11 May 2021
Media: Local Democracy Reporter
Topic: Tarawera sewerage reticulation scheme
Enquiry
Follow up Tarawera reticulation questions –
- Has the council provided and or communicated alternative payment options to benefitting ratepayers for the Tarawera sewerage reticulation scheme other than a lump sum payment since it was decided on (November 26)?
- If so, where/when?
- If not, why not?
- What form would that alternative payment option take?
- The "specified criteria" (as quoted below) was not yet decided on for the last LTP - has it been decided now and if so, what is the specified criteria?
Response
FromInfrastructure Group Manager Stavros Michael:
Re first question:
Elected members passed a resolution in November 2020 agreeing to the proposed Tarawera Sewerage Scheme with detailed design and updated estimates of costs to be worked through following further engagement with the community. This further work also included the funding plan to be determined through the 2021-2031 Long-term Plan.
Options for funding is amatter for elected members to discuss during the upcoming Long-term Plan deliberations. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt those discussions.
Re second question:
As above
Re third question:
As above
Additional questions
I'm a bit concerned that statement doesn't quite answer the question.
I've asked what options have been provided or communicated since November 26 last year, not what might be offered.
Has the council provided or communicated alternative payment options to benefitting ratepayers for the Tarawera sewerage reticulation scheme other than a lump sum payment since then?
Response to additional questions
Please note this is not provided as comment or statement this is just clarification for your understanding. We’ve outlined in the response that funding options are part of upcoming discussions (see line below). This means funding options you are referring to are yet to be decided.
Options for funding is amatter for elected members to discuss during the upcoming Long-term Plan deliberations. It would be inappropriate to pre-empt those discussions.
Further follow-up from reporter:
Thanks for the [phone] chat just now.
I think where we may be getting into the weeds here is the phrase 'payment options'.
When I say 'payment options' for the residents, I mean the ways they have been told they are to pay the estimated $33,000. Not how the council might fund the scheme (be it with a larger or smaller council contribution etc, which would of course be decided by the council). That would affect the amount of money they might pay, but not how they might pay it.
So what I'm after is whether the council has ever communicated alternative ways (other than a lump sum) for Tarawera residents to pay for their contribution to the scheme (whatever that final figure may be).
I'm afraid I can't share the copies of the council letters I have with you (as I thought I might be able to) as they could risk revealing the identity of my sources. The letters are dated February 3 and April 16. The second letter is a joint email with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council. As these are council letters I'm sure you'll be able to take a look at them.
I personally can't see any reference to other resident payment options in those letters, but I'm happy to be corrected if I've missed something.
Of course, the council has communicated with residents in some other ways I might not have access to, so my question is whether the council has communicated an/other payment option/s (ie an alternative to a lump sum payment) to residents since the council decided on the scheme in November 26 2020?
If the council does not want to answer the question, it can, as with any question, decline to answer it.
From reporter following further phone call
Thanks for your call.
We've decided I will report that the council could not answer that question. I will of course include the commentary you have supplied me.
Final response from Council
We don’t agree that we have not been able to answer that question. Given the media’s duty of care to ensure articles are fair, balanced and accurate and do not mislead the public, your statement that we could not answer this question is incorrect.
We have clearly told you that residents have been informed (in the letter sent in April - which you have a copy of) that any funding options, including repayment flexibility options, will be part of the upcoming LTP discussions.
Our current Long-Term Plan also states - In addition to this Council will also look into establishing a payment option for those residents that meet specified criteria (yet to be determined) to allow them to pay the $19,000 + GST back over a specified number of years.
This is the answer to your question and our expectation is that this is accurately reflected in your article.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Media: Local Democracy Reporter
Topic: Long-term Plan consultation process
Enquiry
Follow up questions to yesterday’s Long-Term Plan consultation enquiry –
Got a few follow up qs:
- Did council officers provide advice to elected members about why to not hold hearings? If so, what was the rationale for this advice?
- Why were hearings omitted from the council officers' recommendation to the council on the LTP consultation strategy?
- Why does the LTP not have hearings, but for example, the sex work bylaw did, and the Trility decision did? What's the difference between this process and those processes that means a hearing isn't required?
For Steve:
- Was it noted by the council that the LTP consultation strategy didn't include hearings? Did you or other elected members question this (in workshops or private)? If not, why not?
- Do you think the public should have an opportunity to speak to their submissions in a hearing setting? Why / why not? Do you think it would be useful for elected members to have an opportunity to ask questions of submitters about their submissions? Why / why not?
Response
From Rotorua Lakes Council Manager Corporate Planning and Governance, Oonagh Hopkins:
“About five years ago Council started looking at more inclusive ways to run consultations to encourage more people to have their say. This need was driven by feedback from those who had previously participated in hearings, and from best practice engagement methodologies within the public participation sector.
“The goal of a consultation and engagement process is to provide as many opportunities as possible for people to provide feedback in a way that best suits them. This could be face-to-face, online, via survey forms, written submissions or over the phone.
“Traditional hearings run by councils across the country are often limited to, and bound by, a committee of council and the standing orders. This means submitters only get five minutes to speak to elected members in a formal setting.
“The seven face-to-face feedback sessions held during this recent Long-Term Plan (LTP) consultation period were two-hour sessions where people had the opportunity to participate and provide their views in multiple conversations with many elected members. All feedback was captured and will be provided to all elected members to inform their decision making on the final LTP.
“Events such as these, where people can provide their views direct to elected members, have proved to be more informative, more inclusive and provide people with greater accessibility to elected members in which to share and present their views.
“Prior to the 2021-2031 LTP consultation period, elected members provided guidance to council staff about how they wished to engage with the community and this did not include hearings. This guidance was based on what has worked well during previous LTP consultation periods.”
From Rotorua Deputy Mayor, Dave Donaldson:
“Having sat through many hearings, both recently and in the past, I am confident that we achieve much greater and far more effective dialogue in a community feedback setting. In my opinion when it comes to the LTP, or even the Annual Plan, relying solely on formal hearings is a lazy way of engaging with your community.
“Elected members agreed, prior to the LTP consultation, that this more informal and conversational style of engagement was our preferred approach.
“By having these conversations in smaller groups and in a less formal way, we get much more insight into the perspective of the community as a whole, rather than from just those who are confident to speak in a formal hearing setting. So I don’t believe anything is lost by not holding formal hearings.
“The purpose of our consultation was to gain an understanding of our community’s views to ensure we are making an informed decision about the final LTP. People also had the ability to go home from the engagement sessions, consider the discussion, and then provide a detailed submission online, as a number of people opted to do. Whatever form feedback was provided in, it will all be considered by elected members in our decision making process.
“All elected members had the opportunity to participate in these feedback sessions, to understand and feel the pulse of our community in regards to the LTP proposals.”
Additional information
Council is not required to run hearings for consultation.
Hearings can be used as a method for gaining people’s views and may work for specific/individual pieces of feedback like the creation or amendment of a bylaw.