Agenda of Ordinary Council meeting - Tuesday, 18 November 2025

Unconfirmed Ordinary Council meeting minutes

7 October 2025

A logo of a company

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

DRAFT MINUTES

Ordinary Council meeting

Tuesday, 7 October 2025

Order of Business

1 Opening karakia. 3

2 Apologies. 3

3 Public forum.. 3

3.1 Graham Wilkinson on behalf of Generus Living. 3

4 Acceptance of late items. 4

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open. 4

6 Change to the order of business. 4

7 Confirmation of minutes. 4

7.1 Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 15 August 2025. 5

7.2 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 16 September 2025. 5

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest 5

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions. 5

Nil

10 Recommendations from other committees. 5

Nil

11 Business. 6

11.1 Omanawa Falls Reserve name change. 6

11.2 Elected Members' Code of Conduct 6

11.3 Standing Orders. 7

11.4 Elected Members' Expenses and Resources Policy - proposed leave of absence section 11

11.5 Street Use and Public Places Bylaw Review: Issues and Options. 11

11.6 Endorsement for New Civil Defence Emergency Management Controllers & Recovery Managers. 12

12 Discussion of late items. 13

12.1 Authorise International Air Travel for Mayor and two Councillors to Wollongong, Australia 13

13 Closing karakia. 13

MINUTES OF Tauranga City Council

Ordinary Council meeting

HELD AT THE Tauranga City Council Chambers, Level 1 - 90 Devonport Road, Tauranga

ON Tuesday, 7 October 2025 AT 9.30am

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris (online), Cr Hēmi Rolleston, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

IN ATTENDANCE:

Marty Grenfell (Chief Executive), Christine Jones (General Manager: Strategy, Partnerships & Growth), Sarah Omundsen (General Manager: Regulatory & Community Services), Barbara Dempsey (Acting General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure), Alison Law (Head of Spaces & Places) , Ana Hancock (Team Leader: Design), Keren Paekau (Acting Head of Strategic Māori Engagement), Jeremy Boase (Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience), Shawn Geard (Manager: Transport System Operations), Jane Barnett (Policy Analyst), Sarah Holmes (Governance & CCO Services Team Leader), Clare Sullivan (Senior Governance Advisor), Caroline Irvin (Governance Advisor)

Timestamps are included beside each of the items and relate to the recording of the meeting held on 7 October 2025 on the Council's YouTube channel

1 Opening karakia

Cr Rolleston opened the meeting with a karakia.

Acknowledgements

The Mayor congratulated Tauranga writer Anne Cleary, who was announced as the winner of the Allen & Unwin fiction prize for her manuscript for Apple Man.

The Mayor also congratulated Leroy Carter who made his All Blacks debut recently and Emoni Narawa, for their achievements in recent test matches and wished them well for the future.

2 Apologies

Nil

3 Public forum

Timestamp - 8 minutes

3.1 Graham Wilkinson on behalf of Generus Living

· Graham Wilkinson from Generus Living, together with Russell Maxwell, Chairperson for the Pacific Lakes Village Residents and Mike Burgess, Chairperson for the Pacific Coast Village spoke to Council.

· Mr Wilkinson noted that since 2015 they had been promised kerb and channelling of Maranui Street, in front of Pacific Coast Village, but it had been frequently rescheduled. They acknowledged it was a large undertaking.

· Generus Living is in the process of completing a large community facility by the end of November at Pacific Lakes Village which is across the road from the Pacific Coast Village on Grenada Road. A significant number of residents from both villages regularly walk backwards and forwards between the complexes.

· Traffic moves very fast along Grenada Road and there is heavy usage, particularly in the morning and afternoon peak periods. There are currently two traffic refuges on Grenada Road.

· Generus Living hired a traffic consultant and looked at four options for making the crossings safer. They requested that Council install raised platforms and pedestrian crossings at the site of both traffic refuges. They estimate the cost of the two platforms to be approximately $80,000.

· Generus Living offered to contribute $20,000 to the cost of the two crossings. Council staff attended a meeting onsite and provided advice.

· Mr Wilkinson acknowledged that each of the options had a risk reduction factor but the raised crossing, together with the refuge, was quite close to a pedestrian crossing with lights.

4 Acceptance of late items

Resolution CO/25/25/1

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

That the Council:

Accepts the following late item for consideration at the meeting:

• Authorise International Air Travel for Mayor and Councillors to Wollongong, Australia

The above item was not included in the original agenda because it was not available at the time the agenda was issued, and discussion could be delayed until the next scheduled meeting of the Committee because a decision was required in regard to this item.

Carried

5 Confidential business to be transferred into the open

Nil

6 Change to the order of business

Nil

7 Confirmation of minutes

Timestamp - 22 minutes

7.1 Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 15 August 2025

Resolution CO/25/25/2

Moved: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Minutes of the Extraordinary Council meeting held on 15 August 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record subject to the following amendments:

· confirmation and addition to recommendation CO/25/0/5 after the words Thames-Coromandel District Council, the words “subject to confirmation by Western Bay of Plenty District Council; and

· addition of a timestamp above the resolutions that Deputy Mayor Scoular took no part in.

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Hēmi Rolleston, Cr Marten Rozeboom, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Abstain: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Carried 9

Timestamp – 26 minutes

7.2 Minutes of the Council meeting held on 16 September 2025

Resolution CO/25/25/3

Moved: Cr Glen Crowther

Seconded: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

That the Minutes of the Council meeting held on 16 September 2025 be confirmed as a true and correct record subject to:

· noting that in relation to Item 11.4 staff agreed to provide elected members with parking occupancy rates in various locations, when available.

Carried

8 Declaration of conflicts of interest

Nil

9 Deputations, presentations, petitions

Nil

10 Recommendations from other committees

Nil

11 Business

Timestamp – 29 minutes

11.1 Omanawa Falls Reserve name change

Staff Alison Law, Head of Spaces and Places

Ana Hancock, Team Leader: Design

Keren Paekau, Acting Head of Strategic Māori Engagement

Moved: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Seconded: Cr RodTaylor

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Omanawa Falls Reserve name change".

(b) Approves changing the name “Omanawa Falls Reserve” to “Te Rere o Ōmanawa.

AN AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED:

Moved: Cr Steve Morris

Seconded: Cr Glen Crowther

That the Council

The proposed amendment was not put to the meeting.

A prodcedural motion was proposed to let the report lie on the table.

Resolution CO/25/25/4

Moved: Cr Hēmi Rolleston

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the Council:

(a) Lets the report lie on the table.

Carried

Reason for decision:

· Further engagement with Ngāti Hangarau and whether dual names are appropriate in this instance.

Timestamp - 1 hour 25 minutes

11.2 Elected Members' Code of Conduct

Staff Jeremy Boase, Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Elected Members' Code of Conduct".

and

(b) Adopts the updated Code of Conduct (Attachment 1 of this report); and

(ii) Non-binding on the Council

(d) Provides for a committee to consider and decide on complaints of breaches under the Code of Conduct and

(ii) defers establishing a committee to consider and decide on complaints of breaches under the Code of Conduct (either binding or non-binding on the Council).

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker and Cr Rod Taylor

Against: Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Hēmi Rolleston, Cr Marten Rozeboom and Cr Kevin Schuler

LOST 4 - 6

Resolution CO/25/25/5

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Hautapu Baker

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Elected Members' Code of Conduct".

And

(b) Reconfirms the existing Code of Conduct (included as Attachment 3 of this report).

Pursuant to Standing Order 3.2 this resolution required and received a vote of not less than 75% of the members present and voting.

Carried

At 11.10am the meeting adjourned.

At 11.22am the meeting reconvened.

Timestamp – 1 hour and 56 minutes

11.3 Standing Orders

Staff Jeremy Boase, Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report “Standing Orders “.

(b) Adopts the Standing Orders (Attachment 1 of this report) with the following retentions and changes:

(i) Based on the plain English version based on Local Government New Zealand’s template which includes additions to the “principles” section and retains the free speech principle.

(ii) Change the time frame when the Council must resolve to continue a meeting from eight to six hours (Standing Order 4.2 (b))

(iii) Retain the delegation to the Chief Executive during the election interregnum period (Standing Order 6.6)

(iv) Add new Standing Orders 8.9 to 8.12 relating to urgent meetings following an election that may be called as set out in the legislation but not previously in Standing Orders.

(v) Add quorum provisions for the Mayor appointed as a member of a joint committee solely due to section 41A (5) of the Local Government Act 2002 (where the Mayor is a member of each committee) they are not counted towards the quorum (Standing Order 11.4).

(vi) Retain the leave of absence provisions in Standing Order 13.3.

(vii) Retain the apologies provisions in Standing Order 13.5.

(viii) Retain the right for members to attend by audio-visual link (Standing Order 13.7)

(ix) Add quorum provisions which enables members to be counted towards a quorum when attending meetings by electronic link (Standing Order 13.8).

(x) Change time limits for public forum/delegations’ speakers to five minutes (excluding questions) with a limit of two speakers per organisation and tighten up restrictions on who can speak at the Mayor/Chair’s discretion (Standing Orders 15.1, 15.2, 16.1 and 16.2).

(xi) Add that for petitions presented in an electronic format, the petitioner must indicate as best they can when presenting the petition how many signatories live within the Tauranga City Council boundaries (Standing Orders 17.1 (b)).

(xii) Retain the casting vote provision for the Mayor/Chair (Standing Order 19.3).

(xiii) Retain the recording of a division if the vote is not unanimous (Standing Order 19.4 €).

(xiv) Retain the ability to use a suitable electronic voting system (Standing Order 19.4)

(xv) Add references to Code of Conduct previously removed in 2021 as these did not apply to Commissioners (Standing Orders 20.2 – 20.3).

(xvi) Add time limits of five minutes when speaking to motions and amendments (Standing Order 21.2).

(xvii) Retain Option C for motions and amendments (Standing Order 22.4) and Appendix 5.

(xviii) Add new Standing order 23.5 enabling the meeting to amend a motion subject to the agreement of the mover and seconder.

(xix) Add additional “reasons for not accepting an amendment” to Standing Order 23.6

(xx) Add in where “reasons for decisions” are able to be included in a resolution (Standing Order 23.13).

(xxi) Add criteria on what is included in Minutes, agreed at the Council workshop on 3 December 2024 (Standing Order 28.2).

(xxii) Retain Appendix 8 on workshops and add a few additional points as set out in the Guide to Standing Orders relating to workshops.

AN AMENDMENT WAS PROPOSED

Resolution CO/25/25/6

Moved: Cr Glen Crowther

Seconded: Cr Rick Curach

That the Council:

(xxiii) Amend Standing Order 15.2 c) to read “the speaker is personally criticising staff”.

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach Cr Steve Morris, Cr Hēmi Rolleston, Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Against: Cr Marten Rozeboom

Carried 9/1

Additional Note: This change also applies to Standing Orders 16.2 b)

The substantive motion, as amended, was then put to the Council.

Resolution CO/25/25/7

Moved: Cr Rod Taylor

Seconded: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Standing Orders ".

(b) Adopts the Standing Orders (Attachment 1 of this report) with the following retentions and changes:

(i) Based on the plain English version based on Local Government New Zealand’s template which includes additions to the “principles” section and retains the free speech principle.

(ii) Change the time frame when the Council must resolve to continue a meeting from eight to six hours (Standing Order 4.2 (b))

(iii) Retain the delegation to the Chief Executive during the election interregnum period (Standing Order 6.6)

(iv) Add new Standing Orders 8.9 to 8.12 relating to urgent meetings following an election that may be called as set out in the legislation but not previously in Standing Orders.

(vi) Retain the leave of absence provisions in Standing Order 13.3.

(vii) Retain the apologies provisions in Standing Order 13.5.

(viii) Retain the right for members to attend by audio-visual link (Standing Order 13.7)

(ix) Add quorum provisions which enables members to be counted towards a quorum when attending meetings by electronic link (Standing Order 13.8).

(xii) Retain the casting vote provision for the Mayor/Chair (Standing Order 19.3).

(xiii) Retain the recording of a division if the vote is not unanimous (Standing Order 19.4 (e)).

(xiv) Retain the ability to use a suitable electronic voting system (Standing Order 19.4)

(xv) Add references to Code of Conduct previously removed in 2021 as these did not apply to Commissioners (Standing Orders 20.2 – 20.3).

(xvi) Add time limits of five minutes when speaking to motions and amendments (Standing Order 21.2).

(xvii) Retain Option C for motions and amendments (Standing Order 22.4) and Appendix 5.

(xviii) Add new Standing order 23.5 enabling the meeting to amend a motion subject to the agreement of the mover and seconder.

(xix) Add additional “reasons for not accepting an amendment” to Standing Order 23.6

(xx) Add in where “reasons for decisions” are able to be included in a resolution (Standing Order 23.13).

(xxi) Add criteria on what is included in Minutes, agreed at the Council workshop on 3 December 2024 (Standing Order 28.2).

(xxii) Retain Appendix 8 on workshops and add a few additional points as set out in the Guide to Standing Orders relating to workshops.

(xxiii) Amend Standing Order 15.2 c) to read “the speaker is personally criticising staff”.

For: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Hēmi Rolleston, Marten Rozeboom Cr Kevin Schuler and Cr Rod Taylor

Against: Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Steve Morris,

Carried 8/2

Pursuant to Standing Order 3.2 this resolution required and received a vote of not less than 75% of the members present and voting.

Timestamp - 2 hours and 28 minutes

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

Staff Jeremy Boase, Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience

Resolution CO/25/25/8

Moved: Cr Glen Crowther

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

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

(b) Adopts Tauranga City Council’s Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025 (Attachment 1) to take effect immediately.

Carried

Timestamp - 2 hours and 41 minutes

11.5 Street Use and Public Places Bylaw Review: Issues and Options

Staff Sarah Omundsen, General Manager Regulatory and Community Services

Shawn Geard, Manager: Transport Systems Operations

Jane Barnett, Policy Analyst

Resolution CO/25/25/9

Moved: Mayor Mahé Drysdale

Seconded: Cr Marten Rozeboom

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Street Use and Public Places Bylaw Review: Issues and Options".

(b) Approves the following options for the purpose of developing a draft bylaw:

No.	Issue	Option
1	Definition of pedestrian way	Option 1B: Amend the pedestrian way definition to 1.8 metres wide and located 1.5 metres from any shop front, unless otherwise specified by Council resolution.
2	Definition of a mobile shop	Option 2B: Amend the definition of a mobile shop to include services – ‘a vehicle from which goods or services are offered for sale.’
3	Approach to setting rules for street dining	Option 3D: Allow *all businesses* (including current LTO areas) to use a set area and any additional area would require an LTO.
4	Approach to setting rules for retail displays	Option 4D: Allow some area for retail display and require a permit/LTO for any additional area.
5	Approach to set rules for non-retail displays	Option 5E: Allow a set area for non-retail display and require a permit/LTO for any additional area.
6	Approach to setting rules for signs	Option 6A: Current approach with general conditions and permission for set types of signs. (Status quo) *Note:* As part of the review process the general sign conditions in the bylaw will be clarified and updated.
7	Approach to setting rules for real estate signs	Option 7B: Clarify the current rules by amending the bylaw to include: · a definition of a real estate sign · a maximum number of real estate signs for each premises · placement, number and duration conditions for open homes and auctions signs · conditions of an open home or auction real estate sign

(c) Request that a draft bylaw be prepared based on the direction provided and then presented to Council for consideration prior to adoption for consultation.

Carried

Timestamp - 3 hours and 41 minutes

11.6 Endorsement for New Civil Defence Emergency Management Controllers & Recovery Managers

Staff Sarah Omundsen, General Manager Regulatory and Community Services

Resolution CO/25/25/10

Moved: Cr Rick Curach

Seconded: Cr Kevin Schuler

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Endorsement for New Civil Defence Emergency Management Controllers & Recovery Managers".

(b) Endorse the appointment of the following Local Controllers for Tauranga City Council:

(i) Tom McEntyre – City Operations Delivery Manager

(ii) Deidre Ewart - Head of Regulatory Support & Compliance Services

(iii) Steve Pearce - Head of Building Services

(iv) Gareth Wallis - Head of Community Hubs, Arts, Heritage & Events

(i) Nelita Byrne - Manager of Venues and Events

(ii) Alana Rapson - Team Leader – Community Development

(iii) Daniel Pearce - Team Leader – Emergency Management

Attachment 2 is to stay in public excluded to protect the privacy of natural persons.

Carried

Timestamp - 3 hours and 46 minutes

12 Discussion of late items

The Mayor took no part in item 12.1. Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular assumed the chair for the consideration of this item.

12.1 Authorise International Air Travel for Mayor and two Councillors to Wollongong, Australia

Staff Jeremy Boase, Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience

Resolution CO/25/25/11

Moved: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular

Seconded: Cr Rod Taylor

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Authorise International Air Travel for Mayor and two Councillors to Wollongong, Australia".

(b) Authorises the Mayor’s and Councillor’s Rolleston and Schuler international air travel of $ (airfares $4,393.67 and accommodation $8,485.44) to Wollongong, Australia from 15 October 2025 to 20 October 2025.

For: Deputy Mayor Jen Scoular, Cr Hautapu Baker, Cr Glen Crowther, Cr Rick Curach, Cr Steve Morris, Cr Marten Rozeboom, and Cr Rod Taylor

Abstain: Mayor Mahé Drysdale, Cr Hēmi Rolleston and Cr Kevin Schuler

Carried

The Mayor resumed the Chair.

The Mayor acknowledged Nic Johansson who was leaving Council after 6 and a half years and wished him well.

13 Closing karakia

Cr Hēmi Rolleston closed the meeting with a karakia.

The meeting closed at 1.18 pm.

The minutes of this meeting were confirmed as a true and correct record at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 18 November 2025.

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

18 November 2025

11 Business

11.1 Wairākei Pump Station - Funding Risk

File Number: A19035861

Author: Richard Conning, Programme Manager: Delivery

Andrew Mead, Head of City Planning & Growth

Alex Miller, Head of Environmental Planning

Frazer Smith, Manager: Strategic Finance & Growth

Karrie Downey, Principal Wastewater Planning

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

Please note that this report contains confidential attachments.

Public Excluded Attachment	Reason why Public Excluded
Item 11.1 - Wairākei Pump Station - Funding Risk - Attachment 5 - Confidential - Memorandum - Wairakei Pump Station - Legal Risk	s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek a decision in relation to progressing the Wairākei Pump Station and Wairākei Rising Main projects given risk associated with funding allocated to the Te Tumu urban growth area and the possibility that an alternative wastewater solution may be adopted for Te Tumu in future.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Wairākei Pump Station - Funding Risk".

(b) Notes that delaying, redesigning or abandoning the Wairākei Pump Station and Wairākei Rising Main projects would create greater environmental, development and financial risks than proceeding.

(c) Approves proceeding with the Wairākei Pump Station (construction) and Wairākei Rising Main projects (design then construction) – Option A.

(d) Notes that the General Manager Operations and Infrastructure will review the cost estimates and procurement approach with the view to delivery cost efficiencies and value for money and report back to Council on this review.

(e) Notes that if the funding risk associated with an alternative Te Tumu wastewater solution materialises it will be considered and addressed through a future Long Term Plan process.

(f) Notes that staff will ensure Te Tumu funding allocations for these projects and others like the Opal Drive pump station will be considered when assessing the merits of alternative Te Tumu / eastern corridor wastewater options against the option of reticulating wastewater from Te Tumu to the Te Maunga treatment plant.

(g) Attachment 5 will remain in public excluded to protect legal privilege.

Executive Summary

2. The Wairākei Pump Station and Wairākei Rising Main projects are part of a broader eastern corridor wastewater servicing strategy for the Papamoa, Wairākei and Te Tumu urban growth areas.

3. Of the around 2,000 lots remaining to be developed in Wairākei and Papamoa within the pump station catchment, around 1,700 have already been consented.

4. Project delivery has been designed in a staged manner. Through the 2024-34 Long Term Plan (LTP) process it was agreed to minimise expenditure in the early years associated with the Te Tumu urban growth area and focus on investment required to enabled zoned development to progress in the Papamoa and Wairākei areas.

5. The funding for both the Wairākei Pump Station and Wairākei Rising Main projects is included in the approved Annual Plan (AP) and 24-34 LTP.

6. Across the eastern corridor Phase 1 wastewater projects being delivered in the current LTP period approximately $50M of cost is allocated to Te Tumu development contribution funding. Approximately $27M relates to Wairākei pump station and $3M with the Wairākei Rising Main. The rest relates to the Opal Drive Pump Station (in construction) and the Te Tumu Rising Main (being delivered in stages as the Wairākei town centre roads are built).

7. There are complexities with the Te Tumu urban growth project in general which create risk around the recovery of these funds, and specifically from a wastewater perspective. Both TCC and the Te Tumu landowners are assessing alternative wastewater solutions to enable development in Te Tumu.

8. It should be noted that through the 2024-34 LTP process the Te Tumu landowners strongly advocated for TCC to include all wastewater reticulation projects to the Te Maunga Wastewater Treatment Plant in the LTP and at that stage alternative options were not actively being considered.

9. Decision-making is required on whether Council wishes to proceed with the Wairākei Pump Station project which is ready for construction and the Wairākei Rising Main project which is ready for design followed by construction.

10. Staff have identified and considered the following options:

(a) Progress the projects as planned

(b) Delay the projects until there is greater certainty on the Te Tumu wastewater solution

(d) Cancel / abandon the projects.

11. Options B and C are not favourable as:

(a) Removing Te Tumu related capacity from the project will not provide a significant project cost reduction due to costs to redesign and market escalation. Hence these options would not mitigate Te Tumu related funding risks.

(b) Would create project delivery delays, exacerbating already critical wastewater overflow and asset failure risks with associated environmental impacts

(c) Would likely result in development delays in Wairākei as new connections to the wastewater network are limited or prevented until additional wastewater capacity is delivered.

12. Option D is also unfavourable. While it would mitigate the Te Tumu funding risk it would create a much larger reduction in revenue for TCC and ultimately put TCC in a worse financial position. It would result in the inability to enable further development in Wairākei / Papamoa East where around 2,000 additional homes are expected alongside the development of the Wairākei town centre and adjoining business land (which TCC is already delivering other infrastructure for, such as the Papamoa East Interchange). Almost all of this development already has resource consent to progress, including a comprehensive development consent for the whole Wairākei town centre. The only unconsented developments of note are two stages of the Palm Springs subdivision and the TCC surplus land around the Papamoa East Interchange.

13. It is assessed that approximately $125M (NPV $101.1M) of development contribution revenue would be collected from this development, or forgone if this development was unable to proceed. Further to this is the on-going rating base / rates revenue TCC would collect. In addition, TCC owns a significant amount of surplus land around the Papamoa East Interchange, and its use, development or divestment would be prevented.

14. While Option A, proceeding with the projects, creates approximately $30M of funding risk for TCC, it is assessed as the best option. The funding risk would only materialise if Te Tumu did not proceed or was developed using an alternative wastewater servicing solution, both of which are uncertain. Option A would enable the collection of remaining development contributions, generate additional rating revenue and enable Council to progress options for its surplus land holdings.

15. The Te Tumu funding risks will be assessed as part of the current work on alternative wastewater options for Te Tumu which will be reported back to Council for decision-making. If the Te Tumu funding risk materialises, options to address it will be considered through a forthcoming LTP process.

Background

16. The Wairākei Pump Station (PS) is ready to move from design to construction. However, recent developments regarding the Te Tumu Urban Growth Area (UGA) have introduced a significant funding risk. Specifically, if Te Tumu developers proceed with an alternative wastewater servicing option, the associated development contributions (DCs) that are assigned to fund 74% of the pump station may no longer be available. A decision is needed whether the project should proceed as planned, be deferred, or be redesigned to exclude Te Tumu flows.

17. While the focus of this paper is the funding risk associated with the construction of the Wairākei pump station there are several interrelated and interdependent projects within the Eastern Corridor Wastewater programme potentially affected by the decision to be made. On this basis a whole of network approach is discussed in this paper with specific projects within the programme highlighted to ensure that an informed decision can be made.

18. The Eastern Corridor Wastewater Servicing Strategy (ECS), developed in 2018, is to service the wastewater needs of the eastern corridor catchment via a series of pump stations and pipelines that reticulate wastewater to the Te Maunga Wastewater Treatment Plant (TMWWTP). Figure 1 outlines the projects that make up the ECS.

A map of a river masterplan

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Figure 1 - eastern corridor wastewater strategy key assets and projects

19. During the development of the strategy consideration was given to an alternate site for the Wairākei PS site. The existing site was adopted due to a combination of factors including being owned by TCC, having an existing designation in place and a favourable Phase 2 pipeline corridor to Opal Dr PS. Factors against the alternate site included, land purchase resource consenting or designation challenges, the need to realign existing pipelines and a less favourable Phase 1 and 2 pipeline corridors.

20. This strategy accommodates the projected growth within the Eastern Corridor catchments of Papamoa, Wairākei and Te Tumu. This approach was confirmed by previous Councils through various technical assessments and options analysis. The Te Tumu landowners have been aware of the strategy since 2018, and during the 2024-34 LTP process their desire was to accelerate the programme to allow development in Te Tumu to occur sooner.

21. The strategy provides for the staged delivery of upgraded and new trunk rising mains and pump stations to service Papamoa, Wairākei and Te Tumu. This solution builds on existing infrastructure and treatment capacity at Te Maunga WWTP, with new infrastructure and progressive upgrades required as development in different growth areas proceeds. This is a ‘whole of network approach’, since 2018 the planning process has refined the strategy to be an optimized, staged approach, to service committed growth and defer investment where possible to align to urban growth area triggers. Refer to Attachment 1 for a summary of the Eastern Corridor Programmes’ FY20-45 timing sequence and funding values and splits.

22. The establishment of new rising mains in addition to the existing ones also provide resilience to the system should the current trunk mains, which are largely located in liquefiable land, fail during a natural hazard event.

23. Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) was adopted as the delivery model for the Wairākei PS, the contractor constructing the Opal Dr PS has been engaged to deliver ECI services to leverage their learnings on the Opal Dr PS project. The Opal Dr and Wairākei sites have similar ground conditions and elements to be delivered.

24. The ECI process has yielded significant benefits in relation to optimization of the construction process, value engineering and risk mitigation. The ability of the contractor to influence the site layout early in the design process to optimize construction sequencing for maximum efficiency has been a key driver in the benefits realised from the process. An analysis of the benefits of the ECI process at the end of preliminary design assessed the value of avoided cost at $1.5M - $2.3M.

Current State: Network Capacity and Condition

Golden Sands Pump Station (PS)

25. This PS is currently operating as the main trunk network pump station to convey flows west from the Wairākei UGA to Opal Dr pump station. The pump station is already below the required peak flow capacity. The pump station can pass forward a maximum of ~85 L/S, while the theoretical wet weather peak incoming flows based on calibrated measurements of the contributing pump stations in the network significantly exceed this at ~120 L/S.

26. In addition, the peak dry weather flow (the maximum flow expected to be seen daily even in dry weather) will reach ~84 L/S by 2034, meaning there will be a risk of wastewater overflows daily, even in dry weather.

27. An assessment in 2008 concluded it was not feasible to upgrade the existing Golden Sands PS to provide the initial 140l/s planned to be delivered by the new Wairākei PS due to physical and hydraulic constraints within the wet well. Based on capacity and operational constraints the pump station should be replaced as soon as possible with the new Wairākei PS.

Existing Papamoa East Rising Main (PERM)

28. This is the existing rising main (pipeline) which conveys all flows from the Wairākei UGA to Opal Drive PS, starting at Golden Sands PS with several other pump stations joining the same line at various locations downstream. The line consists of ~1.6KM of DN300 PVC pipe (upstream) and ~3.KM of larger DN450 PVC pipe (downstream).

29. In 2023 a comprehensive assessment of condition and performance identified critical issues with the DN300 PVC section, being:

· The DN300 section poses an unacceptable risk of failure and should be taken out of service. Pressure monitoring and modelling show that this section has likely suffered cumulative fatigue damage over its 20+ years of service.

· The DN300 section of the main is a significant bottleneck in the system and restricts overall pumping capacity.

30. Upgrading the Golden Sands PS (or replacing it with the new Wairākei PS), without replacing and upsizing the DN300 section is not advisable given the poor condition and lack of capacity within the DN300 section of pipeline. Continued operation of the existing pipeline will highly likely lead to fatigue failure of the pipe and wastewater overflows into the Wairākei Stream and/or residential streets. The upgrade project for this pipeline is the Wairākei Rising Main Phase 1 project.

31. The 2024 population data indicates that at that time approximately 10,760 residents plus schools, daycare and commercial developments are served by the Golden Sands pump station and the 300mm PVC section of the PERM. Based on the 2024 data there is approximately 3.5 hours of emergency storage with the network based on average dry weather flows, this timeframe shrinks to approximately 1.6 hours under peak wet weather flows. The period of emergency storage will decrease as the population of the contributing catchment increases. Staff estimate that a repair to the PERM will take at least 24 hours depending on the location and nature of the failure. It is likely that residents and business’ ability to use the wastewater network will be impacted as a result.

32. There has been one wastewater overflow in the network to date due to capacity issues.

Golden Sands Drive throttle

33. The gravity pipeline upstream of the Golden Sands PS has been identified as a significant capacity constraint within the Wairākei network. This section of pipeline, a DN225 gravity sewer, receives discharge from multiple upstream pumping stations and then conveys flow to Golden Sands PS. The pipeline’s capacity is ~55 L/S, the combined upstream pump stations peak flow can exceed 120 L/S at full build out of their catchments. This means there is a significant surcharge and overflow risk currently, which increases as growth continues in the Wairākei UGA.

34. A short-term intervention (until Golden Sands PS is replaced with Wairākei PS) has been designed to address the current capacity constraint at Golden Sands Drive. This includes extending PS152 rising main to bypass the throttle and upgrading PS152 to deal with increased pressure. This element had a value of $1.3M assigned when the total budget for the Wairākei Rising Main Phase 1 project was built up in the planning phase. Through the design process and having received the ECI contractors 50% detailed design cost estimate, the expected value to deliver the intervention is $850,000.

35. Due to the close proximity and construction synergies with the Wairākei Pump Station, it is planned that the same contractor will deliver both projects. While the intervention could be delivered as a standalone package, it will ultimately connect Golden Sands PS to the new Wairākei PS.

36. Should construction of the Wairākei PS and Phase 1 rising main upgrades be deferred in favour of further ‘sweating’ of the assets, the incoming gravity main from the Golden Sands Drive stream crossing to Golden Sands PS remains a significant capacity constraint, and wastewater overflow risks will remain at this location and at PS152. As a result, new wastewater connections would have to be limited or prevented, further work is required to determine TCC’s position on enabling any further connections.

Staged Approach: Interdependencies within the programme

37. The Eastern Corridor Wastewater Programme is structured around a staged delivery approach, with each project sequentially programmed and interlinked to ensure capacity is provided in alignment with growth triggers. Phase 1 projects are critical to servicing existing and planned (zoned) growth in Wairākei and Papamoa East, and include the Opal Drive Pump Station, Wairākei Pump Station, and Wairākei Rising Main Phase 1.

38. These projects are designed to mitigate current capacity and asset condition risks and enable continued, planned development. Phase 2 projects, such as the second rising mains and pump station upgrades, are planned to support future growth, particularly in Te Tumu, and will be reassessed depending on the outcome of the Te Tumu servicing strategy.

39. The interdependencies between these projects mean that delays or changes to one can have cascading impacts on others. For example, the Wairākei Rising Main Phase 1 must be operational before the new Wairākei PS can be commissioned. Opal Drive Pump Station’s capacity is designed to align with future rising main installations. A full summary of these interdependencies and project staging is provided in Attachment 2.

40. The dependencies between the Wairākei PS project and the Wairākei Rising Phase 1 project are even more complex, relating to existing capacity and condition issues, and are summarized in Attachment 3.

41. The staged approach has been enabled by the development of a dynamic wastewater model, flow gauging and updated asset and performance information. The Phase 1 projects are needed urgently to provide for existing and planned growth in currently zoned areas. The inflight Phase 1 projects are:

· Opal Dr PS – under construction

· Wairākei PS – ready to construct

· Wairākei Rising Main Phase 1 – to be designed

42. A staged approach is also being taken in the delivery of the Opal Dr and Wairākei pump stations. They have been designed to service the ultimate demand of the Wairākei and Te Tumu UGA’s but will only have an installed pumping capacity to service the Stage 1 (Wairākei) demand. The wet wells (large concrete in ground structure that houses the pumps), generator and control buildings at each pump station will be constructed to service the ultimate demand.

43. Stage 2 upgrades to the pump stations will include additional pumps, upgrades to electrical switchboards and installation of larger standby generators.

44. Both pump stations are located on geotechnically challenging and constrained sites, a staged approach to the construction of the wet well at either site would present significant risk in terms of operability, constructability and damage to the existing structures as a result of construction activities. Likewise given the constrained sites reconstruction or expansion of the generator or control buildings at a later date would present significant constructability and operational challenges. All the buildings are either precast concrete or blockwork construction.

Optimised Design

45. For both the Wairākei and Opal Dr pump station projects the investment in the structural elements (above and below ground) has been optimised by adopting a design approach that provides a higher level of seismic performance to the structures that are buried and will therefore be very difficult to repair in the event of a significant seismic event.

46. Lower criticality or easier to repair structures have been designed to a lower level of seismic performance. This investment logic has been adopted to minimise the risk of over designing and therefore over investing in pump station elements that are either of low criticality to the operation of the pump station or would be relatively easy to repair.

47. For Wairākei pump station this approach has resulted in only the wet well being supported on reinforced concrete piles while the balance of the site, including the generator and control room buildings are supported on stone column improved ground.

Wairākei PS: Redesign Considerations

48. A high-level assessment in relation to a redesign process to design out capacity for Te Tumu flows and potential for cost savings has been carried out to inform this report. The assessment considered a reduction in scale of the structures and pipework of the current detailed detail. A redesign of this nature is unlikely to yield significant costs savings, if any, due to the construction savings being offset by the costs to redesign and market escalation (3% per annum adopted for the analysis).

49. The ability to reduce the size of the wet well is limited by the need to ensure it has sufficient volume to deliver daily flushing flows down the rising main to Opal Dr PS. Flushing flows are an important operational measure to reduce material build up on pipelines to ensure their operational capacity. The Southern Pipeline (Memorial Park to Te Maunga WWTP) was designed and is operated in the same way.

50. A significant driver of the cost to deliver the pump station is the geotechnically challenging nature of the site which requires 43m deep, 2.4m diameter reinforced concrete piles to support the wet well, and stone column ground improvement to support the structures and pipework on the balance of the site. The high-level assessment determined a redesign would result in a slightly reduced stone column scope but no reduction in the pile size.

51. It should be noted that redesigning and constructing the Wairākei PS to provide capacity to service the Wairākei UGA only will remove the ability to service Te Tumu or other unplanned growth, i.e. Bell Rd South, via the pump station. This is due to the highly constrained and geotechnically challenging nature of the site. Redevelopment to increase the pump station’s capacity would create significant construction and operational risk. In the scenario that Te Tumu is required to be serviced via the Eastern Corridor network a second pump station on a new site would be required to pump flows to Opal Dr PS.

Te Tumu Alternative Servicing Assessment

52. Recent engagement with Te Tumu landowners has highlighted significant concerns regarding the time, cost and feasibility of the current wastewater servicing strategy, which relies on conveying flows from Te Tumu through the Wairākei and Opal Drive pump stations to the Te Maunga Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).

53. In response, Council has initiated a high-level reassessment of wastewater servicing options for the Te Tumu Urban Growth Area (UGA), with funding approved in the 2025/26 financial year to support this work. This issue and the assessment were the subject of a report to the City Future Committee on 12 August 2025, the committee resolved:

· Notes the Eastern Corridor Wastewater options reassessment project programmed for the 2025/26 financial year and that this project will involve the Tumu landowners and the parallel wastewater investigations they are undertaking.

· Notes that staff will continue to liaise with developers who wish to deliver alternative wastewater infrastructure at their own cost, subject to all relevant planning, technical, and statutory requirements, and that staff will report back on the options developers have considered.

· Notes that there is infrastructure challenges associated with Te Tumu other than wastewater servicing (particularly access and stormwater management) and these need to be resolved as a package to enable development to proceed

The reassessment will explore alternative servicing options, including:

· Localised treatment solutions (e.g. standalone WWTPs within Te Tumu),

· Regional servicing options (e.g. a new WWTP to service Te Tumu, Wairākei South / Bell Road fast track development, growth in Te Puke and other future growth areas).

54. This work is being undertaken in collaboration with Western Bay of Plenty District Council (WBOPDC) and Te Tumu landowners, some of whom are independently investigating alternative wastewater solutions. The assessment will compare these alternatives against the current strategy in terms of cost, risk, timing, consenting pathway, environmental and cultural impacts, and feasibility.

55. In addition, a review of the costs of the Phase 2 pipelines to Te Maunga WWTP is currently underway as part of Council’s Infrastructure Priorities Programme (IPP) submission. The outcome of the review will be compared to other options including localised treatment solutions.

56. Staff have also connected with a representative of the Bell Road fast-track proposal who advised they are focused on working with WBOPDC to manage wastewater through their Te Puke WWTP. Other options such as connecting to the TCC network or to a new system in Te Tumu / eastern corridor were not seen as favourable for a range of reasons e.g. long lead in times, significant uncertainties and high cost. Earlier this month WBOPDC announced that it is proceeding with a $96m replacement wastewater treatment plant in Te Puke that will cater for growth (including the Rangiuru Business Park).

Implications for Funding and Infrastructure

57. If Te Tumu wastewater flows are ultimately serviced outside of the Tauranga City Council network, there are significant implications for the funding of key infrastructure projects:

· Wairākei PS: Currently designed to service both Wairākei and Te Tumu, with 74% of its funding expected from Te Tumu Development Contributions (DCs). If Te Tumu flows are diverted, this funding will not be received, placing the funding plan for the pump station at risk. It is not feasible to reallocate costs to the Wairākei urban growth area as the vast majority of development in this area is either complete or is consented (and hence has its development contributions locked in).

· Opal Drive Pump Station: Already under construction, with 41% of its funding allocated from Te Tumu DCs. If Te Tumu is not serviced by this infrastructure, Council will need to reconsider funding sources.

· Te Tumu Rising Mains: Sections of these mains under roads being built in the Wairākei town centre have already been constructed or are underway, funded entirely by Te Tumu DCs. Without Te Tumu development, there will be no funding source for this project, resulting in sunk costs and stranded assets. The value of the currently installed sections in Te Okuroa Dr and The Boulevard is $1.3M, with a further $350K budgeted to reimburse Bluehaven for installation in The Boulevard as they extend the road towards the Te Tumu boundary this and next financial year.

· Later stages of the strategy: scope of the stage 2 of the Opal Drive and Wairākei projects, which aims to increase the capacity of the pump stations and pipelines, will have to be assessed based on lower future flows. As shown in Appendix 2, the Opal Drive system will need additional capacity in the future even without Te Tumu flows to meet acceptable operational capacity. Any unplanned growth in existing zoned areas is not catered for with stage 1 projects.

Timelines and Strategic Considerations

58. The reassessment of the Te Tumu wastewater servicing options (refer paragraph 53 above) is expected to take approximately 9 months to complete (end of FY26), with further time required for detailed design, consenting, and implementation of any alternative solution (2 – 3 years for consenting). This means that a final decision on Te Tumu servicing could be several years away.

59. The consenting process for a new wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) is complex, time-consuming, and requires significant upfront investigation. Insights from GHD’s Technical Lead Planning and industry case studies highlight that even upgrades to existing plants, such as the Cambridge WWTP (20,000 population equivalent), took three years to consent and a further two years to construct.

60. For new WWTPs, such as the Hamilton Southern plant, the consenting process alone took five years, preceded by feasibility studies and then followed by construction. These timelines reflect the need for extensive site selection, environmental assessments, stakeholder engagement, and robust consideration of alternatives.

61. For Te Tumu, where a new WWTP would be required to service approximately 15,000 people, the consenting process is expected to be similarly lengthy. Baseline environmental investigations, which are essential for assessing discharge impacts, can take years due to seasonal data requirements. While smaller, localised WWTPs may be quicker to consent, the scale of Te Tumu’s needs makes this a significant undertaking.

62. At present, it is unclear how far Te Tumu landowners have progressed with land discharge investigations. Without this foundational work, the feasibility and viability of a WWTP in Te Tumu remains uncertain. Overall, the consenting process alone could take at least three years, in addition to the 12-month high-level servicing assessment currently underway.

63. It is noted that the Resource Management Act reforms and the Draft Environmental Performance Standards may reduce the timeframes presented above. However, at this point there is insufficient information available to assess what the likely processes and timeframes under these new frameworks will be.

64. In the interim, Council must consider whether to proceed with the Wairākei PS as designed, redesign it to exclude Te Tumu flows, or defer construction until the outcome of the reassessment and direction on a wastewater servicing strategy is known.

65. Given the interdependencies across the Eastern Corridor wastewater programme, any change to Te Tumu servicing will have cascading impacts on infrastructure planning, funding, and delivery.

66. Potentially some or all of Wairākei could be serviced by a new Te Tumu / eastern corridor wastewater treatment plant. Operational issues would need to be addressed with the current system designed to pump to Te Maunga, meaning it would have to be altered (at significant cost) to pump in a different direction. The timeframe for having a new treatment plant operational is also substantial (estimated 8-10+ years) meaning remaining growth in Wairākei would be delayed for a significant period.

Statutory Context

67. Under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Bay of Plenty Regional Plan, resource consents are required for discharges of wastewater, and infrastructure must be designed and operated to avoid adverse effects on water bodies and public health. Council does not hold a resource consent for wastewater overflows in the network, overflows in the area around the Wairākei PS have a high chance of reaching the Wairākei Stream. Consequences of a non-compliant discharge could include infringement and/or abatement notices, or prosecution, which could result in significant financial penalties. There is also the risk of damage to the council's reputation and loss of public trust.

68. TCC does not have a statutory requirement to provide infrastructure to support the development of land zoned for urban development, however it has signalled through its current LTP and Annual Plan that it plans to proceed with these wastewater projects.

69. As the consenting authority for new developments and subdivisions, TCC is required to ensure that any growth has appropriate servicing, either via public or private infrastructure. Applications which rely on private infrastructure typically have a much higher threshold for approval, based on the high risks associated with having landowners responsible for maintaining and operating highly technical plant.

70. A number of resource consents have already been granted based on capacity being made available through the Wairakei PS being brought online in accordance with the LTP. Although a resource consent is not a legally binding agreement that services will be provided, TCC would likely be exposed to significant legal risk if these developments were to proceed through construction on the basis that capacity is available, only to late be declined a service connection necessary for sale and occupation. Refer to Attachment 5, for confidential legal advice on this issue.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

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

72. Recommendations to proceed with the respective wastewater projects would:

(a) Protect the environment by mitigating risks associated with wastewater overflows and asset failure

(b) Enable planned growth to occur in the Wairākei urban growth area

73. Growth supported by the Papamoa East Interchange project (in construction) would also be supported by this wastewater investment.

74. The Eastern Corridor programme of projects was included in Councils Infrastructure Priorities Programme (IPP) submission to the NZ Infrastructure Commission who have endorsed the submission. The IPP recognises projects as being of strategic importance to NZ, to be endorsed projects must “meet New Zealand’s strategic objectives, represent value for money, and be a project or solution that can actually be delivered.”^{^[1]} Projects included in the National Infrastructure Plan via the IPP process do not automatically attract government funding.

Options Analysis

75. Staff have identified and considered the following options:

A. Progress the projects as planned

B. Delay the projects until there is greater certainty on the Te Tumu wastewater solution

C. Redesign the pump station to remove capacity associated with Te Tumu and then proceed to construction

D. Cancel / abandon the projects.

76. The benefits and risks associated with each option are outlined in the table below:

Option

Benefits

Risks

A: Progress the projects as planned

Ensures networks has capacity to cater for current zoned/planned growth.

Avoids inevitable overflows

Ability to service unplanned growth if Te Tumu flows serviced by alternate option provided the Phase 2 pipelines are also delivered

Enables DCs ($124M) (NPV 102.8M) and rates revenue from built out Wairākei UGA to be collected

Enables around 2,000 additional dwellings plus Wairākei Town Centre and business land to develop

Enables development / divestment of TCC owned PEI surplus land which has significant value

Leverages investment in ECI, risk management and delivery team continuity

Funding risk if Te Tumu serviced by alternate option:

• Sunk costs $17M (mainly Opal Dr PS)

• Wairākei PS and RM $30M

B: Delay the projects

Enables more informed decision on need to provide capacity for Te Tumu

Cost savings likely to be marginal

Stall growth in Wairākei UGA with reduction in DC and rates revenue.

Network overflows and asset failure highly likely

Likely to affect consenting of new development in Wairākei and ability to connect consented development to the network

Significant delay drives network and growth/revenue risks

C: Redesign the pump station

Marginal saving in PS construction cost

Allows development of Wairākei, including DC/rates/surplus land revenue

Locks Te Tumu out of network if no alternate servicing option

Sunk costs Te Tumu rising main, Opal Dr PS - $17M (Te Tumu cost share)

Large DC under-collection – $30m Te Tumu share less cost saving from redesign

Limited ability to recoup from higher DCs in Papamoa / Wairākei results in need for significant rate funding

Project delay increases overflow / failure risk, likely to affect consenting / ability to connect to network in short-term.

D: Cancel / abandon the projects

Reduces TCC capex

Not able to provide for growth in Wairākei or Te Tumu

Will not be able to connect some consented developments.

Loss of significant DC revenue and rating base (far exceeding reduction in capex), plus prevents ability to develop / divest PEI surplus land

Overall TCC in worse financial position than proceeding

Network overflows and asset failure guaranteed

77. Option A is recommended by staff.

Financial Considerations

78. The Eastern Corridor programme requires significant investment; the programme is currently budgeted at $327M in Councils 30-year infrastructure plan. The total is comprised of a base cost (planning, design, construction and land purchase) of $246M and $82M of contingencies. The majority of the contingency value ($61M) is held in the Opal to Te Maunga Rising Main and Wairākei Rising Main Phase 2 projects. Given these projects are outside the LTP period and have not been through detailed planning, it is reasonable to expect these contingency values will decrease over time.

79. Through the design and ECI process for the Wairākei PS the project teams forecasting indicates that the project can be delivered within the allocated budget, the forecast cost to complete position will be confirmed should the pricing of the construction works proceed. Similarly, the project team holds reasonable confidence that the Phase 1 rising main project can be delivered within budget as demonstrated by the savings expected to be realised for the Golden Sands throttle intervention, refer paragraph 35.

80. Development contributions have been collected towards these projects since 2013 when development started in Wairākei and even earlier for wastewater project costs allocated to the Papamoa catchment. Funding allocations are based on final population projections for Wairākei, Papamoa and Te Tumu. These funding shares have been updated several times to reflect change in project scopes. The most recent update was 2022 when the Wairākei rising main project was split into two phases and the bulk of the costs of future phase 2 attributed to development in Te Tumu.

81. The Te Tumu related funding share of the eastern corridor wastewater projects included in the 2024-34 LTP is approximately $50m. Of this, approximately $27M relates to the Wairākei Pump Station and $3M to the Wairākei Rising Main. Currently it is expected these funds will be recovered from charging development contributions as Te Tumu develops. As outlined earlier in this report, an alternative wastewater solution may be developed for Te Tumu which would compromise this development contribution funding approach.

82. While this financial risk is substantial, it needs to be assessed against financial risks of not proceeding:

(a) Approximately $125M (NPV: $101.1M) of development contribution revenue would not be collected from the remaining growth in the Wairākei / Papamoa East area where around 2,000 homes are still to be built alongside a new town centre and adjoining business land. This would create under-collection and the need for ratepayer funding. The development contribution assessment is included as Attachment 4.

(b) The corresponding ongoing rating base / revenue from this development would also not materialise. While additional rateable properties do not increase rates revenue directly, they do increase the overall rating base and enable rates requirements to be spread over a large group of ratepayers. This reduces the impact of future rates increases. Allowing the projects to proceed and associated growth would increase the residential rating base approximately 3.4% and for commercial by approximately 2.6%. This is shown in Attachment 4. Based on current medial rates these residential ratepayers would pay approximately $7.4M in rates p.a. and for commercial $750,000.

(c) TCC would be unable to use, develop or divest the surplus council owned land around the Papamoa East Interchange (approximately 16.5 ha of Papamoa East Employment zoned land). The value of this land is considered to be commercially sensitive and is not reported here but is well into the eight figures.

83. The timing of development determines when development contribution revenue would be received. The additional 2,000 lots are mainly allocated across the next 10 years as per the current TCC growth allocation set out in the table below and consistent with most of this development already having resource consent to proceed. The table shows 2,125 homes in total but some of these have been delivered between 2023 and now leaving approximately 2,000 remaining. Approximately 1,700 sections that would accommodate these new dwellings are already consented.

	2023-28	2028-33	2033-38	2038-43	2043-2048	2048-53	Total
Wairākei	778	909	207	58	5	5	1962
Papamoa	96	20	11	12	11	13	163
	874	929	218	70	16	18	2125

Table 1: Residential lot development projection

84. Considering project costs and development contribution revenue, the NPV benefit of proceeding with the projects is calculated at over $50m (see Attachment 4).

85. Development contributions payable in Wairākei are not raised as a barrier to development by the relevant developers / landowners. The standard citywide development contributions payable across the city apply in Wairākei. Local development contributions are payable based on land area. In most of Wairākei they are approximately $400,000 / ha which equates to $20,000 / lot based on a density of 20 dwellings / ha.

86. If developers were unable to proceed with their projects as wastewater capacity was not available, they would also face significant financial implications having already significantly invested in them through land acquisition, consenting and infrastructure delivery. Some developers have entered into contracts they would no longer be able to satisfy, and this has been confirmed with them.

Legal Implications / Risks

87. Staff have reviewed the development agreements in place with developers in Wairākei and Papamoa East and have not identified any commitments TCC has made to deliver these wastewater projects. Notwithstanding this the Agreements were entered into in the context that development of these areas was anticipated to continue.

88. Potential legal risks in relation to resource consents that have been issued are discussed in paragraph 70. Refer to Attachment 5, for confidential legal advice on this issue.

89. Regular wastewater overflows due to capacity issues, such as those anticipated should the pump station and rising main projects be delayed, is likely to result in BOPRC taking enforcement action against Council under the Resource Management Act 1991.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

90. The importance of the environment is central to Māori. Presently there are significant risks of wastewater overflows, including to the Wairākei Stream, in wet weather events or due to asset failure. Any delay or decision not to proceed with these wastewater projects would exacerbate these risks. The recommendations to proceed with the projects therefore aligns with a Te Ao Māori approach.

91. The Te Tumu urban growth area contains a significant amount of Māori land with development potential. This can only be realised with appropriate wastewater solutions. While alternative solutions are under investigation, they are uncertain. The recommendations of this report would ensure that wastewater reticulation of development in Te Tumu to the Te Maunga Wastewater treatment Plant remains a viable option.

92. Engagement with tangata whenua in relation to the delivery of Eastern Corridor programme has been ongoing since 2021. Initially engagement focused on individual projects, recently a programme wide approach has been taken with individual projects coming into focus as they enter the delivery phase.

CLIMATE IMPACT

93. The wastewater projects would be designed and constructed in a way to mitigate risk from climate change as well as natural hazard risk.

Consultation / Engagement

94. Engagement with Te Tumu landowners was undertaken during the development of the servicing strategy in 2018. The purpose of the engagement was to introduce the strategy and identify any fatal flows or ‘no go’ areas. Limited feedback was received on the strategy, the landowners, through an ongoing relationship with City Planning & Growth, were already engaging on structure planning within Te Tumu which included wastewater servicing.

95. The inclusion of the Wairākei Pump Station and Rising Main in the 2024-34 Long Term Plan was consulted on through the LTP process. There was support for the inclusion of these projects from developers / landowners in Wairākei and Te Tumu.

96. Informal engagement has occurred with representatives of the main Te Tumu landowners in respect of the issues canvassed in this report. Their viewpoint is that if they deliver an alternative wastewater solution for Te Tumu they should not be required to contribute toward these projects. They are focused on an alternative solution due to the high cost of reticulating wastewater from Te Tumu to Te Maunga based on current estimates and associated effects on the feasibility of development. That said, they would support the projects proceeding and they note they could provide for further unplanned growth, greater intensification and higher densities in the Papamoa and Wairākei area.

97. A discussion has also occurred with a representative of the Bell Road fast track proposal. As outlined earlier in the report they are focused on working with WBOPDC on reticulating wastewater to the Te Puke WWTP rather than other options such as the TCC network or a potential new Te Tumu / eastern corridor WWTP.

98. Informal engagement has also occurred with the main developers in Wairakei (Bluehaven and Hawridge). As expected, they are fully supportive of the projects proceeding and have invested in their developments on the basis of Council’s plans to deliver infrastructure like this wastewater investment as confirmed through the current LTP. They would face significant adverse financial implications if development was unable to proceed and have significant concerns about options to defer / abandon the wastewater projects. They also point out that they have been paying development contributions toward these projects.

Significance

99. 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.

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

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

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

101. In accordance with the considerations above, criteria and thresholds in the policy, it is considered that the decision is of high significance due to its large financial implications, environmental risks and significant effect on future growth in the Wairākei area.

ENGAGEMENT

102. Taking into consideration the above assessment, that the decision is of high significance, officers are of the opinion that no further engagement is required prior to Council making a decision based on the level of engagement that has occurred and the understanding we have around the views of the key parties affected.

Next Steps

103. Should the recommendations be passed the following next steps are proposed:

(a) Progress projects through design and delivery phases

(b) Ensure Te Tumu cost allocations are considered when assessing alternative wastewater options for Te Tumu.

Attachments

1. Eastern Corridor Programme Summary - A19221642 ⇩

2. Eastern Corridor - Interdependencies within the programme - A19221883 ⇩

3. Wairakei Rising Main Phase 1 - Wairakei PS Dependencies - A19221922 ⇩

4. Development contributions assessment - Remaining development in Wairakei / Papamoa East - A19223642 ⇩

5. Confidential - Memorandum - Wairakei Pump Station - Legal Risk - A19297440 - Public Excluded

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

18 November 2025

11.2 Elected members' remuneration allocation and expenses policy

File Number: A18428347

Author: Jeremy Boase, Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience

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

Purpose of the Report

1. This report seeks decisions on the allocation of the remuneration pool for councillors, to take effect from 12 October 2025, together with decisions on aspects of the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Elected members' remuneration allocation and expenses policy".

Remuneration

(b) Allocates the councillors remuneration pool of $1,482,192 for submission to the Remuneration Authority as follows:

i) Deputy Mayor - $xxx

ii) Councillors with additional responsibilities - $xxx

Security allowance

(c) Amends the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025 to include provision for a home security allowance with the following characteristics:

(i) Issue 1 – eligibility – Option …

(ii) Issue 2 – security threat and assessment preparation - Option …

(iii) Issue 3 – maximum allowances – Option …

(iv) Issue 4 – if elected member changes primary residence – Option …

(v) Issue 5 – if elected member’s position becomes vacant – Option …

(vi) Issue 6 – approvals – Option …

(d) Does not amend the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025 to include provision for a home security allowance

Other policy changes

(e) Amends the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025 to include provision for an additional night of accommodation and relevant expenses if an elected member is unable to make reasonable arrangements to return directly to Tauranga.

(f) Amends the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025 provisions for meal allowances per Option … in this report.

(g) Does not further amend the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025.

Executive Summary

2. On an annual basis the Remuneration Authority sets the mayor’s salary and sets a remuneration pool to be distributed among councillors. Council determines the distribution of that pool and then seeks approval from the Remuneration Authority for that distribution.

3. In an election year, such as 2025/26, the Remuneration Authority sets remuneration for the period up to the election, and then a new remuneration pool for the period after the election. For the period after the election, the mayor’s remuneration has increased 3.91% and the annual remuneration pool for councillors has increased by 14.92%. Under the relevant legislation, the new pool must be fully allocated between councillors.

4. This report invites Council to determine an appropriate distribution of that new remuneration pool. Mayor Drysdale has included a proposed distribution in this report. There is no staff recommendation because this is an elected member matter.

5. The Remuneration Authority has also enabled a new allowance for all elected members, being a home security system allowance. If Council chooses to take advantage of this new allowance, Council needs to make appropriate provision for it in the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy. Direction is sought on various matters to enable staff to draft proposed terms for that policy.

6. This report also addresses three matters within the Elected Members' Expenses and Resources Policy that were raised during the 7 October 2025 Council meeting.

7. There are no financial implications to Council within the decision to allocate the remuneration pool. The new pool is allowed for in budgets and the breakdown of how it is allocated does not affect the overall spend.

8. The potential new allowance for home security systems has not specifically been budgeted for. If implemented, the financial impact will depend on policy decisions made and then the uptake of the new allowance.

Background

Remuneration Authority and the Determination

9. The Remuneration Authority is an independent body established by statute to set out a process and approve the remuneration of key office holders including members of parliament and local government elected members.

10. Each year the Remuneration Authority issues a Determination which sets out:

· the remuneration of mayors,

· the minimum allowable remuneration for councillors

· the governance remuneration pool for distribution among councillors

· the permitted allowances for elected members

· the hearings fees paid to elected members, where applicable.

11. The most recent Determination (the Local Government Elected Members (2025/26) Determination 2025) came into force on 1 July 2025. Because of the triennial local government elections in October this year the remuneration elements of the Determination were split into two sections:

· remuneration rules from 1 July 2025 to the declaration of election results^{^[2]}

· remuneration rules from the declaration of election results to 30 June 2026.

12. The rules for the period until the election were unchanged from the 2024/25 Determination. As such, elected member remuneration for that period remains as is.

13. For the period after the election, the Determination:

· increases the mayor’s annual remuneration by 3.91% from $186,130 to $193,402

· increases the annual governance remuneration pool for councillors by 14.92% from $1,289,799 to $1,482,192

· increases the minimum remuneration for a councillor with no additional responsibilities (a category not used by Council in its final August 2024 decision) by 35.96% from $91,027 to $123,516

· introduces a new permitted allowance for elected members relating to home security systems.

14. Council is required to make decisions on remuneration and allowances and then seek approval from the Remuneration Authority.

Previous Council decision-making

15. At its meeting on 15 August 2024 the Council resolved to allocate the 2024/25 governance remuneration pool as follows:

· a separate amount for the deputy mayor to reflect additional responsibilities.

· a flat distribution of the remainder of the pool to promote equity among all councillors regardless of their roles as chairs or deputy chairs.

16. This report assumes that the same model of distribution will apply to the 2025/26 governance remuneration pool. If Council is of a mind to change the model of distribution, then it is recommended that the parameters of such a distribution model be determined before a further report is prepared for decision-making.

Structure of this report

17. This report covers three different matters.

· Options for the distribution of the annual governance remuneration pool between the deputy mayor and the councillors.

· Options for the introduction or not of a new home security system allowance for elected members.

· Other matters relating to the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025 which were raised during the Council meeting on 7 October 2025.

Statutory Context

18. The Remuneration Authority determines local government elected members’ remuneration under Clause 6 of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 and the Remuneration Authority Act 1977.

19. Council is required to fully distribute the governance remuneration pool set by the Remuneration Authority to councillors and those with additional positions of responsibility.

20. The governance remuneration pool does not apply to non-elected people who are appointed to be members or chairpersons of council committees. Their remuneration is set separately by Council.

21. Once Council has determined its preferred approach to distribution of the governance remuneration pool, it will recommend that distribution to the Remuneration Authority. The Remuneration Authority makes the final decision on elected members’ remuneration.

22. Once the Remuneration Authority issues its final decision and then publishes it in the New Zealand Gazette, elected members’ remuneration will be backdated to, in the case of 2025/26, 12 October 2025.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

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

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

24. The purpose of local government is to enable democratic local decision making and action, by, and on behalf of communities. The Authority considers a range of factors when determining the remuneration for elected members to attract people with the capacity to lead and govern at a local level. One of these factors is “the existence of a remuneration system that enables people from all sectors of the community to commit time and effort necessary to fulfil their responsibilities as elected members without being unduly disadvantaged.”

Options – part 1 – distribution of the governance remuneration pool

25. As noted above, this section is based on the assumption that Council intends to retain the same principles for distribution as it adopted in August 2024. These were:

· a separate amount for the deputy mayor to reflect additional responsibilities.

· a flat distribution of the remainder of the remuneration pool to promote equity among all councillors regardless of their roles as chairs or deputy chairs.

26. The 2025/26 Determination includes very different increases for the mayor (3.91%) compared to the pool (14.92%).

27. Mayor Drysdale has proposed a distribution of the remuneration pool that approximately retains the relative differentials between the mayor’s remuneration, the deputy mayor’s, and the other councillors’, given the constraints of the numbers provided in the Determination.

28. There are, of course, an unlimited number of ways of dividing the pool. The Remuneration Authority has prepared an interactive Excel tool if Council wishes to develop and consider other options. That tool can be found towards the bottom of this page on their website.

29. The option proposed by Mayor Drysdale is as follows:

	Current	Mayor Drysdale’s proposal	Comments
Mayor	$186,130	$193,402 (3.91% increase)	Set by Remuneration Authority - cannot be changed by Council
Deputy Mayor	$161,285	$178,192 (10.48% increase)
Councillors	$141,064	$163,000 (15.56% increase)

Total pool check (1 x DM + 8 x Cllr)	$1,289,797	$1,482,192 (14.92%)	Total available pool must be allocated (and is under this proposal)

Mayor over Dep Mayor	$24,845	$15,210
Dep Mayor over Cllrs	$20,221	$15,192

30. This approach distributes the pool totally (as required).

31. This approach also creates very similar dollar differentials between the mayor and deputy mayor ($15,210) and the deputy mayor and councillors ($15,192). The small difference is because councillors’ remuneration has been rounded up from the $162,999 that would have been required to create an almost exact balance in the differentials^{^[3]}.

32. No staff recommendation is provided in regard to the above.

OPTIONS – part 2 – home security allowance

33. The 2025/26 Determination includes provision for a new allowance paid to elected members. Clause 15 of the Determination states:

15 Home security system allowance

(1) Based on a security threat and risk assessment authorised by the local authority, a local authority may reimburse the expenses of having a security system installed and monitored at a member’s primary place of residence within the local authority area up to a maximum of—

(a) $4,500 for purchasing and installing the system; and

(b) $1,000 in any year for monitoring, call-outs, and repairs.

(2) A member may also be reimbursed for additional expenses for the provision of supplementary security measures at their primary place of residence within the local authority area if—

(a) the security threat and risk assessment recommends that those supplementary security measures be provided to the member; and

(b) the Remuneration Authority, on application from the local authority, approves reimbursement of the additional expenses arising from the provision of those supplementary security measures.

34. Clause 15 applies to Tauranga City Council from 12 October 2025 onwards.

35. If Council wishes to implement these provisions, they must be included in the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025 and approval must then be sought from the Remuneration Authority.

36. Key issues to be considered when preparing policy provisions relating to home security systems include the following:

Issue	Options	Commentary
Issue 1 – Eligibility	1A – all elected members 1B – limited to mayor, deputy mayor 1C – limited to mayor, deputy mayor and standing committee co-chairs
Issue 2 – Security threat and assessment preparation	2A – prepared in-house by staff working to a determined template 2B – prepared by specialist consultants	If a template is required, co-it will be prepared and shared with Council when the policy is to be adopted.
Issue 3 – Maximum allowances	3A - $4,500 for purchase and installation; $1,000 for annual monitoring, call-outs and repairs (as provided for in the Determination) 3C – other amounts determined by Council
Issue 4 – If elected member changes primary residence	4A – a new application (supported by a new risk assessment) may be made for the new residence 4B – no new application may be made	Note that the primary place of residence must be within the local authority area.
Issue 5 – If elected member’s position becomes vacant (including if not re-elected)	5A – no impact on allowances already paid for that financial year 5B – no impact on installation allowances already paid for that financial year, but annual monitoring, call-outs and repairs allowance scaled back proportional to the period of the financial year that the member was in position. 5C – all allowances (including installation) scaled back proportional to the period of the financial year that the member was in position.
Issue 6 – Approvals	6A – approvals of all claims under this part of the policy to be made by the mayor and chief executive, with mayoral claims approved by the deputy mayor and one other councillor 6B – other approval process as determined by Council	6A is consistent with approvals for other expense claims under the policy

37. Direction is sought from Council as to whether provision should be made for home security system allowances and, if so, the parameters of such a policy.

38. Draft policy provisions will be brought back to Council when direction has been provided.

Options – Part 3 – Other policy matters

39. At the Council meeting of 7 October 2025, elected members identified three other matters in the existing Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy 2025 (“the policy”) for further discussion (see Attachment 1 for a copy of the policy). These are considered below with options provided for changes to the policy if required. It is anticipated that these changes can be made during the meeting and become effective immediately, but if further consideration is required then they too can be brought back to a subsequent Council meeting for formal adoption.

40. The three matters cover:

(a) Overnight accommodation and allowances when conferences (for example) finish late

(b) Limits on meal allowances

Overnight accommodation and allowances

41. During the 7 October 2025, elected members noted that the policy provisions for overnight accommodation and allowances do not adequately address a situation where a conference or forum finishes late, particularly if the last flight home cannot be caught.

42. To address this, options below allow for a modification of the status quo (currently included at the bottom of section 5.1.2 in the policy.

Option

Commentary

Option 1 – status quo

“An elected member’s ability to claim any daily or overnight accommodation expenses ends at the conclusion of the conference/forum or when the elected member leaves the conference/forum.”

Option 2 – enhanced

“An elected member’s ability to claim any daily or overnight accommodation expenses ends at the conclusion of the conference/forum or when the elected member leaves the conference/forum.

“Where the conference/forum ends at a time that does not allow the elected member to catch the last flight back to Tauranga, the ability to claim daily or overnight accommodation expenses ends at the time of the first flight to Tauranga on the following day.”

RECOMMENDED

Allows for an additional night’s accommodation, as well as breakfast and potentially lunch depending on the flight s schedules.

Maximum limits for meal allowances

43. The policy currently provides maximum limits for meal allowances when an elected member is staying away from home overnight on Council business (and where those meals are not part of a ‘package’, for example as supplied as part of a conference). These limits, set out in section 5.1.2 of the policy, are: breakfast ($25 incl. GST); lunch ($25 incl. GST); dinner ($50 incl. GST).

44. During the 7 October 2025 Council meeting, elected members sought options to amend these limits to ‘actual and reasonable’ costs, potentially with no dollar limitation.

45. Subsequent to that meeting staff have been requested to include details of similar allowances for staff when travelling overnight and away from Tauranga. That information, including an extract from the standard employment contract template and an extract from the Sensitive Expenditure Policy that applies to all staff, is included as Attachment 2 to this report.

46. Options to address this issue in the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy are set out below for Council’s consideration.

Option

Commentary

Option 1 – status quo

Retain the policy with dollar-based limits for breakfast ($25 incl. GST), lunch ($25 incl. GST), and dinner ($50 incl. GST)

Option 2 – enhanced status quo

Retain the policy with dollar-based limits but change those limits to:

Breakfast $.... (incl. GST)

Lunch $.... (incl. GST)

Dinner $.... (incl. GST)

Council to determine the limits it considers appropriate.

Option 3 – ‘fair and reasonable’

Amend the policy to state “When meals do not form part of a ‘package’, actual and reasonable costs may be claimed on presentation of an actual and itemised receipt (not a credit card statement or photocopy).”

The policy currently defines ‘actual’ as ‘means as evidenced by the original receipt attached to the claim form’ and defines ‘reasonable’ as ‘within the amount specified by the policy or as deemed reasonable by the mayor and chief executive’.

47. No staff recommendation is provided.

Within-city travel

48. During the 7 October 2025 Council meeting, elected members noted the provisions in the policy for within-city travel and questioned whether those provisions were inconsistent.

49. The two elements identified were:

(a) Section 5.1.6 where a pre-paid public transport card (for example a “Bee card” issued by Bay of Plenty Regional Council) may be issued to elected members for travel to and from council business (the busses principally operate within the city boundaries) and

(b) Section 5.1.3 where payment of mileage costs for an elected member using their own vehicle only applies for travel outside of the Tauranga City Council area.

50. It should be noted that section 5.1.5 covers the public transport noted in (a) above and also covers ‘micro mobility’ services (such as e-bikes and e-scooters) when travelling for council business (when actual and reasonable costs will be reimbursed). Again, the expectation is that such services will be within Tauranga’s boundaries.

51. The different approach to public transport (including micro mobility) within the city boundaries and private vehicle use is deliberate. The public transport provisions were specifically prepared to promote non-car use in Tauranga. Section 5.1.5 starts “To promote alternative modes of transport apart from private vehicle use…”

52. Sections 5.1.5 to 5.1.7 of the policy relating to public transport allowances were specifically identified as being proposed new provisions when Council adopted the policy on 15 August 2024.

53. If Council wishes to amend the policy for public vehicle use or public transport travel or both, staff seek further direction to enable drafting of revised provisions.

Financial Considerations

54. The increase in the remuneration pool has been provided for in budgets. The financial impact of changes to the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources Policy will depend on the uptake of any new or amended allowances. Dependent on policy decisions yet to be taken, the maximum potential impact is likely to be 10 elected members x $4,500 for installation plus $1,000 per annum for monitoring, call-outs and repairs i.e. $55,000 in total.

Legal Implications / Risks

55. The Council is required to allocate the entire remuneration pool set by the Authority. There are no specific risks associated with this process.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

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

CLIMATE IMPACT

57. Decisions on elected members’ remuneration are not directly related to climate change impact.

Significance

58. 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.

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

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

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

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

62. A recommendation on remuneration from the Council will go to the Authority for approval.

63. In the meantime, all councillors will continue to receive their current remuneration in line with the pre-election elements of the 2025/26 Determination from the Remuneration Authority.

64. If Council determines that it wishes to amend the Elected Members’ Expenses and Resources policy to allow for the home security systems allowance, then a draft revised policy will be brought back to the December Council meeting.

Attachments

1. Elected Members' Expenses and Resources Policy 2025 - as adopted 7 Oct 2025 - A19035841 ⇩

2. Information requested by elected members regarding staff allowances - A19221153 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

18 November 2025

11.3 Draft 2026 Council and Committee Meetings Schedule

File Number: A18997120

Author: Sarah Holmes, Team Leader: Governance & CCO Support Services

Jeremy Boase, Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience

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

Purpose of the Report

1. This report provides a first draft 2026 Council and Committee meetings schedule for feedback and approval in principle, pending further input from external parties.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Draft 2026 Council and Committee Meetings Schedule".

(b) Approves in principle the Draft 2026 Council/Committees Meetings Calendar (provided as Attachment 1 to this report):

(i) Pending input from Western Bay of Plenty District Council and Toi Moana Bay of Plenty Regional Council to confirm joint committees and meeting dates,

(ii) Pending confirmation from Local Government New Zealand on Zone 2, Metro Sector, Te Maruata Whānui, and All-of-Local Government Sector meetings, and

(iii) Subject to incorporation of feedback provided to staff at this meeting, as noted in the meeting minutes, including specifically:

(1) Direction on the Council’s preferred alternative meeting day for the City Future, City Delivery, and Audit and Risk Committees when the Tuesday is unavailable.

(c) Notes that the final confirmed 2026 Council/Committees Meetings Calendar is to be reported back to the earliest possible Council meeting in the New Year.

Notes that the final 2026 Council/Committee Meetings Calendar does not need to be formally reported back to Council.

Executive Summary

2. The proposed January to December 2026 Council and Committee Meetings Schedule (provided as Attachment 1 to this report) gives effect to Tauranga City Council’s governance structure, and closely reflects the current 2025 year’s meeting schedule.

3. Feedback on this draft schedule is sought at this meeting, including whether Monday is the Council’s preferred alternative Committee meeting day when required (as reflected in Attachment 1 to this report), or if a different day is generally preferred.

4. This report seeks Council’s approval in principle of the draft meeting schedule (provided as Attachment 1 to this report), subject to inclusion of feedback from this meeting and pending input from external partners.

5. Elected members have also requested an overview of the key reports expected to be presented to Council and the main Committees in 2026. This is provided in Attachment 2.

DISCUSSION

6. The Council can adopt a schedule of meetings that covers any future period. A 12-month calendar is recommended, as this provides certainty to Elected Members, external appointees and staff, and transparency to the community and media on when meetings will be held over the year ahead.

7. The proposed 2026 meetings schedule (Attachment 1 to this report) adheres to the same principles as the current 2025 schedule, in that it is based on the current governance structure, meets the minimum meeting requirements of all committee and advisory group terms of reference, and wherever possible treats the school holiday periods as meeting recess opportunities.

8. This means that Council meetings are scheduled three-weekly, the City Future Committee and City Delivery Committees are scheduled six-weekly (eight meetings per year), and the Audit and Risk Committee meetings are scheduled quarterly (four per year).

9. These Council and Committee meetings are scheduled on a Tuesday where possible, with Committee meetings being scheduled for a Monday if there is a Council meeting scheduled for the Tuesday.

10. The Council’s feedback is sought on whether Monday (as currently) or a different day is the preferred alternative Committee meeting day when required.

11. Dates for joint committee meetings are co-ordinated with Toi Moana Bay of Plenty Regional Council, the Western Bay of Plenty District Council, and other councils in the Bay of Plenty. Staff will work with partner councils to confirm joint committee and group meeting dates once their committee structure and representatives are confirmed. This is anticipated to be before the Christmas break.

12. At this stage, joint committee and advisory group meetings are provisionally scheduled as close as possible to the 2025 meetings, normally on a Friday or Wednesday, except for the Bay of Plenty Regional Transport Committee which, where possible, scheduled on a Tuesday.

13. Dates for joint Tangata Whenua and TCC advisory groups have been scheduled as close as possible to the 2025 dates, however some movement in the proposed 2026 advisory group dates may still be required. Staff will work together with Tangata Whenua representatives to confirm the 2026 dates as soon as possible.

14. Draft dates for Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) SuperLocal (includes Annual General Meeting), Zone 2, Metro, Te Maruata (group for all Māori elected and appointed members), and All-of-Local Government Sector hui have been provided by LGNZ and are included in the meetings schedule. LGNZ has advised the meeting dates will be finalised in mid-November, therefore these are subject to change.

15. This information is summarised in table 1 below, which provides key information used to develop the draft 2026 meetings schedule.

Table 1: supporting information incorporated into draft 2026 Meetings Schedule

Meeting of	Preferred meeting day	Frequency (per TOR)
Committees or Groups administered by TCC:
Council (excluding AP hearings & deliberations)	Tuesday	3-weekly (currently 15 per year)
City Future Committee	Tuesday (backup: Mon / Wed)	6-weekly (currently 8 per year)
City Delivery Committee	Tuesday (backup: Mon / Wed)	6-weekly (currently 8 per year)
Audit & Risk Committee	Tuesday (backup: Monday)	4 per year
Tangata Whenua/TCC Committee	Wednesday	6 per year
Wastewater Management Review Committee	Wednesday	4 per year
Ngā Poutiriao ō Mauao Advisory Group	Wednesday	2+ per year
Waiāri Kaitiaki Advisory Group	Wednesday	4 per year, or as required
Matapihi Southern Pipeline Advisory Group	Thursday	2+ per year
Taumata Kahawai Governance Group	Wednesday or Thursday	Two-monthly, or as required
Tauranga & Western Bay of Plenty Transport Committee (TCC administered from Jan 2026)	Friday	Two-monthly, or as required (4 per year)
Joint Committees administered by others:
SmartGrowth Leadership Group	Wednesday	4 per year
Regional Transport Committee (BOPRC administered)	Friday	Quarterly
BOP Public Transport Committee (BOPRC administered)	Wednesday (?)	Quarterly
Civil Defence & Emergency Management Committee (BOPRC administered)	Friday	Quarterly (or as required)
Tauranga Moana Advisory Group (BOPRC administered)	Friday	Quarterly (or as required)
Te Maru o Kaituna River Authority (BOPRC administered)	Friday	As per meeting schedule
LGNZ National / Zone forums:
Mayoral Forum	Friday	3 per year
LGNZ Combined Sector	Friday	3 per year
LGNZ Metro Sector	Friday	3 per year
LGNZ Zone 2	Friday	3 per year
LGNZ AGM / Conference	Monday - Thursday	Annual (July)
LGNZ Te Maruata (group for all Māori elected and appointed members)	Friday	4 per year

16. Elected members have requested visibility of the key decision-making reports that will be presented to Council and the main committees in 2026. Attachment 2 identifies the currently known key reports by month and management area.

Statutory Context

17. Clause 19(6) of Schedule 7 of the Local Government Act 2002 provides for the Council to adopt a meeting schedule to cover any future period.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

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

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

19. Providing advance notice of Tauranga City Council’s proposed meeting schedule for the upcoming year enables our communities to participate in their local democracy and to be informed about the council’s plans and activities.

Options Analysis

20. Option 1 – Approve the 2026 January to December Meetings Schedule in principle, pending confirmation of joint committee and advisory group, and LGNZ meeting dates, and subject to inclusion of feedback provided at this Council meeting (Recommended).

21. This option would enable the Elected Members, external appointees, staff, media and the public to know when meetings are provisionally (then confirmed as) scheduled for the year ahead. This would assist with openness and transparency for our communities, and in enabling participation in local democracy.

22. This option would also enable staff to book 2026 meetings into committee and group members’ calendars, and to set up the report-writing system for the year ahead.

23. Option 2 – Do not approve the 2026 January to December Meetings Schedule in principle at this time.

24. This option would not enable the people involved or our wider communities to know when meetings are scheduled for the year ahead until a later date.

25. This option would require a report to the next Council meeting on 15 December to approve the 2026 meetings schedule, noting that partner councils may not have been able to confirm their joint committee and group meeting dates in time for that report.

Consultation / Engagement

26. Staff will continue to engage with LGNZ, partner councils and Tangata Whenua representatives to confirm all meeting dates for the 2026 calendar year.

Significance

27. 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.

28. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

30. 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 Council making a decision.

Next Steps

31. If Option 1 is approved:

(a) Provisional 2026 meeting calendar requests will be sent out to Elected Members, external appointees and relevant staff as soon as possible after this meeting.

(b) The Draft and, once all joint meeting dates have been confirmed, Final 2026 Meetings Schedule will be made available on the council’s website.

32. If Option 2 is approved, an updated report incorporating feedback from this Council meeting will be provided to the 15 December Council meeting for approval, noting that our partner councils may not be able to confirm joint committee and group meeting dates prior to the report being authorised for inclusion in the 15 December meeting agenda.

Attachments

1. Draft 2026 Council and Committee Meeting Schedule - 3 November 2025 (A3) - A19240968 ⇩

2. 2026 Planned Key Reports to Council and Main Committees (A3) - A19266377 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

18 November 2025

11.4 Long-term Plan 2027-2037 - Process

File Number: A18776362

Author: Josh Logan, Team Leader: Policy & Corporate Planning

James Woodward, Manager: Performance, Monitoring & Assurance

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

Purpose of the Report

1. This report provides a high-level overview of the 2027-2037 Long-term Plan (LTP) process for Tauranga City Council, including the timeline, proposed prioritisation methodology, and proposed amendments to community outcomes (the outcomes we seek), priorities (where we will focus our effort), and principles (how we will do things and deliver).

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Long-term Plan 2027-2037 - Process".

(b) Endorses the proposed prioritisation process for capital projects for the Long-Term Plan (Attachment 1).

(c) Notes that for the prioritisation process, at a later date, staff will seek further guidance from the mayor and councillors on strategic direction, risk appetite and weightings of strategy/risk.

(d) Approves the following revised Community Outcomes for the purposes of the 2027-2037 Long-term Plan development:

· Tauranga Mataraunui - An inclusive city

· Tauranga Taurikura - A city that values, protects and enhances our environment

· Tauranga - Tātai Whenua - A well planned city that is easy to move around

· Tauranga a te kura - A city that supports business and education

· Tauranga <translation to come> - A vibrant city that embraces events

(e) Approves the following 2027-2037 Long-term Plan underpinning principles:

· Look after what we’ve got

· Accountable and transparent

· Value for money

· Everyone pays a fair share

· Growth pays for growth

· Bold and innovative

(f) Approves the following priorities to guide the development of the 2027-2037 Long Term Plan:

· Delivering for our people:

o Enable Housing

o Address Transport

o Enhance our Environment

o Deliver services for our community

(g) Notes that if amendments to the community outcomes are endorsed, either with or without community consultation, the amended outcomes will be applied through the upcoming Long Term Plan, and that the current community outcomes included in the existing Long Term Plan will continue to be reported against for the next two annual reports.

Executive Summary

2. The Long Term Plan (LTP) is the most significant planning and decision-making process for the Elected Members for their term of council. It sets out what Tauranga City Council will do over the next 10 years and how we’ll pay for it. This includes everything from major infrastructure projects to the services we provide every day.

3. A new LTP is developed and adopted every three years by Elected Members, in the middle year of the normal local government election cycle. Each plan must include a financial strategy that shows how we’ll manage our finances over the long term.

4. The next LTP is due for adoption by 30 June 2027.

5. This report provides the Elected Members a high-level overview of the standard LTP process and timeline that starts from now and runs through to June 2027. The report also gives a high-level overview of the proposed prioritisation process and seeks Council endorsement of that.

6. Finally, the report seeks Council approval to proceed with proposed minor amendments to the community outcomes, priorities and principles (as suggested by Elected Members’ feedback on the current ones) which are intended to guide the development and delivery of the upcoming LTP.

What are community outcomes

7. Community outcomes, as required under the Local Government Act 2002, set out the long-term aspirations of our city for social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing. These outcomes provide a shared vision that guides council planning and decision-making, ensuring that services and investments contribute to what matters most for our community.

8. The LTP translates these aspirations into practical actions by aligning projects, priorities, and performance measures with the desired outcomes, creating a clear framework for delivering on community priorities and reporting progress transparently.

Previous decisions on community outcomes

9. The current community outcomes were adopted in April 2024 by the previously Crown-appointed Commission, following extensive community consultation as part of the “Our Direction” strategic framework.

10. Minor amendments to outcomes, priorities, and principles are proposed after feedback on the existing ones from the Elected Members.

11. The recommended approach is to adopt these minor amendments without further consultation, as prior engagement on Our Direction (Council’s strategic direction) was comprehensive and legislative requirements do not require Council to undertake additional consultation.

Financial Implications

12. The recommended approach has no additional financial impact; work can proceed within existing budgets. If further consultation is chosen, costs can be covered by current budgets.

Risks

13. There is a risk with the recommended option on the adoption of amended community outcomes that some in the community would have expected consultation to be undertaken.

Background

14. This report gives Council a complete high-level overview of the upcoming LTP. The background section has been split into three parts which discuss:

· what is an LTP and a high-level timeline

· the proposed capital programme prioritisation framework

· suggested changes to the community outcomes, priorities and principles for building the LTP.

Background – What is a long-term plan

15. The Long-Term Plan (LTP) sets out what Council aims to deliver for our community over the next 10 years. It outlines the services, infrastructure, and investments that will be delivered to support our city’s growth and wellbeing. It also shows how these activities will be funded — through rates, fees, borrowing, and other revenue sources.

16. The LTP is updated every three years to reflect changing community needs, financial realities, and legislative requirements. It’s a key tool for the Elected Members to lead and make informed decisions about priorities, trade-offs, and timing.

17. The LTP brings together a large number of processes and topics. It’s developed with input from across council, led and shaped by Elected Members’ direction, and refined through public consultation. Once adopted, it becomes our commitment to the community — showing what we’ll deliver, when, and why.

18. The LTP connects Our Direction (strategic framework) with action. It sets out:

· Community outcomes and strategic goals

· Major projects and programmes

· Levels of service across council activities

· Performance measures and targets

· Financial strategies, policies and budgets

· Infrastructure strategy

19. Coordinating this, including providing appropriate content to the Elected Members for direction-setting and decision-making, is a significant task. Some workstreams have been underway for many months (for example the comprehensive fees and charges review, phase one now and phase two in the LTP) while others commence later in the process. Each separate process or content topic has its own project planning commensurate with the type and scale.

20. Sector guidance from Taituarā uses a jigsaw metaphor (below[4]) to reflect the interconnected nature of the LTP components—each piece contributes to a coherent whole. Taituarā is New Zealand’s membership network of local government professionals. It develops and provides tools and resources to assist Councils.

Figure 1: Taituarā’s Long Term Plan Jigsaw

A close-up of a puzzle

21. Their guide is structured around 20 key pieces which are summarised below along with guidance on the elected member decision making required (watching briefs are also indicated for upcoming legislation changes likely to impact the LTP), under the headings process, content and consultation:

Table 1: Process pieces with decision-making led by elected members

Process pieces –

Building the Foundation

Elected member decision-making

1) Environmental Scan

Conduct early scans to understand external factors affecting service delivery. Use tools like horizon scanning and critical transitions to anticipate future needs.

To be reported to elected members as background material and for input as required.

2) Direction Setting

Establish strategic priorities early. Engage Elected Members to define community outcomes and align council activities accordingly.

Decisions required

Within this report, paragraph 38 seeks to confirm community outcomes for the basis to begin building the LTP.

3) Decision-Making

Ensure the Elected Members are empowered and informed. Comply with legislative requirements (sections 76AA–82), document decisions, and avoid predetermination.

Business as usual approach to decision-making processes (including Issues & Options papers).

4) Stocktake of Strategies

Review existing plans, strategies, action and investment plans for relevance and alignment. Assessment of objectives, actions, and links to the LTP.

Stocktake (particularly ‘relevance and alignment’) will depend on elected members’ direction setting (see above).

Stocktake reported to elected members as background material and for direction on applying the outcomes of the stocktake.

5) Engagement Strategy

Go beyond statutory consultation. Develop a comprehensive engagement plan aligned with the significance and engagement policy. Use diverse methods to reach different groups.

Direction and decisions required

Elected members to provide their views as the basis for building the communications and engagement plan for the LTP. Applies to both the engagement content and approach.

Table 2: Content pieces with decision-making led by elected members

Content Pieces – Telling the Story

Elected member decision-making

6) Forecasting Assumptions and Risk Analysis

Document assumptions (e.g., growth, climate change) and apply them consistently. Conduct sensitivity analysis and disclose uncertainties.

Decisions required

Elected members will need to consider, develop and adopt these as the basis for building the plan.

7) Grouping Activities

Define and group activities logically. Ensure transparency and alignment with community outcomes. Mandatory groups currently include roads, water, wastewater, stormwater, and flood protection.

Watching brief

These requirements may be changed through the Local Government (Systems Improvement) Bill. Direction may then be provided by Department of Internal Affairs (DIA) on future requirements.

The Local Waters Done Well decision from August 2025, will mean that water and wastewater will be removed from the LTP with stormwater to be confirmed or changed through due diligence.

8) Activity Management Plans

Maintain up-to-date plans that link services to assets. These plans inform infrastructure and financial strategies and support decision-making.

Decisions required

To be provided to elected members for review and direction. Specific initiatives within activities may require their own papers and decisions (this includes new project initiation).

9) Financial and Infrastructure Strategies

Develop integrated strategies that reflect service needs, costs, and risks. Include quantified limits on rates and debt and address resilience and climate change.

Decisions required

Elected members will need to consider, develop and adopt these as the basis for building the plan.

10) Funding and Financial Policies

Prepare revenue and financing policies (RFP). Ensure compliance with section 101(3) and consult appropriately. This would also include rating policies (commercial/industrial/residential split, targeted rates (existing and/or new).

Decisions required

Elected members will need to consider, develop and adopt these as the basis for building the plan.

11) Activity Statements

Summarise rationale, levels of service, performance measures, and funding impact for each group of activities. Use clear, consistent formats.

Decisions required

Elected members will need to consider, develop and adopt these as the basis for building the plan.

Watching brief

These requirements may be changed through the Local Government (Systems Improvement) Bill. Direction may then be provided by DIA on future requirements.

12) Performance Information

Define levels of service, measures, and targets. Focus on what matters to the community. Ensure systems can capture and report performance data.

Decisions required

Elected members will need to consider, develop and adopt these as the basis for building the plan.

Watching brief

These requirements may be changed through the Local Government (Systems Improvement) Bill. Direction may then be provided by DIA on future requirements.

13) Forecast Financial Statements

Include financial statements, funding impact statements, capital expenditure, reserves, and budget balancing disclosures. Ensure GAAP compliance and clarity.

Decisions required

Elected members will need to consider, develop and adopt these as the basis for building the plan.

Table 3: Consultation and Supplementary Information with decision-making led by elected members

Consultation and Supplementary Information

Elected member decision-making

14) Consultation Document (CD)

The CD is the legal basis for LTP consultation. The CD presents key issues, options, and impacts on rates, debt, and service levels using accessible formats.

Decisions required

Elected members will need to provide direction on the document (including questions to ask the community) and then adopt as the basis for consultation.

Summary document also to be prepared based on elected member direction and approved by elected members.

15) Supplementary Information

Ensure this information is adopted and available during consultation. Position it logically within the LTP for clarity.

Decisions required

Elected Members will need to adopt these as the basis for building the plan.

22. The remaining pieces of the jigsaw are largely staff-led process pieces and are included below for completeness:

Table 4: Process pieces that are staff led

Process pieces – Building the Foundation

16) Culture and Training

Embed LTP thinking into organisational culture. Leadership, communication, and professional development are essential. Staff should understand how their roles contribute to the LTP.

17) Process Management

Treat the LTP as a complex project. Develop a clear plan with milestones, risks, and responsibilities.

18) Quality Assurance

Apply QA throughout the whole LTP process. Include consistency checks, peer reviews, and legal audits. QA ensures coherence, completeness, and cost-effectiveness.

19) Information Management

Develop systems for secure, accessible, and consistent data handling.

20) Audit

The audit provides assurance to the community and supports learning.

Proposed high-level timeline

23. The high-level timeline below outlines key actions from the processes identified above and when they are likely to occur between 2026-2027.

24. In addition to the table below Attachment 2[5] outlines a more detailed typical timeline of when the content pieces are developed over a typical LTP.

25. Engagement with elected members will be ongoing. Subject to elected member input, key decision points will align with the below dates to ensure input and direction is captured at each critical stage.

Table 5: High level LTP timeline

Dates

Action/s

Late 2025

November – December

Confirmation of process, principles and structure, early strategy stocktake.

Early 2026

February – May

Strategy stocktake and environment scans, asset management refresh, start of user fees review phase 2.

Mid 2026

June – September

Initial briefings/workshops, policy reviews (revenue and finance, rating, financial/infrastructure), direction setting workshops, early issues identification and project decision-making.

Late 2026

October – December

Draft LTP preparation, early engagement with audit, consultation planning and approval.

Early 2027

February – April

Finalisation of Consultation Document and supporting documents. Audit of CD.

Formal consultation period (including all identified engagement tools and topics).

Mid 2027

May – June

Analysis of feedback, Hearings and Deliberations.

Finalisation of LTP, audit of final document.

Adoption of Long-Term Plan 2027–2037.

Background – prioritisation aproach to the ltp capital programme

26. The proposed process for prioritising projects to be included in the LTP is sequential and ranks projects based on strategic and risk-based assessments. It requires clear strategic objectives and defined success metrics to measure projects against. Additionally, it necessitates clear guidelines on unacceptable risks and service levels. Principles to guide the prioritisation could also include fairness and equity of investment both geographically and demographically.

27. The proposed process for prioritisation for the LTP capital programme was presented to a City Delivery Committee workshop on 11 September 2025. The sequential process diagram can be found on page 20 of the slides from that workshop at: https://infocouncil.tauranga.govt.nz/Open/2025/09/CPCW_20250911_AGN_2864_AT.PDF

28. The prioritisation methodology begins by filtering out projects that are already committed – those under construction or required by legislation or binding contracts. These projects are automatically included in the programme, but may still be reviewed if new risks to time, scope, or cost arise. For other projects, the process applies a series of qualifiers, starting with a critical risk assessment. Projects that address high or critical risks (such as financial, legal, reputational, or health and safety risks) may also be automatically included if they meet the set threshold.

29. Projects that pass the initial filters are then assessed against Long Term Plan strategic priorities. This involves scoring each project based on how well it supports strategic priorities, with moderation to ensure consistency. The methodology also considers the cost of deferral, quantifying the financial and operational impacts of delaying a project, such as increased operating costs or loss of funding.

30. Finally, projects are evaluated for readiness and deliverability – looking at factors like consents, procurement, funding, and supply chain capacity. Projects are then ranked, with critical risk projects and committed projects automatic inclusions, followed by those prioritised based on strategic alignment, risk, readiness, deliverability, and cost of delay. The process is iterative and allows for scenario modelling, ensuring that investment decisions are transparent, evidence-based, and aligned with both immediate needs and long-term goals.

Background – community outcomes, priorities and principles

What are Community Outcomes

31. Community outcomes, as currently defined under the Local Government Act 2002, represent the long-term aspirations of our city for the social, economic, environmental, and cultural wellbeing of the city[6]. They provide a shared vision of what our community wants life here to look like in the future and guide council planning and decision-making, particularly through the LTP. By aligning services and projects with these outcomes, the council ensures that its activities contribute to achieving the community’s priorities and that progress can be measured and reported transparently.

32. Community outcomes are central to the development of the LTP. The LTP sets out the council’s priorities, activities, and financial strategies for the next 10 years, and each of these is aligned to one or more community outcomes. This alignment ensures that council investments and services directly contribute to the long-term aspirations of the city. By linking projects and performance measures to these outcomes, the LTP provides a clear framework for monitoring progress and demonstrating accountability to the community.

Updating the community outcomes

33. Work to refresh the council’s strategic framework began in 2021 under the previously appointed Crown Commission, following community feedback about a lack of consolidated Council direction.

34. The vision developed for Tauranga in consultation with the community in June 2022 prior to the 2024-34 LTP was ‘Tauranga – together we can prioritise nature, lift each other up, and fuel possibility’. Council’s contribution to achieving the vision is articulated in our strategic framework, called Our Direction.

35. Our Direction, Tauranga City Council’s Strategic Framework, comprises Council’s five community outcomes (what we are aiming to achieve for our communities, now and in the future) with our three approaches (how we do everything). Our Direction is visually represented by te kupenga (a type of fishing net):

Figure 2: Te kupenga

Te Kupenga - Our Direction

36. All of Council’s strategies and plans, and the work programmes to deliver them, contribute to delivering Our Direction for our communities.

37. The existing community outcomes, in the Long-term Plan 2024-2034, were adopted as part of the process of adopting the final LTP in April 2024.

38. Due to Our Direction including significant community engagement, staff are of the view that prior to the next LTP consulting on the community outcomes may not be necessary.

39. The strategic framework was discussed at the City Future Committee Workshop of 24 July 2025. Subsequent to that, staff have received feedback from the Elected Members which proposed some minor amendments to the community outcomes, priorities and principles for the upcoming LTP. These amendments have been captured in the three tables below and are presented to council for adoption to be used as the basis for planning of the Long-term Plan 2027-2037.

Table 6: Existing community outcomes versus proposed minor amendments to the community outcomes

Existing community outcomes

Proposed community outcomes

An inclusive city - Tauranga Mataraunui

Tauranga is a city that celebrates our past, is connected in our present and invested in our future. Where people of all ages, beliefs, abilities and backgrounds are included and feel safe, connected and healthy.

Tauranga Mataraunui - An inclusive city

Tauranga is a city that celebrates our past, is connected in our present and invested in our future. Where people of all ages, beliefs, abilities and backgrounds thrive.

A city that values, protects and enhances our environment - Tauranga Taurikura

Tauranga is a city that values our natural environment and outdoor lifestyle, and actively works to protect and enhance it

Toitū te marae a Tāne, toitū te marae a Tangaroa, toitū te tangata. If the land and sea are sustained so too will the people.

Tauranga Taurikura - A city that values, protects and enhances our environment

Tauranga is a city that prioritises our natural environment and outdoor lifestyle, and actively works to protect and enhance it.

A well planned city Tauranga – Tatai Whenua

Tauranga is a city that is well planned with a variety of successful and thriving compact centres, resilient infrastructure, and community amenities.

Tauranga - Tātai Whenua - A well planned city that is easy to move around

Tauranga is well planned and connected, easy to live in and navigate around with thriving centres, affordable homes, resilient infrastructure, community amenities and sustainable transport choices.

A city that we can move around easily - Tauranga Ara Rau

Tauranga is a well-connected city, easy to move around in and with a range of sustainable transport choices.

Merged with well-planned city above.

A city that supports business and education – Tauranga a te kura

Tauranga is a city that attracts and supports a range of business and educational opportunities, creating jobs and a skilled workforce.

Tauranga a te kura - A city that supports business and education

Tauranga is a city that attracts and supports a range of business and educational opportunities, creating jobs and a skilled workforce.

Tauranga <translation to come> - A vibrant city that embraces events

Tauranga is a city that champions events and experiences that enhance vibrancy, connects communities, builds identity and delivers cultural, social and economic benefits for its people.

Table 7: 2024 LTP priorities versus proposed priorities

Existing Council LTP priorities	Draft priorities (where we will focus effort) Delivering for our people
Community spaces and facilities	Enable Housing
Growth in existing urban areas	Address Transport
Revitalising the city centre	Enhance our Environment
Transport network upgrades	Deliver Services for our community
Growth in the West (Tauriko)
Sustainability and resilience

Table 8: Existing Council principles versus proposed principles

Existing Council key principles for the development of the Annual Plan 2025/26	Draft LTP principles (How we will do things and deliver)
Looking after what we have got	Look after what we’ve got
Paying a fair share	Everyone pays a fair share
Ongoing financial, economic, social, cultural and environmental sustainability	Be bold and innovative
Affordability
Robust and transparent financial analysis	Accountable and transparent
Growth pays for growth	Growth pays for growth
Value for money	Value for money

40. These newly worded community outcomes, priorities and principle have been developed by elected members and are not inconsistent with feedback received from prior engagement processes (for example, the proposed new vibrancy community outcome is consistent with significant community feedback received when developing the city vision in 2022). They are strongly aligned with the responsibilities and requirements of local government, as outlined in the Local Government Act 2002. It is intended to use these new community outcomes, priorities and principles to guide how we do our business as an organisation, and the upcoming LTP will show the linkages between the principles and Council’s decision making, planning and delivery tools.

Statutory Context

41. Under the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA), every three years the Council is required to produce an LTP. The purpose[7] of the LTP is to:

a) describe the activities of the local authority; and

b) describe the community outcomes of the local authority’s district or region; and

c) provide integrated decision-making and co-ordination of the resources of the local authority; and

d) provide a long-term focus for the decisions and activities of the local authority; and

e) provide a basis for accountability of the local authority to the community.

42. An LTP is prepared every three years, covers ten years (and includes an infrastructure strategy that covers 30 years), must include specific information described in the Local Government Act 2002 (see Schedule 10 specifically), must be audited, and can only be adopted after a period of public consultation on a consultation document which itself also needs to be audited[8].

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

43. 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

44. This report focusses on the legislation and process involved in an LTP. The LTP seeks to enable Council to achieve its community outcomes.

45. This report also seeks Council approval for the suggested minor amendments to the community outcomes to guide the organisation’s development and delivery of the next LTP.

Options Analysis

46. Three options are identified in the tables below, which outline the benefits, disadvantages and key risks for each option.

Table 9: Option 1 – No changes to the current community outcomes

Description
Retain the existing community outcomes, priorities and principles that were adopted in 2024 for the 2024-2034 LTP. Noting that there was extensive community consultation on Council’s strategic framework, Our Direction. The community outcomes are part of the strategic framework.
Benefits	Disadvantages	Key risks
Consistent with what was adopted post consultation with the community.	Not updated to reflect the views and direction of the current elected members.	None

Table 10: Option 2 – Community outcomes with minor amendments adopted without consultation (RECOMMENDED OPTION)

Description
Council adopts the new proposed community outcomes, priorities and principles as outlined in Tables 6-8 above. No consultation with our communities, as Council is not legislatively required to consult on the community outcomes. Key information from past community engagement and strategic planning work has been used to inform proposed community outcomes, priorities and principles.
Benefits	Disadvantages	Key risks
Timeframes for LTP process are more reasonable, making it easier for activity managers and others to forward plan. Reduces consultation fatigue risk from the community when they have already been consulted on this topic.	The community is not given an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed minor amendments to the community outcomes.	Reputational risk: Potential negative community perception over the lack of consultation leading to possible lack of engagement for longer strategic framework project and other Council projects.

Table 11: Option 3 – Proposed community outcomes are consulted on with the community

Description
Council approves the proposed community outcomes, priorities and principles as outlined in Tables 6-8 for community consultation. Consultation will focus on ensuring that the community outcomes reflect community needs and will also seek an indication from the community on which outcome/s are most important and why. Consultation could occur over a four-week period in March/April at a similar time as the annual plan consultation period.
Benefits	Disadvantages	Key risks
Allows confirmation of proposed community outcomes with our communities and allows Council to gather information on community priorities. Provides vehicle to highlight the longer-term strategic framework process that includes significant community engagement.	Timeframes for the LTP process are tight. As a result, this consultation will be limited in its scope and reach. If significant changes are required after consultation may require rework of early LTP material. Which in turn could delay the project.	Community consultation risk: Community may confuse the community outcomes consultation (high level) and Annual Plan consultation (detailed), with potential for either/both processes becoming sidelined. Communication will need to be clear and transparent.

47. Option two is the recommended option. As the proposed amendments are only minor and the community has already been consulted extensively through the Our Direction process, staff recommend not to consult and just adopt the proposed amendments as suggested in this report so that early work on the LTP can begin.

Financial Considerations

48. This report covers the legislative and process requirements in regard to developing an LTP.

49. The report has no further financial implications as it recommends that Council adopt the proposed amendments to the community outcomes, priorities and principles without community consultation.

50. Should Council choose option three and consult with the community then this could be covered using existing budgets.

Legal Implications / Risks

51. Legal implications of an LTP have been discussed in the statutory context section of this report.

52. This report has no other legal implications. The risks associated with the recommended approach are outlined in the options analysis.

Consultation / Engagement

53. There is no requirement for Council to consult on the refreshed community outcomes or proposed priorities and principles (this work does not trigger a special consultative procedure).

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 decision.

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

58. If Council approves the recommendations contained in this report, the next steps are to progress the early LTP work such as the environmental scan and strategy stocktake that will inform the rest of the upcoming LTP.

59. Staff will report back to Council throughout 2026 on the progress of the LTP. Staff will also inform Council of any new legislation released by central government that will have any impact on the LTP content and timelines.

Attachments

1. Prioritisation Process 2027 LTP - A19255804 ⇩

2. Indicative 2027 LTP Timeline based on Taituarā advice - A19297301 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

18 November 2025

11.5 Development Contributions Policy Review - 2026/27

File Number: A18796058

Author: Andrew Mead, Head of City Planning & Growth

Ben Corbett, Team Leader: Growth Funding

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

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek approval for TCC’s proposed work programme for the 2026/27 Development Contributions Policy (DC Policy).

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Development Contributions Policy Review - 2026/27".

(b) Approves the draft 2026/27 Development Contributions Policy to be prepared incorporating the following matters for Council consideration prior to public consultation:

(i) Amendments to development contributions funding for Memorial Park Aquatics Centre and Haumaru Sports & Recreation Centre to reflect decisions made on these projects;

(ii) New/amended wording to clarify local and citywide development contributions are payable for minor dwellings in residential zones;

(iii) Revision to the definition of “bedroom” to improve clarity; and

(iv) Updated wording in the Upper Ohauiti, Tauriko Business Estate Stage 4 and Tauriko West catchments to more fully detail how local development contributions are calculated in these catchments.

(c) Notes that separate council reporting is being prepared on incentives for residential intensification / city centre development which may impact on the development contributions policy.

(d) Notes that more substantive policy amendments are not being considered due to impending development contribution reform and waters reform.

Executive Summary

2. TCC uses development contributions (DCs) to fund a portion of the cost of growth-related capital expenditure for certain infrastructure projects. DCs are charged in accordance with the operative DC Policy and the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).

3. TCC generally updates its DC Policy annually. For 2026/27, updates are proposed to:

(i) reflect decisions made in the current year and as part of the 2026/27 Annual Plan and

(ii) (ii) make the DC Policy clearer and easier to use for TCC and developers.

4. Staff will prepare a draft 2026/27 DC Policy for the purposes of public consultation. This will be reported to Council in early 2026 for approval to proceed to consultation. Consultation, hearings and deliberations will occur alongside the 2026/27 Annual Plan. The DC Policy will be updated as required to reflect the outcome of deliberations. The final DC Policy will be prepared for adoption in June 2026.

5. Central Government’s reform of water services and proposed reform of growth funding will have a significant impact on the development contributions system over the short to medium term. TCC has prioritised its DC Policy work program to focus on essential updates to the DC Policy only without investing time in major policy matters which are likely to be set aside through the reform process.

6. Proposed updates (other than those made to reflect the 2026/27 Annual Plan) are to incorporate growth funding for proposed projects, reflect recent Council resolutions regarding the long-term operation of the Queen Elizabeth Youth Centre and wording updates to improve the efficacy of the DC Policy and clarify TCC’s revenue collection powers.

7. Together these changes are likely to have a minimal impact on DC charges but will improve the efficacy and transparency of the DC Policy for TCC and the development community. These updates are likely to have a small positive impact on TCC’s DC revenue and make assessment of contested DC assessments more efficient. No risks associated with this approach have been identified.

8. Separate work is underway on incentives for intensification and city centre development which may affect the development contributions policy in due course.

9. Staff will incorporate the resolutions passed by Council into the draft 2026/27 DC Policy prior to public consultation in 2026.

Background

10. TCC uses DCs to fund growth-related capital expenditure for certain infrastructure projects. DCs are charged in accordance with TCC’s operative DC Policy and the relevant provisions of the LGA.

11. The LGA requires TCC to consult on a DC Policy at least every three years and TCC last consulted and adopted a new DC Policy in June 2025.

12. TCC typically follows the same process for developing its DC Policy as its Annual Plan. This allows staff to reflect the draft Annual Plan in the draft DC Policy and carry through Council decisions into the draft and final DC Policy. This means staff will return to Council with a draft DC Policy in the first quarter of 2026 for Council to review and approve for public consultation. Consultation will run alongside the Annual Plan. Staff will prepare a deliberations report to ensure Council can consider Annual Plan decisions alongside the impact on the DC Policy and DC charges. The draft DC Policy will be updated to reflect decisions made through deliberations before the final DC Policy is brought to Council for adoption in June 2026. Subject to Council adoption, the DC Policy will be operative from 1 July 2026.

13. At this early stage of development, it is not possible to assess likely changes to DCs.

Statutory Context

14. Central Government is currently undertaking two reform workstreams which will substantially impact TCC’s DCs: the water services and growth funding reforms.

15. In time, water reform will result in a new Water Services Entity (WSE) setting and collecting growth funding charges for its own growth-related capital expenditure. TCC will no longer set and collect DCs for three waters activities transferred to a Water Service Entity (although it may consult on the DC policy and collect DC’s on behalf of a WSE, at least initially).

16. This will result in a substantial decrease in TCC’s DC charges. For example, based on today’s charges, this would reduce the citywide charge for a 3 bedroom dwelling from approximately $36,000 to $5,000. Many local DCs will also reduce substantially. A developers total growth funding obligation is likely to remain materially unchanged as the same infrastructure still has to be funded.

17. It is worth noting that TCC does not anticipate this change will occur from the establishment of the WSE. It is likely that the WSE will continue to rely on TCC to collect DCs on the WSE’s behalf for a period while it establishes its own systems and growth funding policy.

18. Central Government is also preparing reforms to the LGA to replace DCs with a new system based on development levies. Government officials have shared initial plans with several councils on a confidential basis. TCC has contributed to these discussions and provided preliminary comment. It is likely that the proposed changes will require a significant review and rewrite of TCC’s DC Policy which is expected to be implemented from 1 July 2027 or 2028.

19. Staff understand the Government will introduce legislation for development levies late this calendar year.

discussion

20. The following matters were signalled for consideration through the 2026/27 DC Policy:

(a) Review of transport and active reserves methodologies;

(b) Population data updates;

(d) Impact of ongoing Memorial Park Aquatic Centre and Queen Elizabeth Youth Centre updates;

(e) Clarification of growth funding approach for secondary independent dwelling units and small standalone dwellings;

(f) Updates to the definition of a “bedroom” in the DC Policy; and

(g) Updates to new growth catchments.

Review of transport and active reserves methodologies

21. The DC Policy sets out how growth funding is assessed for each type of infrastructure including transport and active reserves. Staff had intended to review and make any necessary updates to these methodologies to ensure they are fit for purpose in the 2026/27 DC Policy.

22. In light of upcoming growth funding reform, staff have not progressed this matter. It is considered likely that the new growth funding system will mandate growth funding methodologies and any revision undertaken now is likely to be set aside in the short to medium term.

23. As a consequence, TCC is proposing to continue its current approach to growth funding for active reserves and will incorporate the outcome of upcoming Council decisions regarding the active reserve network (including the future of Poteriwhi).

24. Staff intend to review growth funding allocations for the Connecting the People – Turret Rd to Welcome Bay project. Once a growth funding allocation has been set and NZTA funding has been approved for construction, staff will look to begin DC collection for this project.

25. This approach balances maximising growth revenue while minimising the opportunity cost of investing in work with short-term application.

Population data updates

26. Each year staff update the DC calculations to reflect Tauranga’s projected population. This works off population assumptions set in the 2024-34 Long-term Plan.

27. Population projections will be revisited in the next LTP, and the DC Policy will be updated again at that point. These updated projections are currently being prepared. Early indications are that there could be a material increase in resident numbers. This may have a substantial impact on DC charges as funding periods for infrastructure may be shortened. Staff will continue to update Council on this matter.

Timing of DC charges

28. Generally speaking, TCC charges DCs in two tranches. Local DCs are charged on subdivision and citywide DCs are charged on building consent. This approach is uncommon in New Zealand with many other councils charging all DCs on subdivision. Each approach has positive and negative elements compared to the other. TCC has explored changing its approach a number of times over the last 20 years but in each case has decided not to proceed.

29. Staff anticipate that the new growth funding system will require all DCs to be collected at the first possible opportunity (being subdivision) but this is not certain. This would require TCC to change its approach. It is recommended TCC wait for the reform process to consider / implement this change. It is likely to be counterproductive to change the timing of collection in 2026/27 as TCC will have to implement a complex transitional regime.

Update DC Policy to reflect impact of Memorial Park Aquatic Centre and Queen Elizabeth Youth Centre decisions

30. TCC introduced DCs for the Memorial Park Aquatic Centre and BayPark Indoor Courts in 2022/23.

31. In 2025/26 we have prepared aquatics DCs on the basis Otumoetai Pool remains open and Memorial Park Aquatics Centre proceeds on the last adopted budget. TCC is currently revisiting its design and budget for Memorial Park. Staff will look to incorporate changes to the growth allocation, budget and timing of delivery once Council has made decisions on these matters. If a decision is made by February 2026, staff will incorporate the outcome into the draft DC Policy for consultation. If the decision is made after February, staff will likely use the current budget and timing for this project. Once consultation has occurred, TCC can only make relatively small increases to DC charges. In the event Council increased the budget for this project substantially beyond what is currently assumed, DCs are unlikely to be able to rise to meet the desired funding allocation resulting in some under collection. This is considered a low risk in light of Council’s recent comments on this project which suggest project cost should reduce.

32. Earlier this year Council resolved to retain Queen Elizabeth Youth Centre in the indoor courts network for a further 15 years. Staff have modelled the impact of this decision on DCs. TCC only collects DCs towards one indoor court project at a time. Currently, TCC is collecting for the BayPark Arena Extension. However, with Queen Elizabeth Youth Centre retained in the network, the recently opened Haumaru Sport & Recreation Centre is now providing capacity for growth based on the current level of service. This means the draft 2026/27 DC Policy will be updated to remove BayPark and introduce Haumaru. DCs collected for BayPark will be directed to Haumaru. Initial calculations suggest this will have an immaterial impact on the total DC charge for community infrastructure.

Updates to wording of DC Policy

33. It is proposed to make a number of updates to clarify the application of the DC Policy and DC calculation. These are:

(a) New wording to ensure potential developers are clear that DCs will be charged for all independent dwellings built on a site. This includes small, attached dwellings in residential zones (previously called Secondary Independent Dwelling Units) and “small standalone dwellings” (commonly known as granny flats). This is an equitable way to treat these developments which place demands on TCC’s infrastructure network in the same way as any other independent dwelling.

(b) The definition of “bedroom” – citywide DCs are charged based on how many bedrooms a dwelling contains. The DC Policy treats every room as a bedroom unless it clearly has another function that is not compatible with use as a bedroom (e.g. kitchen, one living room, garage, passageway, bathroom). Wording will be introduced to simplify TCC’s existing definition and reduce scope for debate as to whether or not a room is a bedroom.

(c) Updates to growth catchments – wording will be introduced for three new catchments (Upper Ohauiti, Tauriko West and TBE Stage 4) to set out the DC assessment methodology in greater detail to assist TCC’s DC assessor team in implementing the DC Policy.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

34. 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	ü

35. DC funding is essential to ensuring infrastructure is delivered to align with land use and new development in an integrated way. DCs support transport investment which helps ensure people and goods can move around the City and infrastructure funded by DCs supports the development of existing and new business areas, schools and other educational institutions.

Options Analysis

36. This report sets out updates staff intend to prepare for the draft 2026/27 DC Policy. These changes balance improving the efficacy of the DC Policy now against the likely short to medium term application prior to the implementation of growth funding and waters reform.

37. It is recommended that staff prepare these changes as part of the draft DC Policy for Council approval early in 2026.

38. Alternatively, Council may provide other direction to staff which will be incorporated into the draft DC Policy on the same timeline.

Financial Considerations

39. The decisions discussed in this report do not have a financial impact at this time as they relate to the preparation of a draft (rather than final) DC Policy.

40. In substance, the proposed changes are expected to have a positive financial impact. They will:

(a) update DCs to more accurately reflect the cost of growth for projects like Connecting the People and Haumaru Sports & Recreation Centre; and

(b) provide greater clarity of when and how DCs apply which strengthens TCC’s ability to collect DC revenue.

Legal Implications / Risks

41. No legal implications have been identified.

42. The key risk identified is the investment of staff time in more substantial updates to the DC Policy which are likely to have limited longevity in light of upcoming reforms.

Significance

43. 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.

44. 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.

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

ENGAGEMENT

46. Engagement on these matters will be undertaken as part of consultation on the draft 2026/27 DC Policy.

Next Steps

47. Prepare a draft 2026/27 DC Policy reflecting Council’s resolutions and return to Council for approval to consult in early 2026.

Attachments

Nil

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

18 November 2025

11.6 Council-Controlled Organisations - Letters of Expectations 2026/27

File Number: A17358830

Author: Caroline Lim, CCO Specialist

Jeremy Boase, Head of Strategy, Governance & Climate Resilience

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

Purpose of the Report

1. To seek Elected Members approval of the Letters of Expectations 2026/27 to its substantive council-controlled organisations, namely, Bay Venues Limited, Tauranga Art Gallery Trust, Tourism Bay of Plenty and Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited, to guide the development of the council-controlled organisations’ Statements of Intent 2026/27-2028/29.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Council-Controlled Organisations - Letters of Expectations 2026/27".

(b) Approves the Letter of Expectations 2026/27 from Tauranga City Council to Bay Venues Limited (Attachment 1 of this report), subject to the following:

(i) Approves the following exceptions to the $0 increase of Bay Venues’ operating grant for FY27:

· ……to be determined.

(ii) Authorises Tauranga City Council staff to make final changes to the letter accordingly.

(c) Approves the Letter of Expectations 2026/27 from Tauranga City Council to Tauranga Art Gallery Trust (Attachment 2 of this report).

(d) Approves the Letter of Expectations 2026/27 from Tauranga City Council to Tourism Bay of Plenty (Attachment 3 of this report). Noting that joint shareholder Western Bay of Plenty District Council is not providing Tourism Bay of Plenty with a Letter of Expectations.

(e) Approves the Letter of Expectations 2026/27 from Tauranga City Council to Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited (Attachment 4 of this report).

Executive Summary

2. Tauranga City Council (TCC or Council) provides annual Letters of Expectations (LOEs) to its substantive Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs) to ensure alignment and integrated delivery to strategic outcomes. In essence, the letters are provided to ensure that Council, as early as possible, can influence the development of the CCOs’ Statements of Intent.

3. Council’s substantive CCOs are Bay Venues Limited (Bay Venues), Tauranga Art Gallery Trust (TAGT), Tourism Bay of Plenty (TBOP) and Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited (TMOTPL).

4. The LOEs 2026/27 were developed with input from key council staff and provided to Council Elected Members for their review prior to this meeting. Feedback received has been incorporated into these letters. The letters are attached to this report for Council’s approval.

5. Council’s LOEs, at their core, continue to prioritise value for money, and deliver more for less for the residents of Tauranga.

6. Across the CCOs, their operating grants FY27 will remain the same as their operating grant for this financial year. Essentially, there will be $0 increase and the CCOs are expected to continue to be financially prudent in the tough economic and cost of living environment Tauranga ratepayers are experiencing. Subject to Council approval, there might be reasons for exceptions to this $0 increase for Bay Venues, Council’s largest CCO. (Refer paragraphs 13 to 15 for discussion and decision.)

7. The background section below outlines the draft list of reasons for exceptions for Bay Venues’ FY27 operating grant, Council’s overall expectations of all of its substantive CCOs, why a letter exists even though it is not a legal requirement under the Local Government Act 2002, and the core purpose of the CCOs.

8. The options analysis is provided below recommending that Council approves these letters to ensure that clear direction and expectations are provided to the CCOs, that the collaborative approach as part of the TCC group fosters cohesion and maximises the impact of shared resources and strategic initiatives, and that CCOs continue to contribute towards Council’s vision, strategic priorities and community outcomes.

9. There are no financial or legal implications / risks associated with these letters (other than the level of operating grants as noted above).

10. After the letters have been provided, the focus for Council going forward is as follows:

· Draft Statements of Intent 2026/27-2028/29 – when the draft SOIs are provided to Council by 1 March 2026 (a legislative deadline), it will be assessed as to whether overall they meet Council’s expectations, and Council will provide feedback by 1 May 2026 (a legislative deadline). A TCC staff report outlining Council’s feedback will be presented to Council for approval in April

· Final Statements of Intent 2026/27-2028/29 – when the final SOIs have been adopted by the CCO Boards and provided to Council by 30 June 2026 (a legislative deadline), a TCC staff report noting key points of the final statements will be presented to Council in July for formal acknowledgement.

Background

Council’s overall expectations of its substantive council-controlled organisations

11. To ensure responsible stewardship of public funds and continued community trust, the overall expectations of CCO’s are:

· Sharing of requested information – provide requested information in a timely manner.

· Implementing operational cost savings – continue to be financially prudent in the tough economic and cost of living environment Tauranga ratepayers are experiencing. This includes an expectation that operating grants will be retained at the same level as 2025/26.

· Maximising value for money – carefully review all planned expenditure to confirm necessity and optimise value for Tauranga residents, actively seeking opportunities to reduce or avoid costs where possible

· Demonstrating community impact – clearly communicate the organisation’s contributions to the community, highlighting the value delivered through public services, spaces, and facilities. This includes reinforcing the collaborative role of Council and its CCOs in enhancing public wellbeing

· Maintaining transparency – continue to provide accessible and timely information through half-yearly and annual reports, as well as media releases. These should be published on CCO websites and made available to the public, showcasing achievements, future plans, and areas for improvement, and

· Utilising meaningful performance measures – include a realistic and relevant set of performance indicators that effectively illustrate the organisation’s impact and value. These measures should be used to tell a compelling story of progress and benefit to both Council and the public.

Bay Venues – draft list of reasons for exceptions to the $0 increase for FY27 operating grant

Council staff are seeking direction on the following information to finalise the Bay Venues letter.

12. The table below provides a list of requested exceptions to the $0 increase to Bay Venues operating grant for FY27:

	$m	Comments
FY26 Opex Grant Budget	7.35m
Additional opex grant budget required in FY27, including:
Annual facility painting	0.27m	Offset by a reduction in renewals grant funding (from the depreciation reserve)
Annual drowning prevention system IT subscription	0.10m	System installation occurring in FY26 (implementation already agreed to progress via memo)
Annual additional cost to keep Queen Elizabeth Youth Centre operational	0.05m	Incorrectly costed for FY26 based on early estimate prior to availability of bookings information
Net losses associated with Baywave closure	0.13m	Two-month closure period to carry out significant maintenance and renewals work
Inflationary allowance for specific contracted opex	0.06m	2.2% inflation on specific opex costs, including electricity, cleaning, IT licences, rates and grounds maintenance
Total additional opex grant budget required in FY27	0.62m
Proposed FY27 Opex Grant Budget	7.97m	$8.04m presented in the working draft 2027 Annual Plan numbers in October 2025 (net reduction $70k)

13. If approved by Council, there will be an additional $616k required in FY27 over and above the $7.35m operating grant budgeted in FY26. (Note that in the working draft 2027 Annual Plan numbers presented in October 2025, $8.04m was included.)

14. If not approved by Council, Bay Venues will be asked if it can ‘absorb’ the additional cost. If it cannot, Bay Venues will need to provide options to offset the additional cost in its response to the letter and the development of its draft SOI by 1 March 2026.

Letter of Expectations – best practice

15. Letters of Expectations are forward-looking documents, and while not mandated by legislation, they are considered best practice and serve as strategic guidance tools for CCOs.

16. Under the Local Government Act, TCC has limited formal input into CCOs’ annual planning until draft SOIs are submitted. At that stage, TCC, as shareholder, has only two months to respond.

17. To address this, TCC, alongside several other councils, adopts a proactive and collaborative approach by engaging with its CCOs early in the planning cycle. This ensures alignment between the CCOs’ objectives and Council’s strategic priorities, particularly where CCOs deliver significant services on behalf of Council.

18. The LOEs outline strategic focus areas for the upcoming year, reflecting Tauranga’s broader priorities. They serve as guidance for what Council expects to see in the next SOIs.

19. TCC does not typically issue LOEs to its other CCOs, Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services Limited (BOPLASS), Local Government Funding Agency (LGFA), and Te Manawataki o Te Papa Charitable Trust, unless significant concerns arise. This is due to TCC being one of nine shareholders in BOPLASS, one of 31 in LGFA, and co-governs TMOTP Charitable Trust with the Otamataha Trust.

20. The term substantive CCO originates from the 2010 Auckland local government amalgamation legislation, referring to entities that deliver significant services on behalf of that council.

Core purpose of the substantive council-controlled organisations

21. The following table outlines the core purpose of Council’s substantive CCOs.

Substantive council-controlled organisation	Core purpose
Bay Venues Limited	To connect the community with exceptional experiences through hosting activities and events at community facilities across Tauranga including aquatic centres, indoor sport and fitness facilities, event venues, community centres and halls, and the Adams Centre for High Performance.
Tauranga Art Gallery Trust	To create and deliver exceptional art experiences that engage, inspire, challenge and educate visitors through exhibitions, public programmes and events.
Tourism Bay of Plenty	To lead the sustainable growth of the Western BOP visitor economy, the management of the region as a visitor destination, and the management of iSITE Visitor Information Centres at Tauranga, Mount Maunganui and the Port of Tauranga (during the cruise season only).
Te Manawataki o Te Papa Limited	To govern the effective delivery of a suite of projects across Tauranga city centre, to benefit the whole community.

Statutory Context

22. While not a legislative requirement under the Local Government Act (2002), when combined with the overarching Enduring Statement of Expectations, the LOEs is a key strategic governance document through which Council provides clear guidance to its CCOs.

23. The Letters of Expectations help ensure that the CCOs’ objectives and strategies are aligned with Council’s, by providing key areas of focus that Council expects to see reflected in the CCOs’ Statements of Intent.

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

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

25. 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	☐
We are a city that supports business and education	ü

26. The CCOs actively work in partnership with Council, mana whenua and our community to achieve great outcomes. The LOEs ensure the CCOs continue to deliver on behalf of Council and the communities across the city.

Options Analysis

Option 1: Approve the Letters of Expectations 2026/27 – RECOMMENDED

27. Council approves the Letters of Expectations for the council-controlled organisations.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Council provides clear, timely guidance to its CCOs, ensuring expectations, especially around Statements of Intent, are communicated early to Board Chairs for strategic alignment.

· CCOs are expected to collaborate as part of the TCC group, working together to enhance shared success and deliver unified public value.

· Council approval of letters publicly confirms expectations, promoting transparency, accountability, and good governance.

· Frequent shifts in direction via annual letters can create uncertainty for CCOs, affecting their ability to deliver long-term programmes effectively.

· Responding to evolving directives may draw CCO Boards into operational matters, reducing their focus on strategic, long-term governance.

· Over-reliance on formal letters may limit meaningful engagement, making Council–CCO relationships more transactional and less collaborative.

Option 2: Do not approve the Letters of Expectations 2026/27 – NOT RECOMMENDED

28. Council does not approve the Letters of Expectations for the council-controlled organisations.

Advantages

Disadvantages

· Council can use various effective channels, like governance catch-ups, strategic workshops, and Chair-Mayor meetings, to foster alignment and deeper dialogue with CCOs beyond formal letters.

· Trust and confidence are best built through open, consistent communication. A “no surprises” approach fosters collaboration, relationship building, and shared commitment to community outcomes.

· Without consistent communication and shared strategy, TCC and its CCOs risk misalignment, which can hinder community outcomes and reduce Group effectiveness.

· Lack of clear strategic guidance may undermine recent progress in collaboration, transparency, and trust between Council and its CCOs.

· Without early input, Council may miss key opportunities to influence CCO priorities before Statements of Intent are drafted.

· LOEs provide a year-on-year governance record of Council’s expectations. Without them, future Councils or staff may lack clarity on past decisions, weakening continuity and institutional learning.

Financial Considerations

29. Council’s expectation is that the CCOs continue to operate prudently in the tough economic and cost of living environment Tauranga ratepayers are experiencing.

Legal Implications / Risks

30. There are no legal implications or risks.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

31. The Letters of Expectations emphasise partnership with mana whenua, a continuation to strengthen this partnership and demonstrate the fostering of relationships with local iwi and hapū. For example, there is an expectation for Bay Venues to complete the memoranda of understanding with 2-3 local iwi and hapū.

CLIMATE IMPACT

32. The Letters of Expectations emphasise sustainability, climate resilience and reducing carbon footprint. For example, there is an expectation for TBOP to continue to support The Green Room Programme by getting more businesses through this programme from the current total of 135 businesses.

Consultation / Engagement

33. Council is not required or expected to consult on a CCO’s Letter of Expectations under the Local Government Act 2002.

Significance

34. 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.

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 decision.

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

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

38. If approved by Council, any final changes requested by Council will be made to the Bay Venues letter. Then all the letters will be sent to the CCO Board Chairs and made public via TCC’s website.

39. The LOEs will inform the CCOs’ draft Statements of Intent, which are due to Council for shareholder feedback by 1 March 2026. Council will then provide feedback on the draft SOIs to the CCOs by 1 May 2026 via a staff report to be presented for approval at a Council meeting in April.

40. The final SOIs, after adoption by the CCO Boards, must be provided to Council by 30 June 2026. Council will then formally receive the final SOIs via a staff report to be presented at a Council meeting in July, noting the key points of the final statements.

41. The final SOIs will be made public via TCC’s website.

42. The CCOs will report back to Council on how they’ve performed against their SOIs, via their Half-Yearly Report FY27 and Annual Report FY27 in due course.

Attachments

1. Attachment 1: Bay Venues - Letter of Expectation 2026-27 - For Council meeting 18 November 2025 - pdf - A19275476 ⇩

2. Attachment 2: TAGT - Letter of Expectation 2026-27 - For Council meeting 18 November 2025 - pdf - A19275483 ⇩

3. Attachment 3: TBOP - Letter of Expectation 2026-27 - For Council meeting 18 November 2025 - pdf - A19275491 ⇩

4. Attachment 4: TMOTPL - Letter of Expectation 2026-27 - For Council meeting 18 November 2025 - pdf - A19275500 ⇩

Ordinary Council meeting Agenda

18 November 2025

11.9 Transport Resolutions Report No.58

File Number: A18904546

Author: Karen Hay, Team Leader: Engineering Services

Will Hyde, Senior Transport Engineer

Authoriser: Reneke van Soest, General Manager: Operations & Infrastructure

Purpose of the Report

1. This report proposes the introduction, removal or amendment of traffic controls throughout the city, and seeks a resolution from Council to implement or formally approve these proposals.

Recommendations

That the Council:

(a) Receives the report "Transport Resolutions Report No.58".

(b) Resolves to implement the proposed traffic and parking controls for general safety, operational, or amenity purposes as detailed in Attachment 1 of this report.

(c) These changes will take effect on or after 19 November 2025, subject to the installation of appropriate signs and road markings where necessary.

Executive Summary

2. As the city grows and changes, the demands on the road network also change. Often there can be conflict between the need to keep traffic lanes clear to enable an efficient network, the need to provide on-street parking and loading zones to support nearby activities, restrict parking to improve access and the need for vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists to move around the city safely.

3. Attachment A sets out changes for general access, parking, safety and operational reasons. Some of these are requests from the public or other stakeholders for numerous changes to parking controls which have been assessed to be appropriate.

4. Amendments include changes to the following attachments to the Traffic & Parking Bylaw (2023):

(a) Attachment 6.2: Heavy Vehicles

(i) A temporary heavy vehicle ban on Hairini Street during the trial opening of the Hairini Street bus lane. The ban will only be implemented if heavy vehicles using the bus lane are assessed as causing a safety concern or excessive noise. Heavy vehicles are already prohibited from using this as a through-route (as are all vehicles except buses, motorcycles and cycles), so the ban would have no practical effect on heavy vehicles. Legitimate use of Hairini Street by heavy vehicles (emergency services, buses, utility access, refuse trucks etc.) are exempt.

(ii) The NZ Road Transport Forum (which represents heavy haulage operators), NZ Police and NZ Transport Agency/Waka Kotahi have been notified.

(b) Attachment 7.1: No Parking Behind Kerb

(i) A new part-time restriction relating to vehicles parking on the berm close to a school, creating safety issues by drivers traversing footpaths to access berm parking.

(i) Extending or removing broken yellow lines to improve safety, enhance access, or increase parking capacity.

(ii) Retrospective changes related to completed projects or resource consents, aimed at capturing modifications that affect access or visibility at various locations.

(d) Attachment 7.7 Mobility Parking

(i) Retrospective resolutions required for existing mobility spaces.

(e) Attachment 7.9 Parking Time Restrictions

(i) Retrospective resolutions required for existing parking time restrictions.

(ii) New time restrictions requested by business owners, to avoid all-day parking occupying all nearby spaces.

(f) Attachment 7.15 Loading Zones

(i) Adding a new loading zone to support the operation of Baycourt Theatre, as part of changes due to Te Manawataki o Te Papa, and relocation of the bus hub to Durham St south.

(g) Attachment 7.16 Loading Zone with Time Restrictions

(i) Adding a new 5-minute loading zone as part of Te Manawataki o Te Papa project, to support the patronage of Baycourt Theatre.

(h) Attachment 7.20 Passenger Service and Other Vehicle Stands (School buses)

(i) At the request of Welcome Bay School, arrangements are being made to formally designate the area in front of the school for school bus use, ensuring that this space remains clear and is not obstructed by parked vehicles.

Background

5. The Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2023 includes attachments which list various traffic and parking restrictions. Council can impose traffic and parking restrictions by Council resolution.

6. The Council regularly adds, removes or amends traffic and parking controls to reflect and support operational and safety needs on the road network.

7. The proposed amendments in Attachment A are minor changes to parking restrictions across the city which have arisen through requests from the public, transportation staff, or other stakeholders; or changes resulting from approved developments.

Statutory Context

8. Land Transport Act 1998, particularly section 22AB, which empowers councils as Road Controlling Authorities (RCAs) to make bylaws for traffic and parking control.

9. Local Government Act 2002, which outlines the general process for making bylaws, including consultation and public notification.

10. Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 and Traffic Control Devices Rule 2004, which set standards for signage, markings, and enforcement.

STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT

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

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

12. The recommendations address a number of issues affecting safety, access and/or amenity and contribute to the safe and efficient operation of the city’s transport network. The provision of mobility parking enables a more inclusive city by making our amenities more accessible to less-abled members of our community.

Options Analysis

13. The proposed changes relate to general operations. The reasons for each proposal are described in Appendix A. In each case the problem identified is expected to continue if the proposed amendment is not adopted.

14. The proposals are independent of each other, and Council may resolve to adopt some, all or none of them.

Financial Considerations

15. The signs and markings costs associated with general operational changes are minor and can be accommodated within existing project or operational budgets.

Legal Implications / Risks

16. These proposals are required in order to allow enforcement of changes deemed necessary for safety and amenity purposes. Council has an obligation to address known safety issues on the road network.

TE AO MĀORI APPROACH

17. The proposals create safety, access and/or amenity improvements for our residents and visitors and therefore align with the principal of manaakitanga. For the major projects, consultation with hapū was undertaken as part of the project development.

CLIMATE IMPACT

18. Given this report relates to regulatory procedure, no climate impact assessment is made.

Consultation / Engagement

19. Changes requested by adjacent properties or are existing scenarios where consultation is not deemed necessary. Alternatively, consultation was undertaken as part of project delivery, or adjacent property owners are advised or consulted with prior to the implementation of changes

Significance

20. 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.

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

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

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

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

23. For the changes which are retrospective, these are likely to have a low public interest as these were previously consulted upon or responded to requests from adjacent landowners.

ENGAGEMENT

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

Next Steps

25. The bylaw attachments will be updated in accordance with the resolution and implementation of associated line marking and signage as appropriate.

26. Adjacent business and residents to be notified of parking restriction changes, prior to implementation.

Attachments

1. Transport Resolutions Report - 58 Proposals - A18904596 ⇩

[2] Because Tauranga did not have an election, this date is considered to be Sunday 12 October 2025

[3] In that instance the differentials would have been $15,202 between the mayor ($193,402) and the deputy mayor ($178,200) and $15,201 between the deputy mayor and all other councillors ($162,999).

[4] Sourced from Taituarā - Jigsaw 2024: Piecing it together, The Taituarā guide to preparing an integrated long-term plan under the Local Government Act 2002

[5] Adapted from Taituarā - Jigsaw 2024: Piecing it together, The Taituarā guide to preparing an integrated long-term plan under the Local Government Act 2002

[6] Note that the Local Government (System Improvements) Amendment Bill currently before Parliament seeks to change the definition of community outcomes to “the outcomes that a local authority aims to achieve in meeting the current and future needs of communities for good-quality local infrastructure, local public services, and performance of regulatory functions.”

[7] Per section 93(6) of the Local Government Act 2002

[8] Sections 93(3), 93(7), 101B (1), 94, 93(2) and 93A (4), Local Government Act 2002 respectively.

[11] The Stormwater (Pollution Prevention) Bylaw 2015, Trade Waste Bylaw 2019 and Water Supply Bylaw 2019 were orginally made under the Local Government Act 2002. This bylaw making power has now been replaced by the Local Goverment (Water Services) Act 2025, which introduces new timelines for reviewing these bylaws to ensure they align with the new water services framework.

[12] Fluoride is a naturally occuring substance, and the bore water is not necessarily fluoride free.


AGENDA Ordinary Council meeting Tuesday, 18 November 2025
I hereby give notice that an Ordinary meeting of Council will be held on:
Date:	Tuesday, 18 November 2025
Time:	8.30am
Location:	Tauranga City Council Chambers Mareanui Level 1 - 90 Devonport Road Tauranga
Please note that this meeting will be livestreamed and the recording will be publicly available on Tauranga City Council's website: www.tauranga.govt.nz.
Marty Grenfell Chief Executive

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

Bylaw	Review date	Empowering legislation
Currently under review
Street Use and Public Places Bylaw 2018	20 November 2028	Local Government Act 2002 Health Act 1956 Litter Act 1979
Dog Management Bylaw 2018	11 December 2028	Dog Control Act 1996
Keeping of Animals Bylaw 2018	11 December 2028	Local Government Act 2002
Stormwater (Pollution Prevention) Bylaw 2015	26 August 2030[11]	Originally Local Government Act 2002 but now Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025
Trade Waste Bylaw 2019	26 August 2030³	Originally Local Government Act 2002 but now Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025
Scheduled to commence review within the next 24 months
Water Supply Bylaw 2019	Initial review 26 August 2027³ Full review 26 August 2030	Originally the Local Government Act 2002 but now Local Government (Water Services) Act 2025
Alcohol Control Bylaw 2018	September 2028	Local Government Act 2002
Beaches Bylaw 2018	September 2028	Local Government Act 2002
Freedom Camping Bylaw 2019	June 2029	Freedom Camping Act 2011
Prostitution Bylaw 2019	June 2029	Local Government Act 2002 Prostitution Reform Act 2003
The other bylaws
Airport Bylaw 2016	No legal requirement. The Airport requires registration under the CAA by 5 April 2030.	Airports Authorities Act 1996 but this has been replaced by the Civil Aviation Act 2023 (CAA). The CAA retains the ability to make bylaws and requires airports be registered by 5 April 2030 before bylaws can be made under this Act, or current bylaws can remain in force.
Alcohol Licensing Fees Bylaw 2025	No legal requirement	Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Fee-Setting Bylaws) Order 2013 made under the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012
Traffic and Parking Bylaw 2023	December 2033	Local Government Act 2002 Land Transport Act 1998
Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2022	September 2032	Waste Minimisation Act 2008 Local Government Act 2002 Health Act 1956 Litter Act 1979