HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_BLACK_AGENDA_COVER

 

 

Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee

 

 

16 June 2020

 

 

 

Order Paper for the meeting to be held in the

Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt,

on:

 

 

 

Thursday 18 June 2020 commencing at 9.30am

 

 

 

Membership

 

Mayor C Barry (Chair)

Deputy Mayor T Lewis

Cr D Bassett

Cr J Briggs

Cr K Brown

Cr B Dyer

Cr S Edwards

Cr D Hislop

Cr C Milne

Cr A Mitchell

Cr S Rasheed

Cr N Shaw

Cr L Sutton

 

 

 

 

For the dates and times of Council Meetings please visit www.huttcity.govt.nz

 

Have your say

You can speak under public comment to items on the agenda to the Mayor and Councillors at this meeting. Please let us know by noon the working day before the meeting. You can do this by emailing DemocraticServicesTeam@huttcity.govt.nz or calling the Democratic Services Team on 04 570 6666 | 0800 HUTT CITY

 

 


HuttCity_TeAwaKairangi_SCREEN_MEDRES

 

PURPOSE

To carry out all necessary considerations and hearings, precedent to the Council’s final adoption of Long Term Plans (LTP) and Annual Plans (AP) which give effect to the strategic direction and outcomes set by the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee through setting levels of service, funding priorities, the performance framework and budgets.

 

Determine:

       Development of a framework and timetable for the LTP and AP processes.

       The nature and scope of engagement and public consultation required.

       Statements to the media.

       Such other matters as the Subcommittee considers appropriate and which fall within its Terms of Reference.

       Informal engagement with the community, and the hearing of any formal public submissions.

       Consideration of submissions on Hutt City Council’s Assessment of Water and Sanitary Services.

 

Consider and make recommendations to Council:

      Levels of service, funding priorities, performance framework, budgets, rating levels and policies required as part of the LTP or AP, excluding any policies recommended to Council by the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee.

      Consultation Documents.

      Council’s proposed and final LTP.

      Council’s proposed and final AP.

      Final content and wording, and adoption of the final Hutt City Council Assessment of Water and Sanitary Services.

Note:

Extract from the Controller and Auditor General’s October 2010 Good Practice Guide: Guidance for members of local authorities about the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act 1968

 

Appointment as the local authority’s representative on another organisation

5.47         You may have been appointed as the authority’s representative on the governing body of a council-controlled organisation or another body (for example, a community-based trust).

5.48         That role will not usually prevent you from participating in authority matters concerning the other organisation – especially if the role gives you specialised knowledge that it would be valuable to contribute.

5.49         However, you could create legal risks to the decision if your participation in that decision raises a conflict between your duty as a member of the local authority and any duty to act in the interests of the other organisation. These situations are not clear cut and will often require careful consideration and specific legal advice.

5.50         Similarly, if your involvement with the other organisation raises a risk of predetermination, the legal risks to the decision of the authority as a result of your participation may be higher, for example, if the other organisation has made a formal submission to the authority as part of a public submissions process.

 

    


HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee

 

Meeting to be held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt on

 Thursday 18 June 2020 commencing at 9.30am.

 

ORDER PAPER

 

Public Business

 

 

 

OPENING FORMALITIES - Karakia Timatanga           

Kia hora te marino

Kia whakapapa pounamu te moana

He huarahi mā tātou i te rangi nei

Aroha atu, aroha mai

Tātou i a tātou katoa

Hui e Tāiki e!

May peace be wide spread

May the sea be like greenstone

A pathway for us all this day

Let us show respect for each other

For one another

Bind us together!

 

1.       APOLOGIES 

2.       PUBLIC COMMENT

Generally up to 30 minutes is set aside for public comment (three minutes per speaker on items appearing on the agenda). Speakers may be asked questions on the matters they raise.

3.       Mayor's Statement (20/539)

4.       Chief Executive's Statement (20/540)

5.       CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have          

6.       Final decision on rating policy options for 2020/21
20/562)

          Report to be separately circulated

 

 

 

7.       Final Statement of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 – Community Facilities Trust (19/859)

Report No. FPC2019/3/153 by the Senior Management Accountant                 8

CHAIR’S RECOMMENDATIONS:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

8.       Final Statement of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 – Seaview Marina Limited (20/423)

Report No. LTPAP2020/4/117 by the Senior Management Accountant          26

CHAIR’S RECOMMENDATIONS:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

9.       Final Statement of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 – Urban Plus and Group (20/422)

Report No. LTPAP2020/4/127 by the Senior Accountant                                 50

CHAIR’S RECOMMENDATIONS:

“That the recommendation contained in the report be endorsed.”

10.     Lending to Council Controlled Organisations (20/586)

Report No. LTPAP2020/4/142 by the Treasury Officer                                     78

CHAIR’S RECOMMENDATIONS:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

11.     Submissions to draft Annual Plan 2020 and evaluation of engagement (20/519)

Report No. LTPAP2020/4/46 by the Head of Strategy and Planning              89

CHAIR’S RECOMMENDATIONS:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

12.     Council Quarterly Performance Overview (20/456)

Report No. LTPAP2020/4/118 by the Budgeting and Reporting Manager    181

CHAIR’S RECOMMENDATIONS:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

13.     Final decisions on the Annual Plan 2020/21 (20/487)

Report No. LTPAP2020/4/124 by the Budgeting and Reporting Manager    242    

CHAIR’S RECOMMENDATIONS:

“That the recommendations contained in the report be endorsed.”

 

14.     QUESTIONS

With reference to section 32 of Standing Orders, before putting a question a member shall endeavour to obtain the information. Questions shall be concise and in writing and handed to the Chair prior to the commencement of the meeting.   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kathryn Stannard

HEAD OF DEMOCRATIC SERVICES

          


                                                                                       9                                                             18 June 2020

 

Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee

28 May 2020

 

 

 

File: (19/859)

 

 

 

 

Report no: FPC2019/3/153

 

Final Statement of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 – Community Facilities Trust

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to consider the final Statement of Intent (SOI) for the Hutt City Community Facilities Trust, for the three years commencing 1 July 2020.

Recommendations

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council receives and agrees to the final Statement of Intent for the Hutt City Community Facilities Trust for the three years commencing 1 July 2020, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

 

Background

2.    The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires the board of a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) to deliver to its shareholders, a final SOI on or before 30 June each year.

3.    The LGA also requires Council to agree to a SOI, or if it does not agree, take all reasonable steps to require a SOI to be modified, as soon as practicable after a SOI of a CCO is delivered to it.

4.    The Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee received and considered the draft SOI for the three year period commencing 1 July 2020 for the Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (CFT) at its meeting held on 3 March 2020.

5.    Officers advised the Committee that the draft CFT SOI did adequately address Council’s expectations.

6.    Officers recommend that Council agree to the final SOI for CFT, as approved by their board on 28 May 2020, which is attached as Appendix 1 to this report, noting:

a.    There has been no change to the overall strategic direction or intent from the draft SOI, except for two changes relating to the Koraunui Stokes Valley Community Hub.

b.    The Koraunui Stokes Valley Community Hub has experienced water egress issues since late 2018/19.  Two independent investigations were sought to identify the nature and extent of the problem.

c.     Work to remedy the issue was to have commenced in the second quarter of 2019/20, once the weather had settled.  However, due to staff changes and the covid-19 crisis the work was delayed.

d.    An appropriate contractor is now being sought and it is likely the work will commence in early 2020/21.  The work is estimated to cost $154k and will be partially funded by way of an increase to CFT’s operational grant (ie the grant will increase by $115k from $250k to $365k in 2020/21 only).

7.    These changes have been incorporated into the CFT’s financial statements.  The impact of the changes are summarised in the table below:

Options

8.    If Council does not agree to the final SOI, it may by resolution, require the board to modify its SOI. Before giving notice of the resolution to the board, Council must consult the board as to the matters requiring modification. However Council must still approve the final SOI (if modified) by 30 June 2020.

Consultation

9.    Consultation is not required as the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee has previously reviewed the draft SOI on 3 March 2020, and no further actions were required by the Board as a result of that review.

Legal Considerations

10.  There is an obligation on the CFT board to ensure the SOI and each modification that is adopted, is “made available to the public within one month after the date on which it is delivered to the shareholders or adopted, as the case may be”.  The final SOI will be made available to the public via the CFT website immediately after receiving notification of approval of the final SOI by Council.

Financial Considerations

11.  The SOI contains financial forecasts for the three year periods commencing 1 July 2020.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Community Facilities Trust Statement of Intent for the period 2020/21 to 2022/23

11

    

 

 

Author: Sharon Page

Senior Management Accountant

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Darrin Newth

Financial Accounting Manager

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Jenny Livschitz

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

Approved By: Jo Miller

Chief Executive

 


Attachment 1

Community Facilities Trust Statement of Intent for the period 2020/21 to 2022/23

 

 

  

 

 


Statement of Intent

 

Hutt City Community Facilities Trust

 

2020/21 – 2022/23

 


 

 

Contents

 

Introduction. 3

Objectives. 3

Activities. 4

Governance. 5

Ratio of Consolidated Shareholders’ Funds to Total Assets. 6

Accounting Policies of the CFT. 6

Performance Targets. 8

Prospective Statement of Financial Performance. 9

Prospective Statement of Movements in Equity. 10

Prospective Statement of Financial Position. 11

Prospective Statement of Cash Flows. 12

The CFT Depreciation Policy. 13

Information to be provided to Shareholders. 13

Procedures to be followed before members acquire shares in other groups etc. 14

Activities for which the Board seeks compensation from a local authority. 14

Board estimate of the commercial value of the shareholder’s investment in the group. 14

Other Management Issues. 15

 


 

Introduction

This Statement of Intent has been prepared by the Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (CFT), as required under Section 64(1) of the Local Government Act 2002 for a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO).  It gives an overview of the CFT, the objectives we will work to achieve, the activities we will undertake, and how we will measure our performance.  It covers the three year period to 30 June 2023.

The CFT was established by the Hutt City Council (Council) in August 2012 as a CCO to promote, develop, own, operate, and maintain recreational, leisure, and community facilities in Lower Hutt.  Over the next 30 years a number of facilities in Lower Hutt will have to be upgraded or replaced.  Changing preferences in the community for the way recreation, leisure, and community services are delivered led HCC to adopt an integrated facilities approach to new developments, which will allow for a range of services to be accessed in one place.  The Walter Nash Centre completed by the CFT in late 2015 is a good example of an integrated community facility. The Walter Mildenhall Park Redevelopment completed in 2017 at Naenae, the Koraunui Stokes Valley Community Hub also completed in 2017 and the Ricoh Sports Centre at Fraser Park, completed in 2019, are examples of projects that also follow the integrated facilities model.

The main role of the CFT has been to develop and then maintain a range of fit-for-purpose, leisure, recreation and community facilities that are attractive to the residents and visitors of Lower Hutt.

In 2019 the trustees conducted a strategic review of the CFT’s future direction and concluded that while it will remain a landlord of its existing facilities, most day to day work to provide ongoing management for these is best conducted by Council staff as is future project management of new builds. The board concluded that CFT’s main focus will be to provide leadership in the identification, promotion and fundraising for new projects which support Council’s overall strategic objectives.

Where appropriate, the CFT will assist with fundraising work to attract donations for these developments from philanthropic organisations, the corporate sector and the community.  The Trust will do this by acting as a voice for community facilities in Lower Hutt, using the skills and expertise its trustees bring from valuable experience in business, asset management, and community affiliation.

The CFT will strive to have a positive and productive working relationship with Council. The Trust will contribute to Council’s community outcomes of a city that is actively engaged in community activities, and a city that promotes strong and inclusive communities.  Accordingly, the CFT Board looks forward to working with Council to optimise the overall social, cultural, health and economic wellbeing of Lower Hutt.

Objectives

The objectives of the CFT will follow section 59 of the Local Government Act 2002, which outlines the principal objectives for a Council Controlled Organisation as follows:

 (a)          Achieve the objectives of its shareholders, both commercial and non-commercial, as specified in the Statement of Intent;

(b)          Be a good employer; and

(c)           Exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so.

 

In addition to the statutory objectives, the CFT Deed of Trust has a range of charitable objectives designed to promote the health and wellbeing of Lower Hutt’s communities. These objectives are to:

·    Promote, operate, develop, and maintain community facilities in Lower Hutt through the management of the interests and rights relating to these facilities.

·    Assist with attracting fundraising from the community and philanthropic organisations for the development of high quality community facilities.

·    Provide strategic planning, in partnership with HCC, in relation to the ongoing development and administration of community facilities in Lower Hutt.

·    Provide high quality amenities which attract and engage, promoting the health and well-being of residents of and visitors to Lower Hutt.

·    Practise prudent commercial administration of high quality community, recreation, and leisure facilities, with a view that they will be financially sustainable.

 

Environmental objectives

 

The Board will be considering during the year what we can do effectively to support the Council’s environmental objectives. In particular we will give consideration to the potential impacts of climate change and ‘carbon zero’ initiatives, and what contribution the trust can make to this. We will work with and hold discussions with Council staff to ensure we are working on a co-ordinated basis.

 

Health and Safety

 

The Board sees the health and safety of its staff, contractors, the public and all users of its facilities as a top priority. Enhanced reporting to the Board to ensure that there is the best possible health and safety practices and culture in all its facilities is a top priority for the year.

Activities

This draft Statement of Intent has been provided at a busy time for Council after the recent election and restructuring of its management team. It has also been busy with its consideration of the future for the Naenae Pool. As a consequence of its initial plans to rebuild that in some form, it has signalled the suspension of various other funding allocations for gym sports and the proposed Wainuiomata Sports and Community Hub, both of which were part of CFT’s longer term work plan. The Board has not received from Council the usual letter of expectation to guide it in the completion of this SOI thus the plan for the year is limited to managing the existing facilities of the Trust until Council makes its broader decisions on funding priorities for any new project and what role it would like to see CFT play in them.

In the next three years the CFT will focus its activities in the following areas:

·    Completing the bedding in of the recently constructed Ricoh Sports Centre at Fraser Park. The new building is a complex structure and the CFT will work with the tenant, Fraser Park Sportsville (FPS), to best optimise the use and to capture the benefits of the technologies and infrastructure imbedded in the complex.

·    Continue to manage, in partnership with the tenant (FPS), the artificial turfs at Fraser Park.

·    Continue to manage in partnership with the tenant (Council), the Walter Nash Centre at Taita.

·    In partnership with the tenant (Council), continue to make modest improvements to the old Walter Nash Centre to bring that building up to modern standards.

·    Working with the Naenae Bowls Club and the community to maximise the use of the facility and to improve its ability to fully fund all operational costs, including insurance, rates and long-term maintenance.

·    Review facility related maintenance plans – for all CFT facilities – to ensure they comply with relevant legislation and are maintained to a high and safe standard.

·    The development of any other community or sporting buildings which the Council has funding for and requests the CFT to project manage.

Governance

The CFT board of trustees comprises five members, one of whom is a Councillor appointed by Council.  All other trustees are appointed by Council in line with its Appointment and Remuneration of Directors Policy.  The Chairperson is appointed by the trustees. 

The trust board meets six weekly.

The CFT adopts an approach to governance that is in accordance with the best practice statements produced by the Institute of Directors New Zealand (Incorporated

The Trustees of the CFT must act in accordance first and foremost with the charitable purposes of the Trust.

The CFT will give effect to the Hutt City Council Long Term Plan and act consistently with other Council plans, strategies and policies.

The CFT will adopt in its relationship with Council ways of working that reflect Council and CCOs as partners in the delivery of shared outcomes. This includes a commitment to the agreed Memorandum of Understanding between the Trust and Council that was signed in the 2012/13 period.   This includes:

·    A commitment to collaboration.

·    A commitment to openness and transparency.

·    Adherence to a ‘no surprises’ policy  - where it is appropriate the CFT trust board will bring to Council’s attention immediately all new and significant projects, initiatives, and/or issues.

·    A commitment by the CFT to the aims and objectives of the Council Long Term Integrated Community Facilities Plan.

·    A commitment by Council where it sells recreation or similar land or any other identified community facility, that the profits arising from that sale shall be vested in a reserve for future investment in reserve development, which may include the development of associated community facilities by the CFT and Council. The use of the reserve will be negotiated between Council and the CFT.

 

The CFT Deed of Trust allows the CFT the ability to raise a loan to part fund approved CFT projects.  The CFT will not however raise any significant loans without consulting the shareholder.

 

Office space, office equipment, IT and administrative support is provided to the CFT by Council. This is expected to continue.  From 1 July 2020, the CFT will pay Council an annual fee to cover financial, HR and IT support that it receives during the year.  For the 2020/21 financial year the fee has been set at $28,642.  This fee will rise by 2% a year thereafter.  Prior to 2020/21 no support fees had been charged.

Ratio of Consolidated Shareholders’ Funds to Total Assets

Definition of Terms

Shareholders’ Funds:  Represent the net equity the shareholder has contributed to the Trust since its incorporation. This amount includes issued share capital, revaluation reserves, and retained earnings. There are currently no shareholder funds distributed to the CFT.

Total Assets:  Represent the total assets both intangible and tangible of the CFT, disclosed in accordance with applicable financial reporting standards. For completeness it is noted that any tax liabilities in respect of GST and deferred tax are classified as liabilities irrespective of them being a debit or credit balance.

Accounting Policies of the CFT

Financial Statements

The Financial Statements will comply with generally accepted accounting practice in New Zealand (NZ GAAP). They will comply with NZ IFRS and other applicable Financial Reporting Standards. Financial statements will also comply with the Local Government Act 2002.

General Accounting Policies

Accounting policies adopted will be consistent with the New Zealand equivalent of International Financial Reporting Standards (NZ IFRS) issued by the XRB (External Reporting Board).

Particular Accounting Policies

Recognition of Income – Revenue will be recognised when an invoice is raised after service is provided. Other transactions that comply with the definition of "Revenue" in the Statement of Concepts issued by the XRB (External Reporting Board) will also be recognised as revenue.

Goods and Services Tax

Financial statements will be prepared on a GST exclusive basis.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents includes cash in hand, deposits held at call with banks, and other short term highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less and bank overdrafts.

Accounts Receivable

Accounts receivable will be stated at net realisable value.

Investments

Investments will be stated at fair value.

 Property Plant and Equipment

CFT’s buildings and site improvements are revalued every three years (or sooner if necessary) to ensure the assets carrying amount does not differ materially from fair value.  All other are shown at cost, less accumulated depreciation and impairment losses.

Consolidation

The purchase method will be applied to prepare the Consolidated Financial Statements (if required).

Leases

Cost of operating leases (if any) will be recognised as expenditure over the term of the lease.

Borrowing

Borrowing is recognised in the balance sheet on a fair value basis.

Taxation

As the CFT has been established as a charitable trust, it should not be liable for income tax. If the Trust does engage in any activity making it liable for income tax, the income tax expense will be calculated after allowance for permanent differences and any group loss offsets.

Funding Commitments

Funding commitments are recognised as a liability and asset until such time that the community facility development is undertaken.  At this time it will be recognised as revenue.


 

Performance Targets

Performance indicators for the CFT are as follows:

 

Indicator and measure

Target 2020/2023

Operational Management

·   Operational expenditure is within budget

·   All reporting requirements set by Council and the Board of CFT are met in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, the CFT Statement of Intent and the CFT Deed of Trust

 

 

100%

 

Annual Report by 30/9/20, 30/9/21 and 30/9/22

SOI and six monthly report by 1/3/21, 1/3/22 and 1/3/23

Facilities Management

·   All facilities maintain legal compliance, WOFs and/or certification

 

·   All facilities have in place an agreement to lease within three months of completion

 

 

·   All facilities have detailed maintenance plans in place within 12 months of completion

 

 

100% Building safety upheld

 

 

100% Legal partnerships covering leases and maintenance are agreed with the principal tenants 

 

100% Maintenance programmes instituted to ensure facilities’ amenity values are retained and are safe for users

 

Environmental Objectives

 

·   Consider how the board can effectively support the Council’s environmental objectives.  In particular give consideration to potential impacts of climate change and ‘carbon zero’ initiatives, and what contribution the Trust can make to this.

 

 

 

Potential impact assessment and action plan report completed by 30 June 2021

Health and Safety

 

·   Enhanced reporting to the Board to ensure best possible health and safety practices and culture are in all CFT facilities.

·   All CFT construction projects have Health and Safety plans and monitoring in place.

 

 

 

Monitoring is in place and reporting to the Board by 30 June 2021

 

 

100% compliance


Prospective Statement of Financial Performance

 

* LTAR&M is defined as Long Term Asset Replacement and Maintenance


 

Prospective Statement of Movements in Equity

 


 

Prospective Statement of Financial Position

 


 

Prospective Statement of Cash Flows


 

Proportion of Accumulated Profits/Capital Reserves Distributed to Shareholder

The CFT is a non-profit entity, and any accumulated profits and/or capital reserves are to be used to fulfil the Trust’s charitable objectives. There is no current requirement to distribute a proportion of these funds to Council.

The CFT Depreciation Policy

The CFT is still evolving policy with respect to the establishment of cost sharing arrangements between itself and sporting bodies and individuals who will use its facilities, buildings and artificial turfs. Wherever possible the CFT will seek to deliver to the users, debt free buildings and facilities at a price which will encourage and stimulate sporting and community participation.

The accounts published above assume that CFT will strike a facilities/building and turf rental that is designed to raise sufficient funds to maintain the asset over the next 25 years.

The CFT is however mindful that some of its assets will have a life well beyond 25 years and could still be in use in 75 years’ time. Predicting what sporting facilities a community might need in 75 years is fraught and the CFT will not attempt to do this. It has therefore resolved to not build into its rental or long-term maintenance strategy an allowance to fund the replacement of an asset older than 25 years. The financial accounts above reflect this policy. Maintenance costs for an asset life of up to 25 years are generally funded out of user charges. Major assets like roofs, lifts and turf carpets which require replacement at the end of their predictable known life, will be funded by a specific arrangement with Council, or Council, the CFT and the tenant combined.

Because the CFT is still evolving its rental and depreciation charges, negotiations to fix agreed rentals with Council and its other tenants are ongoing. Further research, designed to more accurately determine the actual depreciation and maintenance costs on the CFT’s assets and the ability of its tenants to meet those costs, may lead to a change in the above policy and associated CFT budgets for the years beyond 2019/20.

Information to be provided to Shareholders

In each year the CFT shall comply with the reporting requirements specified for Council Controlled Organisations under the Local Government Act 2002, the Companies Act 1993 and other relevant regulations.

In particular, it shall provide the following:

·    Statement of Intent

                A draft Statement of Intent by 1 March detailing all matters required under the Local Government Act 2002.

·    Annual Report

                Within three months  after the end of each financial year, the CFT will provide an annual report which provides a comparison of its performance with the Statement of Intent, with an explanation of any material variances, audited consolidated financial statements for the financial year, and an auditor’s report (in accordance with sections 67, 68 and 69 of the LGA 2002).

·    Half-Yearly Report

                Within two months after the end of the first half of each financial year the CFT shall provide a  report on the operations of the Trust to enable an informed assessment of its performance, including financial statements, and progress on activities and projects (in accordance with section 66 of the LGA 2002).

Procedures to be followed before members acquire shares in other groups etc.

Subscription for shares in any other Company or interest in any other organisation will only take place with express prior approval from Council.

Activities for which the Board seeks compensation from a local authority

It is not anticipated that the Trust will seek compensation from any local authority otherwise than in the context of the normal contractual relationship with Hutt City Council.

If the Trust has undertaken to obtain or has obtained compensation from its shareholders in respect of any activity, this undertaking or the amount of compensation obtained will be recorded in:

·    The annual report of the CFT; and

·    The annual report of the Hutt City Council.

Board estimate of the commercial value of the shareholder’s investment in the group

The Board will conduct an assessment of the value of Council’s investment in the Trust.  The assessment will be based on the net asset value shown in the Trust’s six-monthly report.

Following completion of the Ricoh Sports Centre at Fraser Park, the estimated replacement value of the Trust’s assets is $40 million.

Other Management Issues

Health and Safety in Employment

CFT will maintain best industry practice and ensure 100% compliance with legislated obligations for its sites and buildings.

Community Outcomes

For the past five years CFT has been in building and development mode, it will now commit more resources and work with Council officers to monitor and report on the outcomes of the new CFT facilities. The CFT facilities have had a significant positive impact on the communities that surround them; however this has not been well researched or documented.

Long Term Facility Planning

The CFT has prepared 20 year maintenance plans for all of its buildings and other sporting assets and will now work with Council officers to prepare funding plans for that work. While some of the costs will be met from tenant rentals, more significant expenditure, for example on the cost of reroofing a major building like the Walter Nash, will need to be determined and agreed with Council.

Business Continuity

CFT is refining management practices and back up plans which will become operational in the event of unforeseen circumstances and natural disasters so that any events will have a minimal impact on the future operation of its facilities and assets.

Insurances

CFT will maintain appropriate insurances and/or require its tenants to have appropriate insurances, to mitigate risk of portfolio damage, business interruption and professional indemnity. This will include Directors and Office Bearers’ cover where appropriate.

Emergency Preparedness

CFT will continue to develop and maintain systems and procedures to best position itself and its facilities to deal with emergency situations.

Environmental Objectives

CFT is working with Council staff and consultants to formulate an environmental strategy for CFT that could change the way CFT builds and manages its sporting infrastructure and buildings. It is probable that CFT will not in future use gas heating in its buildings and will consider changing existing gas units at the end of their working life. CFT is already working to include solar power units on its buildings and will make provision for such units on future buildings. CFT will also investigate designing future buildings under the Green Star rating system if such an approach is affordable.

 

 


                                                                                      28                                                            18 June 2020

Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee

04 June 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/423)

 

 

 

 

Report no: LTPAP2020/4/117

 

Final Statement of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 – Seaview Marina Limited

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to consider the final Statement of Intent (SOI) for Seaview Marina Limited (SML) for the three years commencing 1 July 2020.

Recommendations

That the Subommittee recommends that Council receives and agrees to the final Statement of Intent for Seaview Marina Limited for the three years commencing 1 July 2020, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

 

Background

2.    The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires the board of a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) to deliver to its shareholders, a final SOI on or before 30 June each year.

 

3.    The LGA also requires Council to agree to a SOI, or if it does not agree, take all reasonable steps to require a SOI to be modified, as soon as practicable after a SOI of a CCO is delivered to it.

4.    The Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee received and considered the draft SOI for the three year period commencing 1 July 2020 for Seaview Marina Limited at its meeting held on 3 March 2020.

 

5.    Officers advised the Committee that the draft SML SOI did adequately address Council’s expectations.

6.    Officers recommend that Council agrees to the final SOI for SML, as approved by their Board on 18 May 2020, refer to Appendix 1 attached to this report, noting:

a.    There has been no change to the strategic direction or intent from the draft SOI, except for the berth take up rate relating to the in water berth development being reviewed and adjusted to better reflect more recent trends.

 

7.    The impact of the berth take up changes are summarised in the following table:

 

 

a.    Note the return on equity is below 5% for the next two years.  Historically SML has exceeded a 5% ROE and this remains Councils long term expectation.  The capital investment to complete the marina in water development will add to revenue and maximise shareholder value over the longer term.

 

b.    The 30 June final SOI delivery to shareholder requirement was met with the final SOI delivered to Council Officers on 18 June 2020.

Options

8.    If Council does not agree to the final SOI, it may by resolution, require the board to modify the SOI.  Before giving notice of the resolution to the board, Council must consult the board as to the matters requiring modification. However Council is still required to approved the final SOI (as modified) by the 30 June 2020.

Consultation

9.    Consultation is not required as the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee has previously reviewed the draft SOI on 3 March 2020, and no further actions were required by the Board as a result of that review.

Legal Considerations

10.  There is an obligation on the board of a CCO, that each SOI and each modification that is adopted to a SOI, “must be made available to the public within one month after the date on which it is delivered to the shareholders or adopted, as the case may be”.  The final SOI will be made available to the public via the website of Seaview Marina Limited immediately after receiving notification of approval of the final SOI by Council.

Financial Considerations

11.  The SOI contains financial forecasts for the three year period commencing 1 July 2020.

 

12.  SML’s planned activities for the period covered by its SOI, are funded via retained earnings, operating cash flows, and an approved loan agreement with Council. The Council loan to SML is funded by Council through borrowings resulting in nil impact to Council net debt.

13.  The Total Equity of SML is estimated to be $9.4 million at 30 June 2020.

14.  The SML Board do not foresee the ability to pay a dividend until completion of the marina in water development, expected to be completed in 2021/22.  Dividends have been budgeted by SML to commence in 2022/23. 

15.  During 2020/21 the SML Board will develop a Dividend Policy for Council consideration and approval.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Seaview Marina Limited Statement of Intent for the period 2020/21 to 2022/23

29

 

Author: Sharon Page, Senior Management Accountant

Author: Darrin Newth, Financial Accounting Manager

Reviewed By: Jenny Livschitz, Chief Financial Officer

Approved By: Jo Miller, Chief Executive

 


Attachment 1

Seaview Marina Limited Statement of Intent for the period 2020/21 to 2022/23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEAVIEW MARINA LIMITED

 STATEMENT OF INTENT

2020/21 to 2022/23


 

 

 

Contents

1.           Mission. 3

2.           Nature and Scope of Activities. 3

3.           Corporate Governance Statement. 3

4.           Corporate Goals. 3

5.           Specific Objectives for the Year Ending 30 June 2019. 4

6.           Performance Measures. 6

7.           Financial Projections. 7

8.           Accumulated Profits and Capital Reserves. 15

9.           Share Acquisition. 15

10.         Information to be Provided to Shareholders. 15

11.         Pricing Policy. 15

12.         Transactions with Related Parties. 16

13.         Directory. 17

14.         Accounting Policies. 18

 


 

1.        Mission

Seaview Marina Limited’s mission is to be the centre for recreational marine activities and services in the Wellington Region.

2.        Nature and Scope of Activities

Seaview Marina Limited (the Company) is responsible for the operation of the boating facilities and services, the maintenance of infrastructural assets and the development of additional facilities and services as demand dictates.

3.        Corporate Governance Statement

The Company is 100% owned by Hutt City Council and accordingly is a Council Controlled Trading Organisation (CCTO) as defined by the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA). The Directors’ role is defined in Section 58 of the LGA which requires that all decisions relating to the operation of a CCTO shall be made pursuant to the authority of the directorate of the CCTO and its Statement of Intent (SOI). In addition to the obligations of the LGA, the Company is also covered by the Companies Act 1993 which places other obligations on the Directors.

The Directors are responsible for the preparation of the SOI which, along with the three-year financial plan, is provided to the Company’s Shareholder, Hutt City Council.  Six monthly and Annual reports of financial and operational performance are provided to the Shareholder.  Financial and operational /management reports are prepared monthly for the Directors.

The Directors of the Company are responsible for the overall control of the Company but no cost-effective internal control system will permanently preclude all errors or irregularities.  The control systems operating within the Company reflect the specific risks associated with the business of the company.

4.        Corporate Goals

The principle goal of the Company is to operate as a successful business, achieving the objectives of its shareholder as specified in this Statement of Intent. The specific corporate goals of the Company are as follows:

General

4.1       To ensure that the Statement of Intent and operating policies for the Company are consistent with the operating policies of Hutt City Council.

4.2       To ensure that the Statement of Intent and operating strategies are adhered to.

4.3       To keep the Shareholder informed of matters of substance affecting the Company.

4.4       To perform continual reviews of the operating strategies, financial performance and service delivery of the Company.

4.5       To develop the Company into one of New Zealand’s premier marina businesses.

4.6       To further expand and diversify the Company’s marina facilities.

Economic

4.7       To maximise the financial returns achieved and the value added by the Company.

4.8       To return a minimum of 5% return on equity (ROE) per annum.

4.9       To maintain the Company’s financial strength through sound and innovative financial management.

Social and Environmental

4.10     To support recreational boating activities in the Wellington Region.

4.11     To promote safe work practices.

4.12     To act as a socially responsible and environmentally aware corporate citizen and to contribute to, or assist where possible, with Hutt City Council’s community outcomes (as listed in the HCC Annual or Long Term Plan).

4.13     The Company will take steps to respond to the potential impacts of climate change and align itself with the Council’s “carbon zero” initiatives.

5.        Specific Objectives for the Year Ending 30 June 2021

In pursuit of its corporate goals, the Company has the following objectives for the next 12 months:

General

5.1       To review the Statements of Intent and Strategic Plans for consistency with the objectives of Hutt City Council.

5.2       To review the operating activities of the Company for compliance with the goals and objectives stated in the Statement of Intent and Strategic Plan.

5.3       To report all matters of substance to the Shareholder.

Economic

5.4       To achieve all financial projections.

5.5       To achieve or exceed a 5% Return on Equity (ROE).

5.6       To ensure that the reporting requirements of the Company and the Shareholder are met.

Social and Environmental

5.7       To maintain good employer status by:

(a)        complying with all employment legislation;

(b)        operating open and non-discriminatory employment practices.

5.8       To ensure no transgression of environmental and resource laws.

5.9       To review the activities undertaken by the Company for the purposes of being a good socially and environmentally responsible corporate citizen.

 

6.        Shareholder Expectations

The Shareholder has provided the Company with its expectations for the business over the next three years. These expectations are laid out under the following four categories: development, return to shareholder, social and environmental and lastly health and safety. The details are outlined below:

Continue with development plans

Focus on completing the remaining in-water development as the market demands and operating cash flows permit. Any substantial variations will require engagement with the Shareholder.

Returns to Shareholder

In the medium term the Shareholder expects financial returns by way of dividends and breakwater lease payments. Breakwater lease payments commenced in 2019/20. The timing of dividend payments is dependent on completion of the in-water development programme.  The Board will develop a Dividend Policy for consideration and approval of the shareholder.

Social and environmental

Support of charitable non-profit ventures connected with the Company’s business will continue to be a focus.

The Company will take steps to respond to the potential impacts of climate change and align itself with the Council’s ‘carbon zero’ initiatives.

Health and safety

Health and safety will continue to be a top priority and embedded within all activities of the marina.

 

 

7.        Performance Measures

 

Key Performance Indicator

2020/21

2021/22

2022/23

 

Reporting Frequency

 

Financial

 

 

1

Deliver annual budgeted incomes for each of the four business entities

·      Boat storage

·      Hardstand

·      Marine Centre

·      Launching ramp

 

Achieve 100% of budgeted incomes

Achieve 100% of budgeted incomes

Achieve 100% of budgeted incomes

Six monthly

2

Control operational expenses (1)

Operational expenses within budget

Operational expenses within budget

Operational expenses within budget

Annually

3

Achieve prescribed return on investment (2)

4.6%

4.7%

5.2%

Annually

4

Manage Capital Expenditure (3)

Complete within capital budget and on time

Complete within capital budget and on time

Complete within capital budget and on time

Annually

 

Relationship & Communication

 

 

5

Client Service

88% satisfaction in the bi-annual survey

88% satisfaction

for the exit/entry survey

88% satisfaction

 in the bi-annual survey

Annually

6

Newsletter communications

Complete four newsletters per annum

Complete four newsletters per annum

Complete four newsletters per annum

Quarterly

7

Meet all shareholder reporting deadlines

See Section 9

See Section 9

See Section 9

Schedule in Section 9

 

Risk Management and Human Resources

 

 

8

Notifiable health and safety incidents

None

None

None

Monthly to board

9

Business Continuity Plan

Run one test scenario and review

Run one test scenario and review

Run one test scenario and review

Annually

10

Staff Satisfaction

Achieve 85% staff satisfaction

Achieve 85% staff satisfaction

Achieve 85% staff satisfaction

Six Monthly

 

Marketing

 

 

11

Implement marketing strategy to improve occupancy rates (additional berth development initially impacts negatively on berth occupancy rates)

Berth occupancy to 85%

Berth occupancy to 88%

Berth occupancy to 90%

Monthly

12

Media and Public Relations

20 enquiries per month from website

25 enquiries per month from website

30 enquiries per month from website

Monthly

Notes to Financial Measures

(1)      Operational expenses are defined as all expenses controllable by Seaview Management.  Excludes depreciation and finance charges

(2)      Return on equity is defined as net Surplus / (Deficit) divided by the opening balance of equity at the start of the year

(3)      Excludes carry forward of expenses on projects from prior years, unless specifically budgeted for (e.g. where project spans two or more fiscal periods)


 

8.        Financial Projections

The projections have been prepared using a number of assumptions about the future as well as business trends over the previous five years.  In determining these projections the Board and Management have applied their judgement to the future commercial environment in which the Company operates.

The Return on equity without the breakwater lease is:

Capital Expenditure Projections

Note 1:  Ownership of infrastructural assets is retained by the Shareholder (or other clients). 

Note 2:  Seaview Marina has to date returned all financial benefits to its Shareholder through increasing the capital value of the marina with trading profits being retained and invested in the strategic development programme.  Dividends are expected to be returned to the Shareholder after completion of the marina in-water capital development programme.


 

Prospective Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses


 

Prospective Statement of Movements in Equity


 

Prospective Statement of Financial Position


 

Prospective Statement of Cash Flows


Equity Value of the Shareholders’ Investment

The estimated net value of the shareholders’ investment in the company at 30 June 2020 will be $9.4m and $9.8m on 30 June 21.

Ratio of Shareholders Funds to Total Assets

The target ratio for consolidated shareholders' funds to total assets is at least 50%.  Consolidated shareholders' funds comprise share capital and accumulated reserves.  Total assets comprise all tangible assets of the Company, the main component being the marina berths, infrastructure and the Wellington Marine Centre building.


 

 

9.        Accumulated Profits and Capital Reserves

The intention is to pay a dividend to the Shareholder commencing in 2022/23.  The Company will develop a Dividend Policy upon completion of the planned in-water developments (H and I Piers).

10.      Share Acquisition

There is no intention to subscribe for shares in any other company or invest in any other organisation during the period covered by this Statement of Intent.  Not with standing this, the purchase of any shares requires shareholder approval.

11.      Information to be provided to Shareholders

In each year the Company shall comply with the reporting requirements under the Local Government Act 2002, the Companies Act 1993, and other relevant regulations.  In particular the Company will provide:

11.1     Statement of Intent

A draft Statement of Intent by 1 March of the year preceding the financial year to which it relates detailing all matters required under the Local Government Act 2002, including financial information for the next three years.

A final Statement of Intent before the commencement of the financial year to which it relates.

11.2     Half-Yearly Report

Within two months after the end of the first half of each financial year, the Company shall provide a report on the operation of SML to enable an informed assessment of its performance, including financial statements, and progress on activities and projects (in accordance with section 66 of the LGA 2002).

11.3     Annual Report

Within three months after the end of each financial year, the Company will provide an annual report which provides a comparison of its performance with the Statement of Intent, with an explanation of any material variances, audited consolidated Financial Statements for that financial year, and an Auditor’s Report (in accordance with section 67, 68 and 69 of the LGA 2002).

12.      Pricing Policy

The Company operates in a competitive market competing with four other marinas within the Wellington Region and to a lesser extent with the Marlborough marinas. All marina charges, apart from the Wellington Marine Centre Leases, are reviewed on an annual basis. The review is based on a number of criteria which are listed below:

12.1     Market Trends

The Company positions it charges at the lower end of the Wellington marina market but will adjust charges according to movements in other marinas of a similar standard.

12.2     Operating Costs

Increases in operating costs related to the marina activities compared with the previous year (not CPI).

12.3     Achievement of ROE

Hutt City Council sets a minimum ROE which the Company is required to achieve each year and to achieve this rental charges are set accordingly.

13.      Transactions with Related Parties

Transactions between the Company, Lower Hutt City Council and other Hutt City Council controlled enterprises will be conducted on a wholly commercial basis. Charges from Hutt City Council and its other companies will be made for services provided as part of the normal trading activities of the Company.

Related Party

Transaction

Hutt City Council Finance Department

Provision of accounting services and the consolidation of the Company’s financial accounts into the Hutt City Council’s accounts.

Hutt City Council IT Department

Provision of technical support for the Company’s computer hardware and systems.

 

14.      Directory

Directors

Brian Walshe (Chairman)

Chris Milne

Peter Steel

Chief Executive

Alan McLellan

Registered Office

100 Port Road

Seaview

Lower Hutt

New Zealand

Postal Address

Private Bag 33 230

Petone 5012

Telephone

+64 (4) 568 3736

Website

www.seaviewmairna.co.nz

Auditor

Audit New Zealand on behalf of the Auditor General

Bankers

Westpac Banking Corporation of New Zealand Limited

Lower Hutt

New Zealand

Solicitors

Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Letts

Level 2, Corner Queens Drive & Margaret Street

Lower Hutt

New Zealand


 

15.      Accounting Policies

REPORTING ENTITY

Seaview Marina Limited (SML) is a Council Controlled Trading Organisation (CCTO), 100 per cent owned by Hutt City Council.  The primary objective of SML is the operation of a marina which benefits the community of Hutt City.  SML is designated a public benefit entity for financial reporting purposes.

BASIS OF PREPARATION

The financial statements have been prepared on the going concern basis, and the accounting policies have been applied consistently throughout the period.

Statement of compliance

These financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002, which includes the requirement to comply with generally accepted accounting practice in New Zealand (NZ GAAP).  They comply with IPSAS and other applicable Financial Reporting Standards, as appropriate for public benefit entities (PBE) that apply Tier 2 PBE accounting standards.  As SML’s total expenses are under $30,000,000, it has elected to apply Tier 2 PBE accounting standards.

Measurement base

The accounting policies set out below have been applied consistently to all periods presented in these financial statements.

The financial statements have been prepared on a historical cost basis.

Functional and presentation currency

The financial statements are presented in New Zealand dollars and all values have been rounded to the nearest dollar.  The functional currency of SML is New Zealand dollars. 

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICES

Revenue

SML derives revenue from its licensees and casual clients.  The income is generated from a range of rentals for boat storage and building tenancies as well as services available through the facilities provided by SML.

Revenue is measured at the fair value of consideration received. THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Revenue from the rendering of services is recognised by reference to the stage of completion of the transaction at balance date, based on the actual service provided as a percentage of the total services to be provided.

Sales of goods are recognised when a product is sold to the customer.  The recorded revenue is the gross amount of the sale, including credit card fees payable for the transaction. Such fees are included in other expenses.

Interest revenue is recognised using the effective interest method.

Expenses

Expenses are recognised when the goods or services have been received on an accrual basis.

Cash and cash equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents includes cash on hand, deposits held at call with banks, other short term highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less, and bank overdrafts.

Trade debtors and other receivables

Trade debtors and other receivables are initially measured at fair value and subsequently measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method, less any provision for impairment.

Inventory

Inventory is recorded at cost on a first in – first out basis.

Property, plant and equipment

Land is measured at fair value, and buildings are measured at fair value less accumulated depreciation.  All other asset classes are measured at cost less accumulated depreciation and impairment losses.

Additions

Expenditure of a capital nature of $500 or more is capitalised.  Expenditure of less than $500 is charged to operating expenditure.  The cost of an item of property, plant and equipment is recognised as an asset if, and only if, it is probable that future economic benefits or service potential associated with the item will flow to SML and the cost of the item can be measured reliably.

Labour costs relating to self-constructed assets are capitalised if, and only if, it is probable that future economic benefits or service potential associated with the item will flow to SML and the cost of the item can be measured reliably.

Work in progress is recognised at cost less impairment and is not depreciated.

Disposals

Gains and losses on disposals are determined by comparing the proceeds with the carrying amount of the asset. Gains and losses on disposals are recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive revenue and expense.

Subsequent costs

Costs incurred subsequent to initial acquisition are capitalised only when it is probable that future economic benefits or service potential associated with the item will flow to SML and the cost of the item can be measured reliably.

Depreciation

Depreciation is provided on a straight-line basis on all property, plant and equipment at rates that will write off the cost of the assets to their estimated residual values over their useful lives.  The straight-line depreciation rates are as follows:

Property, plant and equipment consist of the following asset classes: land, buildings, leasehold improvements, furniture and office equipment and motor vehicles.

Estimated economic lives

Years

Rate

Buildings

Service Centre, hardstand, travel lift

5 - 33

2 - 77

3% - 20%

1.3% - 50%

Site improvements

3 - 60

1.7% - 33.3%

Piers and marina berths

4 - 30

3.3% - 25%

Plant and equipment

1.5 - 66

1.5% - 67%

Vehicles

5

20%

The residual value and useful life of an asset is reviewed and adjusted if applicable at each financial year end.

Intangible assets

Software acquisition and development

Acquired computer software licenses are capitalised on the basis of the costs incurred to acquire and bring to use the specific software.  Costs associated with maintaining computer software are recognised as an expense when incurred.  Costs that are directly associated with the development of software for internal use by SML, are recognised as an intangible asset.

Amortisation

The carrying value of an intangible asset with a finite life is amortised on a straight-line basis over its useful life.  Amortisation begins when the asset is available for use and ceases at the date that the asset is derecognised.  The amortisation charge for each period is recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive revenue and expense.

The useful lives and associated amortisation rates of major classes of intangible assets have been estimated as follows:

Estimated economic lives

Years

Rate

Computer software

2.5 - 33

3% - 40%

Impairment of non-financial assets

Assets with a finite useful life are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable. If an asset’s carrying amount exceeds its recoverable amount, the asset is impaired and the carrying amount is written down to the recoverable amount.   The recoverable amount is the higher of the asset’s fair value less costs to sell and value in use.  The total impairment loss is recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive revenue and expense.

Goods and services Tax

All items in the financial statements are stated exclusive of GST, except for receivables and payables, which are presented on a GST inclusive basis.  Where GST is not recoverable as input tax then it is recognised as part of the related asset or expense.

Employee entitlements

Short-term entitlements

Employee benefits that SML expects to be settled within 12 months of balance date are measured at nominal values based on accrued entitlements at current rates of pay.  These include salaries and wages accrued up to balance date, annual leave earned to, but not yet taken at balance date, retiring and long service leave entitlements expected to be settled within 12 months, and sick leave.

SML recognises a liability for sick leave to the extent that absences in the coming year are expected to be greater than the sick leave entitlements earned in the coming year.  The amount is calculated based on the unused sick leave entitlement that can be carried forward at balance date, to the extent that SML anticipates it will be used by staff to cover those future absences. 

SML recognises a liability and an expense for bonuses where contractually obliged or where there is a past practice that has created a constructive obligation.

Payables

Short term creditors and other payables are recorded at their face value.

Provisions

SML recognises a provision for future expenditure of uncertain amount or timing when there is a present obligation (either legal or constructive) as a result of a past event, it is probable that expenditures will be required to settle the obligation and a reliable estimate can be made of the amount of the obligation.

Provisions are not recognised for future operating losses.

Provisions are measured at the present value of the expenditures expected to be required to settle the obligation using a pre-tax discount rate that reflects current market assessments of the time value of money and the risks specific to the obligation. The increase in the provision due to the passage of time is recognised as an interest expense.

Borrowings

Borrowings are initially recognised at their fair value plus transaction costs. After initial recognition, all borrowings are measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method.  Borrowings are classified as current liabilities unless SML has an unconditional right to defer settlement of the liability for at least 12 months after balance date.

Borrowing costs

Borrowing costs are recognised as an expense in the period in which they are incurred.

Income tax

Income tax expense includes components relating to both current tax and deferred tax.

Current tax is the amount of income tax payable based on the taxable profit for the current year, and any adjustments to income tax payable in respect of prior years.  Current tax is calculated using tax rates (and tax laws) that have been enacted or substantively enacted at balance date

Deferred tax is the amount of income tax payable or recoverable in future periods in respect of temporary differences and unused tax losses.  Temporary differences are differences between the carrying amount of assets and liabilities in the financial statements and the corresponding tax bases used in the computation of taxable profit.

Deferred tax is measured at tax rates that are expected to apply when the asset is realised or the liability is settled, based on tax rates that have been enacted or substantively enacted at balance date.  The measurement of deferred tax reflects the tax consequences that would follow from the manner in which the entity expects to recover or settle the carrying amount of its assets and liabilities.

Deferred tax liabilities are generally recognised for all taxable temporary differences.  Deferred tax assets are recognised to the extent that it is probable that taxable profits will be available against which the deductible temporary differences or tax losses can be utilised.

Deferred tax is not recognised if the temporary difference arises from the initial recognition of goodwill or from the initial recognition of an asset or liability in a transaction that is not a business combination, and at the time of the transaction, affects neither accounting profit nor taxable profit.

Current and deferred tax is recognised against the surplus or deficit for the period, except to the extent that it relates to a business combination, or to transactions recognised in other comprehensive revenue and expense or directly in equity.

Leases

Operating leases

An operating lease is a lease that does not transfer substantially all the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of an asset.  Lease payments under an operating lease are recognised as an expense on a straight-line basis over the lease term.

Finance leases

SML has not entered into any material finance leases.

Financial instruments

The Company is party to financial instrument arrangements as part of its normal operation.  Revenue and expenses in relation to all financial instruments are recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses.

All financial instruments are recognised in the Statement of Financial Position on the basis of the Company’s accounting policies.  All financial instruments disclosed on the Statement of Financial Position are recorded at fair value.

Budget figures

The budget figures are those approved by the Board at the beginning of the year.  The budget figures have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice (GAAP), using accounting policies that are consistent with those adopted by the Board for the preparation of the financial statements.

Critical accounting estimates and assumptions

In preparing these financial statements SML has made estimates and assumptions concerning the future.  These estimates and assumptions may differ from the subsequent actual results.  Estimates and assumptions are continually evaluated and are based on historical experience and other factors, including expectations of future events that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances.

The estimates and underlying assumptions are reviewed on an on-going basis. Revisions to accounting estimates are recognised in the reporting period in which the revision is made and in any future periods that will be affected by those provisions. 

Assumptions have been made for the useful lives of property, plant and equipment and intangible assets as noted above.

 


                                                                                      52                                                            18 June 2020

Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee

29 May 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/422)

 

 

 

 

Report no: LTPAP2020/4/127

 

Final Statement of Intent 2020/21 to 2022/23 – Urban Plus and Group

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to consider the final Statement of Intent (SOI) for Urban Plus Group (UPL) for the three years commencing 1 July 2020, attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

Recommendations

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council receives and agrees to the final Statement of Intent for Urban Plus Group for the three years commencing 1 July 2020, attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

 

Background

2.    The UPL Board have yet to ratify the Final SOI, however it is expected that approval will be received prior to the final submission of papers for this Committee meeting.

3.    The Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires the board of a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) to deliver to its shareholders, a final SOI on or before 30 June each year.

4.    The LGA also requires Council to agree to a SOI, or if it does not agree, take all reasonable steps to require a SOI to be modified, as soon as practicable after a SOI of a CCO is delivered to it.

5.    The Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee received and considered the draft SOI for the three year period commencing 1 July 2020 for Urban Plus Group at its meeting held on 3 March 2020.

6.    Officers advised the Committee that an appropriate return on investment measure was under review at the time the draft UPL SOI was considered by Council.  After consideration the return on investment measure from the 2019/20 – 2022/23 SOI has been retained and included in the final SOI.

7.    No further feedback on UPL’s draft SOI was provided to the UPL Board for consideration in finalising its SOI for the three year period commencing 1 July 2020.

8.    Officers recommend that Council agree to the final SOI for UPL, attached as Appendix 1 to this report, noting:

a.   There has been no change to the strategic direction or intent from the draft SOI, however the UPL Board is aware that Council could request changes to the UPL SOI when Council has completed its Housing Strategy.

These changes are likely to address social and environmental outcomes such as the provision of social and affordable housing, the application of best practice environmental standards (e.g water sensitive urban design) and working in greater partnership with mana whenua and community housing providers (CHPs). Further discussion and workshopping is required in order to better understand and refine Councils expectations for UPL in their SOI

b.   The financial forecasts and projected number of units in UPL’s rental portfolio have been reviewed and updated since the draft SOI to reflect the most up-to-date forecasts and cash positions.

c.   Other changes to the draft SOI have been limited to grammatical corrections and amendments, and formatting (presentation) changes.

9.    The 30 June final SOI delivery to shareholder requirement was met with the final SOI delivered to Council Officers on 18 June 2020.

Options

10.  If Council do not agree to the final SOI, it may by resolution, require the board to modify the SOI. Before giving notice of the resolution to the board, Council must consult the board as to the matters requiring modification. However Council is still required to approve the final SOI (as modified) by the 30 June 2020.

Consultation

11.  Consultation is not required as the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee has previously reviewed the draft SOI on 3 March 2020, and no further actions were required by the Board as a result of that review.

Legal Considerations

12.  There is an obligation on the board of a CCO, that each SOI and each modification that is adopted to a SOI, “must be made available to the public within one month after the date on which it is delivered to the shareholders or adopted, as the case may be”.  The final SOIs will be made available to the public via the website of UPL immediately after receiving notification of approval of the final SOI by Council.

Financial Considerations

13.  The SOI contains the financial forecasts for the three year periods commencing 1 July 2020.

14.  UPL’s planned activities for the period covered by its SOI, are funded via retained earnings, profits on properties developed for resale, and approved loan agreements with Council. Council loans to UPL are funded by Council through borrowings resulting in nil impact on Council net debt.

15.  The Total Equity of UPL is estimated to be $42.8 million at 30 June 2020.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

UPL GROUP Final Statement of Intent 2020-2023

53

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Simon George

Senior Accountant

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Jenny Livschitz

Chief Financial Officer

 

 

 

Approved By: Darrin Newth

Financial Accounting Manager

 


Attachment 1

UPL GROUP Final Statement of Intent 2020-2023

 

 

 

 

 

URBAN PLUS GROUP

 

STATEMENT OF INTENT

2020/21 – 2022/23

 

 

 

 


Contents

 

Contents. 2

Purpose. 3

Introduction. 3

Urban Plus Contributions to Council and Community Outcomes. 3

Our Business Objectives. 4

Nature and Scope of Activities to be undertaken by the Company. 6

Increasing Housing Supply. 7

Funding. 7

Homelessness. 7

UPL Residential Portfolio Growth. 8

Initiatives and Considerations. 9

The Performance Measures. 10

Risk Management 12

The Board of Directors. 12

Financial Forecasts. 15

Statement of Accounting Policies. 20

Urban Plus Registered Office and Contact Details for Key Officers. 25

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                       

 


Purpose

The purpose of this statement of intent is to:

a.       State publicly the activities and intentions of this council-controlled organisation for the year and the objectives to which those activities will contribute;

b.       Provide an opportunity for shareholders to influence the direction of the organisation; and

c.       Provide a basis for the accountability of the directors to their shareholders for the performance of the organisation.

This Statement of Intent covers the year 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021 and forecasts for the following two financial years.  It has been prepared in accordance with Section 64 (1) of the Local Government Act 2002.

Introduction

Urban Plus Limited (UPL) is wholly owned by Hutt City Council (HCC) and operates as a Council Controlled Organisation (CCO) under the Local Government Act 2002.  UPL was established effective 1 May 2007 with principle objectives as stated below under ‘Our Business Objectives’. 

UPL is a company registered under the Companies Act 1993 and is governed by the requirements of that Act and Section 6 of the Local Government Act 2002, and is covered by law and best practice.  It also has responsibilities under the general law including the Resource Management Act 1991.

The Urban Plus Group comprises Urban Plus Limited (UPL), UPL Limited Partnership (UPLLP) and UPL Developments Limited (UPLDL).

Urban Plus Contributions to Council and Community Outcomes

Desirable outcomes expressed by Hutt City Council are numbered below with UPL’s comments included:

 

1.         A safe community

             The UPL portfolio of residential housing is predominantly occupied by those considered to be the ‘low-income elderly’.  We feel that an elderly presence in any community contributes to a safer community by having people present in residential areas during the working day.  This passive security presence provides ‘stability’ and value to a community by having people in the area while those of younger age may be at work or school. 

 

2.         A strong and diverse economy

             Providing appropriate accommodation for our elderly where they can retain independent living with dignity contributes significantly to community diversity by retaining the elderly in that community.

 

3.         An accessible and connected city.

             The elderly can contribute significantly to the community and families by being actively involved in the community.  This connectivity with the community spans generations and encourages understanding and tolerance between young and old.

 

4.         Healthy people

             UPL has a significant role in providing warmer, drier, healthier homes to the low-income elderly who may not be in a position to self-fund independent accommodation.  This role, and the company’s influence is expanding as increasing numbers of ‘baby-boomers’ retire.  The forecast is for steadily growing numbers of the over 65’s entering this sector as the population ages.  The changing Lower Hutt demographic will put increased pressure on UPL to provide an increased number of housing units in the future.  UPL has a significant role to play in appropriately housing this growing and aging demographic.

 

5.         A healthy natural environment

             UPL aims to be a good community citizen in the widest sense taking responsibility for project management, material selection and disposal in a way that minimises harm and impact on the environment.  We endeavour to apply best practise in terms of passive design (insulation, double glazing and where possible, positioning for solar gain) to minimise energy consumption promoting the concept of warmer, drier healthier homes at minimal ongoing cost to the occupier.

 

6.         Actively engaged in community activities

             The provision of residential housing aimed at the low-income elderly is a community activity where we are using our skills, expertise and professionalism to assist those elderly that are in need of assistance in finding appropriate accommodation.

 

7.         Strong and inclusive communities

             Prior to embarking on any development, UPL considers the overall amenity value of the community including proximity to public transport, retail, medical centres, land contour etc. so our residents can live safely and in an engaged manner within the community retaining mobility and independence.

 

8.         A healthy built environment

             Our developments and management of the existing portfolio contribute to a healthy built environment by best practice property maintenance, developments that are sympathetic to community values, and are complimentary to desirable urban planning aspirations and planning rules.  New properties are insulated, double glazed, warm, dry homes with accessibility issues minimised by passive design.  It is recognised that those occupying warmer drier homes are naturally healthier, consume less energy in keeping those homes warm, and enjoy reduced doctors / hospital visits with increased longevity.

 

9.         A well-governed city

             UPL contributes to good governance by adopting best industry practice in terms of design, project management, property maintenance, fiscal controls, and being a ‘good corporate citizen’.  We strive to ‘do-the-right-thing’ in all or dealings and contractual matters.

 

10.       Urban Growth Strategy

             UPL will assist HCC in the Urban Growth Strategy by applying knowledge, experience, expertise and skill from within UPL as and when called upon to assist the shareholder wherever possible to invigorate growth, development, and property related assistance.  

 

Our Business Objectives

Section 59 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides:

 

Principal objective of council-controlled organisation

(1)        The principal objective of a council-controlled organisation is to:

(a)     Achieve the objectives of its shareholders, both commercial and non-commercial, as specified in the statement of intent;

(b)    Be a good employer;

(c)     Exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates, and by endeavouring to accommodate or encourage these when able to do so; and

(d)    If the Council-controlled organisation is a council-controlled trading organisation, conduct its affairs in accordance with sound business practice.

(2)        In subsection 1.b, good employer has the same meaning as in clause 36 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

In addition to the statutory objective, the objectives of the Company are to:

1.1       provide for the long term a growing portfolio of rental housing for the low-income elderly[1] consistent with, and to give effect to, Council’s housing policy;

1.2       develop the housing portfolio in a manner which increases its property values;

1.3       ensure that the housing portfolio for the low-income elderly is appropriate for the changing needs of the community in terms of the objectives outlined in Council’s housing policy;

1.4       operate as a successful and profitable undertaking;

1.5       purchase, develop, lease or sell the development property portfolio in a manner which maximises its value at a level of risk appropriate for the investment of funds;

1.6       comply with all legislative and regulatory provisions relating to its operations and performance;

1.7       ensure all assets owned by it are maintained to the best applicable standards;

1.8       maintain an effective business continuance plan;

1.9       maintain a register of current Council policies relevant to its business and operations; and

1.10     assist Council when asked to do so in its endeavours in terms of the Urban Growth Strategy.

These objectives will be monitored and where in conflict, these objectives will be pursued giving greater weight to the interests of maximising value to the Shareholders provided that in relation to the provision of social housing, value to the shareholders will include the consideration of social value.

                                  


 

Nature and Scope of Activities to be undertaken by the Company

The principal objective of the Company is to:

1.         Operate as a successful business, returning benefits to the shareholder;

2.         Own, operate and maintain, to an acceptable standard, a portfolio of rental housing to provide community housing for the low-income elderly in accordance with normal commercial guidelines and the housing policy of  Council;

3.         Ensure that the housing portfolio for the low-income elderly is appropriate for the changing needs of the community in terms of the objectives outlined in Council’s housing policy;

4.         Develop property in preparation for sale or lease, which are declared surplus to the needs of Hutt City Council and which provide an appropriate return for the costs and risks of development;

5.         Purchase, develop, lease or sell the development property portfolio in a manner which maximises its value at a level of risk appropriate for the investment of funds; and

6.         Otherwise become involved in property-related transactions and property-technical advisory services on a commercial basis that support the Shareholders' vision for the future development of the city.  This specifically includes assisting with progressing the Urban Growth Strategic Objectives.

 

Section 59 of the Local Government Act 2002 also provides that the principal objectives of a council-controlled trading organisation include the objectives of its Shareholders.

 

In order to meet our objectives we focus our work activity on asset planning and development, capital project management, operations management, risk management, staff development and corporate governance.

Other

UPL will continue to be involved in property-related transactions on a commercial basis that support the Shareholders' vision for the future development of the city.

 

UPL will continue to provide a wide range of strategic property advice and property consultancy when required to the Shareholder.  Work has included:

1.         Advice and general direction for Making Places projects;

2.         Commercial leasing management advice for HCC property and subsidiaries;

3.         Specific property advice (example – Community Facilities Trust – long-term maintenance planning);

4.         Assist with strategic property acquisition as directed by the Shareholder.

 

5.      

Increasing Housing Supply

Housing Shortage: Greater Demand for Housing than Supply

 

The past two years has seen a significant increase in housing development in Lower Hutt.  The remissions scheme provided by Council to promote infill housing and multi-unit developments has been one reason. Such growth however has resulted in a scarcity of available land for future housing developments on the valley floor.  However, it is widely acknowledged that demand still continues to grow faster than supply.  Accordingly, there is an expectation that the Shareholder will release land to meet increasing demand levels in all housing typologies in Lower Hutt. 

 

UPL now has the opportunity to focus on areas in the market where demand is not being met with supply by other developers.

 

Release of Council-Owned Land for Development

 

UPL will work closely with the Shareholder throughout the 2020-21 financial year to assist in reviewing and identifying parcels of land that could enable further growth to achieve its Urban Growth targets and address the housing shortage currently being experienced in Lower Hutt.

Funding

The completion of recent market release developments has positioned the company to put funds towards its upcoming social housing projects. Whilst the funds will assist towards progressing these upcoming planned projects, the company’s aspirations to grow the portfolio may require further funding.  As such, UPL may seek alternative funding options such as strategic sell down of some of its existing stock, partnering with third party housing providers such as Community Housing Providers in a variety of structures or debt / equity financing. 

 

As a general guide, expected current costs to deliver a single level, one-bedroom unit are approximately $320,000 incl GST.  Two-bedroom townhouses suitable for medium density developments are expected to cost approximately $450,000 incl GST. These figures include assumed costs for land and all fees associated with delivering the projects.

Homelessness

Supporting Shareholder Objectives

 

The Shareholder is developing both its Homelessness Strategy and its Housing Strategy.  UPL remains open and responsive to the outcomes of these strategies, and will support the Shareholder to achieve its objectives and planned outcomes.

 

Housing typologies for the Urban Plus Residential Portfolio

 

Historically, UPL’s model was to intensify sites, both within its own existing portfolio and on land acquired via the market, with single bedroom unit developments.  These generally were c. 40-48m2 in total dwelling size, and catered for the majority of our tenant base.

Future-looking, UPL is looking at providing both one and two bedroom units where amenity value is high, and it is financially viable to do so.  This may be either single or two storey layouts.

As our core tenant is the low income elderly, there is little need to produce a wider variety of housing or greater number of bedrooms per dwelling at this stage – however, if the Shareholder provides a wider mandate, UPL will amend its design and specification accordingly.

 

Housing typologies for UPL Limited Partnership Developments

Previously, UPL’s development entity provided a mix of housing typologies at its Fairfield Waters development by providing a mix of two and three bedroom 2-storey townhouses as well as three and four bedroom standalone homes.  This variety appealed to a wide range of purchasers – from retirees and downsizers, to young professionals and families.

UPLLP’s second major development, Parkview, provided a more generic product of twenty four single level townhouses with single (internally accessed) garages.  The reasoning was to release a more traditionally accepted product to the market in Avalon rather than the multi-unit 2-storey townhouse design.

The next developments that are currently under construction are ‘Central Park on Copeland’ in Epuni and ‘The Lane’ in Waterloo.  The developments are similar in that there are two and three bedroom townhouses, all with car-pads, being offered to the market at both developments.  Central Park has an alternative three bedroom option with a single, internally accessed garage.

As the housing market changes UPLLP will remain agile, and be flexible with what type of housing product it releases into the market and for its own residential portfolio.  We will continue to align with the Shareholder’s Urban Growth Strategy (UGS) and its focus on meeting the UGS targets by 2032, as well as greater intensification on the valley floor via medium density developments.

 

UPL Residential Portfolio Growth

 

Molesworth Street Development

 

Earlier this financial year, UPL acquired the Molesworth Street reserve from the Shareholder.  Additionally, UPL strategically purchased an adjacent residential property in Molesworth Street (Taita) to amalgamate with the reserve land, for greater utilisation of land and better yield of social housing units.

 

Whilst still in the planning stages, this project could provide approx. eighteen additional units for low income elderly or wider social housing purposes.  It is anticipated these units will be completed in the 2021-22 financial year.

 

Infill of Existing Portfolio Properties

 

Plans are underway to infill underutilised areas of one of UPL’s existing rental properties in Petone. The current designs are for twelve (multi-level) one bedroom units to be added to the existing twenty seven units at 17 Britannia Street.  The additional units are viewed as a prudent intensification of an existing property and positive outcome for all tenants due to the high amenity value the property enjoys due to its close proximity to Jackson Street’s commercial precinct. Completion of this infill project is planned to occur within the 2021-22 financial year.

 

 

 


 

Initiatives and Considerations

Affordable Housing

To enable a chance for first home buyers to enter onto the property ladder, UPL released to the market ten of its thirty four Central Park on Copeland townhouses at $550,000 each, and five of the twenty seven The Lane – Waterloo townhouses at between $535,000 and $550,000 each.  Purchasers had a set of requirements to qualify prior to contracts being deemed unconditional which targeted owner occupiers rather than investors.  The company saw these as affordable price points, which resulted in several sales and achieved its purpose for assisting first home buyers to attain home ownership in Lower Hutt.  UPL will continue to release housing at affordable levels where it is prudently viable.

Lowering Carbon Emissions

The Shareholder has set a carbon zero objective, and as such UPL aims to align with this direction where possible.  UPL has, and will continue to, incorporate features into its dwelling design and development site layouts that lower carbon emissions.  Examples include using electricity or renewable sources of energy for space and water heating, minimising building waste, and making buildings ready for charging electric vehicles.

 

HomeStar 6 Rating

 

UPL will seek to incorporate design and environmental considerations into future projects, and align these with the HomeStar rating assessment to achieve no less than 6 stars in future housing development projects.

 

Central Government Initiatives

When sought by the Shareholder, UPL will look to support central government initiatives where it is financially, socially and environmentally prudent, and is to the overall betterment to Lower Hutt City.  Further, UPL will seek to work with any form of social or community housing providers which promote the growth of housing in Lower Hutt.

 

Local Environmental Considerations

 

When undertaking future developments requiring significant decisions on land and water, UPL will take into consideration the relationship of Maori and their culture, traditions and their relationship to land and water.

 


 

The Performance Measures

The Company will meet the following measures for the next three years:

Rental Housing

1.1    Capital expenditure within budget.

1.2    Operational expenditure within budget.

1.3    Net Surplus before Depreciation and after Finance Expenses as a Proportion of the Net Book Value of Residential Land and Buildings at the Start of the Year – Greater than 3.5%.

1.4    Tenant satisfaction with the provision of the company’s rental housing greater than or equal to 90%.

1.5    Percentage of total housing units occupied by low-income elderly[2] greater than or equal to 85%.

1.6    Rentals charged shall not be less than 80% of ‘market’ rent.*

1.7    Increasing the portfolio size to 220 units by December 2021.

1.8    By 30 June 2021, assess the performance of the rental housing portfolio against the HomeFit® standard.

1.9    Any rental housing units purchased and not already utilising electricity or renewable sources of energy for space heating, water heating, and cooking facilities, shall be converted to utilise only electricity or renewable sources of energy within five years of acquisition.

1.10  New rental housing units constructed by UPL to utilise only electricity or renewable sources of energy for space heating, water heating and cooking facilities.

* With market rents rising at greater than inflation, the current 2019/20 FY 85% target is becoming increasingly harder for our tenants to afford.  Subject to significant lifts on market rental income levels, the Board reserves to right to decide on the level of rentals charged per unit, on a case by case basis.

 

 Property Development

1.11  Capital expenditure within budget.

1.12  Operational expenditure within budget.

1.13  A return of not less than 10.0% after interest and tax on each project.

1.14  From 1 July 2019, any new developments not already resource consented as at 30 June 2019, shall only utilise electricity or renewable sources of energy for space heating, water heating and cooking facilities.

1.15  By the year ending 30 June 2021, at least one housing unit (standalone house or townhouse) shall achieve a certified HomeStarTM rating of at least six stars.

Professional Property Advice          

1.16  Achieve a market return on additional services provided to the Shareholder.

UPL Developments Limited

1.17  Undertake, negotiate and execute tender processes for and on behalf of the Partnership and ‘parent’ company as required.

1.18  Facilitate civil and construction contracts for and on behalf of the Partnership and ‘parent’ company as required.

1.19  Facilitate payment of contract progress claims for Board approved contracts as well as payments to other suppliers engaged to provide services or goods to defined development projects.

1.20  Should UPLDL be used for future developments, the same performance measures apply as for Property Development (refer above).

1.21  Act as General Partner when a Limited Partnership structure is utilised for development projects.

UPL Limited Partnership

1.22  Develop land in a manner which maximises its value at a level of risk appropriate for the investment of funds.

1.23  To perform business undertakings in common with Urban Plus Limited with a view to profit from development projects for the purposes of funding for the elderly housing portfolio.

1.24  Should UPLLP be used for future developments, the same performance measures apply as for Property Development (refer above).


Risk Management

Health and Safety in Employment

UPL will maintain best industry practice with ongoing reviews of its Health and Safety policies to ensure they remain current and ‘leading edge’ in terms of compliance.

 

Business Continuity

UPL will maintain a Business Continuity Plan for unforeseen circumstances so any event will have minimal impact on the day-to-day operation of the business.

 

Insurances

UPL will maintain appropriate insurances to mitigate risk of portfolio damage, business interruption and professional indemnity.  This will include Directors and Office Bearers cover where appropriate.

 

Emergency preparedness

UPL will rehearse and maintain systems and procedures to best position itself to deal with emergency situations.

 

Commercial Risk

UPL will manage its affairs in a manner that minimises commercial risk recognising that some risk will need to be taken to achieve targets.

The Board of Directors

The Board of Directors consists of three members, with the Shareholder appointing council representation as Director(s) and Independent Directors.  Directors serve three-year terms. 

 

The Board is responsible for the proper direction, governance and control of UPL.

 

Unanimous approval of the Board is required for:

1.1       Employment of staff and creation of new positions outside of resolved budget limits;

1.2       Extraordinary transactions (entering into any contract or transaction except in the ordinary course of business);

1.3       Delegation of Directors’ powers to any person;

1.4       Major transactions (entering into any major transaction);

1.5       Disputes (commencing or settling any litigation, arbitration or other proceedings which are significant or material to the Company’s business);

1.6       Borrowings in a manner that materially alters the Company’s banking arrangements, advancing of credit (other than normal trade credit) exceeding $5,000 to any person except for making deposits with bankers, or giving of guarantees or indemnities to secure any person’s liabilities or obligations;

1.7       Sale of assets (sell or dispose of fixed assets for a total price per transaction exceeding $100,000 or a series of transactions aggregated exceeds $300,000); and

1.8       Capital expenditure (other than in the ordinary course of doing business) at a total cost to the Company, per transaction, exceeding $100,000 or a series of transactions aggregated exceeds $300,000.

The Board will require the agreement of the Shareholder for:

1.1       Any changes to the constitution;

1.2       Any increases in capital and the issue of further securities, share buybacks and financial assistance;

1.3       Any alteration of rights attaching to shares;

1.4       Any arrangement, dissolution, reorganisation, liquidation, merger or amalgamation of the Company; and

1.5       Any ‘major transactions’ as that term is defined in the Companies Act 1993.

Ratio of consolidated Shareholders’ funds to total assets

The target ratio for consolidated Shareholders' funds to total assets is at least 50%.  Consolidated Shareholders' funds comprise share capital and accumulated reserves.  Total assets comprise all tangible assets of the Company, the main component being housing and undeveloped land.  The forecast consolidated Shareholders funds as at June 2020 is 70%.  The share capital of $15.3 million consists of 27 million ordinary shares on issue, of which all are fully paid.

Accumulated profits and capital reserves

There is no intention to pay a dividend in the 2020/21 financial year or succeeding years.

Information to be provided to Shareholders

In each year UPL shall comply with the reporting requirements specified for CCO’s under the Local Government Act 2002 and the Companies Act 1993 and regulations.

In particular, it shall provide:

Annually

1.         Annually report, within two months after the end of each financial year, which will include:

2.         A Statement of Intent detailing all matters required under the Local Government Act 2002;

3.         An annual budget for the coming financial year, broken out by the two major areas of operation; Rental Housing and Land Development, including the assets employed and debt attributable to each area;

4.         A written report on the financial operations of the Company to enable an informed assessment of its performance including a comparison against budget and the Statement of Intent and the Return on Equity and Return on Assets for the Period;

5.         Financial statements comprising the Statement of Financial Position, Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses and Statement of Cash Flows;

6.         A business plan indicating the nature of property development it proposes to undertake and the range of investment and estimated return it proposes to achieve;

7.         An assessment of the current market for rental housings and the appropriateness of the current housing portfolio to meet the needs of the low-income elderly.

Half Yearly

8.         Six-monthly, within two-months of the end of the six month reporting period.

9.         A written report on the operations of the Company by the two major areas of operation to enable an informed assessment of its performance including a financial comparison against budget and the Statement of Intent and the Return on Equity and Return on Assets for the Period.

10.       Financial statements comprising the Statement of Financial Position, Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenses and Statement of Cash Flows.

11.       Progress on activities outlined in the agreed business plan.

 

Share acquisition

There is no intention to subscribe for shares in any other company or invest in any other organisation. 

(NOTE: UPL has a subsidiary company UPL Developments Limited).

Compensation from local authority

It is not anticipated that the company will seek compensation from any local authority other than in the context of normal commercial contractual relationships.

NB: if a CCO has undertaken to obtain or has obtained compensation from its Shareholders in respect of any activity, this undertaking or the amount of compensation obtained will be recorded in:

1.         The annual report of the council-controlled organisation; and

2.         The annual report of the local authority.

Equity value of the shareholders’ investment

For the year ended 30 June 2021, the estimated net value of the Shareholder’s investment in Urban Plus Group will be $42.810 million. 


 

Financial Forecasts

Planning and programming for development projects will be based on exceeding the agreed minimum financial performance thresholds of greater than 3.5% in terms of residential portfolio returns (see Performance Measure 1.3 above), and 10.0% after interest and tax (see 1.13 above) for commercial developments.  Each development project will require the approval of the Board to ensure strategic fit and achievement of the minimum rate of return.

 

The current volatility of the property market and anticipated future interest rate increases has resulted in considerable uncertainty in terms of what projects will come available, and what sales might result from those projects.  The financial statements within this Statement of Intent therefore exclude potential development projects.  Details of potential development projects will be included in the regular reporting to the Board and Shareholder.

 

The most recent residential development project was Parkview, in Avalon.  The project consisted of the construction and sale of twenty four stand-alone townhouses. The project was completed towards the end of the second quarter of the 2019/20 financial year, and cost $10.8M, and realised a pre-tax net gain of $4.5M.     This commercial development project was managed by UPL Developments Limited  – a wholly owned subsidiary of UPL providing property development management services – through UPL Limited Partnership  – a partnership between UPL Limited Partnership (as General Partner) and UPL (as Limited Partner).

 

The success of the Parkview development will enable UPL to not only strengthen its financial position, but also to reinvest the profits of the development in to its residential housing portfolio in order to achieve the company goal of 220 residential units by December 2021.

 

The company’s current development projects which are both in the construction phase are Central Park on Copeland and The Lane, Waterloo.  The first mentioned is a thirty-four townhouse development on part of the former Copeland Street Reserve land in Epuni which is forecast to have a pre-tax net gain of $4.3m.  The latter is a twenty-seven townhouse development in Waterloo – on land owned by UPL which is forecast to have a pre-tax net gain of $3.3m. All sixty-one townhouses are now sold, and are programmed to be completed within the 2020-21 financial year.

 

The planned Jackson Street apartments remain on hold.  UPL is reviewing construction costs, as well as seeking opportunities in the market for joint venture options with other social / community housing providers where ownership could be transferred; but end-result social housing options are still attained. Such an outcome will provide the planned outcome, but frees UPL to progress other opportunities to continue growth in other areas of Lower Hutt.

 

The original target date for UPL to achieve 220 rental units was 30 June 2020.  This target date will not be achieved based on the current development programme with only 189 units projected as at 30 June 2020.  The target of 220 units is now expected to be achieved by December 2021.  However during this time frame UPL will have developed and sold to the private market, 105 houses, the profits from which will fund the growth in UPL’s rental portfolio without requiring ratepayer assistance.

The financial forecasts, the projected number of rental units, and the numbers of houses developed and sold to the market over the period covered by this SOI is based on the following 4 year development programme:

 

 

 

The original 220 rental units target could be achieved earlier but this would require additional funding from the Shareholder either through an equity injection or approving increases to UPL’s available credit lines, i.e., loans.

 

Until a decision has been made on UPL’s Jackson Street site, this development opportunity has been excluded from UPL’s financial forecasts.

 

No provision has been made in the financial forecasts for possible gains from property revaluations.  Any gains would not have any impact on cash/debt but would result in deferred tax liabilities which would remain until the underlying properties are sold by UPL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Consolidated Statement of Financial Performance

 

Note: Losses in 2022 and 2023 are based on the assumption no future developments for sale to market are initiated with no reduction in associated costs.

Consolidated Statement of Changes in Equity

 

 


 

Consolidated Statement of Financial Position

 

 


 

Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows

 


 

Statement of Accounting Policies

 

UPL will apply the following accounting policies consistently during the year and apply these policies to the statement of intent. In accordance with the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants Financial Reporting Standard 42 (FRS 42), the following information is provided in respect of the statement of intent.

Cautionary note

The statement of intent’s forecast financial information is prospective. Actual results are likely to vary from the information presented, and the variations may be material.

Nature of prospective information

The financial information presented consists of forecasts that have been prepared on the basis of best estimates and assumptions on future events that Urban Plus Limited expects to take place.

Statement of compliance with International Financial Reporting Standard

The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with New Zealand generally accepted accounting practice. They comply with New Zealand equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards (NZ IFRS) and other applicable financial reporting standards, as appropriate for public benefit entities.

Reporting entity

UPL is a company registered under the Companies Act 1993 and a council-controlled trading organisation as defined by Section 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. Hutt City Council is the only shareholder. The company was incorporated in New Zealand in 13 December 1996 as De Luien Developments Limited, changed its name to Centre City Plaza Limited on 27 June 1997, changed its name to Hutt Holdings Limited on 20 January 2003 and finally changed its name to Urban Plus Limited on 25 May 2007.

 

The financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Companies Act 1993, the Financial Reporting Act 1993 and the Local Government Act 2002.

 

For purposes of financial reporting, UPL is a public benefit entity.

Reporting period

The reporting period covers the 12 months from 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021.  Comparative projected figures for the year ended 30 June 2022 and 30 June 2023 are provided.

Specific accounting policies

The accounting policies set out below have been applied consistently to all periods presented in these financial statements.

 

The measurement basis applied is historical cost.

 

The accrual basis of accounting has been used unless otherwise stated.  These financial statements are presented in New Zealand dollars rounded to the nearest thousand, unless otherwise stated.

Judgements and estimations

Preparing financial statements in conformity with NZ IFRS requires judgements, estimates and assumptions that affect the application of policies and reported amounts of assets, liabilities, income and expenses.  Where material, information on the major assumptions is provided in the relevant accounting policy or will be provided in the relevant note to the financial statements.

 

The estimates and underlying assumptions are reviewed on an ongoing basis.  Revisions to accounting estimates are recognised in the period in which the estimate is revised if the revision affects only that period or in the period of the revision and future periods if the revision affects both current and future periods.

 

Judgements that have a significant effect on the financial statements and estimates with a significant risk of material adjustment in the next year are discussed in the relevant notes.

Cash and cash equivalents

Cash and cash equivalents includes cash on hand, deposits held at call with banks, other short term highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less, and bank overdrafts.

Debtors and other receivables

Debtors and other receivables are initially measured at fair value and subsequently measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method, less any provision for impairment.

Revenue

Revenue is measured at the fair value of consideration received.

Revenue from the rendering of services is recognised by reference to the stage of completion of the transaction at balance date, based on the actual service provided as a percentage of the total services to be provided.

Sales of goods are recognised when a product is sold to the customer.  The recorded revenue is the gross amount of the sale, including credit card fees payable for the transaction.  Such fees are included in other expenses.

Property sales are recognised on settlement date, along with the related expenses

Interest income is recognised using the effective interest method.

Property, plant and equipment

On transition to NZ IFRS assets were recorded at cost less accumulated depreciation and impairment losses.

 

Revaluation

Land and buildings are revalued with sufficient regularity to ensure that their carrying amount does not differ materially from fair value and at least every three years.  All other asset classes are carried at depreciated historical cost.  The carrying values of revalued assets are assessed annually to ensure that they do not differ materially from the assets’ fair values.  If there is a material difference, then the off-cycle asset classes are revalued.

Revaluations of property, plant, and equipment are accounted for on a class-of-asset basis.

The net revaluation results are credited or debited to other comprehensive income and are accumulated to an asset revaluation reserve in equity for that class of asset.  Where this would result in a debit balance in the asset revaluation reserve, this balance is not recognised in other comprehensive income but is recognised in the surplus or deficit.  Any subsequent increase on revaluation that reverses a previous decrease in value recognised in the surplus or deficit will be recognised first in the surplus or deficit up to the amount previously expensed, and then recognised in other comprehensive income.

Additions

Expenditure of a capital nature of $500 or more has been capitalised.  Expenditure of less than $500 has been charged to operating expenditure. The cost of an item of property, plant and equipment is recognised as an asset if, and only if, it is probable that future economic benefits or service potential associated with the item will flow to UPL and the cost of the item can be measured reliably.


 

Disposals

Gains and losses on disposals are determined by comparing the proceeds with the carrying amount of the asset.  Gains and losses on disposals are recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Income.

Subsequent costs

Costs incurred subsequent to initial acquisition are capitalised only when it is probable that future economic benefits or service potential associated with the item will flow to UPL and the cost of the item can be measured reliably.

Depreciation

Depreciation is provided on a straight line basis on all property, plant and equipment at rates that will write off the cost (valuation) of the assets to their estimated residual values over their useful lives.  The straight line depreciation rates are as follows:

 

Estimated economic lives

Years

Rate

Buildings

5 - 65

1.54% - 20.00%

Plant and equipment

8 - 11

9.09% - 12.50%

Leasehold improvements

4 - 5

20.00% - 25.00%

 

The residual value and useful life of an asset is reviewed and adjusted if applicable at each financial year end.

Intangible assets

Software acquisition and development

Acquired computer software licenses are capitalised on the basis of the costs incurred to acquire and bring to use the specific software.  Costs associated with maintaining computer software are recognised as an expense when incurred.  Costs that are directly associated with the development of software for internal use by UPL, are recognised as an intangible asset.

Amortisation

The carrying value of an intangible asset with a finite life is amortised on a straight-line basis over its useful life.  Amortisation begins when the asset is available for use and ceases at the date that the asset is derecognised.  The amortisation charge for each period is recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Income.

The useful lives and associated amortisation rates of major classes of intangible assets have been estimated as follows:

 

Estimated economic lives

Years

Rate

Computer software

2.8         

36%

 

Impairment of non-financial assets

Assets with a finite useful life are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount may not be recoverable.  If an asset’s carrying amount exceeds its recoverable amount, the asset is impaired and the carrying amount is written down to the recoverable amount.  The total impairment loss is recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Income.


 

Goods and services tax

All items in the financial statements are stated exclusive of GST, except for receivables and payables.  Where GST is not recoverable as input tax then it is recognised as part of the related asset or expense.

The net amount of GST recoverable from, or payable to, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) is included as part of receivables or payables in the Statement of Financial Position.

Commitments and contingencies are disclosed exclusive of GST.

Employee entitlements

Short-term entitlements

Employee benefits that UPL expects to be settled within 12 months of balance date are measured at nominal values based on accrued entitlements at current rates of pay.  These include salaries and wages accrued up to balance date, annual leave earned to, but not yet taken at balance date, retiring and long service leave entitlements expected to be settled within 12 months, and sick leave.

UPL recognises a liability for sick leave to the extent that absences in the coming year are expected to be greater than the sick leave entitlements earned in the coming year.  The amount is calculated based on the unused sick leave entitlement that can be carried forward at balance date, to the extent that UPL anticipates it will be used by staff to cover those future absences.

UPL recognises a liability and an expense for bonuses where contractually obliged or where there is a past practice that has created a constructive obligation.

Borrowings

Borrowings are initially recognised at their fair value.  After initial recognition, all borrowings are measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method.

Borrowing costs

Borrowing costs are recognised as an expense in the period in which they are incurred.

Creditors and other payables

Creditors and other payables are initially measured at fair value and subsequently measured at amortised cost using the effective interest method.

Income tax

Income tax for the period is calculated by reference to the amount of income taxes payable or recoverable in respect of the taxable profit or tax loss for the period.  It is calculated using tax rates and tax laws that have been enacted or substantively enacted by the reporting date.  Current tax for current and prior periods is recognised as a liability (or asset) to the extent that it is unpaid (or refundable).

Property intended for sale

Property previously held but now being sold as it is no longer required is classified as a property held for sale.

This classification is used where the carrying amount of the property will be recovered through sale, the property is available for immediate sale in its present condition and sale is highly probable.

Property held for sale is recorded at the lower of the carrying amount and fair value less costs to sell.  From the time a property is classified as held for sale, depreciation is no longer charged on the improvements.

Where property is held for sale or for development for sale, in the ordinary course of business, it is classified as inventory.  Such property is recorded at the lower of cost and net realisable value (selling price less costs to complete and sale costs).  Any write-downs to net realisable value are expensed in the net surplus/(deficit) for the year.


 

Leased assets

Operating Leases

Leases where the lessor effectively retains substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership of the leased items are classified as operating leases.  Payments made under these leases are expensed in the Statement of Comprehensive Income on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease.  Lease incentives received are recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Income as an integral part of the total lease payment.

Finance Leases

The Company has not entered into any material finance leases.

Financial instruments

The Company is party to financial instrument arrangements as part of its normal operation.  Revenue and expenses in relation to all financial instruments are recognised in the Statement of Comprehensive Income.

All financial instruments are recognised in the Statement of Financial Position on the basis of the Company’s accounting policies.  All financial instruments disclosed on the Statement of Financial Position are recorded at fair value other than those specifically identified in the Notes to the financial statements.


 

 

 

Urban Plus Registered Office and Contact Details for Key Officers

 

Registered office

30 Laings Road, Lower Hutt 5010

Contact details for Chairman and Chief Executive

Private Bag 31912, Lower Hutt 5040

Telephone

04 569 1000

 

 

 

 

 


                                                                                      82                                                            18 June 2020

Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee

11 June 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/586)

 

 

 

 

Report no: LTPAP2020/4/142

 

Lending to Council Controlled Organisations

 

Purpose of Report

1.    The purpose of this report is to obtain authority from Council to continue the loan funding arrangements with the Council Controlled Trading Organisations (CCTO's) and (non-trading) Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s). This includes agreeing to extend the maturity of the loan agreements and retain the lending margins currently in place. Additional funding of $4M is sort by UPL for a one year period in order to support delivery of the UPL SOI.

Recommendations

That the Subcommittee recommends that Council:

(i)      approves extending the maturity of existing loan agreements to allow Council to continue on-lending up to;

(a)   $3.5M long-term to Seaview Marina Limited (SML);

(b)   $13.0M long-term to Urban Plus Limited (UPL);

(c)   $5.0M short-term (up to 364 days) to UPL; and

(d)  $3.335M long-term to The Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (CFT);

(ii)     agrees that these approvals will cover the period up to 30 June 2028;

(iii)    agrees that the maximum maturity date for any loan is limited to seven years from the date the loan is arranged;

(iv)    approves increasing the value of Short-term lending in (i) (c) above from $5.0M to $9.0M to UPL;

(v)     agrees that the margins on loans to CCTOs (SML and UPL) remain unchanged at 1.0%, and 0.5% for CCOs (CFT);

(vi)    approves officers making the necessary amendments to the existing loan agreements between Council and the CCTOs/CCOs, outlining the revised terms and conditions associated with these loans.

 

For the reasons that SML, UPL and CFT require loan funding to deliver the outcomes contained in their respective SOI’s, and that Council due to its strong credit rating and access to debt funding via the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) can provide the required loan funding at the lowest cost to the Hutt City Council Group.

 

Background

2.    In May 2018, Council approved identical recommendations to recommendations (i), and (v) to (vii), to cover the period up to 30 June 2021. Refer appendix 1. Prior to this in 2014, Council had approved previous loan arrangements.

3.    Formal loan agreements between Council and the CCOs were executed and remain in place.  The respective CCO loan balances have remained within approved loan limits since the last Council approval and are currently:

a.    $2.7M for SML;

b.    $13.0M for UPL; and

c.     $3.335M for CFT.

4.    Approval is sought to continue with the loan funding arrangements between Council and these entities.

5.    Approval is also sought to amend the maturity of the current loan agreements with SML, UPL and CFT from the current maturity date of 30 June 2021 to 30 June 2028, in order to provide longer term certainty of funding.

6.    Approval is also sought to provide additional short-term funding of $4.0M to UPL to assist with cash-flow timing challenges related to the delivery of the SOI.

7.    The current loan agreements include a clause allowing Council to seek repayment of loans on demand. Should this clause be invoked, the ability to refinance loans externally at short notice may create going concern issues (i.e. the ability to continue trading) for the particular CCO/CCTO. By extending the period of the loan maturities out to 2028, this provides longer term certainty of funding to the entities and also negates any going concern disclosure issues related to the year-end financial statements and the audit review process.

8.    The draft SOI’s presented to Council in March by each of the CCOs and the draft Annual Plan 2020/21 assume that the current loan funding continue and additional short term funding is approved.

9.    Final SOI’s are required to be ratified by Council no later than 30 June 2020 (included in this meeting’s agenda)  and also assume that the current long term funding continue and additional short term funding is approved.

10.  As part of the LTP 2021-2031, there will be a review of the funding arrangements for these entities and a review of the related SOIs. Council will have the opportunity at this time to make changes to the future plans for these entities and the related funding arrangements.

Discussion

SML

11.  Approval to on-lend up to $3.5M to fund SML’s planned in-water developments was granted in 2009, 2014 and further approved in 2018.

12.  SML’s in-water and property developments to date have been very successful as evidenced by SML’s strong financial performance, balance sheet, and growing cash flows from operations.

13.  SML’s capital plans include further in-water developments which will further strengthen SML’s financial results and significantly improve the CCTO’s value and future dividends to Council.  Continued loan funding is required and appropriate to realise SML’s planned value improvement.

14.  No additional funding is being requested at this time.

UPL

15.  Approval to on-lend up to $18.0M ($13.0M long-term, $5M short-term) currently exists, of which $13.0M has been drawn down by UPL. 

16.  UPL plans to grow its residential rental portfolio from its current holding of 189 units to 220 units by December 2021.  It intends to fund this growth through a combination of the existing Council loan facility, and from profits on properties developed for resale like the successful Fairfield Waters and Parkview residential developments.

17.  Profits from property developed for resale will in time fund the planned growth in the UPL residential rental portfolio.  To achieve the 220 units target by December 2021, residential rental developments and property developed for resale will need to happen concurrently over the next 1-2 years. To do this, the additional short term ‘project’ funding (up to $5M) for property developed for resale, will be required.

18.  The additional $4M of short-term funding requested by UPL is to support strategic purchases of both land and/or property in line with the SOI. As new opportunities arise, existing facilities will cover the upfront investment but additional facilities will be required for the development phases.

19.  UPL has a very strong balance sheet with $49.1M in total assets, $33.8M of equity and the current $13.0M loan balance with Council.

CFT

20.  The 2014/15 Annual Plan approved the Walter Nash Stadium development with the understanding that CFT would need to borrow up to $3M to complete the development.  Council previously approved Officers borrowing this money directly and on-lending it to CFT.

21.  CFT intended to repay the loan over 20 years from the annual rental received from Council.  However, due to “start-up” issues faced by Fraser Park Sportsville and the Naenae Bowls Centre, coupled with the more recent impacts of COVID-19, repayment of the $3.335M loan has not commenced.  The intention now is to repay the $3.0M loan, once Fraser Park Sportsville and the Naenae Bowls Centre are financially able to meet the rental commitments such that all facility related expenses are covered as per their lease agreements.  An additional loan of $335,500, drawn down in 2018/19, will be repaid at the rate of $55K a year, commencing in 2020/21.

22.  Whilst CFT has experienced lower cash flow mainly due to the financial difficulties of Fraser Park Sportsville.  CFT’s outstanding debt of $3.335M is supported by a strong balance sheet, primarily comprising property assets valued at $41.0M.

23.  No additional funding is being requested at this time.

Consultation

24.  Public consultation is not required.

25.  Officers have consulted with Council’s treasury advisors who recommend the continuation of allowing Councils CCTOs/CCOs the option to make use of Councils on-lending ability.

26.  Officers will continue to discuss future lending requirements and debt maturity options with the boards of the CCTOs/CCOs (who support the continued ability to obtain loan funding from Council as this is the most cost effective way for them to obtain the debt funding they require) as existing funding comes toward maturity.

Legal Considerations

27.  Section 63 of the Local Government Act allows Council to on-lend to a CCTO as long as it is not at more favourable terms than the local authority could obtain if it were unable to use rate revenue as security. This limitation does not apply to CCOs.

28.  Council’s Chief Legal Officer will review and approve the necessary amendments to the existing loan agreements and any supporting documentation, once Council approval is received and updated documentation drafted.

Financial Considerations

29.  It will cost the HCC Group less for Council to borrow the money and on-lend to the CCOs than it would for the CCOs to borrow directly from a financial institution.

30.  Extension of the loan agreement maturity (whilst not currently due until 30 June 2021) to 30 June 2028 will provide Council flexibility to extend for longer the maturity date of the CCO loans, providing the individual CCO longer term funding at low fixed rates, tailored to their individual borrowing requirements.  This will also allow Council to spread (where applicable) the maturity of CCO loans to avoid concentration risk on one particular maturity date, thus also reducing re-financing risk.

31.  Council will charge SML and UPL an additional 1.0% (unchanged) above the rate it obtains to ensure compliance with section 63 of the Local Government Act.  Even with this additional margin these CCTOs are able to obtain the required finance more cost effectively than they would if they approached the financial institutions directly.

32.  Council will charge CFT an additional 0.50% (unchanged) above the rate it obtains. This will ensure compliance with section 63 of the Local Government Act, whilst considering the trust and non-trading stature of CFT.

33.  The CCOs 2021-2023 SOIs have been prepared on the basis of the current lending arrangements continuing, plus for UPL, the ability to draw on further short-term funds for its planned property developments.

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

Finance and Performance Committee Report - Lending to Council Controlled Organisations - 2 May 2018

83

    

 

 

 

 

 

Author: Glenn Phillips

Treasury Officer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewed By: Darrin Newth

Financial Accounting Manager

 

 

 

Approved By: Jenny Livschitz

Chief Financial Officer

 


Attachment 1

Finance and Performance Committee Report - Lending to Council Controlled Organisations - 2 May 2018

 

Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee

15 June 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/595)

 

 

 

 

Report no:  

 

Lending to Council Controlled Organisations

 

 

 

 


 

 


Purpose of Report

1.         To obtain authority for Council to continue to borrow funds for on-lending to Council Controlled Trading Organisations (CCTO's) and (non-trading) Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s), at agreed margins.

 


Recommendations

That the Committee recommends that Council:

(i)         approves extending the maturity of existing loan agreements to allow Council to continue on-lending up to;

(a)        $3.5M to Seaview Marina Limited (SML);

(b)        $13.0M to Urban Plus Limited (UPL); and

(c)        $3.0M to The Hutt City Community Facilities Trust (CFT);

(ii)        approves a further short term funding facility of $5.0M to UPL for project financing of property developed for resale by UPL included in the UPL Statement of Intent (SOI);

(iii)       agrees that these approvals will cover the period up to 30 June 2021;

(iv)      agrees that the maximum maturity date for any loan is limited to three years from the date the loan is arranged;

(v)       agrees that the margins on loans to CCTO’s (SML and UPL) be 1.0%, and 0.5% for CCO’s (CFT);

(vi)      requests officers to draw up formal agreements between Council and the CCTO’s/CCO’s outlining the terms and conditions associated with these loans; and

(vii)     agrees that any amount borrowed by Council and on-lent to a CCTO/CCO be treated as an investment for the purposes of calculating the Councils net debt figure when considering the Financial Strategy Limits.

For the reasons that SML, UPL and CFT require loan funding to deliver the outcomes contained in their respective SOI’s, and that Council due to its strong credit rating and access to debt funding via the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), can provide the required loan funding at the lowest cost to the Hutt City Council group.

 


Background

2.         In December 2014, Council approved identical recommendations to recommendations (i), and (iv) to (vii), to cover the period up to 30 June 2018.

3.         Formal loan agreements between Council and the CCO’s were executed and remain in place.  The respective CCO loan balances have remained at the same amounts since the last Council approval and are:

a.   $2.7M for SML;

b.   $9.0M for UPL (comprising one loan for $4M and another for $5M); and

c.   $3.0M for CFT.

4.         Approval is sought to continue with the current loan funding arrangements between Council and the CCO’s, and for a further short term funding facility for UPL to provide project financing for property it plans to develop for resale.

5.         The draft SOI’s presented to Council in March by each of the CCO’s and the draft 2018-2028 Long Term Plan (LTP) budgets approved by Council assume that the current loan funding in paragraph 3, continue.

Discussion

SML

6.         Approval to on-lend up to $3.5M to fund SML’s planned in-water developments, was granted in 2009 and further approved in 2014.

7.         SML’s in-water and property developments to date have been very successful as evidenced by SML’s strong financial performance, balance sheet, and growing cashflows from operations.

8.         SML’s capital plans include further in-water developments which will further strengthen SML’s financial results and significantly improve the CCTO’s value and future dividends to Council.  Continued loan (or equity) funding is required and appropriate to realise SML’s planned value improvement.

UPL

9.         Approval to on-lend up to $13M currently exists, of which $9M has been drawn down by UPL. 

10.       UPL plans to grow its residential rental portfolio from its current holding of 149 units to 220 units by 2021.  It intends to fund this growth through a combination of the existing Council loan facility, proceeds from the sale of rental units no-longer deemed suitable, and from profits on properties developed for resale like the current and very successful Fairfield Waters residential development.

11.       Profits from property developed for resale will in time fund the planned growth in the UPL residential rental portfolio.  To achieve the 220 units target by 2021, residential rental developments and property developed for resale will need to happen concurrently over the next 3-4 years and to do this both the undrawn amount of the current loan agreement ($4M), plus additional short term ‘project’ funding (up to $5M) for property developed for resale, will be required from time to time. This is illustrated in the following graph per UPL’s 2018 SOI.

12.       UPL has a very strong balance sheet with $36M in total assets, $22M of equity and the current $9M loan balance with Council.

CFT

13.       The 2014/15 Annual Plan approved the Walter Nash Stadium development with the understanding that CFT would need to borrow up to $3M to complete the development.  Council previously approved Officers to borrowing this money directly and on-lend it to CFT.

14.       CFT intended to repay the loan over 20 years from the annual operating grant it receives from Council.  Due to some external sponsorship funds being progressively received after CFT facility(s) are completed and suppliers paid, CFT now plan to repay the loan over the next 18 years.

Funding via Council

15.       Having been given authority via their SOI’s to undertake both the capital development and the associated borrowing to fund their development programmes, the CCTO’s/CCO’s are under an obligation to obtain funding on the most favourable terms possible.

16.       The most favourable terms for the CCTO’s/CCO’s is to borrow money from Council.  In order to facilitate this arrangement, Council needs to be authorised to on-lend money to CCTO’s/CCO’s. This is allowed under the Local Government Act subject to the following restriction for CCTO’s:

63 Restriction on lending to council-controlled trading organisation

A local authority must not lend money, or provide any other financial accommodation, to a council-controlled trading organisation on terms and conditions that are more favourable to the council-controlled trading organisation than those that would apply if the local authority were (without charging any rate or rate revenue as security) borrowing the money or obtaining the financial accommodation.

There is no such requirement for CCO’s

17.       The recommended option allows the CCTO’s to benefit from better interest rates due to the strong credit rating of Council and Councils access to debt funding via the LGFA.  It is recommended that Council charge a margin of 1.0% for this service whilst still retaining a financial benefit for the CCTO.  This margin ensures that the arrangement complies with section 63 of the Local Government Act.

18.       Section 63 of the Local Government Act only applies to CCTO’s, therefore a margin of 0.5% is proposed for CFT because this more closely represents the actual cost to Council.

19.       It is recommended that Council and CCTO/CCO loan agreements are time limited.  A sensible time to review CCTO/CCO funding arrangements would be during each LTP review period.  Therefore it is recommended that the current authorisation is extended to 30 June 2021.

20.       If authorisation is extended, Council will continue to organise funding on behalf of the CCTO’s/CCO’s with a maximum maturity date of 3 years.  This may mean that some loans may extend beyond the 30 June 2021 review date.  If at the review date Council decides not to renew the ability for Council to on-lend to the CCTO’s/CCO’s, these loans will need to be transferred.  Any re-arranged loans will be at higher interest rates because the CCTO’s/CCO’s will no longer be able to benefit from Council's lower average cost of borrowing.

21.       It is necessary to allow loans that extend beyond the review date, to ensure that best interest rates are obtained and to minimise the risks associated with refinancing a large amount of debt maturing at the same time.

22.       In order to remain within the debt limits as laid out in the Financial Strategy it is recommended that this on-lending continues to be treated as an investment.

23.       If the recommendations are approved then formal agreements outlining the terms and conditions associated with the current and future loans will be drawn up and signed by Council's Chief Executive and the relevant CCTO/CCO Chief Executive or General Manager.

24.       In addition to any long term loans arranged on behalf of the CCOs, both UPL and SML run a current account with Council.  This is because all UPL and SML invoices are initially paid from Council's bank account and after each month-end, Council seeks reimbursement from UPL’s and SML’s respective bank accounts. Should the unlikely situation arise where there are insufficient funds in the relevant bank account, Council will not remove more funds than are available.  In these situations, Council is effectively providing an overdraft facility and will charge the CCO at the 30 day rate available to Council plus a 1% margin.  This situation does not occur in the case of CFT because all invoices are paid directly from the CFT bank account.

Options

25.       An alternative is to require the CCTO’s/CCO’s to obtain debt funding from financial institutions directly. While financial institutions have advised they are prepared to do this, this will be at higher interest rates to the CCTO’s/CCO’s unless Council provides a guarantee. 

26.       However section 62 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), prohibits Council providing such a guarantee - "A local authority must not give any guarantee, indemnity, or security in respect of the performance of any obligation by a council-controlled trading organisation."

27.       The recommended option allows the CCTO’s/CCO’s to benefit from better interest rates due to the strong credit rating of Council and Councils access to lower cost debt funding via the LGFA.

Consultation

28.       Public consultation is not required.

29.       Officers have consulted with Councils treasury advisors who recommend the continuation of allowing Councils CCTO’s/CCO’s the option to make use of Councils on-lending ability.

30.       Officers have had discussions with the boards of the CCTO’s/CCO’s who support the continued ability to obtain loan funding from Council as this is the most cost effective way for them to obtain the debt funding they require.

Legal Considerations

31.       Section 63 of the Local Government Act allows Council to on-lend to a CCTO as long as it is not at more favourable terms than the local authority could obtain if it were unable to use rate revenue as security. This limitation does not apply to CCO’s.

32.       Councils Legal Counsel will review and approve the required loan agreements and any supporting documentation.

Financial Considerations

33.       It will cost the group less for Council to borrow the money and on-lend to the CCO’s than it would for them to borrow direct from a financial institution.

34.       Council will charge SML and UPL an additional 1.0% above the rate it obtains to ensure compliance with section 63 of the Local Government Act.  Even with this additional margin these CCO’s are able to obtain the required finance more cost effectively than they would if they approached the financial institutions directly.

35.       The margin for CFT is proposed at 0.5% to reflect the cost of arranging the loan and the cost of running the treasury function.

36.       The CCO’s draft 2018-2020 SOI’s have been prepared on the basis of the current lending arrangements continuing, plus for UPL, the ability to draw on further short term funds for its planned property developed for resale projects.

Other Considerations

37.       In making this recommendation, officers have given careful consideration to the purpose of local government in section 10 of the Local Government Act 2002. Officers believe that this recommendation falls within the purpose of the local government in that it ensures services are delivered in the most cost effective way through obtaining the lowest borrowing costs possible.

 


Appendices

There are no appendices for this report.    

 


 


 

 

 

 

 

Author: Brent Kibblewhite

General Manager Corporate Services

 

 

 


                                                                                      98                                                            18 June 2020

Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee

06 April 2020

 

 

 

File: (20/519)

 

 

 

 

Report no: LTPAP2020/4/46

 

Submissions to draft Annual Plan 2020 and evaluation of engagement

 

 

 

 

1.    This report provides the Long Term Plan/Annual Plan Subcommittee with:

a.      further information from the analysis of submissions received during the engagement on the draft Annual Plan emergency budget “Getting us Through/Kia tae ki tua”; and

b.      an evaluation of the engagement undertaken.

Recommendation

That the report be noted and received.

 

Background

1.    Council’s decision on 9 April 2020 to proceed with a one year “emergency budget “for a 2020/21 draft Annual Plan (DAP), rather than the planned draft Long term Plan (LTP) amendment, resulted in a number of changes being made to the engagement approach, relevant documents and process.  Council agreed to a “light touch” engagement for a two week period starting on 8 May and finishing on 22 May.

 

2.    The key message became “Getting us Through/ Kia tae kit tua” and the engagement document focused on priority investment in the three waters, operational savings of $3M, the projected deficit of $9M for 2020/21 deficit position as opposed to the $4.4M surplus budgeted for in year three of the LTP and the capital expenditure programme that people could expect for the rates revenue increase proposed. The importance of continuing to invest where we can to prepare for the future was stressed.

 

3.    The engagement document, DAP and supporting material were produced during an unprecedented time in the city and country’s history. Staff supported the Covid-19 response at the same time as developing the DAP documents under significant time and resource constraints.  

 

Discussion

 

4.     The focus was on digital engagement and reaching residents in different ways.  Prior to and during the engagement period a number of media releases and Hutt@Heart articles were published regarding the Annual Plan and Covid-19. Advertising was put into the Hutt News (included a two-page advertorial), Wainuiomata News, Eastbourne Herald and Neighbourly (advertising throughout whole period) and website banner.  Radio advertising was also undertaken (NZME, MediaWorks, Atiawa Toa FM, Samoa Capital Radio). See Appendix 6

 

5.     There were four Covid-19 e-newsletters published. Officers identified a number of e mail groups that are in use across Council divisions to receive key messages about Covid-19 and we were able to include information about the draft Annual Plan engagement at the same time.

 

Title

Recipients

Opens

Clicks

COVID Update 11 June 2020

19,426

8969, 47.5%

479, 2.5%

COVID Update 15 May 2020

19,462

9944, 52.6%

292, 1.5%

COVID-19 Update 8 May

19,548

10,928, 57.6%

485, 2.6%

COVID-19 Update 22 April

22,141

11,847, 62%

293, 1.5%

 

6.    Advertising also focused on Facebook, Twitter and Neighbourly and any local publications which had an online presence or had indicated they may be able to publish.  We were able to have 200 hard copies of the engagement document distributed to Council facilities that opened with the move to Alert level 2 in the second week of the engagement period. 

 

7.    Detailed information supporting the DAP (including financial information, project lists, performance measures and targets, proposed fees and charges and other detailed supporting information) was published on our key engagement channel Bang the Table (BTT) and also made available via Council’s website (and in hard copy as above). 

 

8.    Te Reo was an integral part of the document for the first time and mana whenua guided us with this.  Te Reo was also a key part of the Bang the Table site. Positive feedback was received on this and we will continue to use Te Reo for future consultations.

 

Bang the Table

9.    Efforts were made to make the BTT site and engagement document more accessible to all users. This included having visual information like graphs, infographics, the rates calculator and more technical information displayed in a way that readers could access. BTT could be viewed on a mobile, desktop or any modern browser.

 

10. The BTT platform complies with WCAG 2.1 standards – accessible to users who cannot use a mouse because of visual impairment or physical disability.  We produced documentation to an AA standard for readability i.e. colour contrasts.

BTT Activity

 

11.   Around three thousand people visited the BTT site during the engagement. Of these 1,100 were informed - they knew about the Getting us Through engagement and visited at least one page - and 174 were engaged visitors – they contributed to share an idea, or made comments and 161 visitors participated in the survey.

 

12. 164 submissions (163 from individuals and 1 from an organisation) were received via BTT.  There were 18 email/post submissions from individuals and 28 e mail submissions from organisations.  There was a good response across wards with the exception of the Northern ward. The majority of submissions came from people under 50 years (50%), with 7% of these under 30 years old, and 26% were between 60 to 80 years old. 95% of respondents were residential ratepayers, 5% commercial and 5% rural.  Some residential ratepayers are also commercial rate payers. All submissions have previously been provided to Council and are available at the following link: http://iportal.huttcity.govt.nz/Home/Search?Tab=31&query=container:%5buri:5594196%5d  

Analysis of submission results on overall approach and proposed rates increase (see Appendices 1 and 2 for details)

13.   59 % strongly agreed or agreed with the overall approach outlined in the one year emergency budget and draft Annual Plan 2020/21, while 28% either disagreed or strongly disagreed.

Agreement or disagreement with the overall approach outlined in one-year emergency budget and draft Annual Plan 2020-21  (158 Responses)

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

17% (26)

42% (67)

13% (21)

15% (24)

13% (20)

 

14. 72% agreed or thought that the rates increase should be higher while 28% disagreed or thought it should be lower.

 

Does the proposed 3.8% overall rates increase strike the right balance (156 responses)

Yes, I agree

No, I think the rates increase should be higher

No, I think the rates increase should be lower

58% (91)

14% (21)

28% (44)

 

Analysis of submission results on proposed rates increase by ward

 

15.   The spread across wards in response to this particular question are in the table below:

 

Ward

Agreed with 3.8% or wanted larger rates increase

Disagreed lower increase

Margin of Error*[3]

Number of respondents (n=)

Total population (N=)

Agreed or wanted larger rates increase (range)

Disagreed, wanted a lower rates increase (range)

Central

66%

34%

16%

32

22467

50% - 82%

18% - 50%

Eastern

77%

23%

16%

26

14079

61% - 93%

7% - 39%

Harbour

72%

28%

16%

29

19833

56% - 88%

12% - 44%

Northern

54%

46%

27%

13

16029

27% - 81%

19% - 73%

Wainuiomata

76%

24%

13%

38

18561

63% - 89%

11% - 37%

Western

74%

26%

19%

19

13560

93% - 55%

7% - 45%

 

Total

72%

28%

7%

161

104529

65% - 79%

21% - 35%

 

16.   The results show the margin of error for each ward. The margin of error shows how much these sample results may differ from the result if the whole population of each ward had responded. While the margin of error for each ward is quite large critically the range (the result plus or minus the margin of error) for each ward, with the exception of the Northern ward, is independent. We can say with statistical certainty that the result for ‘agreed with 3.8% or wanted a higher rates increase’ will be above the ‘disagreed wanting a lower rates increase’ overall for each ward except for Northern and Central wards which are closer to a 50/50 result.

17.   The larger the gap between the ranges the higher the level of certainty – so for Wainuiomata with a larger sample and a large range gap (37% at the top of one and 63% at the bottom of the next) there is a higher level of certainty with the results.  The number of respondents from the Northern ward was low (13) therefore the margin of error is larger than other.

18.   The results in the table include all responses – online, email, and post – where the respondent specifically indicated a response to the question concerning the proposed rates increase of 3.8%, gave their suburb of residence and that suburb was in Lower Hutt.

Facebook

 

19. On Facebook, total activity between 8-22 May was:

Total is Facebook Advert activity:

·    Impressions 485,290

·    Reach 60,096

·    Clicks 872

 

Total Facebook organic post activity is:

·    Reach: 20,232

·    Clicks: 107

 

20. Any questions were referred through to relevant officers and a response was posted. Other activity included:

·    Call Centre – total calls and e mails  over the two weeks were less than ten respectively

·    Share an Idea – there were 13 ideas posted

 

21. Twitter and Neighbourly were also used extensively. For example, the following Tweet was put out the day before engagement began from Hutt City Council @HuttCityCouncil:

Council has just approved a draft emergency budget and draft Annual Plan. We want to hear what you think tomorrow.

Decisions made today cut the previously signalled rates increase by half, and aim to provide relief to residents while also keeping ………

http://heart.huttcity.govt.nz/community/community-asked-to-have-their-say-as-lower-hutt-rates-rise-cut-by-half/

22. The resulting high level statistics for engagement with the  Tweet are:

 

·       Impressions (times people saw this Tweet on Twitter) – 1263

·       Total engagements (times people interacted with this Tweet) – 37

·       Link clicks (clicks on URL or Card in this Tweet – 17

 

23. More detailed statistics are attached as Appendix 5. These statistics show the connection between the advertising done – whether organic or placed – and the resulting visits to BTT and other information on Council’s web site.

 

Rates Calculator

24. The rates calculator was well used with 841 people using it to calculate the rates impact on their property.

Virtual Public Meetings

25.   Two Face Book live meetings with the Mayor and Chief Executive and two virtual town hall meetings were held.  The Face Book Live meetings on 7 May, 11 May and 18 May had 2,100, 2500 and 1031 views/attendees respectively.  The virtual town hall meetings had 121 people registered overall, with 48 people (out the 73 who registered) attending the 20 May meeting, and 36 (out of the 48 who registered) attending the 21 May meeting.  A wide range of topics were discussed including:

 

·    Naenae pool

·    recycling issues

·    protecting our local environment

·    differing views on rates and

·    a range of smaller local issues such as bus stops.

26.   A summary of issues discussed, views and responses is attached as Appendix 7.

Context

27. We have used BTT for online engagement three times in the last eighteen months and use of the tool is in its early stages.  There are many options available through the tool and we are at the “beginner stage”.  Each time the tool is used, improvements have been made. Having sufficient time and resources to plan and execute will provide opportunities to explore and use other options available through BTT and further develop our engagement culture and practice.   

Evaluation

28.   An evaluation of online engagement Kōrero mai/Have your say and Draft Annual Plan 2020/21 activity has been completed. As we change our approach to community engagement, a number of steps will assist Council to use the lessons learned to help enhance its community engagement practice.  These recommendations are:

·    Facilitated “lessons learned workshop(s)” with teams and managers involved in production of Getting the Basics Right/Getting us Through 

·    Putting more time and resourcing up front into planning the approach to community engagement, internal information sharing, simplification of content and co-ordination

·    Deepening our understanding of community engagement needs

·    Increasing support for and understanding of council teams, community influencers (including councillors) and Lower Hutt communities

·    Improving content development processes to help maximise the benefits of engaging on line. 

·    Developing a pragmatic engagement framework that can be utilised consistently across the organisation to ensure the “look and feel” of engagement aligns across the business

·    Exploring “gamification” to encourage participation in Bang the Table

·    Completing a follow-up June 2020 user survey to build focus groups and online panel

Bang the Table User Survey

29.   To test the usability of BTT a survey was sent to all active participants who had engaged in any or all of the three engagements run through Bang the Table (BTT) by Hutt City Council to date:

·      Keeping in touch with what's happening in Naenae

·      All going to plan

·      Getting us through - Kia tae ki tua

 

30.   The survey (available as Appendix 4) was sent to 296 participants and open from 7 to 12 June. We received 74 responses (25%).  An active participant is someone who has registered and completed the verification process allowing them to not only see the engagement but also participate in any surveys or discussions and ask questions. 

31.   Two thirds of those who responded had participated in Getting us through – Kia tae ki tua. Forty five percent had participated in last year’s annual plan engagement – All going to plan – and thirty percent in the Naenae engagement. For 59% of respondents “Getting us through – Kia tae ki tua” was the only time they had used BTT to engage. Otherwise 24% of respondents had also participated in the Naenae engagement and 35% in All going to plan.

32.   Overall around half of the participants were satisfied and a further 30% were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. The satisfaction levels were slightly higher when those who had participated in Getting us through – Kia tae ki tua were separated out. 

33.  There was an even split between those who had recommended BTT to others and would recommend again (38%) and those who had not recommended it to others and were unlikely to in the future (37%). However, during the most recent engagement 46% stated they had recommended BTT to others and were likely to recommend it again.

How you heard about Getting us through – Kia tae ki tua

34.  A fifth (21%) of people heard about Council’s Getting us through – Kia tae ki tua engagement from Facebook and another fifth (19%) from Hutt@Heart; the third most popular way was email.

Medium

No.

%

Hutt City Council Facebook post

9

21%

Hutt@Heart

8

19%

Email

6

14%

Hutt City Council website

3

7%

Mayor and CE's Facebook Live

3

7%

Word of mouth

3

7%

Hutt News article

2

5%

Message from Councillor

2

5%

Several ways

2

5%

Neighbourly

1

2%

Community Board member

1

2%

Post

1

2%

Council meetings

1

2%

 

All Going to Plan 2019 and Getting us Through 2020

35. It is difficult to make direct comparisons between the success of the All Going to Plan engagement for the 2019 and Annual Plan and the Getting us Through engagement for the 2020 Annual Plan.  While both engagements used BTT as the primary digital engagement platform the approaches taken to advertising and getting information out into the community was quite different. 

36. The 2019 engagement period was four weeks.  Ten page ward booklets providing people with information about their local representatives or panels, activities happening in their ward and a map showing where Council was investing in their ward were developed to support ward Councillors and Community Board and Community Panel members.  200 booklets per ward were available in hard copy and the booklets were also available on BTT.

37. A moderate amount of media activity such as advertising on Face Book, Hutt News and radio was undertaken. Elected and Community Panel members were given the opportunity to learn how to use BTT. Those who took part in the training went on to engage on line responding to ideas and questions from participants on BTT. 

38. The Getting us Through engagement period was two weeks and took place during the alert levels 3 and 2 lockdown period.  Elected members were again given the opportunity to learn how to use BTT.

39. While the time constraints associated with producing the engagement document, draft Annual Plan and supporting material were considerable the quality and readability of the documents was high despite some complex subject matter.  It was vital that reader’s had sufficient and the right information needed to make an informed decision.

40. Although there was a large increase in numbers of people going to BTT, once there visitors engaged less on average with Getting us Through compared to those visiting All Going to Plan in terms of people interacting with the engagement material on BTT once there or sharing ideas.  This perhaps isn’t surprising given the engagement began while the country was still in Alert level 3 lock down with most people focused on their health and wellbeing and that of whānau and friends during the lockdown.

41. The following table provides the high level results for BTT for both:

General

All going to plan

Getting through

Total Visits

2.8 k

4 k

Max Visitors Per Day

133

633

New Registrations

182

208

Engaged Visitors

127

174

Informed Visitors

783

1.1 k

Aware Visitors

1.7 k

3 k

Ideas tool

Contributors

49 people

14 people

Contributions

181 ideas

35 ideas

Documents

# of Documents

7

5

Visitors

176

555

Downloads

298

971

 

Future engagement

 

42.  The increase in numbers going to BTT indicates that the considerable effort put in to media activity and the channels used had good impact.

43.  Covid-19, whilst presenting many challenges, provided the opportunity for Council to focus on engagement through our digital channels. We have gained further insights into how we can improve this. With more time we will ensure content is presented in a way that is user-friendly and this will assist us in future engagements such as rubbish and recycling.

44.  Work to develop a City plan needs to be complemented by deepening our understanding of our community’s engagement needs and responding.  This deeper understanding and responsiveness is essential and will guide engagement effort on that City plan.  Doing this well will greatly enhance opportunities to successfully engage with all our communities of interest. 

Submissions responses

45.  Several submitters made requests for funding. These requests and officers responses are discussed in the Final Decisions report later on the agenda.

Climate Change Impact and Considerations

46.  The matters addressed in this report have been considered in accordance with the process set out in Council’s Climate Change Considerations Guide.

Financial Implications

47.  There are no financial implications at this stage.

Legal Implications

48.  There are no legal implications at this stage.

 

Appendices

No.

Title

Page

1

DAP 2020 Qualitative analysis - FINAL

99

2

AP Quantitative Data - FINAL

149

3

Online engagement evaluation 2020

155

4

Bang the Table Engagement Survey Results

159

5

Advertising stats - Annual Plan 2020

171

6

Media activity pre and post DAP 2020 engagement

175

7

Notes from Virtual public meetings on draft Annual Plan and emergency budget 2020

176

8

Chief Executive's Statement 7 May 2020

179

    

 

Author: Wendy Moore

Head of Strategy and Planning

 

 

Reviewed By: Helen Oram

Director Environmental & Sustainability

 

 

Approved By: Jo Miller

Chief Executive

 

 


Attachment 1

DAP 2020 Qualitative analysis - FINAL

 

Analysis of Qualitative Feedback

Purpose

The purpose of this analysis is to aid decision making by bringing comments on the same topic together so that the depth and breadth of sentiment can be more easily determined.

Data

Feedback Received

Type

Dates

Number

Online (Bang the Table)

8 May -22 May 2020

154 of 164 respondents left at least one comment or upload a document

Email or post

26 Feb – 22 May 2020

46 letters of feedback: 18 from individuals and 28 from organisations

 

Method

Respondents’ comments to each question have been grouped either by theme (topic) or by how they responded to the corresponding scale/tick box question.

Each bullet point represents one response – one individual or organisation

It is not possible to add comments about a topic up as one person may have added similar comment several times so this would add an unfair emphasis to an issue or topic

Spelling and grammar errors are corrected where they don’t change the meaning of the comment – this is done as such errors can distract the reader from the content

A single respondents comment may be split across topics within that question’s analysis – this allows us to accurately determine how many respondents mentioned x or y.

Words written entirely in caps or multiple punctuation marks in succession are removed. These are commonly known as ‘shouting’ and draw attention to a particular comment or response.


 

Contents

Overall Approach. 4

Strongly Disagree. 4

Disagree. 5

Neutral 7

Agree. 8

Strongly agree. 11

Did not respond. 13

Priority Projects. 15

Count of comments. 15

Naenae Pool 15

(Basic) Infrastructure. 17

Three Waters. 19

Rubbish and Recycling. 20

Environment. 21

Cycleways. 22

Housing/Homelessness. 22

RiverLink. 23

Essential / Core services. 23

Facilities. 23

Other. 23

General 26

Proposed savings. 28

Count of comments. 28

Libraries. 28

Staff costs. 29

Community engagement. 30

Roads. 30

Pools. 31

Parks. 32

Amenities Fund. 32

Cooperating cities. 32

Other. 32

General 34

Projects on hold. 36

Count of comments. 36

Naenae Pool 36

3 Waters. 36

Cycleways. 36

Other. 37

General 37

Rates split. 39

Other Finance comments. 41

Other submissions and funding requests. 43

Submissions containing misinformation. 45

 


 

Overall Approach

Comments in response to the question why people agree or disagree with the overall approach taken by Council for the Draft Annual Plan 2020-2021

Overall Approach

Response

Strongly agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Did not select an option

# of responses

27

71

21

24

20

# of comments

26

51

12

24

16

6

 

Strongly Disagree

·   All the lower income suburbs are being hammered with a big increase, all the places that can least afford it with lower income families

·   Because it’s not clearly articulated what you are doing. You are running a deliberate deficit knowing that you will need to claw this back in the future.  You’re delaying the inevitable and at a higher cost.

·   Budget includes operational costs for projects which have not performed as per optimistic forecasts e.g. Community Facilities. There are projects which are included which are not vital for the City given the current economic times e.g. Cycle trails. Budget includes items which the HCC is committing the ratepayer to up to $100million in costs e.g. Riverlink. It also includes costs for social projects which are the responsibility of Central Government (and which the Central Government has recently committed substantial funds too). Also Local Government funding is very baffling which is why there is a low turnout at local elections-refer the legal opinion re rate increases.

·   Council should be focused on reducing costs and matching rate increases to inflation. Are we really getting good value by having our 3 waters assets controlled by Wellington Water? Or are we just funding a huge ineffective bureaucracy?

·   Do not agree with the rate increase for Naenae pool. Proper consultation of all rate payers needs to be done and everyone made aware of the full costs and options. Naenae pool is not an emergency project.  I provided this in my feedback for the “consultation” that was done but councillors and council staff are ignoring or are only including feedback that supports the pool.

·   Hutt City council has been invisible during the Covid 19 Lockdown excepting for a one page flyer in our Letterbox. A show of very poor leadership in such a time. Well now is the time to step up Council. My minimum expectation as a rate payer both on a residential property and a small business owner is a zero rates increase i.e. a rates freeze. After year on year larger and more expansive services being covered by the local council now is the time to settle down to core activities and service your community as you should with good Leadership. A zero rates increase is the minimum I will accept. The Hutt News article saying the council were doing well by  halving what was originally proposed was some of the worst virtue signalling I have seen in a long time. Please remember Covid-19 is a once in a century event and act accordingly.

·   In these times of uncertainty it is prudent to be fiscally responsible.

·   Instead of deciding to pause 1-2 large project; you’ve cut all essential services that rate payers depend on and value. Why have you not considered pausing 1-2 of the big projects while we ascertain if we may want to change priorities as we respond and recover from Covid? This is very unclear, and the daily services and projects that the Council has already committed too are now going to suffer.

·   It is totally unacceptable to propose any increase in rates when it is estimated a 20% reduction in GDP for the year with corresponding reduction in incomes and employment

·   It should be a zero rates increase.

·   It's the wrong time to be doing this pre covid-19 it was still far-fetched and seems to be a mayor pushing ahead with his own agenda has cvl even been debated by the public recently.

·   The 3.8 added to the increased RV’s will have a negative effect on many households following Covid

·   There has not been enough time for community consultation. Because of the current times re-Covid, I think that many people are in a lot of financial pressures with job losses & redundancies. Given that the Naenae Pool is not "shovel ready”, if this were to be postponed for a year, then this will significantly reduce the rates increase and alleviate any extra financial burden. Also with the huge increase in CV's for Wainuiomata, this means that I as well as other residents in a lower socioeconomic area, will be hugely affected. I do not agree with the proposed 3.8% rates increase.

·   This has been an extraordinary year. Unforeseen circumstances have absolutely devastated the social fabric and the economy. It is time to pull back on the nice to have projects, especially the river link project (which I have previously supported) for a year or two until the economy and life in general has returned to normal. Revert to the basic core services to reduce costs and the resultant impact on all residents.

·   Too many job losses and a massive increase in people on the benefit any increase in rates increases the hardship and poverty we are going to face in the coming years

·   Zero rates freeze Covid

Disagree

·   All rates need to be frozen or reduced.  Spending 1.5 million on Naenae pool prep work should be on hold.  Everything else is as it needs to be, but really at the moment the council needs to be getting the infrastructure projects up to scratch without increasing residential rates. There needs to be cost savings made in other areas.

·   Because it includes a rates increase.

·   Business rates should be increased. The 9 million dollars for the Naenae Shopping centre should be redirected to the Naenae pool. No need for IT investment particularly 10 million dollars while the City is struggling; a nice to have. Yes to a Rates rise but should be spread over those suburbs than can afford it i.e. No residential rates increase for Stokes, Wainui and Naenae.

·   Cancel major projects that are unaffordable. RiverLink and the Naenae pool for example.  Stop any more drilling or tapping into the Waiwhetu aquifer as it is already damaged in some way.

·   Due to Corona Virus, all businesses and residents suffer serious financial damage and worse daily life living. The council should put a stop in the rates increase and not adding additional financial burdens to all suffered people.

·   Firstly I support the Property Council submission in its entirety. Secondly, I don't see a rational justification for a rating differential between residential and business at all. The basis of any differences in charging should be based solely upon the level of services received by each rating category. I have not seen a cost benefit analysis completed between these two categories. Now, more than ever businesses are really struggling and this differential should continue to be reversed.

·   Given the ongoing pain likely for ratepayers over the coming 12 months a 3.8% rates increase is still high.

·   I believe rates increase should stay as proposed and get our city up and running the way it’s planned, not cut the rates increase in half and have the tax payers suffer through a half pie city for the next few years.

·   I believe we are putting off the inevitable pain that is going to happen.

·   I find it problematic that the Naenae Pool is such a priority. There either needs to be real and genuine communications to the whole Hutt region as to how this pool adds value to our rates or a serious reconsideration. Or, I would be suggesting that instead of reducing community engagement, works on roads and parks (which are all regional and benefit all rate payers) and keep things going, that prep work for Naenae pool is on hold.

·   I fully agree with proposals for network infrastructures to assist with our expanding community but I am dead set against money being wasted on climate change and homelessness which is a national government issue not a local authority and why are we wasting money on Naenae pool when all you have to do is knock the roof off to make it seismically safe (Wainui and Eastbourne seem to manage without roofs)

·   I realise people are struggling however if we are only investing in the bare basics how is that going to stimulate growth in Lower Hutt.

·   I think there should be not rates rise this year.

·   I think you need to increase rates more to fund the sorts of upgrades the council needs. Also why are you still working on a homelessness strategy? It’s been years you’ve been working on a strategy for that now what’s gone wrong?

·   I understand the need to get new projects underway including Naenae Pool and the Wainuiomata wastewater renewal; however I think further cost cutting needs to be done to prevent a rates increase. Further decreases in funding for staffing and operational costs could be used as they are elsewhere in the current pandemic. Perhaps council needs to consider the number of staff earning over say $100k and how they can reduce those numbers/offer them reduced salaries for the year ahead to retain their roles. Your information shows almost 11% of our rates go to libraries and community hubs - I feel that is too high compared to other expenditure considering not all ratepayers use those facilities, and perhaps more sustainable user pays models could be used for those services. My partner and I purchased our first home in Wainuiomata last year. The average rates increase is misleading as our RV increased quite a lot when we bought the house - for us the increase is $8.71 a week under option 1. We both work hard and earn average salaries, with enough to cover the bills and save a little, but due to COVID-19 our income has been reduced, the future is uncertain, and we have to stretch our income to cover bills and save every spare cent until the future of our jobs is known. Any increase in costs will be challenging for us and many other households right now, and I therefore feel there should be no rise in rates this year to help households get by. Cost savings need to be made elsewhere to get any truly critical projects underway.

·   I would still like to see the recycling reforms progress. I also wonder whether there are any additional savings that could be found from an operational perspective which would allow the recycling initiatives to continue within the same funding envelope.

·   It will just offset the cost to ' later on ' when it could be much harder and more expensive.

·   My concerns are the rate reduction, what we don’t invest in now, we will lose in the future. With options from the council to assist those who may struggle with their rates we need to keep moving forward. What costs $100 today will be $200 next time it is looked at.

·   Savings claimed are minimal.  I note you are still spending on vanity projects like Riverlink.  I agree with the need to spend on water infrastructure. 3.8% is still double CPI.   The original proposed 7.X percent just shows that council have little regard for ratepayer’s money.  In any business where funding came from people with a choice these sort of increases would not be acceptable.

·   Some of your allocation into what you are spending the money on, in my opinion is a bit off. Services which every resident uses should have the higher $$ allocated e.g. like water, sewage, rubbish removal and recycling - you have got some of this right, however, I can’t believe that almost 10% of my rates are going to Parks - it is nice to have a pretty garden, but how essential is this in today’s climate when we are all struggling.

·   Still a rates increase and we should ways of no increase

·   The council is favouring rebuilding Naenae pool.

·   To grow the economy, the Council also needs to invest in its people, especially those paid the least, by paying them a pay increase and paying the 2020 Living Wage rate. If they do not they are asking their staff to accept the burden of the community.

·   Under the current economic climate due to Covid 19, expenditure should be scaled back

Neutral

·   Happy with the proposal

·   I am primarily concerned with the quantum of rates we are paying - whilst a 3.8 % increase may seem small to council for us it is significant

·   I appreciate rates not being raised, they are a lot as it is. I also appreciate the Naenae hub and pool getting some love.

·   I just wanted to give feedback regarding the Eastbourne Shared Path but a cross valley road would be good as would all the infrastructure projects the government will pay for. Why should Auckland get all the funding?

·   I like what I've read it was a bit to read. I found interesting reading of where the money goes. Agree with the spend on water infrastructure, RiverLink & wastewater. I'm still unsure about the Naenae Pool project, the Naenae Pool will bring people into Naenae. But the Naenae Shopping Centre has lost its spark from what it was many years ago. They had a New World, Banks, more than one butcher etc. it was a thriving shopping centre. Now it's 'Doom and Gloom', even when the Naenae Pool was operating. Put on hold reassess next financial year.

·   Support the 3 Water investment - but would prefer more $ to support a modern thriving city as described in the engagement document. I think the review of the rubbish and recycling should remain as it is a citywide issue that impacts on climate change outcomes. Not sure logic of including $200k for ‘climate change community engagement’ but cutting the ‘community engagement’ budget. Although in saying that I agree generally with the reallocation of the engagement budget. Agree the Naenae Pool preparatory work is essential and am pleased to hear this is proposed to move forward as it supports a number of outcomes the Council seeks. And will contribute to a successful recovery plan.

·   This plan is not reflecting the climate change emergency declaration. Yes, we have significant financial pressure, however we need to start making the changes now, not leaving them till the next long-term plan. We need to be reducing our emissions by 50% by 2030 at the minimum, and this should be our underlying value behind any decisions that council is making including this annual plan. This plan doesn’t appear to acknowledge the rapidly approaching and significantly more impactful effect of climate change. While the increase in the rates may seem like a fair compromise, it is still ignoring a much greater issue (as was the higher/original level of spending).

·   We favour option 2.

·   Whereas I agree on the whole I strongly disagree with cutting costs for library and engagement whilst providing a separate article for Climate Change engagement.

·   While it is good the council is making savings where they can. Wainuiomata is going to face the biggest increase in rates and there doesn't seem to be any value for Wainuiomata. While the shared walkway has been awesome - there needs to be more investment in Wainui if are rates are going to go up so much,

·   While the reduction of the increase is welcome, there should be a zero increase in rates for the next year.

·   Whilst looking to boost its own revenue, the Council MUST accept that the next 18-24 months will be financially hard for the majority of people within the city's boundaries. Any rates increase can't be justified when your city's people are struggling, whilst coping personally and financially.

Agree

·   Agree that with covid19 many people are experiencing financial hardship so reduced rate increase is welcome but also recognise the need to maintain essential services, particularly the three waters.

·   Agree, but feel it could further prioritise essential infrastructure spending until we can see what NZ looks like in the next few months.

·   Appears to be a good balance in the current environment

·   Cause we are in an emergency

·   Given the circumstances, I think you've developed a solid plan. Obviously I'd love to see the Naenae pool progressed, but at least there's a budget for some prep work, and hopefully we get some central funding for it.

·   Glad to see Naenae Pool remains on the list - crucial for restoring that community.

·   Glad to see that Council has half its intended rate increase, and prioritised essential work.

·   Good projects to continue on with

·   I agree that in these difficult times there needs to be sensible and financial-sound reset of priorities.   At the same time putting things on hold for Covid-19 is not something I fully agree with because: Having to deal with crisis is the new normal; be it Covid, housing crisis, climate crisis, traffic crisis, earthquake, regular ‘one in a lifetime’ weather events, or infrastructure challenges.  We are in a sustainability crisis that will only get worse. The Council needs to be able to both focus on immediate actions including fixing things that are a safety issue, and in parallel do the longer term investments in a sustainable future. Financial and political decisions must be balanced with the greater good and the world that we leave for our tamariki. The council needs to be innovative rather than stay with its old conservative approach.  More than ever before it now has the leadership and people to do it. Be smart, be innovative.

·   I agree that the current circumstances warrant this cautious approach, but I am concerned about the deficit situation in the longer term.

·   I agree with it but please do not let the wage freeze affect council workers on the lowest wages. The council must not go back on its commitment to pay their workers the living wage.

·   I am concerned about the lack of investment in our basics over a number of years. I want to commend this council for them taking on these issues. Personally I don’t think this budget goes far enough in that investment but completely understand the changing world with covid-19.

·   I am happy the basics are being prioritised. My only issues are that due to Covid-19, central Govt. seems to be more committed to the homeless, therefore does the Council need to commit as much funding as previously required? Secondly I would like to see more money spent on organisations that provide grass roots engagement with our tamariki and rangatahi. The Billy Graham Youth Foundation; Naenae Boxing Academy's priorities are the same as Maslows Hierarachy of Needs: Safety, Friendship, Hope and Independence. At the bottom of Maslow's pyramid is air, water, shelter etc. If we are spending money on water and climate change priorities then great. The next priority for us is whether each young person is feeling safe, has friends, has hope and has every opportunity to be independent. Any community organisation that can provide these basics for our young people needs to have funding prioritised to them.

·   I believe in the current circumstances it is a fiscally and socially balanced approach.

·   I believe that all areas have been covered.

·   I do think it is an option to go backwards and a zero rates increase would incur cuts to much needed work or services so whilst I know this plan will cause hardship, other than redirecting the money set aside for Naenae pool project, I would have to choose the 3.8% increase.

·   I generally agree with the overall approach, however I stress that Council needs to stop spending money on new projects, and need to concentrate on maintenance and infrastructure. I disagree with the $5.4M proposed for Riverlink project.  I agree to the costs for Council for the Melling interchange and flood protection, but Council really needs to think about a pedestrian bridge and "boulevard".  I accept that they may believe that a boulevard will rejuvenate the CBD, but this is not the case.  The retail is struggling because of Queensgate and online shopping.  Creating a "destination" alongside the river will not increase retail.  If people actually do visit, then all it will do is bring cars when we are losing the riverbank carpark.  If the economic consultants who have estimated increased economy from Riverlink, then they should pay for it when in 2 years’ time it has not made a difference. 

·   I think the council could be a little more ambitious with some of its objectives and have the courage to use increased borrowing at this time of very low interest rates, to progress more of the projects that are required for building a vibrant city with modern infrastructure.  Residents and businesses need the city to be able support a community that provides for everyone in the Hutt as we try to recover from the covid19 event.

·   I think you're trying to do the best you can by ratepayers. I don't think the Naenae pool is as important as it's made to be in the plan.

·   I would like rates to be lower but I don't agree with delaying the projects council wants to do. I can live with 4%

·   Infrastructure, transport plan and housing

·   Interest rates are low so borrowing to advance Hutt City should not be discounted. If we want to make Hutt City a better place to work, rest and play then we need to invest in initiatives to make it just that. Doing nothing or minimal isn't an option. We still need to get stuff done and move with the times.

·   Is the right balance of addressing the three waters infrastructure. Problems have to be fixed. The 3.8% increase is the right move - you can't be forced into corner where there is no money for anything.

·   It is appropriate to review and adjust planned spending based on certain events like Covid-19, natural disasters etc.

·   It is entirely necessary and appropriate, given the current context.

·   It is prudent to have a low rates revenue increase due to Covid19. It is essential though that the essential services are maintained. Moving forward on key work will need to have community input as to priority.

·   It is vital that our people and businesses are spared any unnecessary expenditure and helped to cope as much as possible. However the "3 waters" is important and so is the flood protection work on the river. I am concerned that there doesn't seem to be protection for the lowest paid workers who may suffer from retrenchment or not get the rise to the Living Wage due on September 1

·   It seems we are gaining more rates for the city with little extra cost to ratepayers, also addressing infrastructure needs

·   It's a pragmatic response to the situation we find ourselves in. Without Covid-19, I would've supported a modified original proposal, but needs must.

·   It's important that issues concerning the three waters repairs and renewals, homelessness and the Naenae pool are addressed

·   Need to see what’s going on.

·   Overall the plan is understandable, however when the focus is on essentials the $ value put aside just for preparation work for the Naenae pool makes no sense at all. There are other services that would better serve the greater community

·   Please Naenae pool

·   Pragmatic response to Covid-19.

·   Recovery from Covid-19 is uncertain, as a household we can't over commit and nor can the Council

·   Seems a practical approach

·   Seems balanced and thoughtfully set out with regards to all services needed

·   Seems practical, essentially limits rates increase, and addresses the most important areas.

·   Seems sensible, good to have Naenae Pool progress. Concerned about wage freezes - ok for those on higher incomes but could put those on lower incomes below the living wage - we shouldn't go back to poverty wages.

·   Sensible approach, well communicated

·   The overall response council outlines makes sense to me to

·   The rates increase reflects the house prices; we can’t have both low rates and high house prices. Rates have not gone up in a long time so I guess it was a necessary evil.

·   There seems to be a good balance of funding and priorities. Water and infrastructure are essential foundations of a healthy and functioning city.

·   Times are uncertain - I agree this approach will be successful considering all that is occurring around us.

·   We are in challenging times. HCC has to focus on the basic services - water, waste water, sewerage, roading, electricity, rubbish collection and recycling.

·   We generally support the overall approach as outlined in ‘Setting the scene’.  We agree that the suggested increase in rates is an appropriate balance.  We do have a concern however that projects which are needed to prevent further deterioration e.g. three waters infrastructure, and to cement in changes to transportation mode shift evident during lockdown e.g. cycleways and cycle lanes should be expedited, not deferred.  For the latter we cite the example of the UK amendment to the Traffic Management Act 2004 requiring the immediate implementation of pedestrian and cycle friendly change at the expense of vehicular traffic.  We consider an increase in financing level is appropriate in these circumstances noting the intergenerational benefits accruing.

·   We need to keep moving forward with major projects

·   Without sustained or increased investment, our sector and communities will suffer, and that will create significant consequences for New Zealanders into the future, resulting in much wider issues for us all to manage. We need to consider the impact to the physical activity (play, active recreation and sport) system as we work redefining strategy, re-evaluating priorities and grappling with funding pressures. We must be considerate of situations where ‘belt-tightening’ lowers the level or amount of service delivery and plan to mitigate against the impact of this. We must continue to prioritise the provision of well-maintained infrastructure, facilities and open spaces that provide equitable access for physical activity. Sport and recreation contributes $4.9 billion or 2.3% to our annual GDP, with the sector employing more than 53,000 New Zealanders. The downstream benefits of sport and recreation on our society extend beyond the numbers, to explain who we are as a nation, our tenacity, our spirit and at times like this, our courage. Without sustained or increased investment, our sector and communities will suffer, and that will create significant consequences for New Zealanders into the future, resulting in much wider issues for us all to manage. We need to consider the impact to the physical activity (play, active recreation and sport) system as we work redefining strategy, re-evaluating priorities and grappling with funding pressures. We must be considerate of situations where ‘belt-tightening’ lowers the level or amount of service delivery and plan to mitigate against the impact of this. Sport and recreation contributes $4.9 billion or 2.3% to our annual GDP, with the sector employing more than 53,000 New Zealanders. The downstream benefits of sport and recreation on our society extend beyond the numbers, to explain who we are as a nation, our tenacity, our spirit and at times like this, our courage. Failure to continue to invest in our city now will be felt further down the road. This budget is balanced and generally considerate.

·   We endorse the proposed rates rise and approach taken by council at this time to get through this period of economic and social uncertainty.

·   E tū supports the direction the Council has set out in its Draft Annual Plan with the exception of its publicly announced wage freeze, if it has the effect of punishing the lowest paid staff and halting the Council commitment to the living wage.

·   Given the need for improving water infrastructure and continuing other services we agree that a 3.8% rates increase (as expected in the current Long Term Plan) is an appropriate way forward at the moment. A nil or lower rates increase would work against the city functioning in an ongoing necessary and useful way.

Strongly agree

·   A lot of people are going to be struggling so it makes sense for Council to return to their core business of what being a council is about, rather than focusing on all the nice to haves.

·   Best of difficult situation

·   Council is doing the best they can given the current situation, fully support.

·   Good idea

·   Happy with what’s happening

·   Hutt City needs to rebalance our budget for future growth, and to provide the vital services we need

·   I agree with prioritising the short term. I also strongly agree with progressing the essential work on preparing for a rebuild of Naenae pool.

·   I am pleased that the Council is looking at how it can support the businesses and residents in this very difficult time as we recover from Covid-19. However, some things are priorities and need to continue and I agree with the council's ideas.

·   I believe these short term measures will pave a path for economic recovery, and we must do all we can in these difficult times

·   I can see the council is doing its best to find a good balance between rates and savings.

·   I think council is doing a excellent job.

·   It is a good plan for 12 months only.

·   It is obviously necessary to adjust to the new situation due to the pandemic. Your approach seems sensible.

·   We support the rates rise

·   It's fair and logical across the board for Lower Hutt.

·   Many ratepayers have been hard hit financially and are having to prune their own budgets and only spend on necessities. Council should do the same.

·   Overall I am very pleased with the plan. The amount of remedial work necessary to be done to improve the quality and resilience of our community facilities and infrastructure is my main concern. My understanding is that water supply infrastructure is aged to the point of regular failure in the network. This must be remedied and investment is required. Having E.coli in the water supply, necessitating the addition of chlorine to our drinking water is a particular concern. Furthermore investment by ratepayers in the building of facilities like Naenae Pool will serve as a source of employment during the economic downturn following COVID19 and will help keep our community afloat in a tough time.  I would add that it is incredibly important for the Council and the Mayor to bring the government of the day on board in partnership to deliver of projects worthy of investment. With a clear desire to work with Councils across the country on Shovel ready projects it is critical that our City is at the top of the priority list for Central Government funding.

·   Strikes a good balance between rate increase and ability to provide services

·   The discussions the Trust has had with the Mayor and senior leadership team have provided us with the knowledge that the Council is responding as best it can given the implications of Covid19.

·   Think it's important to continue with plans such as Naenae pool

·   Very prudent given the new horizon that we are entering

·   Very upfront with your communication and quick to act, brilliant

·   Well done on changing so quickly to respond to Covid and taking a pragmatic approach to the coming year.

·   You have found a good balance between investment needed & Covid-19 downturn in people's financial situation.

·   The proposal retains essential services including urgent work on Three Waters. I agree that we must postpone until 2021 investment in infrastructure that will be needed long term.

·   Covid-19 has played havoc with peoples livelihoods. Better to receive small rates from all than high from few.

Did not respond

·   Essential services should always be the priority, get the basic infrastructure right and look after people's basic welfare, then flow on down like a hierarchy of needs. So I agree with a budget that prioritises things like Three Waters. It is difficult to comment on how much funding RiverLink Contract Documentation and Procurement should get at this time, it looks like a big stack of money, the work needs to be done well when it is done, but it looks like a big stack of money without justification or detail, particularly right now.

·   Ratepayers are facing a very difficult time of unprecedented uncertainty due to the impact of COVID19 pandemic. During March 2020, we wrote to all local authorities within our membership region recommending councils minimise proposed rates increases to a financially prudent level. We commend the Council for reducing its proposed rates increase from 7.9% to 3.8% however we believe the Council could reduce the rates increase further by finding additional savings in the budget and taking on further debt. The Council will be in a better position to reassess rates and spending while developing the Long-term Plan 2021-31. Additionally, we recommend considering rates relief or rebate options, such as waving late payment fees and allowing delayed rates instalments. This will help ensure flexibility is provided during a time of uncertainty. Both Porirua City Council and Wellington City Council have proposed commercial rates deferrals to help boost recovery of the city’s economy and local business sector.

·   Reduce the rates increase further by finding additional reductions in the budget and taking on further debt. Consider rates relief or rebate options, such as waving late payment fees and allowing delayed rates instalments.

·   While the original rates increase has been halved due to Covid 19, there is still likely to be considerable hardship for ratepayers when faced with increases aligned to increased property values (not a council responsibility) due to valuations carried out in 2019.  And while Hutt City Council’s rates increase is in line with those in many other areas, few of them have a large number of ratepayers facing a valuation increase that adds several hundred dollars to their rates bill. Our household’s is $300 per annum (not including regional council rates increases), but we are fortunate in that our house is freehold. Many ratepayers are also paying mortgages and have lost their livelihoods due to Covid 19.  Homelessness has been a big issue in Lower Hutt. A large increase will push up the cost of rentals, a significant factor in the growth of homelessness over the past few years.  To conclude this section, I urge councillors to consider the hardships ratepayers are facing and will further face with the substantial rates increases in generally lower income areas like Naenae, Taita, and Wainuiomata.

·   The importance of the arts to mental health and connection between people was shown during lockdown, when families and other people used dance, music, art and creativity in innovative ways to thank essential workers, commemorate Anzac Day, keep busy and connect with neighbours and the country. In many ways it was an uplifting time, and proof that creativity is alive and well in New Zealand. The No 8 Wire approach was shown even by sportspeople, who devised entertaining ways of improvising with no equipment and inventing new family games and challenges.  We have not been able to take part in the Winter Festival this year, but perhaps we could somehow celebrate the creativity Hutt people showed during lockdown in another way. It would mark an important event in our history while celebrating local creativity. One potential idea is an event either in the Event Centre or in Dowse Square (in reliable weather) showcasing music, dancing and families participating in physical challenges and games generated through lockdown. Residents could be invited beforehand to offer their ideas via council communications.  If we must go without the Winter Festival because of Covid 19 let’s replace it with something to celebrate the positives that came out of it, and the resilience of Hutt residents.  Regardless of Covid 19 and lockdown, I hope Hutt City Council will continue to recognise the importance of the arts to the wellbeing of the city and residents’ pride in it, and actively work on opportunities for residents to participate and enjoy the creativity that exists in this city.

·   Every triennium the Quotable Value (QV) reflects the capital value for Lower Hutt properties and businesses. Homes that have an increased value may be paying more in rates. In the September 2019 revaluation, the average increase of capital value of Lower Hutt homes is 31.8%. We appreciate that Council revised the original proposal of a 7.9% city-wide increase pre-Covid down to 3.8%. However, we would like to explain how this will impact Wainuiomata households. Wainuiomata has had the biggest increase on property values in Lower Hutt at an average of 55%. According to Draft Annual Plan this means many Lower Hutt ratepayers will be paying an average of $2.35 per week. However Wainuiomata residents will be paying the highest amount in rates at an average of $5.34 per week, which equates to a 14.6% increase. These increases do not include contributions to the Greater Wellington Regional Council or Goods and Services Tax (GST) which once added will create further hardship for our community. Many of our home owners are multi-generational occupants, including kaumātua, the elderly and families who are under immense financial pressure due to job loss and the ever increasing cost of living. Although $5.34 may not seem like much for some, it can be the difference of being able to provide for a family. In comparison, a Wainuiomata household can purchase two loaves of bread and a carton of milk from our local supermarket for $5.30. During a recent community consultation, some board members engaged with 55 people in person (practising social distancing and hygiene during Level 2). Overall, 29.5% of people agreed with the proposed 3.8% rates increase and 70.5% of people said they did not agree. A common thread of the comments made was that due to Covid-19 it would be the wrong time for an increase.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Priority Projects

Count of comments

Priority Projects - 105 individuals & 8 organisations commented about priorities

Priorities/projects

Number of comments

Naenae Pool

26 comments - split between those want it made a priority, and those against or unsure

Basic infrastructure

25 comments

Three waters

22 comments agree with prioritizing three waters infrastructure

Rubbish & recycling

18 comments wanting project continued

Environment

8 comments (minimising environmental impact/sustainability)

Cycleways

7 comments

Housing

6 comments (social housing/homelessness)

RiverLink

5 comments

Essential/core services

4 comments

Facilities

4 comments

Other

22 suggestions

General

13 comments

 

Naenae Pool

·   Naenae Pool

·   Naenae hub & pool

·   Expedite the Naenae Pool restoration as soon as possible.

·   Naenae pool

·   Naenae pool

·   Naenae pool is high on my mind, but basics should be prioritised and done with long-term security in mind.

·   I believe the Naenae pool and other similar nice to have projects should be placed on hold to ensure any rates increase is kept as low as possible.

·   Things like the Naenae pool are a nice to have but safe water infrastructure is a need to have.

·   Naenae Pool unfortunately is not a three waters (it is a fourth) and clear communications need to be made around priorities

·   No, please get our key infrastructure sorted before we progress any nice to have projects. Sadly, I think this includes delaying the Naenae pool.

·   The earthquake strengthening costs, I believe, are a knee jerk reaction.  Naenae swimming pool should be reopened.  The strength of the building is STRONGER than Queensgate.  As we can see, residents are not afraid of a possible earthquake.  If people are prepared to shop at Queensgate, they will swim at Naenae.  Reopen the pool.  Delay the strengthening.

·   Both the Naenae pool development and the riverbank project should be reassessed. Naenae pool specifically needs to be underpinned by a comprehensive business case which takes the key objective (e.g. deliver similar community facilities as were in place), clear operational plans to ensure the facility can be operated efficiently and in line with budget expectations (e.g. how much will each visit be subsidised by? And is this acceptable?). This needs to be a transparent process that ensures the options are provided to the whole rate-paying community for input. Given the financial challenges and community need (e.g. a community swimming facility - not a world class venue); transparent clarity needs to be provided as to what the options are (e.g. just replace the roof structure v gold plated option being touted).

·   Not the cvl focus on getting one thing right at a time like the 3 waters project and putting the pool on the back burner.

·   All work on the Naenae pool should be stopped, there are more important projects like water, roading, rubbish and recycling initiatives where the dollars spent can provide direct benefits to a majority of rate payers, rather than the relative few who might benefit from a new pool (and the million + set aside for this won’t produce a new pool anyway, it's really a giant money pit), especially when there are already plenty pool facilities in the Hutt and greater Wellington region.

·   I passionately believe the redevelopment of Naenae Pool needs to be done as effectively and as quickly as possible. We need a world class aquatic facility - not just a return to what we had. The economic benefits for the whole city and particularly for Naenae of a world-class facility would be immense. Investing in Pools can (and will!) polarise communities - but the end game here is worth the fight. Every single sporting event that could be held at Naenae would bring hundreds of thousands, and for a national event would bring millions into the local economy. A 3-day or 5-day national swimming, water-polo or other event attracts athletes, parents, their extended whanau, officials, media etc. cafes, restaurants, AirBnB, motels - and a lot more would benefit significantly from regular aquatic sporting events that could be held at Naenae. Building an 'adequate' pool won't be good enough though - we need an intelligent design process that focuses on the athletes and spectators needs. That class of facility could be the pride of our region.

·   Naenae Pool replacement; this project is vital to the community cohesion of Naenae

·   I think recycling is more important than Naenae pool.

·   Naenae Pool – time to come clean and tell the ratepayers exactly what is the matter with the pool. Is it the pool or the changing rooms or is it a secret of what? I’m happy to be enlightened. Replacement $50 plus million. Only reports it is earthquake prone – what does this mean? We seem to hear that a lot these days. Engineers don’t like to announce their calculations in case someone queries them.

·   I think Naenae pool needs to be important as it brings people to Naenae and helps the shops nearby.

·   Naenae pool. Spend the 9 Million budgeted for the Hub now allocated to the spatial plan on the Naenae pool and pitch to Government as shovel ready. How can the city afford both?

·   I am assuming the Naenae pool rebuild project will be progressed in 2020/21?

·   Naenae Pool

·   The state of Hutt City’s finances does not permit the construction of a replacement pool at the early estimate of $m60. Furthermore it is an extravagance given the beaches available, and the reasonable proximity of the excellent Huia Pool and the Hydro Pool at Upper Hutt. Spending $1.5m on completing the groundwork for a future pool should not occur unless there is 100% certainty the work is going to proceed. The latter is years away and the groundwork will need to be repeated to reflect the legislation and design features pertaining at the time of actual construction. Be aware that cost overruns are a given with swimming pool complex construction. The Coastlands Aquatic Centre at Paraparaumu is an example, and that is a small pool. Experience shows that expert opinions vary greatly over the level of earthquake risk. Is the risk real bearing in mind the aim is not save the structure but that everyone can be evacuated safely. Can diving platforms be removed and seating removed to mitigate risk? Can the present pool be reopened at minor cost but without refurbishment?

·   Sport Wellington is supportive of the proposed work on the redevelopment of Naenae Pool, and the seismic strengthening of community facilities. The Regional Spaces and Places Plan provides a high-level strategic framework for future regional sports facility planning and optimisation of the current network. The plan emphasises a one-region approach to planning for international, national, regional and sub-regional facilities and provides context for local planning and decision making about local facilities. During the development of the Regional Spaces and Places plan a key finding was that the wider Wellington region has an ageing network of facilities across all facility types, particularly club facilities such as clubrooms and courts. Many of these are likely to become increasingly unsustainable as they age and face growing maintenance costs which may well be beyond the means of the codes and clubs that own and use them. Given that the region has several characteristics that make it susceptible to different types of natural disasters and, together with the age and location of many of our key assets this means the facility network has potential resilience challenges. In the regional plan there is a stream of work that is focused on addressing the resilience challenges of our network through a programme of upgrades and/or renewals where a proven need exists, and a cost-benefit analysis indicates this is warranted.  As with most projects, the longer we wait to undertake this work, the more expensive it becomes to do the work. This would equally apply to the work required to redevelop Naenae Pool. Additionally, not only is Naenae Pool an important facility in the pool network, operating as an important back up to the Regional Aquatic Centre,  it also serves as vital community facility in the heart of a local community and facilitates more than just the activities that take place inside.

·   We also question whether the preparatory work on Naenae Pool could be deferred. We see this as non-essential spending at a time when it is closed to the public for an uncertain duration.

·   I suggest at least deferring the expense of the $1.5 million on planning for the new pool that will be an ongoing cost to ratepayers indefinitely in staffing and running the facility. Times are changing rapidly and resources could be unavailable by the time it is built. There is space for expansion of the Huia Pool if necessary, and further investment in this existing facility would be a better use of ratepayers’ dollars. The city is very well catered for in its swimming pools.  On a positive note this is an opportunity for replacing the pool with something that is innovative and requires very little in running costs and maintenance. Suggestions are a bouldering park, adventure playground, outdoor fitness equipment or outdoor art, or a combination of these. These are a very few ideas, but with community and city input many other creative possibilities could be offered. It could be a positive opportunity for the Naenae community to be innovative in working with Council to find alternative and less expensive ways to use this space while attracting visitors from other suburbs or even cities.  In conclusion, in an attempt to limit the hardship already suffered by many residents, I recommend withdrawing the $1.5 million allocated toward the Naenae Pool rebuild and find new and innovative ways of using the land to benefit Naenae and citywide residents.

(Basic) Infrastructure

·   No, please get our key infrastructure sorted before we progress any nice to have projects. Sadly, I think this includes delaying the Naenae pool.

·   Stop funding Hotels and focus on the basics; our roads, pipes, and community facilities.

·   Roading, as this will be key in the future

·   Traffic calming measures in streets such as Puriri St, Woburn

·   All the infrastructure projects need to be prioritised.

·   Rates dollars can go towards infrastructure, which is the Council's core business.

·   I would like to see some much needed repair and maintenance work carried out on some Wainuiomata footpaths to make them safe for people with mobility issues

·   At least some work on a second road out of Wainuiomata. Need to push the government hard for this as it should be a priority for Wainuiomata. The council is happy to collect the increased rates from the people of Wainui but they don't seem to be getting value for money.

·   Roading

·   Infrastructure and traffic

·   The roughly 4 percent rise is good if the council sticks to core infrastructure. 

·   We must continue to prioritise the provision of well-maintained infrastructure

·   Get the basic infrastructure right

·   More investment in stronger infrastructure. Future proof

·   Maintenance of footpaths/shared areas as they've been allowed to deteriorate in previous years and are a safety hazard.

·   More emphasis needs to be put on waste management. Our streets are beginning to look like slums.

·   We strongly urge the adoption of (relatively) low cost tactical urbanism solutions to expand footpaths to allow for social distancing, and to create continuous separated cycle lanes throughout the city. 

·   Reseal the main roads with low noise pavements such as asphalt. Bring traffic light control management within the council - NZTA isn't providing an efficient service. The phasing is not optimised for the traffic flows and severely blocks up roads.

·       We fully support council refocusing on our city's core infrastructure and  the need to prioritise spending on Three Waters

·   Hutt City can be an attractive place for locals to relax and enjoy and to draw in visitors. We can promote the outdoors where people can come relax and enjoy a nice peaceful walk or bike ride along the river bank and our roads. Attract people to do the same along the Petone foreshore and out to the likes of Pencarrow. Our wharves such as Petone wharf are a drawcards, they need to be restored and enhanced. We need to draw people in, and outside to enjoy the great outdoors we have to offer. Promote walking, and our walk tracks, encourage cycling by providing low noise pavements such as asphalt which is far nicer and easier to cycle on and quieter and safer than the noise subjected to from vehicular traffic on rough chip sealed pavements… One of the single biggest barriers to the above is our noisy chip sealed roads. Many I have talked to do not enjoy the outdoors; and the biggest reason is road noise detracts from the above and is an aggravating factor. Try walking alongside or cycling on Waiwhetu Road between Whites Line and Fairfield shops for example; if walking with someone it’s hard to hear, you need to talk loudly to be heard over the chip sealed pavement noise produced from vehicular traffic. The walk is not relaxing, it’s exhausting, and you return home feeling harassed and aggravated by the noise. Covid-19 levels four and three there was less vehicular traffic on these main chip sealed roads, and more people out and about walking and cycling on these roads. Make Hutt City a better and more enjoyable place to work rest and play; asphalt or put down another low noise pavement on at least Hutt Cities main chip sealed roads. Asphalt may cost more than chip seal but it may last longer, and will reduce the harmful environmental effects including health and social costs of noise exposure from chip sealed pavements. The main road to Eastbourne and many Wellington Streets have quieter low noise pavements such as asphalt, and as a result these are areas people enjoy frequenting more as they are more relaxing and enjoyable for outdoor pursuits as these pavements are quieter and do not subject people to the same agonising decibel of road noise to that of Hutt City chip sealed roads.

·   Roading and access - why do we not have any measurement of CO2 emissions on the roads? Reduction in the emissions should also be a measurement of success.

·   The core function of Council is to provide to a high standard the supply of water, and the disposal of wastewater, stormwater, solid waste and sewage. Roading, paving and cycleways would also be considered core. The Plan lacks an engineering estimate of the quality of the infrastructure supporting these various activities. A simple 1-10 quality rating and a listing of the major new works, replacement and repair is required, pertinent to the Plan period. The full detail would of course reside in the Long Term Plan.

·   Many of the residential streets have had speed humps installed to slow residential cars down to a safer speed. What is missing is traffic speed humps in industrial areas using residential streets as access.  For example, Pirie Crescent and Tirangi Road in Moera are used by large commercial vehicles to access the industrial area at the north end of Pirie Crescent.  There have been a number of reports of private vehicles being damaged by large commercial vehicles, including shunting parked cars out of the way in the narrow streets.  These have been reported to Hutt City Council by residents concerned, but no action has been taken.

·   We also commend the Council on much of its investment into roading as this provides businesses with the necessary roading network in any economic recovery.

·   Focus on core infrastructure, such as upgrades to water services and roads, during the recovery period, and reassess spending on other projects as part of the LTP 2021-31. 

Three Waters

·   It is good to see that investment in water. I don’t think it goes far enough and will still be leaving a burden for us to find in the future.

·   I agree to the three waters money. 

·   Our water needs to be a priority on how to store it better.

·   No infrastructure should be our primary concern, but we should be looking at leaving Wellington Water and bringing 3 water assets back under direct council control.

·   We urgently need to be fixing the stormwater and sewer laterals that are all over the city to prevent sewerage flowing freely into the river and streams.  Response time to fixing water leaks - from tobys etc. - also needs to be lessened considerable.  Over the past 6 months since City Care lost the contract there has been millions of litres of water wasted from leaks that have not been addressed.

·   Water is so important. Repair of leaks needs to be a priority to avoid wasting this valuable resource. We saw a substantial leak whilst on a walk from William's Park in Days Bay to Eastbourne; surely someone has reported this already.

·   Further investment in 3 Waters and the rubbish and recycling review. Despite the current situation these are important projects for the city to progress as soon as possible.

·   All the infrastructure projects need to be prioritised. The current state of the water network for example. As conveyed to the Mayor and senior leadership team, the Trust is supportive of the work on the Three Waters.

·   Naenae Pool, Water infrastructure, roading and safety and security.

·   The water infrastructure is crucial to the health and wellbeing of the city and our environment.

·   Water infrastructure is important and should be prioritised.

·   Water infrastructure

·   Water infrastructure should be your chief focus. I am worried about the security of this vital infrastructure after a major earthquake.

·   Definitely - three waters - although I would be expecting that the Council has applied for the tools ready fund from the Government here. We need serious work on the littering problem in our water ways - these are regional and attached to parks - Naenae Pool unfortunately is not a three waters (it is a fourth) and clear communications need to be made around priorities.

·   Not the cvl focus on getting one thing right at a time like the 3 waters project and putting the pool on the back burner.

·   Three waters infrastructure – top priority. Commence immediately please don’t leave until it all becomes urgent and unaffordable like normal

·   Essential services and infrastructure like water, sewage, and community facilities such as Libraries, parks and pools are the priority, forget the promenade at this time.

·   Water -We should be encouraging a measuring the usage per/person and aiming for a reduction of treated water and subsequently less waste and storm water – also not measured. Making these savings now will help delay the need for more storage in the future. There is also a growing dissatisfaction with businesses not having to limit their water usage in summer.

·   Water infrastructure is really important to us. 

·   We fully support council refocusing on our city's core infrastructure and the need to prioritise spending on Three Waters. The three waters are critical in our board area (Petone) as we are at the end of the line for stormwater from the whole of the Hutt Valley. The wastewater main connector along The Esplanade is reportedly beyond its useful life. We also have some significant local flooding where pipes need replacing urgently. Buick to William Street (along Jackson Street) is a case in point. We are keen to see funding for both of these matters progressed. More money for Wellington Water to better assess pipe life and stability is crucial to avoid such situations in the future.

·   We support the Council’s investment in water infrastructure as this is critical and cannot be deferred. Often Councils will look to defer investment in water infrastructure during an economic downturn however it is important that Hutt City invests in this given that around 60% of the city’s water infrastructure needs to be renewed in the next 30 years.

·   Focus on core infrastructure, such as upgrades to water services and roads, during the recovery period, and reassess spending on other projects as part of the LTP 2021-31. 

Rubbish and Recycling

·   The recycling reforms

·   Also our recycling needs a huge overhaul. Where are the wheelie bins as campaigned for so strongly.

·   Recycling improvements discussed a few months ago

·   Further investment in 3 Waters and the rubbish and recycling review. Despite the current situation these are important projects for the city to progress as soon as possible.

·   I would have liked to see the rubbish and recycling initiatives continue as these contribute to improved sustainability of our city. 

·   Rubbish and recycling needs improvement

·   Review of rubbish and recycling systems across the Hutt

·   The council should be moving in the areas the community response to global warming (transport), waste (composting) and recycling, flood and landslide mitigation.

·   Agree that all those projects listed should continue, but also think the rubbish and recycling initiatives should still progress

·   The rubbish situation needs to be sorted

·   Rubbish and recycling services - if we don't act now and modernise our system, the environment will be worse off than what it always is now.

·   I think recycling is more important than Naenae pool.

·   More work to be done around recycling and rubbish collection.

·   Issues that are important to me and my whanau are ways to address climate change, sustainability, bettering the rubbish and recycling system across the Hutt Valley and encouraging the use of public transport.

·   More emphasis needs to be put on waste management. Our streets are beginning to look like slums

·   Rubbish and recycling services - if we don't act now and modernise our system, the environment will be worse off than what it always is now.

·   Solid waste -Why are we planning stage 2 for Silverstream Landfill and not reducing the amount of organic waste? If we can remove our organic waste from the current waste stream then the landfill could last 23% to 65% longer, i.e. had we already had this in place we wouldn’t be looking at spending $4,049,000. 23 percent to 65 percent https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/environmental-reporting/waste-generation-and-disposal-new-zealand. This could be could anything from community composting to regional organic waste and food waste composting. Cameras at the recycling centres to reduce the amount of dumping and there for things going to the landfill.

·   The core function of Council is to provide to a high standard the supply of water, and the disposal of wastewater, stormwater, solid waste and sewage. Roading, paving and cycleways would also be considered core. The Plan lacks an engineering estimate of the quality of the infrastructure supporting these various activities. A simple 1-10 quality rating and a listing of the major new works, replacement and repair is required, pertinent to the Plan period. The full detail would of course reside in the Long Term Plan.

Environment

·   Please give focus to all areas that minimise our environmental impact

·   HCC also has to continually consider planning for global warming which will be a much, much bigger challenge than Covid-19.

·   Climate change mitigation

·   Don’t lose sight of the coming climate catastrophe.

·   I want to be sure that we rebuild with the future in mind. Everything we do needs to be carefully designed to improve our ecological and environmental approach and not do a quick and dirty response that future generations will have to fix up.

·   Issues that are important to me and my whanau are ways to address climate change, sustainability, bettering the rubbish and recycling system across the Hutt Valley and encouraging the use of public transport.

·   The focus on climate change has reduced.  6 months ago, we were complaining about disposal cups and their effect on the environment, now we are encouraged to use them to reduce spread of viruses.  Council needs to take a step back too.

·   Council needs to develop leadership in taking the City as a whole into a low carbon future, as a more resilient, internally self-sufficient city, as swiftly as possible.

Cycleways

·   Eastern Bays

·   Cycleways

·   Cycle ways

·   Cycleways

·   The government has set aside funds to improve cycle paths and walk ways for social distancing. In addition to this the government has asked to fund shovel ready projects. The funding is there at little or no cost to Lower Hutt rate payers and they are asking for authorities to request the funds. The Eastbourne Bays Shared Pathway is now needed more than ever to safely walk or cycle between Eastbourne and Days Bay and to Seaview. This includes for children and families who are now in the habit of cycling around the bays since the traffic was reduced during lockdown. This work would bring employment to local civil contractors, improve the environment by encouraging people to commute by bike / walking and improve safety for all road users.

·   I would also suggest that COVID has caused many to rethink how they get to work. For some this has led to an increase in cycling. Improvements in the network of cycling paths in the valley, and through main centres of commerce and civic life are important to build a liveable, much less car-centric city.

·   As noted above we consider that the post COVID19 world provides an ideal opportunity to invest in changes that make the city more liveable and people centred.  We have cited the UK initiative and note the increased funding available from the NZTA Innovating Streets project.  We strongly urge the adoption of (relatively) low cost tactical urbanism solutions to expand footpaths to allow for social distancing, and to create continuous separated cycle lanes throughout the city.  As noted in the UK Act, we consider it imperative that these changes are put in place before the gains made during lockdown are lost.

Housing/Homelessness

·   Social Housing

·   Homelessness strategy

·   Homelessness still needs addressing

·   Homelessness strategy as this is an ongoing issue which is exacerbated further under current economic conditions

·   Housing

·   I do not think Council should be spending money on homelessness - the central government is doing this.

RiverLink

·   It is time to pull back on the nice to have projects, especially the river link project (which I have previously supported) for a year or two until the economy and life in general has returned to normal.

·   River Link needs to progress to position the city for better recovery options and address the stagnation of High Street and the CBD, Also to take best advantage of the flood control works and public transport to and from the city. This is a key stone many of the other goals for the city

·   Both the Naenae pool development and the riverbank project should be reassessed… the riverbank project needs to be re-assessed, in line with the medium and long term forecasts for our region and New Zealand. Would it be better to ensure we still develop the riverbank resilience requirements while thinking more creatively about how we reshape how we live in Lower Hutt without undertaking a substantial project that may no longer be a priority or align with the future forecasts.

·   Investment in the Riverlink promenade and urban improvements is key to revitalising the city centre to attract people and businesses.

·   RiverLink – in such a heavily reduced budget pay tell me how you possibly can include a figure of $5.4 million dollars for this scheme. That’s all it is – a scheme, and anything can only happen after flood protection and new bridge and roading is completed. To ask the rate payers to be providing these huge amounts of funding in our financial climate is quite ridiculous. This project needs to go away for 20 years.

Essential / Core services

·   Revert to the basic core services to reduce costs and the resultant impact on all residents.

·   Essential services should always be the priority, get the basic infrastructure right and look after people's basic welfare, then flow on down like a hierarchy of needs.

·   Get back to core activities.

·   Essential services and infrastructure like water, sewage, and community facilities such as Libraries, parks and pools are the priority, forget the promenade at this time

Facilities

·   Most of Lower Hutt’s centres are very old and run down and not very enjoyable to spend time in, I wish more was being done to make Lower Hutt somewhere people want to spend time in, not just for the nature.

·   Stop funding Hotels and focus on the basics; our roads, pipes, and community facilities.

·   Essential services and infrastructure like water, sewage, and community facilities such as Libraries, parks and pools are the priority, forget the promenade at this time.

·   We must continue to prioritise the provision of well-maintained infrastructure, facilities and open spaces that provide equitable access for physical activity. This includes significant backing for all current community facilities

Other

·   Funding to support non council owned heritage (1 and 2) buildings to undertake earth quake strengthening.

·   We need more quality cafes and eateries that sell good quality food where people can go to refuel and recharge before resuming their activities. We need to provide easy and attractive access to the river bank cycle / walk tracks. Plant big trees like the one in the Lower Hutt memorial library carpark along the riverbank cycle / walk tracks. Put seating under the trees so people come sit, relax, watch the river, listen to birds etc. Do the same along Petone beach. Provide a city that is peaceful, looks good and feels vibrant so attracts people who want to come and explore what we have. Plant trees and light them up at night.

·   I would also like to see continued support for development in the city that supports the establishment and growth of businesses in the valley.

·   Kerkwall Drive, Naenae: I want to flag a desire for Council to vest back the assets including the roads, footpaths and green spaces at the top of this drive currently categorised as private. This loop part is used regularly for Hutt City to access and maintain their water asset, along with recycling trucks collectors. I would be grateful if this would be considered as part of this review.

·   You could even raise the seawall created by the (cycle) path to provide future resilience and protection for the Council's infrastructure such as the road and the utility services that run along it. The reduced water washing up on the road would reduce future contractor costs for clearing and delays caused by being cut off. It also makes the road safer for council contractors to use as it’s reasonable to expect the road to be safe which I would argue, in its present condition, it is not. I have served as a fire fighter in Eastbourne and had to pull people out of the sea when they have rolled their cars over the edge of the road. It put our fire crew at increased risk to execute those rescues. Reducing risks to essential services (the fire crews) now seems to be mandatory. I like little blue penguins and have seen the whole of the coast road to Baring Head where there is plenty of space for them to nest, free of cars, dogs and cats. Besides, having surveyed the route to Seaview, due to rocky outcrops and beaches, there are only a couple of stretches of seawall where they would have to swim 150 metres  in either direction to come ashore if that is their preferred nesting spot in the cliffs and bush on Marine Drive. It would be a sin to waste this opportunity to improve safety, resilience and help the environment in one fell swoop. Just out of interest what proportion of rates comes from the Eastbourne population as I am sure it is higher than the average yet we have to use a dangerous sub-standard road every day.

·   Youth funding

·   Living wage for directly employed and contracted workers for the council

·   I am really concerned that the financial pressures faced by the Council will not weaken your resolve to continue to implement the Living Wage to employees and contract workers because they are the ones who need our support. Their financial security will have an enormous effect on our society both in terms of human values but also financially for our businesses need their custom, and we don't want anybody to be made homeless or not be able to care for their dependents

·   Elderly programmes

·   I would like to see more assistance to elderly folks

·   We need serious work on the littering problem in our water ways - these are regional and attached to parks

·   Venues with Covid-19 safer seating arrangements for exercise, meetings and so on should be developed.

·   Beautify and clean up Lower Hutt CBD - remove graffiti, keep streets free of rubbish, plant more trees, etc.

·   Cross valley link

·   You don’t mention the proposed IT infrastructure development spend above.

·   We believe the Council could defer the $3 million allocated for “other IT projects” in the city leadership budget

·   I accept this is a difficult time but we do need to assist the disabled citizens at all times especially when they have been forced to stay inside for weeks. The amount of money we apply to assist with quality of access issues is only a fractional amount compared to massive routine spending amounts. There will always be pipes that need fixing. In particular I would request that: the Disability and Inclusiveness Subcommittee should continue to meet; the work started on the Blind Squares project should progress; the building of a "changing room" bathroom for the seriously disabled should proceed and; in light of the need to allow for queuing outside trading establishments we should review the footpath signage now further obstructing pedestrians. Also the metal pipes historically used to block the ends of alleyways prevents wheelchair users from taking the shortest route to many destinations - this is a cheap and easy fix and should be  carried where appropriate. The use by the public of computers in libraries is now an essential service and during crisis times these are needed for: medical consultations; banking; Work and Income (phoning is pointless) and; food ordering. We urgently need a post-crisis review of services to build resilience so we do better next time.

·   We propose that primarily because of the growing research being carried out in fluoridated countries showing harm to health, and the increased pressures on council finances that Council decide to stop fluoridation. Most councils in the country are not saddled with this extra cost and responsibility – only 21 councils out of 67 are currently fluoridating. In 2007 the Council agreed to place a warning on its website that parents should not use fluoridated water when making up infant formulae for their babies. The research conducted since then, shows the wisdom of that warning (which has been taken down repeatedly by council officers) (see Flouride Free New Zealand submission for more details)

·   Personally, I am disgusted with the level of graphics in the Council documentation.  The amount of money Council spends on non-essential items is truly sickening. Many residents are getting pay cuts due to COVIND or even job losses. 

·   My concerns with respect to your proposal to reduce funding to our group: A reduction in budget will prevent the organisation to maintain its current and planned operations. There is a lack of reference to the Economic Development Plan and how this plan intended to strengthen and grow the local economy, especially the high-valued manufacturing sector. As well as paying residential rates, living in Lower Hutt, we pay a substantial rates differential over residential rate payers to operate our business from Lower Hutt. Continuing to fund Technology Valley is one way to demonstrate your commitment to our business and our business ecosystem.

·   Dsport proposes the fees for the Accessible Swim pass remain at $34.00

·   Petone premises and library – new roofing urgent. How long do you think you can leave this problem for? Forget any massive new structure, we don’t need any proposals for this facility even in the distant future, Mayor Wallace saw to that. We only need the roof fixed. Petone Wharf – just another long winded don’t bother doing. These repairs could possibly be done in stages. Why not give it a go – now.

General

·   Although there would be some political risk with a larger increase, the Council cannot sacrifice our future substantially. However, given the substantial impact of COVID, and how it still may play out, we should be pausing, ensuring we’re delivering on our key roles, and take the time to ascertain if the future plans are still applicable, how they may need to change, and what the alternative options are.

·   Everyone has been hit hard by COVIND.  Residents and commercial.  Council have repeatedly said that rates will be less than inflation but due to poor decision making the rates this year were always set to be higher.  Further cuts need to be made

·   Freeze rates

·   You need to start charging people admission to the city's "frivolities", eg: Dowse Art Gallery. This would assist in covering the cost to run such a facility and rates dollars can go towards infrastructure, which is the Council's core business.

·   I think there should be no rates increase at all.

·   No progress is needed in 2020/21. All the world has stopped at the moment. We already face daily financial difficulty to feed the family. What point are the projects that increase the burden on us at this moment. I will support the projects during the good economic times.

·   The priorities are to keep the increase as low as possible, with Covid 19 a lot of people are losing their jobs, and if they get slammed with a big increase in rate how the heck are they going to afford that.

·   I think in the year where most people are struggling to make ends meet and losing jobs increasing rates is not the right thing to do.

·   I think the all projects have value. Maybe a rating system placing them in order of preference would be a valuable exercise.

·   I would reduce commitments rather than adding more

·   As much as the Government is boosting the economy by investing in key projects that have long term value, the Council needs to be bold and look at progressing those projects on the long term plan that can help to revive our local economy and deliver early benefits to our people. Even it means increasing our rates and the Council's debt. I recommend seeking 'skin in the game' from the financially well off people and organisations in our community through investment bonds.

·   We need to do what we can now for the younger generation coming through.

·   At a time of economic crisis and uncertainty it is significantly important that the Council focuses on its core functions and operates as efficiently and effectively as possible. Therefore, we recommend reviewing expenditure for the 2020-21 to bolster economic resilience in the face of the current challenge. This would see a focus towards maintaining essential services such as core infrastructure upgrades to water services and roads during the lockdown. While we recommend rates minimisation, it is also critical for our economy that key infrastructure projects continue to progress. We also want to emphasise the importance of continuing with existing contracted capital projects and Council’s procurement pipeline. It is particularly important to maintain the workforce that will be needed long after COVID-19 has left the headlines. Therefore, we recommend the Council balance the requirement to exercise fiscal responsibility with the need to continue to invest in key infrastructure projects as well as existing contracted capital projects to ensure continuity of work post lockdown. 

·   We support the vision and investments in infrastructure, city growth, wellbeing, sustainability, resilience and community partnerships with Mana Whenua and others. While the WCB fully appreciates that there needs to be an increase in rates in order for council to continue to retain core services and deliver crucial projects, we would like council to consider a lesser increase, if possible, without any cost to core services or jobs. 

Proposed savings

Count of comments

Areas where savings proposed – 73 respondents & 2 organisations left comments about savings

Savings

Number and sentiment of comments

Libraries

16 comments – almost all disagreed with savings being made

Staff costs

13 comments - incl. need to keep living wage commitment

Community engagement

11 comments

Roads

11 comments

Pools

10 comment

Parks

6 comments

Amenities fund

2 comments

Cooperating cities

1 comment

Other

28 comments mentioning other projects – most frequently mentioned areas where savings could be made are: Naenae Pool (7), climate change engagement (4), and RiverLink (3)

General

16 general comments about savings

 

Libraries

·   I do not wish to see any reduction in library services

·   I would be concerned if there was a significant reduction in community facility services like pools and libraries. They are going to be need now more than ever.

·   Reduction to the climate change engagement in favour of community facilities and engagement funding.

·   Reducing operational costs libraries what does that mean and what is the impact

·   Reducing the operational costs of pools and libraries when these are the community’s lifelines for enjoyment and recreation is detrimental to the area.  Especially at a time when we have been unable to use them at all during Covid.

·   Don't short change the libraries or pools, lower socio economic communities benefit greatly from these services and they are the ones who need the most support.

·   For example, the budget impacts of the libraries have already been felt, with libraries unwilling to provide a click and collect community service during level 3 lockdown, which would have been hugely valued by all the families’ home schooling and full time caring for their whanau - but apparently resource was unavailable (even though the technology currently exists). The Council doesn’t appear to have a clear view on what is of priority to the community; instead promising shinny things without providing the full detail (e.g. how it is going to be paid for and what will be lost). Covid presents us with a unique opportunity to re-evaluate our properties and how the Council can deliver on this (within its scope of responsibility).

·   I disagree with cutting funding from libraries and public engagement and separating and funding Climate change engagement separately.

·   I regret the loss of the evening lectures at Hutt Memorial Library although the building also needs earthquake strengthening.

·   I am concerned that operational costs of libraries, pools and reduced staff costs could be hurting individual people. I believe we can cope with things like a few more potholes in roads and no more cycle ways (I am a cyclist) but I don't want to see our people suffer employment hardship.

·   Anything that could hurt the community i.e. reduced funding in community organisations; closure of community amenities or reduced service.

·   I do not wish to see any reduction in library services

·   I disagree with the operational costs of the pools and libraries. Libraries in particular closing the Memorial Library on Sundays. Access to free libraries is a key community service, particularly in a time of financial hardship. For many people Sunday is the only day they are free to access the library. The thousands who used the Hutt Libraries immediately they were open in level 2 should tell Council of the importance of keeping up access.

·   I disagree with the cost cutting to parks, community engagement, libraries and staff.

·   The library should not be cut. One has to be open on Sunday.

·   The cost saving is small Parks, swimming pools, libraries, playgrounds etc. all contribute to the quality of living in Hutt City, but money allocated to these activities is secondary to the Council’s core functions.

·   As long as at least some of these such as the operational cost of pools and Libraries in the board area (Petone) can be reviewed again in the future we can agree with the savings as proposed

Staff costs

·   It is short sighted to keep reducing operational costs for staff that are actually at the coal face.  Start saving from the top down. 

·   I just hope that employees are being looked after - they're a crucial part of the economy too.

·   I am concerned that operational costs of libraries, pools and reduced staff costs could be hurting individual people. I believe we can cope with things like a few more potholes in roads and no more cycle ways (I am a cyclist) but I don't want to see our people suffer employment hardship and councillors should all take a pay cut

·   Reducing staff cost should not impact on lower paid staff

·   Staff savings - staffing levels have to be maintained surely to keep services ticking over, hopefully savings not at the expense of the lowest paid

·   I disagree with the cost cutting to parks, community engagement, libraries and staff

·   Not paying your staff a pay increase is not a saving. It is not valuing your staff, inefficient investment in the community and creates a financial strain on them.

·   Let's not go back on the Living Wage. I was really proud when my city committed to it. In general I feel my rates are well spent and am impressed with the services that I benefit from, and I would very happily pay more rates to ensure that all HCC workers receive a living wage.

·   Savings are great, but you could save a bit more on parks, accommodation, etc.

·   I am not aware of the detail of reducing staff costs, but I have seen other government agencies try to do this, unsuccessfully.  For example Wellington Water try to keep staff numbers low, but employ consultants to do the work at increased cost.  NZTA put a cap on their staff numbers, but now use contractors and consultants on secondment, again at huge increased cost, to "fool" the MPs.

·   With staff costs; we would be very concerned if this implied a loss of in-house expertise, which we know from experience, is a false economy in the long term.

·   The Chief Executive has come up with a Plan to achieve $3m in cost savings this coming year and this deserves praise. Further savings can come by putting a sinking lid on staff numbers and not permitting staff numbers to increase by the planned 1%. Other cost savings are required.

·   The E tū submission to the Hutt City Council Draft Annual Plan asks that the Hutt City Council does not go back in its previous commitment to the living wage and progress towards Hutt City Council joining Wellington the Dunedin City Councils in becoming an accredited living wage employer.

Community engagement

·   Reduction to the climate change engagement in favour of community facilities and engagement funding.

·   Don't take too much out of public engagement this is crucial to ongoing success for the city

·   I disagree with cutting funding from libraries and public engagement and separating and funding Climate change engagement separately

·   I'm concerned about the removal of money for community engagement - as I believe community engagement should be a priority not only always but especially at the moment. Could the climate change engagement money be reduced or split in half so there is money for other community engagement projects?

·   I have serious concerns that operational costs of regional parks and community engagement will incur savings - they need to increase not decrease. I would be proud if Hutt had the highest turn out in voters next local body election - this won't happen if community engagement is even less.

·   Public engagement is something you should spend more money on not less council has not been doing very well here and it shows with the way water restrictions were put in place and not advertised or the recycling fiasco as of late roads etc. and footpaths that Barry campaigned on getting more money to fix them up, drop the pool work.

·   Reducing community engagement reduces the amount of quality ideas that could benefit our communities and gives council greater control with less resistance.

·   I disagree with the cost cutting to parks, community engagement, libraries and staff.

·   Reduced community engagement – believe residents still want to know what Council are doing.

·   Any savings from community engagement are reinvested in community services as demand will increase to address the impacts of Covid-19 such as more people needing support due to job losses.

·   It is very disappointing that one area where Council has made savings of $250,000 is in community engagement

Roads

·   Definitely disagree with minor works on roads being reduced - they will be really major for some!

·   Minor work on roads - achieves very minimal savings and the roads need to be well maintained to stay safe and usable overtime. They will have to be maintained eventually anyway.

·   Keeping to the key services such as water, roads and rubbish then allows the Council to scrap ridiculous vanity projects like rainbow pedestrian crossings or non-evident climate change.

·   Minor Works on roads, as this could become a safety issue.

·   I do not believe in reducing road costs either - minor maintenance now becomes major if not fixed.  Look at Petone pool, the maintenance was cut and in the end a much higher cost was incurred when the pool "fell apart".

·   I don’t agree with the savings around roads.

·   Public engagement is something you should spend more money on not less council has not been doing very well here and it shows with the way water restrictions were put in place and not advertised or the recycling fiasco as of late roads etc. and footpaths that Barry campaigned on getting more money to fix them up, drop the pool work.

·   Now is a good time to become more cost efficient and value focused. These suggested savings appear to make sense but I am worried that reducing work on roads and operational costs on parks will result in longer term higher costs

·   Definitely disagree with minor works on roads being reduced - they will be really major for some!

·   We cannot afford to let our road infrastructure fall into disrepair and they are beginning to look like patchwork quilts. Tighter controls need to be implemented with quality control and then we wouldn't need to waste money having the roads constantly resurfaced.

·   We note that $200,000 for minor road works has been removed. We support retaining this small budget for necessary works that support accessibility improvements like kerb drop downs and tactile pavers. Small works can include speed humps that provide important safety improvements on streets especially around schools. These small works provide high value to many pedestrians, including parents with baby buggies. We support school travel funding to be retained. Again this is a small budget that provides high value, particularly in supporting active travel to school. Living Streets support projects that open school streets to children walking to school at start and end school times, by restricting car travel to the school gate. This requires staff to make it work. Funding that supports walking or other active travel should be maintained as both an important climate change mitigation and Covid19 safe distancing response.

Pools

·   I would be concerned if there was a significant reduction in community facility services like pools and libraries. They are going to be need now more than ever.

·   Reduction to the climate change engagement in favour of community facilities and engagement funding.

·   Reducing the operational costs of pools and libraries when these are the community’s lifelines for enjoyment and recreation is detrimental to the area.  Especially at a time when we have been unable to use them at all during Covid lockdowns and Naenae has been without the pool due to the earthquake damage. 

·   Reducing the operational costs of pools and libraries when these are the community’s lifelines for enjoyment and recreation is detrimental to the area.  Especially at a time when we have been unable to use them at all during Covid lockdowns and Naenae has been without the pool due to the earthquake damage. 

·   Don't short change the libraries or pools, lower socio economic communities benefit greatly from these services and they are the ones who need the most support.

·   I am concerned that operational costs of libraries, pools and reduced staff costs could be hurting individual people. I believe we can cope with things like a few more potholes in roads and no more cycle ways (I am a cyclist) but I don't want to see our people suffer employment hardship. I don't want Naenae Pool to be delayed longer than necessary because of the hardship this causes to the Naenae community

·   Anything that could hurt the community i.e. reduced funding in community organisations; closure of community amenities or reduced service.

·   I disagree with the operational costs of the pools and libraries. It sounds good - but if pools are going to be closed or not open as late then it isn't good!

·   Parks, swimming pools, libraries, playgrounds etc. all contribute to the quality of living in Hutt City, but money allocated to these activities is secondary to the Council’s core functions.

·   As long as at least some of these such as the operational cost of pools and Libraries in the board area (Petone) can be reviewed again in the future we can agree with the savings as proposed

Parks

·   I have serious concerns that operational costs of regional parks and community engagement will incur savings - these need to increase not decrease

·   Now is a good time to become more cost efficient and value focused.   These suggested savings appear to make sense but I am worried that reducing work on roads and operational costs on parks will result in longer term higher costs

·   Savings are great, but you could save a bit more on parks, accommodation, etc.

·   Disagree with the reduction in spending towards parks and reserves.

·   I disagree with the cost cutting to parks, community engagement, libraries and staff

·   The cost saving is small Parks, swimming pools, libraries, playgrounds etc. all contribute to the quality of living in Hutt City, but money allocated to these activities is secondary to the Council’s core functions.

Amenities Fund

·   Anything that could hurt the community i.e. reduced funding in community organisations; closure of community amenities or reduced service.

·   Cutting community funding by $100,000 will impact the ability of community groups to support those impacted most by covid-19. Other funding sources have been seriously impacted by the lockdown. For example, Lotto sales and gaming trusts have lower or no revenue for many weeks. This is not the time for Council to cut community funding. Key groups will actually need more, not less support from Hutt City (see Moera House feedback for more information)

Cooperating cities

·   International Co-operating Cities funding - $40,000 - This is a "nice" thing to have and beneficial to some degree - but could really be dropped for a period of time as there will be no travelling internationally for a while.

Other

Naenae Pool

·   Drop the pool work. How many businesses went under when the pool left vs how many are still thriving maybe they were the resilient business that we need give them some money to ease what the pool has lost them.

·   I don't want Naenae Pool to be delayed longer than necessary because of the hardship this causes to the Naenae community

·   To achieve savings, key big ticket items ($1.5m for Naenae consideration) seem to have remained (which would have made more sense to pause completely; or provide very clear objectives of the spend - e.g. provide 3-4 options that examine key criteria including delivering for community need, operational efficiency, budget constraints etc.); and penny grabbing from critical and valued community services.

·   Stop Naenae  pool

·   I don’t feel that given the current climate, that Naenae pool should be pushed through at this point. I would like to know that if this project was paused for now, and the $1.5 mil initial projected spend was saved, what impact this saving would have on the overall rates increase and if it would decrease the 3.8%.

·   Naenae Pool if at all possible. The community there needs something to rejuvenate it and provide a hub for local business.

·   Agree with Cr. Milne's suggestion of holding and reviewing Naenae Pool work. Don't agree that a regional facility approach would work there as we already have Wellington Regional Aquatic Centre. This needs a longer consultation on its own rather than with the LTP or annual plan.

Climate change engagement

·   Reduction to the climate change engagement in favour of community facilities and engagement funding.

·   Climate Change Community Engagement - save another $200,000 until the economy is back on track. 

·   I disagree with cutting funding from libraries and public engagement and separating and funding Climate change engagement separately.

·   Could the climate change engagement money be reduced or split in half so there is money for other community engagement projects?

Homeless Strategy

·   The Homeless Strategy should not be a local Council issue - $520,000.

·   I am pleased to see the Homelessness strategy is unaffected as I hope because of the Covid-19 and its effects on employment I think this is an area that could suffer

RiverLink

·   Get rid of the hotel that is being built, stop the River Link Contract Documentation and Procurement project until the economy is back on track - Save $5.4 million.

·   It is time to pull back on the nice to have projects, especially the river link project (which I have previously supported) for a year or two until the economy and life in general has returned to normal. Revert to the basic core services to reduce costs and the resultant impact on all residents."

·   It is difficult to comment on how much funding RiverLink Contract Documentation and Procurement should get at this time, it looks like a big stack of money, the work needs to be done well when it is done, but it looks like a big stack of money without justification or detail, particularly right now.

Other

·   Cost reductions should be urgently introduced in the "feel good" areas like diversity, climate change and political lobbying.

·   Has any thought been put into ditching the contractors that preform council work to employing more workers to do this work, as was done in the past. This is what the Hutt Valley was built on. Look after people not huge profits to these companies that these services are contracted to.

·   Seems to be the buzz word of the day but when recycling isn’t even working like it should it seems like it’s a complete waste of money. Maybe that should be sorted instead?

·   I think a number of projects can be deferred in addition to that proposed eg Beltway Cycle-what evidence is there about usage?

·   I am unsure if community exercise activities like bootcamp, Zumba and Pilates will continue. Because we (Naenae/Taita) have no gym I would like to see these classes continue.

·   Hutt Tennis should get Zero funding from rates payers.  Why should ratepayers contribute towards a sport where the majority of participants are well off financially? Same with Gym sports, Council’s role is not to provide loans to sporting bodies. The biodiversity Assistance should be reduced to zero.

·   Still unsure on the funding going to tennis and gymnastics, and how this fits into a wider strategy on community sport that is fair to all codes and all who participate. Ideally put on hold, and show community what the contribution from other funders for the projects are. Not against HCC being involved but it needs to be fair to all those in the city who participate in sport. 

·   Where are the savings from reducing the amount of red tape involved in house building and renovation?

·   Consents and Regulatory - These are too high and in some cases just ends up being a rubber stamp so wasteful money and time.

·   City Governance & City Leadership - A lot of money for what!

·   $9m Naenae shopping precinct $10m for IT upgrade. That is questionable.

·   The Disability Action Plan funding for accessible footpaths and improved pedestrian crossings should be retained. We understand this was a budgeted $50,000 amount. This funding is essential to help with those cheaper, small projects that can deliver high value, high impact outcomes for many people. When there is no kerb drop down to get your baby buggy, walker or wheelchair across the road it may mean you don’t travel to your local shops. When there are no tactile markers on a crossing to guide you easily it may mean you don’t make that trip to the shops. These small sums for small works make a big difference. Please keep this fund.

General

·   They look reasonable to me, but perhaps smaller than I'd expected.

·   Seems appropriate.

·   As above, I think this emergency savings plan is not a good idea and will set us back greatly in improving our City.

·   The district is now suffering because of the lack of spending over the past 10 years.

·   So you’re saving costs by reducing services that is the way I read this; not from becoming more efficient.

·   I agree with these savings, but there needs to be more.

·   The Council doesn’t appear to have a clear view on what is of priority to the community; instead promising shinny things without providing the full detail (e.g. how it is going to be paid for and what will be lost). COVID presents us with a unique opportunity to re-evaluate our properties and how the Council can deliver on this (within its scope of responsibility).

·   Considering Wainuiomata is taking the biggest “hit” with the highest RV increase across the board, and is also a lower socioeconomic demographic, it seems unbalanced to add a further 3.8%.

·   I think it’s fair.

·   Some of these decisions will be tough and will have a major impact. I am not qualified to make recommendations on these cuts.

·   Please make more savings to avoid a rates increase.

·   All of them

·   These are all good savings. It is prioritising of the spending.

·   I don't disagree but there is a very little detail given as to how exactly these savings in the areas shown will be achieved.

·   The savings do not go far enough.

·   Don't be too frugal that benefits to make Hutt city a better place to live work and play. Interest rates are low so Hutt City could borrow to advance the City.


 

Projects on hold

Count of comments

Projects that are to be put on hold – 39 respondents made comments

Projects

Number and sentiment of comments

Naenae Pool

9 comments

Three waters

5 comments

Cycleways

4 comments

Other

7 comments

General

23 comments

 

Naenae Pool

·   Naenae Pool, which I don't consider as important, should still be progressed as the jobs alone from that project will help the current economy.

·   I think further savings should be made by putting all work on the Naenae pool on hold.

·   Please bid for the funding for infrastructure from the government as they have asked for requests for it. Chuck in Naenae pool as well as Naenae needs help.

·   As I said above I am concerned over the ongoing harm to the Naenae community caused by not having the pool in action.

·   Don't delay Naenae Pool

·   I've expressed my view that I passionately believe the redevelopment of Naenae Pool needs to be done as effectively and as quickly as possible.

·   Put all cvl and pool work on hold focus on getting businesses through focus on what council has and better utilize them.

·   How about we put the 1.5m from Naenae Pool Preparation (put on hold till next financial year) and put towards the Three Waters.

·   Ideally it would be good to see more movement on the Naenae pool but I can accept that it may not be financially possible, and preparatory work needs to happen anyway. At least the $1.5 million for preparatory work will keep some progress going.

3 Waters          

·   We can't afford to delay more work on our water and transport infrastructure. 

·   I am wanting the city's infrastructure to be sound and 100% reliable - the flooding that continually occurs during winter needs to be corrected, and is long overdue. The same areas are always flooding and the Council needs to rectify this.

·   Again it is about priorities for spending. I would take $19 m invested in waste and water than Naenae shopping precinct and IT upgrade.

·   How about we put the 1.5m from Naenae Pool Preparation (put on hold till next financial year) and put towards the Three Waters.

·   We would include cycle and pedestrian infrastructure and the immediate establishment of coherent cycle routes throughout the city an immediate priority, long with addressing three waters infrastructure.

Cycleways       

·   We can't afford to delay more work on our water and transport infrastructure.

·   I can also cope with cycleways on hold.

·   In particular putting cycleways on hold is a wrong decision because COVID-19 has shown the demand for cycling and how safe cycle routes encourage more people off all ages and ability to bike more often. The COVID lock down has given license to also make simple changes that have a big benefit. In particular, people enjoyed and want to hang on to the safer and quieter streets that we experienced. Use this year to start changing our traffic landscape to better support essential transport and at the same time encourage active and sustainable transport. Identify essential transport routes and look at opportunities to minimise non-essential traffic for those. Follow other cities in introducing a 30km/hr speed limit for all CBD and neighbourhood streets, putting more pedestrian crossings in, and creating one-way streets. It doesn’t take much to make our streets safe enough for 8 to 80 year olds to be on.

·   We would include cycle and pedestrian infrastructure and the immediate establishment of coherent cycle routes throughout the city an immediate priority, long with addressing three waters infrastructure.

Other  

·   I read elsewhere in the plan that changes to recycling is now on hold - this is critical. The rubbish in our waterways is a real issue, our system is terrible. I am a strong supporter of the cross valley link but can live with it on hold.

·   Rubbish and recycling - should continue this review and agree a solution now.

·   New rubbish and recycling – still want that to go ahead when possible. Don’t take out of future funding.

·   Do not disagree, stay out of waste

·   Revert to the basic core services to reduce costs and the resultant impact on all residents.

·   Without additional information, I'm not sure that spending higher than budgeted costs on tennis and gymnastics initiatives is essential in current times.

·   Look at the pure Council requirements, such as infrastructure, not "nice to have" such as hotels and convention centres.

General

·   Please bid for the funding for infrastructure from the government as they have asked for requests for it.

·   I agree with putting these projects on hold, but there needs to be more.

·   No rates increase, people are hurting enough, salaries are being frozen

·   Please freeze everything and wait for the end of Pandemic Crisis.

·   I think a nil increase in rates is a real target-what the ratepayers want?

·   Don't delay spending that will cost us more later.

·   Putting any project on hold increases the cost of the project and means it’s longer we have to wait to enjoy them.

·   If we do not do these projects now they will be more expensive later on.

·   If we keep the rates increase as per originally outlined, we wouldn’t have to make such great sacrifices

·   Rate payers are not as affected by COVID-19 so why reduce projects by delaying rates increases. While these projects are on hold, all you’re doing is delaying expenditure and the cost to ratepayers whereby you could be collecting higher rates no we and investing into the local economy and creating jobs

·   Council should not just be "putting projects on hold" but also looking at what projects are "not required". 

·   I Agree

·   Again it has to happen. Things have to be prioritised. Covid was unexpected

·   Kei te pai

·   Agree

·   All good

·   Definitely. Many rate payers will have been impacted by Covid 19 and experienced a drop in income. Many also face an uncertain future employment wise. Council should defer all unnecessary projects for at least the next 2 or 3 years. Council should also take a leaf form Jacinda & her Ministers to even contemplate a pay cut.

·   Hard to choose which ones are more worthy than others and again a rating system in order of preference would have provided valuable data to allow Councillors and their advisors to make some very tough decisions.

·   More projects should be put on hold to eliminate the rates increase.

·   It's responsible to have done so.

·   There needs to be more information about what these cuts in cost relate too. $100k isn't really a lot of money when dealing with multi-million budgets.

·   We found the paragraphs relating to project postponement opaque to say the least.  We recognise that in the context of the emergency one year plan, deferral of some projects is inevitable.  However, as noted in response to the questions above, we consider that the long term societal costs of delay for some projects outweigh any short term financial considerations.

·   Good not to burden the rate payer. But also look at borrowing as interest rates are low.


 

Rates split

(15 comments)

·   How the rates a split between the different categories (e.g. residential, commercial) needs to be moved away from property valuations.  If there is a desire to have 60% of the rates from residential and X% from business then set these as the starting point.  Still use the rating valuations within each category to determine the relative allocation for individuals within each category.

·   My comment on the rating differentials: the proportion paid by businesses should not be reducing, they benefit from facilities just as residences do, businesses should not be advantaged above residents.

·   Feedback on the rates increase, as there is nowhere to give feedback on your options. We need to be looking after all our rate payers, especially at this time where there is a lot of uncertainty around employment etc. if you asked my which option would be best for Residential rate payers I would have said Option 1 (the council preferred).  However, looking at the commercial Options, Option 1 there is really not good. Businesses are struggling, and if you put the commercial rates up, that will just filter down to the business owners, who own/rent premises, and therefore their products/services are going to increase, which means all the residents will be affected. So, that is why my preferred option is Option 3. Let’s look after our small, local businesses by supporting them as much as we can, so that they can support us too, by keeping prices down. I would prefer to pay an extra 35c a week to keep local businesses operating, that them have if you close, or put their prices up.

·   I am pleased that Council is reviewing the rates differential.  I have made submissions over several years saying that the rates differential needs to stop.  The hold is a start. Despite council trying to keep rates increases low, the change in property values has shown that commercial properties have had rate reductions over previous years while residents have faced increases of up to 12% per annum.  Rather than just holding, the rates differential needs to stop.  If anything it needs reversing so that commercial properties start paying a higher proportion.  These properties can make money while residents only way on increasing income is by getting a pay rise, and many people have had significant pay cuts recently and even job losses.

·   The Maungaraki Community Association proposes that there be a zero rates increase for both residential areas and businesses.  We also propose keeping the Business Differential Rate at the current rate.  These proposals are in response to the economic impact that has been, and will continue to be felt by Hutt City and New Zealand as a whole due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  These proposals will demonstrate the Council’s commitment to the community and businesses in their ‘Getting Us Through’ Annual Plan during this challenging time. When determining the share of rates to be borne by residential and business, the process needs to include, and the Plan reports the comparatives, on the average rates cost for residential and business compared with Wellington and another city of comparable size in New Zealand.

·   Does the differential model take into account the cash cost to the respective rate payers of the two rating components? Residential rates are an after -tax cost whereas business rates are tax deductible where the allowable IRD deduction reduces the cost by 28%. The conclusion to this analysis recommends rates be increased and costs reduced to achieve a break even result. An option is to move back to the model’s 60% share for residential in one step rather than two, which will partially offset the required rates increase for residential. Businesses are already receiving significant COVID 19 financial support from central government.

·   A cost base reduction cannot happen overnight, so the only answer is to increase rates. The shift back to a residential differential of 60% in one step will soften some of the pain for residents. Central government is looking after businesses.

·   Moera is a high deprivation area. Rates increases for home owners and the flow on to renters, risks financial stress especially at this time of job losses related to COVID-19. Option 1 has the least increase for residential home owners so is our preferred option. Even though business are struggling through the impact of COVID-19 and some may fold, for profit making business there has been a lot of support provided to SMEs to help them through COVID-19.

·   A cost base reduction cannot happen overnight, so the only answer is to increase rates. The shift back to a residential differential of 60% in one step will soften some of the pain for residents. Central government is looking after businesses.

·   The rates split matter has been an eye opener as we had not picked up that the original (2016) Council aim had already been achieved and that, as from last year, the balance has been out of kilter with what as a city was originally agreed to. Therefore, we agree that the current percentage splits are maintained and there is a major review of this financial policy in the 2021 Long Term Plan. The council preferred option (Option 1) means an almost identical increase for residential and business rates in the upcoming financial year and we support that.

·   Under Option 1 of its Draft Annual Plan, Hutt City Council is proposing to separate Queensgate Shopping Centre into its own ratings unit, and effectively increase the business differential for the Centre from 2.72 to 3.73 ("Proposal"). Diversified and Stride strongly oppose the Proposal, which unfairly and unreasonably targets Queensgate Shopping Centre. (More details in full 10 page submission)

·   We believe the Council should freeze the differential transition for a year (option 2), until the Council does a full review of the Revenue and Financing Policy as part of the LTP 2021-2031 which will include a review of the rating differentials. This will help to limit the rates burden on businesses without dramatically increasing the rates for residential ratepayers. (see full submission from Business Central & the Wellington Chamber of Commerce for more details)

·   Freeze the business rates differential transition for a year (option 2), until the Council does a full review of the Revenue and Financing Policy as part of the LTP 2021-2031. Abolish the introduction of a separate rating differential for Queensgate Shopping Centre. (see full submission from Property Council NZ for more details)

·   We support Option 2, where council is looking to freeze the differential transition for a year by using the 2019/2020 model. The rational is that we hope that in the insuring time when preparations are being made to consult on the LTP that the officers would have had enough time to realise the impact of COVID 19 on the business community.

·   A 3.8% rates increase is not legal without an LTP amendment. The 2018 – 2028 LTP provides for rates increases of no greater than LGCI increases plus 1% for growth. This Annual Plan is for a 3.8% rates increase plus 1% for growth. This is approximately 2.8% so that is what the rates increase should be plus an additional 1% income generated through growth in the rating base. Increasing the rates differential for businesses also requires an LTP amendment. The 2018 – 2028 LTP quite clearly signalled it is Council’s intention to reduce the business rate differential. Increasing the business rates differential, even though you are disguising it by introducing % splits between residential and business ratepayers, is not something that was contemplated in the LTP. Introducing a separate rating differential for Queensgate also cannot be done without an LTP amendment. The 2018 – 2028 LTP contains no differential for the Queensgate properties. It was never contemplated in the LTP to split out one CBD business and create a separate rating differential for them.

Other Finance comments

(8 comments)

·   Defined Benefit Fund: Presumably this is a closed fund and the NPF is only managing investments pertaining to retired former employees of the Council (and other entities)? Overseas court cases have ruled the actuarial deficit (in respect of former Council employees) must be paid by the employer. It would be prudent to establish what actuarial liability the Council could face and the contingent liability reported in the Plan and end of year financial statements.

·   Financial Prudence: Central government is required by legislation to be fiscally responsible and Budget for a surplus except in exceptional circumstances. Is local government not similarly required to live within its means? To plan for a deficit of $9m reveals a lack of financial management by Council. There are some worrying signals in the draft annual plan: A deficit of $9m is planned, although $35m cash positive after depreciation is added back. This means $9m not available for replacement capital works (Naenae Pool!) and causes further borrowings to be incurred. Borrowings increase by $40m over the plan period (need 30 June 2020 forecast figures to present a more accurate position). Borrowing capacity is getting limited to $37m or $15m? by 30 June 2021 with a debt maxima of $m264 and plan reported debt $227m ($37m borrowing capacity), but the reported debt is calculated above at $249m ($15m borrowing capacity).Debtors are planned to double to $25m. Does this represent a growing number of ratepayers unable to pay their rates bill and have accepted a lien over their property which will be discharged with interest when they die? The Council needs cash inflow to operate and cannot afford to carry these debts. Can the debts be sold or securitised? The article published under your respective names is grossly misleading. It makes no mention that your proposed residential rates increase of 3.8% is achieved by increasing debt to finance a $9m operating deficit. Please be reminded that your Vision states ‘Our everyday costs must be paid for within our means and borrowing for these should never be an option.’ Council’s presentation of a Plan showing a $9m deficit is not acceptable. Particularly since there is a planned deficit of $13m for this coming year. So for a two year period Council has done nothing to achieve a break even result. It has lost the opportunity to recover $22m of deficit from higher income or lower costs. Accordingly borrowings will increase. 

·   I don’t support the rates increase this year and think under the current circumstances a 3.8% increase is definitely no acceptable. Why assume that an annual rates increase to householders is acceptable anyway. Why decrease year on year the rates of businesses and increase the rates of householders? I wonder where you think householders are finding this money? I also find your plan misleading as if one votes for option one or two then there is still a rise as option 3 is higher by far. So it’s not status quo.

·   We support the Council’s decision to increase its debt levels as this provides rates relief to ratepayers during this difficult time. Given the planned debt to revenue ratio is 131%, we believe that the Council should consider taking on slightly higher borrowing rather than increase rates to support key capital expenditure and infrastructure projects can continue to progress. We also believe the Council will be in a better position to reassess debt levels during the LTP 2021-31. 

·   Investigate alternative funding mechanisms such as user charges, targeted rates, public-private partnerships and special purpose vehicles. Consider taking on more debt to reduce rates while ensuring key infrastructure projects can continue to progress. (see full submission from Property Council NZ for more details)

·   We would like to record our dissatisfaction in that the Jackson Street Programme is put in with the Operating Budget with all the other programmes that the HCC supports. When there should be a footer that says we are not part of the general rates operating budget, but we are a special targeted rate which is paid by the business along Jackson Street. It is important that that distinction is made as what is written is a falsehood and not a true reflection of what happens and is misleading. Whilst it might be convenient for officer to write it this way it not convenient for the Jackson Street Programme and we request that going forward this is amended.  We are hoping that in amongst the funding of $5.10 there is the ability for small to medium businesses to have the opportunity to apply for funding support.

·   We are asking if council could consider a more gradual rise in rates. For example, a 2% increase in rates is 47.36% less than the 3.8 increase, which means Wainuiomata ratepayers would be paying an average of $2.52 as opposed to $5.34 per week.

·   Rates – a review is urgently needed for our rates structure. Asking residential rate payers to pay 65% of the rates for the city is ridiculous. Didn’t anyone tell you that commercial and business rates are tax deductible? Residents do not enjoy that privilege. Many residents are really struggling with this system. QV valuations are a joke.



Other submissions and funding requests

Organisation

Theme

Included in analysis

Funding request

Flouride Free NZ

Remove fluoride from the water

Yes, priorities

No

Sports New Zealand

Asks for consideration of the importance of sport and recreation

No

No

Sport Wellington

Asks for consideration of the importance of sport and recreation and gives feedback on Naenae Pool proposal

Yes, priorities

No

Love Wainuiomata

Plan for Queen St rejuvenation and Covid19 recovery for community & businesses

 

No

Yes

Moera Community House

Recommendations on a number on: proposed savings, funding strategy, community hubs, rates split, infrastructure, stormwater and sustainable urban development. Funding request for playground and library extension

Yes, savings, priorities, rates differential

Yes

Te Rūnanganui o Te Atiawa ki te Upoko o Te Ika a Maui Inc

Support of approach and funding request to build Te Aroha Matauranga

Yes, priorities

Yes

E tu

Support for the Living wage. Includes petition with 47 signatories (there is one duplicate).

Yes, savings

No

Health Care Aotearoa

Support the Hutt Valley Living Wage Network and urge Council to continue commitment

No

No

Hutt Valley Living Wage Network

Support for the Living wage. Includes petition with 11 signatories (there are no matches with 47 on E tu petition).

No

No

Dsport

Encourage actively engaging disabled members of community in sport and not increasing the cost of the accessible swim pass

Yes, priorities

No

Callaghan Innovation

Reduction in funding allocated to the Technology Valley Forum (TVF) and lack of commitment to the Economic Development Plan

No

Yes

Technology Valley Forums

Reduction in allocation of funding, lack of commitment to the Economic Development Plan, and level of support given to the business community

No               

Yes

Racetech

Reduction in funding allocated to the Technology Valley Forum (TVF)

No               

Yes

Petronic

Reduction in funding allocated to the Technology Valley Forum (TVF)

No               

Yes

Times-7

Reduction in funding allocated to the Technology Valley Forum (TVF) and lack of commitment to the Economic Development Plan

No

Yes

Individual

Support for Technology Valley

No

Yes

Living Streets Aotearoa

Funding for minor roads retained and suggest trailing closed streets and traffic free streets projects

Yes, savings

No

Youth Inspire

Continuation of the grant received from the Mahia Atu Partnership Fund

No

Yes

Wainuiomata Sportsville

Progress and direction of the Wainuiomata Sportsville

No

Yes

Petone Community Board

Support for approach with some specific items priority and savings mentioned as well as commentary in general on other items in the Draft Annual Plan

Yes, priorities and savings

No

Tawhiri Festivals and Experiences

Outlines past events and planned future events

No

Yes

Wainuiomata Trails Trust

Proposed new trails

No

Yes

Stride Investment Management Limited and Diversified NZ Property Trust

Against the separating out of Queensgate Shopping Centre in the Rates Differential

Yes, rates differential

No

Business Central & Wellington Chamber of Commerce

Impact on businesses, the need to concentrate on core infrastructure

Yes, priorities, rates differential and finance

No

Property Council New Zealand

Feedback on rates, differential, debt and core infrastructure

Yes, priorities, rates differential and finance

 

Jackson Street Programme

Rates differntianl, fees and charges and layout of operating budget section of Annual Plan

Yes, rates differential and finance

No

Maungaraki Community Association

Zero rates increase

Yes

No

Individual

Climate and sustainability

No

No

Individual

Naming of streets

No

No

Hutt Valley Tennis

Funding and funding plan request

No

Yes

Wainuiomata Community Board

Impact on the Wainuiomata community

No

No

New Zealand Chinese Language Week

New Zealand Chinese language week

No

Yes

Individual

Legalities of rates increase and rates differential

Yes, rates differential

No

 


Attachment 2

AP Quantitative Data - FINAL

 

Analysis of Feedback: Quantitative Data

Feedback Received for Annual Plan Consultation

Dates

All feedback to 11.59pm on 22 May 2020

Number of responses to date

164 responses via Bang the Table (BTT) from 163 individuals and 1 organisation

18 email/post submissions from individuals

28 email/post submissions from organisations

 

Demographic results for all feedback

Ward

(164 responses from BTT and 5 email/post responses)

Central

20% (33)

Eastern

19% (32)

Harbour

18% (31)

Northern

8% (13)

Wainuiomata

23% (39)

Western

11% (19)

Other

1% (2)

 

Age

(164 responses from BTT)

Under 30

7% (12)

30-39

26% (42)

40-49

17% (28)

50-59

23% (38)

60-69

17% (28)

70 & over

9% (15)

 

Rate Payer

(164 responses from and 7 email/post responses)

No

17% (29)

Yes

83% (142)

·      Residential

95% (136)

·      Commercial

5% (7)

·      Rural

5% (7)

·      Network Utility

-

 

Agreement or disagreement with the overall approach outlined in one-year emergency budget and draft Annual Plan 2020-21

Overall, 60 percent of those who responded agreed with the overall approach being taken.

Ratepayers were less likely to be in agreement (57 percent agreed) with the approach than non-ratepayers (71 percent agreed).

 

Number of responses

 

Percentage (not incl. not stated)

BTT

Email or Post

Total

BTT

Email or Post