Agenda of Council Meeting - Thursday, February 25, 2021

25 February 2021

8.1 Kapiti Gateway Project

Author: Janice Hill, Principal Advisor Growth & Development

Authoriser: Natasha Tod, Group Manager Strategy, Growth and Recovery

Purpose of Report

1 This report seeks Council decision whether to proceed with the Kāpiti Gateway project and for the project to proceed in accordance with the project plan.

2 The report seeks Council decision whether to provide up to 50% funding for the Kāpiti Gateway project.

Delegation

3 Council has the authority to make this decision.

Background

4 On 28 May 2020, Council resolved:

71. That the Council approves an application being made to the PGF for 50% ($2.23m) of the total development costs for the Kāpiti Gateway Project and delegates to the CE the authority to sign off the final application and support material in general accordance with this report.

72. That the Council notes that officers will provide reprioritised capex budgets for the Council share of development costs, once the PGF application is approved and detailed design is confirmed – including construction deadlines.

73. The Council notes that a business case for the project is in progress, and the results of that will be taken into account by Council in progressing the project, and moves that further clarification to ascertain operation of the facility and analysis of future sustainability of the project will be undertaken before it proceeds.

74. The Council notes that further engagement with stakeholders and advisors will be carried out if the project progresses to inform the operation and final design.

5 A grant of $2.23m (50%) towards the Kāpiti Gateway capital build has been approved by Government Ministers as an Infrastructure Reference Group (COVID19 Response and Recovery Fund) shovel-ready project. A funding agreement has been signed, subject to a number of pre-conditions, which must be met in order to commence the agreement. All the pre-conditions have been met, with the exception of:

5.1 Council resolution to support the full project

5.2 Council resolution to approve co-funding

6 The purpose of the COVID19 Response and Recovery Fund is to:
“provide additional support to those who have been most affected by COVID19. This includes boosting job creation through support for infrastructure, conservation, employment schemes and skills training. It also focuses on vulnerable populations across New Zealand and industries and sectors that have lost their funding base as a result of COVID19, such as arts, sport, racing and domestic tourism.”

7 Selecting a business model, which minimises the cost to ratepayers, has been a key consideration from the start of the Gateway project.

8 Further work has been undertaken on the business case assessing potential operating models and revising assumptions for the post-COVID19 environment. This work has included discussions with the Gateway Project working group of Councillors (working group), and has considered community and individual feedback and concerns; analysis of the project on the Four Wellbeings framework, updated growth projections and revised assumptions and stakeholder engagement prior to this decision point.

Key changes to the Indicative Business Case

9 As part of the application for Government funding an Indicative Business Case was prepared by Giblin Group. Some key changes and updates from this are outlined in this report.

10 Independent specialist advice has been sought from Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) to review and verify assumptions and explore potential operating models to ensure that the assumptions are valid and that the most viable business model is recommended.

11 A variety of potential operating model options have been assessed and revised model options are recommended by PwC. The recommended models differ in several ways from the Indicative Business Case which was presented to the Government’s Provincial Development Unit. This is explained later in this report.

Issues and Options

Issues

12 The signed funding agreement has certain pre-conditions to trigger Commencement of the Agreement and contains an agreed timetable. Our current status with meeting these pre-conditions is outlined in paragraph 5 of this report. With regard to the agreed timetable, the project is running 120 days behind the timetable. Any further delays to this agreed timetable may result in the funding being withdrawn.

13 Council resolutions for support and co-funding of the project are critical to meet the pre-conditions outlined in the funding agreement. There has been some commentary made within the community about shifting this government funding to alternative projects. This is not an option – this government funding is approved specifically and only to the Kāpiti Gateway project.

14 Community feedback and questions received on the Indicative Business Case have largely focussed on:

14.1 Car parking – the reduction in car parks on the proposed site

14.2 Visitor growth rate - the rate of growth in visitation to Kāpiti Island proposed

14.3 Biosecurity fee - the proposed fee for biosecurity checks and its likely impact on demand for visits to Kāpiti Island

14.4 Financial sustainability - the ongoing financial sustainability of the centre, and its likely impact on ratepayers

14.5 Proposed building site - especially as a coastal site within Maclean Park and alignment with the Maclean Park Management and Development Plans

14.6 Budget - for the capital build, what the budget is made up of and confidence in delivering within that budget

14.7 Other funding options - including debt funding costs, possibility of Department of Conservation funding, other funds and private sponsorships.

Options

Car parking

15 The proposal will reduce the number of public carparks on the site by 17 parks. This leaves 14 car parks (including 2 accessible parks) and 1 set-down/pick-up space on the site. It is recommended that the remaining carparks on this site be time-limited to ensure usage by visitors to Maclean Park and beach users is prioritised.

16 To help offset the loss of public carparks, it is proposed that a Council-owned public car-park on the corner of Kāpiti Rd and Maclean St be redeveloped and enlarged, providing an increased capacity with more efficient use of the site space with a total of 20 carparks (incl 2 mobility spaces). The cost would be incorporated within the Gateway project budget. This carpark is 100m closer to the Saturday market site (lower Maclean St) than the proposed Gateway site. A map of this carpark site (Figure 1) can be viewed in Appendix 1.

17 In addition to this, the Paraparaumu Beach Golf Club is still willing to investigate a commercial agreement to provide off-site all-day/overnight parking as an option for up to 30 cars. This is proposed to be offered as an option to the Kāpiti Island visitors (especially those staying overnight). Development of any car parking at the Golf Club is yet to be agreed, but would be on a commercial basis. It is worth noting that the most feasible access is through the current Golf Club entrance. Extending parking time-limits on the surrounding roads – already in place through-out much of Paraparaumu Beach village – would encourage longer stay vehicles to utilise the paid parking option.

Visitor Growth Rate

18 Since the Indicative Business Case was completed in June 2020, much more has become known about the impact of COVID19 on the tourism industry. Whilst the Kāpiti Gateway will include visitor information about the entire district, it will also serve as a Visitor Centre for Kāpiti Island. We do not have reliable data on visitation numbers for the district, but we do have reliable information about Kāpiti Island sourced from Department of Conservation (DoC). It is DoC numbers that have been used throughout the calculations for visitor numbers. This is with the knowledge that these numbers do not capture the full benefits of tourism to the district.

19 DoC has supplied detailed visitor numbers to Kāpiti Island from 2013 to 2020.

19.1 Between 2013 and 2019 visitor growth was 153.96%, at over 20% per annum.

19.2 Due to the impact of COVID19, there were negligible sailings for five months in 2020 and the total visitation in 2020 contracted from 2019 by 18.8 percent. This is a smaller contraction than expected.

19.3 For the 3 months - October, November and December 2020, visitor numbers were almost identical to the equivalent 3 months in 2019. This shows strong growth by domestic visitors, given in 2019 international visitors made up 30% of visitors (sourced from a Customer Survey commissioned by Council and carried out by Kāpiti Business Projects in April 2020 to Kāpiti Island.

20 Following further consideration and analysis, including the impacts of COVID19, assumptions have been updated to reflect that there will be no international visitors until 2022, and that international visitation takes until 2025 to return to pre-COVID19 levels. Beyond this, it is estimated that international visitation will grow at 8% pa, which is the long-term growth rate for NZ Tourism GDP contained in the Kāpiti Coast Economic Development Strategy and Implementation Plan 2020-23.

21 Domestic visitor growth to Kāpiti Island is projected to be initially 10% (for 2020 and 2021), then the rate of increase will reduce back to remain at 5% from 2026 onwards.

22 In total, the forecast visitor projections now assume 92% growth from 2019 to 2030 (Indicative business case had this at 224%). Please refer to Appendix 1 – Figure 2 Kāpiti Gateway forecast visitor numbers.

23 Figure 3 (Appendix 1) shows both the indicative business case (in blue) and revised (orange) forecast visitor numbers to Kāpiti Island.

24 Figure 3 also shows the historic maximum (based on the average number of sailing days per annum by Kāpiti Island Nature Tours in the past 5 years (233 days per year), multiplied by the daily limit.

25 Ninety-nine per cent of Kāpiti Island is classified a Nature Reserve and under the Reserves Act 1977, entering the Kāpiti Island Nature Reserve is only allowed by permit. The number of visitors allowed each day forms part of the Kāpiti Island Conservation Management Plan (CMP), which is jointly approved by the Wellington Conservation Board and the Kāpiti Island Strategic Advisory Committee (KISAC).

26 Currently, the limit is set at 160 permitted visitors per day, with a policy to investigate amending the visitor limits during the development of the Kāpiti Island CMP. DoC staff and iwi have indicated an openness to increasing visitor numbers in the future, including the possibility of ‘seasonalising’ the permits, to better match the higher demand in the summer months.

27 Even without changes to concession limits, there is substantial room for growth in visitor numbers to Kāpiti Island, as demonstrated by the maximum annual limit (37,280) on available sailing days (233 pa) being greater than the forecast (29,000) for 2030.

28 Wellington NZ - General Manager, has also reviewed the forecast visitor numbers and provided an opinion, which can be viewed in Appendix 2.

Biosecurity fees

29 The proposal includes a dedicated, best-practice biosecurity self-check facility for all visitors to Kāpiti Island. A user fee (i.e. added to the ticket price) of $10 per adult passenger and $5 for children was proposed in the indicative business case, however feedback was received from operators that they felt the price increase may stifle demand.

30 In response to concerns raised, it is now proposed that from opening day in 2022, the user charge be $4 for adults (5% of the basic ticket price) and free for children, increasing by $2 every second year until $10 for adults and $5 for children is reached in 2028. It is recommended that the user charge price increases would be subject to review prior to implementation to ensure that they were not affecting demand.

Financial sustainability

31 Selecting a business model, which is financially self-sustaining, has been a key consideration from the start of the project. However, post-COVID19, where tourism numbers are forecast to be impacted for some time (affecting potential revenue streams for the centre and by reduced biosecurity revenue), this is now of even greater importance.

32 Financial sustainability is influenced by a range of factors, including upfront capital (construction) costs, external funding, finance costs, depreciation, and facility operating revenue and costs. There are a range of decisions and options which can affect these, including the use of space and functions within the facility, as well as the facility operating model.

33 Of particular concern to some members of the community is the potential impact of the project on rates and whether proceeding with this project could result in other building projects (such as a new Waikanae Library) being delayed. The timing of other capital projects is being considered by Council through the discussions underway on the Long Term Plan. Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) was engaged to provide an independent review of the business case and operating model options, to review the benefits, risks and feasibility of the project. This included visitor forecasts, government contributions, current construction costs and estimated revenue. PwC was asked to explore all available alternatives which met the investment objectives. This include those previously considered as well as assessing other possible alternatives. The PwC report is attached in Appendix 3

34 PwC concluded that; “a gateway facility would be well-sited to help protect Kāpiti Island and support growth of visitation to the island and engage visitors in the district to increase tourism spend. As well as sharing history and culture, the facility could also capitalise on its location and connection with Kāpiti Island, and educate people on ecology, climate change and the environment. This would be a tangible action supporting the Kāpiti Council to address the declared climate emergency.” (refer page 11 of PwC report)

35 PwC assessed the revenue and risks of a variety of potential uses and functions of the Gateway, including biosecurity and visitor centre/ticketing functions, a gift shop, commercial office for tour operators, a daytime café and an evening bar/brasserie. They considered that “these potential revenue-driving uses would each support the Council’s Investment Objectives and would complement each other.”

36 PwC concluded that there were three “equally viable options” for Council depending on its preference for uses [see pages 10-11 of the PwC report]:

36.1 Option “K”: Biosecurity, Visitor/Discovery Centre, Office, Gift shop, Café and Bar/Brasserie

36.2 Option “J”: Biosecurity, Visitor/Discovery Centre, Gift shop, Café and Bar/Brasserie

36.3 Option “F”: Biosecurity, Visitor/Discovery Centre, Office, Gift shop

“Based on available data, information and assumptions the Gateway is anticipated to eventually break even and not require ratepayer subsidy in the long term. To progress its conceptual design to the next project phase (developed design and further due diligence on the supported uses and revenue streams) Council needs to agree in principle on a preferred option.” (refer page 11 of PwC report)

37 All three options would break even in approximately the same timeframe (5-6 years) and incur similar operating deficits until break-even point is reached. Refer to the following table which has been extracted from the PwC report (refer page 41 of PwC report).

38 PwC completed an assessment of risk by scoring each option against seventeen types of risk. Two of the preferred options (K and J) include some component of food and beverage in the model, and while recommended by PwC as preferred options, these options also carry the highest risks as assessed by PwC. This is primarily due to the technical and specific nature of the hospitality and food and beverage industry. There would also need to be careful consideration to ensure consistency with the Maclean Park Management Plan (Please see section Proposed Building Site, below).

39 The report notes that “If the food & beverage offerings are not supported by Council, Option F (with gift shop and office) would be the next strongest option, still breaking even around the same timeframe.”

40 PwC also considered a variety of operating models for the Gateway. From Council owning and operating the entire facility, to Council outsourcing the development, ownership and operation in its entirety.

41 PwC recommendation for the business operating model was:

41.1 Council design, develop and own the facility as a strategic regional asset.

41.2 Council lease out the food and beverage space to a commercial provider, as well as the office space (to the tour operators).

41.3 Council operates the visitor/discovery centre as it includes the promotional aspect of the district, as well as the gift shop which “is generally a simpler business to operate than the food and beverage.” [see page 25 of the PwC report]

42 In PwC’s opinion, managing the gift shop within the visitor centre and operating it with the two staff assigned to manage the facility was feasible and preferred. PwC further noted that “Online sales from the local artisans gift shop would also add to revenue without substantially impacting costs. This leverages the staff already assigned to the facility, and retains the gift shop net income (or loss) which could directly benefit the Council.”

Proposed Building Site

43 The proposed design has been developed with attention to:

· Respect and avoid existing dunes, beach and stream set-backs;

· Improve public access to the beach;

· Be neither permanent (it is a removable building) nor for private use;

· Have positive effects on the natural character of the land, beach, dunes and stream;

· Retain the natural beach and foreshore, and strengthen existing dune restoration programmes;

· Maintain sight lines to the beach as much as possible;

· Connect the Gateway centre to the Park and to the village centre and businesses;

· Mitigate the reduction of public parking available at the site by replacing it in another part of the village, and still have the opportunity to further increase carparking through a possible future commercial arrangement with the Paraparaumu Beach Golf Club.

44 Geoff Canham Consulting (GCC) has undertaken a preliminary review of the proposal in relation to the MacLean Park Reserve Management Plan and concluded that: “The proposed Gateway Project is aligned to the Plans and there is a clear process and set of thresholds, which includes stakeholder engagement, for assessing which activities may be permissible on the Park and recommend that KCDC undertake an assessment of the specific activities against this process and thresholds, in this case at key development stages. The current proposal meets the requirements of the MacLean Park Reserve Management Plan and Development Plan.”

45 The Resource Consent application for the land use consent is currently on hold and is required to follow the statutory process set out in the RMA.

46 The Resource Consent for the stream works, including bridge replacement, has been received from Greater Wellington Regional Council.

47 As outlined in the Indicative Business Case, the project also took into account the Government’s Four Wellbeing framework as follows:

Cultural

· It will improve the visibility of mana whenua’s history

· The significance of the site will be enhanced through carvings, interpretation and storytelling, resulting in a greater understanding of the historical importance of the area;

· Creating a place to welcome people to the district;

· Sharing of history supports the Turangawaewae (sense of belonging to this place) for mana whenua and residents;

· Mauri (integrity of the landscape and its ability to support and sustain life) of the site will be enhanced

· Connections between the coast and Kāpiti Island will be enhanced

Environmental

· Improving a 55m stretch of the Tikotu stream (which is home to two endangered species, long-finned eels and inunga) through re-naturalisation and planting of the riparian zones;

· The Maclean Park experience will be enhanced, with a destination attraction, a restored coastal stream mouth, native landscaping, landmark and interpretive Pou, beach access and community spaces;

· The conservation story of Kāpiti Island will be told and celebrated at the site;

· An appreciation of the wildlife supported on Kāpiti Island will be recognised on the Kāpiti Coast, with audio visual and interactive features;

· Increased protection for the Kāpiti Island environment, flora and fauna, which will help to mitigate the impact of increasing numbers.

Social

· Enhancing the visitor experience to the Island and the Kāpiti Coast;

· Improving access to the beach for pedestrians by replacing the small narrow bridge across the stream with a wider, more accessible one. Along with landscaping, this will enhance the public amenity of Maclean Park and the beach;

· Pedestrian safety will be improved by removal of conflict in the Boat Club carpark and a wider footpath above the culvert;

· Viewing places of the beach (especially for those less-abled) created;

· Volunteering opportunities created (biosecurity);

· Additional educational opportunities and space created;

· Identity of Paraparaumu Beach improved, linking the island and beach with our history, environment and culture on the beachfront;

Economic

· Kāpiti Island visits will be supported with a physical presence as an iconic tourism product, which will strengthen and enhance the tourism reputation of Kāpiti region;

· The tourism and hospitality sectors will be supported with storytelling about tourist activities on the Kāpiti Coast, encouraging longer stays;

· It is likely to lead to new tourism operations in the Kāpiti Coast, taking advantage of increased visitors to the area

· Protects the valuable economic benefits for the district from the visits by reducing the risk of tourism to the Kāpiti Island environment;

· A prime opportunity will be created for local artisans and craftspeople to supply quality products to the gift shop;

· It will encourage skills development in the Kāpiti Coast visitor sector;

· The current footbridge has reached the end of its serviceable life and is due for replacement. The funding arrangement would enable the replacement bridge to be part-funded by government funding, rather than to be fully funded by ratepayers.

48 Economic Solutions Ltd (ESL) has been engaged to update the local economic impacts of the proposed Kāpiti Gateway facility, based on the revised visitor growth projections and operating model. Due to a lack of sufficient data for wider tourism to the district, the economic analysis includes only the impact of visitation to Kāpiti Island. (Economic Impact Report - Appendix 4)

49 The current level of economic activity is assessed to be relatively unchanged (24 persons (jobs) and $2.08m in Gross Regional Product (GRP) per annum) from the assessment based on the Indicative Business Case.

50 The economic benefits from the construction phase are assessed to be relatively unchanged from the assessment based on the Indicative Business Case. The construction period would deliver short-term economic impacts of 16 persons (jobs) and $2.23m economic benefit (GRP) during the construction phase.

51 The local and employment impacts of the annual operation of the Gateway Centre in the initial full year (2023) have been assessed as relatively unchanged, at $0.16m GRP and 3 persons (jobs) respectively.

52 The forecast increased visitation to the Kāpiti Coast district resulting from the projected increased visitation to Kāpiti Island will see an additional local economic impact increase (using the mid-point of visitor spending) of $1.91m in GRP impact (per annum) and 22 persons (GRP) by 2030.

53 By contrast, the initial assessment based on the visitor projections used in the Indicative Business Case forecast an additional local economic impact increase (using the mid-point of visitor spending) of $4.16m in GRP and 48 persons by 2030.

54 Therefore, the combined additional economic impact of the Gateway proposal (the annual operation of the centre plus increased visitation) by 2030 is forecast to be an additional $2.07m per annum in GRP and 25 persons (jobs) per annum.

Budget

1 The capital budget for the Gateway project is as follows:

Buildings, finishes, FFE, containers	1,660,961
External works, decks, bridge, landscaping, site services, carvings	1,254,416
		2,915,377
Construction contingency @ 20%	583,075
		3,498,452
COVID19 contingency @ 15%	437,307
		3,935,759
Other fees, consents, design, project management @15%	524,768

TOTAL		4,460,527

Other Funding Options

55 The cost of debt funding for up to $2.23m is included within the operational budget.

56 The possibility of Department of Conservation funding, for Capital and Operational costs has been fully explored.

57 The funding agreement for the government grant does not preclude Council from seeking alternative sources of Capital or Operational funds for its share. Several funds have been identified and Council staff have submitted Expressions of Interest to these funds.

58 Private sponsorships are also possible sources of additional funding. Electra has committed to a sponsorship of $20,000 towards the supply and installation of solar panels on the building’s roof.

59 Philanthropic gifting, including opportunities for visitors to contribute (especially related to the environmental value proposition) are further options which could be explored.

Considerations

Financial Considerations

60 The total capital cost of the Gateway build is $4.46m. A grant of $2.23m (50%) towards the Kāpiti Gateway capital build has been approved by Government Ministers as an Infrastructure Reference Group (COVID19 Response and Recovery Fund) shovel-ready project. This funding is available if Council commits to the remaining 50% capital expenditure.

61 Careful consideration has been given to the financial sustainability of the Gateway centre. The ongoing operating costs of the Gateway have been discussed earlier in this report (see paragraphs 26 to 37), and will depend on the final functions and operating model.

62 The funding from the Government to cover 50% of the capital costs of the project significantly increases the affordability of the proposed Gateway project.

Policy considerations

63 Maclean Park Management and Development Plans – An initial assessment has been undertaken of the proposal against these Plans and it has concluded that the current proposal is not inconsistent with the Plans. Further assessment will be undertaken through the detailed design stage.

64 Public Art Strategy – The project fits within the Public Art Strategy. The Council Public Art Panel were briefed on the proposal and comment was sought. (See Appendix Five)

Legal considerations

65 There are no specific legal issues.

Tāngata whenua considerations

66 The proposed Gateway site is identified as a site of significance to Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai, and is recognised in the Proposed Natural Resource Plan.

67 Ngāti Toa Rangatira and Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai are represented on the project Governance Group.

68 Ngāti Toa Rangatira and Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai have combined to signal their support for the proposed Kāpiti Gateway by gifting (koha) the name ‘Te Uruhi’. Te Uruhi is the name mana whenua gave to the proposed site and surrounding area. Ngāti Toa and Te Ātiawa see the Kāpiti Gateway as a place to:

68.1 recognise the significance to iwi in the spirit of partnership between iwi and the Council as Treaty partners

68.2 strengthen the links between Kāpiti Island and the mainland

68.3 help people understand the national significance of the Island and its importance to them;

68.4 strengthen biosecurity measures available to protect this taonga for future generations

68.5 be a cornerstone for increasing the visibility of the area’s significant history

68.6 share and educate through storytelling and reflection,

68.7 improve the environment both directly and indirectly by improving the condition of the mouth of the Tikotu Stream

68.8 enhance the mana of the Island as well as Council’s partnership with iwi and the entire community they serve.

69 Letters of support for the Gateway project have been received from Ngāti Toa Rangatira and Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai.

Strategic considerations

70 Annual Plan - Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) of $255k for Kapiti Gateway is included in the 2020/21 Annual Plan. This is forecast will be sufficient should Council decide to proceed with the Kapiti Gateway project, because government funding includes 50% up-front payment.

71 LTP - Both $2.23m as CAPEX and Operating Expenditure (OPEX) (including revenue) is included in the 2021-41 Long Term Plan (LTP) and is in front of Council for consideration as part of the LTP. These budgets are subject to change pending the outcome of Council decision on the recommendations in this report.

72 Kāpiti Coast Economic Development Strategy and Implementation Plan 2020-23 –Kāpiti Gateway is noted as a project within this strategy to strengthen infrastructure for a key sector, and forms part of the development and implementation of a Kāpiti Coast Destination Plan. It is one of the key actions under Ngā Pou / Pillar - Manaakitanga / Supporting key sectors.

73 Central Government relationships - The project will help to demonstrate KCDC’s ongoing ability to build strategic central government relationships and provide evidence that as a district we can deliver.

Significance and Engagement

Significance and engagement policy

74 It is noted that there is a degree of public interest in the proposed Kāpiti Gateway and there are some deeply held views about the proposal. However, it is not considered to meet the thresholds for significance under the policy. This matter has a low level of significance under Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy.

Publicity and Engagement

75 Further engagement with key stakeholders has been undertaken by the Working Group, with support from Council officers.

76 Following the Council meeting, council officers will notify the Governance Group, key stakeholders and community groups of Council’s decision. A media advisory will be issued and Council will use its available channels to inform the wider community of Council’s decision.

77 Should Council decide to proceed with the Kāpiti Gateway project, a communications and engagement plan will be further developed as part of the project delivery.

Recommendations

78 That the Council notes that further work has been undertaken to consider feedback received, review and revise assumptions, assess options for financial sustainability and operating models.

79 That the Council notes that further engagement with key stakeholders has been carried out.

80 That Council acknowledges and thanks Kāpiti iwi, Te Ātiawa ki Whakarongotai and Ngāti Toa Rangatira, who have combined to gift the name ‘Te Uruhi’ to the proposed Kāpiti Gateway.

81 That the Council approve to proceed with the Kāpiti Gateway project and for the project to proceed in accordance with the project plan on the basis of:

· Option K: biosecurity, visitor/discovery centre, office, gift shop, café and bar/brasserie, OR

· Option J: biosecurity, visitor/discovery centre, gift shop, café and bar/brasserie, OR

· Option F: biosecurity, visitor/discovery centre, office, gift shop.

82 That the Council approve to provide up to 50% funding for the Kāpiti Gateway project ($2.23m)

Appendices

1. Kapiti Gateway Appendix 1 ⇩

2. Kapiti Gateway Appendix 2 ⇩

3. Kapiti Gateway Appendix 3 ⇩

4. Kapiti Gateway Appendix 4 ⇩

5. Kapiti Gateway Appendix 5 ⇩

Council Meeting Agenda

25 February 2021

8.2 Establishment of the Wellington Regional Leadership Committee

Author: Angela Bell, Principal Advisor

Authoriser: Natasha Tod, Group Manager Strategy, Growth and Recovery

Purpose of Report

1 The purpose of this report is to provide you with background and recommendations on joining and becoming a member on a new regional Joint Committee, the Wellington Regional Leadership Committee (WRLC)^{^[1]}.

2 Pursuant to Clause 30A, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), this new Joint Committee would include all of the Wellington region’s local government authorities, designated iwi, the Horowhenua District Council, and central government ministerial representatives, as equal voting members.

Delegation

3 Council has the authority to make this decision under section A2 of the Governance Structure.

Background

4 The Wellington Regional Growth Framework (WRGF) was endorsed by Council for public consultation at the 10 December 2020 Council meeting. A Joint Committee – the Wellington Regional Leadership Committee (WRLC) – has been identified as the best option to activate and support the decisions and programmes of the WRGF.

5 Pursuant to Clause 30A, Schedule 7 of the LGA, the WRLC would include all the Wellington Region’s local government authorities, the Horowhenua District Council, designated iwi and Central Government ministerial representatives, as equal voting members.

6 This governance model and approach is consistent with other regional spatial planning endeavours in Waikato, Hamilton to Auckland, Bay of Plenty and Canterbury and meets the expectations of Central and Local Government partners, and progresses the Government’s Urban Growth Agenda. Co-ordinated spatial planning also underpins economic development planning and COVID-19 recovery.

7 The WRLC is designed to provide a formal governance forum so that the members can work together with central government on matters that are of regional importance, cross-boundary and inter-regional. To ensure regional spatial planning, economic development and recovery opportunities are cohesively addressed, it is proposed the WRLC will have three spheres of responsibility:

· the WRGF

· regional economic development, and

· regional economic recovery (from COVID-19 and any other future disruptive events) Issues and Options.

8 The details of the proposed WRLC are set out in a Joint Committee Agreement and provided under separate cover, in Appendix 1. The agreement, to be signed by the participating councils, is necessary for the Joint Committee to comply with Local Government Act requirements. The key provisions are briefly outlined below.

Terms of Reference

9 Terms of Reference for the proposed Wellington Regional Leadership Committee are contained within the Joint Committee Agreement (see Appendix 1). The proposed WRLC is designed to provide a formal governance forum so that the members can work together with central government on matters that are of regional importance, cross-boundary and inter-regional. It will address regional matters across three responsibility spheres, as programme areas, as listed above:

· the WRGF

· regional economic development, and

· regional economic recovery (from COVID-19 and any other future disruptive events).

Membership

Council

10 The Membership of the WRLC, with voting rights, include:

· The Mayor of Carterton District Council

· The Chair of Greater Wellington Regional Council

· The Mayor of Horowhenua District Council

· The Mayor of Hutt City Council

· The Mayor of Kāpiti Coast District Council

· The Mayor of Masterton District Council

· The Mayor of Porirua City Council

· The Mayor of South Wairarapa District Council

· The Mayor Upper Hutt City Council

· The Mayor of Wellington City Council.

Note: that the nomination of an alternate member is required, should exceptional circumstances prevent the Mayor from attending. Officials recommend that the Deputy Mayor is nominated as that alternative.

Mana whenua

11 A member of the WRLC, with voting rights, may also include:

· Ngāti Toa Rangatira represented by Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira Inc.

· Taranaki Whānui represented by Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust

· Rangitāne O Wairarapa represented by Rangitāne O Wairarapa Inc

· Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa represented by Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairarapa Trust

· Raukawa ki Te Tonga

· Ātiwawa ki Whakarongotai represented by Āti Awa ki Whakarongotai Charitable Trust

· Muaūpoko hapū represented by Muaupoko Tribal Committee.

Central Government

12 Central Government Representatives, with voting rights, include up to three Cabinet Ministers (specific Cabinet Ministers will be determined at a later date).

Note: Ministerial appointments will be confirmed after Cabinet have reviewed and endorsed the Wellington Regional Leadership Committee, and the Joint Committee Agreement. See the section on ‘Next Steps,’ for an indicative timeframe for the approvals process.

Independent Chairperson

13 An Independent Chairperson is considered essential for the WRLC to operate effectively, like New Zealand’s other Joint Committees responsible for delivering growth frameworks, regional spatial planning and/or regional economic development.

14 The Chairperson will guide and moderate discussions, connect and communicate with key parties in advance of meetings, support and work with the WRLC’s Secretariat on work programmes, while providing communication on the decisions and outcomes of the WRLC’s deliberations.

15 An Independent Chairperson will be appointed by the WRLC following a robust recruitment process.

Voting Rights and Consensus Based Decision Making

16 While each member is accorded one vote, the WRLC will utilise a consensus-based decision model. This is to ensure decisions are robustly supported and made in the best interest of members, their shared communities and futures.

Observers

17 As per the Joint Committee Agreement, WRLC may invite observers to share and present information and insights as relevant to any of the three work programmes that it governs. Observer attendance is designed to be flexible, depending on the specified meeting’s subject matter, agenda and decision-making requirements.

18 Central Government observers include:

· The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

· Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and/or Kainga Ora

· Waka Kotahi

· The Department of Internal Affairs.

19 Observers will be approved by the Independent Chair and may include any other persons the WRLC considers necessary, including representative(s) from key private sector organisations for matters relating to regional economic recovery.

Interaction of Wellington Regional Leadership Committee’s Responsibility Spheres, as Programme Areas.

20 The following sets out how the membership, including observers, relates to the Committee’s areas of responsibility.

Supporting Resources and Operations

Administering Authority

21 An administering authority is required for the WRLC’s operations as part of the Joint Committee arrangements. This includes utilisation of a council’s standing orders, and the provision of administrative and human resources functions for the committee, chair and secretariat. A process to select and confirm the administrating authority will be determined by March 2021.

Secretariat

22 To provide support, information and analysis a team of up to four positions will be appointed by the Administering Authority, in consultation with the WRLC and Independent Chair. These positions are (nominally and subject to approval) a Iwi Liaison Advisor, Project Director, Senior Strategic Advisor, and a Coordinator.

23 The Secretariat will work closely with the Independent Chairperson, and connect with members and other observers, contributors and subject matter experts, as required. They will focus on supporting delivery of the work programme and supporting/reporting and reporting against the decisions and strategies set by the WRLC, in pursuit of realising the WRGF, regional economic development and regional economic recovery.

24 A process for finalising the roles and responsibilities for the Joint Secretariat will be determined and implemented at a later date.

Agenda Management

25 The WRLC, supported by the Independent Chair and Secretariat, will meet to address the three spheres of responsibility. As noted by the diagram at para 20 above, the membership of the WRLC varies depending on the different spheres of responsibility. Therefore effective agenda management will be important to ensure that the appropriate members are present and prepared for the topics and decisions within each area of responsibility.

26 We anticipate that when meeting, decisions and discussion regarding the WRGF would be addressed first – which involves the widest membership group. This will allow the remaining members to then address the complementary economic development and recovery topics.

Draft Memorandum of Understanding

27 To reinforce and demonstrate commitment to regional cooperation, shared opportunities and meaningful dialogue with iwi, local and central government, a draft Memorandum of Understanding is being developed.

28 The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) outlines how the Committee will operate and shapes and promotes the trusted, cooperative and partnership-based principles to guide the WRLC for the successful development and implementation of agreed decisions and strategies.

29 The draft MoU will include a section on reflecting the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi within the intended behaviours and approaches of the WRLC. An example of a draft MoU is provided for noting under separate cover, in Appendix 2. The WRLC itself will finalise the MoU when it first meets.

Options

30 There were a series of discussions on a range of possible regional governance models and approaches at Wellington Regional Mayoral and Chief Executive Forums in 2020. The final proposal for a new Joint Committee was shaped over a series of shared discussions and workshops, with the acknowledgement that a formal decision-making structure is required for implementation of the WRGF.

31 The three structural options considered in some detail, were:

· Utilising the existing Wellington Mayoral Forum

· A Council Sub-committee

· A new Joint Committee

32 Each option’s disadvantages and benefits are explained below.

33 Option 3, a new Joint Committee under the Local Government Act, was agreed as the most effective cross-regional governance model.

Option 1: Utilise the Mayoral Forum

34 The advantage of this governance model is that a pre-established structure and process is already in place for nine of the ten councils, which could be adapted to include others and a wider mandate. Disadvantages include the forum’s lack of formalised decision-making powers, and it is unlikely that this option would be supported by iwi and Central Government partners.

Option 2: A Council Subcommittee

35 The advantage of this governance model is that it is a known and a regionally utilised governance model. A primary disadvantage is how decisions from a subcommittee may be perceived as biased towards the parent council. Due to this perception, it is unlikely that this governance model would be supported by iwi and Central Government partners.

Option 3: Establishment of a new Joint Committee under Clause 30A, Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002.

36 There are several shared and sustainable benefits to this governance model, including:

· A governance forum set up under this model, can utilise the powers and other capabilities of a Joint Committee, under the Local Government Act.

· A Joint Committee model is consistent with other spatial plan and/or economic development governance structures across the country, and it aligns with central government partnership and dialogue expectations.

· This model is likely to be seen as an equitable form of regional governance, with the advantage of including iwi and Cabinet Ministers as members, with key observers from Central Government and other regional commercial and private sector organisations.

37 For these reasons, a Joint Committee under the Local Government Act 2002 is considered the most effective and sustainable governance model to activate and cooperatively address the WRGF, regional economic development and regional economic recovery.

Cost

38 Funding the WRLC and the supporting Secretariat will be through a regional rate struck by Greater Wellington Regional Council. Council will likely pay a separate, proportionate contribution for their support of the Secretariat.

39 Funding arrangements for the various initiatives and projects to be undertaken under the umbrella of the WRLC is yet to be confirmed, but it is expected that initiatives and projects funded by Councils will be provided for within the relevant 10 Year and Annual Plans over the life of the Growth Framework as well as funded by central government. Funding for projects in an agreed 3 year Work Programme would also need to be funded, in addition to the support payment for the Secretariat.

40 Funding indications have been used to inform LTP budgets, to be consulted on shortly.

Next Steps

January – March

· Wellington-Horowhenua region’s local government authorities, iwi, Central Government officials and Cabinet review and proceed to endorse the Agreement and Terms of Reference and become members of the Wellington Regional Leadership Committee.

February-March

· Robust Independent Chair recruitment process commences – partners contribute names for consideration.

· Administrating Authority confirmed.

· Joint Secretariat roles and responsibilities confirmed.

· Recruitment process for Secretariat initiated – continues through March/April.

· Greater Wellington Regional Council consults on the WRLC as an option for its 2021-2031 Long Term Plan. This includes the funding implications from the proposed General Rate.

April – May

· Tentative first meeting of the new WRLC.

· Independent Chair recruitment process concludes, with Chair appointed by the WRLC.

· Expected Dissolution of the Wellington Regional Strategy Committee.

· Recruitment commences for the Secretariat positions.

· WRLC confirms Memorandum of Understanding.

June – July

· WRLC considers and reviews proposed 1-year and 3-year work programme.

· Work and planning commences against the three spheres of responsibility as per programme areas.

Considerations

Legal considerations

41 The Joint Committee Agreement has been legally reviewed to ensure that the legal and procedural requirements of the LGA are met in relation to the creation and establishment of a Joint Committee.

Financial considerations

42 There is no financial impact at this point. As noted above, funding the WRLC and the supporting Secretariat will be primarily through a regional rate struck by Greater Wellington Regional Council. It is expected that Council would pay separately (and proportionately) for their support of the Secretariat.

43 Funding arrangements for the various initiatives and projects to be undertaken under the umbrella of the Committee are yet to be confirmed, but it is expected that initiatives and projects funded by Councils will be provided for in the relevant 10 Year and Annual Plans over the life of the Framework as well as funded by central government.

Tāngata whenua considerations

44 As a significant regional governance forum, membership includes designated mana whenua/iwi representatives.

45 Iwi organisations across the Wellington Region, Te Upoko o Te Ika a Maui and Horowhenua District were engaged with on the WRGF, and will be engaged with further to become members of the WRLC.

46 Funding has been provided for in the proposed new regional rate to provide for iwi members’ full participation in the WRLC.

Recommendations

That the Council:

1. Receive the Establishment of the Wellington Regional Leadership Committee Report.

2. Approve the Wellington Regional Leadership Committee Joint Committee Agreement (referred to in, and attached to, the Report) and the Council’s entry into it.

3. Note there is an inconsistency in the Joint Committee agreement regarding the role of Raukawa ki Te Tonga for matters outside of the WRGF and that this will be resolved by the Joint Committee when it is formed.

4. Authorise the Mayor to sign, on behalf of the Council, the Joint Committee Agreement.

5. Note that the Joint Committee will adopt a Memorandum of Understanding which will set out the principles that guide the Joint Committee’s work and the approach that the Joint Committee will take.

6. Appoint and establish the Wellington Regional Leadership Committee as a Joint Committee under clause 30(1)(b) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 on the terms set out in the Joint Committee Agreement and with effect from the date that the Joint Committee Agreement is signed by all local authority parties.

7. Appoint the Mayor to the Joint Committee, with effect from the date that the Joint Committee is established.

8. Appoint the Deputy Mayor as an alternate to be a member of the Joint Committee and attend meetings in exceptional circumstances where the Mayor is unable to attend.

9. Note that the Joint Committee is a Joint Committee of all of the local authorities that are parties to the Wellington Regional Leadership Committee Joint Committee Agreement and includes members representing iwi and the Crown.

10. Make the following delegations to the Joint Committee:

a. Approval of all plans and implementation programmes necessary to fulfil the specific responsibilities of the Joint Committee, including:

i. Wellington Regional Growth Framework and the Wellington Regional Growth Framework Implementation Plan

ii. Regional Economic Development Plan

iii. Regional Economic Recovery Implementation Plan

b. Approval of all submissions and advocacy statements necessary to fulfil the specific responsibilities of the Joint Committee.

11. Note that the Wellington Regional Strategy Committee is likely to be disestablished in the future, with the disestablishment process to be confirmed.

Appendices

1. Wellington Joint Committee for Regional Leadership - Joint Committee Agreement, including the Terms of Reference (under separate cover)

2. Wellington Joint Committee for Regional Leadership - DRAFT Memorandum of Understanding (under separate cover)

Council Meeting Agenda

25 February 2021

MINUTES OF Kapiti Coast District Council
Council Meeting
HELD AT THE Council Chamber, Ground Floor, 175 Rimu Road, Paraparaumu
ON Thursday, 28 January 2021 AT 9.30am

PRESENT: Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow, Cr Angela Buswell, Cr James Cootes, Cr Gwynn Compton, Cr Jocelyn Prvanov, Cr Martin Halliday, Cr Sophie Handford, Cr Robert McCann, Cr Bernie Randall

IN ATTENDANCE: Community Board Chair Kathy Spiers

Community Board Chair Chris Papps

Community Board Deputy Chair Margaret Stevenson-Wright

Mr Sean Mallon, Mrs Janice McDougall, Mr James Jefferson, Ms Suzanne Rushmere, Ms Lesley Olsson, Ms Sarah Lloyd, Mr Grayson Rowse

APOLOGIES: Mayor K Gurunathan, Cr Jackie Elliott

LEAVE OF Nil

ABSENCE:

1 Welcome

2 Council Blessing

The Deputy Mayor welcomed everyone to the meeting and Cr Halliday read the Council blessing.

3 Apologies

Paekākāriki Community Board Chair Holly Ewens and Community Board Chair James Westbury asked their apologies be noted

Resolution CO2021/1

Moved: Cr Gwynn Compton

Seconder: Cr Jocelyn Prvanov

That apologies from Mayor K Gurunathan and Cr Jackie Elliott be received and accepted.

Carried

4 Declarations of Interest Relating to Items on the Agenda

5 Public Speaking Time for Items Relating to the Agenda

Rachel Barwell and Alison Lash from Kapiti Climate Change Action Group spoke to item 8.2, urging Councillors to delay adoption of Transport Strategy.

Trevor Daniels from Grey Power spoke on item 8.2, in particular 4.5 and 4.6 regarding ambulance services.

David Ogden was introduced to the meeting as the incoming Chair of the Older Persons Council. Councillors welcomed Mr Ogden by acclamation.

John Vickerman spoken to item 12.1 raising concerns about the tendering process, and reasons for public exclusion. The Chair did not allow questions on this matter, as it is a public excluded item.

6 Members’ Business

(a) Public Speaking Time Responses

(i) Responses will be covered during consideration of items

(b) Leave of Absence

7 Mayor's Report

Nil

8 Reports

8.1 Amendments to the Council Delegations to Chief Executive and Staff

Sarah Lloyd presented the report, which was taken as read. Questions from councillors were responded to by officers.

Resolution CO2021/2

Moved: Cr Angela Buswell

Seconder: Cr Bernie Randall

That the Council adopts the new Council to Chief Executive and Staff Delegations as shown in Appendix A to the report Amendments to the Council Delegations to Chief Executive and Staff.

That the Council adopts the revised Resource Management Act 1991 Delegations to Staff as shown in Appendix B to report Amendments to Council Delegations to Staff.

Carried

8.2 Sustainable Transport Strategy

Suzanne Rushmere presented the report, which was taken as read. Sean Mallon spoke to concerns raised during public speaking in relation to the drafting, and the purpose of the strategy, particularly in relation to climate concerns. Officers responded to questions from councillors.

Councillors proceeded to debate the recommendations.

Point of order – matter to lie on the table

Moved: Cr Sophie Handford

Seconder: Cr Gwynn Compton

That the item of business, 8.2, currently being discussed should lie on the table and not be discussed further at this meeting.

For: Crs Gwynn Compton, Jocelyn Prvanov, Sophie Handford and Bernie Randall

Against: Crs Janet Holborow, Angela Buswell, James Cootes, Martin Halliday and Robert McCann

lost 4/5

Resolution CO2021/3

Moved: Cr Angela Buswell

Seconder: Cr James Cootes

That Council adopts the Sustainable Transport Strategy.

That minor changes post the Ngā Hapū o Ōtaki review must be approved by the Mayor and Chief Executive.

That Council will discuss concerns raised by the Kapiti Climate Change Action Group with them

Carried

8.3 Classification of Elizabeth Street Reserve, Waikanae

James Jefferson and Lesley Olsson presented the report which was taken as read, and responded to questions from Councillors

Resolution CO2021/4

Moved: Cr Jocelyn Prvanov

Seconder: Cr Robert McCann

That the Council classifies Elizabeth Street reserve (comprising LOTS 8 & 9 DP 1031 as shown in Appendix 1) as Local Purpose Reserve (District) under Section 16(1) of the Reserves Act 1977.

Carried

9 Confirmation of Minutes

9.1 Confirmation of Minutes

Resolution CO2021/5

Moved: Cr Gwynn Compton

Seconder: Cr Angela Buswell

The minutes of the Council meeting of 10 December 2020 be accepted as a true and correct record.

Carried

10 Public Speaking Time

· Covering other items if required

· Public Speaking Time responses

11 Confirmation of Public Excluded Minutes

Nil

12 Public Excluded Reports

1 Resolution to Exclude the Public

Public Excluded Resolution CO2021/6

Moved: Cr Jocelyn Prvanov

Seconder: Cr Angela Buswell

That, pursuant to Section 48 of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, the public now be excluded from the meeting for the reasons given below, while the following matters are considered.

The general subject matter of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution are as follows:

General subject of each matter to be considered

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Ground(s) under section 48 for the passing of this resolution

12.1 - Waikanae Water Treatment Plant Stage 2 Upgrade

Section 7(2)(b)(ii) - the withholding of the information is necessary to protect information where the making available of the information would be likely unreasonably to prejudice the commercial position of the person who supplied or who is the subject of the information

Section 7(2)(h) - the withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities

Section 48(1)(a)(i) - the public conduct of the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding would exist under section 6 or section 7

Carried

Resolution CO2021/7

Moved: Cr Angela Buswell

Seconder: Cr Martin Halliday

That the Council moves out of a public excluded meeting.

Carried

The Council meeting went into public excluded session at 11.26 pm.

The Council came out of public excluded session at 12.26 pm.

The Council meeting closed at 12.26 pm.

...................................................

CHAIRPERSON

[1] In this paper we use Joint Committee and Wellington Regional Leadership Committee (WRLC) interchangeably.


AGENDA Council Meeting
I hereby give notice that a Meeting of the Kapiti Coast District Council will be held on:
Date:	Thursday, 25 February 2021
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Council Chamber Ground Floor, 175 Rimu Road Paraparaumu
Wayne Maxwell Chief Executive

Mayor K Gurunathan	Chair
Deputy Mayor Janet Holborow	Deputy
Cr Angela Buswell	Member
Cr James Cootes	Member
Cr Jackie Elliott	Member
Cr Gwynn Compton	Member
Cr Jocelyn Prvanov	Member
Cr Martin Halliday	Member
Cr Sophie Handford	Member
Cr Robert McCann	Member
Cr Bernie Randall	Member