Agenda of Ordinary Council meeting - Monday, 28 April 2025

Extraordinary Council meeting minutes

11 March 2025

A logo of a company

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

MINUTES

Extraordinary Council meeting

Tuesday, 11 March 2025

Order of Business

1 Opening karaka. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Acceptance of late items. 3

4 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 3

5 Change to the order of business. 3

6 Declaration of conflicts of interest 3

7 Business. 3

7.1 Draft Budget and Rating Policy for the Annual Plan Consultation. 4

8 Discussion of late items. 7

9 Closing karakia. 7

Resolutions transferred into the open section of the meeting after discussion. 7

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Extraordinary Council meeting

HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council, Ground Floor Meeting Rooms 1 & 1b, 306 Cameron Road, Tauranga

ON Tuesday, 11 March 2025 AT 10:00am

PRESENT: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler, Cr Rod Taylor

IN ATTENDANCE: Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (Chief Financial Officer), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Community Services), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance), Alastair McNeill (General Manager: Corporate Services), Sarah Omundsen (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: City Development & Partnerships), Jim Taylor ( Manager: Rating Policy & Revenue), Kathryn Sharplin ( Manager: Finance), Tracey Hughes ( Financial Insights and Reporting Manager) Clare Sullivan (Team Leader: Governance Services), Caroline Irvin (Governance Advisor).

Timestamps are included beside each of the items and relate to the recording of the meeting held on 11 March 2025 at Council Website.

1 Opening karaka

Cr Steve Morris opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

Nil

3 Acceptance of late items

Nil

4 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

5 Change to the order of business

Nil

6 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

7 Business

TIMESTAMP 13:09

7.1 Draft Budget and Rating Policy for the Annual Plan Consultation

Staff Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Jim Taylor, Manager: Rating Policy & Revenue

Tracey Hughes, Financial Insights and Reporting Manager

Changes to recommendations:

· The Mayor moved a motion with changes to the recommendations in the report noting that staff and elected members were continuing to look for savings, to smooth out the allocation of the general rates between residential, commercial and industrial and to establish a working group to undertake a review of operational costs and service levels.

A MOTION WAS PROPOSED

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Draft Budget and Rating Policy for the Annual Plan Consultation ".

(b) In respect of the draft operating budget and rates requirement for consultation:

(i) Agrees to an overall rates increase after growth arising from the proposed budget of 12.5% noting that this includes up to $1.3m of placeholder budget savings to be identified in budgets prior to the adoption of the annual plan,

(c) Agrees that the additional rates funded savings of $8.3m (equivalent to 2.5% decrease in rates) to be considered for inclusion in the 2025/26 Annual Plan, with further savings targets pursued through the 2026/27 annual plan and subsequent annual or long term plans.

(d) In respect of rating policy, agrees to continue with the Long-term Plan decision to move to a fixed proportion of the general rates for each rating category and change the proportions for the residential rating category to 65%, the Commercial rating category to 15% and the industrial rating category to 20% by the 2027/28 rating year.

(e) Agrees for the 2025/2026 rating year the allocation of the general rates will be:

· Residential category 66.5%

· Commercial category 14.3

· Industrial category 19.2%

(f) Agrees the commercial and industrial rating category general rates allocation of 15% and 20% will be fully phased in by the 2027/2028 rating year.

(g) Notes that a rates increase of 12.5% is 0.5% higher than the rates limit adopted in the financial strategy of the 2024/34 Long Term Plan however that limit excluded the second Infrastructure Funding and Financing levy of 2.2%.

(h) Establishes a working group comprising the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Chief Executive, Chief Financial Officer and councillors to undertake a detailed review of operational costs and service levels. The purpose of the working group is to identify further cost savings to reduce the proposed rates increase. The working group will report back with recommendations prior to the adoption of the Annual Plan 2025/26.

At 11.50am the meeting adjourned.

At 12.23pm the meeting reconvened.

AN AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the proposed resolution (c) be amended to read:

(c) Agrees to additional placeholder savings to achieve a 9.9% rate revenue increase be applied to the final 2025/26 Annual Plan.

FOR: Cr Glen Crowther and Cr Rick Curach

AGAINST: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Shuler and Cr Rod Taylor

LOST

Resolution CO/25/4/1

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Draft Budget and Rating Policy for the Annual Plan Consultation ".

(f) Agrees the commercial and industrial rating category general rates allocation of 15% and 20% will be fully phased in by the 2027/2028 rating year.

CARRIED

Resolution CO/25/4/2

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(b) In respect of the draft operating budget and rates requirement for consultation:

FOR: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Shuler and Cr Rod Taylor

AGAINST: Cr Steve Morris, Cr Glen Crowther and Cr Rick Curach

Carried

Motion

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(e) Agrees for the 2025/2026 rating year the allocation of the general rates will be:

· Residential category 66.5%

· Commercial category 14.3

· Industrial category 19.2%

FOR: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Marten Rozeboom,

AGAINST: Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Kevin Shuler and Cr Rod Taylor

LOST

Resolution CO/25/4/3

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(e) Agrees for the 2025/2026 rating year the allocation of the general rates will be:

· Residential category 66. %

· Commercial category 14.8%

· Industrial category 19.2%

FOR: Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Kevin Shuler and Cr Rod Taylor

AGAINST: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Marten Rozeboom

Carried

8 Discussion of late items

Nil

9 Closing karakia

Cr Morris closed the meeting with a karakia

The meeting closed at 12.43 pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Ordinary meeting of the Tauranga City Council held on 24 March 2025.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council meeting minutes

24 March 2025

MINUTES

Ordinary Council meeting

Monday, 24 March 2025

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 4

2 Apologies. 4

3 Public forum.. 4

4 Acceptance of late items. 6

4.1 Resolution to accept late items. 6

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 6

5.1 Resolution to move Public Exlcuded items to Public. 6

6 Change to the order of business. 6

7 Confirmation of minutes. 7

7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 February 2025. 7

7.2 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 3 March 2025. 7

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 7

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions. 7

Nil

10 Recommendations from other committees. 7

Nil

11 Business. 8

11.1 Draft Development Contributions Policy 2025/26. 8

11.2 Adoption of Supporting Material and Consultation Document - Annual Plan 2025/26. 8

11.3 Local Water Done Well - Adoption of Consultation Document and Update on Progress 9

11.4 Street Dining License to Occupy Implementation Plan. 11

11.5 Transport Resolutions Report: 54. 11

11.6 Remuneration for Tangata Whenua Representatives Appointed to Three Standing Committees. 12

11.7 Appointment of Tangata Whenua representatives to standing committees. 13

11.8 Appointments to the Board - Bay Venues Limited, the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust and Tourism Bay of Plenty. 14

12 Discussion of late items. 15

13 Public excluded session. 15

13.1 Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 February 2025. 16

13.2 Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 February 2025. 16

13.3 Information on the Appointment of Tangata Whenua representatives to standing committees. 16

13.7 In formation on the Appointments to the Board - Bay Venues Limited, the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust and Tourism Bay of Plenty. 17

14 Closing karakia. 17

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council meeting

HELD AT THE Bay of Plenty Regional Council Chambers, Regional House, 1 Elizabeth Street, Tauranga

ON Monday, 24 March 2025 AT 9.30am

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler, Cr Rod Taylor

IN ATTENDANCE:

Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (Chief Financial Officer), Nic Johansson (General Manager: Infrastructure), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: City Development & Partnerships), Ben Corbett (Team Leader: Growth Funding), Andrew Mead (Manager: City Planning and Growth), Kathryn Sharplin (Manager Finance), Tracey Hughes (Financial Insights & Reporting Manager), Sarah Stewart (Principal Strategic Advisor), Stephen Burton (Transportation Lead – Water Services), Cathy Davidson (Manager: Directive Services), Shawn Geard (City Centre Infrastructure Lead), Karen Hay (Manager: Network Safety and Sustainability), Stacey Mareroa-Roberts (Manager: Strategic Māori Engagement), Ceilidh Dunphy (Community Relations Manager), (Coral Hair (Manager: Democracy & Governance Services), Clare Sullivan (Team Leader: Governance Services), Anahera Dinsdale (Governance Advisor),

Timestamps are included beside each of the items and relate to the recording of the meeting held on 24 March 2025

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlB76gN6HEk

1 Opening karakia

Cr Baker opened the meeting with a karakia

Mayor Drysdale noted the achievements of Sam Ruthe who became the first person under the age of 16 to run an impressive 4-minute mile and wished him all the best for his career.

2 Apologies

Nil

3 Public forum

3.1 Harris Williams – Mount Business Association

Timestamp: 0:05

Key Points

· Sought the removal or reconsideration of the new licence to occupy fees for the street dining as they place an unreasonable and disproportionate burden on all businesses not just at the Mount.

· Preferred outcome was to drop the fees altogether, but if they were to continue Mount Maunganui should be exempt or have the fees substantially reduced.

· The proposed charge of $150 per m² was the highest proposed charge by a large margin as it was linked to land value.

· Despite higher rates, there had been a lack of public investment to the streetscape, there had been no enhancements to the street amenities for over 25 years.

· Tauranga had seen upgrades specifically to enhance outdoor dining appeal and foot traffic.

· There had been no net analysis to determine if net profits rather than the turnover resulted in more profit for the businesses and had failed to meet the onground conditions or represent value for money.

· A reduced rate of $30 per m² for 2024/25 was still a significant cost to local businesses who had not previously paid the fee. The costs were detrimental and not sustainable as they were already grappling with increasing costs.

· Request that the fees not be imposed and only create a bylaw for safety and street amenity and rely on commercial rates to cover public infrastructure to serve commercial businesses or until such time as Council invests in upgrades to warrant an additional fee.

· Alternately apply a flat nominal fee across the whole Council, adjusted for public investment in that zone.

In response to questions

· In relation to a question relating to the businesses making money from the use of a Council asset, it was noted that it was the entrepreneurial vision of the businesses that had created an amenity in those spaces.

3.2 Jan Gyenge

Key Points

· Councillors were tasked to uphold democracy with accountability, transparency and integrity and asked if they were doing this.

In reponse to questions

· In relation to specifics the submitter would like Councillors to consider, she noted that it was the prime objective of what they were elected to do.

· Mayor Drysdale advised the Council were out in the community talking to people to do what was best for the city based on the information provided.

4 Acceptance of late items

4.1 Resolution to accept late items

Resolution CO/25/5/1

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the Council:

(a) Accepts the following late items for consideration at the meeting:

· Confirmation of the open part of the minutes of the Council meeting held on 3 March 2025

· Confirmation of the public excluded part of the minutes of the Council meeting held on 3 March 2025

· Appointment to Board - Bay Venues Limited, the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust and Tourism Bay of Plenty

(b) The above items were not included in the original agenda because it was not available at the time the agenda was issued, and discussion cannot be delayed until the next scheduled meeting.

Carried

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

5.1 Resolution to move Public Exlcuded items to Public

Resolution CO/25/5/2

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

That the Council:

Move the following items from public excluded to the public part of the meeting:

· Item13.3 Appointment of Tangata Whenua representatives to standing committees and

· Item 13.4 Appointment to Board – Bay Venues Limited, The Tauranga Art Gallery Trust and Tourism Bay of Plenty.

Carried

6 Change to the order of business

The Mayor noted that there were a number of separately circulated papers that contain attachments. They related to:

Item 7.2 Minutes of the meeting of 3 March 2025

Item 11.1 Draft Development Contributions Policy

Item 11.2 Adoption of Supporting Material and Consultation Document – Annual Plan 2025/26

Item 11.3 Local Water Done Well - Adoption of Consultation Document and Update on Progress

Item 13.5 Public Excluded Minutes of the meeting of 3 March 2025

7 Confirmation of minutes

7.1 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 February 2025

Resolution CO/25/5/3

Moved: Cr Hautapu Baker

Seconded: Cr Steve Morris

That the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 February 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

Carried

7.2 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 3 March 2025

Resolution CO/25/5/4

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

That the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 3 March 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record.

CARRIED

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions

Nil

10 Recommendations from other committees

Nil

11 Business

11.1 Draft Development Contributions Policy 2025/26

Timestamp: 28 minutes

Staff Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Growth and Governance

Ben Corbett, Team Leader: Growth Funding

Andy Mead. Manager: City Planning & Growth

Resolution CO/25/5/5

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Draft Development Contributions Policy 2025/26".

(b) Agrees to incorporate the proposed updates to local and citywide development contributions in the draft Development Contributions Policy 2025/26.

(c) Agrees to incorporate three new local development contributions catchments in the draft Development Contributions Policy 2025/26 for Tauriko Business Estate Stage 4, Tauriko West and Upper Ohauiti.

(d) Adopts the Statement of Proposal and draft Development Contributions Policy 2025/26 for the purposes of public consultation.

(e) Delegates authority to the General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance to make amendments to the draft Development Contributions Policy 2025/26 to correct minor errors in wording or financial information

Carried

11.2 Adoption of Supporting Material and Consultation Document - Annual Plan 2025/26

Timestamp: 47minutes

Staff: Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

Christine Jones. General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finane

Tracey Hughes, Financial Insights & Reporting Manager

Ceilidh Dunphy, Community Relations Manager

Reasons for decisions:

· Amendments were made to the consultation document as reflected in the resolution to provide additional explanations and better transparency with the cost of running the city, the operating expenditure, capital expenditure and the amount of staff and consultant costs.

Resolution CO/25/5/6

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Adoption of Supporting Material and Consultation Document - Annual Plan 2025/26".

(b) Agrees to the overall rates increase for the consultation document at 12% after growth which includes operational expenditure of $599m.

(c) Notes that the additional rates funded savings to be sought of $8.3m (equivalent to 2.5% decrease in rates), to be considered for inclusion in the 2025/26 Annual Plan, with further savings targets pursued through the 2026/27 annual plan and subsequent annual or long-term plans, has reduced to $6.7m due to higher growth assumptions.

(d) Adopts the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 supporting financial information.

(e) Adopts the Draft User Fees and Charges 2025/26 schedule and statement of proposal. Noting that the fees schedule will be updated to reflect the decision on the licence to occupy fees from the paper on this same agenda titled "Street Dining License to Occupy Implementation Plan."

(f) Adopts the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 consultation document (CD) content (attachment 3) and as tabled in the design version of the CD for public consultation from 28 March to 28 April 2025 subject to the inclusion of further information as follows:

(i) Include a section “cost of running the city” – high-level numbers including operating expenditure, capital expenditure, number of staff.

(ii) provide more detailed breakdown of the operating expenditure of $599M such as consultant costs, staff numbers.

(iii) add operational expenditure to the table on page 30 of the draft consultation document.

(iv) refer to a reduction in “council emissions” instead of “city emissions”.

(v) simplify the explanation of salary savings.

(vi) add average Residential, Commercial and Industrial rates increase figures as a footnote on page 29 of the Consultation Document, and/or on the page of the Financials appendix that shows rates increases.

(g) Authorises the Chief Executive to approve minor drafting, financial and presentation amendments to the Draft Annual Plan 2025/26 consultation document and any supporting documentation prior to printing if necessary.

Carried

At 11.38am the meeting adjourned.

At 11.52am the meeting reconvened.

11.3 Local Water Done Well - Adoption of Consultation Document and Update on Progress

Timestamp: 2 hours 23minutes

Staff Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance

Paul Davdson, Chief Financial Officer

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager Finance

Stephen Burton, Transformation Lead – Water Services

Cathy Davidson, Manager: Directorate Services

Resolution CO/25/5/7

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Local Water Done Well - Adoption of Consultation Document and Update on Progress".

(b) Agrees that if a multi-council controlled organisation is established, differences in prices across councils will be maintained to reflect the differences in investment, borrowing, and costs of service; and that any movement to price harmonisation should require an explicit resolution from TCC.

(d) Notes that the implications for TCC’s risk and credit rating are being further considered in line with the 9 December 2024 Council decisions to ensure any multi-council controlled organisation option is mutually beneficial, including for the multi-council controlled organisation and remaining TCC organisation.

(e) Adopts the Draft Why Wai Matters 2025 Consultation Document content (attachment 1) and Summary content (attachment 2) for public consultation, noting design versions are being developed.

(f) Authorises the General Manager Strategy, Growth and Governance to approve minor drafting, financial and presentation amendments to the Draft Why Wai Matters 2025 Consultation and Summary Documents if necessary.

Carried

Abstention: Cr Glen Crowther

Resolution CO/25/5/8

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(c) Notes that further financial modelling has been completed by both Martin Jenkins and the Department of Internal Affairs and that these both align with key conclusions from the Indicative Business Case adopted by Council on 9 December 2024.

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Crs Hautapu Baker, Rick Curach, Marten Rozeboom, Kevin Schuler and Rod Taylor

Against: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Crs Glen Crowther and Steve Morris

Carried

At 1.35pm the meeting adjourned.

At 2.10pm the meeting reconvened.

11.4 Street Dining License to Occupy Implementation Plan

Timestamp: 4hours 40minutes

Staff Nic Johannson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Shawn Geard, City Centre Infrastructure Lead

Reasons for decisions:

Changes were made to the recommendations to allow for a staged rollout to include charges for current areas this Annual Plan followed by a review of the bylaw. The proposed changes also provide a flat rate across all the zones with a 50% discount across all areas.

Resolution CO/25/5/9

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Street Dining License to Occupy Implementation Plan ".

Carried

Resolution CO/25/5/10

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Council:

(c) Approves Option 2a: Staged rollout to include charges for current areas this Annual Plan, followed by a review of the Street Use and Public Places Bylaw during FY26 in time for a full city implementation in the next Annual Plan.

Carried

Resolution CO/25/5/11

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Council

(e) Amend the user fees and charges schedule for street dining adopted by Council on 3 March 2025 with $100 per square metre at an 50% discount to apply to the areas covered by the bylaw from 1 July 2025.

In Favour: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Crs Hautapu Baker, Marten Rozeboom, Kevin Schuler and Rod Taylor

Against: Crs Jen Scoular, Glen Crowther, Rick Curach and Steve Morris

carried

11.5 Transport Resolutions Report: 54

Timestamp: 5 hours 51 minutes

Staff Nic Johannson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Karen Hay, Manager: Network Safety and Sustainability

Shawn Geard, City Centre Infrastructure Lead

Resolution CO/25/5/12

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Transport Resolutions Report: 54".

(b) Resolves to amend the Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2023 by adopting the proposed traffic and parking controls relating to new subdivisions and minor changes for general safety, operational or amenity purposes, as per Attachment A of this report.

(c) Confirms that parking on the ground floor of the Elizabeth Street carpark is P120 minutes, as per Attachment A of this report

(d) The changes are to become effective on or after the 25^th of March 2025 subject to installation of appropriate signs and road markings.

Carried

11.6 Remuneration for Tangata Whenua Representatives Appointed to Three Standing Committees

Timestamp: 6 hours 3 minutes

Staff Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance

Coral Hair, Manager: Democrary and Governance Services

Stacey Mareroa-Roberts, Manager: Strategic Māori Engagement

Reasons for decisions:

· Change to remove the maximum number of days per year. Mayor will note a list of approved duties

Resolution CO/25/5/13

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Remuneration for Tangata Whenua Representatives Appointed to Three Standing Committees".

(b) Approves remuneration for the Tangata Whenua representatives on the City Future Committee, the City Delivery Committee and the Audit and Risk Committee at

(i) $1,085 per Committee meeting, $542 per workshop or approved duties.

In Favour: Crs Mahé Drysdale, Jen Scoular, Hautapu Baker, Rick Curach, Kevin Schuler and Rod Taylor

Against: Crs Glen Crowther, Steve Morris and Marten Rozeboom

carried

At 4.05pm the meeting adjourned.

At 4.23pm the meeting reconvened.

The next two items were considered in the public part of the meeting

11.7 Appointment of Tangata Whenua representatives to standing committees

Timestamp: 6 hours 52 minutes

Staff Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance

Resolution CO/25/5/14

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Appointment of Tangata Whenua representatives to standing committees".

(b) Appoints the following Tangata Whenua representatives to the respective committees as set out below, based on the recommendations of Te Rangapū Mana Whenua o Tauranga Moana:

Committee	Name of representative
Audit and Risk Committee	Rohario Murray
City Future Committee	Arthur Flintoff
City Delivery Committee	Jacqui Rolleston-Steed

(b) Notes that attachments 1, 2 and 3, the CVs of the appointees, are to remain in confidential.

In Favour: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Crs Jen Scoular, Hautapu Baker, Glen Crowther, Rick Curach, Steve Morris, Kevin Schuler and Rod Taylor

Against: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Carried

11.8 Appointments to the Board - Bay Venues Limited, the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust and Tourism Bay of Plenty

Timestamp: 7 hours

Staff Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance

Reasons for decision:

· To enable further discussions with relevant parties and receive further infomration

Resolution CO/25/5/15

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Appointments to the Board - Bay Venues Limited, the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust and Tourism Bay of Plenty".

(b) That the item lies on the table until the Council meeting on 28 April 2025.

Carried

12 Discussion of late items

Nil

13 Public excluded session

Resolution to exclude the public

Resolution CO/25/5/16

Moved: Cr Hautapu Baker

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the public be excluded from the following parts of the proceedings of this meeting.

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 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
13.1 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 10 February 2025	s6(b) - The making available of the information would be likely to endanger the safety of any person s7(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 s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege s7(2)(h) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - 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
13.2 - Public Excluded Minutes of the Council meeting held on 24 February 2025	s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable Council to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations)	s48(1)(a) - 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
13.3 - Appointment of Tangata Whenua representatives to standing committees	s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons	s48(1)(a) - 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
13.4 - Appointments to the Board - Bay Venues Limited, the Tauranga Art Gallery Trust and Tourism Bay of Plenty	s7(2)(a) - The withholding of the information is necessary to protect the privacy of natural persons, including that of deceased natural persons	s48(1)(a) - 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

Noted that Item 13.3 and 13.4 were conducted in the open part of the meeting as items 11.7 and 11.8 respectively

14 Closing karakia

Cr Hautapu Baker closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 6.08pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 28 April 2025.

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

Mayor Mahé Drysdale

CHAIRPERSON

Extraordinary Council meeting minutes

25 March 2025

MINUTES

Extraordinary Council meeting

Tuesday, 25 March 2025

Order of Business

1 Opening karaka. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Acceptance of late items. 3

4 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 3

5 Change to the order of business. 4

6 Declaration of conflicts of interest 4

7 Business. 4

7.1 Draft Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw - Hearings. 4

8 Discussion of late items. 6

9 Closing karakia. 6

Resolutions transferred into the open section of the meeting after discussion. 6

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Extraordinary Council meeting

HELD AT THE Ground Floor, 306 Cameron Road , Tauranga

ON Tuesday, 25 March 2025 AT 4:00 pm

PRESENT: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler, Cr Rod Taylor

APOLOGIES: Cr Hautapu Baker

IN ATTENDANCE: Sarah Omundsen (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Clare Sullivan (Team Leader: Governance Services)

1 Opening karaka

Cr Kevin Schuler opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

2.1 Resolution to receive apologies

Resolution CO/25/0/1

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council

Accepts the apologies of Cr Hautapu Baker.

Carried

3 Acceptance of late items

Nil

4 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

5 Change to the order of business

Nil

6 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Cr Taylor noted that he was the holder of two liquor licences in the city he would observe but not

participate in the meeting or vote on the issue.

7 Business

7.1 Draft Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw - Hearings

Timestamp :04

Sebastian Miklos (via teams)

Key Points

· Had been an alcohol inspector for Auckland Council and the Ministry of Justice for 14 years.

· Congratulate TCC for a good bylaw, noting that ratepayers should not fund the process.

· People adjust to the reduced hours of licenced premises.

· A licence for a concert should not be the same as it was for a wedding.

Timestamp :09

Christine Gore – Vetro Mediterranean Foods

Key Points

· All in the industry were working towards reducing alcohol harm and were on the same side as Council.

· Would like to work together with Council to reduce cumbersome costs of licencing and streamline the costs that fell on the businesses.

· There was no assessment on the impact of the bylaw on businesses, some of which add character to the city may fail due to costs.

· Increasing costs could lead to some outlets pushing more sales to cover costs which would not be ideal.

· There was only a 20-22% retail margin on alcohol in resturants and taxes were already imposed on it.

In response to questions

· The submitter’s rates were already increasing by 17% and the businesses were contrtibuting to making Tauranga an attractive place to come to and ratepayers needed to be made aware of that.

Timestamp :17

Kerry McCaffery

Key Points

· There was currently an alcohol pandemic in Tauranga with 80% of adults drinking on a regular basis. 85% of drinkers were in the least deprived neighbourhoods.

· Much of drinks available had a high percentage of alcohol.

· Drink driving was common, many were not picked up and Police patrols needed to increase.

· Alcohol was now part of the weekly grocery shop.

· If an alcholic wants to stop drinking there was no safe place for them to go and they were taking up medical time. A medical detox centre was required in Tauranga.

Timestamp :24

Jennifer Lamm – Alcohol Healthwatch (via Teams)

Key Points

· Commend Council on the bylaw specific to alcohol licencing fees as it was another key measure to reduce alcohol related harm with enforcement.

· Alcohol was the most harmful drug available in our society which had far reaching effects that harmed individuals, whanau and communities at a cost of $9.1b annually.

· Local government had a role in promoting the social, economic and cultural wellbeing of its communities and alcohol regulation was an important control to create a safer enviornment, to reduce drinking and instances of alcohol harm.

· Supports the recovery of the cost of licencing as the licencing regulations had not kept pace wth the cost and were overdue for a review.

Timestamp :29

Harris William, Mt Maunganui Business Association

Key Points

· Considered that Council did not adequately engage with affected parties before drafting the bylaw which had been created with a lack of detail context and transparency.

· Council were imposing more costs on businesses without placing internal scrutiny on its own systems.

· Queried whether a small restaurant would need to pay the same fee as a liquor store and why a business should pay for a hearing if the only objections were raised by the general public.

· Requested the Council to engage with stakeholders and proivde a trasnparent breakdown of fees, cost and structures to allow meaningful feedback to be provided.

In response to questions

· In relation to whether it was a cost recovery or set fee, staff advised that the process was to allow Council to be able to set a fee with a separate decision making process around what the fee would be. The fee was currently fixed fee for each category.

· With the reallocation of the $750,000 cost, there were factors and fairness that needed to be taken into account and the bylaw needed to go back to the drawing board.

Timestamp :36

Luke van Veen, Hospitality New Zealand

Key Points

· Recognise Council were facing cost pressures, but the hosptality industry was also over burdened with unnecessary costs with many struggling to continue to operate and others closing.

· Noted that the fees had not increased since 2013, and request that consideration be given to a 33% inflation adjustment rather than a 240% increase. Imposing the same increase on a $15 drink would increase the sale to $36.60.

· The proposal to take all costs from ratepayers ignored that the businesses were also ratepayers at a higher rate percentage than residential.

· There was no evidence to show that the costs could be recovered by other means and asked that Council look at streamlining its own system process efficiencies and undertake less hearings.

· Want to see fees set by licencing regulation.

In response to questions

· In answer to a query as to where Council could make improvements, the submitter noted that he was not aware of the Council process but it seemed to be a lot of people being involved and the timeline to sign off was lenghty. Applicants had to adhere strictly to the time constraints when applying for a licence, so it should be the same for Council to issue the licence.

· The industry want compliance and as an customer he was happy to assist with having those conversations but to date as a stakeholder he had not been approached.

· In response to a query as to where the responsibility of the cost lay, the submitter considered that there was an imbalance of costs and there were a lot of Council facilities that the businesses did not use but knew they had to pay for them. Most of the businesses sold alcohol in a controlled premise environment and Council should be investing in them to drive the communtiy to flourish.

· Data could be provided on what other local authorities do and how they operated to compare them to TCC.

Timestamp: : 53

Staff: Sarah Omundsen, General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance

In response to staff questions raised

· Comparison information from other local authorities and an analysis of the decisions would be provided to Council in the upcoming report to set the fees. It would include a number of relevant factors including the number of staff, the time taken, the cost, the ratio of ratepayer and business to provide a benchmark and to ensure that all processss were being undertaken as efficiently as possible.

Resolution CO/25/0/2

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Draft Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw - Hearings".

(b) Receives the submissions and feedback to the draft Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw (Attachment One).

Carried

8 Discussion of late items

Nil

9 Closing karakia

Cr Kevin Schuler closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 5.16 pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed at the Ordinary meeting of the Tauranga City Council held on 28 April 2025.

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

CHAIRPERSON

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

28 April 2025

11 Business

11.1 Plan Change 27 (Flooding from Intense Rainfall): To Make Operative

File Number: A17108970

Author: Manasi Vaidya, Senior Policy Planner

Janine Speedy, Team Leader: City Planning

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance

Purpose of the Report

The purpose of this report is to approve and make operative Plan Change 27 (Flooding from intense rainfall) as part of the operative Tauranga City Plan.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Plan Change 27 (Flooding from Intense Rainfall): To Make Operative".

(b) Pursuant to Clause 17(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, and Consent Order of the Environment Court dated 27 March 2025 (Decision No. [2025] NZEnvC 93) (Attachment 1) approves Plan Change 27 – Flooding from intense rainfall (Attachment 2) and authorises the Mayor and Chief Executive to affix the seal of Council to the plan change documents in accordance with Clause 17(3) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991.

(c) Pursuant to Clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991, notifies that Plan Change 27 as approved shall become operative on 13 May 2025.

Executive Summary

1. Tauranga has faced several significant flood events, notably in 2005, 2010, 2011, and 2013. These events prompted Council to invest in stormwater infrastructure upgrades and reconsider its flood risk management strategies. As an outcome of this process, in 2015 Council adopted the Integrated Stormwater Project (ISP) through the Long-Term Plan (2015-25). The ISP included implementing a regulatory response.

2. Plan Change 27 is the regulatory response to the ISP, focusing on managing flood hazard risk caused by intense rainfall through provisions in the Tauranga City Plan (City Plan).

3. Additionally, the Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement (RPS) mandates that the Council classify and reduce natural hazard risks, including flooding from intense rainfall, which must take into account climate change over the next 100 years. Plan Change 27 ensures the City Plan gives effect to the RPS and addresses significant risk from a natural hazard as required by the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA).

4. The key provisions of the plan change include:

i. Protecting floodplains and overland flowpaths.

ii. Managing development in flood prone areas to ensure safety and proper evacuation routes.

iii. Controlling displacement effects of water onto other properties from inappropriate subdivision and earthworks within flood prone areas, overland flowpaths and floodplains.

iv. Setting floor levels to minimise flood damage.

5. Plan Change 27 was publicly notified on 16 November 2020, following Council adoption on 13 October 2020. An Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) heard the plan change from 30 November to 2 December 2021. The IHP recommendations were notified on 11 April 2022, with a subsequent appeal period.

6. Three appeals were lodged with the Environment Court on 20 May 2022 by Aotearoa Park Development Limited (APDL), Bluehaven Developments Limited (Bluehaven) and Urban Taskforce for Tauranga Incorporated (UTF). There were twenty parties to the appeals.

7. Following further discussions between staff and APDL, the APDL appeal was withdrawn on 10 November 2023.

8. Following further discussions between staff and Bluehaven and UTF, the consent order was signed by all parties and filed with the Environment Court on 29 November 2024.

9. The appeals relating to Plan Change 27 have been disposed. The plan change is now required to be made operative in accordance with the RMA.

Background

10. Historically, Tauranga has experienced a number of major flood events from intense rainfall, the most significant being the localised flooding as a result of a 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP)^{^[1]} rainfall event in May 2005 which caused substantial damage to private and public property.

11. Tauranga experienced further flood events in 2010, 2011 and a more significant localised flood event in 2013. Following the flood events of 2013, the ISP was adopted by Council through the Long-Term Plan 2015-25, which included undertaking flood modelling and mapping for a 1% AEP present day situation across the City. The purpose of the ISP was to identify the wider stormwater issues and implications so that Citywide flood risk management could be considered. As an outcome of this process, Council resolved to take the following risk reduction approach to stormwater management:

1. A safety focused level of service (LoS), (reduction in risk to persons safety);

2. Education;

3. Residual risk and emergency management;

4. Reactive response capacity (stormwater reactive reserve); and

5. Regulatory response.

12. Plan Change 27 is the regulatory response to the ISP, following the completion of all other steps.

Regulatory Response

13. The RPS includes objectives and policies which require Council, prior to any development or redevelopment to classify and reduce the risk of natural hazards, including flooding from intense rainfall. The RPS requires the Council to take into account climate change over at least the next 100 years.

14. In order to classify the natural hazard risk of flooding, Council was required to undertake a risk assessment, including flood risk modelling and mapping. The flood models built for the ISP were updated to identify flood risk in a 1% AEP rainfall event, taking into account the effects of climate change^{^[2]} as of the year 2130, as required by the RPS. The risk assessment identified that the flood risk in Tauranga is High. There is ongoing flood modelling programme to ensure the models are up to date taking into account factors such as a change in landform.

15. Plan Change 27 includes objectives, policies and rules to manage flood hazards from intense rainfall. The key aspects of the provisions introduced through the plan change are:

a) Protect floodplains and overland flowpaths, because if managed inappropriately the effects can be hazardous, causing damage to life, property and infrastructure.

b) Manage development and redevelopment within flood prone areas, including safe evacuation from building and safety of people.

c) Manage displacement effects because development and earthworks can increase or cause flooding.

d) Manage floor levels to reduce damage caused by flooding to life and property.

16. Plan Change 27 is supported with an online mapping tool which is publicly available where floodplains, overland flowpaths and flood prone areas are located across the City with the modelling scenario set out in paragraph 14.

17. Plan Change 27 had legal effect since the date of notification, 16 November 2020, under s86B of the RMA, which means any property affected by flooding from intense rainfall has been assessed against the rules proposed in Plan Change 27 since this date.

Notification and Hearing

18. The operative Tauranga City Plan is a statutory document that guides the Council in managing the effects of subdivision, use, and development under s31 of the RMA. As a dynamic document, it can be updated through the plan change process, allowing adjustments to address resource management issues outside of a full plan review.

19. The work on a flood hazard plan change commenced in 2018, following Council direction. Council adopted Plan Change 27 for public notification on 13 October 2020. Plan Change 27 was publicly notified on 16 November 2020. Ten open days were held during the public notification period and one-on-one consultation was available with affected property owners until 28 January 2021.

20. The plan change was heard by an Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) from 30th November to 2nd December 2021. The decisions to approve the plan change was notified on 11 April 2022 and three appeals were lodged with the Environment Court on 20 May 2022 by:

· Aotearoa Park Development Limited (ENV-2022-AKL-000114)

· Bluehaven Developments Limited (ENV-2022-AKL-000115)

· Urban Taskforce for Tauranga Incorporated (ENV-2022-AKL-000118)

21. There were twenty parties to the appeals, who participated in the appeal proceedings (section 274 parties).

Appeals

22. The APDL appeal sought either that Plan Change 27 be declined or amended to include spatial flood maps into the City Plan and include a matter of discretion that provides recognition of the reasonable use of a site if already zoned for urban use.

23. The Bluehaven appeal sought to exclude the Wairakei Urban Growth Area from Plan Change 27 and further relief to address concerns relating to the Council’s flood hazard mapping process.

24. The UTF appeal sought that Plan Change 27 be declined due to concerns about the Council’s flood hazard mapping process and exclusion of the maps from the City Plan, consistency with higher order planning instruments and Part 2 of the RMA, and adequacy of the section 32 evaluation report.

Mediation

25. Court-assisted mediation took place on 11 and 12 October 2022, which was attended by Council staff, the three appellants and a number of s274 parties. A number of steps agreed at mediation relate to matters which sit outside the City Plan, but which have been agreed with the appellants, including:

a) Amending the Flood Hazard Modelling and Mapping Practice Note and uploading it to the Council website, addressing various matters broadly relating to the management of the modelling and mapping processes, model accessibility;

b) A meeting of experts nominated by the parties, for the purpose of reaching a common understanding on the appropriateness of the model inputs and agreeing on recommendations to improve accuracy and validity;

c) Updating and re-evaluating the rainfall depth used in the flood modelling, with a further peer review process;

d) Minor amendments to the Tauranga City Council Infrastructure Development Code;

e) A review of the flood hazard information and agreed wording provided in Land Information Memoranda (LIMs) for properties within the Wairakei Urban Growth Area;

f) Confirming that Council will continue to undertake and/or accept site-specific flood risk evaluations;

g) Confirming that the flood maps will remain outside the City Plan; and

h) Amending the provisions to simplify and clarify the rules.

Resolution and Next Steps

26. Following the mediation, further discussions were undertaken between staff and the technical expert engaged by APDL, specifically regarding the management of onsite flooding. Subsequently an agreement was reached on possible resource consent pathways to manage the impact of the overland flowpath. The appeal by APDL was withdrawn on 10 November 2023.

27. Upon the completion of the steps agreed to through mediation, undertaken between October 2022 and November 2024, the consent order was signed by Council, Bluehaven and UTF and filed with the Environment Court on 29 November 2024.

28. The Environment Court issued the Consent Order (Attachment 1) on 27 March 2025.

29. As the appeals relating to Plan Change 27 have been disposed of, the plan change is now required to be approved, as amended by the Consent Order, in accordance with clause 17(2) of Schedule 1 of the RMA. This approval necessitates a Council resolution, public notification, and amendments to the City Plan text to give effect to the decision. The remaining steps constitute an administrative process.

Statutory Context

30. Relevant statutory provisions are addressed in paragraph 29 above. Pursuant to clause 17(3), the Mayor and Chief Executive are authorised to affix the Council’s seal as formal evidence of approval. Plan Change 27 will then be made operative under clause 20(2) of Schedule 1 of the RMA.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

31. This contributes to the promotion or achievement of the following strategic community outcome(s):

	Contributes
We are an inclusive city	☐
We value, protect and enhance the environment	☐
We are a well-planned city	ü
We can move around our city easily	☐
We are a city that supports business and education	☐

32. Tauranga city is currently facing high population growth. Council is required to provide housing capacity to cater for the increasing population. Plan Change 27 ensures that as Tauranga continues to grow, development and redevelopment occurs in a manner that reduces the risk of flooding from intense rainfall over time.

33. Plan Change 27 is the regulatory response to the wider ISP and gives effect to the natural hazard policies in the RPS, consistent with the city’s key strategic outcome to have a well-planned city, through managing development and redevelopment within Tauranga while reducing the risk of flooding to life, property and infrastructure from intense rainfall events over time.

Financial Considerations

34. The remaining costs are only associated with the preparation and release of the public notice and process of updating the City Plan. These are covered within the existing budget for the plan change.

Legal Implications / Risks

35. There are no legal implications / risks involved in approving and then making Plan Change 27 operative given that the plan change has been through all necessary statutory processes.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

36. This was considered through the earlier phases of the plan change process, including staff having undertaken consultation with relevant iwi and hapu representatives throughout the plan change process.

CLIMATE IMPACT

37. Plan Change 27 has been prepared with consideration to the effects of climate change on flooding from intense rainfall event. The definitions introduced through Plan Change 27 require planning for a 1% AEP rainfall event concurrent with a 5% AEP storm-tide event, taking into account the effects of climate change on rainfall and sea level based on the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 median scenario as of the year 2130.

Consultation / Engagement

38. Consultation is not necessary at this point. The release of the public notice will be for information purposes only and to satisfy the statutory requirements set out under the RMA.

Significance

39. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

40. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the decision.

41. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, the plan change is of medium significance, however the decision to make the plan change operative is of low significance because the plan change has been through a significant engagement process in accordance with Schedule 1 of the RMA, and the plan change is already in effect.

ENGAGEMENT

42. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

Next Steps

43. In accordance with Clause 20 of Schedule 1 of the RMA, Council must publicly notify the date on which Plan Change 27 will become operative. This notice must be issued at least five working days prior to the operative date, which is proposed as 13 May 2025.

44. Following this, the City Plan will be updated to formally incorporate the approved provisions of the plan change. In accordance with the RMA, a copy of the plan change will then be provided to specified persons including the tangata whenua of the area.

Attachments

1. Consent Order - Bluehaven Management & Urban Taskforce v TCC -ENV-2022-AKL-115 & 118 - 2025 NZEnvC 93 - A17844956 ⇩

2. FINAL_PC27 Flooding from intense rainfall_ IHP Decision and provisions combined_pdf - A13337839 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

28 April 2025

11.2 Draft Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw - Deliberations

File Number: A17679220

Author: Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst

Nigel McGlone, Manager: Environmental Regulation

Authoriser: Sarah Omundsen, General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance

Purpose of the Report

1. To consider the issues raised by submitters to the draft Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw and to decide whether to adopt the bylaw.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Draft Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw - Deliberations ".

(b) Adopt the Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw 2025 (Attachment One).

(c) Delegates to the General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance to make any necessary minor drafting or presentation changes to the Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw 2025, prior to it being published.

Executive Summary

2. Under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 (Act), Council is responsible for administering alcohol licensing in Tauranga, including processing applications, supporting the District Licensing Committee (DLC), and monitoring compliance and enforcement.

3. These licensing functions are funded by fees prescribed in legislation which currently cover 40% of costs and mean general rates cover the remaining 60%.

4. The prescribed fees have not changed since they were first set over 11 years ago. The intention was that these fees would recover the total costs of councils’ alcohol licensing functions. However, in recognition that these fees may not result in cost recovery for each council (due to the differing needs and demands of each district) secondary legislation^{^[3]} allows councils to set their own fees through a bylaw.

5. An Alcohol Licensing Fees bylaw (bylaw) would allow Council to set its own fees and reduce general rates funding for alcohol licensing. With a bylaw in place alcohol licensing fees could be consulted on (as part of the User Fees and Charges consultation) during the annual plan or long-term plan process and set by Council resolution.

6. Seven other Councils have adopted bylaws in order to set their own alcohol licensing fees, and one other is mid-way through the process.

7. Community consultation on a proposed bylaw was carried out from 31 January to 7 March 2025. 207 submissions were received (Attachment Two).

8. Feedback from submitters can be separated into two broad categories:

· support/opposition of the bylaw itself and the ability for Council to set its own alcohol licensing fees; and

· the way in which Council carries out its alcohol licensing function and how fees will be set.

9. 78% of submitters support an alcohol fees bylaw to provide Council with the ability to set fees. Submitters who supported the proposed bylaw believe that alcohol licensing should be user pays and not subsided by rates.

10. 19% of submitters do not support the proposed bylaw and have concerns on the impact any potential future fee changes will have on businesses, events and clubs.

11. Some submitters want more information on licensing costs before they are set and sought greater efficiencies and transparency in the licensing process. Work is underway to get more detailed information on the breakdown of specific licensing costs and to review those costs for efficiencies. Staff have provided responses to these issues and no decision from Council is required.

12. Council is asked to consider the adoption of the Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw. This would give Council the option of setting fees appropriate to the local context and to be deliberate on the fee vs rates funding split. It will also mean alcohol licensing fees can be considered alongside all other User Fees and Charges as part of the review being carried out as part of the lead-in to the 2026/27 annual plan process.

13. If Council adopt the bylaw and decide to consider setting their own fees further information on alcohol licensing costs will be presented to inform this decision. Any proposed fees and associated timing of these proposed fees will be consulted on during the subsequent annual plan process.

14. There are no financial implications in adopting the bylaw. Financial implications will only apply if there changes to alcohol licensing fees.

15. The key risk in adopting the bylaw is that some submitters are opposed to the bylaw and concerned about the impact of any potential future fee changes.

Background

Alcohol licensing in Tauranga

16. Council is responsible for administering the licensing functions of the Act. This includes:

· appointing and supporting the District Licensing Committee (DLC), made up of members of the community, including organising and holding hearings

· receiving and processing licence applications and managers’ certificates for DLC decision making (this often involves interviews with applicants)

· preparing material for the DLC to meet their reporting requirements to the Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority (ARLA)

· monitoring and compliance assessments of all licensees and certified managers, including inspections of premises and providing education to licensees.

17. Council’s licensing team work closely with the Police and the Medical Officer of Health and other agencies to meet the responsibilities and functions of the Act.

18. As at 24 March 2025) Tauranga has 382 licensed premises including:

· 250 on-licensed premises (restaurants, bars and cafes)

· 92 off licensed premises (such as bottle stores and supermarkets)

· 40 club licensed premises (such as sports clubs).

19. There are also 1145 certified duty managers from or working in Tauranga.

20. On average we process between 600 and 700 new and renewal manager certificates each year and expect to process approximately 1,300 applications in total this financial year (this includes venue licences, manager certificates, temporary authorities and special licences for events).

Licensing fees

21. Council’s alcohol licensing function is funded by licensing fees (covering 40% of costs) and general rates (covering 60%).

22. Tauranga’s licensing fees are based on the prescribed fees set out in legislation^{^[4]}. When these fees were developed in 2013, the intention was that they would recover the total costs of councils’ alcohol licensing functions. In recognition that these fees may not result in cost recovery for each council (due to the differing needs and demands of each area), secondary legislation^{^[5]} provides for councils to set their own fees through a bylaw.

23. Seven other Councils have adopted bylaws in order to set their own alcohol licensing fees, and one other is mid-way through the process:

Council	Adoption date
Whangarei District	23 March 2016
Wellington City	First adopted 2019 and reviewed in 2024
Hutt City	First adopted 2019 and reviewed 2024
Waipa District	Adopted November 26, 2024, to take effect 1 July 2025
Kapiti Coast	23 May 2024
Porirua City	27 June 2024
Hastings City	8 August 2024
Hamilton City	In the process of developing a bylaw – consultation has taken place

24. The Fees Regulations set a risk-based approach for alcohol licensing fees:

25. The fees for on, off and club licences are dependent on the premises risk rating. The risk rating is determined by type of premises, latest alcohol sales time and number of enforcements in the last 18 months. Any bylaw made must be consistent with this risk rating framework.

26. The prescribed fees for each risk category are made up of:

· an application fee paid – intended to cover the licence application process; and

· an annual fee paid – intended to cover monitoring costs.

27. Under the Act (section 404) the prescribed regulation fees are required to be reviewed every five years^{^[6]}, however the last review was carried out in 2017. It could not draw any conclusions on overall cost recovery but stated that there was a large variance in cost recovery across councils. As a result, no changes were made to the prescribed fees

28. A bylaw would allow Council to set its own alcohol licensing fees to better reflect the cost of the licensing function.

29. On 18 November 2024 the Community Transparency and Engagement Committee approved the draft Alcohol Fees Bylaw (Attachment One) for community consultation.

30. The community consultation survey asked:

· Do you support the proposed Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw?

· What portion of the cost to administer, manage and monitor alcohol licensing do you think should be funded through your rates?

31. The consultation highlighted that no decision has been made on the timing and level of any potential changes to fees and that these decisions will be considered as part of next year’s annual plan. Schedule One on the proposed Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw set out indicative fees based on full cost recovery to help inform the community consultation.

Submission summary

32. Community consultation was carried out, from 31 January to 7 March 2025. 207 submissions were received (Attachment One) with nearly 80% of submitters supporting the proposed bylaw, 57% strongly supporting and 21% indicating their support.19% of submitters did not support the proposal, with 14% of these stating that they strongly do not support the proposal.

33. The table below summaries the reasons submitters either support or do not support the proposed bylaw.

Table One: Feedback from submitters on the proposed Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw

*Support for the proposed Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw*
Support	78%
Do not support	19%
Do not want to answer	3%
Reasons for support	Reasons for not supporting
· Local decision-making: Council should have the power to set fees based on local needs and conditions. · User pays principle: businesses profiting from alcohol sales should bear the costs of licensing, not the general ratepayers. · Reducing ratepayer burden: ratepayers should not subsidise alcohol licensing fees. · Health and social benefits: potential to reduce alcohol-related harm. · Fairness: fairer for those who benefit from alcohol sales to pay the costs, rather than spreading the cost across all ratepayers. · Economic efficiency: local control over fees can lead to more efficient use of resources.	· Financial impact: businesses, clubs and community events cannot afford increased fees. · Economic impacts on hospitality sector: challenging economic climate for hospitality businesses, additional costs could lead to closures and job losses. · Current fees appropriate: existing fees set in the regulations are appropriate. · Lack of trust in Council: lack of confidence in the council's ability to set fees efficiently and concerns about potential misuse of funds. · Need more information: more information on the breakdown of alcohol licensing costs and how any new fees will be calculated.

34. Some submitters expressed conditional support suggesting that any fee increases should be gradual or that certain types of business should be treated differently.

35. While explaining that we were not looking to set fees in the bylaw itself, we did ask submitters for their thoughts on how licensing costs should be funded to help inform the next steps if the bylaw was adopted by Council. We asked what proportion of the alcohol licensing cost should come from rates.

36. 60% of submitters thought that alcohol licensing costs should not be funded through rates at all while a further 16% thought the rates proportion should be between 10-30%.13% of submitters thought that rates funding should contribute between 40-60% and 10 % of submitters thought cost should be completely funded from rates.

Statutory Context

37. Section 402(1)(b) of the Act provides that fee regulations (including fee-setting bylaws) ‘may do anything reasonably necessary to ensure that, so far as it is practicable, the total costs to the territorial authority are recovered out of the fees paid to it under this Act’.

38. Section 405 of the Act requires Council ‘to the extent that is reasonably practicable having regard to the circumstances of the particular case, consult the persons the authority has reason to believe are representative of interests likely to be substantially affected by the bylaw’.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

39. This contributes to the promotion or achievement of the following strategic community outcome(s):

	Contributes
We are an inclusive city	ü
We value, protect and enhance the environment	☐
We are a well-planned city	☐
We can move around our city easily	☐
We are a city that supports business and education	☐

40. The proposed bylaw aligns with the council’s strategic community outcome of an inclusive city. The alcohol licensing function helps prevent harm and helps create a safe community.

Options Analysis

41. Submitter’s comments can be grouped into two categories:

1. support/opposition of the proposed bylaw; and

2. issues relating more generally to Council’s alcohol licensing processes

Part 1: the proposed bylaw

42. To respond to submitters feedback on whether they support the bylaw or not Council are asked to decide on the bylaw. Responses to the other issues raised by submitters are set out in table three below and no decision from Council is required.

43. Table Two sets out the advantages and disadvantages of adopting the Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw 2025. Adoption of the bylaw is recommended. The bylaw would provide the option of increasing fees in the future to reduce the burden of licensing costs on the community.

Table Two: Options for the draft Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw 2025

Option	Advantages	Disadvantages
1	Adopt the Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw 2025. Recommended (see recommended resolution (b))	· Allows a tool for fees to be set to recover alcohol licensing costs which is consistent with the user-fees principle. · Supported by 78% of submitters with 57% strongly supporting a bylaw to enable Council to set licensing fees. · Provides greater flexibility to adjust alcohol fees if required. · Allows for greater community consultation on alcohol licensing fees through the annual and long-term planning process. · Potential to reduce demand on general rates funding.	· Any fees changes set through the bylaw will impact on businesses. · 19% of submitters do not support – with 15% of these strongly opposing the bylaw.
2	Do not adopt the Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw 2025 and continue to use the prescribed licensing fees set in the regulations.	· No impact of increased fees on businesses – unless regulation fees change. · 19% of submitters do not support the bylaw.	· No potential for recovering a greater proportion of alcohol licensing costs. · 78% of submitters support the bylaw. · Does not align with the intent of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 to recover costs. · Increased demand on general rates funding.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Adopt the Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw 2025.

Recommended

(see recommended resolution (b))

· Allows a tool for fees to be set to recover alcohol licensing costs which is consistent with the user-fees principle.

· Supported by 78% of submitters with 57% strongly supporting a bylaw to enable Council to set licensing fees.

· Provides greater flexibility to adjust alcohol fees if required.

· Allows for greater community consultation on alcohol licensing fees through the annual and long-term planning process.

· Potential to reduce demand on general rates funding.

· Any fees changes set through the bylaw will impact on businesses.

· 19% of submitters do not support – with 15% of these strongly opposing the bylaw.

Do not adopt the Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw 2025 and continue to use the prescribed licensing fees set in the regulations.

· No impact of increased fees on businesses – unless regulation fees change.

· 19% of submitters do not support the bylaw.

· No potential for recovering a greater proportion of alcohol licensing costs.

· 78% of submitters support the bylaw.

· Does not align with the intent of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 to recover costs.

· Increased demand on general rates funding.

Part 2: other issues raised

44. Table three below outlines additional issues raised by submitters on alcohol licensing and the setting of any new fees.

Table Three: Additional concerns raised by submitters

Issue summary

Comment

Additional information on costs associated with licensing function: further information on licensing costs required before decisions are made.

45. Submission # 17, 21, 33, 138,140, 142, 162, 166, 189, 196, 205

Detailed licensing cost information is not currently available. This is because time sheeting is not in place to record the amount of time staff spend specifically on the various licensing tasks. However, further cost information is being compiled and will be considered before any new fees are proposed. Time sheeting processes are being developed and planned to be implemented in the next three months.

The decision to adopt the bylaw is simply about establishing a tool to set fees, not actually setting the fee amount. Any change to the level of fees will be considered as part of the 2026/27 annual plan process next year. Further cost information will be presented to inform any potential changes to fees. Any proposed changes will be consulted on in the draft User Fees and Charges in March/April 2026.

Efficiency review: consider and optimise costs before passing on to license holders.

Need an audit of current processes to focus on improving efficiency and support for licensees. Recommendations include:

· online portal for application tracking and communication

· automate standard application approvals for low-risk cases

· online and in-person training sessions

· reduce unnecessary hearings

Submission # 5, 17, 33, 134, 140, 142, 162, 175, 194, 195, 198, 201, 203, 205, 221

Work is underway to obtain more detailed information on the breakdown of licensing costs. As part of this and the overall Council efficiency reset initiative a review of costs is being carried out.

Recent cost increases come from the increase in the number of hearings over the past few years. Hearings are estimated to contribute to around 15% of staff time. Recent changes to the Act make it more accessible for people to participate in the licensing process. This has contributed to an increase in the number of DLC hearings. In 2020 three hearings were held compared to last year when 34 were scheduled. 24 took place and 10 were cancelled when the applicant or objector withdrew at the last minute. Documentation and assessments were carried out for all 34 hearings. So far 16 hearings have taken place this year.

Hearing costs are not specifically charged to the applicant so are directly funded through fee revenue and general rates.

Hearings are legislatively required if there are public objections to licence applications.

Online portal technology and additional in-person trainings will involve additional resourcing.

Further consultation: More comprehensive stakeholder consultation required.

Submission # 202, 203

The consultation on the bylaw followed the Special Consultative Procedure and all license holders were informed of the consultation by direct email and via a special edition of The Bar Code newsletter – this received an open rate of 60%. A media advisory was also highlighted by The Shout (hospitality industry magazine and website).

Downtown Tauranga included messaging on the proposed bylaw in their email to members on the 13 February, 19 February, 22 February and 6 March 2025.

It is important to note that Council is not changing fees at this stage. It is looking to put in place a bylaw that would allow Council the option to change alcohol licensing fees in the future. Any proposed fee changes will be consulted on in accordance with section 405 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.

Support national fees: Recommend seeking a review of the prescribed fees and using these.

Submission # 5, 16, 33, 117, 159, 194, 196, 203, 204, 205

The Ministry of Justice has reported that this is not a current priority. The latest unpublished review recommends fees increase by inflation, but no timeline is provided.

Tired fee structure: change the fee structure so high-risk premises pay proportionally more and community events have a reduced fee.

Recommend Council pass a resolution in support of a Ministry review of the risk ratings in legislation.

Submission # 34, 36, 83, 116, 142, 156, 195, 198, 201, 205

Any bylaw and associated fees must be consistent with the risk-based framework set out in the Fees Regulations. The fees for on, off and club licences are dependent on the premises risk rating. The risk rating is determined by type of premises, latest alcohol sales time and number of enforcements in the last 18 months. The five cost/risk ratings of premises and corresponding fees categories are set out in paragraph 24.

Council could request a review of the legislation setting out the risk framework. However, the Ministry of Justice has previously indicated that this and alcohol fee reviews are not a current priority.

Graduated fee increase: to allow business to adjust.

Submission # 205

The timing and levels of any fee changes will be considered during next year’s annual plan. This feedback will be considered when developing any proposed changes. Further consultation will take place on the timing and levels of any proposed fee changes.

Financial Considerations

46. There are no financial considerations in considering the issues raised by submitters and deciding whether to adopt the proposed Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw.

47. Financial considerations will apply at the next stage of the project. If Council decides to adopt the bylaw, fees will be set during next year’s annual plan process. Section 101 of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA) requires Council to consider the funding sources based on several factors including the levels of individual and community benefit from the activity.

Legal Implications / Risks

48. The legal implications and risks are dependent on the changes, if any, made to the proposed draft bylaw.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

49. The development of an Alcohol Fees Bylaw supports the principles of Manaakitanga – a strong duty of care and safety for our people. Although there are no direct impacts on Māori from developing the bylaw, a strong alcohol licensing function will be beneficial to Māori, who experience disproportionate alcohol-related harm.

CLIMATE IMPACT

50. There are no direct or specific climate change impacts resulting from considering the submissions and adopting a bylaw.

Significance

51. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

52. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the decision.

53. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the issue is of medium significance. However, the decision in this report is of low significance. Further consultation will occur if any changes to alcohol licensing fees are proposed in the review of fees and charges during the next annual plan process.

ENGAGEMENT

54. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, and that consultation has occurred, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision on whether to adopt the Alcohol Fees Bylaw 2025.

Next Steps

55. If Council decide to adopt the bylaw, then any potential changes to alcohol fees will be considered as part of next year’s annual plan. Additional cost information will be provided to inform any decisions of appropriate fees and the timing of any changes.

Attachments

1. Draft Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw - A16957303 ⇩

2. Submissions to the Draft Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw - A17714983 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

28 April 2025

16. Council’s Dog Management Policy sets out Council’s approach to managing dogs and the associated Bylaw gives Council the power to implement the Policy, including collecting fees and charges.

17. Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy provides Council’s approach to the funding of the Animal Services activity as a whole. As per the Revenue and Financing Policy, the Animal Services activity is funded 70%-100% via fees and charges and 0%-30% by general rates, grant funding and subsidies.

18. The Animal Services activity is focused on keeping the community safe from animal related incidents, i.e. it covers more than just dog control. The work includes:

· Registering dogs and following up on unregistered dogs.

· Responding to lost, roaming and aggressive dogs, dog nuisance complaints (primarily excessive barking) and wandering stock.

· Managing the keeping of bees, poultry, goats, pigs, and other stock within city boundaries.

· Public education regarding interacting with dogs, delivered at events, to schools and organisations, and one-one to dog owners.

19. Dog registration fees are the largest contributor to the 70%-100% of Animal Services revenue which comes from fees and charges. Dog registration fees can only be used to fund those elements of the Animal Services Activity which directly contribute to dog control activities as authorised by the Dog Control Act 1996, e.g. they cannot be used to meet costs related to stock control.

The Dog Management Policy and Bylaw, and the Keeping of Animals Bylaw

20. Council’s Dog Management Policy and Bylaw, and Keeping of Animals Bylaw are scheduled for review later this year. As part of this project, Council staff are planning a pre-engagement survey on several issues to inform the review including:

· dog rules for estuaries wetlands and marshes, beach dunes, and other special ecological areas

· dog rules for certain types of open spaces such as city centre spaces, cemeteries, burial grounds, and shared paths

· the appropriate limits on keeping dogs and animals in urban areas.

21. The survey is being timed to coincide with the annual dog registration period from 1 June 2025. This allows for leverage of planned communications reducing engagement costs; an invitation to participate in the online survey will be included as a link within the annual invoices for dog registration fees The survey will also be promoted online and through other channels to ensure a wide reach to those who may not own animals.

Council’s approach to setting dog registration fees

22. The Dog Control Act 1996 stipulates that Council must set dog registration fees via resolution. When setting fees, Council may:

(a) fix fees for neutered dogs that are lower than the fee for dogs that have not been neutered:

(b) fix fees for working dogs that are lower than the fee for any other dog, and may limit the number of working dogs owned by any person which qualify for lower fees under this section:

(c) fix different fees for the various classes of working dogs:

(d) fix fees for dogs under a specified age (not exceeding 12 months) that are lower than the fee that would otherwise be payable for those dogs:

(e) fix, for any dog that is registered by any person who demonstrates to the satisfaction of any dog control officer that that person has a specified level of competency in terms of responsible dog ownership, a fee that is lower than the fee that would otherwise be payable for that dog:

(f) fix by way of penalty, subject to subsection (3), an additional fee, for the registration on or after the first day of the second month of the registration year or such later date as the authority may fix, of any dog that was required to be registered on the first day of that registration year:

(g) fix a fee for the issue of a replacement registration label or disc for any dog.

(s37(2), Dog Control Act 1996)

23. Late registrations (after 31 July) can incur an additional cost of up to 50% of the initial registration fee.

24. Although the Dog Control Act 1996 allows Council to set fees lower for those owners who have met certain criteria (such as neutering their dog/s), to-date Council has adopted a single fee for all dog owners.

25. This approach has been taken by Council for the following reasons

· It assumes all dog owners are ‘good’ owners, unless proven otherwise.

· It avoids placing the burden (and costs) on dog owners to obtain and prove the status of their dog and/or ownership status (i.e. to prove that they are ‘good’ owners).

· It decreases administration requirements and implementation costs for Council.

· Dog owners are only financially penalised if their dog is subject to substantiated complaints, infringement notices etc, and this financial penalty system is separate to the registration fees system.

26. The exceptions to this approach are police dogs and certified disability assist dogs, who receive a fee waiver.

27. Additional penalties and fines are imposed in the event an owner does not control their dog as per Council’s Dog Management Bylaw. These amounts are set by the Dog Control Act 1996.

28. Council’s approach makes it difficult to benchmark Council’s dog registration fees, as many councils adopt a tiered fee system. Attachment 1 to this report provides some comparison data (this uses 2024/2025 information sourced from publicly available information).

29. Implementing a tiered fee system is not considered via this paper. If this is something that Council does wish to consider in the future, it can be included in the planned community consultation later this year on Council’s Dog Management Policy and Bylaw.

Setting registration fees for 2025/2026

30. As discussed above, the Animal Control Activity delivers more than just dog related activities, it also provides stock control services (stock, under this definition, refers to the management of all other kept animals within the city boundary, including bees, poultry, goats and pigs).

31. As per Council policy, 70-100% of the Animal Control Activity is fee-funded, and 0-30% is ratepayer funded. The following table shows breakdown of revenue sources over recent years as well as total expenditure. Note that this table is for the Animal Control Activity activity as a whole. The general rate contribution includes the portion that meets the cost of stock control.

Table 1: Comparison of revenue sources for the Animal Services Activity over recent years

Year	Dog registration fees	Other*	General rate	Total revenue	Total expenditure
2021/22	$1,137,049 (67%)	$128,262 (8%)	$434,759 (26%)	$1,700,071	$2,065,188
2022/23	$1,405,208 (66%)	$223,796 (11%)	$491,169 (23%)	$2,120,174	$2,330,844
2023/24	$1,429,236 (66%)	$303,847 (14%)	$442,060 (20%)	$2,175,144	$2,084,273
2024/25**	$1,534,808 (64%)	$388,008 (16%)	$468,596 (20%)	$2,391,412	$2,312,175

* e.g. infringement and impounding fees, also included internal interest revenue

** Full year forecast

32. Dog registration fees are Council’s primary source of revenue for the Animal Services Activity; however, dog registration fees can only be used to fund dog control related activities. Stock control generates little to no revenue and is funded via the general rate.

33. Minimal general rate funding is used to fund dog control services. Previously dog registration fees have been set at an amount which, together with other dog related revenue (e.g. infringement fees), is forecast to fund 90% of dog control expenditure, with the remaining 10% funded via general rate. Given there is a public benefit to delivering dog control (i.e. not just dog owners benefit from dog control services), it is considered appropriate that a small percentage of the service is funded via the general rate.

34. The Animal Control Activity surveyed other councils in November 2024 regarding their approach to the funding of dog control services and the setting of dog registration fees. Out of the 19 councils that responded, the general rate contribution towards the cost of dog control services varied from 0% to 52%, with an average of 18%, higher than this Council’s 10%.

35. Council’s dog registration fees were set at $125 for 2024/25, a $25 increase upon the previous year’s registration fees ($100). This increase reflected the overall increase in forecast expenditure for the Animal Control Activity, due to the impacts of inflation and increased overhead costs. The total estimated revenue from dog registration fees in 2024/2025, combined with other dog related revenue, was projected to meet 90% of the cost of delivering the dog control services for the city.

36. However, the revenue from dog registration fees in 2024/25 was lower than forecast as fewer dogs were registered than expected, and a higher-than-average number of dogs were reported as deceased. This is thought to be due to the increase in registration fees. The lost revenue has been compensated for via higher than projected court fines from owners of unregistered dogs.

37. This report identifies four potential approaches to setting dog registration fees in 2025/26.

i. Increase registration fees as per the standard approach (i.e. increase registration fees to as required to allow forecast dog related fees and charges to meet 90% of the forecast cost for delivering dog control services). This would see registration fees set at $129. (Recommended and status quo)

ii. Maintain registration fees at $125. (Not recommended)

iii. Decrease registration fees to $119. (Not recommended)

iv. Increase registration fees so that when combined with other revenue (e.g. infringement fees) there is no requirement for a general rate contribution towards the cost of dog control services, this would see fees set at $138. (Not recommended)

Options Analysis

Option i. Increase registration fees to $129 (RECOMMENDED and status quo)

38. This option would result in fees increasing by 3% from the previous year to meet increases in delivery cost for the activity. Increasing fees by this amount is forecast, along with other dog related revenue, to meet 90% of the cost of delivering dog control services for the city, with the remaining 10% to be met via general rate (recognising the element of wider public good delivered by this activity). This approach aligns with Council’s approach to setting dog registration fees over previous years.

39. If the anticipated number of dogs are registered and court fines continue to track above historical levels, this increase has the potential to deliver a modest surplus ($83,842). Allowing for a modest surplus provides a small buffer if actual revenue is lower than forecast. Any surplus would be held against the activity, future proofing in the event of deficits in subsequent years.

40. Key risk: this is a low-risk option, due to the minimal increase on the previous year’s fees. It is not expected that this increase would result in an increase of unregistered dogs or dogs reported as deceased. The primary risk is that the assumed increases in number of dogs registered are not achieved, and there is a shortfall between revenue and expenditure.

Pros

Cons

· Revenue alignment: Ensures that 90% of the forecast cost for delivering dog control services is met, maintaining financial stability.

· Sustainability: Helps cover increased costs due to inflation and overheads, ensuring continued quality of services.

· Complies with policy: This option complies with Council policy which requires 70-100% of the Animal Control Activity is fee-funded

· Consistent with past practice: this approach aligns with past practice, sending a consistent message to dog owners that they can expect increases each year commensurate with increases in costs for Council.

· Slightly higher costs for owners: May discourage some owners from registering their dogs, potentially leading to lower compliance.

· Public perception: Could be viewed negatively by dog owners, as last year’s fee increase was substantial. However, this increase is minimal compared to the previous increase.

· Diversion of staff: Lower voluntary registration rates diverts staff away from proactive activities to following up on unregistered dogs.

Option ii. Maintain registration fees at $125 (NOT RECOMMENDED)

41. This option would maintain fees at the 2025/26 amount. The financial modelling for this option provides a minimal forecast surplus of $33,481. Council has traditionally increased fees to meet increases in cost delivery, and this approach would be contrary to that. However, it recognises that the previous year’s increase was substantial, and that many households are struggling with recent increases in cost of living.

42. Maintaining dog registration fees at $125 means that dog related revenue risks not meeting 90% of the cost to provide dog control services if the actual number of dog registrations is lower than forecast. This would result in a financial deficit for the Animal Control Activity, which would be held against the activity.

43. Key risk: that expenditure on dog control exceeds the combined revenue streams and a deficit occurs.

Pros

Cons

· Owner satisfaction: Keeps costs stable for dog owners, potentially maintaining or improving public perception.

· Complies with policy: This option complies with Council policy which requires 70-100% of the Animal Control Activity is fee-funded

· Revenue shortfall: May not meet the 90% cost coverage target, leading to potential budget deficits.

· Is inconsistent with past practice: may lead to an expectation that fees are not increased regularly/annually in line with cost increases in service delivery.

Option iii. Decrease fees to $119 (NOT RECOMMEDED)

44. This option would deliver a modest decrease on the 2025/26 fees. This option is modelled on achieving a zero surplus (i.e. if actual revenue matches forecast revenue, there would be neither a surplus nor deficit). Council has traditionally increased fees annually, to meet increases in cost delivery, and this approach would be contrary to that. It recognises that last year’s fee increase resulted in an increase in unregistered dogs and a higher than usual number of dogs reported as deceased.

45. Decreasing dog registration fees to $119 means there is a higher risk, if registrations are lower than expected, that dog related revenue would no longer meet 90% of the cost to provide dog control services, and an increased likelihood that the Animal Control Activity incurs a small deficit.

46. Key risk: that the Animal Control Activity incurs a budget deficit and that fees need to be increased more than they would otherwise in 2026/27.

Pros

Cons

· Affordability: Makes registration more affordable, potentially increasing compliance and registration rates.

· Positive public response: Likely to be well-received by dog owners, improving public relations.

· Complies with policy: This option complies with Council policy which requires 70-100% of the Animal Control Activity is fee-funded

· Revenue shortfall: Is likely to increase the shortfall in covering the costs of dog control services and may incur a budget deficit.

· Is inconsistent with past practice: may lead to an expectation that fees are not increased regularly/annually in line with cost increases in service delivery.

Option iv. Increase fees to $138 (NOT RECOMMENDED)

47. This option would increase the 2025/26 fees to a level where general rate funding was not required (note: the Animal Control Activity would still require some general rate funding to cover stock control, but the dog control element of the activity would be fully funded via fees and charges).

48. This option does not recognise the wider public good provided by the dog control. Public good elements include education programmes, providing the capacity to respond to complaints regarding nuisance behaviour (e.g. barking), enhancing nature and biodiversity by reducing the undesirable impacts of dogs on wildlife, and contributing to community safety and wellbeing.

49. Placing the onus on a sub-group to pay for a public good element that benefits the wider community may be considered unfair. For example, it may not be considered fair to incorporate the full cost of investigating dog complaints into the dog registration fees as: most dogs are well-behaved/managed; not all complaints are justified/result in fines; and, having the ability to complain and have it investigated benefits the general ratepayer population.

50. Key risk: that more dogs are unregistered, due to the cost increase.

Pros

Cons

· Full cost recovery: Ensures that dog control services are fully funded without any contribution from the general rate.

· Complies with policy: This option complies with Council policy which requires 70-100% of the Animal Control Activity is fee-funded

· Lower compliance: Significantly higher fees may deter owners from registering their dogs, leading to lower compliance.

· Negative public reaction: Likely to be unpopular among dog owners, potentially leading to dissatisfaction and complaints.

· Does not recognise public good: Dog control services provide wider public good, benefiting more than just dog owners, meaning that it is appropriate that the general rate is used to fund a small portion (currently set at approximately 10%) of the service.

Financial Considerations

51. The table below provides further financial detail for each of the options above (assumptions provided at point 49.).

Table 2: Financial details for each of the four options

	Option i. Increase registration fees to $129	Option ii. Maintain registration fees at $125	Option iii. Decrease fees to $119	Option iv. Increase fees to $138
Total Dog Registration Revenue	$1,729,049	$1,678,688	$1,645,114	$1,852,273
Other revenue streams (excludes stock control)	$232,315	$232,315	$232,315	$232,315
Rate payer funding (excludes stock control)	$207,066	$207,066	$207,066	$0
Total expenditure (excludes stock control)	$2,084,588	$2,084,588	$2,084,588	$2,084,588
Surplus/Deficit	$83,842	$33,481	-$93	$0

52. The following assumptions have been made:

· That the known number of dogs (15,910) will increase by 3.6% to 16,516 in 2025/26

· That the penalty registration fee will be set at an additional 50% to the standard fee (i.e. if the standard fee is $125, the penalty fee will be $187.50)

· That 4% of dogs will receive a waived registration fee (police and qualified disability assist dogs)

· That 5% of dogs will not be registered

· That 5% of dogs will pay a pro-rate fee (puppies/dogs that die during the year), 86% will pay the standard fee, and 9% will pay the penalty fee.

Statutory Context

53. Dog control is legislated for at a national level by the Dog Control Act 1996 and implemented at a local level via Council’s Dog Management Policy and Bylaw. Dog registration fees must comply with the parameters set by Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

54. This contributes to the promotion or achievement of the following strategic community outcome:

	Contributes
We are an inclusive city	ü
We value, protect and enhance the environment	ü
We are a well-planned city	☐
We can move around our city easily	☐
We are a city that supports business and education	☐

55. Dog control contributes to enhancing nature and biodiversity by reducing the undesirable impacts of dogs on wildlife, as well as contributing to community safety and wellbeing.

Legal Implications / Risks

56. All options proposed in this report are compliant with the Dog Control Act 1996, Council’s Dog Management Policy and Bylaw and Council’s Revenue and Financing Policy.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

57. Not applicable. Managing dog registration is a regulatory procedure, as required under the Dog Control Act 1996.

CLIMATE IMPACT

58. Not applicable. Managing dog registration is a regulatory procedure, as required under the Dog Control Act 1996.

Consultation / Engagement

59. Council’s approach to meeting the costs of the Animal Services activity was consulted on as part of the 2024-2034 Long-term Plan (Revenue and Financing Policy).

Significance

60. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

61. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the decision.

62. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of low significance.

ENGAGEMENT

63. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

Next Steps

64. Implement the decisions of this report, with invoices for 2025/26 dog registration fees scheduled to be sent out on 1 June 2025.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - Cross-Council comparison of Dog Registration Fees - A17835885 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

28 April 2025

11.5 Elected Members' Expenses and Resources Policy - proposed leave of absence section

File Number: A17127223

Author: Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst

Coral Hair, Manager: Democracy and Governance Services

Authoriser: Christine Jones, General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance

Purpose of the Report

1. To present the revised Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025 and associated proposed amendment to Standing Order 13.3 for Council for consideration and adoption.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Elected Members' Expenses and Resources Policy - proposed leave of absence section".

(b) Adopts Tauranga City Council’s Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025 (Attachment One) to take effect immediately.

Executive Summary

2. Each electoral term, Council is required to adopt an Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy (policy). This policy provides the rules for elected members’ reimbursement for expenses incurred while on council business and for the payment of allowances.

3. On 15 August 2024 Council adopted the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2024 and resolved to review it in February 2025. The review was postponed until after Council’s information session on Standing Orders, Leave of Absence and Code of Conduct (held on 13 March 2025).

4. A revised policy (Attachment One) is presented to Council for adoption. The revised policy includes a proposed leave of absence section.

5. The proposed leave of absence section sets out:

· requirement for Councillors and the Mayor to apply for a leave of absence if they do not expect to be participating in council business for 14 days or longer

· Mayor has delegated authority to decide on leave of absence applications that are between 14 days and 30 days and to decide whether this leave, if approved, is to be paid or not

· Councillors’ requests for leave of absence for periods longer than 30 days, including if any approved leave will be paid or not, will be decided by Council

· Council will make decisions on the Mayor’s request for leave of absence for periods longer than 14 days. Approved leave between 14 days and 30 days will be paid, and Council will decide if any approved leave of absence of 30 days or longer will be paid.

· That for Mayor’s leave of absence of more than 30 days without pay, the Deputy Mayor, while acting as the Mayor, will receive the Mayor’s remuneration, allowances and benefits in accordance with the Local Government Members (2024/25) Determination 2024 and associated guidance.

6. There are no financial implications in adopting the revised Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy.

7. A consequence of the proposed leave of absence section is that Standing Order 13.3 will also require amendment. Attachment Two sets out the proposed amendment to ensure alignment with the policy. The adoption of any amendment to standing orders requires a vote of not less than 75% of the members present (cl. 27(3) Schedule 7, Local Government Act 202).

8. If Council decides to adopt the revised policy and amend Standing Order 13.3, the policy and amended standing orders will be placed on Council’s website and take effect immediately.

Background

9. When Council adopted the policy on 15 August 2024 the following changes were made to the previous policy:

Key change	Reason for change
Inclusion of public transport travel section	To promote the use of public transport.
Provision for media subscription	To provide access to news content and analysis.
Changes to fees for hearings	To align with the current Local Government Members Determination.
Changes to the receipt of gifts	To align with the pecuniary interest requirements in section 54F (1) (b) Local Government Act 2002.

Statutory Context

10. The Remuneration Authority requires Council to include all approved allowances for their elected members in an expenses policy and publish this on its website.

Options Analysis

11. The revised policy includes the following changes (shown in red in the revised policy).

Proposed Change	Reason for Change
Inclusion of leave of absence section	To set out the criteria for considering leave of absence and delegation for considering if any leave of absence is paid or not paid.

12. The table below sets out the advantages and disadvantages of adopting the revised Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Adopt the revised Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025.

Recommended

(Resolution (b))

· The policy will provide guidance on making decisions on leave of absence.

· None

Do not adopt the revised Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025.

· None

· The policy will not incorporate leave of absence provisions.

13. If Council decide to adopt the revised Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources policy, consideration will also need to be given to the proposed amendment to Standing Order 13.3 set out in attachment 2. The proposed changes ensure the standing orders are consistent with the new leave of absence section in the revised policy. The table below sets out the advantages and disadvantages of adopting the proposed amendment to Standing Order 13.3 leave of absence.

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Adopt the proposed amendment to standing order 13.3.

Recommended

(Resolution (c))

· Ensures the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources policy and Standing Orders have a consistent position on leave of absence.

· None

Do not adopt the proposed amendment to Standing Order 13.3.

· None

· The Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources policy and Standing Orders will be inconsistent.

Financial Considerations

14. The financial implications for the proposed policy are covered within existing budgets.

Legal Implications / Risks

15. The expenditure that is subject to this policy is sensitive expenditure. The policy needs to withstand community scrutiny.

16. Each member’s expenses are provided to the community on the council’s website and audited annually by Audit New Zealand.

17. There are no identified legal implications with the proposed changes to the policy.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

18. Decisions on elected members’ expenses are not directly impacted by the Te Ao Māori approach.

CLIMATE IMPACT

19. The current policy supports the use of public transport including micro mobility vehicles (such as ebikes and escooters). While there are cost efficiency reasons for this, it also demonstrates climate impact awareness and aligns with Council’s commitment to reduce emissions.

20. There are no direct or specific climate change impacts resulting from adopting the revised Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025.

Significance

21. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Council’s Significance and Engagement Policy. Council acknowledges that in some instances a matter, issue, proposal or decision may have a high degree of importance to individuals, groups, or agencies affected by the report.

22. In making this assessment, consideration has been given to the likely impact, and likely consequences for:

(a) the current and future social, economic, environmental, or cultural well-being of the district or region

(b) any persons who are likely to be particularly affected by, or interested in, the decision.

23. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of low significance given it is an administrative matter.

ENGAGEMENT

24. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of low significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision.

Next Steps

25. If Council decide to adopt the Revised Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy and amend Standing Order 13.3, the policy and amended standing orders will be placed on Council’s website and take effect immediately.

Attachments

1. Revised Elected Members' Expenses and Resources Policy 2025 - A17789683 ⇩

2. Proposed amendment to Standing Order 13.3 - A17846561 ⇩

[1] A 1% AEP (or 1-in-100 year) rainfall event is an intense rainfall event that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year.

[2] The climate change and sea level rise is based on the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 median scenario.

[3] Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fee-setting Bylaws) Order 2013

[4] Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fees) Regulations 2013

[5] Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fee-setting Bylaws) Order 2013

[6] Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, s 404


AGENDA Ordinary Council meeting Monday, 28 April 2025
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary meeting of Council will be held on:
Date:	Monday, 28 April 2025
Time:	9.30am
Location:	Bay of Plenty Regional Council Chambers Regional House 1 Elizabeth Street Tauranga
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz.
Marty Grenfell Chief Executive

Chairperson	Mayor Mahé Drysdale
Deputy Chairperson	Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular
Members	Cr Hautapu Baker Cr Glen Crowther Cr Rick Curach Cr Steve Morris Cr Marten Rozeboom Cr Kevin Schuler Cr Rod Taylor
Quorum	Half of the members present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is even; and a majority of the members present, where the number of members (including vacancies) is odd.
Meeting frequency	Three weekly or as required