Agenda of City Delivery Committee meeting

Chair	Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular
Deputy chair	Cr Kevin Schuler
Members	Cr Hautapu Baker Cr Glen Crowther Cr Rick Curach Cr Steve Morris Cr Marten Rozeboom Cr Rod Taylor Cr Hēmi Rolleston Mayor Mahé Drysdale (ex officio) Jacqui Rolleston-Steed - Tangata Whenua Representative
Non-voting members	(if any)
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	Six weekly

Role

The role of the City Delivery Committee is:

· To ensure and report delivery against agreed targets and benchmarks across capital investment, operating activity, and engagement.

· To ensure community involvement in, and support for, Council projects, proposals, initiatives and services.

· To monitor delivery of activity by community-led organisations receiving Council funding, partnering with, or otherwise contracted to, Council.

· To determine the reporting frequency for financial performance targets across the organisation, and to measure and regularly report on delivery against those.

· To review and improve public confidence and participation in Council decision making processes.

· To measure delivery of projects by ensuring that approved projects are effectively planned and delivered in full, on time, in scope, and within budget.

· To determine the reporting frequency for performance measures for non-financial activity and regularly report against those measures.

· To ensure the Annual Report provides relevant, transparent and accurate information.

Scope

· All projects, both capital and operating, where the business case has been approved are included in the scope of the Delivery Committee.

· Develop and monitor delivery of a council-wide engagement and communications strategy.

· Lead the development of relationships with community organisations, schools, businesses and other groups to broaden Council’s reach into the community and use of available resources.

· Receive and consider feedback from the community including, but not limited to, the annual residents’ survey.

· Review statements of intent and receive reporting of the Local Government Funding Agency.

· Receive reporting from all other Council-controlled organisations.

· Receive reporting from Priority One.

· Receive reporting by Mainstreet organisations as appropriate.

· Receive reporting against partnership agreements with key cornerstone organisations (as per the Community Funding Policy) and from other community-led organisations as appropriate.

· Assess the organisation’s processes to ensure these are not constraining the organisation in delivering value for money.

· Review the proposed approach and options for procurement processes that the Committee considers significant having taken into account value, risk, and public interest.

· Take necessary steps to ensure that procurement processes provide value-for-money.

· Approval of tenders and contracts that are outside of approved staff delegations.

· Ensure that where projects have a potential negative environmental impact, appropriate mitigation is considered in design, delivery, and eventual operations.

· Monitor the delivery of projects. (Note that the development of future strategic and growth-related projects, including future strategic transport projects, will be monitored by the City Future Committee until the project purpose definition, business case, and funding are in place).

· Review regular financial performance reporting, including reporting against strategic outcomes, the Long-term Plan, the Annual Plan, and other strategic and implementation documents.

· Review non-financial performance reporting.

· Provide oversight on the preparation of the Annual Report and other external financial reporting required by legislation to ensure it not only meets legislative requirements, but that it provides transparent, relevant and accurate information.

· To reassess financial reporting targets for the next Long-term Plan process and make recommendations to Council accordingly.

Power to Act

· To make all decisions necessary to fulfil the role, scope and responsibilities of the Committee subject to the limitations imposed.

· To establish sub-committees, working parties and forums as required.

Power to Recommend

· To Council and/or any standing committee as it deems appropriate.

Chair and Deputy Chair acting as Co-Chairs

· While the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Committee roles are separately appointed it is the intention that they act as co-chairs.

○ Only one person can chair a meeting at any one time. The person chairing the meeting has the powers of the chair as set out in standing orders and has the option to use the casting vote in the case of an equality of votes.

○ The rotation of the meeting chairs is at the discretion of the Chair and Deputy Chair and subject to their availability, however it is expected that they will alternate chairing meetings when possible.

○ When the Deputy Chair is chairing the meeting, the Chair will vacate the chair and enable the Deputy Chair to chair the meeting. The Chair will be able to stay and participate in the meeting unless they declare a conflict of interest in an item, in which case they will not participate or vote on that item.

○ The Chair and Deputy Chair will attend pre-agenda briefings and split any other duties outside of meetings, e.g. spokesperson for the Committee.

○ The Chair and Deputy Chair will jointly oversee and co-ordinate all activities of the Committee within their specific terms of reference and delegated authority, providing guidance and direction to all members and liaising with Council staff in setting the content and priorities of meeting agendas.

○ The Chair and Deputy Chair will be accountable for ensuring that any recommendations from the Committee are considered by the Tauranga City Council.

unconfirmed City Delivery Committee meeting minutes

4 June 2025

MINUTES

City Delivery Committee meeting

Wednesday, 4 June 2025

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 4

3 Public forum.. 4

4 Acceptance of late items. 4

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 4

6 Change to order of business. 4

7 Confirmation of minutes. 5

7.1 Minutes of the City Delivery Committee meeting held on 7 April 2025. 5

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 5

9 Business. 5

9.1 Status Update on Actions from Prior City Delivery Committee Meetings. 5

9.2 Third Quarter Financial Performance Monitoring. 6

9.3 Community Relations Social Media Plan. 6

9.4 Project Performance End of April 2025. 7

9.5 Major Projects Update – Transport 10.57 am.. 7

9.6 Transport Network Operations Update. 8

9.7 7th Avenue Cul-de-Sac and 12th Avenue Access Options. Parking Options for 6th, 7th and 8th Avenue. 8

9.8 Procurement Plan: Central Corridor Water Supply Trunk Mains. 10

9.9 Tauranga City Council Consenting Performance - June 2025. 10

9.10 Council-Controlled Organisations - Half-Year Reports 2024/25. 11

9.11 Action & Investment Plans and Long-Term Plan Actions Monitoring. 12

10 Discussion of late items. 13

11 Public excluded session. 13

Confidential Attachment 2 9.8 - Procurement Plan: Central Corridor Water Supply Trunk Mains 13

12 Closing karakia. 14

Resolutions transferred into the open section of the meeting after discussion. 14

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

City Delivery Committee meeting

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

ON Wednesday, 4 June 2025 AT 9.30am

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, (Chair), Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler, Cr Rod Taylor, Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Cr Hēmi Rolleston, Tangata Whenua Representative Ms Jacqui Rolleston-Steed (online).

IN ATTENDANCE:

Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Paul Davidson (Chief Financial Officer), Barbara Dempsey (General Manager: Community Services), Sarah Omundsen (General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance), Alastair McNeill (General Manager: Corporate Services), Gareth Wallis (General Manager: City Development & Partnerships), Jeremy Boase (Acting General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance), Tracey Hughes (Financial Insights and Reporting Manager), Kathryn Sharplin (Finance Manager), Ceilidh Dunphy (Community Relations Manager), Sam Kellway (Strategic Content Lead), James Woodward (Manager Performance, Monitoring, Risk & Assurance), Chris Barton (Programme Director: Major Transport Projects), Mike Seabourne (Head of Transport), Martin Taylor (Manager: Transport Network Operations), Karen Hay (Manager: Network Safety & Sustainability), Richard Conning (Programme Manager: Delivery), Wally Potts (Director of City Waters), Richard Conning (Programme Manager: Delivery), James Eardely (Programme Management Lead: Water Outcomes), Alex Miller (Manager: Environmental Planning), Steve Pearce (Manager: Building Services), Caroline Lim (CCO Specialist),

Clare Sullivan (Team Leader: Governance Services), Anahera Dinsdale (Governance Advisor).

EXTERNAL:

Council Controlled Organisation attendees as listed in the minutes.

Timestamps are included beside each of the items and relate to the recording of the meeting held on 4 June 2025 at Council Website.

1 Opening karakia

Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular opened the meeting with a karakia.

2 Apologies

Apology

Committee Resolution CDC/25/3/1

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

That the apology for absence received from Cr Hautapu Baker be accepted.

Carried

3 Public forum

Timestamp: 2:05

3.1 Donna Matheson – 12^th Avenue Convenience Centre

· Ms Matheson spoke on behalf of the businesses on 12^th Avenue including Subway, Burger Fuel, Dominoes, Pita Pit, the Sushi Bar and Asian Supermarket.

· This was once a convenience centre on the corner of Cameron Road and 12^th Avenue, but was now no longer.

· The Cameron Road re-design had not taken the tenants at this centre into consideration and had consequently financially disadvantaged them.

· It was acknowledged that Cameron Road was designed with a 30 year plan in mind however, it was felt it needed tweaking to accommodate current shortfalls.

· The road design did not support an environment where these businesses could survive and it was felt they were not being given a chance to keep up with the 30 year plan.

· The convenience centre was located on a section of Cameron Road that was more disadvantaged that any other section of the road, due to not having a right turn/slip lane.

· As ‘Quick Service Restaurants’, all the businesses had lost 100% of out-of-town revenue and ‘spontaneous decision makers’, due to them not being able to find their way into the centre.

· Several tenants had met on site with members of the Transport Team, discussing safety issues, and what the process would involve and how much it would cost. Traffic behaviour from 11^th to 13^th Avenue was observed, with large gaps in traffic flows noticed that would allow multiple and safe right hand turns.

· The tenants supported Option 1 of the agenda report ‘7th Avenue Cul-de-Sac and 12th Avenue Access Options. Parking Options for 6th, 7th and 8th Avenue." and requested that Council reinstate a right turn/slip lane into 12^th Avenue so that their businesses could survive.

4 Acceptance of late items

Nil

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6 Change to order of business

Nil

7 Confirmation of minutes

TIMESTAMP 8:55

7.1 Minutes of the City Delivery Committee meeting held on 7 April 2025

Committee Resolution CDC/25/3/2

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Cr Steve Morris

That the Minutes of the City Delivery Committee meeting held on 7 April 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record with the following amendments:

· Item 3.2: Deborah Turner – Bus Stops and Road Safety

Action

o That the transport team look at bus stop safety around the Mount Hot Pools.

o That Ms Turner speak to the Public Transport Committee.

Carried

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9 Business

TIMESTAMP 11:07

9.1 Status Update on Actions from Prior City Delivery Committee Meetings

Staff Alastair McNeil, General Manager Corporate Services

Action

· That the action from item 3.1 from the City Delivery Committee Meeting minutes held on 7 April 2025 be recorded in the action schedule as follows and that its status be changed to ‘pending’:

o That staff hold a workshop for Councillors to discuss the benefits of a Community Committee.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/3/3

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Status Update on Actions from Prior City Delivery Committee Meetings".

(b) Notes that this is a recurring report, which will be provided to each subsequent meeting of this Committee.

Carried

TIMESTAMP 18:09

9.2 Third Quarter Financial Performance Monitoring

Staff: Tracey Hughes, Financial Insights and Reporting Manager

Kathryn Sharplin, Finance Manager

Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

Actions

That the Finance staff:

· Hold a workshop on depreciation including how it changes over time and the reason for the large increase.

· Provide a breakdown of consultants by group.

That the Spaces and Places Team:

· Look at the playground programme for the forthcoming year and put this in the Annual Plan.

· Provide Councillors with information on the total cost of contractors taken in-house and the budget equivalent.

· Provide a report at the next meeting about the size and scale of what city operations deal with on a daily basis.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/3/4

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Steve Morris

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Third Quarter Financial Performance Monitoring".

Carried

TIMESTAMP 47:08

9.3 Community Relations Social Media Plan

Staff Ceilidh Dunphy, Community Relations Manager

Sam Kellway, Strategic Content Lead

Actions

That staff:

· Provide information in next Social Media Plan report on the number of likes and dislikes on a sample of social posts. Engagement statistics would be more useful than impressions data.

· Hold a communication session once a month for an hour with Councillors on how they could participate and/or engage in additional opportunities across Tauranga City Council.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/3/5

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Community Relations Social Media Plan".

Carried

Attachments

1 Presentation: Connecting with our Community – City Delivery Committee Meeting 4 June

2025

TIMESTAMP 1:19:20

9.4 Project Performance End of April 2025

10.51 am

Staff: James Woodward, Manager Performance, Monitoring, Risk & Assurance

Action

· In future reporting, add information on risks affecting the capital programme, and mitigations.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/3/6

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Project Performance End of April 2025".

Carried

TIMESTAMP 1:26:32

9.5 Major Projects Update – Transport

Staff: Chris Barton, Programme Director: Major Transport Projects

Committee Resolution CDC/25/3/7

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Major Projects Update - Transport".

Carried

TIMESTAMP 1:51:56

9.6 Transport Network Operations Update

Staff: Martin Taylor, Manager: Transport Network Operations

Mike Seabourne, Head of Transport

Action

· In future reporting, add in the state of renewals of assets.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/3/8

Moved: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Transport Network Operations Update".

Carried

TIMESTAMP 1:52:14

9.7 7th Avenue Cul-de-Sac and 12th Avenue Access Options. Parking Options for 6th, 7th and 8th Avenue.

Staff Karen Hay, Manager: Network Safety & Sustainability

Mike Seabourn, Head of Transport

Actions

· That staff provide information around the triggers for the bus lane being operational on Cameron Road as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding signed by the funding agency, Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Tauranga City Council and status of the contract.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/3/9

Moved: Cr Kevin Schuler

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "7th Avenue Cul-de-Sac and 12th Avenue Access Options. Parking Options for 6th, 7th and 8th Avenue."

(b) Maintains the status quo of the 7th Avenue cul-de-sac considering the subsequent loss of parking on Cameron Road is of high value to the local businesses and potential implications for the future form and function of Cameron Road;

(d) That all the on – street parking options proceed with local engagement with directly affected businesses and residents on 7th Avenue and the immediate surrounding streets.

Carried

For: Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Rod Taylor, Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Tangata Whenua Representative Jacqui Rolleston-Steed and Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Against: Cr Glen Crowther

carried 9/1

Committee Resolution CDC/25/3/10

Moved: Cr Kevin Schuler

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

(e) Given the challenges associated with access of 12th Avenue from the western side of Cameron Road, no action is to be taken to change the current arrangement. This is due to the safety implications and the likelihood to impede through traffic.

Carried

For: Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler, Jen Scoular, Cr Rod Taylor, Tangata Whenua Representative Jacqui Rolleston-Steed and Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Against: Cr Rick Curach and Mayor Mahé Drysdale

carried 8/2

The Chair congratulated Kings Birthday Honours recipients.

At 12.08pm the meeting adjourned.

At 12.35pm the meeting reconvened.

At 1.45pm Mayor Mahé Drysdale entered the meeting.

TIMESTAMP 3:05:24

9.8 Procurement Plan: Central Corridor Water Supply Trunk Mains

Staff Richard Conning, Programme Manager: Delivery

Wally Potts, Director of City Waters

James Eardely, Programme Management Lead: Water Outcomes

Action

· That staff provide a report to Councillors that analyses the impact of deferred renewals in FY25, due to constraints i.e. budget, on the FY26 programme and that report should cover both transport and waters.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/3/11

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Procurement Plan: Central Corridor Water Supply Trunk Mains".

(b) Endorses the procurement plan to a value of $7.25 million for the design and Early Contractor Involvement of Section 4 – Greerton to Smith’s Farm, and the delivery phase of the Cambridge Reservoir and Chadwick Link Trunk Mains project.

(c) Attachment 2 can be transferred into the open once the procurement process for the design and ECI contracts is complete

Carried

TIMESTAMP 3.18:44

9.9 Tauranga City Council Consenting Performance - June 2025

Staff: Alex Miller, Manager: Environmental Planning

Steve Pearce, Manager: Building Services

Sarah Omundsen, General Manager: Regulatory & Compliance

Action

· That staff provide Councillors with a report at the next meeting on how they intend to continue improving on performance while managing the rise in consent applications going forward, and how they and Councillors could better engage with the development sector to help achieve this.

Committee Resolution CDC/25/3/12

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Tauranga City Council Consenting Performance - June 2025".

Carried

TIMESTAMP 3:43:57

9.10 Council-Controlled Organisations - Half-Year Reports 2024/25

Staff: Caroline Lim, CCO Specialist

Gareth Wallis, General Manager: City Development & Partnerships

Council Controlled Organisations - external presenters:

Bay Venues Limited	Simon Clarke – Chair Bay Venues Chad Hooker – Chief Executive
Tauranga Art Gallery Trust	Rosemary Protheroe – Chair TAGT Sonya Korohina – Director of the Tauranga Art Gallery
Tourism Bay of Plenty	Russ Browne – Chair TBOP Richard Faire – Head of Strategy and Insights
Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited	Graeme Firth – Manager Civic Development Helen Andrews – Financial Analyst
Te Manawataki o Te Papa Charitable Trust	Representatives from the Otamataha Trust: Puhirake Ihaka, Alan Tate, Rā Winiata,Emily Gudsell

Action

· That staff provide Councillors with a broader scope on what cyber risk management involved and what it covered. For example, if Council was exposed, hacked, or locked out of its system, what would the insurance policy cover?

Committee Resolution CDC/25/3/13

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Council-Controlled Organisations - Half-Year Reports 2024/25".

(b) Receives Bay Venues Limited’s (Bay Venues) Half-Year Report (Attachment 1).

(d) Receives Tourism Bay of Plenty’s (TBOP) Half-Year Report (Attachment 3).

(e) Receives Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited’s (TMOTPL) Half-Year Report (Attachment 4).

(f) Receives Te Manawataki o Te Papa Charitable Trust’s (The Charitable Trust) Half-Year Report (Attachment 5).

(g) Receives Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services Limited’s (BOPLASS) Half-Year Report (Attachment 6).

Carried

Attachments

1 Council Controlled Organisations Presentation - City Delivery Committee Meeting 4 June 2025

TIMESTAMP 4.45:35

9.11 Action & Investment Plans and Long-Term Plan Actions Monitoring

Staff Jeremy Boase (Acting General Manager: Strategy, Growth & Governance)

Committee Resolution CDC/25/3/14

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Action & Investment Plans and Long-Term Plan Actions Monitoring

(b) Approves annual frequency for reporting of actions from Action & Investment Plans, with the next update to be presented at the April/May 2026 meeting and annually thereafter.

Carried

For: Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Rod Taylor, Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Tangata Whenua Representative Jacqui Rolleston-Steed and Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Against: Cr Glen Crowther

carried 9/1

10 Discussion of late items

Nil

12 Closing karakia

Cr Kevin Schuler closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 2:27pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the City Delivery Committee meeting held on 22 July 2025.

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

Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

CHAIR

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

22 July 2025

9.2 Hairini Slip Lane Trial - Survey Results and Recommendations

File Number: A18390246

Author: Kurt Graham, Project Manager

Authoriser: Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. To provide a summary of the Community Engagement undertaken in relation to a trial opening of the Hairini Slip Lane and to seek approval to proceed with a three-month trial opening of the slip lane.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Hairini Slip Lane Trial - Survey Results and Recommendations".

(b) Supports the implementation of a trial reopening of the slip lane:

(i) For a three-month period, provisionally planned for October to December 2025

(ii) At all times except the morning peak (remains bus only from 6.30am to 9.30am weekdays)

(iii) With the inclusion of Traffic Calming on Hairini Street

(iv) At a cost of up to $110,000 in FY26

Executive Summary

2. The Hairini Slip Lane is currently a bus lane (at all times). This was implemented following completion of the Welcome Bay Underpass, due to concerns surrounding the three-lane merge as well as to improve operational efficiency.

3. There is a section of the Hairini community that is bordered by Turret Road, State Highway 29 and the Tauranga Harbour, which would benefit from being allowed to use the slip lane (See Figure 1). For the purposes of this report this is the area described when referring to Hairini.

4. Outside of peak times there is rarely significant traffic build up on Turret Road and buses only use the slip lane every 20 minutes. Therefore, many residents feel there is no need for all-day restrictions.

5. The issues were raised by local Hapū Ngāi Te Ahi and in June 2024 as part of the Tangata Whenua /Tauranga City Council Committee meeting, Council committed to investigating a trial reopening of the Hairini Slip Lane to traffic at restricted times of the day.

6. Since then, we have undertaken initial design work to ensure the feasibility and safety of the trial. Tauranga City Council has also undertaken significant engagement with the Hapū representatives who have assisted in developing options for the trial and plans for community engagement.

7. Over May and June 2025, a targeted engagement was undertaken with the Hairini community, bordered by Turret Rd, State Highway 29 and the Tauranga Harbour. This included undertaking a survey, community drop-in sessions, and in-person visits to the 330 properties and businesses in the area.

(a) 92 responses to the survey were received with:

(b) 80% in support of the proposed trial

8. Additionally, most residents (78%) were supportive of traffic calming on Hairini St to deter ‘rat-running’ and maintain safe traffic speeds and volumes through the residential area.

9. By undertaking a trial re-opening as recommended in this report, it will allow us to assess the implications of the reopening, which may be used when determining the viability of a long-term solution (if any) after construction of the proposed Turret Rd / 15th Ave upgrades.

10. Potential consequences and risks of the trial include increased traffic volumes and speeds along Hairini St and reduced operational efficiency due to the merge with the SH29 off-ramp traffic. Mitigations are proposed to minimise these impacts including traffic calming and maintaining the bus lane status during morning peak. The effectiveness of these mitigations will be assessed as part of the trial.

11. The most significant reputational risk associated with the project is that, until final designs for the Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay project are completed, it will not be known if a long-term solution is viable with the future lane layouts. However, community expectations will likely be heightened after the trial.

12. Community expectations have been raised after previous commitments were made to consider options for a trial at the June 2024 Tangata Whenua /Tauranga City Council Committee meeting. Therefore, not undertaking the trial would likely also cause reputational issues.

13. The cost to implement the trial in FY26 is expected to be $110,000 (see item 31 below). This budget is allowed for in the Annual Plan. There are no further costs associated with not proceeding with the trial, other than staff time to out the project and notify the community of the decision.

14. If the trial is successful and a permanent solution is able to be implemented, additional costs are expected, to inform the community and implement permanent traffic calming infrastructure. Early estimates are in the order of $70,000. However, the estimate is dependent on scope, which may be influenced by learnings from the trial.

Background

15. For the purposes of this report, the area referred to as “Hairini” is that which is bordered by Turret Road, State Highway 29 and the Waimapu Estuary. (Refer figure 1). Currently, the only way for residents to exit Hairini is to travel back to the SH29 roundabout as they cannot use the slip lane.

16. The land upon which the Hairini Slip Lane was constructed was originally acquired under the Public Works Act for the purpose of creating the slip lane for egress out of Hairini. However, following completion of the Welcome Bay Underpass the slip lane was subsequently closed to general traffic and reserved for bus use only. This decision was based on safety concerns of the three-lane merge as well as operational efficiency.

17. There have been a number of residents that have opposed the closure to general traffic since its implementation, in particular it is believed that the full-time basis of the bus lane is not necessary. The issue was subsequently tabled at the April 2024 Tangata Whenua/Tauranga City Council Committee (TW/TCC) meeting at Hairini Marae, with Ngāi te Ahi Hapū suggesting that the slip lane should be reopened for limited hours. At the June 2024 TW/TCC Committee meeting at Waikari Marae the Commissioners committed to investigating a trial reopening.

18. Staff subsequently had an initial design completed, (Refer Attachment 2) including a Safe System Audit to ensure a trial was feasible from a safety perspective. The initial design mitigates the safety concerns identified when the lane was changed to a bus lane, by having the merge location with the State Highway 29 off-ramp, before the merge with Welcome Bay Link Road, preventing a three-lane merge.

19. Staff then began further engagement with the Hapū, including holding meetings with the hapū representatives and two engagement sessions at Hairini Marae.

20. Staff also worked with Hapū to develop options and a Communications and Engagement Plan for the residents of Hairini. This targeted engagement included developing a survey to understand the thoughts and wishes of Hairini.

21. The survey focussed on Hairini only, as this community was identified as being the most impacted by the trial. A letter with the survey link was sent to all residents in Hairini, including property owners and businesses. Additionally, in order to increase the response rate and ensure all residents had the chance to complete the survey, Council staff followed up with in-person visits to all properties in Hairini which had not completed a survey. This included support from Councillor Hautapu Baker.

22. In total Council received 92 responses. The full results are attached in Attachment 1, and in summary:

(a) 80% were in support or strongly in support of a trial

(b) 20% were against or strongly against the trial

(d) 22% were against traffic calming

23. It is important to note that of the residents on Hairini Street, where the trial may have the greatest negative impacts, 40% were opposed and 60% were in favour of the trial. Only one response from the local businesses was received.

24. The general themes from the in-person discussions during the door knocking exercise were:

(a) Most people were in support of the trial, though some had concerns about potential negative effects.

(b) There was an understanding and agreement from most people spoken to, that peak time (6.30am-9.30am weekdays) would not be feasible.

(d) Concerns discussed include; increased traffic in the residential area, resulting in an increase in noise and potential for speeding and accidents and the crossing of Hairini Street for children returning home from Maungatapu School and elderly people walking their dogs in the area.

(e) Some people felt the current restrictions meant that Hairini was now a quieter, “far nicer” place to live without the extra traffic.

Statutory Context

25. The Hairini Slip Lane is currently in the Bylaws as a Bus Lane and enforced at all times.

26. It is not proposed to change the Bylaw for the purpose of the three-month trail. Instead, the trial will be held on a discretionary basis, whereby Council would choose not to enforce the Bylaw outside of the morning peak, for the duration of the trial.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

27. 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	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	☐

28. The trial reopening of the slip lane outside of the morning peak hours of 6.30am-9.30am will allow easier vehicle movements out of Hairini for residents, at appropriate times of the day.

29. It will demonstrate that Tauranga is a well-planned city. For much of the day traffic is flowing well on Welcome Bay Road / Turret Road (where the slip lane merges) and outside of peak times, only one bus every 20 minutes uses the lane. Therefore, during this off-peak time the slip lane appears underutilised. Having the slip lane open at appropriate times may improve utilisation of existing infrastructure and slightly reduce the demand at the SH29 Roundabouts.

Options Analysis

30. Option 1 (recommended): Trial a three-month reopening of the slip lane to traffic outside of the morning peak (remains bus only from 6.30am to 9.30am).

(a) This option is recommended as the majority of the community who responded to the survey were in support of this trial.

(b) This option would include traffic calming on Hairini Street to mitigate / deter ‘rat-running’ and maintain a safe speed environment for residents.

(c) The trial will allow data to be gathered which could inform the Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay project and a potential final design for the future layout.

(d) It should be noted that the trial may be concluded earlier if unacceptable safety outcomes are observed.

(e) Trial dates are provisionally programmed for October to December 2025

31. Option 2: Do nothing – this is not recommended as the community is generally in support of the trial.

32. Option 3: Pursue a resident-only access approach.

(a) A general theme from the community engagement was that the community would prefer resident only access through the slip lane. This allows for the benefit of the simple egress out of Hairini without increasing traffic volumes through the residential area.

(b) This option is not recommended as would be very difficult to enforce.

Financial Considerations

33. There is currently $110K budget allocated to undertake the trial in FY26. This will include further Communication and Engagement activities, establishing the trial, monitoring during the trial period and removal of the trial after three months. Relocatable traffic calming devices will be used, which will be suitable for reuse on other projects after the trial.

34. If the trial is successful and a permanent solution is able to be implemented, additional costs are expected, including to notify the community and implement permanent traffic calming infrastructure. Early estimates are in the order of $70,000. However, the estimate is dependent on scope, which may be influenced by learnings from the trial. This early estimate allows for additional internal staff time, additional communication activities with the community and up to four asphalt speed humps.

Legal Implications / Risks

35. It is not proposed to change the bus lane Bylaw for the purpose of the three-month trial. Instead, the trial will be held on a discretionary basis, whereby Council would choose not to enforce the bus lane Bylaw outside of the morning peak.

36. The most significant project risks include:

(a) The Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay project is expected to change the lane layouts around the proposed merge. Until the design for this project is complete, it won‘t be known if or how the trial could be replicated with the new layout. Therefore, there is a significant risk that community expectations may be raised after the trial, then not able to be incorporated into the project.

(b) There is a risk that there will be an increase in traffic volumes and speeds along Hairini Street due to “rat-running” in an attempt to avoid delays at the Welcome Bay Roundabout. This risk has been mitigated at least in part by the opening times being outside of the morning peak when there is little to no traffic build up on the SH29 off ramp and also by including traffic calming such as speed humps along Hairini Street. The intent of these measures is to make the route less desirable and be of no advantage to traffic from outside of Hairini. However, the effectiveness of the mitigations will not be known until after the trial is implemented.

(c) There is also a risk that the increase in merging movements may cause safety or operational issues. The initial design mitigates these concerns, by merging slip lane traffic onto the State Highway 29 off-ramp, before the merge with Welcome Bay Link Road, preventing a three-lane merge.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

Manaakitanga - a strong duty of care and safety for our people.

37. This project has been undertaken in partnership with local Hapū – Ngāi te Ahi. The project was Hapū driven and as a result Hapū have been regularly engaged and their feedback and input included where possible into the works completed to date. Although not all wishes could be met at all times, causing some debate, maintaining a good relationship with the Hapū has remained a core focus.

Rangatiratanga – Self-determination, best practice, Reciprocity

38. To date Council has held several workshops with the local Hapū as well as an engagement session at Hairini Marae

39. A representative from the Takawaenga Māori Unit has been involved in the project from the start and is a member of the Project Control Group, ensuring best practices were followed and the Hapū were engaged appropriately and kept informed of the progress.

Kaitiakitanga - Stewardship of the natural environment

40. This project utilises existing roads and infrastructure and environmental impacts are expected to be minimal.

Whanaungatanga - Relationships and network support systems

41. The local Hapū have been partners in this project form the start.

42. To date the Hapū have provided valued input into the community engagement, the survey and the options being considered

Wairuatanga - a well-grounded belief system that supports instinct and intuition in line with whāia te tika – the pursuit of the right way forward

43. The land upon which the slip lane was constructed was originally acquired under the Public Works Act to create a slip lane that would be available for the community to use. This was later changed to a bus lane meaning it was unavailable for use by the community other than for bus users.

44. This project seeks to trial allowing the community to use the slip lane at times that it is safe and appropriate to do so.

Tūmanako - The objectives and aspirations of the community

45. This project came at the request of members of the Hairini community in particular for the local Hapu and Hairini Marae

46. Council has taken the additional steps of undertaking a targeted survey with the community including in-person visits to ensure the objective and aspirations of the community are fully understood and met where possible as part of the recommendation.

Te Reo Māori - Active commitment to protect and promote this taonga, the Māori language, for future generations of all New Zealanders

47. The project would use Te Reo Maori in communications where appropriate

CLIMATE IMPACT

48. Opening the slip lane at appropriate times will allow residents to reduce the distance travelled slightly.

49. It is also proposed to use ‘bolt-in’ removable infrastructure for traffic calming on Hairini Street. At the end of the trial these items will be able to be uplifted and taken to Council‘s storage facility, where they will be available for repurposing on future projects, reducing waste.

Consultation / Engagement

50. The proposed trial reopening of the Hairini Slip Lane had a clear, easily defined area of impacted residents for whom this project is intended to offer benefits, and also those that may experience any potential negative impacts, such as increases in traffic volumes. This area is bordered by SH29, Turret /Welcome Bay Road and the harbour with the only access being via the SH29 / Hairini St Roundabout. Therefore, it was decided to undertake targeted engagement at this stage with only these residents.

51. The engagement included a survey encouraging residents to give their feedback on the proposal. To give residents the best possible chance of being able to respond, two community drop-in sessions were held. Additionally, staff undertook a door-knocking exercise, visiting properties where people had not yet responded to the survey.

52. In total Council received 92 responses from the 330 properties in the survey area. The full results are attached in Attachment 1, but in summary:

(a) 80% were in support or strongly in support of a trial

(b) 20% were against or strongly against the trial

(d) 22% were against traffic calming

53. The general themes from the in-person discussions were:

(a) Most people were in support of the trial, though some had concerns about potential negative effects.

(b) There was an understanding and agreement from most people spoken to, that peak time (6.30am-9.30am weekdays) would not be feasible.

(d) Concerns include; increased traffic in the residential area, with the resulting noise and increased risk of speeding and accidents. Other concerns included children returning home from Maungatapu School and crossing Hairini Street, and elderly people walking their dogs in the area.

(e) Some people felt the current restrictions meant that Hairini was now a quieter, “far nicer” place to live without the extra traffic.

Significance

54. 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.

55. 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 proposal.

56. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the proposal is of medium significance.

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

58. If the recommendations are accepted the next steps will be:

(a) Finalise the design

(b) Communicate the outcomes of the survey with the community

(d) Undertake physical works

(e) Run trial for three months including undertaking safety reviews, gathering speed and vehicle count data

(f) Hold a survey with the community to understand their thoughts on the trial

(g) Report back to Council, for a decision on the future of the slip lane and trial infrastructure.

Attachments

1. Engagement report for Proposed Hairini Slip Lane Trial - A18483786 ⇩

2. Preliminary Design - A18483504 ⇩

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

22 July 2025

9.3 Major Projects Update - Transport

File Number: A18458136

Author: Chris Barton, Programme Director: Major Projects

Authoriser: Nic Johansson, General Manager: Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. To provide an update to Committee on the transport major projects in implementation and delivery including Pāpāmoa East Interchange, SH29 Tauriko Enabling Works and Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Major Projects Update - Transport".

Executive Summary

2. This is an update report on the status and progress on the three major transport projects which are in delivery phase, the Pāpāmoa East Interchange, SH29 Tauriko Enabling Works and Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay projects. The Cameron Road Stage 2 and Connecting Mount Maunganui projects are being reported to City Futures Committee.

3. This report is being provided as the projects are high value, complex, and have a high risk profile with potentially significant consequences.

4. Overview timeframes for delivery of the five major transport projects are outlined below:

5. Overall the construction of the Pāpāmoa East Interchange and SH29 Tauriko Enabling Works projects are progressing well, and are being delivered on time, on budget, safely and without significant stakeholder issues or traffic disruption.

6. The Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay project is progressing well with procurement of designers and contractors in accordance with the endorsed Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) delivery model to advance next stages of design development.

7. Key risks are reflected in project updates with ‘amber’ status. The key current risk for SH29 Tauriko Enabling Works is managing traffic and disruption during construction, and for Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay the key risk is scope and cost confirmation particularly regarding the Hairini Bridge as the design is developed following current procurement of designers and contractors.

8. We are targeting early opening of the Pāpāmoa East Interchange eastbound offramp from SH2 to the Pāpāmoa East area by the end of August 2025, and full interchange completion in early 2026.

Pāpāmoa East Interchange

9. The Pāpāmoa East Interchange is a key roading connection to improve network connectivity for existing residents and also enable ongoing growth and continued residential & commercial development.

10. Construction is progressing well with works currently ahead of programme and costs forecast to be within budget.

11. An overview of the project status is as below:

	Status	Comments
Cost		LTP Budget $79.3m. Current estimate at completion $65m-$74m. Previously confirmed $5m of savings, with further assessment of potential savings planned by Dec 2024 as construction progresses and residual risks are further understood.
Time		Baseline completion mid-2026. Currently ahead of programme, on track for completion circa March 2026.
Safety		Appropriate safety management with regular audits. 120,000 worker hours on site to date without any serious harm incidents.
Scope		Scope confirmed with no substantive changes
Stakeholders		No current major disruption or complaints. Upcoming NZTA consultation on proposed amendments to TEL tolling arrangements may result in increased stakeholder concerns.
Risk		Whilst works are progressing well, this remains a complex and high value project with significant construction works still to be completed. Active management of live risks with contingencies in place.

12. In terms of construction progress, works are well advanced on all interchange ramp connections, with the current focus on progressing the overbridge. At the bridge site, mechanically stabilised earth (MSE) walls and concrete bridge columns are now constructed on both abutments, with the southern crosshead beam also complete.

13. To enable the deck beams to be installed and other key construction activities overnight closures of the Tauranga Eastern Link are required. Overnight closures are currently planned for:

· Bridge beam install – up to 3 nights in late August

· Bridge deck concrete pour – 1 night in mid-September

· Bridge edge barrier installation – 1 night in mid-October

· TEL traffic management / lane closure disestablishment – 2 nights, timing tbc

14. Through the design development, procurement and delivery phases staff have optimised scope, procured smartly and worked collaboratively with the Contractor to mitigate and avoid realisation of risks, which as previously reported has resulted in forecast savings of at least $5m against the project budget.

15. Early opening of TEL eastbound exit ramp connection to Te Okuroa Drive is planned in the second half of this year, with current plans for this connection to be opened by the end of August.

16. Though not part of the project, NZTA have indicated they will be consulting on a proposed amendment to the Tauranga Eastern Link Toll Road scheme, specifically regarding a new toll point west of the Pāpāmoa East Interchange and a likely split of the current toll between TEL sections. Details of the proposal and timeframes for consultation and implementation and are still to be confirmed, however consultation is expected in July/August 2025.

17. The overall interchange is on track for completion as scheduled by mid-2026, however the team are currently working on further refining the forward programme to seek advancement opportunities, with a target of opening in Q1 next year by the end of March 2026.

SH29 Tauriko Enabling Works

18. The Tauriko West Enabling Works project supports both residential and industrial growth - it will directly enable initial development of up to 2,400 new homes in the Tauriko West development area and enable ongoing development of over 100 hectares of industrial land in the Tauriko Business Estate, which is anticipated to provide up to 6,000 additional jobs within the city.

19. Construction is progressing well with works underway at both the Redwood Lane and Tauriko Village / Cambridge Road sites and no current significant impacts to SH29 traffic flows.

20. An overview of the project status is as below:

	Status	Comments
Cost		LTP Budget $240.8m. Current estimate $215m-$240m which is within budget, however significant risks remain.
Time		Construction progressing on programme, with works scheduled to be complete in 2027.
Safety		Continuous safe delivery - over 180,000 worker hours to date without any serious harm incidents.
Scope		Scope confirmed with no substantive changes.
Stakeholders		Actively working with project neighbours and travelling public, however anticipate ongoing traffic disruption during construction. Noise walls have been installed along project boundaries to reduce both construction and operational noise, with positive feedback from site neighbours.
Risk		Active management of live risks and contingencies in place, however this remains a high-risk project with significant residual risks. Managing traffic throughout construction to minimise disruption remains a key challenge and risk.

21. At the Redwood Lane / Kaweroa Drive / SH29 section of the site, following the traffic switch to new roundabout at the intersection in May, works have been progressing well with constructing the connections into the Tauriko Business Estate and the Tauriko West residential growth area, as well as completing installation of the pedestrian/cycle underpass. Opening of the Kaweroa Drive connection to the SH29 / Redwood Lane roundabout is planned in late 2025 / early 2026, which will provide improved access to the Tauriko Business Estate.

22. At the Tauriko Village section of the site, following opening of the new northern access road and new Tauriko School & Playcentre carpark in May, works have been progressing with installation of noise walls and new large retaining walls alongside SH29 and Cambridge Road to enable road widening. Works through Tauriko Village including the upgrading the SH29 / Cambridge Road intersection remains on track for completion in 2027.

23. In early June the project celebrated World Environment Day with an enthusiastic kaitiaki group of Tauriko School students by planting 160 native plants at the new school entrance during their lunch break. This marked an exciting milestone for the project, as these were the first of approximately 250,000 plants to be planted as part of the wider landscaping effort this season. The project landscaping team was on hand to guide the students, sharing their knowledge about native species and planting techniques. The enthusiasm from both students and teachers was infectious, and one of the senior classes joined in for the afternoon session.

24. The project team also recently hosted the Papamoa College geography class on site. As part of their module on rivers and the health of waterways, the students conducted water testing, gaining hands-on experience in environmental monitoring and data collection.

25. Through construction one of the project targets is to achieve accreditation from the Infrastructure Sustainability Council regarding sustainable delivery. One key component of this relates to diversion of waste from landfill, where a 92% diversion rate is currently being achieved:

26. The infrastructure development is well aligned with the recent confirmation of the Tauriko West plan change, with both components working together to enable land development activities to commence. Earthworks are now underway within the Tauriko West development area.

Fifteenth Avenue to WElcome Bay Upgrade

27. This project seeks to address current and growing issues with peak hour congestion, poor level of service, access and safety problems, and walking and cycling deficiencies on the key city arterial transport corridor of Fifteenth Avenue to Welcome Bay including the Hairini Bridge.

28. An overview of the project status is as below:

	Status	Comments
Cost		LTP Budget $170.2m. Current estimate $149.7m-$170.2m. NZTA co-funding approved for pre-implementation phase. As the project progresses to pre-implementation further assessment will be undertaken in regard optimising the scope and delivering value for money outcomes.
Time		Progressing to programme.
Safety		No current issues.
Scope		Some scope elements to be further refined through the pre-implementation phase.
Stakeholders		Extensive further engagement is planned through design phase in advance of construction. Noting plans are currently being refined, it is anticipated further stakeholder communication and engagement will be completed at 30-50% and 85% design stages, which will be indicatively early and late 2026.
Risk		Some key risks remain which will be further addressed through the pre-implementation phase. It is noted that a key project hold point remains confirmation of the Hairini Bridge structural capacity. Managing traffic through construction to minimise disruption is a key challenge and risk. This will be further informed as the construction methodology is developed with the ECI contractor. There may be opportunities to advance some construction enabling works in advance of implementation co-funding approval gateway, however confirming NZTA co-funding for these elements may be a risk.

29. Procurement of project designers and construction contractors is currently progressing in accordance with the endorsed Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) approach. Following a first phase public Registration of Interest (RoI) process two respondents have been shortlisted and are currently in the process of developing responses to the second phase Request for Proposal (RfP). Following evaluation of submissions a preferred respondent is planned to be identified in September 2025.

30. The overall programme is for designs to be complete and construction to commence from early 2027, with construction completion indicatively estimated in early 2029.

Next Steps

31. A major projects update report will be provided to future City Delivery Committee meetings.

Attachments

Nil

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

22 July 2025

9.4 Resource and Building Consent: Update on Performance and Continuous Improvement Programmes

File Number: A18375620

Author: Alex Miller, Manager: Environmental Planning

Steve Pearce, Manager: Building Services

Authoriser: Sarah Omundsen, General Manager: Regulatory and Compliance

Purpose of the Report

1. This report provides a further update on Council’s performance in processing building and resource consents for the 2024/25 year, and expands on efforts to improve delivery of these services

2. This report is provided at the request of the Committee, following the presentation of a report on Council’s performance in Building and Resource Consent processing on 4 June 2025.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Resource and Building Consent: Update on Performance and Continuous Improvement Programmes".

executive summary

3. Council received 1,953 building consent applications in 2024/25, down from 2,029 and 2,235 in the previous two years. Of these, 1,834 were granted. Statutory timeframe compliance improved to 87% in the last quarter, up from 80% and 66% in prior years. 16,956 inspections were completed, with 1,508 Code Compliance Certificates (CCCs) issued—both metrics showing a downward trend. Only 459 new dwelling consents were granted, well below the forecast of 739.

4. Resource consent volumes remained stable at 564, slightly up from 522 in 2023/24. Timeliness improved significantly, with 97% of new decisions and 92% of all consents issued within statutory timeframes, meeting the Council’s KPI target for the first time since 2016/17. 85% of applications were approved, 1.6% refused, and 13% returned due to quality issues.

5. Both Building and Planning activities have active continuous improvement programs in place, which target consistency, efficiency, and customer experience along with issues which arise through regular auditing and review. These initiatives, along with the improvements implemented over the past 24 months, aim to help us ensure we can maintain strong performance if/when applications increase again in the future, and similarly prepare for changes anticipated in legislative reform.

6. Communication and engagement includes direct contact, regular newsletters, and pre-application meetings. The Toolbox newsletter reached 800 recipients with a 10% link click rate; the Planning Panui had a 58.3% open rate and 31.6% click rate. Forums and targeted engagement with industry groups support relationship-building and feedback collection.

7. Customer satisfaction surveys for building consents showed 80% positive responses in the last quarter. Of 1,600 service enquiries, 41 were complaints and 13 compliments. Cost concerns persist, particularly with development contributions adding $34,823 (plus GST) to a typical building consent invoice. Resource consent costs have risen due to a focus on improving cost recovery practices.

8. Next steps: Staff will provide performance and improvement updates every six months.

discussion

Current performance: how are we going?

Building Consents

9. Council received a total of 1953 applications for Building Consents (including amendments) in 24/25, which compares with 2029 and 2235 in the two previous years. We granted 1834 applications in 24/25 compared with 1962 and 2342 in the two previous years.

10. Compliance with statutory timeframes continues to improve. In the last quarter of the last financial year, we achieved an average of 87%, compared with 80% and 66% for the same period in the previous two years.

11. We completed 16956 building inspections last year, which is compared with 17895 and 21389 in the two previous years. The number of granted CCCs follows the same pattern – 1508 last year, compared with 1608 and 2140 in the two previous years. Inspection wait times remain low, generally sitting at 1 day, and CCC timeframe compliance remains high at 98% last year.

12. Council granted building consent for 459 new dwellings and issued CCC for 546 this past year. The forecast demand was 739 for 24/25. This obviously remains well below previous levels and still below our forecast demand.

Picture 1, Picture

Resource Consents

13. Applications for resource consents have remained largely steady over the last three years; in 2024/25, Council received a total of 564 applications for resource consent, up from 522 in 2023/24, and slightly lower than the 588 received in 2022/23.

14. Significant effort has gone into improving compliance with statutory timeframes for resource consent decisions, with steady improvement since 2022/23 visible in the chart below.

15. As a result of these efforts, Council has met it’s LTP KPI target for timeliness of resource consent processing (95%) for the first time since atleast 2016/17, with over 97% of all new resource decisions being issued within statutory timeframes, and 92% of all resource consents on time.

16. In terms of the outcomes of consent decisions, that vast majority (85%) of resource consent applications receive an approved consent, with only eight (1.6%) of the 498 applications refused in 2024/25.

17. The remaining 13% of decisions are returns, which are issued when an application has not met the threshold required under the RMA. The number of returns have increased in recent years as a result of efforts to drive improvements in application quality, in order to avoid increased costs and processing time through resolving significant issues during processing. A focus of this step has been to ensure that returns are accompanied by clear communication and feedback on the areas which require attention, and our experience has been that subsequent applications progress through the process easier.

Continuous Improvement

18. Building services have a Continuous Improvement system in place, in part because it is a regulatory requirement of the building system. Suggested improvement are lodged, recorded, delivered (assuming we agree that the improvement is a good idea), and then reviewed 12 months after completion.

19. We currently have 23 open continuous improvement actions at different stages and have closed 31 in the past financial year. Some examples of open continuous improvements are below:

· Agreeing a consistent process and definition for a separate residential dwelling across building consents, compliance, planning and development contributions so that our customers don’t get different messages depending on who they speak to. This is in the final stage of completion.

· We received a customer complaint about some of our checklists that are available on our website. The complainant was concerned the checklists are misleading; this was rectified but we recorded the need to review and update our checklists on a regular basis.

20. Similarly, effort has been and continues to be invested into process improvement initiatives for the Environmental Planning group. To date, this has been targeted towards improving timeframe compliance and the accuracy of cost recovery. Going forward, areas of focus include:

· Risk appetite and tone of decision making: Resource consents exist to avoid or mitigate potentially significant risks, such safety during flood events, making sure growth doesn’t outstrip available infrastructure, and ensuring that activities aren’t unduly impacting the community’s ability to enjoy their environment. However, it is important to ensure that process and decision making is balanced and proportionate, and several projects are underway to ensure we are effectively managing risks whilst also supporting our community to grow.

· Non-legislative timeframes: In addition to resource consents, Council receives a number of other applications under the RMA which are not subject to statutory timeframes. Work is ongoing to improve the timeliness of processing for these applications; in particular, Section 224 certificates, which are required following a subdivision and prior to title being issued.

· Efficiency in processing: Targeted effort is underway to ensure that our processes are efficient, consistent, and thus the costs are fair and reasonable. This includes investigating opportunities to develop bespoke AI tools to assist staff in some aspects of the process, in order to allow them to focus their efforts where they are most needed.

Improvements to our timeframes

21. A key focus area for both our Planning and Building Services teams over the past three years has been our timeliness. Ultimately, this means being able to provide a faster and more cost-effective service to applicants.

22. For Building Consents, following the change to development contributions in late 2021 and early 2022 timeliness was significantly impacted by an influx of applications. In mid-2022, additional processing contractors were engaged at a premium and staff worked overtime to make a short sharp impact on the timeframes. This resulted in significant improvement – from 35% to 82% by October 2022 but in the absence of additional resource, the timeframes dropped back again.

23. In late 2023, a different approach was taken and we have tried several things to raise the timeframe compliance sustainably over time:

· Regular reporting. We now report three times a week on every consent that is between day 16 and 20. This is emailed to all processors who have consents that are on the list, and their supervisors. It serves as a good reminder and a very overt prompt to make sure that the consent doesn’t go over day 20. We also report on all applications that are completed after day 20. This information feeds into our regular quality meetings where we identify trends and fixes.

· Refusals. Applications that go over time tend to be ones that have a high number of RFIs and, as a result, require significant back-and-forth. To manage this more effectively, we took a harder line with refusing applications that were not adequate. In the past year we refused 99 applications, by comparison we refused 85 in the previous year and 37 and 28 in the two years prior to that.

· Improvements to Objective Build. On reviewing the trends for applications that went over time it become apparent that an issue with the RFI module (where our staff sent and reviewed RFIs) was causing lost time. We spent time with Objective Build designing and testing a new RFI system which has increased the quality of our clock management and helped processors complete consents in a timely manner.

· Resourcing. We have continued to recruit experienced processors to fill vacant roles, and where this hasn’t been entirely successful, we have also continued to maintain a suite of contracted processors who are able to pick up the volume of consents that we can’t complete in-house. This also applies to our specialist input, where we have also engaged additional contractors to further support this when needed. That said, overall, our reliance on external contractors has decreased and remains about 30% of our volume of consents currently.

· Earlier allocation. At a previous workshop, the Mayor asked us to speed up our allocation timeframe. Through applying another short burst of additional resource, we were quickly able to reduce the allocation day from around day 10 to around day 5 (as a maximum) and are now maintain this.

· Reference consents. We have now gone live with our reference consent system which will allow high volume builders to have standard designs pre-approved so that consenting is significantly faster and more predictable.

24. Improvements to timeliness for resource consents has been achieved through a range of efforts, including:

· Greater use of legislative tools. Historically, staff had been hesitant to utilise tools such as returning an inadequate consent, or managing timeframes for complex applications, in favour of taking a collaborative approach and allowing applicants to adjust consents through the process. This was generally done with customer experience in mind, but taking an iterative approach within the processing window often resulted in consents taking longer and going overtime. This could occur with the agent’s awareness, but not always the applicants’, leading to frustration and discounted fees at a cost to Council. Our goal is to ensure that we use these tools in a way which can still be seen as collaborative and helpful, but ensuring that the overall process can be faster, easier and cheaper than if it was to be iterated through a single application. As an example, a return will always be accompanied with detailed notes on the matters to be addressed, and an opportunity to set up a pre-application meeting with the same planner to discuss any questions prior to lodging a revised application.

· Clear communication and accountability: Following a move into SAP in July 2023, reporting on consent volumes and timeframes has been greatly improved, allowing for much better prioritisation and workload management.

· Building internal capacity and capability: Effort has gone into developing and retaining skilled staff in the planning team. This has allowed Council to rely far less on external consultants, which can be harder to manage through processes.

· Improved pre-application engagement: Council offers two general channels to provide pre-lodgement advice to prospective applications – a duty planner service, which provides simple responses and advice for free (<1 hour), and through pre-application advice/meetings. Pre-application engagement provides more detailed and specific advice, and while it does come at a cost to the applicant, that cost will generally be recovered through less fees, along with faster processing. Recent improvements to both of these services aim to provide a higher level of service, better value, and encourage greater uptake.

Communication and engagement

Communication with applicants

25. A common area we have received feedback on is a perceived lack of communication; as such, this has also been a key focus area with a number of steps in place to improve:

· Contact details being made available: Previously the standard signature block on correspondence from our teams did not include direct dial phone numbers. We have updated our standard email signature block to include these and added the processor’s phone number and email address to the RFI portal for building consents.

· “Book time with me”: All of our building processing team have a ‘Book time with…” link available on our website. By clicking this link customers can book a 30min teams meeting with any of our team at a time that suits them.

· Direct communication with owners/applicants: In most cases, the owners of land/buildings do not have a direct involvement in their building or resource consent. In the past this has meant that communication with owners was always left to the agent working on their behalf, and it was reasonably common that Council would be blamed for delays, or and for technical issues that should have been resolved by the designer. In the building space, our move to the Objective Build applicant’s portal means that the owner is automatically given access to all of the RFIs and correspondence on the consent so they can have a clearer picture of the consent journey. Although we don’t have those system capabilities for resource consents, we have revised the points at which we include applicants in communications through key stages of the process to minimise surprises.

Industry-wide communication

26. At the industry-wide level, our primary communication channel is through our newsletters.

27. The Tauranga Toolbox newsletter is is emailed out to approximately 800 individual recipients, approximately every six weeks. We know that in a number of cases, businesses receive one copy and then forward it around the team (in part or completely). The system we use keeps track of recipients (anonymously) and shows that each edition gets opened many times, typically around 1500 times, and that roughly one in ten recipients click on the links contained in the email to get more information.

Tauranga Toolbox email signature, Picture

28. The latest editions have covered consent volume trends and legislative change and have included advice/guidance on common issues such as reasons for applications being rejected and RFIs (requests for information).

29. The Toolbox is also available on our website to allow people to go back and reference earlier editions and is also where people can subscribe. The above banner is on many of our team’s email signature and links people directly with the Toolbox webpage.

30. The Planning Panui is a bi-monthly (or as required) email newsletter with city plan and policy updates, highlighting common issues or challenges, providing clarification around interpretation matters, and any other relevant news.

31. The Planning Panui is available to anyone to subscribe to via the Tauranga City Council website, and currently includes a range of professional planners, surveyors, architects, designers and developers, with 272 subscribers at the time of writing.

32. In May 2025, the newsletter achieved a 58.3% open rate and a 31.6% click rate, with 84 recipients actively engaging with its content. These figures reflect a strong connection between the newsletter and its audience, with 786 total opens and 521 total clicks, indicating that readers are not only opening the newsletter but also exploring its resources in depth.

Targeted Engagement

33. Building Services have hosted and attended a number of events, forums and workshops over the past few years to engage with specific parts of the sector.

34. Through 2023 and 2024 we held regular Group Home Builders forums and Designers and Draughters forums. The Group Home Builders forum was established to allow us to meet with approximately 10 residential companies who, at the time, were responsible for over a third of all applications, and well over half of the new dwelling consents. Apart from being a great opportunity to build relationships with these customers, this forum allowed us to provide updates, debate contentious issues raised by the companies and also to test ideas that we had. By the end of 2024, the volume of applications coming from these companies had dwindled and the benefit of the forum and attendance was not as strong. As a result, we haven’t held one in 2025 thus far.

35. The Designers and Draughters forums were advertised in our Toolbox newsletter and attendance was open to anyone in the design industry. These forums were larger in attendance, but were very much a presentation from Building Services staff to the industry. We also held a Natural Hazard specific forum of this nature which was well attended especially by the engineering sector.

36. The above forums were generally hosted at Toi Ohomai’s Windermere campus as part of the relationship that they are also developing to link the industry and their students. We are continuing to work with them, and are currently working through a proposal to have their students process and inspect a (mock) building consent.

37. We also have a number of smaller targeted engagements with industry groups through their established forums. By way of example, Master Builders hold a regular meeting for their Bay of Plenty committee and Steve Pearce, Manager: Building Services, is a regular attendee at that. We have also attended and presented at their members events including the Midlands Constructive Summit in Hamilton earlier this year. We also attend regular meetings with Certified Builders, Master Plumbers, TCC’s Accredited Geo-Professionals and Architectural Designers NZ.

38. In the planning space, Council is similarly working improve engagement with the Tauranga and Western Bay of Plenty planning community via a 6-monthly Planners and Consultants Forum, which is jointly hosted by Tauranga City Council, Western Bay of Plenty District Council and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council.

39. The focus of this forum is to build and maintain relationships with Planners in both applicant and processing roles, across the western bay; agenda items generally include workshops oni policy and legislative reform, and sharing lessons learnt from significant applications with input from both applicants’ and processing planners.

40. These various engagements allow us to present information, but more importantly to hear and respond to industry feedback, and to build relationships with industry members so they are comfortable reaching out and/or raising their concerns when they want to.

41. Many of the Building Services and Environmental Planning staff hold professional memberships in the wider industry and we support the team to engage with those industry groups. This includes attendance at industry conferences, social events and being on working groups for development of policy and legislation.

Customer Feedback

42. Building Consent applicants receive an invite to complete a satisfaction survey at three stages through their application – 1) when the application is lodged, 2) when the application is approved, and 3) when the CCC is issued.

43. We have been doing this for over five years and have typically received responses from 20% of the invites sent out. As a result we have a volume of data that gives us confidence in the trends and feedback received. In the last quarter we have shifted to a new system, Qualtrics as that is Council’s core engagement system, and don’t have data that is readily comparable with the previous data.

44. In the year prior to changing systems (April 2024 – April 2025), we received 465 responses. Of those 211 responses were positive, 108 were neutral and 146 were negative (snip below). The proportion of positive responses compared with negative (known as Net Promoter Score) has slowly trended up over the 5 years of data we had, albeit with clear fluctuations month to month.

Picture 5, Picture

45. In the last quarter we received 55 responses (which is lower than usual). Of those, 44 responses were either Very Satisfied or Satisfied and only 9 were Not Satisfied or Not at all Satisfied (snip below).

Picture 1, Picture

46. Alongside these high level responses, each responder has the opportunity to include free text feedback and most do. The positive feedback often singles out individuals who have been particularly helpful on their project, and often notes that it was easier/faster/better than they expected. The negative feedback often singles out a particular technical decision they disagree with, for instance an RFI or failed inspection. There is mixed feedback on a number of other topics – for instance our computer system Objective Build and our vetting process receive both accolades and complaints.

47. We review this verbatim feedback and the data behind it regularly, and it is discussed at our monthly Quality Management meeting to help try and identify trends. If we identify trends or themes these can feed into the continuous improvement process. When we switched over to Objective Build’s applicant portal in 2023, the data coming through this survey was a useful addition to the anecdotal information we were receiving that supported the change to the new system.

48. We obviously also receive a significant volume of enquiries through our call centre and other channels. These are recorded in our CCM system and allow us to track and report on trends and timeframes. Of the nearly 1600 enquiries recorded in CCM in the past financial year, 41 were categorised as a complaint about our services and/or staff and 13 were recorded as compliments, (a further 813 were ‘customer messages’ and 313 went to our building duty officer).

49. Like the survey feedback, the themes and trends raised in the complaints and customer messages are reviewed at our monthly Quality Management meeting. It is not surprising the most common complaints received relate to communication, delays, cost and refused consents.

50. We do not currently have a dedicated system to receive and quantify feedback from applicants for resource consents; an updated process has been developed, to be implemented from July 2025 onwards.

Costs

51. The cost of obtaining a building consent is a frequent complaint that we receive. Compared with other councils, our hourly charge-out rate is in the upper quartile. However, when you factor in the portion of ratepayer funding (in our case very little), we are on par with other similar councils.

52. The biggest difference between us and our neighbouring councils is our development contribution process which adds an extra $34,823 (plus GST) to the building consent invoice for a 3 bedroom house. By comparison the processing costs for a simple new dwelling would be approximately $6,500.

53. Similarly, the costs for resource consents can be a source of frustration for applicants. This has become more of an issue in recent years with an increased focus from staff in ensuring accurate cost recovery resulting in a general lift in the cost of a resource consent. There is a significant variation in the costs of resource consents; higher costs are often driven through application quality and complexity.

54. In order to reduce any unnecessary costs, we are working to try and improve efficiency at both and individual and system level, and provide feedback to applicants and agents on issues which are contributing to higher costs.

Making difficult decisions

55. One of the biggest challenges in the regulatory space is that we often have to make difficult decisions. These will generally be for the right reason; for instance, so buildings don’t fail and so we don’t cause significant future claims for our ratepayers, or to ensure that a future subdivision doesn’t happen where there is a chance of significant flooding and risk to future residents. However, these decisions are often described as “pedantic” or “risk averse”.

56. By way of example, many councils and even more building owners were significantly impacted by the fraudulent paperwork presented by Kodiak Consulting Ltd. As a result of a number of tough decisions made by our team, Tauranga was not affected at all. The few designs we did receive from Kodiak went through a very thorough RFI process which ensured the building complied with the building code. While we received some criticism at the time from Kodiak and some of the customers, it is clear now that the right decisions were made.

57. There may be times when a risk-averse decision is made. It is for that reason that one of the key focus areas previously mentioned for continuous improvement is understanding our risk appetite and ensuring our processes and decision making are balanced and proportionate.

Next Steps

58. Staff will provide regular updates on consent processing performance and ongoing improvement on a six-monthly basis

Attachments

Nil

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

22 July 2025

9.5 Local Government Funding Agency - Final Statement of Intent 2025/28

File Number: A17357726

Author: Caroline Lim, CCO Specialist

Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Sam Fellows, Manager: City Partnerships

Authoriser: Gareth Wallis, General Manager: City Development & Partnerships

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to provide the Local Government Funding Agency’s (LGFA) final Statement of Intent (SOI) 2025/28 to Tauranga City Council, as required by the Local Government Act (2002).

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Local Government Funding Agency - Final Statement of Intent 2025/28".

(b) Receives the LGFA’s final SOI 2025/28 (Attachment 1).

Executive Summary

2. Tauranga City Council’s City Delivery Committee meeting scheduled for 22 July 2025 is the first appropriate opportunity to formally receive LGFA’s final SOI 2025/28. It is noted that the final SOIs 2025/28 for the other CCOs are to be received at the Tauranga City Council meeting scheduled for 5 August 2025.

3. The LGFA’s final SOI (refer to Attachment 1) complies with the statutory requirements set out in the Local Government Act 2002, specifically Part 5, Section 64, and Schedule 8. The final SOI is accompanied by a covering letter addressed to the Shareholders’ Council (refer to Attachment 2).

4. Consideration of the final SOI has been undertaken by the LGFA Shareholders’ Council, which noted that the draft SOI met the matters raised in the Letter of Expectations, noting that succession planning, which is not specifically mentioned in the SOI, is already underway with the scheduled replacement of three long-standing board members over the next three years, based on a framework for board tenure and appointment developed by the Shareholders’ Council.

5. The Shareholders’ Council has confirmed that the final SOI reflects the key matters raised in the Letter of Expectations.

6. In the final SOI:

· LGFA has aligned with the priorities outlined in the Letter of Expectations. Notably, the emphasis on succession planning, as highlighted in the letter, is already being addressed through ongoing board planning initiatives.

· LGFA has confirmed a total of 21 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) across the 2025/26, 2026/27, and 2027/28 financial years.

· For council and CCO borrowers, LGFA aims to optimise funding terms and conditions by reducing borrowing costs, providing access to longer-term funding options and ensuring certainty of access to capital markets.

· LGFA remains committed to delivering strong outcomes for both its council borrowers and shareholders. Its strategic focus continues to be on ensuring cost-effective, reliable and sustainable funding solutions for the local government sector, and assisting the sector with the transition to the Local Water Done Well reform.

· For its shareholders, LGFA is focused on delivering strong financial performance, monitoring and maintaining the quality of its assets and enhancing treasury and risk management practices.

7. Overall, the theme across the final SOI 2025/28 is that LGFA remains committed to supporting the local government sector with low-cost, long-term funding, and the water reform, while maintaining financial strength and protecting shareholder interests.

8. No options analysis is required as this report serves to formally present the final SOI to the City Delivery Committee as part of its annual reporting responsibilities.

9. There are no identified financial or legal risks associated with the final SOI. The document includes financial forecasts for the 2025/26, 2026/27, and 2027/28 financial years.

SOI highlights and updates

10. Forecasting uncertainty: Borrowing projections remain uncertain due to variability in council capex delivery, cost pressures, and central government support.

11. Local Water Done Well reform: Transition impacts are expected from late FY2025/26. Forecasts are based on councils’ 2024-34 long-term plans, excluding lending to financially independent water entities like Watercare.

12. Ratepayer Assistance Scheme (RAS): LGFA has committed to supporting RAS, subject to shareholder approval. No financial impact is included in current forecasts.

Changes from the draft SOI

13. Changes from the draft SOI were made which reflect updated information available to LGFA since the draft. A KPI has been added regarding the existing practice agreed with the Shareholders’ Council of providing a governance opportunity for a council or CCO staff member under the Future Director Programme. This opportunity is for a period of 18 months.

14. The following are the changes made and incorporated into the final SOI:

· New target added for the Future Director Programme.

· Council borrowing forecast adjusted: +$200 million in FY2025/26, -$350 million in FY2026/27.

· Bond issuance forecasts remain stable at approx. $5 billion annually.

· Net interest income revised downward due to interest rate assumptions.

· Operating expenses reduced due to lower NZ debt management facility usage.

· Net operating profit forecast to rise in FY2025/26, then decline in subsequent years.

Background

15. Tauranga City Council holds an 8.3% shareholding in LGFA, which currently has total equity of $113 million.

16. LGFA’s core mandate is to support community wellbeing by providing efficient and cost-effective financing solutions to the local government sector. The LGFA comprises 31 shareholder members (including the New Zealand Government), 77 council members, and five CCO members. All territorial authorities, with the exception of the Chatham Islands District Council, are members of the LGFA.

17. Tauranga City Council is one of the 31 shareholders of the LGFA. In accordance with the Local Government Act 2002, the LGFA is required to prepare an SOI that outlines its planned activities, performance targets, and financial forecasts over a three-year period. The SOI is prepared and adopted annually by the LGFA Board.

18. The draft SOI must be distributed to all shareholders by 1 March each year to allow for feedback. The LGFA Shareholders’ Council is responsible for reviewing the draft and providing comments by 1 May. The Shareholders’ Council provides comment to shareholders on the SOI through a quarterly newsletter. The final SOI must be finalised and adopted by the LGFA Board by 30 June.

19. For the 2025/28 SOI, the Shareholders’ Council submitted its feedback to the LGFA Board by the 1 May 2025 deadline. As one of the 31 shareholder members, Tauranga City Council is not expected to submit a Letter of Expectations or provide direct feedback on the draft SOI. However, should TCC wish to raise specific matters, it may do so either directly to the LGFA or through the Shareholders’ Council, of which it is a member.

Statutory Context

20. The SOI is one of LGFA’s key governance and planning documents. Engaging with LGFA throughout the development of its annual SOI is one of the main ways Tauranga City Council, as part of the 31 shareholder members, can influence this CCO.

21. In accordance with the SOI and the Local Government Act (2002), the LGFA is required to report to councils on its financial and non-financial performance six monthly and annually.

22. LGFA also provides quarterly updates and here’s the latest Quarter 3 update for FY2025.

23. Tauranga City Council’s partnerships with LGFA and its other CCOs, help to successfully deliver community outcomes and facilitate Tauranga becoming a vibrant city that attracts businesses, people and visitors, is well planned, connected, and inclusive.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

24. LGFA 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	ü
We are a well-planned city	ü
We can move around our city easily	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	ü

25. Being part of the 31 shareholder members of LGFA ensures that Tauranga City Council can continue to leverage optimal financing conditions, which will enable better planning and investment in the future infrastructure of the city.

Options Analysis

26. There are no options as Tauranga City Council is formally receiving the final SOI 2025/28 and the Letter to LGFA’s Shareholders regarding its final SOI.

Financial Considerations

27. The LGFA has included financial forecasts for the FY2025/26, FY2026/27 and FY2027/28, in its final SOI 2025/28.

Legal Implications / Risks

28. There are no legal implications.

29. The final SOI 2025/28 meets the legislative requirements for the LGFA to provide councils with an overview of its activities, performance measures and financials across the three-year period of 2025/28.

30. Staff believe that there is no strong justification for Tauranga City Council to require additional changes to the SOI that have been signed off by the LGFA Board as its final document.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

31. While the Te Ao Māori approach is important, the matters addressed in this report are of a procedural nature.

CLIMATE IMPACT

32. While climate impact is important, the matters addressed in this report are of a procedural nature.

Consultation / Engagement

33. It is not required or expected to consult on a SOI under the Local Government Act.

Significance

34. The Local Government Act 2002 requires an assessment of the significance of matters, issues, proposals and decisions in this report against Tauranga City 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.

35. 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 matter; and

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

38. LGFA will be informed of Tauranga City Council’s consideration of this report.

39. The final SOI will be made available to the public via Tauranga City Council’s website.

Attachments

1. LGFA Final Statement Of Intent 2025-2028 - A18432047 ⇩

2. LGFA Letter to its Shareholders to accompany Final SOI 2025-28 - A18432045 ⇩

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

22 July 2025

9.7 Fourth Quarter and Full Year Financial Performance Monitoring

File Number: A18199982

Author: Kathryn Sharplin, Manager: Finance

Tracey Hughes, Financial Insights & Reporting Manager

Authoriser: Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to present the fourth quarter and full year financial results against budget.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Fourth Quarter and Full Year Financial Performance Monitoring".

(b) Notes there is an indicative favourable operating result to annual plan budget of $8.8m for the year before year-end adjustments, and $18.6m against approved budget (including additional budget of $5m for Digital software as a service), with the amount of rates surplus still to be clarified.

(c) Notes that not all of this surplus equates to rates surplus because a portion of the underspend relates to loan-funded opex, user fee funded activities, and ring-fenced revenue.

(d) Notes that there will be year-end adjustments relating to the unfunded write-back of categorised capital expenditure to operational expenditure estimated at $8-$9m.

(e) In order to maintain Council’s principle of a balanced budget,

(i) Confirms that written back expenditure from capital to operational categories, that should have been funded by rates in an earlier year, should be funded by available rates surplus in this financial year to avoid stranded debt.

(ii) Confirms that if there is further available rates surplus it should be applied to any unfunded depreciation other than 51% of transportation depreciation.

(f) Approves the carry forward of budget and where appropriate rates funding to complete work in 2025/26 as outlined in attachment 3.

(g) Notes that the final result will be confirmed after year-end review and adjustments have been made by council and the year-end audit process has been completed in October 2025.

Executive Summary

2. The management accounts are presented for the 12 months to 30 June 2025. These are very early results and will be subject to further review and adjustment by staff for year end and through any changes required as part of the year end audit process. Any changes from the draft will be explained in the presentation of the final audited accounts in October 2025.

3. The full Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expenditure and Draft 12 Months Capital result are provided in attachment 1.

	2024/25 Actual $m	2024/25 LTP Budget $m	Variance $m
Total Revenue	585.1	651.9	(66.8)
Operating Expenditure	568.8	573.2	4.4
(Deficit) / surplus	7.7	63.2	(55.5)
Capital excl. opex of a capital nature	340	431	91

4. The initial financials prior to final adjustments and audit show favourable results with total operating revenue 1% above budget at $474m and total operating expenditure under 1% under budget at $4m.

5. These results give a total operating deficit that is $9m favourable to budget.

6. The year end result after capital revenue is a surplus of $8m, which is an unfavourable variance of $55m. This is less favourable than the third quarter result which showed a year to date surplus which was $39m unfavourable to budget. These large variances reflect the loss of IFF revenue for Te Manawataki o Te Papa and the reduction in transport subsidies when NZTA set the National Land Transport Programme.

7. In the third quarter report the forecast year end result was an overall surplus after capital revenue of $4m which was $60m unfavourable to budget. Variances between draft results and the quarter 3 forecast are shown in attachment 1.

8. These results are prior to year-end adjustments with write backs to operating expenditure from capital expected to increase expenditure by $8-$9m.

Background

9. City Delivery Committee receives financial performance reports every quarter, with the latest quarterly report for the period ended 31 March 2025 presented to the committee on 4 June 2025. In that report the year to date operating deficit was $59.2m, which was $14.4m favourable to budget. In that report the full year operating deficit was projected to be $96.5m, which was $6.8m favourable to budget.

10. The budgeted operational deficit for the 2024/25 year included expenditure that is of a capital nature such as grants and contributions to the building of assets that will not be owned by Council. The most significant of these arrangements is Tauriko West infrastructure where Council is incurring expenditure on infrastructure which will not be owned by Council with funding for this infrastructure provided to Council over time from NZTA and developers and other government agencies. The revenue and expenditure flows are not aligned. Other items also contributing to the deficit include interest that is capitalised as part of growth projects and loan funded operational expenditure related to digital projects and growth planning.

Council has been clear in its intention to operate a balanced budget. The 2024/25 budget included unfunded depreciation other than the 51% of transport depreciation offset by NZTA renewals funding, in order to phase in large revaluation impacts from earlier years.

Year End FINANCIAL ResultS Discussion

11. The draft results to budget are provided as attachment 1 in the draft Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expense.

12. Summary of draft 2024/25 financial performance prior to final review and audit

(a) This table includes Tauriko West and growth interest for completeness.

(b) These results are very early in the year end process and there is much review and analysis (particularly balance sheet) still to be completed.

(c) The blue headed columns display variances against annual plan, as this is what we are required to report against in the annual report. The purple column shows the approved budget that Council staff have worked to for the year.

(d) The main changes in the approved budget were:

§ To recognise reduced capital revenues

§ To redistribute salary savings to other operating expenditure categories

§ Additional approved budget for Digital SaaS $5m

§ Carry forward budgets from 2023/24, mainly for grants.

Attachment 1 includes the complete draft P&L (SOCRE).

REVENUE

Operating revenue

13. $4.3m ahead of full year budget, $4.9m ahead of approved budget and consistent with the commentary from quarter three. Finance revenues have continued to outperform budget and additional unbudgeted grants have been received in relation to the Egret Avenue land slips.

Asset development revenue

14. $71.1m under budget for the year, reflecting the major impacts of the update to the NZTA NLTP early in the year and the loss of IFF revenue for Te Manawataki o Te Papa. Some other external funding has been delayed to the new financial year.

15. Growth has also been slow, impacting vested assets and development contributions received.

16. Gains and losses include gains and losses on financial and non-financial instruments such as interest rate swaps, concessionary loans (Te Tumu) and discount recognition on Housing Infrastructure Loans (0%).

expenditure

Operating

17. In total, operating expenditure is $4.4m less than budget and $13.7m less than approved budget, noting that the approved budget includes additional funding for Digital SaaS and brought forward funding for some other items, notably grants to the community.

18. Depreciation costs have been much higher than budget all year and took another leap in quarter four, resulting from a catch-up in capitalisation of work in progress.

19. Personnel expenditure is $3m more than budget, but $259k less than approved budget, despite additional costs relating to organisational restructure and reduced capitalised salaries related largely to the change in the capital work programme.

20. Depreciation costs have been much higher than budget all year and took another leap in quarter four, resulting from a catch-up in capitalisation of work in progress.

21. Finance expenses were less than expected due to lower opening debt balances and lower new debt drawn.

22. Other operating expenditure is $13m less than budget, $19m less than approved budget and $3.9m less than the March forecast, noting that this is the category that write-backs from WIP will fall into. All categories in other operating expenditure are within approved budget.

Other Expenses

23. Losses on asset disposal include a point-in-time adjustment to align with the asset management system prior to three waters revaluation, the write off of Cameron Road and Spring Street fixtures and fittings, building demolitions and a revaluation reversal on sale of investment property.

24. Provisions include for stage two of the organisational reset and amounts due on settlement of the 60 Chapel Street sale.

capital

25. The draft capital expenditure results indicate $415m spend in the 2025 financial year against an approved budget of $461m (including operational projects of a capital nature, but excluding vested assets, land sales and Bay Venues funded new capital investment) – slightly less than the $418m delivered in 2024. A summary of these draft results is provided in attachment 1.

26. A summary of budget adjustments for 2025 actioned since the 2024-34 Long-term plan was adopted (at a total of $510m) is also provided in attachment 2.

27. Once actual year end results are confirmed, capital budgets requiring carry forwards into the 2026 year will be assessed and presented back as revised budget adjustments to the adopted 2026 Annual Plan.

TREASURY

28. Net debt at 30 June 2025 is $1.315bn which is $135m lower than budgeted in the LTP and $62m lower than the forecast opening debt for the 2026 Annual Plan. This is primarily due to the lower capital delivery and land sales that settled this financial year and hadn’t been factored into the debt forecast.

29. The indicative debt to revenue ratio at 30 June 2025 per the financial strategy methodology, which excluded IFF and Tauriko West revenue streams is 249% which is 28% lower than the LTP ratio. The ratio under the LGFA methodology which includes all grant revenue is 226% which is 8% lower than the LTP ratio. The reason for lower ratios is primarily due to lower than budgeted debt which is somewhat offset by lower than budgeted grant revenue.

30. Further details on treasury matters will be presented to this committee on 2 September 2025.

YEAR END ADJUSTMENTS BEFORE FINAL FULL YEAR RESULTS

31. These results are prior to year-end adjustments with write backs to operating expenditure from capital expected to increase expenditure by $8-$9m.

32. Once results are finalised, rates funding will be applied across the final results, including the funding of write-backs as applicable. Should there be any remaining surplus the recommendation is to fund as far as possible the additional unfunded depreciation in year one of the LTP, in line with Council’s balanced budget focus and to support depreciation reserves.

PERFORMANCE AGAINST MARCH FORECAST

33. Attachment 1 columns P&S of the Statement of Comprehensive Revenue and Expense show the forecast per the Quarter 3 Monitoring Report, and the variance of the draft full year result against that forecast.

34. Over the year forecasting tends to improve, and while there are some significant variances by category, total revenue is within 0.5% of that forecast and total expenditure is just over 1% less than forecast.

opex carry forward to 2026 financial year

35. A small number of opex carry forwards have been requested in order to complete work already started, or where budget was assigned (and funded) in 2025 for a specific purpose but the expenditure was delayed.

36. $2.7m of the $3m requested is funded from reserves. The rates-funded portion of the remaining $0.3m would also be carried forward to match the expenditure in 2026, reducing any rates surplus in 2025.

37. Attachment 3 lists the carry forwards requested.

Statutory Context

38. The Annual Report must be prepared each year in accordance with generally accepted accounting practise in New Zealand and compliant with the requirements in section 98 of the Local Government Act 2002. The Annual Report must be completed, and the audited Annual Report adopted by Council within four months of the end of financial year.

Options Analysis

39. None required.

Financial Considerations

40. This report contains very early results for the 2024/25 financial year for the information of elected members, and these results are subject to further internal review followed by detailed audit starting September 2024.

Legal Implications / Risks

41. The Local Government Act 2002 requires the Annual Report to be adopted within four months of balance date.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

42. The information covered in this report is not impacted by the principles in Council’s Te Ao Māori approach.

Consultation / Engagement

43. The Annual Report containing audited financial information will be made public in due course. There is no consultation on the Annual Report.

Significance

44. 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.

45. 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 matter.

46. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the matter is of medium significance.

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

48. The Annual report process is underway with final reconciliations, accruals and review being undertaken and notes to the accounts being prepared. Audit NZ will be commencing their final audit from 2 September and the report is proposed to be ready for adoption by 29 October 2025.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1 - P&L and Capital - Q4 monitoring and Full Year results - A18522354 ⇩

2. Attachment 2 - FY25 Capex Budget Adjustments - A18522355 ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Opex Carry Forwards - A18521026 ⇩

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

22 July 2025

9.8 Presentation of Draft Annual Report 2024/25

File Number: A18526014

Author: Sheree Covell, Treasury & Financial Compliance Manager

Rachel Burt, Corporate Planner

Authoriser: Paul Davidson, Chief Financial Officer

Purpose of the Report

1. The purpose of this report is to present the committee with an initial draft of the front sections of the Annual Report 2025/26 and to invite feedback from members on its content, messaging, and format prior to the commencement of the design phase.

Recommendations

That the City Delivery Committee:

(a) Receives the report "Presentation of Draft Annual Report 2024/25".

(b) Notes that the full year financial performance will be reported to this committee in a separate report at this meeting.

(c) Notes that the attachments provided are subject to changes as a result of review and audit and further inclusions of taxation and consolidated accounts.

(d) Notes that a full, designed version of the annual report will also be presented to the 2 September 2025 City Delivery Committee meeting for further review.

Executive Summary

2. This report and accompanying attachments are presented to the City Delivery Committee (CDC) for review and feedback on the sections one to four of the Annual Report 2024/25. This version is primarily the qualitative content of the document and has not yet proceeded into the design phase.

3. Please note that certain elements of this version, particularly tables and graphs, are sourced from the previous year's annual report. These have been included solely for visual reference for the committee. They are clearly marked with red text and yellow crosses.

4. The annual report performance measures, financial statements and notes to accounts are still progressing through the preparation and pre-audit process and will be included in the next draft version which will be presented to this committee on 2 September 2025.

5. The same draft will be presented to Audit New Zealand on 1 September 2025 to commence their final audit. A final version will be presented to Council for adoption on 29 October 2025, along with the audit opinion. This is within the requirements to have the annual report audited within four months of year end.

6. While there are no decisions or resolutions relating to this report which bear any major risk it should be noted that feedback from Elected Members to add large amounts of additional information and disclosure can delay the audit process and put risk on the legislative timeframe to adopt an annual report.

Background

7. The Tauranga City Council (Group) Annual Report 2024/25 is prepared consistent with requirements of the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

8. The purpose of the annual report is to report back to the community on the performance of the Council against its levels of service, budgets and capital programme agreed in year one of the LTP. It also promotes accountability to the community for the decisions made during the year.

9. The front sections of the document provide a review of the year and aim to tell the story of the Council’s operations and other key events in a way that is readable by the community. It is an opportunity to discuss the highlights, opportunities and challenges of the year and provide a bridge to the future including the issues and investments included in the LTP.

10. The detailed financial accounts and notes to the accounts are presented at the back of the document.

11. Year-end financials are presented to this committee in a separate report in a format the committee has had the opportunity to provide feedback on and become comfortable and familiar with. The financials that will be presented in the annual report in September will adhere to statutory content and format.

12. Sections five to seven, which are the detailed financial and non-financial disclosures will be provided to this committee on 2 September 2025 once they have been through an internal review process. These sections will be the same as previous annual reports in terms of level of disclosure and format as they have been developed to adhere to relevant reporting standards, legislation and audit best practice templates. Examples of the groups of activities (section five) and detailed financials (section seven) from previous annual reports are available on the TCC website.

13. Any major changes or additions to the draft document, particularly in section five (Groups of Activities) and seven (Financials) will may cause delays to the audit process and timeframes which will put risk on the ability to adopt by 31 October 2025. Audit New Zealand’s audit plan, which was presented to the Audit and Risk Committee on 19 May 2025, assumed that the Annual Report 2024/25 will contain the same level of detail and information as that of previous years, so resourcing has been allocated accordingly.

Statutory Context

14. The annual report is a public document that reports to the community on the Council’s performance and achievements against what was planned, for both financial and non-financial performance. The annual report must be prepared each year in accordance with generally accepted accounting practice in New Zealand and compliant with the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

15. 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	ü
We are a well-planned city	ü
We can move around our city easily	ü
We are a city that supports business and education	ü

16. While approval of this recommendation itself does not go towards achieving the outcomes, within Attachment 1 it describes how Council contributes to achieving the strategic community outcomes. All outcomes are covered in this respect.

Options Analysis

17. There are no options presented in this report. The committee is able to provide feedback on the presentation of the annual report at this meeting.

Financial Considerations

18. The financial statements and information presented is for the financial year ended 30 June 2025. The presentation of the financials section is guided by the requirements of the Local Government Act 2002, accounting standards (International Public Sector Accounting Standards (IPSAS)) and generally agreed accounting policies. It is audited by Audit New Zealand. The financial statements and note to accounts are prepared on a going concern basis and any incidence or allegations of fraud, non-compliance or misstatement should be disclosed.

Legal Implications / Risks

19. The audited annual report must be adopted by 31 October 2025, under the Local Government Act 2002.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

20. Section two - year in review contains information disclosed under the heading “partnership with tangata whenua.” and refers to elements reflecting Council’s approach to Te Ao Māori. However, the information covered by this report is not directly impacted by that approach.

CLIMATE IMPACT

21. Similarly, the information that is the year in review section under the heading “sustainability approach - Te Ahunga Toitū” refers to but is not directly impacted by Council’s approach to climate impact. Again, the information covered by this report is not directly impacted by that approach.

Consultation / Engagement

22. The annual report will be made publicly available after adoption. The 2024-34 Long-term Plan which the years results are measured against was consulted on before being adopted. There is no consultation on the annual report itself.

Significance

23. 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.

24. 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 matter.

25. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the matter is of medium significance.

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

27. Any feedback provided by the committee will be agreed with Audit New Zealand and where possible, incorporated into the document.

28. Audit New Zealand will start its audit of the annual report on 1 September 2025 working with staff to ensure all requirements are met.

29. The final draft annual report will be presented to this committee for consideration on 2 September 2025.

30. The final annual report will be presented to this committee vs for endorsement to for Council to adopt on 29 October 2025.

Attachments

1. Draft Annual Report 2024/25 - Section 1 to 4 - A18499506 ⇩

City Delivery Committee meeting Agenda

22 July 2025