders who have been involved in earlier strategy work, including the current strategy governance and advisory groups.

21 The project plan will be submitted for Council consideration in May 2021.

Signatories

Author:

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Authoriser:

Robert West - Acting General Manager City Services

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

A Dunedin City Council – Strategic Framework Evaluation (Separately Circulated 2)

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☒	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

This report is in relation to the DCC Strategic Framework comprising all of the above strategy documents.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua perspectives from both papatipu rūnaka informed the DCC Strategic Framework evaluation findings which have guided the approach set out in this report.

Sustainability

Analysis of the Thriving Cities’ City Portrait tool and its application has informed the DCC Strategic Framework evaluation findings which have guided the proposed recommendations in this report.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Refresh of the DCC Strategic Framework is expected to bring greater visibility and clarity as to how current and future corporate planning functions (encompassing long term plans and associated statutory strategies, levels of service and performance measures) are supporting DCC strategic goals as well as meeting statutory requirements.

Financial considerations

The costs of delivering on the proposed options will be achieved through reprioritisation, if required for 2020/21 and incorporated into the draft 10 year plan 2021-31 operational budgets.

Significance

The significance of refreshing the DCC strategic framework is assessed as being of medium community interest at this phase. An appropriate plan with options for community engagement in alignment with the Significance and Engagement policy will be presented to Council for next phases.

Engagement – external

DCC strategy governance groups and mana whenua had input into the DCC Strategic Framework evaluation report.

Engagement - internal

Staff from across the organisation had input into the DCC Strategic Framework evaluation.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks at this stage.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

An appropriate plan with options for Community Board engagement will be presented for Council consideration.

Council

14 December 2020

Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme

Department: Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 The purpose of this report is to present the Dunedin City Council (DCC) projects, within the wider Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme, to be considered for inclusion in the 10 year plan 2021-31.

2 The Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme is a set of integrated and complementary capital projects that have been developed by the Connecting Dunedin Partnership. The projects have been collaboratively developed to ensure that transport disruption is minimised during and after the construction of the new Dunedin Hospital. The component projects are expected to be delivered by each partnership agency.

3 The Connecting Dunedin Partnership comprises DCC, Otago Regional Council (ORC), and Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi). The total value of the proposed interconnected package of projects delivered across all partnership agencies is $104 million. Each partnership agency is considering funding for their projects within their respective decision-making and budget planning processes.

4 There are six proposed DCC projects which have been costed at a total of $53.17 million, phased over years 1-8 of the 10 year plan 2021-31. The projects are not included in the current 10 year plan. It is expected that Waka Kotahi will contribute approximately 50% of the cost of these projects via their Funding Assistance Rate subsidy.

5 The six proposed DCC projects aim to provide more transport choice through broadening both route and mode options. This includes enhancing the Harbour Arterial, improving parking management in the central city, and improving public transport, walking and cycling networks.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That Council:

a) Decides which, if any, of the DCC’s six projects of the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme should be included in the 10 year plan 2021-31.

b) Notes that the timing of those projects to be included will be considered alongside the total capital budget and presented to the January 2021 meeting for approval.

BACKGROUND

6 Construction on the new Dunedin hospital is expected to start in 2022.

7 Planning work has been undertaken since 2018 to identify an interconnected package of changes to the Dunedin transport network that can support the location of the new Dunedin Hospital.

8 The proposed implementation of the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme aims to minimise disruption during the hospital construction and ensure city facilities remain accessible during and after this period. Improving public transport, creating more efficient alternative routes and providing clear communications are viewed as integral to maintaining an accessible city during and after the hospital construction period.

9 The six proposed DCC projects are aligned with DCC’s strategic aspirations, as articulated within the DCC Strategic Framework, including the city’s Zero Carbon 2030 goal. The vision in the DCC’s Spatial Plan is for a liveable city, with a strong network of accessible and connected communities that promote psychological and physical wellbeing. The Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme, comprising all partner projects, provides an integrated and connected network.

Connecting Dunedin

10 Connecting Dunedin is a partnership between DCC, ORC and Waka Kotahi. The purpose of the partnership, as articulated in the Terms of Reference is “…to ensure the transport programme of activities that affect the Dunedin urban area and the strategic transport network are well connected, deliver a multi-modal and customer focused transport system that is integrated with strategic land use planning. The aim is to provide easy, safe and reliable travel choices for different trips to meet the future needs of Dunedin.”

11 The Connecting Dunedin Governance Group oversees the partnership and includes elected representatives from both the DCC and ORC. This group does not have decision-making delegation; decision-making remains within each organisation.

12 The Connecting Dunedin Advisory Group comprises senior officers from each of the partner agencies that provides advice to the Governance Group.

13 Connecting Dunedin provides collaborative transport leadership for the city. This includes strategic oversight of the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport projects.

DISCUSSION

14 Within the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme, six proposed projects fall under the DCC’s remit. The other projects fall under the remit of Waka Kotahi and the ORC. The programme is interconnected, with the individual parts needing to progress to minimise disruption during hospital construction, enable the hospital to be easily accessible, address central city safety issues and improve transport option choice. Partner projects are shown in Attachment A.

15 The six proposed DCC projects are:

a) Harbour Arterial Efficiency Improvements

b) Central City Parking Management

c) Princes Street Bus Priority and Corridor Safety Plan

d) Central Cycle and Pedestrian Improvements

e) Park and Ride Facilities – Mosgiel and Burnside

f) Central City Bike Hubs – Parking and Facilities

16 The total estimated cost for these six proposed projects is $53.17 million. It is expected that Waka Kotahi will co-invest via its normal Funding Assistance Rate subsidy. Five of the six projects will attract approximately 50% subsidy.

17 Partner agencies are progressing their Shaping Future Dunedin Transport projects within their respective decision-making and budget planning processes. Discussions related to the SH1 one - way system are continuing at the governance and operational level of the Connecting Dunedin partnership. Decisions relating to SH1 are not expected to impact on the six proposed DCC projects. The multi-criteria analysis to assess options for the one-way system is being worked through and will be reported back to the Council in March 2021.

Programme

18 The six proposed DCC projects within the wider programme have been scoped to deliver the following benefits:

a) Improved transport choice for access to the city, including public transport, walking, cycling and park and ride facilities.

b) Improved safety outcomes, particularly for vulnerable users in the central city, by addressing areas of high risk.

c) Improved freight connections from the south to/from the Port resulting in greater efficiency on the harbour arterial.

d) Improved transport route options, by enhancing the harbour arterial partial bypass of the central city area, in time to minimise traffic disruption during construction of the new Dunedin Hospital.

e) Provision and facilitation of low carbon transport mode options that support positive wellbeing outcomes.

f) Improved efficiency and offering of parking choice in the city.

19 In the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport engagement feedback (published September 2020), there was strong support for improved parking facilities near the new Dunedin Hospital and City Centre. The programme’s focus is to optimise existing facilities, rather than invest in new ones. Improving transport mode choice will also affect demand for parking. Optimising the existing parking asset will include investing in parking technologies to monitor, charge, enforce and provide guidance to users about location of available parking. Once this has been implemented, the need for additional parking facilities could be considered further.

20 The table below shows the cost breakdown and recommended priority of the six proposed DCC projects.

Project	Priority	Explanation	TOTAL
Harbour Arterial Efficiency Improvements	1	Eases congestion by improving alternative route	$16.61m
Central City Parking Management	2	Improves access through efficient parking management	$9.5m
Princes Street Bus Priority and Corridor Safety Plan	3	Improves safety on this high risk route	$6.61m
Central Cycle and Pedestrian Improvements	4	Improves safety and provides travel choices	$7.75m
Park and Ride Facilities – Mosgiel and Burnside	5	Manages parking demand and improves travel choices	$10.25m
Central City Bike Hubs – Parking and Facilities	6	Improves travel choice	$2.45m
TOTAL			$53.17m

21 The tables below describe the six proposed DCC projects in recommended priority order, including the purpose, scope and costs.

Project	Harbour Arterial Efficiency Improvements
Purpose	· An alternative transport route to the SH1 carriageways would help mitigate travel disruption related to the new Dunedin Hospital construction.
Scope	A package of improvements, including real time signage showing the quickest routes throughout the day, designed to allow the Harbour Arterial to operate more efficiently and allow for a planned alternative route to/from the port and as a central city bypass for general traffic. The following areas would be included: · Strathallan Street · Wharf Street · Ward Street and · Intersections with side streets
Estimated cost	TOTAL: $16.61m Financial Assistance Rate (FAR): 51%

Project	Central City Parking Management
Purpose	To maintain affordable and efficient access to the city centre, in a way that meets community needs and supports visitors to the city. Public consultation has shown that people are concerned about parking provision in the city centre and around the new Dunedin Hospital. Implementing a plan that considers the price, location, availability and provides guidance to parking areas would benefit the wider transport network. Utilising new technologies will ensure the parking system is user friendly and managed efficiently.
Scope	Implement a plan to improve the efficiency, the supply and management of parking to ensure it meets community needs, including: · Parking technology for monitoring, payment and enforcement systems throughout the city · Provide parking guidance system (electronic signboards for available parking, fixed signage for parking locations) · Extend central city paid parking area, new meters
Estimated cost	TOTAL: $9.5m Financial Assistance Rate (FAR): 0%

Project	Princes Street Bus Priority and Corridor Safety Plan
Purpose	· Princes Street currently supports a high number of journeys into the city (65% of which originate from the south) and has a high road safety risk. · The purpose of this project is to develop a bus priority corridor to remove inefficiencies and delays and provide a more efficient public transport corridor.
Scope	From South Road to Manse Street, and then to Moray Place. Facilitating bus movements at key intersections along Princes Street intersections e.g. Andersons Bay Road, Jervois Street, Manse Street/ Jetty Street. Pedestrian crossing facilities along Princes Street connecting each side of the road and providing good access to bus stops. Improving junctions with side roads to support pedestrians when walking into the city from the south.
Estimated cost	TOTAL: $6.61m Financial Assistance Rate (FAR): 51%

Project	Central Cycle and Pedestrian Improvements
Purpose	1 To provide cycle and pedestrian improvements to connect the cycle network and address city safety issues. 2 There are currently gaps in the central city cycle network and additional routes will provide a safe, connected cycle network.
Scope	Provision of safe cycling and walking facilities in the following areas: · St Andrew Street (high collective (crash density) risk) · Bank/George Street (medium-high collective risk) and · Albany Street (low-medium risk). Providing a direct connection from the Harbour Circuit to the city centre via the University. Provision of additional Barnes Dance crossings in the city centre to improve access to the new Dunedin Hospital sites.
Estimated cost	TOTAL: $7.75m Financial Assistance Rate (FAR): 51%

Project	Park and Ride Facilities – Mosgiel and Burnside
Purpose	· The majority of trips into the city (65%) are made by people coming from the south/west. Currently, limited travel options are available for residents in Green Island, Mosgiel, Brighton and the Taieri. The purpose of this project is to provide alternatives which will also reduce traffic demand in the central city during and after the new Dunedin Hospital construction.
Scope	Park and Ride facilities that can provide an alternative to driving into the city centre, including a direct connection to express city-bound buses.
Estimated cost	TOTAL: $10.25m Financial Assistance Rate (FAR): 51%

Project	Central City Bike Hubs – Parking and Facilities
Purpose	· There is currently limited secure and sheltered bicycle parking in the central city. The purpose of this project is to provide more widely available and enhanced bicycle parking options and infrastructure.
Scope	The creation of Bike Hubs to support residents who choose to cycle into the city, by providing sheltered bike lockers and other facilities such as repair and charging services in the following areas: · North Dunedin/ Tertiary · Central City · South Dunedin/ Oval
Estimated cost	TOTAL: $2.45m Financial Assistance Rate (FAR): 51%

OPTIONS

22 The options in this report are to decide which component projects, if any, should be included in the 10 year plan 2021-31, or decide not to proceed with any of the DCC projects in the programme.

Option One – Decide which, if any, of the Dunedin City Council six proposed projects of the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme should be included in the 10 year plan 2021-31

23 This option allows for the continuation of planning and implementation of a selected number, or all, of the proposed DCC projects within the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme.

24 The Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme has been developed as a set of integrated and complementary capital projects that have been developed by the Connecting Dunedin Partnership. If Council decides to progress with limited projects, staff would need to continue discussions with the Connecting Dunedin Partnership to revise the programme and assess the impacts.

Advantages

· Reduced disruption during construction of the new Dunedin Hospital, which is expected to affect traffic on SH1 in the central city.

· Improved safety and accessibility for all road users, including vulnerable road users.

· Contributes to Council’s Carbon Zero 2030 goal by enabling low carbon transport options.

· Contributes to central government priorities of providing safe, accessible and low carbon transport options, and therefore is eligible for financial support.

· Would represent commitment to the Connecting Dunedin partnership and working collaboratively on an integrated transport system for Dunedin.

· Ceasing further development of some of the proposed projects will reduce the capital investment required and does not preclude the DCC from progressing these projects in the future.

Disadvantages

· Due to the timing of the construction of the new Dunedin hospital, these projects represent a new capital investment in the early years of the 10 year plan, which will overlap a number of other priority Council projects.

· Ongoing costs to operate and maintain the new infrastructure.

Impact assessment – Option 1

Debt

· The debt funding requirement will be determined by which, if any, projects are approved.

· The debt requirements for each project are estimated to be as follows:

Project	Debt requirement
Harbour Arterial	$7.7 million
Central City Parking	$9.5 million
Princes Street	$3.2 million
Central Cycle and Pedestrian	$3.8 million
Park and Ride – Mosgiel, Burnside	$5 million
Central City Bike Hubs	$1.2 million

Rates

· Operating expenditure will include operating costs, interest and depreciation. The impact on rates will be determined by which, if any, projects are approved. All figures provided are dependent on the timing of the works being completed. An initial assessment of the impact on rates at the completion of the projects, provides the following estimates:

· Princes Street – $1.2 million per annum, or 0.7% on general rates.

· Harbour Arterial – $2.9 million per annum, or 1.8%.

· Central City Parking – $1.5 million per annum, or 0.9%.

· Park and Ride – $1.2 million per annum, or 0.7%.

· Central City Bike Hub – $0.3 million per annum, or 0.2%.

· Central Cycle and Pedestrian - $1.4 million per annum, or 0.9%

Level of service

· The level of service impact will be determined by which, if any, projects are approved.

Climate change

· The climate change impacts for the six projects have not been explored. The impacts of the designs on resilience and adaptation will be addressed through detailed design phases.

Zero carbon

· Enabling the six DCC projects has been preliminarily assessed as resulting in a minor increase in DCC emissions, but an overall decrease in city-wide emissions.

· The most significant sources of emissions are likely to be construction and maintenance associated with the assets. The most significant reductions in emissions come from the new network assets and/or network changes supporting a reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled, enabling greater use of low carbon modes of transport, and improving the efficiency of vehicle use (the latter with a focus on public transport). Transport is recommended as the DCC’s primary focus area for emissions reduction interventions, being the city’s largest source (39%), and fastest growing source, of emissions.

Option Two – Do not proceed with Programme

25 This option proposes to cease progress on the Council’s projects in the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme. The Council will continue to collaborate through the Connecting Dunedin partnership on existing projects that are underway.

Advantages

· Ceasing further development of the projects will reduce capital investment and associated debt in the immediate term and does not preclude the Council from continuing the work in future, should additional funding become available.

Disadvantages

· Does not improve safety or accessibility for all road users including vulnerable road users – those walking and cycling.

· There will likely be traffic disruption and loss of accessibility to the central city during construction of the new hospital, resulting in congestion, delays and frustration.

· Does not contribute to the Carbon Zero 2030 goal, or the 40% active transport mode share goal from the Integrated Transport Strategy.

· Does not contribute to government priorities outlined in the Government Policy Statement on land transport – Better Travel Options, Safety, Improving Freight Connections and enabling low carbon transport options.

· Does not demonstrate commitment to the Connecting Dunedin partnership and an integrated transport system.

Impact assessment – Option 2

Debt

· No debt funding is required for this option.

Rates

· There are no impacts on rates.

Level of service

· There would be no change to the level of service provided to the community.

Climate change

· This proposal would not promote climate change resilience or adaptation.

Zero carbon

· This option is preliminarily assessed as resulting in no immediate change in DCC or city-wide emissions. In the longer term, emissions from transport are likely to continue to grow without a network-based approach to public and active transport, ensuring car parking management is aligned with low emissions transport outcomes, and strong land use/transport integration.

NEXT STEPS

26 The selected option will be included in the 10 year plan.

Signatories

Author:

Stacey Hitchcock - Transport Planner

Nick Sargent - Transport Strategy Manager

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Shaping Future Dunedin Transport – Integrated Partner Projects	86

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme delivers on multiple strategic objectives with a particular focus on safety, travel choice, improved freight connections and climate change.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua will be involved during project planning and design stages.

Sustainability

Improving public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure contributes towards a sustainable city.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The programme is not included within the current 10 year plan. It has been put forward for the Regional Land Transport Plan currently under development, and will be considered for the National Land Transport Programme.

Financial considerations

Financial considerations are discussed in the report.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. This will be consulted on as part of the 10 year plan special consultative process.

Engagement – external

There has been engagement throughout the programme development. This included three stakeholder workshops, a 5 week public engagement exercise and a public survey.

Engagement - internal

The Transport Group have led this project. Input has been sought from City Planning, with representatives attending workshops.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The proposed DCC projects are not within Community Board areas.

Council

14 December 2020

City to Waterfront (Bridge) Connection - Update

Department: Community and Planning and Transport

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides an update on the City to Waterfront (Bridge) Connection project (“the Bridge”) following the business case process and the Council decision in May 2020 to defer the Dunedin Waterfront Revitalisation project due to economic uncertainties.

2 Staff are working with Mana Whenua and other stakeholders over coming months to review the objectives and scope of the project, to ensure that it meets a broad range of aspirations for the city, including: Mana Whenua Cultural Values, Economic Revitalisation, Regeneration of the Waterfront as well as Transport, Sustainability and Art and Creativity in Infrastructure objectives. Staff will report back to Council in May 2021 as part of the Ten Year Plan process. In the meantime, the $20M agreed by the Council in 2018 is retained in the capital budget.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that staff will work with mana whenua and other stakeholders to review the scope of the project to ensure it meets broader aspirations for the city including mana whenua cultural values and report back to Council in May 2021.

BACKGROUND

3 The Council consulted the community on three options for a City to Waterfront bridge connection as part of the 10 Year Plan 2018-28 and approved funding of $20m for an architectural bridge linking the city centre and Dunedin’s waterfront. The bridge was a response to feedback from the community since 2012 regarding the need for improved access to the waterfront and improved amenity.

4 Funding of $20m was earmarked for the Bridge in the 10 Year Plan 2018-28 as follows:

2018 – 2028 Long Term Plan

Capital Project	2019/20 $000	2020/21 $000	2021/22 $000	2022/23 $000	2023/24 $000	Total 2018-2028 $000
City to Waterfront Connection	$500	$750	$8,750	$8,000	$2,000	$20,000

Waterfront Vision

5 In May 2018 the Council sought funding from the Government’s Provincial Growth Fund (PGF) to assess the feasibility of the Waterfront vision and develop a business case to support a PGF capital funding application. The application for feasibility funding was successful and $800k was awarded from the PGF. Beca Ltd was commissioned to undertake the feasibility work.

6 In December 2018 Council applied to the PGF for capital funding for the enabling infrastructure for the Waterfront, namely replacement wharves and the building platforms. The Council’s contribution to the project was the $20m committed in the 10 Year Plan to build the bridge.

7 On 30 October 2019 the government announced the award of $19.9m for Stage 1a of the Waterfront revitalisation as part of a package of grants for Dunedin. Stage 1a comprised the wharves and building platforms closest to the landing point of the bridge. A period of due diligence followed as staff worked through the terms of the grant offer.

8 On 25 May 2020 the Council considered the plans for the Revitalisation of Dunedin’s waterfront, including the grant offer from the PGF for the wharf infrastructure. In light of the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Council decided to put the waterfront revitalisation project on hold and decline the PGF grant. Work on the bridge was also put on hold.

“Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

a) Approves withdrawing from the PGF process for now, and advises government that Council would re-engage in the PGF in the future but would continue to progress design, business cases and consenting processes as far as was practicable (avoiding unnecessary cost), with the intent of ensuring that further delay was avoided when the project and associated development might continue.

Division

The Council voted by division:

For: Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Marie Laufiso, Jim O'Malley, Jules Radich, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker, Andrew Whiley and Aaron Hawkins (11).

Against: Crs Doug Hall, Carmen Houlahan and Lee Vandervis (3).

Abstained: Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 11 votes to 3

Motion carried (CNL/2020/051)”

9 While the resolution refers to progressing design and consenting work, this was not possible due to the recommended combined design and construction tender procurement process. It was not possible to progress consenting without undertaking significant and costly technical work.

DISCUSSION

The Business Case for a Bridge

10 WSP/Opus consultants were commissioned in February 2019 to undertake a Single Stage Business Case for the bridge. The business case focussed on improving connectivity between the city and waterfront. This was completed in May 2020.

11 Four options (including two bridge alignments, an underpass and a do-nothing option using existing infrastructure) were assessed. The business case confirmed that a pedestrian and cycling bridge on the alignment proposed in the Waterfront Vision (namely from the Chinese Garden to the Waterfront, landing at the junction of Fryatt and Wharf Streets adjacent to the Steamer Basin) was the optimum solution.

12 A bridge on this alignment would provide a more direct connection from the Dunedin CBD to the waterfront area to that currently in place, as well as addressing a missing link in the strategic cycle-way network.

13 The business case recommended that the bridge be designed to provide a 4.5m wide shared space for active transport modes (i.e. walking, cycling, scooters, wheelchairs, etc), whilst also offering views over the city and waterfront. The direct and safer journey provided between the city and waterfront was expected to encourage more residents and visitors to visit the waterfront and enable and sustain further development.

Benefits

14 The business case identified that the City to Waterfront bridge could be expected to result in an increase in cycling and pedestrian usage (above the numbers who will use the bridge instead of the existing crossings) and would lead to health and safety benefits and road traffic reduction.

15 The health and safety and traffic reduction benefits were calculated using the Economic Evaluation Method (EEM) prescribed by Waka Kotahi. The total value of the benefits was calculated as $36.2M with a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.9 for an architectural bridge and 3.2 for a functional bridge.

16 If the Waterfront revitalisation did not proceed, the business case calculated the benefits from the bridge alone would be $27M.

Costs and Funding

17 While the business case focussed on the nature and alignment of the connection, it costed two alternatives which align with the options consulted on via the last 10 Year Plan, namely the “architectural” (Architecture van Brandenburg) and “basic” bridge options.

18 The business case costed the architectural bridge as $19.5m, compared with an estimated $12.75m for a basic bridge connection.

19 While one was termed “basic” and one “architectural”, the basic bridge could incorporate architectural or artistic elements which contribute to the aesthetic of the area and provide increased amenity through providing viewpoints.

20 Waka Kotahi have indicated that they would co-fund the bridge, based on the business case. Initial indications were that this would be at approximately 50% of the value of a functional bridge, meaning that Waka Kotahi is likely to fund approximately $5m-$6m, whether the bridge it is constructed as a functional or an architecturally designed bridge. Waka Kotahi staff confirm that the bridge aligns with the government’s current investment priorities, including decarbonising the transport network.

The case for review of the bridge

21 The impacts of COVID-19 on the local, national and international economies prompted a review of the Waterfront bridge and the other major capital projects in the 10 Year Plan as requested by Council on 25 May 2020.

22 The majority of the Annual Plan submissions relating to the bridge project advocated stopping or deferring the project. Some suggested that the bridge should be deferred until the economy has recovered and/or private sector investment in the Waterfront development was secured. There were five comments in support of the bridge for reasons of accessibility and economic revitalisation.

23 The Council decision in May 2020 to defer the Waterfront revitalisation provides an opportunity to review Council’s investment in the bridge. The Architecture van Brandenburg design was offered to the city by the architects, and the design was developed in light of opportunities presented by the Provincial Growth Fund and requirements of potential funders Waka Kotahi.

24 Mana whenua were involved as strategic partners in the Waterfront project but were not involved in the specification for the original bridge design. The waterfront area has cultural significance for mana whenua as a landing place, with the bridge providing a connection to the Exchange as an area of significant cultural importance. Mana whenua have indicated that they wish to partner with the Council to progress the masterplanning for this area of the city including the bridge.

25 It is proposed that the opportunity is taken to pause and revisit the project objectives with mana whenua and other key stakeholders to ensure that the project is aligned with wider city objectives (not just those of potential funders). Between now and May 2021, staff will work with mana whenua and other stakeholders to review the objectives and scope of the project, to ensure that it meets a broad range of aspirations for the city, including: mana whenua cultural values, economic revitalisation, inner city regeneration as well as transport and sustainability objectives. Opportunities to incorporate art and creativity in this infrastructure will also be explored.

26 Staff will report back to Council in May 2021 as part of the 10 Year Plan process with recommendations on whether the funding in the 10 Year Plan remains at $20M (as previously agreed by Council in 2018), or whether the project objectives can be achieved with a lower level of funding. An optimum timeline for the project and recommendations regarding the timing of the 10 Year Plan capital funding will also be provided.

OPTIONS

27 As this is an update report, no options are presented.

NEXT STEPS

28 Staff will work with mana whenua (as partners) and key stakeholders to review the scope of the project to ensure it meets broader aspirations for the city.

29 Staff will report to Council in May regarding the scope and timing of the project so that Council can decide on the nature and parameters of the bridge project, and confirm the scale and timing of the funding in the 10 Year Plan.

Signatories

Author:

Nicola Pinfold - Group Manager Community and Planning

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Authoriser:

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the economic well-being of communities in the present and in the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Arts and Culture Strategy	☒	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

The provision of a bridge will contribute to strategic objectives of providing accessibility, and creating safe, well-connected networks. If art and creativity are integrated into the design, it will also contribute to creating a vibrant and memorable city with exciting public art. The Central City Plan lists the connection as a key transformational project.

Māori Impact Statement

Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou and Kāti Huirapa Rūnaka ki Puketeraki were partners in the Waterfront revitalisation and it is proposed that they partner with Council in progressing the master planning of the wider area given the cultural significance of the area as a landing place. Mana whenua and Aukaha have had initial discussions with Council regarding cultural values relating to the waterfront and how any bridge design might be developed to better reflect mana whenua values. Ongoing work with mana whenua is outlined in the body of the report.

Sustainability

Sustainable design and development are principles underpinning the architectural bridge design. The ‘frond” elements of the architectural bridge (Option 1) are designed to track the sun and capture solar energy to power local facilities. Use of sustainably sourced materials would be encouraged through the tender process for both the architectural or functional bridge options.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The 2018-2028 10 Year Plan provides $20m funding for the pedestrian and cycle bridge in 2019/20 - 2022/23.

Financial considerations

The financial considerations are detailed in this report.

Significance

The significance of this decision is assessed as low – medium in terms of Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy given the value of the project and the high degree of public interest shown in capital projects through the recent Annual Plan consultation. Legal advice has been obtain confirming the consultation requirements associated with any change to what was consulted on in the 10 Year Plan 2018-28.

Engagement – external

Key stakeholders have been engaged in parts of the business case process. There have also been discussions and work initiated with mana whenua as outlined above.

Engagement – internal

Relevant staff and managers from Transport and Community and Planning have been involved in the business case process and analysis of the community feedback on the bridge.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Potential risks include the construction costs exceeding the QS estimates and other stakeholders delivering the other elements of the vision within the desired timescale.

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards. West Harbour and Otago Peninsula Boards have an expressed interest in the wider vision for the waterfront.

Council

14 December 2020

Public Toilets Review

Department: Property

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Council has asked staff to develop a programme and costs to address the need for more public toilets in the city, including a Changing Places bathroom.

2 A provisional capital budget is included in the draft 10 year plan 2021-31. Of this provisional budget, $1 million is for the renewal, improvement and upgrading of current toilets and $2.05 million is for the building of a Changing Places bathroom in year 1 and two new public toilets per year in years 2-10.

3 This report proposes that feedback be sought on the preferred locations of new public toilets through the 10 year plan 2021-31 consultation document. Staff would report back to Council with recommendations during deliberations on the 10 year plan 2021-31 in May 2021.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Notes that the 10 year plan 2021-31 consultation document will seek feedback on preferred locations for new public toilets to be constructed over the ten year period.

b) Notes that decisions made on the capital budget option reports and the timing of those projects will be considered alongside the total capital budget and presented to the January 2021 meeting for approval.

BACKGROUND

4 Submissions were received during consultation for the annual plan 2021-22 process requesting that a Changing Places facility be provided in the city for severely disabled members of the community and/or requesting additional public toilet facilities and public toilet upgrades.

5 At Council’s annual plan deliberations meeting of 27 May 2020, the following resolution was passed:

“Moved (Cr Christine Garey/Cr David Benson-Pope):

That the Council:

a) Request that staff present a report to Council by December 2020 to inform the development of the 10 year plan with a programme and costs to address the need for more public toilets throughout the city with the inclusion of a ‘Changing Places’ bathroom to inform the development.

Motion carried (AP/2020/015)”

6 This report responds to that request.

7 The Dunedin City Council (DCC) owns and operates 65 public toilets throughout the city. These are a mix of stand-alone public toilets on the edge of roads, in car parks, and in parks and recreation areas that include changing rooms. Toilets in arts and cultural facilities such as libraries and museums are not included in this assessment.

8 The Department of Conservation (DOC) also provides public toilets at its huts and campsites, and at some popular car parks and tracks.

9 New Zealand Standard 4241:1999 (‘the Standard’) is the New Zealand Standard for Public Toilets. The Standard provides design information and advice for public toilets, and general advice on the number and siting of public toilets, including the need to consult with the community on the location of facilities. It does not specify a set ratio of toilets to population and visitor numbers.

10 Due to general nature of the Standard and the difficulty in easily obtaining accurate benchmarking figures for the number of public toilet facilities in other New Zealand cities, staff have not been able to measure whether more public toilet facilities are required in Dunedin.

DISCUSSION

Changing Places bathrooms

11 Changing Places bathrooms are larger accessible toilets for severely disabled people, with equipment such as hoists, curtains, adult-sized changing benches and space for carers.

12 There are currently two Changing Places bathrooms in New Zealand, one in Auckland and one in Hamilton, although other cities are considering building Changing Places facilities.

13 In June 2020, the Social Services and Community Select Committee recommended to the Government that it develop a nationwide network of bathroom facilities with a consistent access system for those with extensive and complex disabilities based on the population density of towns and cities.

14 It is proposed to build a Changing Places bathroom in the central city in 2021-2022. The new South Dunedin Library and Community Complex will also include a Changing Places bathroom (outside the provisional budget and programme discussed in this report).

15 The preferred location of the proposed Changing Places bathroom in the central city has yet to be determined but initial discussions have been undertaken with the Disabilities Issues Advisory Group (DIAG). There is significant interest from DIAG for a Changing Places facility, preferably within the central city, with close vehicular access.

Work completed to date

16 An initial assessment including the number of toilet units at each site, condition of each facility, accessibility, opening hours, cleaning frequency and level of vandalism has been carried out and is included as Attachment A.

17 A toilet decision-making matrix has been developed (similar to one used by Southland District Council) to prioritise requests for new or upgraded public toilets. The matrix provides a score based on:

a) vehicular traffic: type of transport route the toilet is situated on or near

b) foot traffic: from more than 1000 people per day to fewer than 30 people per day (estimated)

c) typical length of stay in area: from overnight (eg. camping) to very short (passing by)

d) nearest public toilet: from greater than 100 kilometres to less than 200 metres

e) availability of other facilities: from nearest private facility available is more than 10 kilometres away to nearby toilets are always available to the public

f) evidence of fouling: from frequent occurrence nearby to no occurrence recorded.

18 These factors are based on those in the Standard relating to the location of public toilets.

19 The toilet decision-making matrix has been used to score the DCC’s current public toilets, with most falling within a range of 45-60 (the higher the number, the higher the priority for a public toilet at that location). The matrix will be used to help prioritise requests for new public toilet facilities.

20 A map of all public toilets is being created and will be added to the DCC website, including information about each facility. Examples are included as Attachment B.

Locations requested to date

21 Staff have worked with the six community boards during the development of their Community Plans. They have made the following requests for new public toilets:

Community Board	Locations requested
Mosgiel-Taieri	Upgrade of the Outram Glen toilets
Strath Taieri	None
Waikouaiti Coast	None
Otago Peninsula	Throughout, including Tomahawk / Smaills Beach area
Saddle Hill	Brighton Domain
West Harbour	St Leonards, Pūrākaunui, Shelly Beach

22 There has been no wider community consultation on the location of future public toilet facilities and this is recommended in the Standard.

23 Staff have identified potential gaps in other locations including:

i) along the completed Dunedin Harbour cycleway (between Port Chalmers and Portobello)

ii) the outskirts of the city near short term parking

iii) permanent facilities to replace temporary portaloos during peak periods at Brighton Domain and Aramoana

iv) accessible facilities near accessible playground equipment at Mosgiel Memorial Gardens

v) Market Reserve (opposite the Kensington Oval)

vi) Navy Park, South Dunedin

vii) De Carle Park, St Kilda

viii) Brooklands Park, Mosgiel

ix) Highgate area (McMillan Park).

Public toilets being constructed in partnerships

24 Staff are working with DOC to ensure public toilet facilities are considered as part of a citywide approach and are already working in partnership for new toilet facilities at Tunnel Beach. Initial discussions have also taken place regarding new public toilets at Aramoana and on the Otago Peninsula and their future management.

25 Staff are working with Mountain Bike Otago to establish a new public toilet on the Signal Hill Reserve mountain biking area. Funding for this facility has been previously approved by Council.

26 Port Otago has just built a new public toilet at Boiler Point to cater for visitors to their newly developed fishing wharf area. Port Otago is discussing future management of this new facility with staff.

Consultation on preferred locations for new public toilets

27 It is proposed that feedback is sought on preferred locations for new public toilets as part of the consultation document for the draft 10 year plan 2021-31.

28 Feedback received during consultation would be prioritised using the toilet decision-making matrix, along with those locations already identified by Community Boards and staff. From this, a programme for delivery would be presented to Council as part of the 10 year plan 2021-31 deliberations in May 2021.

Future growth

29 Significant forecasting assumptions used to develop the 10 year plan 2021-31 estimate that Dunedin’s population will continue to grow, increasing from 130,520 in 2018 to 141,417 in 2033.

30 To maintain the current ratio of public toilets to residents, an additional six new public toilets would be required by 2033.

31 The provisional budget allows for 19 new public toilets (including one Changing place facility), in response to community feedback requesting improved provision of public toilets throughout Dunedin.

Costs

32 The provisional renewal budget of $100,000 per annum in the draft 10 year plan 2021-31 would allow for renewals, improvements and upgrades to the 65 existing public toilets.

33 The provisional new capital budget in the draft 10 year plan 2021-31 would allow for $250,000 to be spent in the first year for a Changing Places bathroom and $200,000 per annum for years 2-10 to provide new public toilets in the city.

34 Costs to construct a Changing Places bathroom have been estimated from discussions with Changing Places New Zealand and with Hamilton City Council, which built the first Changing Places bathroom in New Zealand.

35 Costs to construct a new public toilet vary but are approximately $100,000 per facility. These costs have been benchmarked with other local authorities and other organisations such as DOC.

36 Each new public toilet will add approximately $10,000 - $20,000 per annum to the operating budget, depending on a range of factors such as the number of units and the cleaning frequency.

37 Assuming an average of $15,000 per toilet, additional annual operational costs related to the new assets will be approximately $255,000 by year 10 of the 10 year plan.

38 By year 10, the annual interest costs will be $46,000.

39 By year 10, the annual depreciation costs will be $185,000.

OPTIONS

40 No options.

Impact assessment

Debt

· Would add $2,050,000 of debt over the ten year period.

Rates

· The impact on general rates increases from 0.03% in year 2 to 0.30% in year 10.

Climate change

· The impacts on climate change have not yet been explored.

Zero carbon

· The impacts on citywide or DCC emissions are yet to be assessed.

NEXT STEPS

41 Feedback on preferred locations for new public toilets will be sought through the 10 year plan 2021-31 consultation document.

42 This feedback will be prioritised, along with those locations already identified by Community Boards and staff and a recommended programme for delivery would be presented to the 10 year plan 2021-31 deliberations meeting in May 2021.

43 Staff will work with DIAG to find a preferred location for a Changing Places bathroom, to be built during year 1 of the 10 year plan 2021-31. The preferred location will be presented to the 10 year plan 2021-31 deliberations meeting in May 2021.

Signatories

Author:	David Bainbridge-Zafar - Group Manager Property Services
Authoriser:	Robert West - Acting General Manager City Services

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Existing Toilet Summary	102
⇩b	Example online maps	106

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.

This decision promotes the social well-being of communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☐	☐	☒
3 Waters Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☐	☐	☒
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☐	☐	☒

Supports the above strategies by planning for and prioritising public toilet provision at suitable locations throughout Dunedin.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

Supports the future growth of Dunedin by providing an increased public toilet network.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report has implications for the 10 year plan 2021-31 budget.

Financial considerations

A provisional budget has been provided for in the draft 10 year plan 2021-31 to complete this work.

Significance

This decision is considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

There has been external engagement with the Disabilities Issues Advisory Group. Feedback will be sought on the location of new public toilets as part of the 10 year plan 2021-31 consultation.

Engagement - internal

There has been internal engagement with Parks and Recreation Services and Community Development.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

This report will be of interest to all Community Boards who have requested additional public toilet facilities in their board areas.

Council

14 December 2020

General Rate Differential

Department: Finance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 This report provides a review of the general rates differential and seeks a decision from Council on what approach it wishes to take for preparation of the 2021/22 Rating Method report for the 10 year plan Council meeting in January 2021.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a) Decides for the purposes of preparing the 2021/22 Rating Method report for the 10 Year Plan Council meeting in January 2021 to either:

i) maintain the current general rate differentials or

ii) maintain the current general rate differentials and introduce a new general rate differential category for residential short term visitor accommodation or

iii) request alternative scenarios for the general rate differentials.

BACKGROUND

2 On 11 February 2020 the Council considered a report on Short Term Visitor Accommodation and moved the following recommendations:

“Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Jim O'Malley):

That the Council:

a) Reviews all general rate differentials in time for 2021-31 10 year plan.

b) Notes that there will be no change to rating differentials for 2020/21 financial year.

Motion carried (CNL/2020/13)”

3 General rates fund a broad range of council activities. Of the total rates revenue budget for the 2020/21 year, 57% comes from the general rate and 43% comes from targeted rates. A summary is provided in the following table:

Table 1: Summary of total rates

2020/21 budget	$’000 excluding GST	% of total rates
General rates	93,550	57%
Targeted rates:
Community services rate	4,936	3%
Kerbside recycling rate	2,899	2%
Citywide water rate	22,086	14%
Citywide drainage rate	38,471	24%
Tourism/economic development	500	0%
Other targeted rates	694	0%
Total rates	163,136	100%

4 This report reviews how the general rate is currently allocated across ratepayers. Due to the integrated nature of two targeted rates, Community Services and Tourism/Economic Development (economic), these will be discussed also. The report also considers the rating of short term visitor accommodation.

General Rate Differential

5 The general rate is collected as a rate in the dollar on the capital value (CV) of each property. The Council sets the general rate differentially for six property categories:

· residential

· lifestyle

· commercial

· farmland

· residential Heritage Bed and Breakfast (B and B) establishments

· Stadium

6 A differential (or factor), is the degree to which the rate (the cents in the dollar) on each category of property is higher or lower than residential property. For example, the rate paid by commercial properties for the current year is 2.46 times more than the rate paid by residential properties.

7 In the 2020/21 year, the general rate factor and rate by category are as follows:

Table 2: General rate factor and rate

Category	Factor	Rate Cent in $ per CV
Residential	1.00	0.2859
Lifestyle	0.95	0.2717
Commercial	2.46	0.7032
Farmland	0.80	0.2288
Residential Heritage B and B	1.75	0.5000
Stadium: 10,000+ seat capacity	0.21	0.0609

8 The effect of the differential is that commercial properties pay more general rates than would be expected under an undifferentiated CV system, and all other categories pay less. For example, in 2020/21 the residential category of ratepayers contributed 58.72% of the general rate, despite comprising 71.3% of the capital value of the city. The table below shows the share of the general rate collected from each category compared to the capital value of each category.

Table 3: General rates and CV by category

Property category	General rate incl GST $000	General rate %	Capital value (CV)*	CV %
Residential	63,176	58.72%	22,100,664,180	71.3%
Lifestyle	5,196	4.83%	1,913,059,000	6.2%
Commercial	35,000	32.53%	5,031,993,150	16.2%
Farmland	4,067	3.78%	1,777,450,750	5.7%
Residential Heritage B and B	30	0.03%	6,025,000	0.02%
Stadium: 10,000+ seat capacity	114	0.11%	187,300,000	0.6%
Total	107,583	100.00%	31,016,492,080	100.00%

*Includes properties liable for 50% general rate.

9 The table below provides a small sample list of property rates for the 2020/21 year. It shows for a selection of properties, general rates, targeted rates and total rates. The examples assume that residential and commercial properties are charged all rates, while farmland and lifestyle properties are charged general and community services rates only.

Table 4: Sample properties

Sample property rates including GST	Capital Value	General rates	Targeted rates	Total rates
Residential – median value	420,000	1,201	1,167	2,368
Residential – average value	464,400	1,328	1,167	2,495
Commercial – median value	495,000	3,481	2,412	5,893
Commercial – average value	1,605,000	11,287	6,293	17,580
Farmland – median value	550,000	1,258	100	1,358
Farmland – average value	1,265,000	2,894	100	2,994
Lifestyle – median value	725,000	1,970	100	2,070
Lifestyle – average value	746,000	2,027	100	2,127
Residential Heritage B and B – median value	1,560,000	7,800	873	8,673

10 The last time general rate differentials for the DCC were changed was in the 2017/18 year. This was the last year in a series of changes which started in the 2009/10 year. The series of changes included:

a) Reducing the commercial factor to 2.5 (from 3.09 in 2009/10, completed in 2015/16)

b) Reducing the farmland factor to 0.8 (from 0.9 in 2010/11, completed in 2015/16)

c) Increasing the factor for commercial properties in Strath Taieri to 2.5 (from 1.0 in 2011/12, completed in 2017/18)

Community Services Targeted Rate

11 As specified in the Revenue and Financing Policy, the community services targeted rate (CSTR) funds the Botanic Garden and part of the Parks and Reserves activity. Revenue from the CSTR is determined by Council when the rate amount is set. In the 2020/21 year, the rate is $100. This, multiplied by the number of properties, is the revenue Council will receive from the CSTR.

12 The CSTR impacts on the amount of general rates collected. An increase in rates collected by the CSTR will be offset by a reduction in rates collected by the general rate. Conversely, a reduction in rates collected by the CSTR would be offset by an increase in rates collected by the general rate.

Tourism/Economic Development Targeted Rate

13 On 1 July 2010, the Council introduced a Tourism/Economic Development targeted rate (economic rate). Its purpose was to fund part of the Economic Development activity and also provide a mechanism for Council to increase funding through the targeted rate for specific projects in the future. The rate currently collects $500,000 per year excluding GST, raised by a capital value based targeted rate paid by the commercial category. When introduced, it was neutral to commercial ratepayers because it was offset by a reduction the commercial category pays towards the general rate. The commercial property general rate and the economic rate combine to give a factor of 2.50.

Stadium

14 The Council has rating differentials for the Stadium for the general rate and capital value based targeted rates. In order to moderate the rates burden on the Stadium, the Council introduced rating differentials that set the rates at specified amounts. The initial amount to be collected in the 2012/13 year was equivalent to the estimated rates that the Council would have collected from the Stadium land if the Stadium hadn’t been built. These were estimated to be $134,000 excluding GST. These have since been increased annually by an indexed amount.

General Rate Shares

15 The following table shows the distribution of CV of properties in the city by category for the last two years as well as the share of general rates paid by category.

Table 5: General rate share

Share of CV and General Rate by Category	2020-21		2019-20
Share of CV and General Rate by Category	CV %	General Rate %	CV %	General Rate %
Residential	71%	59%	68%	55%
Lifestyle	6%	5%	6%	5%
Commercial	16%	32%	18%	35%
Farmland	6%	4%	7%	5%
Residential Heritage B and B	0%	0%	0%	0%
Stadium: 10,000+ seat capacity	1%	0%	1%	0%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%

16 The change in the share of the general rate between the two years reflects the 2019 revaluation and the reduction in the CSTR. Reducing the amount collected by the CSTR resulted in an increase in the proportion collected using the general rate.

17 The graph below shows the percentage share of the general rate paid by residential, commercial and other categories for the last six years.

Short Term Visitor Accommodation (STVA)

18 The current rating method generally allows residential properties to be used for STVA while paying normal residential rates. Traditional commercial accommodation providers (hotels, motels, commercial B&B, etc) on the other hand are required to pay commercial general rates (2.46 times the residential rate, 2.5 including the economic rate).

19 Both traditional accommodation providers and residential STVA providers benefit from Council expenditure on marketing and economic development, such as event attraction and major events funding. In most cases, using residential property for STVA will not place any greater requirements on water supply and drainage services than other, similar sized residential properties.

20 The table below provides a summary of how the different types of short term visitor accommodation (STVA) providers are currently rated as compared to residential properties having a factor of 1.00.

Table 6: Types of short term visitor accommodation

Type of short term visitor accommodation	General rate differential category	Factor	Factor including economic rate
Hotels, motels, backpackers and camping grounds - traditional commercial accommodation	Commercial	2.46	2.50
Commercial B and B* – commercial B & B’s with greater than four bedrooms.	Commercial	2.46	2.50
Heritage B and B* – commercial B & B’s with greater than four bedrooms, meets ‘heritage’ criteria and the owner lives at the facility. The differential is set at a lower level to ease the rates burden on these operators.	Residential Heritage B & B	1.75	1.75
Residential STVA – residential property providing short term visitor accommodation	Residential	1.00	1.00

* B & B properties in this category are those the Council has knowledge of, or has been advised of. Note there were five Heritage B & B properties in the 2020/21 rating year.

DISCUSSION

Other Councils

21 For comparative purposes, a summary schedule of general rate differential factors for
NZ metro councils and Invercargill, from the 2020/21 annual plans is provided in Attachment A.

22 The New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union has recently published the 2020 Ratepayers’ Report which includes average residential and non-residential rates for each council for the 2018/19 year. The rates are calculated using a standardised formula. This information is provided in Attachment B.

Method of Setting Differential

23 As discussed earlier, the Council uses factors to set the general rate differential. Some Councils use ‘general rate shares’ as a way setting the differential. Under this method, the proportion of general rates to be collected from each property category is predefined. For example, residential properties contribute 58%, commercial properties contribute 33% and other categories contribute 9%. From this predefined percentage split flow different general rate cents in the dollar to be assessed on the CV for each property category.

24 If the Council had been using the general rate shares method, the resulting factor for the 2020/21 year, based on the 2019/20 shares, would have been:

Table 7: Scenario of different factor using 2019/20 shares

2020/21 Scenario	Current Factor	Factor if 2019/20 shares used
Residential	1.00	1.00
Lifestyle	0.95	1.01
Commercial	2.46	2.81
Farmland	0.80	1.05
Residential Heritage B and B	1.75	2.03

25 The main differences between these two methods are:

· The factor method takes into account valuation changes by property category, the shares method doesn’t.

· The shares method reflects a percentage share of the general rate, irrespective of any valuation impacts between property categories.

Analysis of the Current and Past Use of Council Rating Tools in New Zealand

26 A report prepared for the New Zealand Productivity Commission in 2019 Analysis of the current and past use of Council rating tools in New Zealand provides information about the use of general rate differentials across the country. The report presents findings of a detailed review of Council rating practices for the 2018/19 financial year.

27 The following key findings relate to general rate differentials:

a) 68% of Councils that set general rates applied differentials. While most set only a handful of differentials, if any, one Council set 43.

b) The median value business differential was 2.5, which means that – on average – businesses pay 150% more per dollar of rateable value than residences. Councils that rate on land value tend to set higher business differentials than those using capital value. An analysis of business differentials in different sector groups is summarised in the following table.

Table 8: Business differentials

Sector Group	Proportion of sector group	Average
Metropolitan	100%	2.26
Provincial	39%	2.99
Regional	0%	n/a
Rural	38%	4.25
All Councils	41%	3.26

c) The median value rural differential was 0.7. This means that rural properties, on average, pay 30% less per dollar of rateable value than residential properties. An analysis of rural differentials in different sector groups is summarised in the following table.

Table 9: Rural differentials

Sector Group	Proportion of sector group	Average
Metropolitan	70%	0.82
Provincial	42%	0.84
Regional	9%	0.11
Rural	42%	0.62
All Councils	41%	0.70

d) Rating differentials may be set for various reasons, which are often couched in terms of equity or efficiency concerns. However, in practice, the most common effects of differentials are to:

- Increase the rates paid by businesses;

- Decrease the rates paid by rural properties;

- Alter the rates paid on miscellaneous land uses, such as utilities providers; or

- Vary the rates paid by different types of residential properties.

Short Term Visitor Accommodation

28 As part of the process of starting to identify STVA properties, they were classified into two groups:

i. Residential (residential with incidental STVA use) – the main use of the property is a residential home (ie: generally owner-occupied), with the homeowner supplementing their income by providing short term visitor accommodation. These include home-owners letting out their houses to short-term paying visitors for less than 28 nights per calendar year or by letting out a single room or a number of rooms within the residence.

ii. Residential STVA (residential with more significant STVA use) – a more significant use of the property is to provide short term visitor accommodation. The entire property, or separately used or inhabited part (SUIP) of a property, is used more frequently for short term visitor accommodation. These properties are more aligned with commercial accommodation providers and are typically non-owner occupied.

Residential STVA category

29 Staff have identified an option which could provide a new general rate differential category for STVA properties falling into the Residential STVA category described in paragraph 28 (ii) above. Properties in the new category would pay higher general rates than other residential properties.

30 All properties meeting the following criteria would be included in the Residential STVA category:

All residential (lifestyle or farmland) properties where the entire property or an entire separately used or inhabited part (SUIP) of a property;

a) is available for short term visitor accommodation for more than 28 nights per calendar year; and

b) has a ‘daily tariff’ or an implied ‘daily tariff’.

31 An explanation of key terms in the above definition is provided in Attachment C.

Identification of STVA properties

32 The identification of properties that potentially meet this definition is an imperfect and time consuming process. It would involve searching websites, particularly online booking sites such as Airbnb, Bookabach and Holiday Houses. Often the physical address of the property is not named in the listing and will only be provided when the accommodation is booked.

33 Last year staff compiled a list of 261 residential STVA properties or SUIPs that had their address confirmed. There were around 100 properties unconfirmed and required further investigation.

34 However, only official information sources can be used when assessing the appropriate rating valuation category for a property (or part of a property). A change to a property’s status from Residential to Residential STVA, resulting in the payment of additional rates, would therefore require some form of official notification. In the absence of any official information source, declaration by the property owner would be seen as the best mechanism to trigger this change. Legal advice suggests confirmation by owners of these properties by way of a statutory declaration.

35 If the Council was to proceed with a differential rating of Residential STVA, affected property owners would be contacted in advance of the new rating year and advised that their property appears to meet the above criteria and, if confirmed, will be rated accordingly. Only those properties confirmed by the owner as being used for STVA would then be rated as such.

Other considerations

36 Council will need to ensure that Land Information Memorandum (LIM) information reflects the STVA category and that the property is subject to higher general rates.

37 If the Residential STVA property is a separately used or inhabited part (SUIP) of a larger property, the Council will need to be able to rate the STVA part differently. The establishment of these ‘divisions’ would need to be completed well in advance of the new rating year.

38 Rating changes on a property generally can’t be applied retrospectively. For example, where a property included in the Residential STVA category is sold part way through a rating year and the buyer wishes to change the property’s use back to residential, this cannot be updated in the rating method until the start of the next rating year (ie: the new home owner will continue paying higher rates for the remainder of the rating year).

National register for STVA providers

39 The 2019 New Zealand Productivity Commission Local government funding and financing report considered tourism pressures. The findings and recommendations from the report relating to STVA were:

“Standalone homes rented out through peer-to-peer platforms for a significant proportion of the time are acting as accommodation businesses. It is therefore appropriate that they pay business rates, or a proportion thereof.

Central government should explore ways to assist councils to identify properties operating as short-term rental accommodation businesses within their districts. Options to explore include requiring booking platforms to provide information to a national register of short-term rental accommodation providers.”

40 Other key points relating to STVA were:

· More councils should explore the option to require peer-to-peer accommodation providers to pay business rates, or some proportion of them. Both Auckland and Queenstown take this approach.

· Avoidance is common, and enforcement can be very challenging due to the difficulty in identifying properties being rented out online.

Traditional commercial accommodation providers

41 In preparing this report staff have identified an alternative option which is to change how some traditional accommodation providers are rated. Until STVA identification issues have been addressed for example, the creation of a national register, the Council may wish to consider the general rate factor applied to traditional accommodation providers, in particular motels. An alternative option to rating STVA properties differently could be to reduce the general rate factor for motels.

42 This would solve the issues with self-identification and administration and speaks to the underlying issues of why STVA rating was investigated in the first place. At the time of writing staff have not fully investigated this option or had a discussion with the motel industry. If the Council were of a mind to pursue this option further, it could be addressed under option three below.

OPTIONS

43 Importantly from a financial perspective any change in the general rate differentials or the introduction of a new rating category will not result in additional rates revenue for the Council. The total amount of rates would remain the same but would be spread differently over the ratepayer base - some properties pay more and some properties pay less.

44 Three options are provided below, including the status quo, establishing a new differential category for STVA properties and an opportunity for Council to request alternative scenarios.

45 The Council may wish to consider whether there is a benefit in having the economic rate in place or removing it and increasing the commercial general rate to compensate.

Option One – Status Quo

46 This option maintains the status quo as follows:

· the general rate factors are maintained as follows:

Table 10: Factors

Category	Factor	Factor including economic rate
Residential	1.00	1.00
Lifestyle	0.95	0.95
Commercial	2.46	2.50
Farmland	0.80	0.80
Residential Heritage B and B	1.75	1.75

· no change in how residential properties being used for STVA are rated

· the stadium differential is inflation adjusted annually by an indexed amount

· the economic rate remains in place at $500,000 per annum excluding GST. This and the commercial property general rate combine to give a factor of 2.5.

Advantages

· The current general rate differentials strike a balance, reflecting previous decisions of Council, as being the right balance between property categories.

· Certainty, particularly given the changes to property valuations and the impact this had on rates for the 2020/21 year.

· The issues highlighted in this report regarding identification of residential STVA properties are avoided under this option.

· No administrative costs required to identify and monitor STVA properties.

Disadvantages

· Does not address the current perceived inequity in rates paid by traditional commercial accommodation providers.

Option Two – Establish a new Residential STVA rating category

47 This option creates a new general rate differential category for STVA properties. Properties in the new category would pay higher general rates than residential properties. This change would be effective from 1 July 2021.

General Rate differential factor options

48 Three potential scenarios are provided below for the general rate differential factor that could be applied to the new category. These scenarios give differing levels of tolerance to strike a balance between enabling residential property owners to cost-effectively provide STVA and maintaining a fair market for all accommodation providers:

Table 11: STVA factor options

Scenario	Description	Factor
a	STVA category set at the same level as heritage B & B differential	1.75
b	STVA category set at approximately 25% residential and 75% commercial	2.10
c	STVA category set at the same level as commercial differential	2.46

Advantages

This option, regardless of which scenario is preferred:

· Brings the rates for residential STVA properties more in line with the traditional accommodation providers, such as hotels and motels.

· Would not impact on properties where only one or two bedrooms in the house are available for STVA and the owner lives in the residence.

· Would not deter home owners from making their homes available for STVA at peak times, such as major events in the city for less than the designated number of nights a year.

Disadvantages

· Not likely to address the current perceived inequity in rates paid by traditional commercial accommodation providers due to identification issues and the need for self-declaration.

· Additional staff resource required to identify, monitor and administer STVA providers including changes made between rating years.

· Likely to result in complaints and, as a result, dissatisfied ratepayers and additional staff resources to deal with these.

· There may be a risk that by rating these STVA properties differently implies an acceptance of other potential regulatory issues relating to planning or consents.

Option Three – Alternative Scenarios

49 This option allows the Council to request alternative scenarios for the general rate differential to be reported back to the 10 year plan Council meeting in January 2021. Alternative scenarios could include different levels of the general rate factors including a lower differential for motels.

50 The Council would be provided with examples of the ratepayer impact on a selection of property values within each property category. Advantages and disadvantages would also be provided.

NEXT STEPS

51 A rating method report will be provided to the 10 year plan Council meeting in January 2021 which would address the recommendations from this report.

52 The proposed rating method would be included in the supporting documentation that supports the 10 year plan 2021-31.

Signatories

Author:	Carolyn Allan - Senior Management Accountant
Authoriser:	Gavin Logie - Acting General Manager Finance

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Rating Differentials - Other Councils	126
⇩b	NZ Taxpayers' Union - average rates	130
⇩c	Short Term Visitor Accommodation - Key Terms	134

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

Fit with purpose of Local Government

This decision enables democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities; and promotes the social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being of Dunedin communities in the present and for the future.

Fit with strategic framework

	Contributes	Detracts	Not applicable
Social Wellbeing Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Economic Development Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Environment Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Arts and Culture Strategy	☒	☐	☐
3 Waters Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Spatial Plan	☒	☐	☐
Integrated Transport Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Parks and Recreation Strategy	☒	☐	☐
Other strategic projects/policies/plans	☒	☐	☐

The 10 year plan contributes to objectives and priorities of the strategic framework as it describes the Council’s activities, the community outcomes, and provides a long term focus for decision making and coordination of the Council’s resources, as well as a basis for community accountability.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

The 10 year plan 2021-31 contains content regarding the Council’s approach to sustainability. Major issues and implications for sustainability are discussed in the 30 year Infrastructure Strategy and financial resilience is discussed in the Financial Strategy.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The proposed rating method will be incorporated into the 10 year plan 2021-31 supporting documentation and Consultation Document.

Financial considerations

The proposed rating method will be set out in the 10 year plan 2021-31 supporting documentation during the community engagement period.

Significance

There will be full engagement on the 10 year plan 2021-31, which will cover any issues of significance.

Engagement – external

While there has been no external engagement with other territorial authorities, researching current general rate differentials for the NZ metro councils and Invercargill City Council has been undertaken.

Engagement - internal

Staff and managers from across the Council are involved in the development of the 10 year plan 2021-31.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Legal advice has been obtained that supports the validity of the STVA rating option provided but does highlight a number of issues to consider.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Any decision on the rating method may be of interest to Community Boards.

Mayor	Mayor Aaron Hawkins
Deputy Mayor	Cr Christine Garey
Members	Cr Sophie Barker	Cr David Benson-Pope
	Cr Rachel Elder	Cr Doug Hall
	Cr Carmen Houlahan	Cr Marie Laufiso
	Cr Mike Lord	Cr Jim O'Malley
	Cr Jules Radich	Cr Chris Staynes
	Cr Lee Vandervis	Cr Steve Walker
	Cr Andrew Whiley

	Title	Page
⇩a	Statement of Compliance and Responsibility	138
⇩b	Audit Representation Letter	139
⇨c	Dunedin City Council Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2020 (Section 1 Introduction) (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨d	Dunedin City Council Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2020 (Section 2 Services and Activities) (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨e	Dunedin City Council Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2020 (Section 3 Finance) (Under Separate Cover 1)
⇨f	Dunedin City Council Annual Report for the year ended 30 June 2020 (Section 4 Other disclosures) (Under Separate Cover 1)

General subject of the matter to be considered	Reasons for passing this resolution in relation to each matter	Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution	Reason for Confidentiality
C1 Dunedin Performing Arts Feasibility Study - Revised Options Appraisal	S7(2)(b)(ii) The withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information. S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C2 Low Emissions Heating Upgrade options / possible District Energy Scheme connection	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.
C3 DCHL Matters	S7(2)(h) The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities.	S48(1)(a) The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

	Title	Page
⇩a	Councillor Register of Interest	7
⇩b	Executive Leadership Team Register of Interest	17