Notice of Meeting:

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Dunedin City Council will be held on:

 

Date:                                                    Monday 31 May 2021, Tuesday 1 June 2021, Wednesday 2 June 2021, Thursday 3 June 2021 and Friday 4 June 2021 (if required)

Time:                                                   9.00 a.m.

Venue:                                                Edinburgh Room, Municipal Chambers, The Octagon, Dunedin

 

Sandy Graham

Chief Executive Officer

 

Council

PUBLIC AGENDA

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

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

 

 

Senior Officer                                               Sandy Graham, Chief Executive Officer

 

Governance Support Officer                  Lynne Adamson

 

 

 

Lynne Adamson

Governance Support Officer

 

 

Telephone: 03 477 4000

Lynne.Adamson@dcc.govt.nz

www.dunedin.govt.nz

 

 

Note: Reports and recommendations contained in this agenda are not to be considered as Council policy until adopted.

 

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

 

ITEM TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                                                                         PAGE

 

1             Public Forum                                                                                                                                                              4

2             Apologies                                                                                                                                                                    4

3             Confirmation of Agenda                                                                                                                                        4

4             Declaration of Interest                                                                                                                                           5     

Reports

5             Overarching Recommendation                                                                                                                        19

6             10 year plan 2021 -31 Overview Report                                                                                                       20

7             Kerbside Collection Options - Consultation Feedback                                                                             29

8             Community Housing - Consultation Feedback                                                                                            39

9             Public Toilets and Changing Places - Consultation Feedback                                                                62

10           Dunedin Performing Arts Venue - Consultation Feedback                                                                     71

11           Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme                                                                                      101

12           The Future of Dunedin Railways                                                                                                                    198

13           New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame: Update                                                                                                206

14           Waterfront Bridge                                                                                                                                               211

15           10 year plan 2021-31 - Community Engagement Summary                                                                217

16           10 year plan 2021-31 - Funding Requests                                                                                                  236

17           10 year plan 2021-31 - Requests for New Amenities and Projects                                                   249

18           Adoption of 2021/22 Fees and Charges                                                                                                      293

19           Adoption of the 2021 Development Contributions Policy                                                                   324

20           Rates Remission and Postponement Policy                                                                                               370

21           Completion of 10 Year Plan 2021-31 deliberations and decision-making                                      393                

 

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

 

1          Public Forum

At the close of the agenda no requests for public forum had been received.

2          Apologies

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

3          Confirmation of agenda

Note: Any additions must be approved by resolution with an explanation as to why they cannot be delayed until a future meeting.


Council

31 May 2021

 

Declaration of Interest

 

  

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.         Members are reminded of the need to stand aside from decision-making when a conflict arises between their role as an elected representative and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

2.         Elected members are reminded to update their register of interests as soon as practicable, including amending the register at this meeting if necessary.

 

3.         Staff members are reminded to update their register of interests as soon as practicable.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes/Amends if necessary the Elected Members' Interest Register attached as Attachment A; and

b)     Confirms/Amends the proposed management plan for Elected Members' Interests.

c)     Notes the proposed management plan for the Executive Leadership Team.

 

 

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Councillor Register of Interest

7

b

ELT Register of Interest

17

  



Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 

   


Council

31 May 2021

 

Reports

 

Overarching Recommendation

Department: Civic

 

 

 

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)         Notes that any resolution made in this section of the meeting, pursuant to Standing Order 23.5 may be subject to further discussion and decision by the meeting.

 

 

 

Signatories

Authoriser:

Clare Sullivan - Manager Governance

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

 

10 year plan 2021 -31 Overview Report

Department: Executive Leadership Team and Finance

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the 10 year plan process to date, decisions to be made at this deliberations meeting, and the process to complete the 10 year plan through to its adoption by 30 June 2021. 

2          The report provides an update on the draft 10 year plan budgets, including the required $4 million savings of operating costs, and some changes in the timing of capital budgets.  

3          The report also outlines the decision-making processes that will be followed at this meeting.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the 10 year plan 2021-31 Deliberations Overview Report.

 

BACKGROUND

4          At is meeting on 9 March 2021, Council adopted ‘The Future of Us – 10 year plan consultation document 2021-31” for consultation with the community.  The consultation document explained the Council’s proposals for the 10 year plan, based on decisions made at the Council meetings on 14-15 December 2020, 27-29 January 2021, and 23 February 2021. 

5          The community consultation and engagement period ran from 30 March to 29 April 2021.  A range of community feedback activities and events were held during this period.

6          The consultation document proposed:

·    An overall rate increase of 9.8% in 2021/22, and an average annual rate increase of 5.68% per year over the following nine years.

·    A capital budget of $1.5 billion over the 10 year period, with an associated debt level reaching $869 million by 2031. 

7          A total of 2,327 submissions were received during the engagement process.  A summary of the feedback received is discussed in the report “10 year plan 2021-31 Community Engagement Responses” being presented at this meeting. 

8          Requests for funding and amenity and associated requests are also the subject of separate reports on the agenda.

9          The consultation document included information on five specific engagement topics, kerbside collection, Shaping Future Dunedin Transport, community housing, performing arts venue, and public toilets.  These are the subject of separate reports at this meeting.

10        The draft 10 year plan has a range of supporting documents that have not been recirculated because no changes have been proposed to them.  These include the Financial Strategy and Infrastructure Strategy.  All the supporting documents can be located on the website at https://www.thefutureofus.nz/supporting-documents .

DISCUSSION

Financial update

11        The draft operating budget for 2021/22 provides for the day-to-day running of all the activities and services the DCC provides such as core water and roading infrastructure, waste management, parks, pools, libraries, galleries and museums. The draft budget included operating expenditure of $321.865 million.

12        The draft budget required savings to be found in the order of $4.0m. These savings have been found.  The high level operating budget is provided as Attachment A.

13        The operating budget for 2021/22 has subsequently been updated for the following items:

·    Development contribution income has been increased to reflect the increased level of charges in the draft policy approved 9 March 2021 and the anticipated level of growth,

·    Depreciation has been increased in Three Waters to reflect the anticipated impact of the most recent accounting valuation,

·    The level of budget savings has been updated, noting that these savings will come from reduced consultancy and contracted services spend and therefore not impact levels of services.  These savings will be achieved by a mixture of in-sourcing the work and prioritising the spend on the appropriate activities,

·    Grants and subsidies operating revenue from Waka Kotahi has been reduced to reflect the reduction of subsidised consultancy spend by the Transport department,

·    Personnel costs have been adjusted to reflect revised staffing structures, the planned general wage increase for 2021/22 and an anticipated level of vacancies.  Costs have also been increased to reflect the in-sourcing of the Project Management function offset by a reduction in the PMO consultancy spend.

14        The consultation document proposed a rate increase of 9.8% for the 2021/22 financial year.  The financial strategy provided for limits of 10% in year one and then 6.5% on average annually over years 2-10.

15        The total capital budget remains unchanged at $1.525 billion for the 10 year period pending decisions made as part of the deliberations.  Some timing adjustments have been made to reflect more realistic timing in our ability to deliver capital works.  This is shown as Attachment B.

16    The impact of the operating budget changes for 2021/22 will flow through to subsequent years of the 10 year plan, including the additional development contribution revenue.  As this revenue is a capital expenditure funding source, there will be no direct impact on required rates revenue. It will however result in lower debt over the 10 years and associated savings in interest.

17    Operating budgets will be further updated following decisions made as part of these deliberations. 

 

Decision making

18        The Council is now asked to make decisions on the 10 year plan, following community feedback received during the engagement period

19        During this meeting, Councillors will consider a range of options reports that are detailed below. These relate to specific questions that were asked in the consultation document. There are further reports on a range of subjects that Council had requested to be considered as part of the deliberations. These are detailed below.

20        This year, staff have complied two additional reports as part of the deliberation process. There is a report that has identified all requests for specific funding entitled “10 year plan 2021-31 – Funding Requests”. Staff from the relevant departments have provided comment about the requests and if they are funded in the draft budgets. While some of the figures are estimates, the total new requests for the 10 year period is approximately $24.2 million.

21        This is a new approach to dealing with specific requests for funding and is designed to help provide a consolidated view of all requests. Staff have made every effort to include all requests, but it is possible requests may have been missed and this can be corrected at the meeting if Councillors are able to identify submissions that have not been included.  This is summary information and Councillors should read this alongside the full submission database.

22        The second new report details what are being termed “amenity requests”. These are requests for specific items, services or actions where no specific financial costs has been mentioned. Again, staff have provided commentary on whether these requests are currently able to be accommodated within existing budgets and work plans. Every effort has been made to fairly capture all such requests but any that have been missed can be included at the meeting if Councillors identify them.  Again, this is summary information and Councillors should read this alongside the full submission database.

23        In considering these reports, staff will be in attendance and be able to respond to specific questions that Councillors may have.  Any additions or changes to the draft budgets as a result of decisions taken will be calculated during the course of the meeting and Councillors will be kept apprised of what any changes mean for rates. For clarity an increase or decrease of $163K represents a change of +/- 0.1% on rates. 

Reports

24        The following reports present options for consideration by Council.

25        The “Kerbside Collection Options – Consultation Feedback” report presents feedback on the two bin options for rubbish and recycling collection presented to the community.  Council needs to decide on the option for kerbside collection that will be implemented in 2023. 

26        The “Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme” report presents feedback received on the “moving around our city” section of the consultation document.  Council needs to decide which, if any, of the six capital projects included in the 10 year plan.  The draft budget includes all six projects. 

27        The “Community Housing – Consultation Feedback” report presents feedback received on the “our role as landlord” section of the consultation document.  Council needs to consider who should be eligible to rent our community housing, how rents should be set and funded and whether or not the Council wishes to grow its current social housing portfolio.

28        The “Dunedin Performing Arts Venue – Consultation Feedback” report presents feedback received on the “performing arts venue” section of the consultation document which discussed two options for a mid-sized theatre for the city, the Athenaeum or the Mayfair Theatre.  Council needs to consider how it wishes to proceed. 

29        The report “Public Toilets and Changing Places – Consultation Feedback” provides a summary of the feedback received on where new public toilets should go in the city.  A report on this agenda provides a programme for installation of new toilets over the next 10 years based on feedback from the community.  The draft budget currently provides for two new toilets each year.  

30        Funding requests and ‘new amenity and/or project’ requests received through the submission process are presented as separate reports to this meeting.  Council is asked to consider the requests made. 

31        Further reports on the following topics have also been requested by Council and, depending on what Council decides, there may be a financial implication for the draft budgets. These reports are:

·        The Future of Dunedin Railways

·        Waterfront Bridge

·        New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame: Update.

32        Any changes made to the draft budgets at this meeting will be incorporated into the final 10 year plan that will be presented for adoption at the end of June.

33        Requests for reports or additional work flowing from consideration of submissions should be made by way of resolutions. These resolutions will then be captured in the action lists or forward work programmes and reported and progressed accordingly.

 

Process from here

34        Decisions made at this deliberations meeting will be incorporated into the budgets and included in the 10 year plan document.

35        Audit NZ will complete an audit of the changes to budgets and the final document.  The dates for the final audit are still to be confirmed.

36        The final 10 year plan 2021-31 is planned to be presented to the 30 June 2021 Council meeting for adoption.

OPTIONS

37        There are no options.

NEXT STEPS

38        Any changes made will be incorporated into the final 10 year plan 2021-31, and will be subject to confirmation by audit.

39        The final 10 year plan 2021-31 will be presented to the 30 June 2021 Council meeting for adoption.

 

Signatories

Author:

Gavin Logie - Chief Financial Officer

Carolyn Allan - Senior Management Accountant

Authoriser:

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

2021/22 DCC High Level Operating Budget

27

b

10 Year Plan Capital Expenditure budget

28

 

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 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 all of the 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 has been engagement with both Mana whenua and taurahere during the consultation process.

Sustainability

The 10 year plan has considered various aspects of the Council’s approach to sustainability.  Major issues and implications for sustainability are discussed in the Infrastructure Strategy and financial resilience is discussed in the Financial Strategy.  The Climate 2030 Rapid Review and DCC Emissions Reduction Opportunities report addresses a range of other issues. 

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report provides an overview of the decisions to be made for the final 10 year plan 2021-31.

Financial considerations

The decisions to be made will have financial implications for the final 10 year plan.

Significance

The 10 year plan is considered to be of high significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Extensive community engagement was undertaken on the draft budgets and content of the 10 year plan.

Engagement - internal

Staff from across council have been involved in the development of the 10 year plan.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Any specific risks in the development of the 10 year plan were considered in the relevant supporting documents.  The significant forecasting assumptions highlight these in detail and the assumptions have driven the content of the 10 year plan.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Many projects and items identified in Community Board Plans have been incorporated in the draft budgets following engagement with Community Boards during the development of the plan.  The Community Boards have participated in the consultation process and all have submitted on the plan.

 

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

 

Kerbside Collection Options - Consultation Feedback

Department: Waste and Environmental Solutions

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the outcomes of public consultation on ‘kerbside rubbish and recycling collection’ from the 10 year plan 2021–31 so Council can decide on which Kerbside collection option it wishes to adopt.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Considers the feedback received on ‘kerbside rubbish and recycling collection’ during the 10 year plan 2021–31 public consultation period

b)     Decides which kerbside collection option to adopt in the 10 year plan 2021–31:

i.      Four bins plus one

ii.     Three bins

iii.    Alternative

 

 

BACKGROUND

2          On 8 December 2020 a report from Waste and Environmental Solutions provided an update on the results of preliminary community engagement on alternative kerbside collection models for the Dunedin area, and recommended a preferred option to be included for public consultation in the 10 year plan 2021–31.

3          The 10 year plan consultation document, ‘the future of us’ asked for feedback from the community on the following two kerbside collection options:

discussion

4          A total of 2,302 submissions were received on these two kerbside collection options.  A social media poll was also conducted during consultation and received 6,100 responses. The following table shows the results of the submissions and Facebook poll:


 

 

Kerbside Collection feedback

Option 1

Option 2

Other

Submissions

969

726

 

Facebook poll (votes)

4,758

1,342

 

Total

5,727

2,068

 

Supports both option 1 and 2

 

 

143

Supports neither option

 

 

464

 

5          Council received 936 submissions with comments related to kerbside rubbish and recycling collections.  A summary of those comments is provided below.

6          115 comments supported the option of receiving the optional garden waste bin service proposed in option 1 but requested that the food waste bin should also be optional. An additional 40 comments suggested that food waste and green waste should be combined in a single collection bin.

7          103 comments supported the separate food waste bin and optional garden waste bin service for residents who are unable to compost (e.g. apartments, flats, townhouses without sections or gardens, and rented accommodation) as proposed in option 1.

8          103 comments expressed concern at the additional cost of both options and requested that the current kerbside services (mixed recycling, glass, pre-paid plastic rubbish bags) should be retained.

9          85 comments expressed concern regarding the storage of the proposed additional bins, especially for those residents with mobility issues or properties with difficult access, and increased congestion on footpaths during collections.

10        84 comments requested Council provide a greater selection of bin sizes and collection frequencies, with lower service costs for smaller bins and less frequent collections.

11        83 comments requested that Council provide subsidised composting systems or an incentive scheme to households that already compost or produce minimal waste. A number of these comments requested that Council also penalise those residents that make no effort to minimise waste.

12        30 comments suggested that the fortnightly waste bin collection proposed in option 1 would be insufficient, or that the general waste bin proposed in option 2 should be a 240L bin (rather than 140L) collected weekly.

13        20 comments requested an increase to the collection services and options for rural residents, or collection services and options for properties in the Central Activity Areas, which are not currently included in kerbside collection areas.

14        19 comments supported Council providing a general waste bin and the phasing out of plastic rubbish bags.

15        12 comments suggested that the blue glass bin was impractical (e.g. too small or too difficult to carry) and should either be replaced with a wheelie bin, or that glass should be allowed in the mixed recycling bins rather than as a separate collection.

16        5 comments requested that Council investigate offering a regular kerbside inorganic collection service for large items, and that this service should be provided at no cost.

17        3 comments requested that all kerbside bins should be supplied with lockable lids to prevent waste or recycling from escaping when bins are blown over on windy days.

18        3 comments expressed concern about unpleasant odours or an increase in pests caused by food waste bins and food waste collections, and the increased carbon emissions from additional collection vehicles.

19        Other individual comments included the following:

a)         A request that the colours used for kerbside collection bins should reflect Dunedin’s status as a heritage city

b)        Support for Council reducing both waste to landfill and methane emissions from landfill

c)         A request for Council to treat waste management as a ‘public good’, similar to roading and public transport, where everyone's rates contribute equally regardless of how often or rarely each individual uses them

d)        A call for Council to ban plastic packaging in local supermarkets and retail stores

20        A number of submissions raised concerns regarding congestion of footpaths caused by the additional bins in the ‘Four bins plus one’ option. As detailed below, the proposed service would add one additional collection service each week; therefore, congestion is not expected to become a significant issue:

 

Existing Service

Four bins plus one

Week One

·    General waste

·    Mixed recycling

·    General waste

·    Mixed recycling

·    Food waste

Week Two

·    General waste

·    Glass recycling

·    Glass recycling

·    Food waste

·    Garden waste (optional)

 

21        The changes proposed in the draft 10 year plan specifically focus on the existing residential collection.  Rural and CBD collection services will be considered during the kerbside collection contract procurement process in consultation with service providers. The existing network of city recycling hubs will also continue to be expanded in order to give inner city residents greater access to recycling services.

Funding Requirements

22        The draft 10 year plan 2021-31 Capital Expenditure budget for Waste and Environmental Solutions includes $20.6M for the supply and delivery of new refuse and organic collection bins, and the establishment of organics processing and mixed recycling sorting facilities to support the additional collections.

23        At the Council meeting on the 27 January 2021, Council resolved as follows:

That the Council:

 

 

a)     Adopts Option One – Targeted rates funding for kerbside collection bins plus opt-in garden waste bin funded via fees and charges, as the preferred funding source to be used for delivering kerbside collection services to be consulted on within the draft 10 year plan 2021-31.

 

Motion carried (CNL/2021/017)

 

Moved (Mayor Aaron Hawkins/Cr Christine Garey):

24        Council further resolved that additional options of funding kerbside collections should be developed in time for the 2022/23 Annual Plan as follows: 

That the Council:

b)     Requests, in time for the next Annual Plan 2022-23, a report outlining options for both flat and progressive targeted rates for the kerbside collection service.

 

c)     Ask staff to report back on the development of Pay as You Throw technology, as part of each Annual Plan process.

Motion carried (CNL/2021/018)

25        The consultation options for the 10 Year Plan 2021-31 and funding for them were based on these resolutions.

Timing of new Services

26        Council’s current kerbside collection contracts expire on 30 June 2022. Procurement for replacement kerbside collection contracts will begin immediately following Council’s adoption of the preferred kerbside collection option, with final contract award expected in early February 2022.

27        Potential service suppliers have advised that the procurement of specialist vehicles, construction of new facilities, and distribution of new refuse and organic bins to households will take approximately 12 months to complete; therefore, new kerbside services are expected to begin in mid-2023.

OPTIONS

Option One – Four Bins Plus One

28        This option retains the existing blue crate for glass and yellow lidded mixed recycling bin, replaces the current pre-paid plastic refuse bag collection with a wheelie bin refuse collection service, and adds a 23 Litre bin for food waste only, collected weekly. Households could also choose to have an additional 240 Litre garden waste collection bin, at an additional cost of $140 - $180 per year, which would be collected fortnightly:

i)          Food scraps 23 litre bin – collected weekly

ii)         Glass 45 litre blue crate – collected fortnightly

iii)        Refuse (red lid) 140 litre wheelie bin – collected fortnightly

iv)       Recycling (yellow lid) 240 litre wheelie bin – collected fortnightly

v)        Households can also choose to have an additional 240 litre garden waste collection bin, collected fortnightly

29        Residents would be able to choose between an 80L or 140L red bin and an 80L or 240L yellow bin. This option provides flexibility for those residents living alone, or with small sections, or living in flats or blocks of flats, as smaller bins are easier to manage and store between collections.

Advantages

·        This option received the highest level of support from public submissions and the kerbside services social media polls during the 10 year plan 2021-31 consultation.

·        Strongest alignment with the DCC Waste Futures ‘Towards a Circular Economy’ programme, which estimated an overall 27% reduction in annual waste to landfill and a 24% reduction in associated annual carbon emissions.

·        Council provides a kerbside service for organics (food and green waste), which has been assessed as the second most significant source of emissions to Green Island Landfill from general waste.

·        Organic waste can be processed into compost (or similar) for beneficial re-use.

·        Separation of the organic waste streams (food and green waste) will reduce contamination and provide for greater flexibility in processing and end use options.

·        The collection of food waste only (compared with collecting a combination of food and green waste) may increase householder awareness of food waste thus helping to reduce the amount of edible food that is wasted.

·        The optional garden waste bin provides flexibility for those residents living alone, or with small sections, or those living in flats and multi-unit dwellings.

·        Removal of pre-paid plastic refuse bags reduces the potential health and safety risks created by the associated manual handling.

·        Removal of pre-paid plastic refuse bags reduces plastic waste disposed to landfill.

Disadvantages

·        Increased complexity of contracts for Council staff to manage.

·        Increased contract management costs for Council.

·        Additional costs will be incurred for construction of resource recovery and waste diversion facilities.

·        There is uncertainty over the markets for processed material.

·        On collection days, there would be up to three bins out on the footpath for each property.

·        The storage of bins on small sections or sections with steep access, and mobility issues for some residents, are potential issues associated with an increased number of bins.

Option Two – Three Bins

30        This option retains the existing blue crate for glass and yellow lidded mixed recycling bin and replaces the current pre-paid plastic refuse bag collection with a wheelie bin refuse collection service:

i)          Refuse (red lid) 140 litre wheelie bin – collected weekly

ii)         Glass 45 litre blue crate – collected fortnightly

iii)        Recycling (yellow lid) 240 litre wheelie bin – collected fortnightly

31        Residents would be able to choose between an 80L or 140L red bin and an 80L or 240L yellow bin. This option provides flexibility for those residents living alone, or with small sections, or living in flats or blocks of flats, as smaller bins are easier to manage and store between collections.

Advantages

·        Removal of pre-paid plastic refuse bags reduces the potential health and safety risks created by the associated manual handling.

·        Removal of most pre-paid plastic refuse bags reduces plastic waste disposed to landfill.

·        Reduced requirement for Capital Expenditure on resource recovery and waste diversion facilities.

Disadvantages

·        Increased complexity of contracts for Council staff to manage.

·        Increased contract management costs for Council.

·        The storage of bins on small sections or sections with steep access, and mobility issues for some residents, are potential issues associated with an increased number of bins.

·        Council does not reduce organic waste to landfill or the resulting carbon emissions from organic waste to landfill.

Option Three – Alternative Option

32        Council may choose to adopt an alternative kerbside collection model.

NEXT STEPS

33        Following confirmation of the adopted kerbside collections option for the 10 year plan 2021-31, a Request for Proposals and draft contract documentation will be developed and the procurement process for new services will be initiated.

34        A report will be provided outlining options for flat and progressive targeted rates for kerbside collection services in time for the Annual Plan 2022/23.

35        Staff will continue to monitor PAYT technology and report on developments as part of each Annual Plan process beginning in 2022/23.

 

 

Signatories

Author:

Chris Henderson - Group Manager Waste and Environmental Solutions

Authoriser:

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure Services

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 environmental 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

 

The Waste Futures Project contributes to the Environment Strategy by enabling a robust evaluation of potential options for Dunedin City Council to continue to ensure effective reduction and management of solid waste to achieve the goals set out in its Waste Management and Minimisation Plan, with appropriate regard given to the goals of the Emissions Management and Reduction Plan.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua place cultural importance on separating waste streams and wish to contribute to developing waste management practices in New Zealand.  Iwi have been engaged during the Better Business Case options development phase, including the proposed changes to Council kerbside collections.  Project updates have also been provided to the Maori Participation Working Party.  Ongoing engagement will occur with iwi during the design phase of the services. 

Sustainability

The Waste and Environmental Solutions activity contributes positively to the environmental interests of the community through refuse and recycling collection at the kerbside and public places, educating and promoting environmentally sustainable behaviour and managing landfill and transfer station facilities.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The capital expenditure requirements for resource recovery and waste diversion facilities to support the Council’s Waste Minimisation and Management Plan, and also the proposed kerbside collection options, have been included in the draft capital budgets for the 10 year plan 2021–31.

Financial considerations

Financial implications were considered at the 8 December 2020 and 27 January 2021 Council meeting.  This report includes estimated operational costs for each kerbside collections option.

Significance

The decision is considered high in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The decision will be part of the 10 year plan 2021 – 31.

Engagement – external

External engagement has been undertaken with the community and with stakeholders including Ngai Tahu, Otago Regional Council, and the Ministry for the Environment for the development of potential future operating models. 

Engagement - internal

Internal engagement is ongoing for the development of potential future operating models with the Water Futures Steering Group.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Legal advice has been undertaken on the various components of the Waste Futures Project to ensure statutory compliance and minimisation of litigation risk.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest. 

Community Boards

Kerbside collections are of interest to Community Boards, particularly in the rural collection areas. Community Boards have had an opportunity to provide feedback as part of the 10 year plan 2021 – 31 consultation process.

 

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

 

Community Housing - Consultation Feedback

Department: Property

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to provide Council with outcomes of public consultation regarding Community Housing as part of the 10 year plan 2021-2031, and to ask Council to consider the options which will inform a draft Dunedin City Council Housing Policy and Dunedin Social Housing Strategy.

2          The consultation document sought submissions on ‘our role as landlord’ and asked;

i)          do you support the DCC prioritising its community housing for people aged 65 and over?

ii)         do you support rates being used to subsidise rents for DCC’s community housing?

iii)        should the DCC build more community housing units? If yes:

-      Option 1 (preferred option) – I support spending $1m each year to build more housing units

-      Option 2 – I support spending $2m each year to build more housing units.

3          Decisions will guide the next stage of the review of the Dunedin City Council Housing Policy and Dunedin Social Housing Strategy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Considers if DCC should prioritise its community housing for people aged 65 years and over.

b)     Considers if rates revenue should be used to subsidise rents for DCC’s community housing.

c)     Considers if DCC should build more community housing units  and, if yes;

d)     Considers if Council will fund $10m or $20m for new community housing units, in the 10 year plan 2021 – 2031.

e)            Notes that decisions will be used to inform the development of a draft DCC Community Housing Policy and Strategy.

 

BACKGROUND

4          The first stage of the review of the Dunedin City Council Housing Policy 1997 and the Dunedin City Social Housing Strategy 2010-2020 highlighted the changes to Dunedin’s housing environment since both the policy and strategy were written and also the complexity of Council’s role in the city’s housing sector. 

5          On January 27 2021 Council agreed to seek feedback in the 10 year plan 2021-2031 consultation document to inform the next stage of the review (Attachment A - Community Housing, Strategy and Policy Review Update).

DISCUSSION

Prioritisation

6          The current policy provides guidance for the prioritization of housing applicants. Housing applicants are placed, according to their circumstances and in the order they applied, into one of four priority groups.  The higher the priority, the more likely an applicant is to be housed.

Priority Group 1 –     Aged 55 and over, with income below the limit, and assets below the                             limit.

Priority Group 2 –     Aged 55 and over.

Priority Group 3 –     Aged 54 and under, with income below the limit, and assets below the limit.

Priority Group 4 –     All other applicants that do not fulfil the criteria for any of the above Priority Groups.

7          Projected population growth for Dunedin shows a shift in the city’s age demographics and an associated increase in demand for housing from people aged 65 years and over.

8          The over 65 age group is projected to increase by 62% over the next 20 years, while the 55-64 age group is projected to shrink over the same time period. 

9          As at May 2021, the DCC Community Housing waitlist is made up of 249 people, 45% of whom are aged 65 years and over, 26% are aged between 55–64 years and 29% are aged under 54 years. 

10        Nationally, there are 50 local authorities offering social or community housing. Of those, 35 local authorities prioritise people aged 65 and over, while three local authorities (including DCC) prioritise people aged 55 years and over.  (Attachment B - Local Authority Community Housing).

11        A change to the prioritisation criteria would not exclude any person or demographic group from applying for DCC Community Housing, nor would it affect any of the existing tenants. Rather, it would affect the position of applicants on the waiting list.

12        The table below shows feedback received on this topic.


 

Do you support the DCC prioritising its community housing for people aged 65 and over?

 

Yes

No

Total

Submissions

1175

614

1789

66%

34%

Facebook poll (votes)

765

735

1500

51%

49%

Twitter poll (votes)

39

19

58

67%

33%

 

13      Many submitters commented that they would prefer Council to prioritise on need rather than age, and that there was need for families on low incomes, Māori, Pasifika, and people with disabilities.

Prioritisation Decision

Should council prioritise ITS community housing for people aged 65 years and over?

Option One – Council prioritises its community housing for people aged 65 years and over.  

Advantages

·        Prioritises the allocation of units to a demographic group projected to have increased demand for housing.

·        Would reflect the Mayors Taskforce for Housing Action Plan 2019–2039 - Action 3.3 Prioritise the accessibility of housing to those most in need. 

Disadvantages

·        Those over 55 years and with limited financial means would no longer have prioritised access to DCC community housing

·        Some people currently on the waitlist would move to a lower priority group and might wait longer to be placed in a house.

Next Steps

14        If Council prioritises people aged 65 years and over, the change would be reflected in a draft DCC Community Housing policy.  

15        The change would come into effect after the adoption of an updated DCC Community Housing policy and would be applied to the current waitlist and new applications.

Option Two – Council does not prioritise its community housing for people aged 65 years and over.

Advantages

·        Those over 55 years and with limited financial means would continue to have prioritised access to DCC community housing.

Disadvantages

·        Prioritisation of the waitlist would not reflect projected changes to housing demand. 

Next Steps

16        If Council does no prioritise people aged 65 years and over, this decision would be reflected in a draft DCC Community Housing policy.

DISCUSSION

Funding

17        Since its inception in the 1940s, the DCC community housing portfolio was intended to operate on a breakeven basis; effectively providing accommodation for tenants, at no direct cost to ratepayers.

18        Currently the community housing portfolio is forecast to be 9% ($659,968) subsidised by rates revenue in the 2021/22 financial year.   

Table 1 - 2021/22 Housing Portfolio Operating Budget

 

2021/22

$000

 

External Revenue

6,589

Rental income

 

 

 

Personal Costs

421

Portfolio direct staffing costs

Operations & Maintenance

2,692

Maintenance – exterior/interior

Occupancy Costs

1,930

Rates, insurance, communal energy

Consumables & General

19

 

Internal Charges

187

IT, HR, Office Space, Finance etc

Depreciation

2,000

 

Total Expenditure

7,249

 

Operating Surplus/(Deficit)

(660)

 

 

19        Depreciation for the portfolio is based on depreciable replacement costs where this cost is for a modern equivalent asset less deductions for physical deterioration.  The portfolio is revalued on a three yearly cycle.

20        Ideally the revenue from community housing rents would fund the annual depreciation cost as this provides the necessary cash to allow Council to carry out renewals/upgrades to the existing units. The replacement value of these units is circa. $125.0 million, compared with the annual depreciation above of $2.0 million.

21        Operating the community housing portfolio on a ‘breakeven’ basis would mean rental increases for tenants.  The average rental increase would be $15 per week, per unit (based on a portfolio occupancy of 96%) and would raise the average rents from $135 to $150 per week.

22        Staff have prepared the following table to help provide some context of the income of tenants and the effect rent increase would have on affordability.  Note – opinions on the measure of affordability range from 25% to 355 of income


 

Table 2 - Affordability Table (Single Accommodation)

DCC Rental charges

Weekly Income

 

NZ Superannuation + Accommodation Supplement

Rent as a % of income

NZ Superannuation + Accommodation Supplement

Weekly Income

 

Job Seeker Benefit + Accommodation Supplement

Rent as a % of income

Job Seeker Benefit + Accommodation Supplement

Average Rent $135

$456

30%

$328

41%

Average Rent $150

$465

32%

$339

44%

 

23        Table 2 – Affordability Table is based on NZ Superannuation, Accommodation Supplement and Job Seeker Benefit rates as at July 2021.

24        The Accommodation Supplement is provided by Work and Income New Zealand to assist people on low income with accommodation costs. 

25        The table below shows feedback on this topic.

Do you support rates being used to subsidise rents for DCC's community housing?

 

Yes

No

Total

Submissions

1131

783

1914

59%

41%

Facebook poll (votes)

570

430

1000

57%

43%

Twitter poll (votes)

50

17

67

75%

25%

 

26        Some submitters commented that Council should not subsidise rents with rates and did not support increasing Council debt to build new community housing.

27        Some submitters commented that community housing was the responsibility of central government and not local government.

28        Some submitters commented on support for Council subsidising rents with rates, and stressed the importance of making rents affordable for low income people.

Funding Decision

Should rates be used to subsidise rents for DCC’s community housing?

Option One – Rates are used to subsidises rents for DCC’s community housing.

Advantages

·        Rents would be more affordable for people on low incomes.

Disadvantages

·        Subsidising rents with rates may be seen as inequitable.

Next Steps

29        If Council decides to use rates to subsidise rents for community housing tenants, the change would be reflected in an updated DCC Community Housing policy. 

30        An amendment to Council’s Rates and Revenue Policy would also be drafted and presented alongside the draft Community Housing policy.

Option Two – Rates are not used to subsidise rents for DCC community housing.

Advantages

·        There are no advantages identified.

Disadvantages

·        Rents would be less affordable for people on low incomes.

Next Steps

31        If Council decides not to use rates to subsidise rents for DCC Community Housing units, and to maintain a ‘breakeven approach’, this would be reflected in an updated DCC Community Housing policy.

32        Options for increasing rents from August 2022 will be considered in the Annual Plan in January 2022.   

DISCUSSION

Growth

33        Housing statistics show that Dunedin is growing by 1,400 people per year, with 300-400 new houses being built each year.  Average residential rental costs have increased by 25% (from $300 per week to over $375 per week) with the median house price now exceeding $600,000.

34        The table below shows feedback on this topic.

Should the DCC build more community housing units?

 

Yes

No

Total

Submissions

1558

475

1900

82%

18%

 


 

If yes, do you support $1 million or $2 million each year to build more housing units?

 

$1 million

$2 million

Total

Submissions

899

864

1763

51%

49%

Facebook poll (votes)

341

759

1100

31%

69%

Twitter poll (votes)

10

31

41

24%

76%

 

35        Some submitters commented on the need for well designed, eco-friendly community housing that is located close to key services and other community facilities.  A comment that sums up the sentiment of these comments is ‘please create communities not just houses’

36        Some submitters supported 2GP changes that allowed for more urban growth, and the importance of not building on green spaces.  They supported making it easier to build new homes, and also wanted to make it easier to build cheaper and smaller homes e.g. kit sets.

37        Some submitters supported the option for $2m per annum funding for new community housing over the 10 year plan, and suggested that Council should match community housing growth to growth in the city’s population.  Fewer submitters commenting supported the $1m per year option.

38        Some submitters felt that the best way to solve the housing issue was for the Council to work in partnership with other providers e.g. Kāinga Ora, NGOs, iwi, and to develop a wide range of housing options.

Growth Decision

Should the DCC build more community housing units? 

39        Neither option precludes Council working with other housing providers

Option One – Funding of $10 million to be retained in the 10 year plan to build more community housing units.

Advantages

·        Would reflect the Mayors Taskforce for Housing Action Plan 2019–2039 - Action 1.3 Dunedin City Council show leadership in enabling the development and delivery of more affordable rental housing in Dunedin.

·        Improved ability to accommodate a growing demand for housing.

Disadvantages

·        There are no disadvantages identified.

 

Next Steps

40        If Council decides to build more community housing units, a budget of $1m per year would result in approximately four additional housing units per year, which could be delivered immediately.

Option Two – Funding of $20 million to be included in the 10 year plan to build more community housing units.

Advantages

·        Would reflect the Mayors Taskforce for Housing Action Plan 2019–2039 - Action 1.3 Dunedin City Council show leadership in enabling the development and delivery of more affordable rental housing in Dunedin.

·        Improved ability to accommodate a growing demand for housing.

Disadvantages

·        This would incur more debt than the $10 million option. 

Next Steps

41        If Council decides to build more community housing units, a budget of $2m per year would result in approximately eight additional housing units per year.  Four units could be built immediately, and a plan developed for the remainder in year two and following years.

Option Three – No additional funding to be included in the 10 year plan to build more community housing units.

Advantages

·    No advantages were identified.

Disadvantages

·        Would not reflect the Mayors Taskforce for Housing Action Plan 2019–2039 - Action 1.3 Dunedin City Council show leadership in enabling the development and delivery of more affordable rental housing in Dunedin.

·        Would not reflect increasing demand for housing.

Next Steps

42        If Council decides not to build more community housing units, the change would be reflected in an updated DCC Community Housing strategy. 

NEXT STEPS

43        Council decisions will inform the development of a draft DCC Community Housing policy.

44        This work sits within a wider piece of work to align all of DCC’s housing related work, including the Mayors Taskforce for Housing Action Plan and Dunedin Social Housing Strategy review.

 

1           Signatories

Author:

Kate Milton - Manager Housing

Anna Nilsen - Planning and Support Manager

Authoriser:

David Bainbridge-Zafar - Group Manager Property Services

Robert West - Acting General Manager City Services

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Community Housing, Strategy & Policy Review Update

50

b

Local Authority Community Housing

60

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

These decisions enable democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities, and promote the social and economic 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

Council decisions will also affect the Social Housing Strategy 2010-2020.

Māori Impact Statement

Concerns in relation to adequate housing for Maori communities were issues raised throughout the consultation period by mana whenua and mataawaka. Staff will engage with mana whenua and mataawaka to ensure Maori housing priorities are addressed.

 

Sustainability

Supports the future growth of housing need.  There are opportunities to provide sustainable housing similar to the model being used at School Street.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report contains decisions relating to the Long Term Plan (LTP).

Financial considerations

Financial implications will be dependent on Council decisions. 

Significance

The decisions to be made in respect of community housing follow full consultation through the 10 year plan process. 

Engagement – external

There has been consultation with the community as part of the 10 year plan community engagement.

Engagement - internal

There is ongoing internal engagement with Community Development and Planning teams.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Housing is of interest to all Community Boards.  There were requests for additional community housing from Community Board areas.

 

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

 

Public Toilets and Changing Places - Consultation Feedback

Department: Property

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a summary of the submissions received as part of the 10 year plan 2021-31 consultation on the topic of public toilets, and to provide the proposed 10 year programme of works for new public toilet facilities.

2          Feedback was sought as part of the 10 Year Plan 2021-31 consultation on the question, “Where do you think the new public toilets should go?”

3          The consultation feedback combined with previous requests has informed a prioritised list of locations for new public toilet facilities across Dunedin.

4          Council have allocated a draft capital budget of $2.05m in the draft 10 year plan 2021-31 budgets.  This reflects $250,000 in year one for the development of a changing places bathroom, and $200,000 in each of the years 2-10 for two new public toilet facilities to be built each subsequent year.  Budgets have also been included to allow for the refurbishment and upgrade of existing public toilet facilities over the next 10 years.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

 

a)    Notes the consultation feedback on the 10 Year Plan 2021-31.

b)    Considers the proposed programme of works, with any amendments, for new public toilet facilities and the Changing Places bathroom.

 

BACKGROUND

5          During annual plan deliberations in May 2020 Council requested a report 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.


 

6          A report was presented to Council on 14 December 2020 outlining the details of a Public Toilet Review, and the following resolution was passed:

“Moved (Cr Marie Laufiso/Cr Christine Garey):

That the Council:

a)     Notes that the 10 Year Plan 2021-31 consultation document would 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. 

Motion carried (CNL/2020/121)”

7          The 10 Year Plan consultation document 2021-31 included draft budgets for new public toilets and asked for submissions on the question “Where do you think the new public toilets should go?”

8          On 27 January 2021 Council resolved to include $2.1 million over the 10 year period to increase the number of public toilets in Dunedin, and to build a “Changing Places Bathroom”.  The Changing Places Bathroom to be constructed in the 2021/22 year, and two public toilets to be completed each year thereafter. 

DISCUSSION

Submissions

9          Throughout the consultation period a total of 1573 submissions were received, including 279 comments submitted on Facebook. A breakdown of preferred locations is shown below:

Table 1 - REQUESTED LOCATIONS

Location

Number of Submissions on Specific Locations

Percentage of Submissions on Specific Locations

Central city

412

40%

Parks & playgrounds

121

12%

Harbour

117

11%

North Dunedin

109

10%

South Dunedin

70

7%

Beaches

68

7%

Ross Creek

22

2%

Green Island

21

2%

Signal Hill

21

2%

Mosgiel

16

1%

Other

46

4%

 

 

10        The submissions varied from identifying specific locations through to more general suggestions e.g. harbourside, parks and playgrounds.  Several submissions also provided feedback on improvements e.g. more cleaning, upgrades on existing toilets, more signage, door counter usage to provide more accurate data.

11        Some submissions recommended locations that already have public toilets (for example the bus hub).

12        Submissions suggesting the central city predominantly proposed the Octagon, Exchange and George Street.

13        Submissions suggesting the harbour predominantly proposed locations along the harbour cycleway (both the Peninsula Connection and the SH88 Shared Path), with St Leonards a common recommendation.

14        Submissions suggesting North Dunedin predominantly proposed George Street and Great King Street locations between Frederick Street and Woodhaugh Gardens, as well as along North Road, including Baldwin Street where a public toilet already exists.

15        Submissions suggesting South Dunedin predominantly proposed areas including Cargills Corner, St Kilda beach, King Edward Street, and Prince Albert Road.

16        Submissions suggesting beaches predominantly proposed St Clair, St Kilda, Tomahawk, Purakaunui, Doctors Point, Aramoana, Waitati and Waikouaiti.

Proposed programme for a changing places bathroom and new public toilet locations

17        A toilet decision-making matrix has been developed based on those used by other local authorities.

18        The toilet decision-making matrix assists with the prioritisation of requested locations by considering a range of factors including:

 

i)          Vehicular traffic – e.g. state highway / local road

ii)         Foot traffic – estimated volume

iii)        Length of stay – e.g. overnight (camping) or passing by

iv)        Nearest public toilet

v)         Nearest other toilet – e.g. shops, cafes that may have toilets available

vi)        Evidence of fouling – recorded incidents.


 

19        Requested locations have been assessed against the toilet decision-making matrix, reviewed against other planned work, and a prioritised programme of new locations in Table 2 below:

Table 2

Years

Proposed programme for a changing places bathroom and new public toilet locations

Year 1 2021/2022

Moray Place beside the central library. This will be a specialist Changing Places bathroom.

Year 2 2022/2023

Central city, The Exchange area (existing toilets in Dowling Street will be removed);

Harbour cycleway, St Leonards*;

Year 3 2023/2024

Otago Peninsula, Harwood Reserve*;

South Dunedin, Navy Park;

Year 4 2024/2025

North Dunedin, close to North Ground sports ground;

Karitane, Truby King Reserve*;

Year 5 2025/2026

North Dunedin, Ross Creek area;

Waitati, Doctors Point*;

Year 6 2026/2027

Green Island Memorial Park playground*;

Central city, Princes Street Market Reserve;

Year 7 2027/2028

Mosgiel, Brooklands park area*;

Otago Peninsula, Okia Reserve*;

Year 8 2028/2029

Purakaunui Reserve*;

Otago Peninsula, Tomahawk beach*;

Year 9 2029/2030

South Dunedin, St Kilda beach;

Harbour cycleway, Harbour mouth molars area

Year 10 2030/2031

Waldronville, Kaikorai Estuary area*;

North Dunedin, Maori Hill/Highgate area;

*- indicates Community Board area

20        Exact locations will be worked through with relevant stakeholders including mana whenua. The programme will be reviewed regularly to assess that it still meets current community needs as Dunedin grows and develops in the next ten years.

Community Boards

21        Submissions on the 10 Year Plan 2021-31 were received from all Community Boards, and all included requests for new public toilet facilities in their board areas. These requests are shown in Attachment A, including whether or not they have been included in the proposed programme of works.

Changing Places Bathroom

22        During the Annual Plan Deliberations in June 2020, Council passed the following resolution:

“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)

 

23        Changing Places Bathrooms are larger accessible toilets for people with severe, multiple, or complex disabilities, and include equipment such as hoists, showers, curtains, adult-sized changing benches and space for carers.

24        Consultation has been undertaken with Changing Places NZ on the location for a Changing Places Bathroom together with local Dunedin users and the Disability Issues Advisory Group. The preferred location is an area on Moray Place behind the central library building.  This was chosen for its easily identifiable central city location, availability of parking, and accessibility.

25        A second Changing Places bathroom will also be included in the South Dunedin Library and Community Centre, expected to be open to the public in 2024. The new Dunedin Hospital will also include a Changing Places bathroom.

26        The Mosgiel-Taieri Community Board requested a Changing Places bathroom be built in the Mosgiel Memorial Gardens Park. This is not planned at this stage.

Costs

27        Council have allocated a capital budget of $2.05m in the draft 10 Year Plan 2021-31 budget. This reflects $250,000 in year one for the development of a Changing Places bathroom, and $200,000 in each of the years 2-10 for new public toilet facilities.

28        In addition to the budget for new public toilets, a capital budget of $1.00m for renewals, improvements and upgrades to existing public toilets is included in the draft 10 Year Plan 2021‑31 budgets ($100,000 per year). Renewal work will be prioritised as part of appropriate asset management. 

OPTIONS

Option One – Council supports the proposed programme of works, with any amendments, for new public toilet facilities, including the preferred location of the Changing Places Bathroom

 

29        That Council approves the proposed programme of works laid out in Table 2 of this report.

Advantages

·        Responds to the feedback in the submissions to the 10 Year Plan 2021-31.

·        A planned approach to new public toilets and renewals is undertaken over the next 10 years.

Disadvantages

·        There are no disadvantages identified

Option Two – Council does not support the proposed programme of works, with any amendments, for new public toilet facilities, including the preferred location of the Changing Places Bathroom

30        That Council does not approve the proposed programme.

Advantages

·        There are no advantages identified

Disadvantages

·        There will be a delay in planning for the building of new public toilet facilities whilst Property staff prepare a new plan.

·        There is no planned approach to new public toilets and renewals over the next 10 years.

NEXT STEPS

31        Further design work will be undertaken for a Changing Places Bathroom on the preferred site on Moray Place, as preparation for construction during the 2021/22 year.

32        Planning will commence for the construction of new public toilets at the locations listed in this report.

33        A Toilet Management Plan will be developed that will inform the future management of the public toilet facilities. 

 

Signatories

Author:

Maria Sleeman - Property Officer - Community and Civic

Authoriser:

David Bainbridge-Zafar - Group Manager Property Services

Robert West - Acting General Manager City Services

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Community Board Public toilet preferred locations 10 Year Plan 2021-31 deliberations

70

 

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 the Dunedin City.

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua, but tangata whenua will be consulted on the exact locations of toilets prior to development of toilet facilities.

Sustainability

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

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

This report is the outcome of the 10 Year Plan consultation and reports on submissions received.  If adopted the level of service for the provision of public toilets within the Dunedin City will be improved and enhanced.

Financial considerations

The recommended option will provide for:

a)         A capital budget of $2.05 million ($250,000 for year 1 and $200,000 for the remaining 9 years) of the 10 Year Plan 2021 – 2031; and

b)        A capital budget for renewals, improvements and upgrades of existing public toilets of $1 million ($100,000 for each year of the 10 Year Plan 2021 – 2031.

Each new public toilet will add approximately $15,000 - $20,000 per annum to the operating budget.  Additional annual operational costs relating to the new assets will be approximately $255,000 by year 10 of the 10 Year Plan.

By year 10, the annual interest costs will be $46,000 and the annual depreciation costs will be $185,000.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

There has been external engagement with Changing Places NZ, local users and the Disabilities Issues Advisory Group.  Feedback has been 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, Community Development and the Project Director, Major Projects from the Corporate Projects and Project Management Office Group.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no identified conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Community Board 10 Year Plan submissions have been considered in the preparation of this report

 

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

 

Dunedin Performing Arts Venue - Consultation Feedback

Department: Ara Toi

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The report summarises feedback received during the 10 Year Plan consultation relating to the development of a performing arts venue. The community was asked if it supported the development of a mid-sized theatre. The community was also presented with two options, a preferred option of the Athenaeum, and a second option of the Mayfair Theatre.

2          Just over half the submissions were in favour of the DCC developing a mid-sized theatre with a similar proportion supporting the Athenaeum as the preferred option.

3          This report also presents the Charcoalblue Phase Three report which provides further information on both the the Athenaeum and the Mayfair Theatre.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Decides on which of the following options for the development of a mid-sized theatre to progress as part of the 10 Year Plan:

i.      The Athenaeum or

ii.     The Mayfair Theatre or

iii.    Re-engage with performing arts stakeholders.

 

BACKGROUND

10 Year Plan Feedback

4          Of 1,878 submissions expressing an opinion, 1,052 (56%) were in favour of the DCC developing a mid-sized theatre, with 826 (44%) not in favour.

5          Of the two options, 759 (53%) were in favour of the Athenaeum option.  Comments broadly covered the synergy to the creative precinct, central location close to the public transport hub and opportunity for partnership.  Six hundred and sixty (660) (47%) comments were not in favour of this option. Comments covered concern around Council debt levels and investment in existing performing arts infrastructure such as the Regent Theatre and Town Hall as priority.

6          Five hundred and two (502) submissions (40%) were in favour of the Mayfair Theatre option.  Comments broadly covered the revitalisation opportunity for South Dunedin, the connection to the new South Dunedin Library and Community Complex, greater access to parking, alignment with public transport routes, more flexibility of space within the Mayfair Theatre and spreading the benefit of arts investment.  Seven hundred and sixty-three (763) (60%) comments were not in favour of this option. Comments covered concern around climate change mitigation and adaptation and Council debt levels.

7          Of 220 submissions not in favour of DCC developing a mid-sized theatre but still expressing a venue preference, 62 comments favoured the Athenaeum option and 74 comments favoured the Mayfair Theatre option.

8          Twelve comments mentioned the Athenaeum positively and 28 comments mentioned the Mayfair Theatre positively.  Thirty-nine comments suggested utilising the Regent Theatre, 28 comments asked about the Fortune Theatre future and 12 comments asked about the future for Sammy’s.

9          In addition, a Facebook poll on the subject received 1,700 votes, with 57% in favour of the Mayfair Theatre and 43% in favour of the Athenaeum.

10        A Twitter poll received 58 votes, with 68% in favour of the Athenaeum and 34% in favour of the Mayfair Theatre.

11        Statements asking for support of music investment and venues were also made, along with a number of comments requesting information about DCC’s plans for Sammy’s.

12        A number of submissions also requested information about DCC’s plans for 231 Stuart Street (the former Fortune Theatre).

13        In order to inform Council’s decision making, staff have provided a summary below of the various stages of the Performing Arts Feasibility Study.

Performing Arts Feasibility Study

14        Following the closure of the Fortune Theatre in May 2018, the DCC and Creative New Zealand (CNZ) jointly commissioned a study into future provision for performing arts in Dunedin.  The study was to be delivered in three phases by theatre consultants Charcoalblue.  The phases included vision and brief development, options appraisal, and finally more detailed design.

15        The consultant’s brief focused on a comprehensive study into future options for a venue for the performing arts in the city, ensuring the continued provision of performing arts including professional theatre.  The recommendations produced were focused on a fit for purpose venue as well as providing advice on the most effective governance arrangement and sustainable business model in the medium to long term.

Phase One

16        Charcoalblue engaged in 140 hours of conversations with over 160 major stakeholders in five months to inform the Phase One engagement process.

17        Stakeholder engagement meetings with venue managers, performing artists, arts practitioners, technicians, festival directors, mana whenua, Māori creatives, arts educators, arts organisations, board members and funders.

18        Two public feedback sessions were held in March 2019 at the end of Phase One to test the findings.  The feedback was positive, with stakeholders feeling the issues and opportunities raised were being addressed.

19        In order to ensure the ongoing project delivered on the needs of the performing arts community two stakeholder groups were set up.  A Project Steering Group with representatives from Stage South, CNZ, mana whenua and DCC oversaw the project.  The project was also informed by discussions with a Project Advisory Group made up of key representatives from the Phase One engagement, representing knowledge and expertise from a range of sector constituents to ensure that the project was informed by local participation.  Discussions were also held with the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, the National Lottery, and Otago Community Trust.

20        Phase One identified a desire and need for a building or network of buildings to provide a range of flexible and adaptable spaces was identified.

21        A facility mix was identified to support performance, rehearsals, workshops, training, classes, functions, meetings/events supported by backstage facilities and informal front of house public spaces.

22        No specific geographic location for a new performing arts centre/cultural venue was identified.  Sites would be tested against the list of criteria established from the Phase One vision in Phase Two.

23        Phase One identified a set of facilities needed to fill gaps in the provision of performing arts in Dunedin, which are:

·        a flexible auditorium with 350–450 seats

·        retail, food, and beverage facilities

·        front and back of house spaces

·        two smaller studio spaces

·        an artists’ hub providing low cost spaces to develop and make work

24        Council noted this report 29 April 2019 and endorsed the commencement of Phase Two, the options appraisal.

Phase Two

25        The Phase Two report was presented to Council in February 2020.  It presented options for delivering all the facilities identified in the Phase One Report on one site.

26        Accommodating all these spaces required a sizeable footprint which limited the available sites that could be considered. Some high ranked sites were already earmarked for other developments. The scale of the vision also resulted in a significant indicative capital cost.

27        At the meeting in February 2020, Council asked staff to identify at least two viable options with a focus on addressing one part of the overall vision and brief for a flexible mid-sized auditorium, front and back house spaces and a food and beverage facility.

28        A report presented in December 2020, included four mid-sized flexible auditorium sites shortlisted for consideration from the original longlist of sites presented in Phase Two and included:

·        Sammy’s – use the existing footprint of Sammy’s to build a stand-alone theatre.

·        The Athenaeum – partnership development with Lawrie Forbes of Zeal Land Ltd.

·        231 Stuart Street – redevelop the former Fortune Theatre building.

·        Mayfair Theatre – redevelop the existing theatre, noting it is currently owned by a Trust.

29        In December 2020 Council resolved the following:

“Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Council:

a)     Directs staff to continue work on development of two options; the Athenaeum (as the preferred) and the Mayfair as a potential alternative.

b)     Includes $17m in the draft capital budgets for the purposes of development of the draft 10 year plan.

c)      Notes that the operating costs of $4.5m will be included in the draft operating budgets for the purposes of developing the draft 10 year plan.

d)     Notes that decisions made on the operating and capital budget timing will be presented to the January 2021 meeting for consideration as part of the draft 10 year plan.

e)     Directs staff to negotiate agreements with Mr Forbes and the Mayfair Trust to enable consultation on the two options as part of the 10 year plan process.

Cr Lee Vandervis left the meeting at 11:00 a.m.

Division

The Council voted by division:

For:                 Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Jim O'Malley, Jules Radich, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (13)

Against:        Cr Mike Lord (1)

Abstained:   Nil

The division was declared CARRIED by 13 votes to 1

Motion carried (CNL/2020/117)”

30        In response to the Council resolution, further work focussed on analysis of the two sites’ suitability to accommodate an auditorium and supporting spaces.  Further business modelling was undertaken by Charcoalblue and formed Phase Three of the Performing Arts Feasibility Study. This is attached as Attachment A.

DISCUSSION

31        The initial consultation with the performing arts community identified a broad, consensus vision. This first phase was completed and endorsed by Council in April 2019.

32        Work to identify viable options for a flexible, mid-sized auditorium and was not completed until December 2020 (partially due to COVID). Communication with the various stakeholders was limited during this period, in part due to commercial sensitivity of some site options.

33        Feedback from the performing arts community as part of the 10 year plan consultation highlighted frustration at the time taken for the various phases combined with the perceived lack of transparency on why certain options were included or excluded.

34        Frustration was also expressed about the lack of specific spaces such as a music venue. Concerts for up to 500 standing (estimated) could take place in either Athenaeum or Mayfair. However, optimal acoustics for theatre productions and music concerts are different.

Suitability of Spaces

Athenaeum

35        Further investigation undertaken by Charcoalblue has confirmed the Athenaeum site as the most viable option in terms of size and location.

36        The Athenaeum would provide a flexible-format space which retains existing heritage features whilst allowing multiple uses, not just as a traditional end-on seating performance space, but also able to be used in many performance modes and as a function/event space available for hire.  House foyers, administration and back of house facilities would be included.

37        The space would operate functionally with an audience of 100 as well as an audience of up to 325.  It would allow multiple use for both professional and amateur theatre and live music at a small to medium scale (estimated 500 standing).

38        Raising the roof would allow the potential to gain space for studios, which helps to deliver closer to the original vision.

Mayfair Theatre

39        Further investigation has confirmed the Mayfair Theatre could also deliver a suitable auditorium, food and beverage and potentially, studio spaces.

Business Model

40        A revised business model for the Athenaeum has been developed including refined revenue and expenditure, a five-year operating model forecast and a profit and loss operating budget.  A high-level review of the Mayfair Theatre business model was undertaken taking into account potential impacts on revenues based on location if it were to be selected.

41        Taking into consideration impacts on revenue in comparison on the Octagon location, the forecast subsidy required for the Mayfair Theatre would be higher than that required for the Athenaeum.

OPTIONs

Option One – Athenaeum (in partnership with Zeal Land Ltd)

42        Zeal Land Ltd would restore the building and undertake the major structural works required to create a shell for theatre.  These works are estimated at $20.0 million at the developer’s cost.

43        The DCC would then enter a long-term lease of the space, with first option of acquiring the building at a future date.

44        Discussions with Zeal Land Ltd have indicted a rental of $1.5 million per annum would be required so the capital outlay can be recovered by the developer.

45        DCC would fund specialist theatre fit out. These works are estimated at $17.1 million.

46        Total annual operating expenditure of $4.6 million.

Advantages

·        Allows for the development of a flexible mid-sized theatre.

·        Potential for studio spaces.

·        Food and beverage provision would be managed by the venue, delivering an additional revenue stream.

·        Opportunity to partner with a developer and for the developer to carry some of the heritage restoration risk.

·        Will support the development of The Octagon and creative precinct.

·        Proximity to Regent Theatre will allow for shared loading access and potential for other shared services.

·        Will support central city (day and night) economy.

·        The site is close to the central city public transport hub.

·        Will enable continued engagement with CNZ with the potential to attract continuing support for professional theatre and for touring work hosted in Dunedin.

·        Proximity to the temporary venue at the community gallery could allow for the creation and development of new work alongside programming opportunities.

·        The flexible fit-out will allow for small to medium scale live music.

Disadvantages

·        Building and land not owned by the DCC (but with first right of purchase).

·        Restoration of a Category 1 heritage building will involve risk to the capital project.

·        Colonial construct of the building will need careful design attention to make it a welcoming space for all.

Option Two – The Mayfair Theatre

47        The Mayfair Theatre would allow for a flexible mid-sized theatre with front and back of house spaces.  There would be potential to convert existing retail spaces for retail, food and beverage and/or smaller studio spaces or for an artists’ hub in the future (not currently budgeted).

48        The Mayfair Theatre is not currently owned or operated by DCC.  However, discussions with the Mayfair Trust have indicated a willingness to consider the sale or gifting of the site.  The Mayfair Trust would also need to relinquish its role as operator if the Mayfair Theatre becomes the location of the new mid-sized theatre.

49        The Mayfair Theatre is a Category 2 Historic Place and is considered of high heritage value.  Protection is required under the 2GP for the King Edward Street façade.

50        DCC would fund capital costs. These works were estimated at $17.5 million but a more recent estimate increases this to $23.1 million.

51        DCC would fund specialist theatre fit out. These works are estimated at $13.7 million.

52        Total annual operating expenditure of $3.7 million.

Advantages

·        Allows for the development of a flexible mid-sized auditorium.

·        Food and beverage provision could be managed by the venue, delivering an additional revenue stream for the facility.

·        Potential for future expansion for additional spaces.

·        Would create a destination venue in South Dunedin which would contribute to the regeneration of South Dunedin.

·        Restoration of a Category 2 heritage building.

·        The site is removed from the central city public transport hub but is connected to bus routes.

·        Will enable continued engagement with CNZ with the potential to attract continuing support for professional theatre and for touring work to be hosted in Dunedin.

Disadvantages

·        The building is currently not owned by the DCC (but the Trust has indicated it is willing to gift or sell).

·        Outside the main Octagon creative precinct.

·        Currently limited night economy when compared to a CBD location which is likely to result in a greater level of subsidy required.

·        The basement and groundwater flooding present risks and would need to be factored into the design.

·        Restoration of a Category 2 heritage building will involve risk to the capital project.

·        Upfront capital costs for DCC with no developer partnership.

Option Three – Re-engage with Performing Arts Stakeholders

53        The findings of Phase One were tested and confirmed in March 2019 with public feedback sessions.  However, given the elapsed time and acknowledging the impact of COVID 19, and the feedback from the 10 year plan, a further re‑engagement with performing arts stakeholders could be undertaken.

54        Funding could be ring-fenced from year 2 of the 10 Year Plan to enable further engagement.

55        Staff would report back on results of the re-engagement in time for the Annual Plan 2022/23.

Advantages

·        Re-engagement with performing arts stakeholders will allow further feedback to be received.

·        Some time has elapsed since Phase One and it may be beneficial to check if assumptions in the Phase One report remain valid.

Disadvantages

·        Potential for reputational risk with the performing arts community feeling that it has already provided feedback.

·        Further delay in future provision for the performing arts ecology.

·        Potential reputational risk with national and local arts funders.

·        Less professional theatre and performing arts activity, including small to medium scale live music will affect the sustainability of the city’s arts and culture ecology, including amateur and professional practitioners, educators, and career pathways.

·        Continued audience erosion for Dunedin communities with little access to live professional performing arts experiences.

NEXT STEPS

56        If the Athenaeum option is progressed, the design and fitout of the project will work alongside the developer’s base build.  Design would take place alongside the developer’s construction phase.

57        If the Mayfair Theatre option is chosen, ownership of the Mayfair Theatre (100 King Edward Street) and associated buildings will be progressed.

58        If further engagement is selected, staff will undertake this work.

59        The governance and management model will be developed.

 

Signatories

Author:

Cara Paterson - Relationship Advisor – Arts and Culture

Authoriser:

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Dunedin Performing Arts Study – Phase Three Report

83

 

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.

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

This decision promotes the 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

 

Professional theatre and the performing arts are a key part of the city’s arts and culture ecology and support delivery of the Ara Toi, Social Wellbeing and Economic Development strategies. The development of a new performing arts centre would also help deliver some of the objectives of the Spatial Plan and the Integrated Transport Strategy.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua are represented on the steering group for the feasibility study.  Consultation has also been undertaken with Māori performing arts practitioners.  The preferred option does not provide enough for a whare haka (a space that would include enough room for kapa haka to perform etc).  Further consideration will be given to how this need can be met, e.g. as part of the wider network of supporting spaces.

Sustainability

Less professional theatre and performing arts activity could affect the sustainability of the city’s arts and culture ecology (including amateur and professional practitioners, educators and career pathways) and short and long term access of Dunedin’s communities and audience to professional theatre.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

At present there is a provisional capital budget of $4.8 million included in the 2026/27 financial year for Sammy’s.

 

For the purposes of consultation, operating costs of $4.6 million and $17.1 million of capital were included in draft 10 Year Plan budgets.

Financial considerations

The capital and operational costs for the venues are summarised in the report.

 

The Charcoalblue feasibility study was joint funded by Creative New Zealand. CNZ contribution was $120,000.  DCC’s contribution was $177,950.

Significance

The report is assessed as being of low significance in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

External engagement has included working with a Project Steering Group with representatives from Stage South, CNZ, mana whenua and DCC.  Detailed discussions have been held with Zeal Land Ltd.  Staff have also had ongoing conversations with the Mayfair Trust.  The project has been informed by discussions with a Project Advisory Group that is made up of key representatives from the Phase One engagement, representing knowledge and expertise from a range of sector constituents to ensure that the project is informed by local participation.  Informal discussions have been held with the Ministry of Culture and Heritage, the National Lottery, and Otago Community Trust.

Engagement - internal

Engagement has taken place with Enterprise Dunedin, City Development, Ara Toi, Property Services, Finance and Corporate Services and Communications and Marketing.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

Various risks for each option are detailed in the report.

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflict of interest.

Community Boards

There are no implications for Community Boards

 

 



Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

 

Shaping Future Dunedin Transport Programme

Department: Transport

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This purpose of this report is to present the feedback received on the Shaping Future Dunedin Transport (SFDT) projects from the 10 Year Plan consultation.

2          Funding for the SFDT projects has been included in the draft 10 year plan 2021-31 budgets.  Council is now asked to decide on which of the six projects, if any, should be retained in the 10 year plan. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Considers the feedback received on ‘moving around our city’ during the 10 Year plan 2021-31 public consultation period.

b)     Decides which of the following projects (if any) from the SFDT programme to retain in the 10 Year Plan 2021-2031.

i)          Harbour Arterial Efficiency Improvements

ii)         Central City Parking Management

iii)        Princes Street Bus Priority and Corridor Safety Plan

iv)       Central Cycle and Pedestrian Improvments

v)        Park and Ride Facilities – Mosgiel and Burnside

vi)       Central City Bike Hubs – Parking and Facilities.

 

BACKGROUND

3          The 10 year plan consultation document, ‘the future of us’, included a section ‘moving around our city’, which detailed six proposed Shaping Future Dunedin Transport projects.  The community was asked to provide feedback on which of the six projects they supported for retention in the 10 year plan 2021-31.  The six projects are as follows:

·        Harbour arterial


 

·        efficiency improvements ($16.6 million)

·        Central city parking management ($9.5 million)

·        Princes Street bus priority and corridor safety plan ($6.4 million)

·        Central cycle and pedestrian improvements ($6.5 million)

·        Park and ride facilities - Mosgiel and Burnside ($9.9 million)

·        Central city bike hubs – parking and facilities ($2.5 million).

4          Further details on each of the projects is provided at Attachment A for Councillors’ information.  This is a repeat of the information that was presented at the 27 January 2021 meeting.

5          The proposed combined projects from SDFT identified the following key benefits for Dunedin:

a)         Minimise travel disruption and maintain city access during 6-8 years of hospital construction by:

i)          improving the Harbour Arterial to provide a reduction in journey time from Andersons Bay Road through to Frederick Street and therefore less traffic and less conflict at the crossing of railway at St Andrew Street.

ii)         improving public transport to achieve a reduction in overall journey time through bus priority on Princes Street, and an increase in bus passengers on routes using Princes Street.

iii)        improving cycling and walking facilities to attract additional people walking and cycling.

b)        Improvements to public transport aligned with a public information campaign and incentives to promote travel behaviour change and minimise disruption from hospital construction.

c)         Provide improved travel options and move the city towards DCC’s Zero Carbon 2030 target by increasing the number of people walking, cycling or taking the bus for the journey to work.

d)        Relocate State Highway (SH) 88 to allow pedestrian focus on St Andrew Street, which is important for the new hospital.

e)        Achieve a significant reduction in deaths and serious injuries on SH 1.

f)         Create additional wellbeing benefits for Dunedin by improving access to active transport modes.

DISCUSSION

6          Council received 770 submissions on ‘moving around our city’.  Facebook polls and Twitter polls were also carried out on each of the six SFDT projects.  A summary of the feedback received for each of the projects, along with the advantages and disadvantages for each is provided below.


 

Harbour arterial efficiency improvements

7          The harbour arterial efficiency improvements project involves completion of the harbour arterial route so traffic has an alternative route which bypasses the central city.

8          The table below shows the feedback received on this project. 

Harbour arterial efficiency improvements

Yes

No

Blank

Total

Submissions

1,245
69%

523
29%

36
2%

1,804

Facebook poll (votes)

1,368
76%

432
24%

-

1,800

Twitter poll (votes)

59
87%

9
13%

-

68

 

9          Submitters were generally supportive of the harbour arterial improvements as they were seen to remove heavy vehicles from the CBD, reduce congestion and greenhouse gas emissions, and address safety issues. A number of submitters commented that the harbour arterial route already exists.  Many people were concerned about the impact on Frederick St.

10        Council is asked to consider the feedback received and decide if the harbour arterial efficiency improvements project is to be retained in the 10 Year Plan 2021-2031.  The advantages and disadvantages of including this project in plan are set out below.

Advantages of retaining in our plan

·        Reduced disruption during construction of the new Dunedin Hospital, which is expected to affect traffic on SH 1 in the central city.

·        Improved alternative route for freight/traffic bypassing the central city, the hospital site and the rail level crossing, resulting in more efficient and reliable travel times.

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

Disadvantages of retaining in the plan

·        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.

·        Potential increase in severance along the harbour arterial route between the central city and the waterfront.

Central city parking management

11        The central city parking management project provides ways to help motorists find parking places and uses improved technology to make it easier to manage parking.

12        The table below shows the feedback received on this project. 

Central city parking management

Yes

No

Blank

Total

Submissions

1,117
61%

677
37%

37
2%

1,831

Facebook poll (votes)

583
79%

155
21%

-

738

Twitter poll (votes)

71
81%

17
19%

-

88

 

13        There were 169 comments that more inner-city parking is required, with many submitters wanting more parking buildings to be built.  A further 53 submissions commented on the need for adequate parking for the new Dunedin hospital. 30 submissions were opposed to the provision of more parking in the central city.

14        There were 80 comments on the removal of car parking in the city.  62 submissions opposed the removal of parking and 18 were in favour. There were 38 comments on the price of parking, with 32 submitters wanting free or cheaper parking. 

15        Early work on a Dunedin Parking Roadmap (The Roadmap) informed the scope of the SFDT Parking Management workstream.  The Roadmap, which has now been finalised, provides an analysis of the current state of parking supply and management in Dunedin and provides a number of recommendations to help address identified issues. 

16        The Roadmap is included as Attachment B. The key recommendation from the Roadmap is to develop a Parking Management Policy that will guide the supply and management of the city’s parking to ensure it meets community needs, it aligns with Council’s strategic objectives and supports businesses and visitors to the city. 

17        Council is asked to consider the feedback received and decide if the central city parking management project is to be retained in the 10 Year Plan 2021-2031.  The advantages and disadvantages of including this project in plan are set out below.

Advantages of retaining in our plan

·        Establishes a transparent, hierarchy based, approach to managing parking, that is aligned with Waka Kotahi’s parking management guidance.

·        Uses technology to improve the utilisation of the existing supply of parking in Dunedin.

·        Improved quality of data and information gathered on parking, which will enable meaningful dialogue with residents to inform future parking decisions.

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

·        Contributes to Council’s goal of 40% active mode share by 2024, from the Integrated Transport Strategy 2013.

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

Disadvantages of retaining in our plan

·        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.

18        If Council retain the central parking management project in the 10 Year Plan 2021-31, next steps would include:

a)         Develop project plans for the Parking Management Policy, Parking Wayfinding System, Parking System for Payment and Enforcement, Parking Plan and Monitoring, and Off-Street Parking Supply projects.

b)        Begin engagement with the community and key stakeholders on the aspects of each of these projects.

c)         Include the various projects in the Forward Work Programme and report progress to the Infrastructure Services Committee.

Princes Street bus priority and corridor safety plan

19        The Princes Street bus priority and corridor safety plan project involves providing bus priority at the intersections where bus delays are currently experienced. 

20        The table below shows the feedback received on this project. 

Princes St bus priority and corridor safety plan

Yes

No

Blank

Total

Submissions

861
48%

915
51%

18
1%

1,794

Facebook poll (votes)

2,640
55%

2,160
45%

-

4,800

Twitter poll (votes)

71
69%

32
31%

-

103

 

21        The feedback received on this project was divided.  Many submitters commented that they did not understand the need for bus lanes along the whole length of Princes Street particularly in the narrow section from The Exchange to Moray Place.  Submitters noted that the provision of bus priority lanes would result in a loss of parking. 

22        The consultation document indicated that this project would involve a separate bus lane along Princes Street, from South Road to Manse Street and then to Moray Place.  The focus of this project is to provide bus priority at the intersections where bus delays are currently experienced. This need not include bus lanes between the intersections but could include clearways.  If Council decides that this project should be retained in the 10 year plan, the scope and type of any intervention provided to support bus movement in this corridor would be canvassed as part of the next stage of the project.

23        Council is asked to consider the feedback received and decide if the Princes St bus priority and corridor safety plan project is to be retained in the 10 Year Plan 2021-2031.  The advantages and disadvantages of retaining this project in plan are set out below.

Advantages of retaining in our plan

·        Helps to manage disruption during construction of the new Dunedin Hospital, which is expected to affect traffic on SH 1 in the central city.

·        Improved safety and accessibility for all road users, particularly pedestrians crossing Princes Street, enabling better access to/between the Warehouse Precinct, Creative Precinct, and the sports facilities at the Oval.

·        Improved reliability for the bus travel times, leading to increased attractiveness of public transport.

·        Improved connection of the southern cycle route to the central city, and the city’s active transport network.

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

·        Contributes to Council’s goal of 40% active mode share by 2024, from the Integrated Transport Strategy 2013.

·        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. 

Disadvantages of retaining in our plan

·        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.

·        Improvements for public transport, safety and accessibility along the corridor may impact travel times, parking inventory and intersection levels of service for private motor vehicles.

·        Ongoing costs to operate and maintain the new infrastructure.

Central cycle and pedestrian movements

24        The central cycle and pedestrian movements project includes filling gaps in the central cycle network, and linking the harbour to the city centre.

25        The table below shows the feedback received on this project. 

Central cycle and pedestrian movements

Yes

No

Blank

Total

Submissions

1,128
61%

721
39%

-

1,849

Facebook poll (votes)

596
74%

210
26%

-

806

Twitter poll (votes)

46
84%

9
16%

-

55

 

26        Comments on cycle and pedestrian improvements were mostly unspecific to the proposed sites but feedback was provided more generally.  There were 140 comments supporting the project as it also supported DCC’s net carbon zero goals.  There were 110 comments about seeing the city transformed to reduce the use of cars, especially in the CBD.  Many commented on the poor safety of existing cycle infrastructure or wanted routes outside the core CBD which connect communities to the CBD. 

27        There were 66 comments received that did not support improvements to walking and cycling because they are seen as a threat to parking.  Some did not support improvements because they perceived Dunedin as unsuitable for cycling.  There were 39 comments wanting separation between people walking and scooters and cycling, and better accessibility to the central city

28        Council is asked to consider the feedback received and decide if the central cycle and pedestrian improvements project is to be retained in the 10 Year Plan 2021-2031.  The advantages and disadvantages of retaining this project in plan are set out below.

Advantages of retaining in our plan

·        Creates more safe routes for walking and cycling within the CBD, encouraging greater uptake of low carbon modes.

·        Improved safety and access to the central city for people with mobility impairments through a targeted increase in footpath levels of service and accessible crossings.

·        Improved connectivity for the city’s cycle network by connecting the harbour cycleway to the SH1 cycle ways and key destinations such as the University, Polytechnic and central city.

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

·        Contributes to Council’s goal of 40% active mode share by 2024, from the Integrated Transport Strategy 2013.

·        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. 

Disadvantages of retaining in our plan

·        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.

Park and ride facilities – Mosgiel and Burnside

29        The park and ride facilities project involves providing parking at Mosgiel and Burnside, so commuters can take an express bus into the city.

30        The table below shows the feedback received on this project. 

Park and ride facilities

Yes

No

Blank

Total

Submissions

1,125
62%

671
37%

18
1%

1,814

Facebook poll (votes)

781
71%

319
29%

-

1,100

Twitter poll (votes)

91
86%

15
14%

-

106

 

31        Many submitters commented that they support park and ride facilities as they would help to keep cars out of the central city.

32        Park and rides facilities were thought to be an appropriate measure if there is to be no increase to parking in the central city. Others felt they needed more information about the project, and associated service improvements to public transport.

33        There were 26 comments showing support for more facilities in different locations, e.g. North Dunedin, and noted that it is important that any park and rides are connected to fast and frequent bus services. Around 60 submitters commented that the Park and Ride is not needed as people can already take the bus all the way or because they think it would not be used. Some submitters also wanted it to be future proofed for commuter rail services.

34        Council is asked to consider the feedback received and decide if the park and ride project is to be retained in the 10 Year Plan 2021-2031.  The advantages and disadvantages of retaining this project in plan are set out below.

Advantages of retaining in our plan

·        Enables better access to high frequency public transport services contributing to increased public transport usage.

·        Future proofs parking provision for possible future commuter rail services, particularly in Mosgiel.

·        Contributes to multi-modal access by connecting car parking and bike parking with public transport.

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

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

·        Contributes to Council’s goal of 40% active mode share by 2024, from the Integrated Transport Strategy 2013.

·        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. 

Disadvantages of retaining in our plan

·        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.

·        This project relies on ORC to deliver an attractive high frequency public transport to achieve the benefits.

·        The attractiveness of vehicle travel times between Mosgiel and Dunedin may continue to compete with the attractiveness of a high frequency public transport route.

Central city bike hubs – parking and facilities

35        The central city bike hubs project includes installing hubs where bikes can be securely stored.

36        The table below shows the feedback received on this project. 

 

Central city bike hubs – parking and facilities

Yes

No

Blank

Total

Submissions

1,063
54%

768
39%

138
7%

1,969

Facebook poll (votes)

1,464
61%

936
39%

-

2,400

Twitter poll (votes)

113
85%

20
15%

-

133

 

37        Comments on bike hubs in the city were split. Three people thought that these were unnecessary and seven commented that they should be provided privately. There were 22 comments that secure parking was important to encourage more cycling and 22 comments sought greater bike parking generally and hubs in other locations as well as the CBD.

38        Council is asked to consider the feedback received and decide if the central city bike hubs project is to be retained in the 10 Year Plan 2021-2031.  The advantages and disadvantages of retaining this project in plan are set out below.

Advantages of retaining in our plan

·        Provision of safe, secure, quality bike parking is expected to reduce the barriers to increased use of cycling as a mode of transport, and supports workplace travel planning initiatives for central city businesses.

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

·        Contributes to Council’s goal of 40% active mode share by 2024, from the Integrated Transport Strategy 2013.

·        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. 

Disadvantages of retaining in our plan

·        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.

General feedback on ‘Moving around the city’

39        General feedback on moving around the city included the following.

40        There were 77 comments supporting the DCC to act on its climate change goals.  214 comments supported being ambitious about changing our current transport system to a more sustainable one involving walking, cycling and public transport, while 32 comments opposed this.  There were 24 comments supporting EV infrastructure

41        Around 169 submitters were of the view that the city needs to be easy to navigate by car, and have an increased number of parking places, while 30 opposed this.  There were 59 comments supporting better traffic flows, and 13 opposed this.  There were 58 comments that cycling facilities particularly are not needed as they are not being used or are taking up too much space.

42        There were 16 submissions expressing support for regional cycle trails such as a trail connecting our northern coastal communities and wider Taieri Plains communities to the central city. In addition, around 89 submissions supported the Tunnels Trail between Dunedin and Mosgiel.  60 comments supported commuter rail and 11 supported and re-introducing trams or cable cars to Dunedin.

Interrelationships/interdependencies

43        The Connecting Dunedin partners have worked together to develop the SFDT programme.

44        There are a number of other projects that are part of the SFDT Programme and hold interdependencies with the DCC SFDT projects. These include:

a)         Otago Regional Council (ORC) projects

i)          Frequency and fare review of Dunedin based Public Transport services, followed by ongoing improvements to frequencies, fares and infrastructure over time.

ii)         Bus hub and super-stop upgrades, including real time passenger information.

iii)        ORC will also work with DCC on Princes Street bus priority and corridor safety plan and Park and Ride – Mosgiel and Burnside, to ensure that priority measures are focused where buses need them and to connect Park and Ride facilities to the bus network.

b)        Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (Waka Kotahi) projects

i)          Investigate relocating SH 88 from Anzac Avenue and St Andrew Street to Frederick Street to allow a pedestrian focus between the new hospital blocks.

ii)         SH 1 short term safety, connectivity, parking and amenity improvements (Safer Speeds programme and New Dunedin Hospital collaboration) on the Cumberland Street block facing the City Centre.

iii)        Pine Hill intersection upgrade (Safe Networks Programme).

iv)       Queens Gardens to Oval cycleway SH 1 cycleway extension (with DCC).

v)        Revisit SH 1 one-way/two-way decision (in 2024 to 2027 if necessary).

 

OPTIONS

45        There are no options.

NEXT STEPS

46        The 10 year plan will be amended to reflect the decisions of Council on the six SFDT projects.

47        If any of the projects are approved for the 10 year plan, the planning phases of the approved projects will be finalised, including engaging with the community and key stakeholders on the aspects of each project to be delivered.

 

Signatories

Author:

Stacey Hitchcock - Transport Planner

Nick Sargent - Transport Strategy Manager

Authoriser:

Jeanine Benson - Group Manager Transport

Simon Drew - General Manager Infrastructure & Development

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

SFDT Programme scope documents

115

b

Dunedin Parking Road Map

127

 

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 for the future.

This decision promotes the environmental 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 were involved in early SFDT workshops and received verbal updates on progress of the SFDT programme.  Mana whenua will continue to 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 capital expenditure requirements for the programme have been included in the draft capital budgets for the 10 year plan 2021–31. It has also been put forward for the Regional Land Transport Plan currently under development, and will be considered for the National Land Transport Programme.

Financial considerations

This report includes estimated capital expenditure required for each project.

Significance

The decision is considered high in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.  The decision will be part of the 10 year plan 2021 – 31.

Engagement – external

In addition to the 10 Year Plan consultation, 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 and Policy departments, with representatives attending workshops.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There is no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The majority of the proposed DCC projects are not within Community Board areas. Where a project is in a Community Board area, appropriate consultation will be undertaken.  

 

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

 

The Future of Dunedin Railways

Department: Enterprise Dunedin and Executive Leadership Team

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report provides options regarding the continuation of Dunedin Railways Ltd (DRL) operational services for 2021/22.

2          Analysis of options for services beyond 2021/22 will be undertaken to allow for formal public consultation as part of the 2022/23 Annual Plan.

3          The report includes financing options for Council to consider as no funding has been provided for in the draft 10 Year Plan 2021/31.

4          Support has been offered to the Otago Central Rail Trust (OCRT) to seek funding for feasibility work on possible extensions to the Otago Central Rail trail between Middlemarch and Wingatui in collaboration with mana whenua and other interested parties. This will also be included in the planned analysis.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the initial staff feedback on strategic and financial implications of retaining Dunedin Railways Ltd services in city ownership as requested by Council on 13 April 2021.

b)     Confirms the recommended option for Dunedin Railways Ltd operational services to include the KiwiRail national rail network and the Taieri Gorge service to Hindon for 2021/22. 

c)     Directs DCHL fund the 2021/22 Dunedin Railways Ltd service based on the recommended option of providing a service using the national rail network and the Taieri Gorge line to Hindon.

d)     Notes Council will support the Otago Central Rail Trust to seek funding for feasibility work on possible extensions to the Otago Central Rail trail between Middlemarch and Wingatui in collaboration with mana whenua and other interested parties.

 

BACKGROUND

5          DRL was incorporated in 1995 with the purpose of continuing excursion trains on the Taieri Gorge Railway. The company was jointly owned by DCHL (72%) and the Otago Excursion Train Trust (OETT) (28%). OETT sold the 28% shareholding to DCHL in April 2020. 

6          In recent years DRL has operated tourist rail services to various points along the Taieri Gorge as well as the “Seasider” services travelling north along the coast on the KiwiRail national rail network. Cruise ship passengers were provided with a specific shore excursion product which collected passengers from Port Otago directly for a journey on the Taieri Gorge. These excursions helped offset the fixed costs of running Taieri Gorge line and provided positive cash flow to the business.

7          Covid-19 reduced revenue earning opportunities for DRL from early 2020 due to the loss of the visitor market including cruise. Early analysis undertaken in March 2020 indicated an economic impact of between $6.9 - $7.9M on GDP from a loss of visitors undertaking rail excursions.

8          In April 2020 Council agreed to provide up to $1.05m to allow for assets to be retained and possible options considered for future services (CNL/2020/060). This funding was provided as “hibernation” costs.

9          On 10 November 2020 Council agreed to underwrite a summer experience service to DCHL of up to $65,000 per month during the 2020/21 summer season. This service was subsequently referred to as a Summer of Trains not Planes (CNL/2020/097) and was operated by Dunedin Venues Management Ltd (DVML).

discussion

10        On 13 April 2021 Council received a report from Dunedin City Holdings “Future Options for Dunedin Railways Ltd” and resolved as follows:

“Moved (Mayor Aaron Hawkins/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

 

a)         Requests a report for the Ten Year Plan deliberation meeting that includes:

 

a)             i) Staff analysis of the financial and strategic implications of retaining a train operation in city ownership using either:

-           The national rail network only (Option 3) or

-           The national rail network and the Taieri Gorge line (Option 4).

 

ii)         the implications of maintaining the existing arrangements until June 30 2022,           allowing for formal public consultation on future options through the Annual     Plan 2022/23 process.

 

b)        Supports the Otago Central Rail Trust to seek funding for feasibility work on possible extensions to the Otago Central Rail trail between Middlemarch and Wingatui in collaboration with mana whenua and other interested parties.

 


 

Division

 

The Council voted by division:

 

For:                 Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mike Lord, Jim O'Malley, Jules Radich, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (14).

Against:       Cr Lee Vandervis (1).

Abstained: Nil

 

The division was declared CARRIED by 14 votes to 1

 

     Motion carried (CNL/2021/062)

 

11        Work on the analysis of strategic and financial implications has begun and will be completed during 2021/22. The analysis includes looking at rail options in conjunction with possible cycleway extensions to the Otago Central Rail trail between Middlemarch and Wingatui.

Funding options

12        No funding was included in the 10 Year plan 2021-31 to support continued operations of DRL.

13        The following options for 2021/22 have been considered as part of this report:

·        DCC rates funded operational grant to DRL which would have no impact on operating surplus for Council but would result in Council exceeding its self-imposed rates increase limit;

·        DCC debt funded operational grant to DRL which would impact the operating result of Council and increase the level of debt;

·        DCC debt funded equity injection to DCHL resulting in increased level of debt for Council;

·        DCHL funds the cost through debt and/or revenue resulting in no financial impact on Council.

14        The recommended option is to instruct DCHL to fund the 2021/22 costs through debt and/or revenue resulting in no financial impact on DCC. The mechanism for doing this will be delivered by DCHL and reported back to Council.

15        DVML estimates $250k revenue will be generated from ticket sales across the two options during 2021/22. This could increase over time once borders re-open.


 

The following table provides service options and costs prepared in conjunction with DCHL and DVML

(CNL/2021/062) Resolution

Cost

Proposed service

Option 3

 

Retain a train operation in city ownership, using KiwiRail’s national rail network only

 

 

Up to $1.579 million

 

 

Decisions on destination, scheduling and timetables are currently being worked through with DCHL and DVML and will be subject to agreement with KiwiRail. As an indication the 2021/22 programme could include:

 

Winter season of 1-2 services per month. Services would be based around events/charters rather than regular services.

 

Summer season of ~3 services per week, spread over 2 days. Likely to be made up of Sunday services to Waitati, as per Trains Not Planes, plus a Saturday service to a third destination.

 

 

 

Option 4

 

Retain a train operation in city ownership, using both the national rail network and the Taieri Gorge line.

 

(Recommended option)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Up to $2.119 million

 

 

This includes option 3 above plus travel on the Taieri Gorge line as far as Hindon (as per Trains not Planes summer initiative).

 

The cost is made up of $1.579m as per Option 3, plus an additional $540k of Taieri Gorge line renewals and maintenance. This cost represents the critical Year 1 spend of the 10-year programme included in the April 2021 paper to Council, for the stretch of track between the 4km peg and Hindon.

 

Full Year 1 renewals and maintenance costs for this stretch of track is $688k. Up to $148k can be deferred from Year 1 but would need to be addressed later within the 10-year programme should Council subsequently choose to retain the Taieri Gorge line under Option 4. 

 

This option assumes no investment is made in the stretch of track between Hindon and Middlemarch over FY2022.

 

 

DCHL have indicated that for 2021/22 there is no option for a service to Middlemarch due to the time that would be required to undertake maintenance requirements.

$698k was estimated for work required to be undertaken from Hindon to Middlemarch.

 

Additional Support

16        Initial support has been offered to OCRT to seek funding for feasibility work on possible extensions to the Otago Central Rail trail between Middlemarch and Wingatui in collaboration with mana whenua and other interested parties.

17        Interest has been expressed by OETT in operating future services which will form part of the stakeholder engagement for identifying future options for Council to consider.

OPTIONS

18        The shortlisted options have been presented below. Each option is based on DCHL funding 2021/22 costs through debt and/ or revenue.

Option One – KiwiRail network only for 2021/22

19        Council confirms the scope of DRL services to the KiwiRail network only for 2021/22.

Advantages

·   Supports the continuation of short-term operations by DRL and services similar to Seasider and Trains not Planes Summer initiative;

·   Allows for consultation with community and stakeholders while further analysis is undertaken on options;

·   Gives time to understand the future of tourism and the longer-term impact of Covid-19 on the visitor market including cruise as part of analysis in advance of 2022/23 Annual Plan;

·   Supports the wider offering of tourism service within the city;

·   Reduced maintenance required.

Disadvantages

·   Operations and service limited and dependent on access to KiwiRail network;

·   Defers investment on the Taieri Gorge line resulting in potential increased cost and time of track reinstatement should operations be recommenced in future years.

Option Two – KiwiRail and Taieri Gorge to Hindon network for 2021/22 (recommended option)

20        Council confirms the scope of DRL services to the KiwiRail network and Taieri Gorge to Hindon for 2021/22.

21        The funding of the provision of this service will be determined by DCHL.

Advantages

·   Supports the continuation of short-term operations by DRL and services similar to Seasider and Trains Not Planes Summer initiative;

·   Allows for consultation with community and stakeholders while further analysis is undertaken on options;

·   Gives time to understand the future of tourism and the longer-term impact of Covid-19 on the visitor market including cruise as part of analysis in advance of 2022/23 Annual Plan;

·   Maintains investment on the Taieri Gorge line and assets to Hindon;

·   Supports the wider offering of tourism service within the city;

·   Supplies an additional shorter journey alternative on the Taieri Gorge Line to Hindon for customers;

Disadvantages

·   Operations and service limited to KiwiRail network and Taieri Gorge to Hindon;

·   No service available beyond Hindon on the Taieri Gorge Line;

·   Additional cost required for maintenance on track to Hindon.

NEXT STEPS

22        Once Council confirms its preferred option, the Chief Executive Officer will inform the DCHL board of Council’s decision.

23        Staff will continue with the financial and strategic analysis on options three and four in conjunction with DCHL, OCRT, mana whenua and stakeholders.

24        The item will be added to the Council work program and changes will be reported there including when the financial and strategic analysis report will be presented to Council. This will be in advance of consultation on the Draft 2022/23 Annual Plan.

25        Staff will continue to support OCRT to seek funding for feasibility work on possible extensions to the Otago Central Rail trail between Middlemarch and Wingatui in collaboration with mana whenua and other interested parties.  Progress on these matters will be reported back to Council.

Signatories

Author:

John Christie - Manager Enterprise Dunedin

Gavin Logie - Chief Financial Officer

Authoriser:

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 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 operation of Dunedin Railways Limited and its assets contribute to the city’s economic development strategy theme “compelling destination” through the tourism service it provides. DRL operations also contribute to the Social Wellbeing strategy by supporting stronger communities.

Māori Impact Statement

Options for the future of Dunedin Railways including possible extensions to the Otago Central Rail Trail between Middlemarch and Wingatui will be undertaken in collaboration with mana whenua and other interested parties.

Sustainability

There is no known impact on sustainability.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

No funding has been included in the 10 Year plan 2021-31 to support continued operations of Dunedin Railways Limited.

Financial considerations

Financial support for Dunedin Railways Limited has not been included in the draft 10 Year Plan 2021-2031.

Significance

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

Engagement – external

The options report has been prepared in discussion with Dunedin City Holdings Limited with input from Dunedin Venues Management Limited. Initial discussion has also been held with Otago Central Rail Trail Trust and Otago Excursion Train Trust.

Engagement - internal

There has been internal engagement with Enterprise Dunedin and Finance on this options report.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The risks associated with the various options are detailed in the attached report.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Any decision on the future of Dunedin Railways Limited will be of interest to Mosgiel-Taieri, Strath Taieri and Waikouaiti Coast Community Boards.

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

 

New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame: Update

Department: Executive Leadership Team

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The report provides an update on the work to identify the future location of the New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame (NZSHF).

2          Recreation, Sport and Leisure Consultancy (RSL) has undertaken an initial assessment of the potential options for the future location of the NZSHF. This work has been commissioned by the NZSHF Project Steering Group (PSG) and funded by Sports New Zealand. However, the work is not yet complete.

3          RSL are currently preparing a report to the PSG which will recommend that an Expression of Interest (EOI) process be undertaken as the next phase.

4          Through this EOI process Council would have the opportunity to indicate willingness to take over operation of the NZSHF as part of the existing suite of cultural facilities. However, there is no operational or capital funding currently included in the 10 year plan.

5          Council could respond to the EOI with a commitment of funding from 2022/23 but would need to consider what support could be provided to NZSHF until 1 July 2022.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Decides whether to express formal interest in taking over operation of NZSHF noting that operational and capital costs are currently unbudgeted.

b)     Considers what support (if any) to provide to NZSHF in 2021/22.

 

BACKGROUND

6          In December 2020 Council requested a staff report on options and costs to integrate the NZSHF into the Ara Toi Group. Council also resolved to underwrite the NZSHF up to $50k to ensure the facility remain open until June 2021. NZSHF has indicated it will draw down this funding before 30 June 2021.

7          In January 2021 Council considered a report which outlined the operational and capital costs to integrate the NZSHF into the Ara Toi Group. The report included the findings from Manuireva Consulting who had been commissioned by NZSHF and funded by Sports New Zealand to look at the future sustainability of NZSHF (the Manuireva report has not been attached but is linked here).

8          In January 2021 the NZSHF Board set up a Project Steering Group (PSG) to consider future options.  Sports New Zealand agreed to fund a further piece of work which would provide an objective assessment of the potential location options for NZSHF.

9          Recreation, Sport and Leisure Consultancy (RSL) was commissioned to undertake this work and report back to the PSG.  The PSG has been delegated to make the final decision on the future of NZSHF.

10        On 27 January 2021, Council resolved to delay any decision of any future support of NZSHF until this work was complete:

“Moved (Cr Sophie Barker/Cr Chris Staynes):

That the Council:

a)        Delay a decision on any future support for the NZ Sports Hall of Fame until the Recreation, Sports and Leisure (RSL) report has been completed.

Motion carried (CNL/2021/026)”

11        This report provides an update on progress of the RSL work and options for support of NZSHF.

DISCUSSION

12        RSL has completed an initial assessment of the potential options for the future location of the NZSHF but a final site has not been identified.

13        RSL is currently preparing a report to the PSG which will recommend that an Expression of Interest (EOI) process be undertaken as the next phase.  The EOI is expected to occur in June/July 2021.

14        Council could submit an EOI as part of the process (noting however, as the 27 January 2021 report to Council indicated, there is no operational or capital funding included in the draft 10 Year Plan).

15        An EOI would commit capital ($650k exhibition redevelopment as a one-off cost) and operational costs ($630k per annum) from 2022/23. These costs have been developed based on the needs identified in the Manuireva Consulting report to ensure the NZSHF becomes a sustainable visitor attraction.  These have been benchmarked against other Ara Toi cultural facilities.

16        If Council wishes to respond to the EOI, it would also need to decide if and how it wishes to support the NZSHF until 1 July 2022. NZSHF has indicated it would require an underwrite of up to $100k to remain operating until 1 July 2022. NZSHF would consider ‘hibernating’ for this period if funding were not available.

Economic Impact of NZSHF

17        Research into the economic impact of the NZSHF has not been feasible. However, visitor numbers are currently relatively small and have been adversely affected by reduced international tourism.

18        Annual visitor numbers have been declining since 2016/17 when visitor numbers were 10,254 to 2018/19 when they were 8,741.

19        In March 2020 Council staff worked with the NZSHF and developed a brief survey for visitors to the NZSHF aimed at establishing who was visiting the attraction, where they had come from and, if visitors to Dunedin, whether they had come specifically to visit NZSHF, or had encountered the facility as part of a general visitor to the Railway Station building.  The COVID lockdown cut short this survey, resulting in low level of responses making the results not statistically reliable.  However, they are included below for noting.

20        The survey was undertaken from 9 to 21 March 2021:

Number of responses

63

Visitors from NZ

13 (1 from Dunedin)

Visitors from Australia

20

Came specifically to visit NZSHF

6 (9.5%)

Discovered NZSHF as part of a visit to the Railway Station

55 (87%)

Did not answer the question about visit motivation

2 (3%)

Visitor nights in Dunedin by people who specifically come to NZSHF

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

21        There are two decisions required of Council. The first relates to the EOI and the other to the level of support offered to NZSHF until a final location has been identified.

OPTIONS

Decision 1

Option One – Express interest in forthcoming EOI process and integrate NZSHF as a new visitor facility operated by DCC from 2022/23

22        This option involves expressing formal interest in taking over operation of the NZSHF as a new visitor facility from 2022/23 similar in structure to other DCC cultural facilities.  The NZSHF would benefit from the full range of support services including IT, Human Resources, Finance, Marketing and Communications.

Advantages

·        NZSHF would remain in Dunedin as a visitor attraction.

Disadvantages

·        Annual operational subsidy of $628,000.

·        An initial capital cost of $650,000 to refresh the permanent exhibition.

·        Council would need to employ an additional FTE (possibly up to 4.5)

·        Council would assume long term responsibility for collection care and management.

·        Considerable uncertainty about the economic benefit and viability of NZSHF as an ongoing visitor attraction.

Option Two – Do not respond to the EOI process

23        This Option would involve not expressing interest in further support for the NZSHF.

Advantages

·        No additional budget required.

Disadvantages

·        NZSHF would either move from the city or would cease operation.

Decision 2

Option One – Provide interim support for 2021/22

24        Council could decide to support the NZSHF until a decision is made about the final location. NZSHF has indicated it would require up to $100k to remain in operation for 2021/22.

Advantages

·        NZSHF would remain in Dunedin as a visitor attraction.

Disadvantages

·        Not budgeted in draft 10 year plan

Option Two – Do not provide interim support for 2021/22

25        Council could decide not to support the NZSHF until a decision is made about the final location. NZSHF has indicated it consider ‘hibernation’ if funding were not available.

Advantages

·        No additional budget required.

Disadvantages

·        NZSHF would remain in Dunedin as a visitor attraction.

NEXT STEPS

26        If Council resolves to express interest in taking over the NZSHF, staff will respond to the forthcoming EOI and provide an update to Council via the Community and Culture Committee.

27        If Council resolves to provide support for 2021/22, staff will advise the NZSHF.

Signatories

Author:

Simon Pickford - General Manager Community Services

 

Authoriser:

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 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

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for tangata whenua.

Sustainability

The report discusses the economic sustainability of the NZSHF.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

At present there is a provisional budget for the NZSHF Property Arrangement Grant of $46,800.

Financial considerations

The capital and operational costs are covered in the report.  Options One is currently unbudgeted

Significance

This decision is considered to be low in terms of the Significance and Engagement Policy.

Engagement – external

Discussions have been held with the NZSHF and Sports New Zealand.

Engagement - internal

Discussions have been held with staff from Ara Toi, Enterprise Dunedin and Property.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

The Manuireva report highlights the greatest risk to NZSHF is remaining as a standalone attraction.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no known implications for Community Boards.

 

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

 

Waterfront Bridge

Department: Executive Leadership Team and Project Management Office

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The purpose of this report is to update Council on the Waterfront Bridge project following the Council resolution in December 2020 that staff should 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.

2          Since December 2020, staff have worked primarily with mana whenua to review the scope of the project and revisit project objectives to include mana whenua values. Discussions with mana whenua have provided a strong foundation to progress further engagement with relevant stakeholders and the wider community.

3          The next steps for the project include continued engagement with mana whenua to progress a more ‘joined up’ approach from a cultural narrative perspective and across DCC projects. This could include integrating the bridge, works in Queens Gardens, Exchange Square and Rattray St to link them together using a cultural narrative approach. Wider engagement with relevant stakeholders and the broader community will also be progressed. Such communities may include cycling and outdoor activity groups, schools, water sports and Dunedin’s creative communities.

4          An updated project management plan informed by mana whenua cultural values and relevant stakeholder and community aspirations for the city will be developed and reported to the Planning and Environment Committee in November 2021.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Notes the Waterfront Bridge update report and the next steps for this project.

 

BACKGROUND

5          The Council consulted the community on 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.

6          In May 2018 the Council secured broader 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.

7          The business case was completed in May 2020 and focussed on improving connectivity between the city and the waterfront, regardless of whether the broader vision for the revitalisation of the waterfront progressed.

8          The business case identified that the City to Waterfront bridge would realise strategic links in the pedestrian/cycling network and lead to health and safety benefits and road traffic reduction. The bridge also aims to provide easier access to the waterfront, encourage residents and visitors to connect with the harbour with the potential to sustain further development.

9          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 pause the waterfront revitalisation project and decline the PGF grant.

10        Work on the bridge was put on hold with staff continuing to progress aspects of design, the business case and consenting processes as far as was practicable.

11        On 14 December 2020 an update was reported to Council for noting.

“Moved (Cr David Benson-Pope/Cr Steve Walker):

That the Council:

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.

Division

The Council voted by division:

For:    Crs Sophie Barker, David Benson-Pope, Rachel Elder, Christine Garey, Doug Hall, Carmen Houlahan, Marie Laufiso, Mike Lord, Jim O'Malley, Jules Radich, Chris Staynes, Steve Walker, Andrew Whiley and Mayor Aaron Hawkins (14).

Motion carried (CNL/2020/120) with Cr Lee Vandervis recording his vote against.”

12        From December 2020, staff have had ongoing engagement with mana whenua to discuss the original scope of the project, to revisit the project objectives and to ensure that the scope of the project includes mana whenua cultural values. These discussions have enabled staff to restart the process of engagement and develop a more effective working relationship with mana whenua.

13        Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu were involved as key strategic partners in the Dunedin waterfront revitalisation project, however local Rūnaka were not directly involved. In particular, local rūnaka were not involved in the original bridge design. Mana whenua have indicated that they wish to partner with the DCC to revisit the design of the bridge and explore opportunities through art, sculpture and creative narratives that reconnect the city and harbour with a view to further creating inner-city vibrancy.

14        Broader stakeholder engagement occurred during the development of the Dunedin to City waterfront connection business case process. However, it is anticipated that stakeholder and wider community engagement will follow as a next step now that a strong mana whenua relationship has been established in this project.

15        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.

16        In 2020 staff, mana whenua, Aukaha and Architecture van Brandenburg had initial discussions relating to the waterfront and how the bridge design might be developed to better reflect mana whenua values.

17        In 2021 discussions with Architecture van Brandenburg occurred and further engagement is required to develop a way forward that considers mana whenua desire to work in partnership with the DCC and revisit the design of the bridge.

Funding

18        Funding of $20m was earmarked for the Bridge in the 10 Year Plan 2018-28 and has been retained in the capital budget for the current draft 10 year plan from 2024/25 to 2027/28. The capital expenditure programme for the City to Waterfront Bridge connection is outlined below. 

Capital Project

2024/25
$000

2025/26
$000

2026-2027
$000

2027-2028

$000

10 Year Total

$000

City to Waterfront Connection

$750


$7,125

$9,625

$2,500

 

$20,000

No OPTIONS

18        There are no options as this report is for noting only.

NEXT STEPS

19        Further opportunities around partnership with mana whenua will focus on the value of progressing a more ‘joined up’ approach from a cultural narrative point of view and in relation to DCC projects in the Central City Plan. This could include integrating the bridge, works in Queens Gardens, Exchange Square and Rattray St to link them together using a cultural narrative approach. In addition, with the upcoming Kai Tahu work on the ACC building site, there is an opportunity for a broader design partnership than just the waterfront bridge.

20        Staff will also engage more broadly with stakeholders. In 2019, the key stakeholders included Kāi Tahu, Port Otago, Otago Regional Council, NZTA, KiwiRail, Chinese Garden Trust, owners and lessees of Cumberland Street retail businesses and building owners in the area. Staff will look to re-engage with these stakeholders, but engagement with a wider community focus will also occur and could include community cycling and outdoor activity groups, the Dunedin creative and business communities, schools, water sports and water safety organisations.

21        This broader community engagement will be important in the next phase of the Waterfront bridge development to ensure city wide aspirations are met. Such aspirations include enhancing the pedestrian and cycling network, reducing road traffic; cultural and economic revitalisation, inner city regeneration, creative and artistic outcomes and sustainability objectives. 

22        Staff will provide an update report to the Planning and Environment Committee in November 2021. This report will include:

·    Update on mana whenua partnership and progressing a joined up cultural narrative approach that could be reflected in the bridge design. This will include an update on engagement with the original design gifted by Architecture van Brandenburg.

·    Update on stakeholder and community engagement and how this has informed the updated project management plan.

·    An updated project management plan that includes clearly articulated cultural values, updated scope, objectives and outcomes.

·    The project management plan will set out a pathway forward and will consider scale, resources and time frames.

 

Signatories

Author:

Jeanette Wikaira - Kaiwhakamāherehere

Glen Hazelton - Project Director, Central City Plan

Authoriser:

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 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

 

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

The waterfront area has cultural significance for mana whenua as a landing place, as a site of access to food resources and, with the arrival of Europeans, as a place of interaction and exchange. The development of a bridge is seen by mana whenua as an opportunity to reconnect the city and the harbour, both areas of significant cultural importance for mana whenua and all residents of Dunedin. Engagement has been undertaken with mana whenua regarding cultural values relating to the waterfront and how the bridge design might be developed to better reflect mana whenua values. 

Sustainability

Sustainable design and development are principles that underpin the Waterfront bridge development. Use of sustainably sourced materials would be encouraged through the tender process for bridge construction.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The 2021-2031 draft 10 Year Plan provides $20m funding for the City to waterfront (bridge) connection from 2024/25 to 2027/28 for this project.

Financial considerations

Financial considerations are outlined in the body of the report.

Significance

The significance of this decision is assessed as low. The Waterfront Bridge was consulted in full as part of the 2018-2021 10 year plan.

Engagement – external

Key stakeholders have been engaged in parts of the original business case process. There have also been discussions and work initiated with mana whenua as outlined in the report.  Further relevant stakeholder and broader community engagement will occur as a next step.

Engagement – internal

Staff from relevant Council departments have been involved in the business case process and analysis of the community feedback on the Waterfront bridge. 

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

There are no specific implications for Community Boards.

 

 

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

 

10 year plan 2021-31 - Community Engagement Summary

Department: Community and Planning

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

1.         This report summarises the community engagement process and feedback received on the draft 10 year plan 2021-31.

2.         Feedback on specific consultation items has been covered in separate reports, including: Kerbside Collection Options; Shaping Future Dunedin Transport; Community Housing; Dunedin Performing Arts Centre; and, Public Toilets and Changing Places.

3.         There were a number of submissions from individuals, groups and community boards relating to funding and amenity requests. These requests are covered in separate reports.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Considers the feedback received from the community through the 10 year plan community engagement process.

 

BACKGROUND

4.         Formal consultation on the draft 10 year plan 2021-31 occurred between 23 March and 29 April 2021.

5.         An online and print consultation document titled ‘The Future of Us | Tō Tātou Eke Whakamuri’ was developed and distributed to the community. This was designed to support community participation in Council’s decision-making processes in relation to the draft 10 year plan 2021-31.

Community engagement activities and events

6.         A range of community engagement activities and events were planned as part of the draft 10 year plan 2021-31:

a)         Sending the consultation document and feedback form to Dunedin households;

 

b)        A dedicated website (www.thefutureofus.nz) with an online feedback form and access to all documents;

 

c)         A range of shareable digital content including photos and video clips of Dunedin residents talking about what the future of Dunedin is to them and inviting people to participate;

 

d)        A range of advertising: radio, local media, community newsletters, signs on the back of buses and Council vehicles;

 

e)        Social media, as a means of inviting, receiving and updating on feedback;

 

f)         Arts-focused and interactive launch event held at South Dunedin Street Festival on
Saturday 27 March;

 

g)         Face-to-face opportunities with Councillors and staff, including:

 

i.      Drop-In Centre (initially in the Octagon engagement space but moved to the Dunedin City Library following vandalisation on 30 March).

ii.     Presence at scheduled events in the community (e.g. Chamber of Commerce ‘Business After 5’ events, Blueskin A&P show and Dunedin Farmers’ Market).

h)        Information and feedback stands at Council facilities and other locations with high foot traffic (e.g. University Link, Mosgiel Library and Blueskin Bay Library);

 

i)          Youth Council activity;

 

7.         Submitters were given the opportunity to support their submission at public hearings between Tuesday 10 May and Friday 14 May 2021; over 200 submitters spoke to their submission at the hearings.

Targeted engagement hui

8.         Several targeted engagement hui were also held during the consultation period to gain feedback from mana whenua, Maatawaka, Pasifika and disability communities.

DISCUSSION

Demographic make-up of submitters

9.         For the first time age, ethnicity and suburb were collected for submitters, to enable a demographic analysis of people submitting on the 10 year plan.


 

 

Table 1: Age group of submitters

 

Age group

Number of submissions

Percent of submissions

Percent of Dunedin’s population

Under 20 years

162

7%

12%

21 - 30 years

303

13%

20%

31 - 40 years

308

13%

13%

41 - 50 years

273

12%

14%

51 – 60 years

301

13%

15%

61 – 70 years

290

13%

13%

70 years and over

278

12%

13%

Not specified*

387

17%

N/A

Total

2,302

100%

100%

*Includes submissions from organisations

Table 2: Ethnic group of submitters

 

Ethnic group*

Number of submissions

Percent of submissions

Percent of Dunedin’s population

Māori

124

5%

8%

European/Pākehā

1,630

70%

87%

Pasifika

23

1%

3%

Asian

54

2%

8%

Other ethnicity

159

7%

1%

Not specified

445

19%

N/A

Total

2,327

105%

107%

*Where people provided more than one ethnic group, they are counted more than once

10.       Only 62% of submitters provided their suburb. Given the low response for this question, this information is not provided here.

Submissions and topics counts

11.       A total of 2,327 submissions were received during the 10 year plan 2021-31 community engagement process (compared with 1,855 submissions for the 2018-28 10 year plan). The majority of responses (71%) were received via the online feedback form.


 

12.       Feedback was received on 60 topics. The topics most frequently commented on were:

Table 3: Top ten topics in the community engagement

Topic

Number of comments

Property – public toilets

1,023

Kerbside rubbish and recycling collection

903

Transport – moving around our city

785

Ara Toi – performing arts venue

708

Property – our role as a landlord

603

10 year plan – general

188

Transport – amenity request

177

Transport – parking

172

Finance – rates

108

Parks and recreation – amenity request

96

13.       Attachment A provides further information about the results of consultation, including a table showing all feedback topics by the number of comments received for all feedback topics.

Community Feedback

14.       A summary of the community feedback is provided below.

3 Waters

Looking after what we have

15.       Council received 56 comments on looking after 3 Waters infrastructure and services. The vast majority of submitters supported the need to focus on DCC renewal spending on 3 Waters infrastructure over other services, improving these services in areas such as drinking water quality and wastewater and stormwater discharges to the environment, and ensuring these services keep pace with current and future growth requirements. Ten comments focused on South Dunedin flooding, with suggestions on engineering solutions and the need to speed up construction. One comment related to not supporting the redevelopment of South Dunedin due to the risk of flooding.

16.      Eight comments related to costal erosion and management, four providing support for groynes at St Clair beach and the others requesting that DCC look to manage and plan for erosion in areas such as Waitati, Harwood, Papanui and Hooper's Inlet. Tomahawk and Smails Beach were highlighted as areas that need a management and implementation plan that complements community work and aspirations for the coastal environment.

17.      Six comments related to the stormwater system in Mosgiel, three specifically requested DCC progress delivery of the Mosgiel stormwater project which includes upgrading the stormwater pump stations. Three comments requested that DCC take more of a lead, or an inter-agency approach, in stormwater management (as opposed to the Otago Regional Council leading this work) for both stormwater quality and flooding risks.

Drinking Water

18.      Council received five comments on drinking water; these submissions highlighted the need to focus spending on 3 Waters infrastructure over other services, to effectively manage drinking water.

Services to cater for growth

19.      Council received 13 comments on this topic, expressing concern that the DCC is not upgrading 3 Waters infrastructure in order to keep up with growth, creating stress on 3 Waters services and highlighting the need for flood mitigation. This issue was raised by several Mosgiel residents.

3 Waters reform

20.      Council received eight comments on 3 Waters reform, mainly seeking further information. Comments sought greater understanding of the issues relating to reform and the process.

Ara Toi

General

21.      Council received 20 comments on this topic, broadly supporting the Ara Toi strategy and on-going and increased arts investment via arts grants and infrastructure. Comments showed continued support for Dunedin Public Art Gallery, Toitū Otago Settlers Museum, Dunedin Public Libraries, Library Book buses and the UNESCO City of Literature. Calls for improved care of DCC Archives were also made in this feedback area. Statements asking for support of music and venues were also made through the general feedback section, along with comments referencing Sammy’s.

Dunedin Performing Arts Centre

22.      Council received 708 comments on the Dunedin Performing Arts Centre. The community feedback on the Dunedin Performing Arts Venue is the subject of a separate report.

South Dunedin Library and Community Complex

23.      Council received 21 comments on this topic; the majority of submitters supported the project either wholly or with some reservations, such as the proposed site. Other submitters did not support the Council spending money on a South Dunedin Library.  

City Development

General

24.      Council received 16 comments on this topic, including some about urban amenity improvement projects, a few comments asking about the waterfront project and supporting the revitalisation of this area.

Central City Plan

25.      Council received 39 comments on the Central City Plan, predominantly focused on the Retail Quarter. The future layout of George Street was the most popular topic; 13 comments related to ‘pedestrianisation’ and 19 argued for "no change". The remaining seven comments expressed no strong preference on the layout/form of the street and focus on more specific central city issues.

Growth/Planning Changes

26.      Council received 45 comments on this topic showing support for growth planning. A number of key stakeholders highlighted their desire to be involved in this process.

Tertiary Precinct

27.      Council received 11 comments on the Tertiary Precinct project, most opposed the deferral of this investment to later in the 10 year plan period (including the University of Otago, the Polytechnic and the Otago University Students’ Association). A few comments thought that as non-rate payers, the institutions should invest their own money into any improvements in the area.

The Bridge

28.      Council received 46 comments about the waterfront bridge; the majority of which did not support it going ahead. Some submitters suggested that a cheaper version of the bridge be considered.

Community and Planning

Community Development – general

29.      Council received 30 comments on this topic including from sector representatives, place-based groups and individuals, for increases in DCC grant funding for community, arts, events and place based grants. Two comments referenced strategic partnerships with groups. Some comments identified the marginalised groups within the city, identifying connection, capability and capacity building as important issues as funding for them, and funding supporting their sustainability.

30.      Submissions from members of the Pāsifika community and representatives from the Dunedin Multi-Ethnic Council have highlighted the need for welcoming spaces. This has also been highlighted by the Dunedin Youth Council for young people, particularly LBGTQIA and Māori youth. Submissions on behalf of Araiteuru Marae noted that their marae provides a well-used and important community cultural space, however it is one which cannot be sustained without additional funding.

 

Corporate Policy

Responding to Climate Change – adaptation and mitigation

31.      Council received 68 comments in relation to climate change, mainly supporting keeping the focus on responding to climate change, with 37 submissions urging for further, faster action generally. Three comments questioned the need to focus on climate change or the approach, and one comment sought greater clarity on costs. Overall themes were in relation to focusing on resilience measures, ensuring development and support for local resilience (such as water storage), supporting residents to install solar, etc., increasing tree planting, food security and resilience activities. There was a strong theme of desire for collaboration with the community, including rural communities, residents, businesses, students, iwi, disability communities, as well as interest and place-based groups.

32.      15 comments specifically provided feedback in relation to the Zero Carbon 2030 target, carbon mitigation and energy concerns. 13 were particularly in support of the Zero Carbon 2030 goal, 8 called for further, faster action and provided ideas and considerations, one comment suggested alignment with central government's 2050 target was preferable. Four comments were calling for more attention to energy resilience.

33.      12 comments specifically provided feedback in relation to climate change adaptation in South Dunedin, eight called for additional consideration to be given to areas such as heritage protections, location and support of recreational facilities, recognition of the disability communities needs and the importance of collaborative partnerships with community groups, business, and other stakeholders. Four of these comments were hesitant about further development in the South Dunedin area, and three comments were in favour of progressing with climate adaptive development in the area.

Fees and Charges

34.      Council received eight comments on this topic. The community feedback on fees and charges is the subject of a separate report.

Mana whenua, Mataawaka, Treaty of Waitangi and Māori development

35.      Council received 19 comments on mana whenua, Mataawaka (non-Ngā Tahu Māori communities), Treaty of Waitangi and Māori development related matters.

36.      11 comments were mana whenua focused, mainly supporting the DCC’s increased emphasis on a partnership approach including the appointment of the Kaiwhakamāherehere role and collaboration with Aukaha. Submissions also commented on ensuring a clearer articulation of how this partnership will be embedded within DCC projects and initiatives and the need for a strong mana whenua voice within the development of the South Dunedin Library and the Dunedin Performing Arts Centre.

37.      The remaining comments focused on mataawaka and more broadly on Treaty of Waitangi and Māori development topics. Submissions raised the need for the DCC to focus on developing strong relationships with wider Māori communities within Dunedin, particularly the community of Araiteuru Marae. Submissions also commented on the importance of developing safe and engaging spaces for rangatahi (Māori youth) within the City and ensuring that rangatahi voices were represented in decision-making. The topic of COVID-19 was raised in terms of the new and challenging circumstances that it has created, and that COVID-19 recovery funding of projects have the potential to empower Māori communities in the city.

Regulatory Services

General

38.      Council received 15 general comments on regulatory services including two comments supportive of current policies such as promotion of smokefree outdoor dining, gambling and legal high related policies. Three comments concerned noise pollution. Noise control is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Two comments concerned alcohol abuse.

39.       There was also a comment questioning the value of transitioning Council’s fleet to electric vehicles when New Zealand appears to be importing more coal. Some comments were on streamlining consents processes.

Animal Services

40.      Council received 12 comments on Animal Services, some commenting on more than one topic. Three comments asked for Dunedin to be stricter on dog control, one asked for Dunedin to be more dog friendly particularly within the central business district and five asked for better maintenance of dog parks. Five asked for Animal Services fees to be reduced. Two commented on the free dog poo bags.

Parking Enforcement

41.      Council received four comments on Parking Services, including two on parking fines being too high.

Live Music

42.      Council received 62 comments relating to live music at city venues and noise control issues. 49 submitters used a pro forma submission asking Council to explore live music licensing options, expand the zone in which live music is to be expected, specify what “reasonable” noise is, support live music, all in consultation with the Dunedin music community.

 

Enterprise Dunedin

General

43.      Council received 24 comments on economic development. There was general support for measures to stimulate sustainable economic growth, the innovative and entrepreneurial business sector (including start-ups) and the tertiary sector, reflecting the breadth of the Dunedin 2013-23 Economic Development Strategy. There was an overarching theme for a sustainable and environmentally focused approach to the activity undertaken, including support for Good Food Dunedin.

Impact of COVID-19

44.      Council received two comments on this topic that have been reflected in the Economic Development general comments.

Tourism

45.      Council received nine comments in relation to tourism, including ongoing support and the development of product including Dunedin Railways, the waterfront development, and completion of the Peninsula Connection together with a focus on eco-tourism, heritage and wildlife.

Finance

Dunedin Railways Limited

46.      Council received 14 comments on Dunedin Railways, mainly expressing support for continued ownership and running of rail services.

Development contributions

47.      Council received four comments on development contributions. A more detailed summary of community feedback on this topic is provided in a separate report.

Debt

48.      Council received 50 comments on debt, mainly expressing concern about the proposed level of debt. Around 20 submitters expressed concern about the debt increase, noting the need to maintain debt at current levels or that the proposed level is too high. Six submitters agreed with the use of debt to fund projects therefore spreading the costs across generations.

Rates

49.      Council received 108 comments on rates, mainly expressing concern about the impact of the proposed rate increases on those ratepayers on fixed incomes. Submitters also noted the need to keep rates increases as low as possible or close to the inflation rate, and to prioritise spending/remove other ‘nice to have’ projects. Four submitters also suggested exploring other revenue streams to offset rates increases.

Parks and Recreation

Looking after what we have

50.      Council received 50 comments on this topic. The comments were mainly in support of investment in Parks and Recreation initiatives, including the Moana Pool upgrade and Mosgiel Pool, improvements for tracks and trails, playgrounds, parks and sportsgrounds. Submitters also noted specific upgrades for Moana Pool, including a sauna, a dry gym, more disability parking, and better cleaning of the facility. Other topics noted include more weed management, upgrade of existing toilets, focus on biodiversity, and development of an urupa to support tangi and tikanga in Dunedin.

Aquatics

51.      Council received 18 comments relating to Aquatics. The majority of comments specifically requested an extended open season at Port Chalmers Pool and/or the St Clair Salt Water Pool. Other comments included calling on DCC to support the Physio pool, the importance of building cycle links to the Mosgiel pool, and suggestions to improve Moana Pool. One submitter also raised the need to fence outdoor paddling pools such as in Woodhaugh Gardens.

Playgrounds, sportsfields and tracks

52.      Council received 41 comments on playgrounds. The majority of these related to improving playgrounds, improving or building new skate parks and two comments requested new pump tracks. A number of playground comments related specifically to the building of a new Destination Playground (most referenced the Christchurch "Margaret Mahy" Playground). A small number of comments related to the provision of dedicated horse riding tracks and areas.

Property

Looking after what we have

53.       Council received five comments on this topic, mostly requesting improved venues (and regulations) in support of live music, including requests for an update on the future of Sammy’s.

Our Role as a Landlord

54.      Council received 603 comments on this topic. A more detailed summary of community feedback on this topic is provided in a separate report on Community Housing.

Public Toilets

55.      Council received 1023 comments on public toilets. A more detailed summary of community feedback on this topic is provided in a separate report on Public Toilets.

Housing

56.      Council received 12 comments on this topic, mainly requesting that housing is made a high priority in the 10 year plan, including freeing up land for development. The comments also recognised the need for energy innovation and support for the Cosy Homes programme.

Transport

Looking after what we have

57.      Council received 92 comments on this topic. 46 comments concerned the need for better maintenance, often mentioning specific locations and issues. 23 comments were against spending money on new projects at the expense of maintenance and looking after basic transport infrastructure. 24 submitters mentioned the need for better vegetation management and street cleaning. 18 comments wanted better pedestrian facilities, such as more drop kerbs, wider footpaths and better crossing points.

58.      Other themes in the comments included safety improvements, with the majority supportive, including seven specifically supporting slower speeds.

Bus fares

59.      Council received 67 comments relating to public transport, the majority of which were asking for improvements to Dunedin’s bus service. Proposed improvements included smaller buses operating on a more frequent timetable, ensuring that the buses are reliable, and introducing electric buses. There was a lot of support for the bee card and bus hub. Many submitters advocated for DCC taking over ownership of the buses.

Moving around our city

60.      Council received 785 comments on this topic. A more detailed summary of community feedback on this topic is provided in a separate report on Shaping Future Dunedin Transport.

Parking

61.      Council received 172 comments on parking. There were 169 comments noting that more inner-city parking is required, with many submitters wanting more parking buildings to be built. 53 submitters commented on the need for adequate parking for the new Dunedin hospital. 30 submitters were opposed to the provision of more parking in the central city. 80 submitters commented on the removal of car parking in the central city, with 62 opposed to the removal and 18 submitters in favour. 38 submitters also commented on the price of parking, with 32 wanting free or cheaper parking.

Peninsula Connection

62.      Council received twelve comments including one from the Otago Peninsula Community Board asking for completion of the final section of the Peninsula Connection.

Waste & Environmental Solutions

Kerbside collection

63.      Council received 903 comments on the proposals. A more detailed summary of community feedback on this topic is provided in a separate report on Kerbside collection.

Reducing our waste

64.      Council received 59 comments on this topic, including requests for additional funding in the 10 year plan for recycling and waste minimisation initiatives, requests for additional funding towards waste education initiatives, requests for DCC to fully subsidise home composting systems and community composting schemes, and to provide an annual inorganic collection service for large items.

65.      There were also calls for additional recycling options for businesses and residents in the central business district, calls for homes with home composting systems to be rewarded via a rates rebate scheme, calls to reduce waste from construction and demolition activities, and questions relating to the end use of materials collected for recycling and composting.

Smooth Hill/Green Island Landfill

66.      Council received 25 comments on this topic, including support for a circular economy and zero waste approach to waste in the Dunedin region, and calls to halt the Smooth Hill landfill project.

Otago Regional Council

67.      Council received 56 comments relating to the Otago Regional Council. The majority of these comments related to improving the public transport network in Dunedin.

10 year plan - general

68.      Council received around 180 submissions which made general comments about the 10 year plan. Of those around 60 submitters wanted Council to focus on infrastructure, the basics and essential services. Around 30 submitters asked council to not waste money and focus on important things, and to consider affordability for ratepayers. Around 35 submitters commented generally on the consultation document and its content. Some submitters provided feedback on the consultation and engagement website being clear and easy to use, and appreciated the engagement, while others wanted more options, and more statistical information to be provided to enable better decision making.

Community Boards

69.      Submissions were received from all six community boards. 

Mosgiel Taieri Community Board

70.      The Mosgiel Taieri Community Board submission highlighted concerns about the proposed debt level. They support infrastructure being prioritised over other spend and support for more central government involvement in 3 Waters. The Board consider transport options are vital for commuters from the Mosgiel Taieri area, with rapid growth in Outram and a new retirement village at East Taieri.  The Community Board supports the proposed Park and Ride, the linking of cycle trails and raised a concern with the lack of parking in the central city. The Community Board thanks the Council for progress made on the Mosgiel Pool. 

Otago Peninsula Community Board

71.       The Otago Peninsula Community Board highlighted the need for future funding for better street drainage, curb and channelling and guttering across the whole community board area to cope with increased heavy rainfall events.  They would like to see improvements in footpaths and residential drainage to accommodate new development, safety and accessibility. 

72.      The Board ask Council to consider investing in bilingual visible place-based signage and in research into the effects of tourism on the Peninsula, to assist decision making on infrastructure, conservation, promotion and climate change.  The Board would like to plant 100,000 trees over the next 10 years to reduce the effects of tourism and carbon emissions and support habitat creation for critical species.  They would like to see partnership and investment in reserves to protect vulnerable species and habitats from further decline. The Board request Council develop a management and implementation plan for coastal habitats.  The Board considers the Otago Peninsula track network requires capital investment and maintenance to reach its full potential. 

Saddle Hill Community Board

73.      The Saddle Hill Community Board would like the Council to withdraw the resource consent application to the Otago Regional Council for Smooth Hill and work together to make an alternative plan for future waste disposal.  The Board would like coastal erosion planning and management over the next 10 years, including urgent assistance for residents in Brighton Road and Ocean View who experience flooding during extreme weather events. They would like to see the Council work with local developers who are willing to purchase unused Council land and develop small affordable apartments to allow older residents to stay in the community.

 

Strath Taieri Community Board

74.      The Strath Taieri Community Board would like the Council to address the issue of ongoing flooding in the area as a priority.  They consider this needs a co-ordinated inter-agency approach with the widest possible community engagement. 

75.      The Community Board also seeks continuation of the Taieri Gorge Railway to Pukerangi and to Middlemarch.  They see cycle safety as a priority, particularly the safety of cyclists crossing March Creek.  The Board would like to see the DCC prioritise looking after what we already have before committing to new projects and they are concerned with the lack of weed spraying and maintenance of street trees and roads. 

Waikouaiti Coast Community Board

76.      The Waikouaiti Coast Community Board submission was focused on tourism, growth and consenting issues.  The Board would like to work with the Council and others to promote and establish tourism opportunities in the North Coast area.  They would also like to understand in detail what might be proposed through the 2GP in the North Coast area in the way of population expansion and would welcome a discussion with staff about communication around consenting issues.

West Harbour Community Board

77.       The West Harbour Community Board sees George St in Port Chalmers as well overdue for an upgrade and see the need for a community survey to identify what’s required in the upgrade.  The Community Board is also fully supportive of the continuation of the Sycamore removal programme.

Hui feedback

Pāsifika

78.      A dedicated Pāsifika hui was held on 10 April at the Burns Hall.

79.      Hui attendees supported the four bins for kerbside recycling plus one option but called for extra education around introducing the change. It was raised that more education in general is needed around recycling. Zero waste was an area of interest.

80.      There was support for Harbour arterial improvements, park and ride facilities at Mosgiel and Burnside, and central cycle and pedestrian improvements. Attendees recognised that initiatives such as this help to reduce congestion. With regard to central city parking management, attendees believed that people with a disability/low mobility need more parking. In particular, there is a need for parking around the hospital. Hui attendees did not support the Princess St Bus Lane as the road is already narrow.

81.      Housing is a big issue for the Pāsifika community. Poor rental conditions, high rent, cold homes and the lack of housing were raised at the Hui. Attendees supported those who are 65 and over being prioritised for community housing. It was mentioned that the funding for the performing arts venue might be better spent on housing, particularly to increase the number of community houses and to upgrade existing ones. Questions were raised about the performing arts venue proposal such as accessibility, parking, and public transport. Of the two options, the Athenaeum was preferred.

82.      Several new locations for public toilets were suggested, including parks and playgrounds around the city, Corstorphine, and cemeteries. The Pāsifika community spend a lot of time with their family and friends at Dunedin’s cemeteries as part of cultural activities, so would appreciate public toilets there, as well as more seating. This was also raised during the 2018-28 10 year plan consultation.

83.      In general, for future consultations interpreters, written translations and ethnic specific consultation were requested.

Mana whenua hui

84.      A dedicated mana whenua hui was held on 17 April at the Dunedin Public Art Gallery.

85.      Rūnaka see opportunities to partner with the DCC to enrich the social, environmental, economic, and cultural fabric of Dunedin, particularly under the existing partnership between the DCC and Aukaha.

86.      They would also like to see deeper engagement with the DCC to ensure the Treaty partnership relationship is effective, enduring and valued. Rūnaka would like to partner to create a shared vision for the future of the city, however they recognise the need for capacity building within the DCC and Aukaha to ensure both parties have an adequate number of staff with the right skills to progress partnership work.

87.      The natural environment was highlighted as a key area of concern for Rūnaka, and there is desire for a high level relationship between Rūnaka and the DCC to ensure environmental obligations are being met.

88.      Rūnaka requested that the DCC explore a social procurement framework approach with regards to DCC procurement and contract management. Rūnaka emphasised that social procurement frameworks built with indigenous communities are proving successful on a global scale and could be used as a way to build Māori economic development in Dunedin.

Mataawaka hui

89.      A dedicated Mataawaka hui was held on 24 April at Araiteuru Marae.

90.      Araiteuru Marae and the mataawaka community noted that the issues they face within Dunedin have been exacerbated by COVID-19. The Araiteuru community expressed a desire for a stronger relationship with the DCC to support Māori, non-Māori, the environment, and Dunedin’s culture.

91.      The Araiteuru community undertakes a wide range of voluntary work supporting the community (Māori and non-Māori, new immigrants, schools, university students etc) with challenges they face. Some of these challenges include Māori housing and support for Māori students living in poverty. The mataawaka community face major challenges as a voluntary organisation and the on-going need for financial investment to ensure they can continue to support the community. They also noted they are well positioned to support wellbeing; however greater city partnership and capacity investment is required.

92.      The Araiteuru community would welcome partnership projects that supports the wellbeing of the Kaikorai river and whenua.

93.      The lack of urban urupa in Dunedin was highlighted, as mataawaka have no dedicated cemetery in Dunedin to practice Māori rituals in relation to death. Māori who cannot be buried in their ancestral lands have no culturally appropriate local option.

Disability hui

94.      A dedicated disability hui was held on 21 April at the Toitū Otago Settlers Museum.

95.      The four bins plus one option was supported by attendees. It was noted that a complex system makes it difficult for caregivers when people have support. The question was also raised if there could be a choice in the size of bins. The idea of educating residents around the change was supported; not only on recycling, but of being considerate of footpath space and other users.

96.      Regarding the moving around our cities proposals, attendees were in favour of the harbour arterial improvements. The call for improving the safety and number of accessible/mobility parks, particularly around the hospital was strongly made. In addition, technology advising where accessible parks are available (in real time) would be welcomed. The proposal for park and ride facilities in Mosgiel and Burnside was also supported, but buses must be suitable for people with disabilities. Examples of this included having space for more than one wheelchair and voice announcements for bus arrival information. Most attendees supported the Princes Street bus lane and cycle and pedestrian improvements, but there were concerns over how narrow Princes Street is, the need to increase the number of pedestrian crossings, drop curbs/ramps and separating bike lanes on wide footpaths. More mobility parks and larger parks for mobility vans, were requested.

97.      The community was split on prioritising housing for those aged 65 or over. Many attendees supported people with a disability also being prioritised. There was strong support for making houses accessible, with Universal Design specifically mentioned.

98.      There was no consensus on the performing arts venue proposals, but attendees want to ensure that whatever is decided, the venue is accessible. The attendees mainly supported DCC preferred options on the specific items of consultation. On each item though, accessibility should be better considered (e.g. disability parking, accessible buses from Park and Ride, bikes hubs not taking up the pathways, need to divide the bike and pedestrian lanes). For future consultations, the consultation document should be available in braille and the room used for the hui should be more accessible for the blind and deaf to participate.

99.      No options are provided as this is a summary of the community responses from the 10 year plan community engagement process.

 

Signatories

Author:

Suzie Ballantyne - Corporate Policy Manager

Authoriser:

Robert West - Acting General Manager City Services

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

10 Year Plan 2021-31 Feedback Topics

234


 

 

 

 

 

 
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

 

The 10 year plan 2021-31 contributes to all of the objectives and priorities of the strategic framework as it describes the Council’s activities; the community outcomes; and provides for decision making and coordination of the Council’s resources, as well as a basis for community accountability.

Māori Impact Statement

Mana whenua and mataawaka specific hui were held as part of the 10 year plan community consultation process.

Sustainability

The summary of community feedback includes the views of the community across a number of sustainability focus areas.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

Submissions on budget or options are included in topic specific reports. The report provides the summary of community responses for non-budget or option specific reports.

Financial considerations

There are no financial implications arising from the summary of community responses on the 10 year plan report. Any financial implications from the submissions are included in topic specific reports.

Significance

·         This report summarises the community responses on the 10 year plan community engagement process. This report is of low significance in terms of the Council’s significance and engagement policy as the report is for noting only.

Engagement – external

Community responses on the community engagement on the draft 10 year plan 2021-31 has been summarised in the report.

Engagement - internal

Staff and managers from across the Council have been involved in the analysis of the community feedback.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The summary of submissions from community boards is included in this report.

 

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

 

10 year plan 2021-31 - Funding Requests

Department: Corporate Policy

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report summarises funding requests received from submitters during the community feedback period on the 10 year plan 2021-31.  The requests received are summarised in Attachment A.

2          Requests for new amenities and projects are the subject of the separate report “10 year plan 2021-31 – Requests for New Amenities” also being considered at the 31 May 2021 Council deliberations meeting.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Considers the requests for funding from submitters, for inclusion in the 10 year plan 2021-31.

 

DISCUSSION

3          Requests for funding have been identified from 41 submitters, as summarised in Attachment A.  Staff have attempted to capture all requests, but if any have been missed, then these can be raised at the meeting.  For each request identified in this report, staff comment has been provided. 

4          Most requests received are for funds that Council would treat as an operating expense.  Some funding requests are for capital expenditure, e.g., funds to replace seating in a Council owned community hall. 

5          A few submitters have requested funding for assets.  It is unclear if the Council would be the owners of those assets.  If Council is only making a funding contribution towards those assets, then the requests would be treated as an operating expense.  If Council were to own the assets, they would be a capital expense.  In Attachment A, these requests are noted as “To be determined”. 

6          As a guide for decision making, an addition of $163,000 of operating expenditure would add 0.1% to the 9.8% rate increase proposed in the 10 year plan. 

OPTIONS

7          There are no options. 

NEXT STEPS

8          The level of funding, if any, determined by Council, will be included in the 10 year plan 2021-31.

9          Staff will provide specific feedback to submitters on these requests.

 

Signatories

Author:

Sharon Bodeker - Corporate Planner

Authoriser:

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Funding requests

240

 

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 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 the 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.  Funding requests contribute to the development of the 10 year plan.

Māori Impact Statement

A funding request has been received in respect of the Araiteuru Marae.

Sustainability

The overall impact of the funding requirements on the current and future social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of the community is considered when deciding on funding requests. 

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

These considerations are the subject of the report.

Financial considerations

The financial considerations are detailed in the report.

Significance

The requests for funding have resulted from full community consultation on the draft 10 year plan. 

Engagement – external

The requests for funding have resulted from full community consultation on the draft 10 year plan. 

Engagement - internal

Staff and managers from across Council have been involved in the analysis of the funding requests received.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Funding requests have been received from the Waikouaiti Coast Community Board.

 

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Council

31 May 2021

 

 

10 year plan 2021-31 - Requests for New Amenities and Projects

Department: Corporate Policy

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          This report summarises requests received from submitters for new amenities and projects, that were received during the community feedback period on the 10 year plan 2021-31.  The requests received are summarised in attachments A - E. 

2          Requests for funding are the subject of the separate report “10 year plan 2021-31 – Funding Requests” also being considered at the 31 May 2021 Council deliberations meeting.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Considers the requests received for new amenities and projects for inclusion in the 10 year plan 2021-31.

 

background

3          This is a new report for this 10 year plan.  It aims to capture specific requests from submitters.  Staff have attempted to capture all requests, but if any have been missed, then these can be raised at the meeting. 

DISCUSSION

4          Requests for new amenities and projects have been received as follows:

Activity

Number

Ara Toi

-

Community & planning

-

Economic development

-

Governance & support

-

Parks and recreation

88

Property

3

Regulatory

-

Transport

150

Waste

17

3 Waters

22

Total

280

 

5          The requests have been grouped by topic within each activity, and in some cases, there have been multiple submissions making the same request.

6          Requests made by submitters on the specific consultation topics of kerbside collection, Shaping Future Dunedin Transport, performing arts, community housing and public toilets are included in separate reports on the agenda for this meeting.

7          For each request in this report, staff comment has been provided, including if the request is already provided for in the 10 year plan, if the request can be accommodated within existing budgets or if it is not provided for. 

OPTIONS

8          There are no options.

NEXT STEPS

9          Any decision by Council to include new amenities and/or projects will be included in the 10 year plan 2021-31. 

10        Depending on the outcome of the deliberations, staff will consider how to provide specific feedback to submitters on these requests.

 

Signatories

Author:

Sharon Bodeker - Corporate Planner

Authoriser:

Sandy Graham - Chief Executive Officer

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Parks and recreation - new amenity and projects

253

b

Property - new amenities and projects

269

c

Transport - new amenities and projects

270

d

Waste & envirnmental solutions - new amenities and projects

284

e

3 Waters - new amenities and projects

288

 

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 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 the 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.  Requests for new amenities and projects contribute to the development of the 10 year plan.

Māori Impact Statement

As part of the 10 year plan consultation process, a Maori consultation Hui was held at Araiteuru Marae with the mataawaka community. At this hui the need for an urupa (cemetery) was discussed, as a place where customary Maori burial protocols can occur. Further consultation is required with both mana whenua and mataawaka to progress this issue.

Sustainability

The overall impact of the funding requirements on the current and future social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of the community is considered when deciding on new amenities and projects requests. 

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

These considerations are the subject of the report.

Financial considerations

The financial considerations are included in the report.

Significance

The requests for new amenities and projects have resulted from full community consultation on the draft 10 year plan. 

Engagement – external

The requests for new amenities and projects have resulted from full community consultation on the draft 10 year plan. 

Engagement - internal

Staff and managers from across Council have been involved in the analysis of the requests received.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no identified risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

The Community Boards have requested new amenities and projects, and these are included in this report.

 

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

 

Adoption of 2021/22 Fees and Charges

Department: Corporate Policy

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1          The schedule of fees and charges for the 2021/22 financial year is presented to the Council for adoption.

2          Fees and charges are presented for adoption in advance of the final 10 year plan adoption to allow Council activities sufficient time to complete necessary work prior to the schedules becoming effective on 1 July 2021.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Council:

a)     Adopts the attached schedule of fees and charges for 2021/22.

 

BACKGROUND

3          Draft schedules of fees and charges for Council activities were approved for community consultation at the Council meeting held on 27-29 January 2021. These fees and charges were included in the 10 year plan 2021-31 supporting information that was made available to the public on the Council website and in hard copy at Council service centres. Changes to fees and charges for 2021/22 were highlighted in the 10 year plan consultation document (page 29).

DISCUSSION

4          The schedule of fees and charges for adoption and subsequent inclusion in the 10 year plan 2021-31 are at attachment A – K. 

5          The final deliberations and decision-making processes undertaken at this meeting confirm the revenue budgets these fees and charges pertain to.  If a change to a fee and associated revenue budget is approved at this meeting the fee concerned would not be adopted with the rest of the schedule.  The revised fee would instead be adopted at the Council meeting to adopt the 10 Year Plan 2021-2031 on 30 June 2021.

Summary of consultation feedback

6          Seven submissions were received providing feedback on fees and charges. Four submitters were concerned about the increase in parking costs, whilst another four submitters were concerned about potential increases in pool admission costs. Submitters noted the need to upgrade pools, but not at an increased cost to users, especially for low to mid income users and families.

Changes made since approval of fees and charges for consultation

7          A minor amendment was made to correct the ‘Late Fee Penalty’ and ‘Other Fees’ in relation to the Animal Services fee (Attachment J).  This amendment was included in the schedules published as part of the consultation on the 10 year plan.

8          Minor changes have been made to the schedules following the consultation period. These include correction of some fees and minor editorial changes as shown in the table below.

Amendments to fees and charges post-consultation

Fee as consulted on

Amendment

Resource Consents: Commercial and Industrial (fixed fee per site) - Site Contamination Search - $430.00

Changed to $405.00

Resource Consents: Residential and rural (fixed fee per site) - Site Contamination Search - $280.00

Changed to $255.00

Lan Yuan Chinese Garden: adult admission - $10.50

Changed to $10.00

Olveston Historic Home: 1 hour guided tour followed by croquet and tea and biscuits for up to 4 people

Added back into the schedule of charges

Animal Services: poo bags (sold in bundles of 10 rolls) - $1.50

Changed to $15. Wording changed to ‘poo bags – sold in bundles of 10 rolls (15 bags/roll)’

Building Services: BCA Accreditation Levy payable on all building consent applications including amended and staged applications ($0.45 per $1,000 of building work, minimum fee $9, was previously $6)

Removed the words was previously $6.

Building Services: Swimming Pool Fence Monitoring Inspection (per inspection)

Changed wording to read – Swimming Pool Fence Monitoring Inspection (hourly rate, minimum 1 hour charge)

Schedule B building consent application fees

Changed the Processing Time and Inspection Deposit to read $190 per hour not $195.

Waste and Environmental Solutions:
Domestic asbestos/animal remains – car load
Domestic asbestos/animal remains – small load
Domestic asbestos/animal remains – trailer

Fees removed, as covered in the amendment below.

Waste and Environmental Solutions:
Asbestos including high contaminated soil per 50kg (or part thereof)

Amended to read animal remains / asbestos including high contaminated soil per 50kg (or part thereof)

 

OPTIONS

9          There are no options.

NEXT STEPS

10        Staff will be advised that fees and charges have been formally adopted by Council.

11        The complete schedule of fees and charges will be included in the final 10 year plan 2021-31.

 

Signatories

Author:

Sharon Bodeker - Corporate Planner

Authoriser:

Gavin Logie - Chief Financial Officer

Attachments

 

Title

Page

a

Community and Planning 2021/22 fees and charges

298

b

Economic Development 2021/22 fees and charges

301

c

Governance and Support Services 2021/22 fees and charges

302

d

Ara Toi (Arts and Culture) 2021/22 fees and charges

303

e

Property 2021/22 fees and charges

305

f

Reserves and Recreational Facilities 2021/22 fees and charges

306

g

Roading and Footpaths 2021/22 fees and charges

311

h

Waste Management 2021/22 fees and charges

312

i

Three Waters 2021/22 fees and charges

314

j

Regulatory Services 2021/22 fees and charges

315

k

Schedule B Building Consent Applications Fees 2021/22

323

 

SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS

 

Fit with purpose of Local Government

10 year plans enable democratic local decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities; and promotes the social, cultural, environmental and economic wellbeing of Dunedin communities now, 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 adoption of fees and charges contributes to the strategic priorities.

Māori Impact Statement

The 10 year plan 2021-31 provides a mechanism for Māori to contribute to local decision-making. DCC works with the Māori Participation Working Party, Aukaha and mana whenua to ensure there is process for Māori collaboration across the 10 year plan work programme.

Sustainability

Sustainability is an underlying principle of the DCC’s strategic framework and is outlined in the 10 year plan 2021-31. Activities in the 10 year plan 2021-31 supports the DCC to embed the principles across DCC work.

LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure Strategy

The fees and charges inform the 10 year plan 2021-31.

Financial considerations

Fees and charges contribute to the revenue budgets for the Council’s activities.

Significance

The fees and charges schedule is considered low in terms of the Council’s significance and engagement policy.

Engagement – external

Consultation on fees and charges was undertaken with the residents of the city via the 10 year plan community engagement process.

Engagement - internal

Activity Managers, Financial Analysts, the Senior Leadership Team and the Executive Leadership Team were involved in the development of fees and charges.

Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.

There are no known risks.

Conflict of Interest

There are no known conflicts of interest.

Community Boards

Fees and charges may be of interest to Community Boards.

 

 


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021

 

PDF Creator


Council

31 May 2021