PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL
Memorandum
TO: Finance
& Audit Committee
MEETING DATE: 26
May 2021
TITLE: Review
of the Elected Members' Expenses and Allowances Policy 2021, and the Elected
and Appointed Members' Professional Development & Training Policy 2021
Presented By: Hannah
White, Democracy & Governance Manager
APPROVED BY: David
Murphy, Acting General Manager - Strategy and Planning
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
1. That
Council approve the Elected and Appointed Members’ Expenses and
Allowances Policy 2021 as attached (Attachment 1), subject to approval of the
Remuneration Authority.
2. That
Council approve the Elected and Appointed Members’ Professional
Development and Training Policy 2021 as attached (Attachment 2).
|
1. ISSUE
1.1 In
February 2020, the Finance & Audit Committee resolved:
“That a review of the Expenses Policy be
undertaken to consider whether the Policy be extended to cover all appointed
members, and to make recommendations for any other changes required to update
the policy including to the definition of, and travel expenses associated with,
Official Business, with a report to Finance & Audit Committee (in September
2020).”
1.2 In
September 2020, the Finance and Audit Committee resolved that the Expenses
Policy be discussed at workshop.
1.3 Officers
have taken into consideration members’ points raised at a workshop held
in March 2021 and revised the Elected Members’ Expenses and Allowances
Policy (Expenses Policy). The reviewed, tracked changed policy is attached as
Attachment 1.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Council
has appointed six appointed members and accorded them full voting and
participation rights to sit on five Council committees in the 2019-2022
triennium. Appointed members are reimbursed for their meeting attendance but
are not currently able to seek council reimbursement for training or
development opportunities related to their committee roles.
2.2 In
February 2020, the Finance & Audit Committee resolved to pay the expenses
for an appointed member to attend a Local Government New Zealand conference.
This raised the question over whether appointed members should be included in
the Expenses Policy and officers were asked to review the policy.
2.3 Appointed
members are expected to use their knowledge and skills to actively contribute
to debate and ultimately to help strengthen council policies. By including
appointed members in the Council’s Expenses Policy, Council is offering
these individuals the opportunity to build their knowledge and skills base so
that they might carry out their role more effectively.
2.4 The
Expenses Policy sits alongside the Elected
Members’ Professional Development and Training Policy (Attachment 2).
As an interim measure, officers propose amending any references in the policy
to ‘elected member(s)’ or ‘councillor(s)’ to
‘elected and appointed member(s)’ or ‘member(s)’. These
changes will enable appointed members to be included in the policy until a full
review is completed.
3. LEGAL
IMPLICATIONS
3.1 Under
Schedule 7(6) of the Local Government Act 2002, “The Remuneration
Authority must determine the remuneration, allowances, and expenses payable to
elected members.” The Authority fixes the scale of allowances and
provides guidance for what can be remunerated.
3.2 The
Council’s Expenses Policy is overseen by the Remuneration Authority which
regulates what elected members can claim as an expense or allowance and the
amount for each.
3.3 The
Remuneration Authority’s remit does not extend to appointed members. This
does not prohibit the Council from including appointed members in the Expenses
Policy, however appointed members’ expenses will not be scrutinised by
the Remuneration Authority.
3.4 As
required by the Remuneration Authority, the elected members’ remuneration
determination (including the Mayor’s salary deduction for their vehicle)
and hearings fees are included in the Expenses Policy and published on the
Council’s website.
4. Review
of the Expenses and Allowances Policy
4.1 The
Elected Members’ Expenses Policy was last agreed in November 2019 when
adjustments were made to the vehicle mileage rates and Council agreed that
journeys between elected members’ place of residence and the Council
Administration Building would not be included in the policy. Council also
agreed not to include a childcare allowance or travel time allowance for the
2019-2022 triennium. As a recent decision, these items were not included in
this review.
4.2 The
review has focused on the elements directed in the resolution of February 2020,
and additional changes suggested by members. Recommended changes include:
Adding
Appointed Members in the Conference and Training Expenses
4.3 This
will allow appointed members to attend training courses and be reimbursed for
reasonable travel and attendance expenses incurred in line with the policy.
4.4 It
is not envisaged to give appointed members a communication allowance as they
attend a limited number of meetings annually and there are no expectations for
appointed members to participate in council business outside of meeting
attendance. The Council provides appointed members with a council email
address, WIFI within the Council building, electronic access to the agenda, and
a hard copy of the agenda where required.
Reviewing
the definition of, and travel expenses associated with, Official Business
4.5 In
the definitions section of the Expenses Policy council business is defined as:
‘formal council meetings, committee meetings, workshops, seminars,
statutory hearings, training courses, site visits, meetings with staff,
meetings with community groups, meetings with members of the public. It
does not include events where the primary focus is on social activity.’
4.6 The
definition is a broad one. Officers see no reason to change it. Elected
members continue to exercise their judgement to determine the primary purpose
of an event and whether or not it meets the definition of council business. The
policy reserves the right of the Chief Executive to determine the
appropriateness of reimbursement if an item is claimed for.
Communication
Allowance
4.7 The
Remuneration Authority encourages local authorities to provide their elected
members with the necessary equipment to carry out their work effectively or to
remunerate them for providing their own equipment.
4.8 The
Council has provided all newly elected councillors from 2019 onwards with
council-owned equipment (laptop and cell phone) and proposes to extend the
offer to all elected members.
4.9 Councillors
that prefer to use their own cell phone and claim a phone allowance can do so
under the proposed policy.
4.10 Officers
recommend that Council considers a change in the policy in the new triennium so
that council-owned equipment is provided to all new members in the first instance,
with the expectation that eventually all members use council-owned
equipment.
· There
are savings for the Council providing all elected members with council-owned
equipment. Council can provide each elected member with a mobile phone for
$360. Elected Members that choose to provide their own mobile phone would be
eligible for $550 per year in phone allowances.
· Council
is also able to provide effective technical support to members with equipment
provided by Council, as IT officers are familiar with the hardware and devices
are compatible with IT infrastructure.
4.11 The Policy
offers members the maximum allowance allowed by the Remuneration Authority.
This will be paid to elected members with their salary.
Re-formatting
4.12 Formatting
of the Policy has been undertaken in order to make it easier to follow.
Other changes
4.13 The
bicycle care and public transport allowance that was included in the September
2020 draft has been removed from this version.
4.14 The
following changes are recommended:
· Making
it ineligible for the vehicle mileage to be claimed for travel within the
Palmerston North City Council boundary. This change would bring the policy in
line with current practice.
· Specifying
that a vehicle mileage allowance may be reasonable for appointed members who
live outside of Palmerston North.
· Adding
a requirement to disclose travel costs paid by outside parties on the gift
register. The new requirement heightens transparency.
· Removing
the ability to claim expenses for hotel landline calls. This is no longer
required as all elected members have access to a mobile phone.
· Adding
that a specified meal allowance cap to be claimed when on council business
outside of the city boundary. Wording has been aligned with council staff meal
allowance when travelling.
· Including
the process whereby members can apply to attend training. This inclusion is in
line with the Members’ Training and Development Policy.
· Outlining
that the Mayor’s partner expenses when accompanying the Mayor on council
business are covered under the Expenses Policy upon authorisation from the
Chief Executive. This inclusion is in line with current delegations.
5. FINANCIAL
IMPLICATIONS
5.1 The
members’ training budget has been set for 2020/21 so there is no
budgetary implication for expanding the policy to include the six appointed
members. The training budget will need to be shared between 21 members.
Members may wish to consider how the budget is allocated in future years.
6. NEXT
STEPS
6.1 If
the Committee recommends the changes, the Elected and Appointed Members’
Expenses and Allowances Policy and Elected and Appointed Members’
Professional Development and Training Policy will take effect upon
Council’s approval.
6.2 Both
policies will be reviewed for the next triennium.
7. Compliance
and administration
|
Does the Committee have
delegated authority to decide?
|
No
|
|
Are the decisions significant?
|
No
|
|
If they are significant do they
affect land or a body of water?
|
No
|
|
Can this decision only be made through
a 10 Year Plan?
|
No
|
|
Does this decision require
consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?
|
No
|
|
Is there funding in the current
Annual Plan for these actions?
|
Yes
|
|
Are the recommendations
inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?
|
No
|
|
The recommendations contribute
to Goal 5: A Driven and Enabling Council
|
|
The recommendations contribute
to the outcomes of the Driven and Enabling Council Strategy
|
|
The recommendations contribute
to the achievement of action/actions in a plan under the Driven and Enabling
Council Strategy
|
|
Contribution to strategic
direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being
|
Review of the Expenses and
Allowances Policy, and associated Professional Development and Training
Policy, to include appointed members ensures fairness of growth opportunities
for all members which in turn contributes to effective governing of the City.
|
|
|
|
Attachments
|
1.
|
Draft Elected and Appointed Members' Expenses and Allowances
Policy ⇩ 
|
|
|
2.
|
Draft Elected and Appointed Members' Professional
Development and Training Policy ⇩
|
|
PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL
Report
TO: Finance
& Audit Committee
MEETING DATE: 26
May 2021
TITLE: Victoria
Esplanade Bonsai/Shade House Project Options
PRESENTED BY: Kathy
Dever-Tod, Parks and Reserves Manager
APPROVED BY: Sarah
Sinclair, Chief Infrastructure Officer
|
RECOMMENDATION(S) TO Council
1. That
Council refers consideration of Option 1: Continue with the scope as
designed, and shown in Attachment One, costing $880,000, to the Ten Year Plan
deliberations, noting that this will require $650,000 additional budget
(Programmes 1127 and 98).
2. That, if
Council approves proceeding with the project under Option 1 during the
finalisation of the Ten Year Plan, it considers funding the budget shortfall
of $650,000 by seeking $150,000 in external funding and allocating an
additional new capital budget of $500,000, as per Funding Option A for Option
1.
3. That during
Ten Year Plan deliberations, Council considers deferring the Bonsai/Shade
house project until year two of the 2021-31 10 Year Plan, to allow 12 months
for fundraising.
4. That
Council notes that if it chooses to fund the Bonsai/Shade House project by
reprioritising the existing Masterplan implementation budget assumptions, the
Victoria Esplanade User Group will be consulted regarding the priorities and
projects that may be affected.
|
|
|
Summary of options analysis for
|
Problem
or Opportunity
|
A home is required for Bonsai gifted to Council. Work
to scope a Bonsai House coincided with the need to replace the Shade House
which is at the end of its life. The detailed design and consenting stage of
the Bonsai/Shade House project has been completed, after workshopping scope
requirements with Councillors.
Aligning the project with the Victoria Esplanade
Masterplan (the Masterplan), including achieving an outcome suitable for a
premier park and wayfinding improvements, has resulted in the estimated cost
exceeding the budget provision.
The difference between the budget and the cost
estimate for the scoped project cannot be met through external fundraising,
to date.
This report seeks direction on the scale and scope of
the project and offers options on how to fund it.
|
|
SCOPE DECISION
|
|
Scope decision Option
1:
|
Continue with the project as scoped and designed,
costing $880,000
|
|
Community Views
|
The bonsai house is a project in the 2018/28 Ten Year Plan.
Nine submissions were received during the 2018/28 Ten Year Plan consultation
specifically commenting on the bonsai project. Five were in support and
four opposed to the programme.
Community engagement occurred during development of
the Masterplan. This project was approved in the Masterplan.
Engagement with the Victoria Esplanade User Group is
proposed prior to the finalisation of the draft 10 Year Plan.
|
|
Benefits
|
Implements the Masterplan:
· Provides
a quality public display for the bonsai collection currently in storage, and
· Replaces
and improves the shade house, which has reached the end of its life, and
· Improves
wayfinding and accessibility through the central area of the Victoria Esplanade.
|
|
Risks
|
Costs may escalate during the external fund-raising
period. Mitigation is provided with an escalation allowance within the total
cost estimate. Operating costs may be higher than budgeted depending on
outcome.
Increases council borrowing levels.
|
|
Financial
|
Capital and the associated financing costs are covered
in the Funding Options sections.
Operational costs of $6,000 per year have been allowed
for within the draft 2021/31 Ten Year Plan.
|
|
Scope decision Option
2:
|
Change scope to continue
with the shade house as designed, without a bonsai display, costing $700,000
|
|
Community Views
|
The bonsai house is a project in the 2018/28 Ten Year
Plan. Nine submissions were received during the 2018/28 Ten Year Plan
consultation specifically commenting on the bonsai project. Five were
in support and four opposed to the programme.
Community engagement occurred during development of
the Masterplan. This project was approved in the Masterplan.
Engagement with the Victoria Esplanade User Group is proposed
prior to the finalisation of the draft 10 Year Plan
|
|
Benefits
|
Implements the Masterplan:
· Replacement
and improvement of the shade house which has reached the end of its life, and
· Improves
wayfinding and accessibility through the central area of the Victoria
Esplanade.
|
|
Risks
|
Does not implement the bonsai house project of the
Masterplan.
Reputational risk associated with returning/selling
gifted bonsai and with supporters of the bonsai house.
Costs may escalate during the external fund-raising
period. Mitigation is provided with an escalation allowance within the total
cost estimate.
Increases council borrowing levels.
|
|
Financial
|
Capital and the associated financing costs are covered
in the Funding Options sections.
Reduction of $6,000 per year in the Ten-Year Plan if
bonsai are rehomed.
|
|
Scope decision Option
3:
|
Change scope – replace
the shade house on its existing footprint, with modest bonsai house within
the shade house, costing $530,000
|
|
Community Views
|
The bonsai house is a project in the 2018/28 Ten Year
Plan. Nine submissions were received during the 10 Year Plan consultation
specifically commenting on the bonsai project. Five were in support and
four opposed to the programme.
Community engagement occurred during development of
the Masterplan. This project is an element of the implementation of the
Masterplan.
Engagement with the Victoria Esplanade User Group is
proposed prior to the finalisation of the draft 10 Year Plan.
|
|
Benefits
|
Provides a low-quality bonsai house compared to Option
1.
Replaces the Shade House which is at the end of its
life with some quality improvements.
|
|
Risks
|
Does not implement the wayfinding and accessibility
improvements planned in the Masterplan.
Costs may escalate during the external fund-raising
period. Mitigation is provided with an escalation allowance within the total
cost estimate.
|
|
Financial
|
Capital and the associated financing costs are covered
in the Funding Options section.
Operational costs of $6,000 per year have been allowed
for within the draft 2021/31 Ten Year Plan.
|
|
Scope decision Option
4:
|
Change scope to replace the
shade house on its footprint and to a similar quality with no bonsai house,
costing $510,000
|
|
Community Views
|
The bonsai house is a project in the 2018/28 Ten Year
Plan. Nine submissions were received during the 10 Year Plan consultation
specifically commenting on the bonsai project. Five were in support and
four opposed to the programme.
Community engagement occurred during development of
the Masterplan. This project is an element of the implementation of the
Masterplan.
Engagement with the Victoria Esplanade User Group is
proposed prior to the finalisation of the draft 10 Year Plan.
|
|
Benefits
|
Replaces the shade house which is at the end of its
life.
Provides accessibility improvements and taller
space.
|
|
Risks
|
Does not implement the wayfinding and accessibility
improvements planned in the Masterplan.
Does not implement the new bonsai house directed in
the Masterplan. Reputational risk with supporters of the Bonsai House.
Costs may escalate during the external fund-raising
period. Mitigation is provided with an escalation allowance within the total
cost estimate.
|
|
Financial
|
Capital and the associated financing costs are covered
in the Funding Options section.
Reduction of $6,000 per year in the Ten-Year Plan if
bonsai are rehomed.
|
|
Scope decision Option
5:
|
Change scope to develop bonsai house and
decommission the shade house, costing $265,000
|
|
Community Views
|
The Bonsai House is a project in the 2018/28 Ten Year
Plan. Nine submissions were received during the 10 Year Plan consultation
specifically commenting on the bonsai project. Five were in support and
four opposed to the programme.
Community engagement occurred during development of
the Masterplan. This project is an element of the implementation of the
Masterplan.
Engagement with the Victoria Esplanade User Group is
proposed prior to the finalisation of the draft 10 Year Plan.
|
|
Benefits
|
Implements the bonsai house.
Low cost option.
|
|
Risks
|
Does not implement the wayfinding and accessibility
improvements planned in the Masterplan.
Reputational damage with current visitors to the shade
house and supporters of the subtropical collection.
Substitutes one botanic display for another so no additional
features are developed as directed by the Masterplan.
|
|
Financial
|
Capital and the associated financing costs are covered
in the Funding Options section.
No new operational costs.
|
|
Scope decision Option
6:
|
Decommission the shade house and do not build a
bonsai house, convert the area to gardens, costing $50,000
|
|
Community Views
|
The bonsai house is a project in the 2018/28 Ten Year
Plan. Nine submissions were received during the 10 Year Plan consultation
specifically commenting on the bonsai project. Five were in support and
four opposed to the programme.
Community engagement occurred during development of
the Masterplan. This project is an element of the implementation of the
Masterplan.
Engagement with the Victoria Esplanade User Group is
proposed prior to the finalisation of the draft 10 Year Plan.
|
|
Benefits
|
Lowest cost option.
|
|
Risks
|
Does not achieve the Masterplan objectives.
Reputational damage with current visitors to the shade
house and supporters of the shade and bonsai house.
Increases the exposure of the glass panels of the
conservatory to vandalism after hours.
Construction costs could exceed the cost estimate.
Mitigation is provided through provision for contingencies within the total
cost estimate.
|
|
Financial
|
Small reduction in operational costs. Decreases
renewal costs.
|
|
FUNDING DECISION
|
|
Funding for Option One:
Continue with the
project as designed, costing $880,000
|
Total cost $880,00, less existing budget
$230,000. Shortall $650,000.
Option A: Seek $150,000 external funding,
provide a new capital budget of $500,000 - associated financing costs
$25,000 per year.
Option B: Seek $150,000 external funding,
reprioritise Masterplan implementation programme 1847 and bring forward
$500,000 from 2026/27 and 2027/28 and the associated financing costs
$25,000 per year which had been budgeted to start from 2027/28.
Option C: Provide a new capital budget
of $650,000 with associated financing costs of $32,000 per year
|
|
Funding for Options
Two:
Continue as designed but
remove the bonsai house display, costing $700,000
|
Total cost $700,000, less existing budget
$230,000. Shortfall $470,000.
Seeking external funding is considered high risk and
unrealistic.
Option A: Reprioritise
Masterplan implementation and bring forward $470,000 of funding to
2021/22 and the associated financing costs would be $24,000 per year
which had been budgeted to start from 2026/27.
Option B: Provide
a new capital budget of $470,000 - associated financing costs would be
$24,000 per year.
|
|
Funding for Option
Three:
Change scope –
replace the shade house on its existing footprint, with modest bonsai house
incorporated within the shade house.
|
Total cost $530,000, less existing budget
$120,000. Shortfall $410,000.
Seeking external funding is considered high risk and
unrealistic.
Design costs spent to date will need to be written
off.
Option A: Reprioritise Masterplan
implementation and bring forward $470,000 of funding to 2021/22 and
the associated financing costs would be $21,000 per year which had been
budgeted to start from 2026/27.
Option B: Provide a new capital budget
of $470,000 - associated financing costs would be $21,000 per year.
|
|
Funding for Options
Four and Five:
Renewals or replace
shade house with bonsai house
|
Options 4 and 5 would be replacing an existing
facility with the same or similar facility. They are therefore renewal
options and are highly unlikely to attract external funding. As such there
are no funding options.
The funding required for each option is as follows:
Option 4:
Shade house renewal with no bonsai – Total cost $510,000 cost, less
remaining budgets of $120,000, requires additional renewal funding of
$390,000.
Option 5: Remove shade house and
substitute bonsai house – Total cost $265,000, less remaining budgets
of $120,000, requires additional new capital budget of $145,000.
|
|
Funding for Option
Six:
Decommission the Shade
House and do not display the bonsai
|
Total cost $50,000 for demolition, construct security
gates, surface paths to entrance, provide gardens, secure front of
conservatory building.
No new budget required, work covered from balance of
unspent capital budget of $120,000 and the $70,000 balance declared surplus.
|
Rationale for the recommendations
1. Overview
of the problem or opportunity
1.1 A
need for somewhere to house gift bonsai plants has been combined with the need
for replacement and improvement of the current shade house which has reached
the end of its functional asset life.
1.2 Detailed
design and preparation of consent applications has been completed for a
combined facility. Design has been focussed to ensure that the objectives
of the Victoria Esplanade Masterplan are met through the new facility.
1.3 Aligning
the project with the Victoria Esplanade Masterplan, to achieve outcomes
suitable for a premier park, has resulted in the estimated cost exceeding the
budget provisions for both the new Bonsai House and the shade house
replacement.
1.4 The
difference between the budget and the cost estimate for the project cannot be
met through external fundraising, therefore it is recommended that the
additional funding requirement is treated as new capital expenditure.
1.5 This
report seeks confirmation of the scale and scope of the project and direction
on funding.
2. Background
and previous council decisions
2.1 In
2008 Council received a donation of 40 bonsai from the estate of John Birch.
2.2 The
bonsai have been maintained in storage, at the Council nursery, pending scoping
and approval of a programme to construct a facility to display them. Figure
One provides examples of the bonsai held in the nursey.
Figure One: Bonsai examples
2.3 In
2014 a conceptual plan for a standalone bonsai house was developed. The scale
was modest, with an open sided display area. It was proposed to be located
where the breeding duck aviaries are currently situated.
2.4 Programme
1127 was approved in the 2015/25 Ten Year Plan with $94,000 to construct a
bonsai house in 2019/20.
2.5 In
2013 an engineer assessed the condition of the shade house, the timber
structure attached to the front of the Peter Black Conservatory in the
mid-1980s, as shown in Figure Two. It was assessed as being in poor
condition and failing to meet current building code requirements.
Figure Two: Shade house requiring renewal
2.6 The
engineer advised that a complete rebuild was the most practical option and
provided an outline estimate of $140,000 at that time.
2.7 The
replacement of the shade house was budgeted for in the 2018 Ten Year Plan
within Programme 98, Citywide Reserves Renewals.
2.8 In
2018 the Victoria Esplanade Masterplan (the Masterplan) was developed to give a
guiding vision and direction to the park. The Masterplan confirmed the
intention to develop a bonsai house. Within the Park Central area, the
Masterplan stated:
‘develop[ing] new activity centres such as
oriental gardens, bonsai house, or other garden features.’ (Page 52)
2.9 Detailed
design was initiated in 2019 and involved the President of the Manawatu Bonsai
Club (the Bonsai Club). The Bonsai Club President was also engaged to
work on the bonsai to bring them up to display standard and to train Council
staff in their ongoing care.
2.10 The
consultant designers reviewed the Masterplan and its objectives. They
recommended:
· Creating a unique identity and new
activity centre for the bonsai/shade house by combining the shade house and
bonsai house projects in a new facility separate from the Peter Black
Conservatory,
· Strengthening the central wayfinding
spine of the park through a strong link from Central Energy Trust Wildbase
Recovery/duck pond to the exotic aviaries, paddling pool, and picnic lawn space
by arranging the pedestrian circulation between the buildings, and
· Improving accessibility to the
café by providing a direct route to and across the road rather than the
current ‘dog-legged’ arrangement which requires those with mobility
issues to move along the road rather than cross it as shown in Figure Three.
Figure Three: Existing courtyard, paths and
shade house
2.11 Figure
Four shows the proposed new layout with improved wayfinding and activity
centre. The dashed red line indicates the approximate extent of the
works.
Figure Four: Concept plan showing location and
extent of work
2.12 A
Councillor workshop on the various Masterplan projects was held in February
2020. During discussions on the bonsai/shade house, Councillors indicated
they wished to see a large high-quality facility and were supportive of fundraising
for any budget shortfall. The feasibility of the fundraising was unknown
at this point as detailed cost estimates had not been prepared.
2.13 A funding
application was made to the Provincial Growth Fund for the project in July
2020. The Council was notified in September 2020 that the application had been
declined.
2.14 Detailed
design was completed and reviewed in late 2020/early 2021. A render of the
design is provided in Attachment One.
2.15 Building
consent has been applied for and consent is expected shortly.
2.16 In
December 2020 a further 18 bonsai were donated from another deceased estate,
taking the collection to a total of 58 trees. The trees range in quality
but under the guidance of the Bonsai Club President, the collection is developing
towards the standard needed for public display.
3. The
Victoria Esplanade masterplan
3.1 The
Victoria Esplanade Masterplan can be found on Councils website https://www.pncc.govt.nz/council-city/official-documents/plans/victoria-esplanade-masterplan/
3.2 ‘It
is envisaged that as each project is completed, it will not only be an
attraction in itself, but will also have enriched the character of the park and
enhanced the enjoyment people have within it.’ (Masterplan, page
9). The desired outcomes sought allowing flexibility, respecting the values,
involving the community and using the Masterplan.
3.3 Strategic
overlays for implementation include circulation, signage, planting, and
architecture. These are ‘park wide considerations that will influence the
development outcomes in each area’ (Masterplan, Page 19).
3.4 Circulation
opportunities and considerations include reinforcing key arterial paths,
developing key axis and focal points, improving visual connection for
wayfinding, enhancing pedestrian connections, and aligning key paths or
transition zones.
3.5 The
Masterplan included 81 actions for implementation.
3.6 A
list of the projects for implementation under Programme 1847 and their timing
is provided in Attachment Two.
3.7 The
Park Road entry to the Victoria Esplanade is planned separately under Programme
1081. Construction is due to commence at the writing of this report.
3.8 In
the Draft 2021 Ten Year Plan, the upgrade of the exotic aviaries is included
within programmes 1838 and 2012, with construction planned in two stages in
2022/23 and 2027/28.
3.9 The
Draft 2021 Ten Year Plan also includes Programme 1890 – Esplanade Master
Plan Stage Two. This programme provides for minor adjustments to the funding
provided in Programme 1847, totalling $38k over the ten years period of the
Ten-Year Plan.
4. Description
of options
4.1 Options
for the project are presented in two groups. Consideration is first given
to the project scope. Following the scope, options for funding each scope
option is then considered.
Figure Five visualises the approach
taken to options.
Figure Five:
Visualisation of options
4.2 Scope
Option 1: Continue with the project as designed, with a cost of
$880,000
4.3 Option
One is marked D in Figure Five. Under Option One the project would
continue to the scale and scope designed, as shown in Attachment One. This is
approximately $650,000 over the combined shade house and bonsai house budgets
of $234,000.
4.4 The
full range of benefits would be achieved, including:
· The shade house would be repositioned
to improve wayfinding in the park, allowing a coordinated hub of entrances for
Central Energy Trust Wildbase Recovery, the Peter Black Conservatory and the
shade/bonsai house.
· The existing courtyard would be
relocated to be positioned between the buildings, allowing for a connection to
the central lawn area and improved sight lines on the main route between the
playground and the paddling pool.
· Accessibility to the café would
be improved, removing the current dog leg section that requires people to
traverse along the road.
· Separating the shade house from the
conservatory and combining it with the bonsai house creates a new activity
centre in the Victoria Esplanade.
· The level of service for the shade
house would increase, with higher quality design, materials, accessibility, and
security.
· The bonsai house is completed to a
high standard as an adjunct to the shade house, providing for the display of a
new type of plant collection.
· The cost also covers diversion of
services.
4.5 There
are three options for funding Option 1:
4.5.1 Option
1(A): Seek $150,000 external funding, provide a new capital budget
of $500,000
· Council would seek external support of
$150,000 for the development. As per Section 7 officers believe this is
an achievable target. A larger target would increase the risk of the funding
target not being met.
· Council provides a new capital budget
of $500,000 to enable the project to proceed, without affecting other planned
works in the overall Masterplan implementation programme. The associated
financing cost of the new capital is $25,000 per year.
4.5.2 Option 1(B):
Seek $150,000 external funding, reprioritise the Masterplan
implementation programme 1847 and bring forward $500,000 from 2026/27 to
2027/28
4.5.3 Under Funding
Option B Council would seek to stay within the overall budget set for the
implementation of the Masterplan. Officers have reviewed the project list for
Programme 1847 and highlighted eight projects, totalling $500K, that could be
left unfunded.
4.5.4 The projects
are described in Table One and highlighted within the overall workplan in
Attachment Two. These eight projects would become unfunded until such
time as the Masterplan and/or Ten-Year Plan was reviewed.
Table One:
Proposed projects to cancel in order to bring funding forward
|
Project
|
Description
|
|
Victoria’s
Garden (Arboretum) - $300,000
|
|
1. Arboretum focal
point/hub $100,000, (2026/27)
|
An architectural
feature at the end of the new path.
|
|
2. Arboretum
Fitzherbert Avenue $25,000 (2026/27)
|
Connection of new path
to Fitzherbert Avenue improved.
|
|
3. Arboretum southern
access path $145,000 (2027/28)
|
New main path to create
one single avenue (removal of other paths).
|
|
4. Enhance
views/access to river from key points $30,000 (2027/28)
|
|
|
Rose
Gardens - $72,500
|
|
5. Croquet/café
carpark to rose gardens access $22,500
|
Some minor enhancement
to the entrance to make it more prominent from the car park behind the
café.
|
|
6. Rose gardens -
Underground pond pump station $50,000
|
The Masterplan proposed
undergrounding the pump. This has not been scoped in any detail and
there is some risk it will cost more than budgeted. Feedback on the
proposal notes that the current pump shed provides elevation in the gardens
which is often used for taking photos. It is also noted that underground
pump stations make maintenance and access more difficult.
|
|
Play Area -
$50,000
|
|
7. Play features in
play zone $200,000. Reduce by $50,000 (2026/27)
|
The scale of playground
enhancement would be reduced by 25%. There are no specific plans in
place, with plans dependant on coordination with renewals and play
opportunities and trends considered at the time.
|
|
Native
Forest Area - $45,000
|
|
8. Enhance bush/park
central connection $45,000 (2027/28)
|
There are wayfinding
and accessibility improvements planned for earlier years. These are budgeted
for separately and include a level pedestrian crossing from the central area
near the exotic aviaries to the native bush area. The native forest
budget of $45,000 was to consider further enhancements to the path network
associated with that connection point.
|
|
Contingencies
- $32,500
|
|
9. 2026/27 year
– bring forward $10,000 out of $39,200
|
Given programmes bought
forward, also bring forward a portion of the contingency allowance.
|
|
10. 2027/28 year – bring
forward $22,500 out of $39,800
|
Given programmes bought
forward, also bring forward a portion of the contingency allowance.
|
|
TOTAL - $500,000
|
|
4.5.5 The major
effect of the proposed reprioritisation would be on improvements planned in the
area known as the arboretum or Victoria’s Garden, shown in purple in
Figure Six.
Figure Six:
Masterplan character areas
4.5.6 These are
projects 1 to 4 in Table One and are shown in Figure Seven below. These
projects are interrelated and would likely be bundled as one overall design and
construction project.
Figure Seven:
Projects that would be unfunded
4.5.7 Design work has
not been completed for the projects proposed to be re-prioritised. There
is a risk that the costs will be higher than indicative budgets currently
allow. If Council is of a mind to set these projects aside then it will
also be reducing the risk that higher costs will be added at future Asset
Management Plan and 10 Year Plan revisions.
4.5.8 The financing
costs associated with the $500,000 brought forward of $25,000 per year would
also need to come forward, from 2026/27 to 2022/23.
4.5.9 Option 1(C):
Provide an additional new capital budget of $650,000
4.5.10 This option has the
benefit of removing the risk associated with external funding. It would
also enable the project to commence sooner.
4.5.11 This funding option has no
impact on other projects included in the wider Masterplan implementation.
4.5.12 Approval of a new capital
budget of $650,000 could occur as part of the 2021/31 Ten Year Planning
process, with an associated financing cost of $32,000 per annum.
4.6 Option
2: Change Scope - Continue the shade house as designed, and remove the
bonsai house, costing $700,000
4.7 Option
Two is marked C in Figure Five. Under this option, all the benefits of
Option 1, as detailed in section 4.4, would be achieved except for the bonsai
house development.
· Council
would seek to reduce the cost of the project by removing the bonsai house
component, saving $180,000.
· Council
could seek to return the bonsai to the families who donated them or find
another public institution that may wish to display them or sell them.
4.8 There
are two options for funding scope option 2:
4.8.1 Option
2(A): Reprioritise Masterplan implementation and bring forward $470,000
of funding
4.8.2 External
fundraising is not considered realistic for this option.
4.8.3 Council would
seek to stay within the overall budget set for the implementation of the
Masterplan. Funding of $470,000 would be brought forward.
4.8.4 Only $30,000 of
the projects listed in Table One would be funded with the remaining $470,000
unfunded until such time as the masterplan and/or Ten-Year Plan was reviewed.
4.8.5 The financing
costs associated with the $470,000 brought forward of $24,000 per year would
also need to come forward, from 2026/27 to 2022/23.
4.9 Option
2(B): Provide an additional new capital budget of $470,000
4.9.1 This option has
the benefit of removing the risk associated with external funding. It
would also enable the project to commence sooner.
4.9.2 This funding
option has no impact on other projects included in the wider Masterplan
implementation.
4.9.3 Approval of a
new capital budget of $470,000 could occur as part of the 2021/31 Ten Year
Planning process, with an associated financing cost of $24,000 per annum.
4.10 Option
3: Change Scope – improve the existing shade house on its existing
footprint, with modest bonsai display within the shade house, costing $530,000
4.11 Option 3
is a combination of B and C in Figure 5.
4.12 If the
cost of the project as scoped is determined to outweigh the benefits, this
alternate option provides the Council with the ability to display bonsai and
subtropical plants at a reduced overall project cost.
4.13 This
option involved rebuilding the shade house on its existing footprint which
removes the cost of the external wayfinding and service relocation works.
4.14 The area
allocated to the subtropical plant display would be reduced to provide space
for a bonsai display area within the same shade house footprint.
4.15 Significant
redesign of the project would be required to fit the new structure in with the
Peter Black Conservatory.
4.16 Some improvements
would be made to the shade house. A higher roof line in parts of the
building would be provided, hard surface paths to improve accessibility, and a
security system for the bonsai.
4.17 The
planned wayfinding and accessibility improvements to the café would not
be delivered.
4.18 The
quality of the bonsai display would be significantly reduced from that
currently scoped.
4.19 Option
3 Funding: Provide additional new capital funding of $410,000
4.20 The
remaining unspent budget is $120,000, leaving a budget shortfall of $410,000.
4.21 The
$110,000 expended to date on design would be written off as an operational
expense as a new design would be required.
4.22 Option
4: Change scope to replace the shade house on its existing footprint and
quality, with no provision to display bonsai, costing $510,000
4.23 Option 4
is represented by B in Figure Five.
4.24 Option 4
is a replacement of the shade house in its current location. The benefits
and costs are the same as Option 3, but there would be no bonsai displayed
enabling all the existing sub-tropical display in the current shade house to be
retained. The security system for the bonsai would not be required.
4.25 Option
4 Funding: Provide additional renewal funding of $390,000
4.26 The
remaining unspent budget is $120,000, leaving a budget shortfall of $390,000,
to be funded through renewals.
4.27 The
$110,000 expended to date on design would be written off as an operational
expense as a new design would be required.
4.28 Option
5: Change scope - Bonsai house only, decommission the shade house,
costing $265,000
4.29 Option
Five is the combination of A and F in Figure Five.
4.30 Council
would reduce the overall cost by removing the shade house, the display of
sub-tropical plants it houses, and building the bonsai house as an alternative
facility.
4.31 The
wayfinding and accessibility improvements would not be realised.
4.32 There
would be a new type of plant display but no overall improvement in the number
or quality of botanic displays, given one display would be substituted for
another.
4.33 Redesign
would be required to account for the changed location and different context of
facilities to integrate with. There is some risk around cost given no
design has been completed at any level.
4.34 Option
5 Funding: Provide additional new capital funding of $145,000
4.35 The
remaining unspent budget is $120,000, leaving a budget shortfall of $145,000,
to be funded through renewals.
4.36 The
$110,000 expended to date on design would be written off as an operational
expense as a new design would be required.
4.37 Option
6: Decommission the shade house and do not build the bonsai house,
convert area to gardens, costing $50,000
4.38 This
option is a combination of A and G in Figure Five.
4.39 Council would
reduce the capital, renewal and operational costs. This is the lowest
cost option.
4.40 Council
would decommission the shade house and make good the front of the Peter Black
Conservatory. The vacated area would be converted to a garden bed and a hard
surface path added.
4.41 The bonsai
house would not proceed, and the plants would be returned, rehomed or sold.
4.42 Option
6 Funding: Decommission the Shade House and do not build the Bonsai House
4.43 The
indicative cost of this option is $50,000 for demolition, securing the front of
the Peter Black Conservatory, establishing outdoor garden beds in place of the
shade house, providing a paved path, relocating and updating signage.
4.44 The costs
would be coved by existing capital budgets and a balance of approximately
$78,000 would be declared surplus.
4.45 This
option would result in annual savings of $6,000 of operational costs for the
display of the bonsai. The staff time for caring for the specialised
sub-tropical display in the shade house would be directed to other activities
in the Victoria Esplanade.
4.46 The
$110,000 expended to date on design would be written off as an operational
expense as a new design would be required.
5. Analysis
of options
5.1 Table
Two summarises the six options, their funding options, and the associated
costs, benefits and risks.
Table Two: Summary of options
|
Option
|
Financial
|
Benefits
|
Risks
|
|
Option
1: Current scope
Funding Option A
|
$880,000
project cost
- Existing
budget $230,000
- Fundraise
$150,000
- New
capital budget in 10 Year Plan $500,000
Annual finance
cost of $25,000
New operational
costs of $6,000 per year
|
Achieves high quality
sub-tropical and bonsai displays.
Achieves wayfinding
improvements.
Some external funding
secured, reducing borrowing.
Renews assets.
|
Cost escalation during
the fundraising period.
Delay in the project
start date is longer than expected.
The fundraising target
is not achieved.
Increases Council
borrowing levels.
|
|
Option 1: Current
scope
Funding Option B
|
$880,000
project cost
- Existing
budget $230,000
- Fundraise
$150,000
- Reprioritise
Programme 1847 and bring forward existing budget of $500,000
Annual finance
cost of $25,000
New operational
costs of $6,000 per year
|
Achieves high quality sub-tropical
and bonsai displays.
Achieves wayfinding
improvements.
Some external funding
secured reducing borrowing.
Stays within current
funding envelope of the draft 2021 LTP.
Renews assets.
|
Cost escalation during
the fundraising period.
Delay in the project
start date is longer than expected.
The fundraising target
is not achieved.
Impacts implementation
of the Masterplan.
|
|
Option 1: Current
scope
Funding Option C
|
$880,000
project cost
- Existing
budget $230,000
- New
capital budget in 10 Year Plan $650,000
Annual finance
cost of $32,000
New operational
costs of $6,000 per year
|
Achieves high quality
sub-tropical and bonsai displays.
Achieves wayfinding
improvements.
Renews assets.
Project can commence
without delay.
|
Cost escalation during
the fundraising period.
Increases Council
borrowing levels.
|
|
Option
2:
Continue as designed,
without bonsai house
Funding Option A
|
$700,000
project cost
- Existing
budget $230,000
- Programme
1847 and bring forward existing budget of $470,000
Annual finance
cost of $24,000
|
Achieves high quality
sub-tropical display.
Achieves the wayfinding
improvements.
Less operational costs
than Option 1.
|
Does meet project
objective for a bonsai display.
Reputational risk
associated with returning/selling gifted bonsai.
Impacts other projects
in the Masterplan.
|
|
Option
2:
Continue as designed,
without bonsai house
Funding Option B
|
$700,000
project cost
- Existing
budget $230,000
- New
capital budget of $470,000
Annual finance
cost of $24,000
|
Achieves high quality
sub-tropical display.
Achieves the wayfinding
improvements.
Less capital and
operational costs than Option 1.
|
Does meet project
objective for a bonsai display.
Reputational risk
associated with returning/selling gifted bonsai.
Increases Council
borrowing levels.
|
|
Option 3:
Replace shade house,
modest bonsai display within shade house
|
$530,000
project cost
- Existing
budget $120,000
- New
capital budget of $410,000
Annual finance
cost of $21,000
Write off $110,000
cost incurred to date to operational expense
|
Renews the shade house
and provides a modest bonsai display.
Lower capital cost than
Options 1 and 2.
|
Reputational risk with
supporters of the bonsai house.
Increases Council
borrowing levels.
|
|
Option 4:
Replace shade house,
no bonsai display
|
$510,000
project cost
- Existing
budget $120,000
- New
renewals budget of $390,000
0.13% impact on
rates
Write off $110,000
cost incurred to date to operational expense
|
Renews the Shade House
with a modest Bonsai display.
Lower capital cost than
Options 1-3.
|
Does meet project
objective for a bonsai display.
Reputational risk
associated with returning/selling gifted bonsai.
Increases Council
borrowing levels.
|
|
Option 5:
Decommission the
shade house, build a bonsai house
|
$265,000 project cost
- Existing
renewals budget $45,000
- New
capital budget of $220,000
Annual finance
cost of $11,000
Write off $110,000
cost incurred to date to operational expense
|
Achieves high quality
bonsai display.
Addresses the end of
life issues associated with the current shade house.
Lower capital cost than
Options 1-4.
|
Does meet project
objective for renewing the shade house.
Reputational damage with
current visitors* to the shade house and supporters of the subtropical
collection.
Increases Council
borrowing levels.
|
|
Option 6:
Decommission the
shade house, do not build the bonsai house
|
$50,000
project cost
- Existing
budget $120,000
- Capital
surplus $70,000
|
Reduces Council’s
operational, renewal and capital costs.
Addresses the end of
life issues associated with the current shade house.
This is the lowest cost
option.
|
Does not achieve the
project objectives.
Does not achieve
wayfinding improvements planned.
Reputational damage with
current visitors to the shade house and supporters of the shade and bonsai
house.
|
*The
shade house/conservatory has approximately 60,000
visitors per annum.
5.2 A
risk for all options is that the cost of carrying out the works escalates or is
more expensive than estimated. Estimates for Options 1 through 5 include
allowances for escalations and contingencies. The estimate for Option 6
includes an allowance for contingencies.
6. Financial
sumMAry
6.1 Project
Costs
6.1.1 A quantity
surveyor’s report (QS) for the bonsai/shade house was prepared in
December 2020 with the total cost estimated at $880,000.
6.1.2 Components of
the build are identified in Table Three.
Table Three:
Summary of options
|
Component
|
Total
|
|
Site preparation
including demolition
|
$
25,800
|
|
Services including
drainage, security and irrigation
|
$
54,325
|
|
Planting and garden beds
|
$
27,500
|
|
Exterior paths and
courtyard surfaces and car park modifications
|
$
59,600
|
|
Furniture including
signs, seats, fountains
|
$
45,725
|
|
Structure including
roof, walls, floors, doors
|
$ 361,425
|
|
Preliminary, general,
and margins
|
$
88,625
|
|
Fees including project
management and consultants
|
$ 108,000
|
|
Regulatory fees
|
$
8,000
|
|
Contingency and
Escalations
|
$ 101,000
|
|
Total
|
$
880,000
|
6.1.3 The total cost
includes an allowance of $80,000 for contingencies and $21,000 for escalations.
6.1.4 Of the overall
cost of $880,000, $110,000 has already been expended on investigations,
designs, consents and project management.
6.1.5 Further
expenditure of $778,000 is required to complete the project.
6.1.6 The budget
provision for the replacement of the shade house and the construction of the
bonsai house is $230,000. With $110,000 spent to date, the amount of
remaining budget available is $120,000.
6.2 There
is a $650,000 funding gap to complete the project as currently designed.
6.2.1 There is little
opportunity to further value engineer the design to reduce costs. During
the detailed design development, the following value engineering decisions to
constrain costs were made:
· Reducing the
area of hard surfaces initially proposed by the design consultant
· Limiting the
scope to exclude the level crossing to the café which was initially
proposed in the package from the design consultant
· Limiting the
number of seats in the courtyard area
· Requesting a
modest wind lobby/entry to the Peter Black Conservatory which is exposed by the
relocation of the shade house
· Recycling some
existing pavers
6.2.2 The project
team have identified further potential savings in the order of $20,000 to
$40,000. These savings would result in a reduction in the quality/benefits of
the project, for example, if the drinking fountain is excluded from the
project. It is not recommended that these potential savings be pursued.
6.3 Components
of the total cost
6.3.1 There are three
components integrated into the one project:
Shade house replacement* 52%
$462,000
Bonsai house* 26% $228,000
External works for wayfinding and
accessibility*# 22% $190,000
Total cost 100% $880,000
*
Fees and generic costs have been proportioned across the project component
costs
# paths, courtyard
between the buildings, landscaping, drinking fountain
7. External
Fundraising and timing assumptions
7.1 Council
discussion during the workshop in February 2020 indicated a desire to have a
larger bonsai display and pursue external fundraising.
7.2 At
this time the concept plans had been costed at $630,000. The exclusions
in the cost estimate, including project management and contingencies, meant the
total likely outturn cost at this time was at least 20% more. The concept
design was still being worked on and value engineering options were to be
considered.
7.3 An
application was made to the Provincial Growth Fund but was unsuccessful.
7.4 Recent
Council projects that have set fundraising objectives have proved difficult to
achieve.
7.5 The
Funding Specialist and Relationships Manager does not consider it realistic for
the Council to fundraise the $650,000 unsecured funds needed to complete the
project, which represents 74% of the total project cost.
7.6 Large
funders often require a minimum 1/3rd of the project funding to be
in place before an application will be accepted. A further $64,000 of
council funding would be required to fund 1/3rd of the project cost.
7.7 Historically
projects where 1/3rd of the Council funding is in place have been
supported by a major community-led fundraising effort to raise 1/3rd
of the cost, which has then supported major grant funding applications for the
final 1/3rd.
7.8 The
bonsai/shade house project has numerous supporters associated with the Victoria
Esplanade, but they do not have the capacity or means to undertake a
substantial fundraising campaign.
7.9 Council’s
Funding Specialist and Relationships Manager suggests that a realistic target
for fundraising is $150,000. He notes:
- There may be
the opportunity for some private sector sponsorship and donations.
- There is an
opportunity to seek support from Lotteries in the 2nd round of the
Community Facilities Fund.
- Funding at
the $150,000 level could be secured through a range of smaller scale funders,
and not rely solely on a large contribution from a single funder like
Lotteries.
7.10 Securing
external funds for the project will take twelve months, delaying construction
until Year Two of the 2021/31 Ten Year Plan.
7.11 The
bonsai/shade house project cannot be completed in the 2020/21 financial year as
planned.
8. Conclusion
8.1 Council
has sought to provide a high-quality facility for the display of bonsai for the
collection currently in storage at the Council nursery and a quality
replacement for the current shade house which has reached the end of its life.
8.2 The
Victoria Esplanade Masterplan has lifted the community expectations of the
quality of new and replaced features. The Masterplan also has a focus on
improving wayfinding through the park and supporting pedestrians and
accessibility.
8.3 The
budget allowances for implementing a programme of works to redevelop the
Esplanade was made in 2015. This was before the Masterplan was developed,
levels of service were determined, and designs completed. The cost of achieving
the objectives and benefits contained within the Masterplan are higher than the
current budget provision.
8.4 Council’s
Funding Specialist and Relationships Manager advises that $150,000 is an
achievable fundraising target. This is well short of the level of external
funding required to complete the Bonsai/Shade House with the current scope and
budget. Therefore, officer recommendation is that the project is considered as
new capital, to enable work to continue on delivering the assets.
8.5 The
project scope aligns well with the objectives and benefits contained within the
Masterplan. The design has been developed over many months in conjunction with
stakeholders and has been value engineered to minimise project costs without
impacting on benefits. It is recommended that Council consider either this
option, or a lower cost outcome which achieves the housing of both bonsai and
shade plants, but that doesn’t meet the wider aspirations of the Victoria
Esplanade Masterplan.
8.6 It
is recommended that Council determine the proposed scope it wishes to pursue as
part of its deliberations on the 2021/31 Ten Year Plan and pursues $150,000 of
external funding.
9. Next
actions
9.1 Consider
funding options for the bonsai/shade house as part of the deliberations on the
2021-31 Ten Year Plan.
10. Outline
of community engagement process
10.1 The bonsai
house was a project in the 2018-28 Ten Year Plan. Nine submissions were
received specifically commenting on the bonsai project. Five were in
support and four opposed the programme.
10.2 Community
engagement occurred during the development of the Victoria Esplanade
Masterplan. The bonsai/shade house project is an element of implementing
that plan.
10.3 The design
of the bonsai/shade house included consultation with the Manawatu Bonsai Club
and engagement with the Victoria Esplanade User Group.
10.4 The
Victoria Esplanade User Group have been advised that the project was being
reported back to Council due to cost and funding issues. They have not
been consulted on the possible reprioritisation of the Victoria Esplanade
Masterplan projects or the options to only renew or decommission the shade
house. Consultation with the User Group can be carried out if Council chooses
to fund the project by reprioritising the existing Masterplan implementation
budgets.
Compliance and administration
|
Does the Committee have
delegated authority to decide?
|
No
|
|
Are the decisions significant?
|
No
|
|
If they are significant do they
affect land or a body of water?
|
No
|
|
Can this decision only be made
through a 10 Year Plan?
|
No
|
|
Does this decision require
consultation through the Special Consultative procedure?
|
No
|
|
Is there funding in the current
Annual Plan for these actions?
|
No
|
|
Are the recommendations
inconsistent with any of Council’s policies or plans?
|
No
|
|
The recommendations contribute
to Goal 2: A Creative and Exciting City
|
|
The recommendations contribute
to the outcomes of the Creative and Liveable Strategy
|
|
The recommendations contribute
to the achievement of action/actions in the Active Community Plan
The action is: Implement
projects from approved Master Plans, Reserve Management Plans and Development
Plans (Page 10)
|
|
Contribution to strategic
direction and to social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being
|
The bonsai/shade house
development was contemplated and approved in the Victoria Esplanade
Masterplan. It provides a unique visitor designation and horticultural
display experience. The project also improves accessibility and
wayfinding within the Victoria Esplanade.
|
|
|
|
Attachments
|
1.
|
Bonsai and Shade House Design Render ⇩ 
|
|
|
2.
|
Masterplan Work Plan ⇩ 
|
|
