2                                                 27 April 2021

 

 

HUTT CITY COUNCIL

 

Komiti Ratonga Rangatōpū me te Rautaki

Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee

 

Minutes of a meeting held in the Council Chambers, 2nd Floor, 30 Laings Road
 Lower Hutt on

 Tuesday 27 April 2021 commencing at 2.00pm

 

 

PRESENT:

Cr S Edwards (Chair)

Mayor C Barry (from 3.40pm)

 

Cr D Bassett

Cr J Briggs

 

Cr K Brown (Deputy Chair)

Cr B Dyer (until 5.29pm)

 

Cr D Hislop

Deputy Mayor T Lewis

 

Cr C Milne (until 4.37pm)

Cr A Mitchell

 

Cr S Rasheed

Cr N Shaw (until 4.27pm)

 

Cr L Sutton

 

 

APOLOGIES:                  Mayor Barry

 

IN ATTENDANCE:       Ms J Miller, Chief Executive

Mr M Boggs, Director Strategy and Planning (part meeting)

Ms H Oram, Director Environment and Sustainability

Mr K Puketapu-Dentice, Director Economy and Development (part meeting)

Ms J Livschitz, Group Chief Financial Officer (part meeting)

Ms W Moore, Head of Strategy and Planning (part meeting)

Mr H Wesney, Divisional Manager, District Plan Policy (part meeting)

Mr L Allott, Chief Digital Officer (part meeting)

Ms K Stannard, Head of Democracy Services (part meeting)
Ms J Randall, Democracy Advisor

 

 

 

PUBLIC BUSINESS

 

 

1.       APOLOGIES 

Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Cr Briggs)                                     Minute No. PFSC 21201

“That the apology received from Mayor Barry be accepted and leave of absence granted  and the apologies for early departure received from Cr Shaw and Cr Dyer be accepted.”


PRECEDENCE  OF BUSINESS

In accordance with Standing Order 10.4, the Chair accorded precedence to Item 8: Technology Valley Six Monthly Update to 31 December 2020.

This item is recorded in the order in which it is listed on the Order Paper.

 

2.       PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments are recorded under the item to which they relate.      

3.       CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS

Cr Rasheed declared a conflict of interest relating to item 9: Southend Business Group.  She took no part in the discussion or voting on the matter.

Cr Sutton declared a conflict of interest relating to item 6: Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce Six Monthly Report to 31 December 2020.  She took no part in the discussion or voting on the matter.

4.       Recommendations to Council | Te Kaunihera o Te Awa Kairangi
1 June 2021

 

a)

Taonga Tuku Iho - Heritage Policy (21/358)

 

 

 

Speaking under public comment, Mr Tim Makarios expressed support for voluntary heritage listings. He agreed heritage could do collective good but noted it imposed private costs. He said this was particularly difficult for those without the means to pay the extra costs. He added that voluntary listings would ensure there was no risk of owners pre-emptively demolishing buildings. He suggested imposing a targeted rate or selling heritage bonds for specific properties with interest benefitting the owners, provided properties were maintained appropriately.

Speaking under public comment, Mr Philip Barry representing the Voluntary Heritage Listing Group, expressed support for voluntary heritage listings.  He noted an Auckland study had found an average negative 10 percent impact on heritage listed homes. He added there were also additional compliance costs when residents wanted to change the exterior of their homes. He suggested Council looked more broadly at a package of measures to meet its statutory obligations such as listing all New Zealand heritage places, adding protection for mana whenua, protecting and recording stories, using signage and more use of technology.

Speaking under public comment Ms Sylvia Allan representing the Petone Historical Society (the Society), expressed support for the Heritage Policy.  She requested Appendix 1 to the Heritage Policy be temporarily excluded since the Society had concerns about incentives 3, 9 and 10. She advised the Society would support the Heritage Policy in its entirety if these incentives were removed.

Speaking under public comment, Mr Neil McGrath noted a Council decision in 2012 recorded that the District Plan would be listing only properties that had consent from owners but that the decision was never acted on. He considered it was the responsibility of the current Council to include this decision in the proposed District Plan. He added it was unreasonable to place the burden of extra costs, insurance premiums and loss of property values on affected residents, and property owners might litigate. He asked that all reports obtained by Council be provided to property owners.

Speaking under public comment, Mr Alan Smith expressed concern that the Heritage Policy was not a clear framework for decision and action. He said it was unfair for private owners to be burdened with the costs and believed the ‘public good’ benefits of heritage required public costs. He suggested Council provide an integrated grouping of all relevant digital information and market its accessibility to residents. His suggested amendments to the Heritage Policy are attached as page 11 to the minutes.

Under public comment, the Chair read a submission on behalf of
Ms Pam Hanna, Chair of the Petone Community Board.  See attached page 12 to the minutes.

Speaking under public comment, Ms Jo Wilkshire explained her issues with the Heritage Policy were similar to those raised by public speakers Mr Barry and Mr McGrath. In response to a question from a member, she advised she could not support compulsory heritage listings without understanding the costs and benefits.

The Head of Strategy and Planning elaborated on the report. She reminded members the Heritage Policy was high level and set out Council’s legislative responsibilities.  She advised if the definition of the Heritage Policy allowed voluntary heritage listings of identified properties it would not align with the Resource Management Act (RMA).

The Head of District Plan Policy advised the direction of the Heritage Policy would be implemented through the District Plan. He said members could debate the methodology and regulatory issues at that stage of the process.  This included the merits and disadvantages of various measures, thresholds, financial incentives and costs and benefits.  He noted criteria for identifying properties of significant heritage value would be assessed against the Regional Policy Statement. He expected a formal notified proposed plan would be available by the end of 2022. 

In response to a question from a member, the Head of District Plan Policy agreed to identify from Mr Barry which Councils had agreed to include only New Zealand Heritage listed properties on their Heritage Register.

In response to a question from a member, the Head of District Plan Policy agreed to find out if insurance companies would refuse to insure properties listed on a Heritage Register.

The Chair foreshadowed an additional recommendation.

Mayor Barry joined the meeting at 3.40pm.

Members discussed the following points:

·           Residents might experience difficulty insuring their homes or lose capital value as a result of a historical listing.

·           The RMA was changing and requirements could change before the process of listing individual properties was complete.

·           The District Plan process would allow further opportunities for residents to provide feedback before any identified properties were listed.

·           The word ‘significant’ should be included on page 25 of the Order Paper where ‘protection of the region’s historic heritage’ was mentioned.

MOVED:  (Cr Edwards/Cr Mitchell)          

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(1)   notes the further comments from submitters and amendments to Taonga Tuku Iho – Heritage Policy;

(2)   agrees to refer Appendix 1 of the Policy to the District Plan review for consideration as part of the heritage chapter review. This will enable further submissions, evaluation and consideration to be undertaken before Council commits to the use of any particular incentive approach/tool;

(3)   notes officers will review the Rates Remission Policy once Council has made its final decisions regarding Taonga Tuku Iho – the Heritage Policy;

(4)   notes that the District Plan heritage chapter review is underway;

(5)   agrees that Appendix 1 does not form part of the Heritage Policy until or unless confirmed by the District Plan review process;

 (7)  agrees to officers making further minor editorial changes (including any changes to the mana whenua content) once feedback is received in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee; and

(8)   adopts the Taonga Tuku Iho – Heritage Policy subject to those changes above.”

AMENDMENT MOVED: (Cr Bassett/Cr Milne) 

That the Committee recommends to the District Plan Subcommittee that listed heritage properties will need to have the express support of property owners in writing, with the exception of Heritage New Zealand buildings.

The Chair ruled the amendment was a direct negative to the motion.  He noted that under the RMA legislation, Council was obliged to assess properties that had been identified as having significant heritage value.

Members discussed whether the word ‘significant’ should be added to the Heritage Policy in places where it was deemed missing or whether the Heritage Policy should more closely reflect the Regional Policy Statement.  

The meeting adjourned at 4.02pm and reconvened at 4.12pm.

AMENDMENT MOVED: (Cr Rasheed/Cr Bassett)

That an additional recommendation be added to the motion:

“That Council’s Heritage Policy and its use of the word ‘significant’ mirrors what the Regional Policy Statement on heritage issues requires of us.”

Cr Rasheed spoke in support of the amendment.  She advised that the amendment would enable the Heritage Policy to more closely align to the Regional Policy Statement.

Cr Dyer requested that officers ensure Council’s RMA definition aligned with the Regional Policy Statement.  He asked that  an explanation of the meaning of ‘significant’ be included as per criteria in the Regional Policy Statement.

Cr Mitchell asked that Greater Wellington Regional Council be consulted if there was any doubt over the meaning of the word ‘significant.’

Cr Brown acknowledged the ability  of the Heritage Policy to provide protection of ancestral lands, water and cultural history for future generations.

With the agreement of the mover and seconder, members agreed to include the amendment into the substantive motion.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDED:    (Cr Edwards/Cr Mitchell)    Minute No. PFSC 21202

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(1)   notes the further comments from submitters and amendments to Taonga Tuku Iho – Heritage Policy;

(2)   agrees to refer Appendix 1 of the Taonga Tuku Iho – Heritage Policy to the District Plan review for consideration as part of the heritage chapter review. This will enable further submissions, evaluation and consideration to be undertaken before Council commits to the use of any particular incentive approach/tool;

(3)   notes officers will review the Rates Remission Policy once Council has made its final decisions regarding Taonga Tuku Iho – the Heritage Policy;

(4)   notes that the District Plan heritage chapter review is underway;

(5)   agrees that Appendix 1 of the Taonga Tuku Iho – Heritage Policy does not form part of the Taonga Tuku Iho – the Heritage Policy until or unless confirmed by the District Plan review process;

(6)   agrees that Taonga Tuku Iho – the Heritage Policy and its use of the word ‘significant’ mirrors what the Regional Policy Statement on heritage issues requires of us;

(7)   agrees to officers making further minor editorial changes (including any changes to the mana whenua content) once feedback is received in consultation with the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee; and

(8)   adopts the Taonga Tuku Iho – Heritage Policy subject to the changes above.”

For the reason that Taonga Tuku Iho sets out Council’s intent and the direction it will take to meet both community aspirations and its legislative responsibilities for heritage in all its forms in the city.

 

 

i)

Land Sale Proposal - 2 Miromiro Road (21/429)

 

 

 

The Chair advised the item of business should lie on the table and not be further discussed until the Committee meeting to be held on 13 July 2021.  He confirmed the reason was due to the owners of the property requesting additional time to seek advice on the matter.

 

 

c)

Rating Sales Policy (21/566)

 

 

 

The Group Chief Financial Officer elaborated on the report.

In response to a question from a member, the Group Chief Financial Officer agreed to investigate best practice across the sector and acceptable actions under rating legislation with regard to prompt payment discounts.

 

 

 

RECOMMENDED: (Deputy Mayor Lewis/Cr Briggs) Minute No. PFSC 21203

“That the Committee recommends that Council:

(1)     notes and receives the report; and

(2)     approves the Rating Sale Policy, attached as Appendix 1 to the report.”

 

5.

Love Wainuiomata Update Report (21/585)

Report No. PFSC2021/2/92 by the Head of City Growth

 

Ms Esther King representing Love Wainuiomata was in attendance for the item.  She elaborated on the report. She advised the Wainuiomata welcome sign had been delayed  due to design modifications and was expected to be in place by the end of May 2021.

In response to a question from a member, Ms King advised the only physical work to be completed for the Heartland Ride was additional mapboard signage. She noted the official launch of the Heartland Ride would be held soon.

 

Resolved: (Cr Briggs/Cr Dyer)                                            Minute No. PFSC 21204

“That the Committee notes and receives the report.”

For the reason that Love Wainuiomata Incorporated is reporting on performance for the 12 months to 31 December 2020.

 

 

6.

Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce Six Monthly Report to 31 December 2020 (21/486)

Report No. PFSC2021/2/93 by the Head of City Growth

 

Cr Sutton declared a conflict of interest and took no part in discussion or voting on the matter.

Ms Helen Down, Chief Executive of the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce (the Chamber) was in attendance for the item.  She elaborated on the report.  She highlighted the Chamber’s four key areas of focus: Youth work pathways, the Business Expo, COVID-19 support and advocacy between business and central government.

Ms Down explained the continued impact of COVID-19 with staff shortages and struggling businesses. She noted finding commercial space for manufacturers was an issue and spatial zoning for greenfield commercial development was needed.

In response to a question from a member, Ms Down suggested Council could support the current challenge of workforce shortages by looking at ways to acquire additional contracts with central government for employment.

 

Resolved:  (Cr Rasheed/Cr Hislop)                                    Minute No. PFSC 21205

“That the Committee notes and receives the report.”

For the reason the Hutt Valley Chamber of Commerce is required to report six monthly to the Committee on performance against agreed performance measures.

7.

Seaview Business Association 12 Monthly Report to 31 December 2020 (21/562)

Report No. PFSC2021/2/94 by the Head of City Growth

 

Mr Mike Henderson and Ms Jen Houdalakis representing Seaview Business Association (the Association) were in attendance for the item.  Mr Henderson highlighted the importance of transport infrastructure including public transport and cycling routes and the need for another route out of Wellington to reduce traffic congestion. He noted the proposed rates differential in Council’s Long Term Plan would add to the increasing compliance and operating costs. He advised Seaview was at capacity with no room for new business that required a large footprint.  He added the Association planned to engage with Kokiri Mārae to request their involvement in managing the precinct.

 

Resolved: (Deputy Mayor Lewis/Cr Dyer)                        Minute No. PFSC 21206

“That the Committee receives and notes the information.”

For the reason that the Seaview Business Association is required to report back on progress against agreed outcomes over the prior 12 month period.

8.

Technology Valley Six Monthly Update to 31 December 2020 (21/484)

Report No. PFSC2021/2/95 by the Head of City Growth

 

Ms Anthea Armstrong representing Technology Valley Forum was in attendance for the item.  She elaborated on the report.  She noted procurement and procurement processes were becoming increasingly problematic.  She referenced the requirement for the ethical disposal of all production materials and a  requirement from the United States for ethical sourcing of many components.

Cr Milne left the meeting at 4.37pm.

 

Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Cr Hislop)                                    Minute No. PFSC 21207

“That the Committee notes and receives the report.”

For the reason that Technology Valley Forum is required to report to Council on performance on a six monthly basis.

9.

Southend Business Group (21/555)

Report No. PFSC2021/2/60 by the CBD Development Manager

 

Cr Rasheed declared a conflict of interest and took no part in discussion or voting on the item.

Cr Dyer left meeting at 5.29pm

Mr Mike Gray representing the Southend Business Group (the Group) was in attendance for the item.  He elaborated on the memorandum.  He said the Group was preparing new signage, an installation in Andrews Avenue and was working on increasing foot traffic to the area. He noted challenges in the precinct included an increase in crime, congested traffic flows, lack of parking, increased costs  and  a shortage of skilled staff. He added the Group had several projects underway that would improve the look of the precinct and these were expected to be completed by the end of 2021.

 

Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Cr Briggs)                                     Minute No. PFSC 21208

“That the Committee receives the memorandum and notes the information.”

10.

Activity Report - Information Services (21/554)

Report No. PFSC2021/2/1 by the Chief Digital Officer

 

The Chief Digital Officer advised that the financial tables contained within the report had been updated.  See page 13 attached to the minutes.  He elaborated on the report.

 

 

 

 

Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Deputy Mayor Lewis)                 Minute No. PFSC 21209

“That the Committee:

(1)        notes the information contained in the report;

(2)        notes that this review also meets the intent of section 17A of the Local Government Act 2002; and

(3)        agrees that a full section 17A review should not be undertaken at present for the reasons outlined in the report.”

 

11.

Review of Draft 2021/22 Statement of Intent for the New Zealand Local Government Funding Agency (21/315)

Report No. PFSC2021/2/59 by the Treasury Officer

 

The Group Chief Financial Officer advised Council had recently issued new debt: five year stock at 1.5% and two year stock at 0.7%. She noted the rates were favourable and would be included in borrowing projections for Council’s Long Term Plan.

 

Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Cr Hislop)                                    Minute No. PFSC 21210

“That the Committee:

(1)          notes and receives the contents of the Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA) draft 2021-2022 Statement of Intent, covering the period up to 30 June 2024, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002;

 

(2)     receives the LGFA Half Year Report to 31 December 2020 attached as Appendix 2 to the report; and

(3)     notes that officers have not asked the LGFA Board to consider any changes to the draft LGFA 2021/22 Statement of Intent.”

12.

Strategic Property Portfolio - Update (21/485)

Report No. PFSC2021/2/96 by the Head of City Growth

 

The Head of City Growth elaborated on the report.

 

Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Deputy Mayor Lewis)                 Minute No. PFSC 21211

“That the Committee receives and notes the report.”

For the reason that the Property Working Group for Advancing Strategic Projects is required to report six monthly to this Committee on the portfolio of properties for advancing strategic projects.  This is for monitoring purposes.

13.

Health and Safety Update (21/578)

Report No. PFSC2021/2/61 by the Health & Safety Manager

 

The Health and Safety Manager elaborated on the report.

Cr Briggs asked that the Health and Safety Update for September include the Long Term Plan consultation period, particularly with regard to aggression related incidents. He asked that any learnings from the current Long Term Plan process be applied to future consultations.

 

 

Resolved: (Cr Edwards/Mayor Barry)                               Minute No. PFSC 21212

“That the Committee notes and receives the report.”

14.

Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee Work Programme 2021 (21/406)

Report No. PFSC2021/2/62 by the Democracy Advisor

 

Cr Mitchell requested a briefing on the Naming Policy Review before the item was brought to the Policy, Finance and Strategy Committee for consideration. He asked officers to advise when the Animal Control Bylaw for Cat Management would be added to the work programme.

The Chief Executive agreed to follow up both requests and provide an update for Councillors.

 

Resolved:  (Cr Edwards/Cr Mitchell)                                 Minute No. PFSC 21213

“That the Work Programme be received and noted.”

15.     QUESTIONS   

There were no questions.

 

 

There being no further business the Chair declared the meeting closed at 5.50pm.

 

 

 

 

 

S Edwards

CHAIR

 

 

CONFIRMED as a true and correct record

Dated this 1st day of June 2021

 

Alan Smith -  feedback on Taonga Tuku Iho | Heritage Policy

Kia ora tatou

 

1.       My perspective is informed from my time in pre-internet and pre-RMA days as Lower Hutt City Council City Librarian (1980-82), and a Master of Public Policy graduate from Victoria University of Wellington (1991). In more recent years I was Chairman of the Wellington Civic Trust (2012-15).

 

2.       The Policy at Agenda 4a is too fuzzy. Policy is a framework for decision and action.

 

3.       Policies always impose costs somewhere, and “public good” policies must involve public costs. It is unfair to load the costs of public good benefits on to private owners. This is not expressed clearly enough on p.37 Appendix 1. It was recently revealed that in neighbouring Wellington City there are some 960 structures, trees and places listed as giving “public good benefits” justifying constraints on their owners. It is likely that there would be at least 500 in Hutt City.

 

4.       This recognition and protection for public good benefits depends on a good knowledge base. In this area the 2008 policy is fatally weak: ref. p.3 last three bullet points summarising ”Council already has in place some mechanisms to conserve Hutt City’s heritage”.

 

As noted on p.15 #11 of today’s Agenda paper for 4a, each of the three “mechanisms” listed in the 2008 policy - Petone Settlers Museum, Libraries Local Studies, and HCC Archives - are subsidiary parts of larger units of the HCC structure; “heritage information” is not a primary goal of any of those larger units. Each of the listed “mechanisms” tends to be based around a “what we hold” or inward-focussed “collecting” principle. What I emphasise here is that the real need now, in a networked digital world, is to focus on identifying all the sources of information or knowledge about a particular artefact, place or issue; and on marketing the accessibility of this to citizens. At present one could inquire through any of the 3 “mechanisms” listed in the 2008 Policy, the HCC website, or through the main HCC contact centre, but is unlikely to be usefully directed to a holistic grouping of all the relevant information.

 

There is no need to jump to the “restructure” button to improve this. I’d guess that there are c.5 f.t.e. council staff doing this sort of work across HCC now. Energise them , network them, put the focus on access to information rather than on collecting things. This policy gives the framework for decision and action along these lines. The operational descriptions on p.16 are all very well in a “jogging along” sort of way but deserve energising as Phil Barry has just said.

 

Particular comments on the policy in today’s agenda at 4a are:

 

p.24 s.1 - Introduction 3rd para: this needs strengthening. To have left out “natural heritage” as was planned in earlier drafts would have been a gap too far - the real world is not like that. So the wording of “Introduction” implies the inclusion of both natural and built heritage - it might just as well say so more clearly.  For pragmatic purposes I accept the policy/operation split noted.

 

p.27 Goal 2 #1 - this sidesteps the policy point about public good meaning public cost. You should assert it head-on. I recommend a re-wording of #1 to read: “council’s role and public-good financial responsibilities in protecting and conserving……”

 

p.27 Goal 2 #4 - make clear here the access synergies I talked about earlier by rewording the whole paragraph with “The recognition and retention of council-owned heritage collections of knowledge significance is reflected by their managed emphasis on end-user access and on operational synergies”.

 

p.37 #6 Appendix 1 - reword as “Council Officer free advice: council officers provide free access to public-domain information about Lower Hutt heritage knowledge, and free advice on council policies….."

 

Nga mihi nui, Alan Smith 

 

Petone Community Board feedback on Taonga Tuku Iho - HCC Heritage Policy

 

Kia ora koutou Chair and councillors

 

We agree with officers’ recommendations to the 27 April 2021 Policy and Finance Committee, but do not support Appendix 1 forming part of the policy, or if it is included then we do not support those parts that were opposed by the four submitters during the consultation process.

 

It is good to see the further amendments that have been made. We are also happy to see Appendix 1 referred to the District Plan Review for consideration of any possible future incentives.

 

We support the  $150,000pa new funding that is included in the long term plan for heritage incentives. Our support is based on the understanding that this funding will be able to be used for conservation work on listed heritage buildings and sites of significance from July 2021 on.

 

We support the rates remission policy being considered again once final decisions on this policy have been made. We trust that any such rates remissions would be used only where there is benefit to heritage values.

 

The review and update of the previous policy is long overdue and we look forward to this new policy being agreed to and implemented so that heritage in all forms is better appreciated across Hutt City.

 

Pam Hanna

 

for

 

Petone Community Board

 

 

 

 

 

Report no: PFSC2021/2/1

 

Activity Report - Information Services

 

 

Total operating and capital cost of the service over the last 3 years and next 10 years

 

21.  The following table outlines the actual net operating and capital costs of the Information Services activity for the past three financial years and that forecasted for the next 10 years as shown in the Draft Long Term Plan.

 

 

17/18

18/19

19/20

20/21

20/21

21/22

22/23

23/24

24/25

25/26

26/27

27/28

28/29

29/30

30/31

Actual

$000

Actual

$000

Actual

$000

Actual

$000

Revised Budget

$000

Budget

$000

Budget

Budget

$000

Budget

$000

Budget

$000

Budget

$000

Budget

$000

Budget

$000

Budget

$000

Budget

$000

Net Opex

 

6,744

 

8,160

 

9,180

 

7,083

 

9,339

 

10,870

 

11,162

 

10,917

 

11,473

 

11,784

 

12,253

 

11,112

 

10,789

 

10,950

 

10,423

Net Capex

 

839

 

698

 

783

 

787

 

4,940

 

2,920

 

2,491

 

1,674

 

1,525

 

1,725

 

1,425

 

1,425

 

1,425

 

1,525

 

1,425

 

22.    The operational costs for the activity can be broken down into six main budget areas as shown in the following table of 2020 /21 expenditure.

 

Cost Centres

Operating Expenditure

 

$000

Revenue

 

$000

Depreciation

 

$000

Net Operating Expenditure

$000

8050 - Information Services Administration

 

629

 

-80

 

153

 

702

8051 - Information Technology Infrastructure

 

2,028

 

 

362

 

2,390

8052 - Corporate Information

 

700

 

 

4

 

704

8054 - Land Information Management

 

783

 

-8

 

65

 

840

8057 - Information Services Applications

 

1,428

 

 

30

 

1,458

8058 - Business Transformation

 

937

 

 

52

 

989

Totals

 

6,505

 

-88

 

666

 

7,083

 

 

Author: Lyndon Allott
Chief Digital Officer